User talk:Rickyrab/Archive 1

Hello there Rickyrab,

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?RichardRabinowitz - This is the new Deleted nonsense/Wops page. Enjoy (or feel repulsed, or both)!

---

1. Sign your talk page entries with ~~~~
2. I was busy reading
   Wikipedia talk:Always make articles as complete as possible

-- Tim Starling 08:31 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi Ricky, welcome to the 'pedia. One point. Whenever text is written by a user, they have the option of using either American english or British english. Spellings in whichever one is used should always be left in the version originally used. So American english spellings should not be changed to British english, and British english should not be changed to American english. There is no need to put the alternative spelling in brackets, though occasionally in a special case a footnote might be used (in abortion, for example to point out that most of the world spells the word 'fetus' - the American english word used the the abortion article - as foetus). Don't worry about making initial mistakes; everybody does. The whole issue of spelling (US and UK), and capitalisation rules (US and UK) can cause problems. The rule is simply to accept the version the article or comment was originally written in.

Enjoy the wiki. FearÉIREANN 20:29 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

We got more railroads than you can poke a stick at. :) -- Tim Starling 16:05 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Rickyrab, I am a He :-) not a she, but defenetly not a shehe :-s. -fonzy :-)

happy birthday to you. . . happy birthday dear Rickyrab. Happy birthday to yooooooooou. FearÉIREANN 04:27 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

re: Deletion fog - Please stop messing about. Stuff like that is simple vandalism for which you could be banned. Angela 02:40, Oct 3, 2003 (UTC)

Now, now, it's not like I aimed for repeated reverts or anything like that nonsense - or name calling, for that matter. Rickyrab 02:48, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

If you wish to make a comment regarding the deletion log, it may be best in future to use Wikipedia talk:Deletion log. If however, you simply want to attract attention and waste people's time then creating nonsense articles is exactly the thing to do. Angela 03:24, Oct 3, 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi, Ricky. I'm Ed Poor, one of the oldest "old hands" around here.

Please do not engage in

with other Wikipedians -- even if they're wrong. In fact, especially if they're wrong. It's better to ask for help and let a sysop (like me or Anthere or mav or Eloquence, etc.) handle the "problem user".

We don't like repeated "reversions" of articles around here. It wastes everyone's time, okay? --Uncle Ed 01:10, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on the list discussion. I was out for a couple days, and just got caught up. Be well. :)戴&#30505sv 01:27, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi, your latest quote du jour was by 205.188.209.78 if you wanted to change the "unknown" attribution. Angela 22:19, Oct 4, 2003 (UTC)

---

Hey, thanks for catching my typo on hara-kiri. Noel 17:46, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Personally I don't think it's necessary to explain the term within the article. It probably the phrase most appropriate, simply meaning that he is not officially the nominee, but because of his victories, it can be presumed that he will be, for all practical purposes. It's what one hears on the news at this point.

By the way, I liked your addition of "due to his victories..." I think that put the entire paragraph in good context. :) -- Decumanus 19:55, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

---

Do you mean the addition of the refernce to Torah Cosmos by Sihan? I removed your comment from the article because is not the proper place for it. Muriel 20:03, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes one needs to shout. Its protected now. Cheers Muriel 20:08, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I saw your note. I was preparing to protect that page should he add that one more time (which, of course, he did). Should something happen again, you can try Requests for Page Protection as well. RadicalBender 20:10, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

At Talk:Asherah I tried to make the Day of Asherah point more obvious. See if it's clear for you now. Thanks. Wetman 21:20, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

1. Rickyrab 20:03, 4 May 2004 (UTC) I support an ample period of time, anywhere between three months and one-and-a-half years.[reply]

1. Rickyrab 20:03, 4 May 2004 (UTC) Enthusiastically agree[reply]

Your support is welcome, but I believe that you are not an arbitrator, so you don't get to vote. Sorry! Perhaps you'd like to add your comments to the Talk page?

]

Please note that the above opinions relate to binding arbitration and whether or not to ban an author, if necessary. It does not relate to the nonbinding resolution of a dispute. Rickyrab 04:15, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You might want to move your comments on the Paul Vogel arbitration to the "Comments by outside users" section and out of the "Discussions by arbitrators" sections. - Tεxτurε 20:22, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

---

User talk:Rickyrab/Quaggaism

Please don't create more of a mess than Wik already has. Try to be part of the solution and not make the mess bigger by adding to it. Thank you. - Tεxτurε 01:25, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Sorry for the imposition, but I thought you might be interested to note that an article you supported in the past on vfd has been listed again under malicious circumstances - the 3rd such attempt in 7 months. Please feel free to review the discussion and cast your vote as you feel appropriate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Atlantium --Gene_poole 11:04, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that you should keep an encyclopedic tone when writing; adding that Dan Quayle was a "noted misspeller" doesn't really fit this. Thanks. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 06:35, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

I wanted to compliment you on the stimulating conversation, and your interesting user page. I'm not entirely sure if I understand it, but it is intriguing ;) Sam [Spade] 22:11, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Anytime.... :) Rickyrab 22:18, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

When I originally wrote that section of Football, I did a lot of research and couldn't find any evidence that the game played in 1869 was anything like modern American football. The sources I saw all said that it was more like soccer. I appreciate that the rivalry between these two colleges has continued, but it doesn't mean that it has anything to do with American football as we know it. If you can find credible sources which say they were playing a rugby/handling type game in 1869, I will be glad to change it. Regards, Grant65 (Talk) 00:54, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

You may also want to talk to

ExplorerCDT, about his writing about college football at Rutgers University. Rickyrab

06:38, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you should do some research, like I did long ago. Being a Rutgers student, you should know well enough where to find things in Alexander. Do you see any mentions of "soccer" as the inspiration for "football" on the Rutgers timeline (check the link on the RU article)? NO. Why? Because "soccer" had nothing to do with the founding of the game. If you read newspapers, histories of the event, all of them point to Rugby, and that the rules were altered from English Rugby rules. You will also see in those sources accounts of the game that to any simpleminded reader would say "Hey, this isn't soccer."

So, before you start talking out of your ass, it would be nice if you did real research instead of basing your bad, unresearched argument on equally bad, unresearched webpages (i.e. the evidence you 'provided'). In the meantime, occupy yourself with your studies at Bloustein and leave the history for the historians (of which I am one) who know how to research. If you are as bad at public policy as you are at research, I fear and tremble for whatever town, county, or government agency hires an incompetent idiot like you.

ExplorerCDT

07:22, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Post Script to Rickyrab...The Princeton Rutgers rivalry in football died in 1980. They haven't met on the gridiron since. So you are DEAD WRONG in saying it "continues" in your edit on the Football article.

ExplorerCDT

07:31, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

ExplorerCDT: I am not an idiot. Nor am I talking out of my ass, and my argument was not unresearched. OK? And, no, there's no gestalt that says to me, "Hey, this isn't soccer", as this description of the game might show. Meanwhile,

16:25, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Obviously, you can't read. First class education and you're still functionally illiterate.

Second paragraph from the aforestated link:

The game, which bore little resemblance to its modern-day counterpart, was played with two teams of 25 men each under rugby-like rules, but like modern football, it was “replete with surprise, strategy, prodigies of determination, and physical prowess,” to use the words of one of the Rutgers players.

Hmm..."rugby-like rules" doesn't say "soccer." Hmm. I don't see any mention of the word "soccer" in this article. I try to find it and the dialog box pops up saying "The text you entered could not be found. Could it be, oh, could it be that this isn't soccer?

Quit your damned incessant, nonsensical whining. --

ExplorerCDT

17:57, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Re: Alberuni

Hi Rickyrab: I just wanted to commend you very much for your honest opinions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alberuni. Best wishes, IZAK 08:03, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See these six categories up for "votes of deletion":

and and and and and this one too:

IZAK 10:10, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence. Thank you. IZAK 06:53, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have drafted a proposal for a new voluntary association on Wikipedia (joining groups like the

02:33, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Wonderful idea! I have joined. I will let some others know. Thank you. IZAK 03:14, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I heard Jaclyn Sharp and Zerna Sharp were kinda related.... oh right, one of the two's not quite famous 'yet'. My bad. Rickyrab 02:55, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

are you serious? would you mind proposing that first? maybe

07:48, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Sunday, Sunday, Sunday! Come to NYC... +sj +

Hi, I've

Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at

. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the

EMD E2

Eleven minutes after I created

08:02, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Brookie here

Hi Rickyrab - passing Brookie here - didn't like the type on your user page much (girl was ok!) - it looked rather clumpy - have another go?! Brookie 22:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay. Rickyrab 15:01, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to have an article on

. Yet the study of Biblical studies from the perspective of myth is far from the discussion of Kabbalah as myth. It seems to me that we need to remove this particular article on Jewish mythology altogether, as it attempts to combine far too many distinct topics into one article. As such, I propose that we use this scheme:

Jewish folklore - Studying Judaism's folklore from a historical perspective.

Aggadah - About the non-legal teachings in classical rabbinic literature.

Kabbalah - Our present article on Kabbalah can include scholarly studies of mythological tendencies and themes within Kabbalah. If this section becomes too long, it can be spun off into its own article.

Biblical mythology - A new article that I just created, discussing how scholars analye Biblical themes and stories as myth. RK

02:05, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Why not something like

Biblical mythology seem fine and dandy) Rickyrab

05:31, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Possible new POV warrior?

We have a newcomer who, on his first day here, issued a shot across to bow to all non-Orthodox Jews who dare edit any article on Judaism. His comment on his home page worries me. I hope he learns our NPOV policy, and understands that Wikipedia is not an Orthodox Jewish theological website. RK 02:10, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

See User:Halakhic-Jews-Only

Not funny. RickK 22:58, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. so much for BJAODN, then. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yep, in fact I got some help on my subway map from there. --SPUI (talk) 12:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, and now I see the other half of this conversation. OK. --SPUI (talk) 12:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why did you vandalize, then revert the article? It wasn't funny, and not needed. Thanks for replying. Bratsche^{talk random} 03:52, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'm getting off of a BJAODN high. Sorry. I saw "John Paul Jones" on the disambig page, and besides, if I didn't revert, then it wouldn't be undoing my sin, so.... I reverted. — Rickyrab | Talk 03:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's not a problem, since you have confessed you sin :). But I just wanted to know. Thanks, and happy wiki-ing! Bratsche^{talk random} 21:17, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

User talk:Gene Nygaard#California State Route 57 has some of the story. --SPUI (talk) 04:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It (the 9XX key that Rickyrab inquired about -

) 04:09, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He (the other guy) claims that it's better to sort by the highway name; I claim that that's what stuff like Category:Parkways in New York City is for. --SPUI (talk) 04:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I've seen that talk page banner before! I didn't know you were using it, but it looks nice. Thanks for the credit, too. Glad I could be of help. Cheers, Bratsche^{talk random} 17:25, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

This image:

04:23, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

That vandalism was completly and utterly wrong. Don't do it. -- KTC 04:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Explanation is there now. I'm not instantaneous ya know.--

06:01, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

That was supposed to be lighthearted. Tone is hard in text.--

Samuel J. Howard

06:41, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, regarding your inquiry:

You recently wrote: (Unknown title- the document was not made public) Banned transsexuals from entering consecrated life, orders expulsion of all current transsexual consecrates, and orders church workers not to change baptismal records or otherwise accommodate transsexual worshippers., which caused me to look it up elsewhere. I found news reports from late January (Gay.com UK) and January 31/February 1-3, 2003, noting the items about consecrated life, expulsions, and baptismal record changes, but what do you mean by "otherwise accommodate transsexual worshippers"? and where can I find source material on that? — Rickyrab | Talk 17:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

The official church policy would be not to recognise the person their their new gender expression. For example, if a male-to-female transsexual had a meeting with her pastor and told them they were transexed, the official church policy would be to never change any documentation regarding this person, nor even to allow the pastor to recognise the woman's new gender expression. Even if she were heterosexual, the church would never allow her to marry. Let me know if you need any more info. --Julie-Anne Driver 22:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that some blocks are in error. I fully believe this is one of those blocks. This is User:Rickyrab on an AOL address.

• A suggestion: You should grab all the spelling variations of "Wikipedia is Anarchism" just like what Wikipedia is Communism did with all of the spelling variations of that term. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please forgive BrokenSegue for his vigilante behavior. He has been a victim too many times by our infamous vandal, who once registered a sock, User:Broken Segue, to impersonate him. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:06, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't register potentially confusing sockpuppet names. -- Curps 05:14, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To be more specific,

]

OK. I'm not sure the strategy of grabbing every variant will work, though, because there's always one more variant (add an exclamation point or two or three or four, vary the capitalization, etc.) -- Curps 05:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The IP should be unblocked now. -- Curps 05:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I did a couple more unblocks, that should probably do it. -- Curps 05:34, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• On second thought, I think Curps has a point. There are so many variants that you cannot possibly think of them all. Time would be better spent on something else. Besides, with the number of users on RC patrol at any given time, it only takes a few minutes to repair the damage done by our infamous vandal. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the block. I saw the username editing the Vandalism in progress page and clicked the block buttton. I should check contributions first. My fault (for some reason it took a while for the unblock to register). BrokenSegue 19:17, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, our surnames are not similar, they're identical. Well, maybe not in English. But both -ovitch and -owitz are attempts to Latinize a Russian ending that doesn't have an obvious equivalent in western languages.

I'm sure we're not alone. Not a lot of Rabinovitchs (or variants thereof) where I live in Northern California. But in places where there are a lot of Russian Jews (New York comes to mind), I believe it's as common as "Smith" is in English-speaking countries. Undoubtedly many are on Wikipedia. ----Isaac R 19:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As Category:Warez groups puts it: "Warez groups are bodies organized for the purpose of circulating copyrighted material, such as computer software, video games or music and movies". See warez. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 20:30, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Whats that? I sw your recent posts to the mailing list btw, and I very much appreciate your points. You seem to be doing good things everytime I find you! Cheers,

Sam Spade 22:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was just noticing the edit to the International Astronomical Union article you made and was just curious if you were actually aware of any other "nomenclature clubs" that exist. I'm interested in the subject so I thought that you may be able to provide an example or two since I don't know of any others. Maybe they are worthy of Wikipedia entries themselves. Thanks, ScottyBoy900Q∞ 23:29, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will you read Mary Ellis of New Brunswick and if you think its worth saving, please vote for saving it. I know its of interest only to us few, but I think it deserves to be saved. Thanks for your time. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You were listed on the

15:33, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Okay... Done. :) — Rickyrab | Talk 03:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I assume your post on Talk:Capacitor under this title was only meant as a bit of humor. However, we are now trying to have some serious discussions on that page and it gets in the way a bit, so would you really mind me deleting that comment?? THanks--Light current 23:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I used the nazi swastika because I couldn't find any picture like the one you gave me. Thank you, I will now use that one. The Fascist Chicken 14:24, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice point on the record for the oldest serving English monarch - hmmm.shtove 22:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A vandal recently inserted the following link to original words concerning a Rutgers football game and my treatment of it: "I would fear for a competent [ government if it were to hire an idiot like you", or some such form of those words. I see no reason to insert irrelevant African governments into there, so....I reverted. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contribution at 29 October 2005 New Delhi bombings . - P R A D E E P Somani (talk) Feel free to send me e-mail.

Thanks for the Diwali greetings. Wish you the same too. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing page. At first I thought you were crazy. Turns out I was wrong. Try to contact me, my page is empty.--Mac Simms 17:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing well, thank you. Like I said before, your page is puite funny. How'd ya do it?--Mac Simms 15:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This edit to

]

Paganism stubs

Hi - We at

before creation? That way they can be vetted to check that there are a viable number of stubs (at least 60-100) and that the category does not cross the existing stub hierarchy before the stub is created.

If you can provide any information on why the stub was created, please add a note to entry for the stub at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries giving the reason for it. In addition, if there is any Wikiproject associated with the stub add that information. Thanks.

In the case of this stub, the new category overlaps two other categories (Category:New Age stubs and Category:Occult stubs) by a considerable amount. This could be a big problem when t comes to stubbing individual articles with these templates. Grutness...wha? 11:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words on my talk page. Nach0king 10:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that there are free use images at User:Rickyrab/ April Fool's BJAODN. Please note, however, that free use images may not be used on user pages. Please could you therefore remove these? Thanks, CLW 12:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rickyrab. There are still free use images at User:Rickyrab/ BJAODN Reaction to takeover when you get chance to deal with those! Cheers, CLW 07:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed an

]

Joke edits

Please don't. It's going to be hard enough to keep up with outside anonymous users and their April Fool's jokes without having to clean up after an established editor. Joyous | Talk 00:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution, however, fair use images may not be used in the Project namespace. I have changed the image to one released under a CC license. It doesn't look as nifty, though. :( —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please don't insert April Fool's jokes into the main articles. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but I loved your comments at [1] which I found immortalized at Wikipedia:57 Varieties of Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense.

end of nag. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to

]

Question

This might not be the right place to ask this, but, how do you find the rectangles with pictures on them? For example, you have one with the STAR OF DAVID on it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.78.21.14 (talk • contribs)

The userboxes?--Andeh 14:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was a pretty tepid waring I put on his page. Since he wasn't doing actual page moves, and since he was also claiming to be milkman, I just kind of blew it off. I posted a follow up on AN/I and another admin enacted the block you suggested on his user page. Thanks for keeping me straight. Kuru ^talk 16:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, it is recommended that you use the

]

Thanks

Good job on Tawhid! I always prefer it when people actualy do something instead of just complaining. peace! --Striver 23:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is a good caution, but in this case I think the debunking is pretty complete. The best justification for buying the debunking argument, however, is that there is no real defense- since there is no confirming evidence for its veracity from linguistics, archaeology, history, or the Lenape themselves (who for the most part don't seem to agree with the Walam Olum). In the context of this complete lack of supporting evidence, the recent appearance of a strong body of opposing evidence/research is merely the final-nail-in-the-coffin/ straw-that-broke-the-camel's-back/ other-appropriate-metaphor. As for mentioning the "textual evidence" that the Walam Olum is a hoax, I don't think that was me- although I did say that Witthoft determined the work was a 19th century composition. I DO feel that the article is better worded to strongly indicate that the Walam Olum is a fictitious 19th century composition. TriNotch 04:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Activate your email! I am in New Brunswick, New Jersey area also --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have to set up your email in your preferences. A few months ago they went and deactivated everyones email by default unless you logged in and confirmed and email sent to that addy. Try adding your email in preferences again (or for the first time).

Are you user:128.6.175.68?

Your question on Talk:Archipelago has perplexed me too for a long while; I wasted a lot of time on this, and the best thing I could find was the "Outer Lands", the stated topic of this book (though the definition includes Cape Cod and seems to exclude Manhattan and Staten Island). The name apparently originates from an old term among naturalists, though I could find very few other references, and none from any old scientific literature, despite some relatively deep academic database searches. The term is also the source of the name of this nightclub, and may be connected to this collection of essays, though I think "outlands" is often used in a more generic way in that area. By the way, you should know that "Paumonok Islands" reference you found comes from the writings of William James Sidis, a former child prodigy and eccentric whose 100,000-year history of North America is "translated" from wampum belts, not normally considered a form of written communication.--Pharos 22:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I've started something at Outer Lands. Your input would be appreciated.--Pharos 01:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rickyrab, your editing of the

pages have been the most impartial and unbiased of the frequent editing of those pages. I hope they stay just as they are now.

Would like your opinion/review of the

]

• Response to your comment on my talk page....fine by me, thanks. —
  ExplorerCDT 21:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

URJ Kutz Camp

Alas, that article is headed for deletion due an

]

the Good Book

Hag Sameach!

Do you think it is controversial to claim that Jews call their Tanakh "the Bible?" I don't. Do you think it is controversial to claim that "the Bible" refers only to the combined "Old Testament" and "New Testament," i.e. is a term that refers to the sacred scriptures of Christians (but not Jews)? I do, but this is precisely the claim Home Computer is making on the Bible talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bible#Current_layout

Feel free to weigh in. And please watch out for Home Computer's attempts to change the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This allegation is untrue.. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Slrubenstein Peace --Home Computer 15:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky, HeBhagwan is wrong. Hinduism is an artificially constructed Western term to describe a group of four distinct denominations . Ask any Vaishnavite and he will say that Vishnu grants

, worship of either Vishnu or Shiva leads to moksha as they are different faces of the one Brahman.

Do Muslims and Jews believe in the same God? Although they claim to do so, it is not true in practice. The same goes with Hinduism. Primary differences are between those who conceive God as

denomination believes otherwise and dominates the view of Hinduism in the west.

Raj2004 23:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you attend Rutgers and put up a football picture of one of their games. I thought you might like to create the

]

BS"D

Please note, Akhenaton was influenced by the Jews. He was the Pharaoh around the time of the descent of the Jews to Egypt, in about 1410 B.C.E. The Jews left Egypt in 1200 B.C.E.

Ah Gut Voch --Shaul avrom 19:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Chewbacca is quite the moron, isn't he? 205.188.116.12 03:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC) (some subchatter, w00t)[reply]

You might want to know when the next meetup was being organized in New York City. Plan for Saturday, 9 December 2006. While you're at it. Come help us decide on a restaurant. See:

]

Mexico, AMLO, Calderon

Rickyrab, I appreciate the work you've put into the AMLO and Calderon sites. I've been striving to keep AMLO's page as neutral as possible. Yesterday, I wrote that 42% of Mexicans believe that fraud took place in during the recent elections, and sourced the fact by providing two citations. It was deleted. I then reverted, explaining why it was relevant, and that the poll indeed reflected the Mexican people's opinion, not that of the residents of Mexico City. Anyway, if it is deleted again, I'd appreciate your feedback. Thanks. —The preceding

) 06:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC). [[[User:69.211.18.106|69.211.18.106]] 06:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)][reply]

Hello, I added an additional response to your comment in Talk:Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin and am copying it here. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nascient Sanhedrin has indeed asserted a power to change Jewish law, a power that might be thought welcome from a liberal perspective. But I think these three documents are likely to provide a flavor for how the actual nascient Sanhedrin (as opposed to a theoretical concept of one) is likely to be regarded by Jews from the more liberal denominations: [3], [4], [5]. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an inclusionist so I agree with the spirit of your statements, but if we're going to make case here that is convincing to the deciding admin, we probably have to justify it on

]

Regardless of how "official" it is, it's going to be the primary guideline that the deciding admin uses to justify deleting or keeping the article. It is policy that all articles must have notability

WP:NOTE and WP:WEB is a guideline for how to decide notability for websites. I have googled the group in quotes, and I do see that there are over 500,000 hits, however most of what I see in the first several pages of google results is listcruft and tiny mentions that don't in and of themselves pass the notability criteria. I wish that a lot of little mentions would add up to something big, and noting the number of results might weigh a little bit in our favor, but overall we need cases of already-notable organizations or companies making non-trivial mention of FFI. Let me know if you see anything that you think is likely to pass notability. — coelacan talk — 19:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I tend to agree with you. I think the guidelines are too strict in many cases. This would be something to discuss at Wikipedia_talk:Notability if consensus could be mustered to change it. But we don't have time to do that right now, as the FFI AfD is probably going to close with an admin's final decision in the next couple of days (maybe even today). So we've basically got to work within the guidelines we currently have. I'm looking for more citations as well at the moment. — coelacan talk — 19:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment. You might want to look into meta:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians. Check out the last edit I made to the FFI AfD, I think I've got it bagged now. The anti-FFI sites that are devoted to apologetics should count as WP:WEB criterion 1, by my reading. — coelacan talk — 22:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Ali Sina is over. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 5... you have to scroll down the page and click on "show" because it doesn't show up automatically in the table of contents anymore. We lost, because I didn't realize that after I showed new sources I had to go around and inform the old voters who voted "overturn" to come and vote "relist". I already appealed on the review closing admin's talk page and it did no good, so it's over. Make sure you have a backup copy of your Ali Sina subpage stored on your harddrive, because it may disappear eventually too. — coelacan talk — 04:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So anyway, I think we write letters now, to book reviewers and magazine editors and the like, asking them to review the book that Sina was published in, "Beyond Jihad", and/or do articles covering his work in depth. If we need more notability for Wikipedia, perhaps we can put pressure on sympathetic media sources to generae some publicity. — coelacan talk — 05:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You probably aren't going to get advice from Trialsanderrors. The notability requirements at

]

Do not make AfD nominations to prove a point, as this is a violation of

]

Islamic websites

Thanks for making the stubs on that mate. I really appreciate it. it just shows there are people on wikipedia who have neutral point of view. Mak82hyd 19:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Ricky i respect ur view. Mak82hyd 20:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your question about Fatfatsim: though it was a funny article, personally I do not think it really belongs on BJAODN. It was more an article about a joke than a joke article. Cheers. Skarioffszky 21:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on Talk:Islam-qa.com. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Jeodesic 22:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Do you know how to arn/block? Please address this person: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.165.131.49&action=edit who keeps violating NPOV/slandering articles about a christian fundamentalist. Thanks Avraham 07:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can warn, go to [[6]]; you need to be a

WP:sysop to block. — Rickyrab | Talk 07:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC) — Rickyrab | Talk 07:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikilogos

I've noticed you're very involved here, you might be interested in my

]

hmm, shalom to u 2! frummer 20:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From

Template:Sprotected2

:

This template [{{

sprotected

}}) or where the other semi-protection template may be untidy.

]

Yes, but how do people who are new to Wikipedia editing know that the page is semiprotected with sprotect2? — Rickyrab | Talk 01:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they click on [view source] at the top, it will tell them the page has been protected from editing. Additionally, one could also click on the padlock to get the

Template talk:Sprotected2 or Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) (although you won't be the first person to call the subtlety of the template into question). -- tariqabjotu 02:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks

is now on RfA

See

]

Regarding arbitration

]

Regarding your comment on my talk page

Well, you may well be right, but there has been a lot of incivility and over-reaction from the owners of the page I was questioning. I don't suppose anyone might have said anything to that effect?FasterPussycatWooHoo 12:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to welcome you aboard. I haven't gotten the word out yet, and I was gladdened to see you join up.

Quick question: Do you think we should renamed

?

I've been thinking a lot about that recently. —

]

• Started a straw poll to discuss/decide whether to rename
  ExplorerCDT 09:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The stub you created a year ago has some life now. Take a look at it. Thanks RaveenS 18:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by RaveenS (talk • contribs) 21:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC).[reply

]

This is not a star

		The Barnstar of "Good" Humor
		You crack me up. --AAA! (AAAA) 07:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the block log. I did not block the sock. I just marked the existing userpage as a sock after Pschemp blocked it as a username violation. Jesse Viviano 15:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by humour? :) Gwen Gale 02:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]