User talk:Crzrussian/Archive 4

Jeez, I hope you don't have crystal eggs as well! But, really, if you are a vice-president of some important nation-wide organization, I think we should have an article about you as well. -- Heptor _talk 19:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

smth? What about the others? Eusebeus 02:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, I was just bored, so I thought I could do some work on it. And pls don't flatter me, I'm not very experienced at wiki yet. Thank YOU for helping out with the wordings and completing the article! :)

P.S. I hope I don't screw this message up, it's the first time I use the 'talk' option! Gray62 13:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still learning to use all the features here, but imho being a part of the effort to create a real online excopedia is very satisfactory. When I have the time and stumble upon something that can be improved, I can glady spent some hours at it. It's difficult to stay at a NPOV and finding reasonable sources for the articles but I hope I am improving. At my first major effort at the Rubin Carter article I was too enthusiastic and hampered by the lack of neutral articles on the subject, but I think I'm becoming more experienced now. My major problem is that english isn't my native language, though.

As for UTR: I accidently found the site through a google search in 2005 and became a regular reader, even though Ianal. But I was deeply disturbed when it turned out that A3G is a guy! :(

Thanks for the encouragement! Gray62 13:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip, I aprreciate it. Like I said, I still have to learn a lot about Wiki. And I agree that the articles should have a common appearance, it's just that I sometimes don't know what's the standard. Putting every year into an internal link isn't really a good idea, but I have seen this so often that I thought it ought to be that way. Thanks for clarifying this!

Comparing the early article with our latest version makes me feel proud. Looks like a good job. That's the power of teamwork! Thank you and hope we'll work together somewhere soon (have to quit for today)! Gray62 13:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a lawyer! In fact, I'm a german IT techie in his fourties and somewhat underemployed right now. I'm very interested in the US, so I read a lot of blogs and inline news every day. Really have to go now, CU! Gray62 13:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Yoffie.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. -

talk/contribs/email 14:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I explained on the article's talk page why I think the subject to be notable and why I think, in any case, that speedy is inappropriate. Notwithstanding that, Big.P is, I think, correct that one oughtn't to remove a speedy tag; we are to trust that an admin, noticing that an article asserts notability, won't speedy the article, after which it may be nominated for deletion. Where one objects to speedy, the proper course of action, as I understand it, is to express such disagreement on the article's talk page (at which an admin, one expects, will look before he/she determines the propriety of speedying); if an article in which notability is asserted is nevertheless deleted, deletion review is, I think, appropriate. Joe 04:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that there is no de facto bar to one's removing a speedy tag; I think, though, that such removal is generally viewed as inappropriate, since an admin is, we'd like to believe, unlikely ever to speedy an article where notability is asserted. You've not acted against policy, I think, but simply against custom, even as, as you say, others have done similarly. I don't think it's in bad form to remove a speedy tag, although one probably ought to inform the original tagger of removal, in order that he/she might try AfD, but I do think many others think removal to be in bad form. W/r/to your barnstar, I'll find one somewhere for you; in the meanwhile, feel free to award yourself a few... :) Joe 04:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give your barnstar here, and you may surely place it on your user page wherever you think it best fits...

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For your abiding capacity to make contributions that are simultaneously substantive and humorous; for your efforts to make Wikipedia fun, which necessarily brings new users to the project and makes the encyclopedia better; and for inserting facetious comments into the overheated discussions in which they are most necessary, leading others to stay cool, I happily award you this barnstar. Please send the cashier's check immediately This barnstar certainly isn't awarded pursuant to any pecuniary arrangement. Joe 04:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply ]

Thank you for supporting my RFA. --Ezeu 08:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you want that page to stay. It is awful. I will propose it for deletion again. The reason it is awful is that it does not begin to do justice to the topic. It does not discuss the reasons for errors, the different theories of why they happen, and the example it gives is poor. It was written as an assignment by a student in my class, as were many other pages, which were all much better than this one. If you really want to know about errors in syllogisms, read the chapter on them in Thinking and Deciding. I do not have time to write an entry based on that. —The preceding

Please reconsider your vote for deletion of article re: Michele Shohatovity. This health care professional is well known and respected in Israel. If she does work for the Israel News Agency, then she is an author who has a reach of well over 5,000 people (according to Alexa the INA reaches up to 60 million readers) which qualifies her as a notable. Thank you Idf-barak 14:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it; this is part of my preparations for a

http://www.hashkafah.com/index.php?act=Print&client=printer&f=18&t=11694

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:MMo635QPyuoJ:www.jewishpress.com/page.do/9581/Rebbetzin%27s_Viewpoint.html+beshow+date&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5

looks like "beshow" might be a better spelling?

help me! im learning..... and im teaching you , too! :)

also, did you see edict No. 11? that is something amazing I had never heard of before?

That's a very good question. Usually when people have the same name we distinguish by field, so for example we would have John Smith (artist) and John Smith (band). In this case they would both be Moshe Teitelbaum (Rabbi). The best thing I can think of is (older) and (younger). We should also probably make the main

Bachrach44 19:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I noticed this discussion on my watchlist and it caught my eye. Sorry if this is an intrusion. What is often done is to use dates to distinguish the two articles. For example, they could be renamed to Moshe Teitelbaum (1759-1841) and Moshe Teitelbaum (1914-2006). Or base it on location / affiliation Moshe Teitelbaum (Ujhel) and Moshe Teitelbaum (Satmar). It might not be pretty, but there's no way to distinguish them by profession, as is often done. Moshe Teitelbaum would then be a disambiguation page. Alansohn 21:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was your page that was on my list. I have "watch" as the default, so I end up watching other people's talk pages after I have a discussion with them. Every rare while, something comes up that catches my eye, as this did. Alansohn 21:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not watching, per se. And 99.99% of the time, I just ignore it and say I should unwatch the user talk pages. I also will watch talk pages for people who have been persistent vandals, where I have given the person a previous warning. Such is not the case with you. Alansohn 21:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your argument against disambiguation. I personally like having the disambig page, but that may be because I'm predisposed to like them. I could go either way on it, so if you want to leave it without a disambig page, that's fine. I still think we should rename them both though for clarity (we can just have the main MT page redirect to the most recent one). I personally think

Bachrach44 21:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Dear Crzrussian/Archive 4,

Thanks for voting on my RFA! I appreciate your comments and constructive criticism, for every bit helps me become a better Wikipedian. I've started working on the things you brought up, and I hope that next time, things run better; who knows, maybe one day we'll be basking on the shore of Admintopia together. Thanks and cheers, _-M o P-_ 22:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]