User talk:A Sniper/Archive 1

Thanks...
Thanks for your edits to the Reform Judaism article. Egfrank 21:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Reform Judaism
You can count me in! Improving the coverage in this area was my High Holidays tzadaka project commitment so I'm here come what may. You can see User:egfrank/Workroom for a partial list of things I think need work. I'm sure you have your own - perhaps we can consolidate?

I wonder though - do you really want an official separate project or just a way for those concerned about the quality of these articles to connect to one another? Might we want to consider a WikiJudaism subproject? (is there a framework for that?) As painful as some of these dialogs are, I think they need to be carried out in the context of the WikiProject Judaism. The non-NPOV material is spread across a lot of articles and will continue to be re-added until we raise the awareness that Progressive Judaism is not something that can be described (or criticized) in an academically responsible manner with one liners like "rejects the law" or "doesn't believe in God" or "thinks personal autonomy is everything". Egfrank 06:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Hope you had a fun simchat torah. I'm wondering if we might want to consider renaming this project Progressive Judaism? For the benefit of those more familiar with the terms "Reform" and "Liberal", we can have a "Reform Judaism" and "Liberal Judaism" wikiproject redirect there. I feel like I'm being a PC stickler about this, but "Progressive movement" is the name chosen by progressive movement congregations across the world and it wouldn't really make sense to put the rest of the progressive jewish world into a separate project. Also, FYI, the Israeli movement's prefered name "HaTenua HaMitkademit HaYisraelit" (in English - the Israel Progressive Movement - and we're a bit sensitive over here about the name "Reform", precisely because of its strong association with the USA). Also, FYI, Progressive is also the preferred name of the modern incarnation of the progressive movement in Germany. Also, among UK congregations it comes across as more inclusive than either "Reform" or "Liberal" both of which have a lot of history attached to them. Egfrank 20:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Name change. Yeah! Thanks. BTW I think your call on needing a project was right on. As I see our emails evolving it is increasingly clear to me that we need our back and forths to be somewhere more public than our user talk pages. Egfrank 04:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection for Reform Judaism
If you feel the article needs protection, I think there is a process for that, see WP:Protect. Kol tuv, Egfrank 15:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Project page
I moved your project page to the correct namespace at WikiProject Reform Judaism. NawlinWiki 16:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Judaism and edit summaries
Hi. Regarding your recent edits to Template:Judaism, please read Help:Minor edit. Unless your edit is a spelling correction, a formatting change, or a similar minor edit, it is inappropriate to check the box and say that you have made a minor edit.

Please bear in mind that I am not commenting on the specific individuals whose names you added to the template. I don't have any objection to adding them, but the addition of three names to the template cannot be considered a minor change. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 18:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Progrsssive Judaism has a new user box
I just added a new user box to WP:ProgJew. You might want to consider using that to indicate your commitment rather than the administrator user box - you could set the participation parameter to "an administrator of" if you wish (:Category:Wikipedia Administrators clicks through to a page saying that the category includes those with sysop privileges/responsibilities - so it has the same problems as the user box that you accidentally added a bit earlier). See Template:User wikipedia/WP Progressive Judaism for details. Egfrank 11:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Returning your hi!
Hi and Shavua Tov! Thanks for your warm greeting. I'm a bit reticent about personal details on Wikipedia (it tends to show up in Google and after a stalking incident by a disgruntled Wikipedian I'm a little cautious). However, I would be glad to tell you more about myself via email. To email me, you can click on the "E-mail this user" menu item on the sidebar. I'm also constrained by time, so perhaps we ought to spend some time brainstorming about how to get more people involved. Kol tuv, Egfrank 22:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Brit milah
I have some difficulties with your sources and tone for some of the edits you recently added. I want to begin by acknowledging that before you met the article it presented things mostly from a fairly Orthodox Jewish perspective, and no question this was a one-sided view. You're welcome to add the views of Reform Judaism, academic historians, and similar, and I'm not in any way attempting to prevent you from doing so. However, you do have to follow Wikipedia policies to prevent your edits from being reverted or radically re-edited. Difficulties with your recent edits included citing sources that don't meet the reliable sources policy, including partisan websites like and  unless these sites have been previously shown to be independently notable. A particularly problematic example is a cite you made to the anti-circumcision advocacy website for a view presented as that of "Jewish tradition." Generally speaking, traditional religious sources are needed for traditional religious views. (In many Jewish and Biblical subjects there are separate sections labeled e.g. "traditional religious views" and "historians' views".) Another problematic edit was a characterization of a traditional Rabbinic Jewish view as "traditionalist" and "literalist"; the neutral point of view policy frowns on editorial characterizations of views in ways that might be perceived as disparaging (readers can reach their own conclusions). Once again, nothing in Wikipedia policy is preventing you from adding this material as long as you use suitable sources, present the material neutrally, don't disparage existing views and sources representing points of view you disagree with, and otherwise comply with policies. It might also be suggested that if you want to delete or change large amounts of existing material you should discuss it with other editors first (see our consensus policy). Note that adding material without removing existing material is welcome at any time. Finally, Jewish holidays have traditionally been a time when articles on traditional Jewish subjects have been vandalized since observant editors cannot edit during this period. For this reason large-scale changes made over the holidays are particularly likely to be reverted -- sometimes unnecessarily or in error -- as a gut reaction if substantial policy compliance problems are perceived. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * ShiraHadashah: I know you care deeply about the Judaism articles and their integrity, but did you check the edit history carefully? Don't you think you are being a bit harsh with User:A Sniper? Your tone implies he was trying to vandalize the Brit Milah article and sneak in changes behind the backs of observant Jews when all he did was (a) add citations that others had requested with  templates (b) add an antivandalism notice (c) add the words "traditional, literal". There is no dispute this is the traditional perspective.  As for "literal" ("pshat") - I'm not sure how that can be considered pejorative.  Either it is or it isn't or its a matter of debate as evidenced by citations. The pshat/drash debate has a long, long history in both Jewish tradition and academic criticism.  Question his/her choice of sources if you will (I agree that one of the sources he/she chose is polemical), but it might help to acknowledge that his/her intentions were good and that some of his additions were helpful (e.g. Oxford Dictionary of Religion).


 * As for the edits and deletions on the Reform Judaism article - although it might have been nicer to wait on the deletion until after Chol HaMoed (A Sniper, you may not be aware that some observant Jews treat it as stringently as Shabbat and will not edit), I don't think he was entirely out of line. WP:Be bold does allow for deletions when prior discussion merits it and he made a point of justifying his edit based on those prior discussions.


 * I should also point out that neither User: A Sniper nor myself (User:Egfrank) have removed your addition of Samual Hirsch's criticism even though we have both expressed concern about its lack of historical justification. From both our points of view, that is as much a breach of good scholarship/appropriate citation as misreprenting minority opinions as majority opinions would be from yours (and ours). Kol tuv, 07:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egfrank (talk • contribs)


 * Just wanted to mention that although I initially reverted the whole set of edits (as a gut reaction as part of a quick post-holiday patrol for vandalism), I realized I had made an error, undid my revert, and restored these edits. I ended up making only a relatively small set of changes. I distinguished historian's and traditional religious accounts leaving the accounts themselves intact. I also removed a comparatively small amount of material sourced from advocacy in accordance with Wikipedia's self-published sources policy. As an FYI the Brit Milah article has previously had a series of work-overs by people representing an anti-circumcision point of view who re-wrote the article unduely from that viewpoint (See (the undue weight policy), citing to self-published sources for views both of history and of religious doctrine. Best, --Shirahadasha 15:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record (I am unable to write on Shirahadasha's talk page), I spent a fair bit of time at the Brit Milah page with the following intentions: a) accurately portray the historical, classical Reform position, b) limit the POV problems with the entire page, and c) find references where none were present previously (my suggestion is that better sources are found to replace some that I offered in haste). It was certainly not intended to deface the page or bias it in an anti-circumcision direction - far from it. Best wishes to all, A Sniper 16:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Abraham Geiger
Why did you remove my paragraph on criticism of Geigers stance during the Damascus blood libel? It was sourced (NEJ) and it is of importance. Otherwise, keep up the good work. The article might also use a summation of Geigers view of the Pharisees and Sadducees which influenced his own view of a developing, evoloving Judaism. (Its neatly summarized in Meir Waxmans History of Jewish Lit.. I imagine S, Heschels diss. is also useful.) Kol TuvWolf2191 14:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see you active
Just thought I'd say that. Hope all is well. Egfrank 16:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

lol
looking at your user page and talk page one certainly wouldn't think you were into death metal...or any kind of metal, for that matter heh.Navnløs 22:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I can certainly see you seem to be obssessed w/ Death and Motley Crue. One thing you're forgetting is that the Seven Churches album was not Possessed's first work, but rather Death Metal was.Navnløs 22:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I ended up reverting your last edit on Death, sorry. I did so because I thought the things you got rid of, about Death being one of the earliest death metal bands and chuck being the "father of death metal" did have references. They are POV, yes, but not the person who wrote them there but rather the referenced website may be showing POV. And since it is referenced I view it something like a quote. Doesn't mean its right but its what one website has to say on the matter.Navnløs 22:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I left the quotes on the Death page intact as should the ones on the Possessed page be, I guess. I have proposition for you, though: I am searching for those knowledgeable about metal...you seem to know what you're talking about. If you ever need any help with an article let me know and I will take a look and give you an opinion or w/e is needed, and may offer my help if I think you're right. All I ask is a similar favor.Navnløs 22:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

yeah, I do other stuff but I do mostly focus on music pages. Anything metal.Navnløs 23:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC) no, I thought the references should be kept on both pages.Navnløs 23:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, happy editing.Navnløs 23:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion on the progressive judaism project talk page
Hope you had a restful and relaxing Shabbat. Just wanted to let you know of two discussions on the progressive judaism talk page:


 * 1) Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Progressive Judaism - the discussion concerns the exact wording of a line you added about the influence of Leopold Zunz on progressive judaism.


 * 1) Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Progressive Judaism - discusses whether or not it is legitimate to use the term "progressive judaism" in article titles and category names.

Shavuah Tov, Egfrank 16:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Help needed
A new section has been added to Progressive Judaism to discuss the intellectual history of the progressive movement. The discussion I think needs some nuanced exploration of the thinkers. I know you have been collecting information on this area. Your contributions would be more than welcome. Kol tuv, Egfrank 15:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi A Sniper. How's it going? Glad to make your acquaintance and hope you don't mind our back and forth discussion / reasoned argument. Anyway, I notice that you mark alot of your Talk edits as "minor". When you've written a chunk, I think it's more common to leave that box unchecked. Thanks. HG | Talk 20:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note and your pertinent question. I didn't start the Orthodox Project and haven't given its existence much thought until now. At one time, I think it was very active. Some of its efforts seem ok, like a weekly collaboration. But it's annoying to keep track of too many different projects, we've already got J History and Judaism (plus Israel). Indeed, personally I stopped paying attention to the projects, don't know how I recently got interested again. I certainly don't want to see one for each plausible sector of Judaism with a few enthusiastic editors. Better the energy should be used to sustain and try to keep vibrant the Judaism project -- that's difficult enough. I'd say, (along with Shirahadasha?), decommission the Orthodox project. Run any collaborative editing and tracing efforts through WP:Judaism (or J History). (There's a defunct Jewish Culture project, too!) Honestly, too, I think it's been difficult for the Orthodox and non-Orthodox to collaborate because of certain POV-oriented folks (esp among Orthodox newbies?). Instead of walking away from the mess, as I admit I've done myself, I think we should try to make the Judaism project itself a better working environment for everyone. If anything, the Orthodox Project may have given some folks the impression that they should have a free hand w/their topic area, which isn't quite on spot. Do you catch my drift? In short, I'd be inclined to speak some "tough love" to both you and the Orthodox, tell folks to chill out and get back under the big tent. If this means that the tent-keepers, like IZAK, need to be more welcoming and flexible, so be it. How's that for a long response? Would be glad to hear from you. Thanks. HG | Talk 22:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. BTW, maybe check your "preferences" to see if your default marks the "minor" box. See ya, HG | Talk 00:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

IZAK and Wikipedia's systematic Orthodox bias
Hi. I wanted to let you know that I had been sitting on the sidelines for much of the Progressive/Reform discussion, including the discussion of the new Wikiproject, primarily because I don't know much about the name "Progressive Judaism", but I support you and Egfrank 100%.

With respect to IZAK and Reform-bashing, get used to being insulted for not being an Orthodox Jew and having your movement described as something other than Judaism. Other editors have written that Conservative Judaism is a movement made up of Orthodox Jews who don't follow halakha, and Reform Judaism is made up of Conservative Jews who don't follow Conservative halakha. IZAK described the function of Reform Judaism as a rationalization to eat pork. He also used the word Judaism without any qualifier to refer to Orthodox Judaism, which is simple (though possibly unintended) honesty on his part — many of the editors who are involved with Judaism-related articles consider Orthodox Judaism "Judaism" and anything else non-Jewish.

As I wrote, because of my ignorance of the subject I don't feel qualified to join your new Wikiproject, but I support anybody and anything that contributes a non-Orthodox viewpoint to articles concerning Judaism. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 19:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

PS - It looks like there may be some minor problems with your settings that you might want to fix. Under "My preferences", "Date and time", check that you've got the right "offset" for your time zone. Also, under "Editing", uncheck the box next to "Mark all edits minor by default". — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 19:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Unjust use of personal criticisms
Hi there guys: Regarding User  comments here and at User talk:Egfrank. May I say a few words in my own defense? (a) At the outset I am really disappointed to read User comments here as I have until now had great respect for him and his work on Wikipedia. (b) Malik, what you are doing here is a violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. I have never addressed any personal comments to you or to User or to User  because that is beneath contempt and violates WP:CIVIL. (c) I have not made a single edit to the Reform Judaism or Progressive Judaism articles at this time, so I do not know what you carrying on about. (Unlike User:A Sniper and User:Egfrank who have recently made lots of controversial edits to Judaism articles that reveal their POV biases.) (d) I had some questions which I brought up on User:Egfrank's talk page and which were also brought up on the WP:JUDAISM talk page. During those talks, when the meanings and differences between Jewish denominations outlooks are/were discussed, all sorts of things are said. It is not false to say that both Reform and Progressive Judaism allow Jews the eating pork unlike Orthodox Judaism which forbids it based on the Torah. (e) If an editor were to state that Islam forbids pork but that lapsed Muslims do eat pork chops would that be a slander? Nope, it's statement of fact. (f) There is no "Orthodox bias" on Wikipedia, what a joke! Just go and read all the Biblical articles and see how many of them have Christian and modern critical views. So don't be funny please! (g) If you think or imagine that anything I stated about any subject in the body of any article violates WP:NPOV or WP:CITE rules then point it out and I will be glad to discuss it with you or with anyone else. But please don't go around making hateful and hurtful comments behind my back, right here out in the open, when all you do by that is reveal your own prejudices a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and probably even WP:LIBEL against me. Thanks for taking note. (h) If you honestly believe in "Wikipedia's systematic Orthodox bias" then take it up at some official forums and discussion groups such as at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and Requests for comment and let WikiProject Judaism know about it, so that this perceived bias can be corrected, if any such exists -- but do not make me into the straw man and fall guy of your beliefs and misconceptions -- it is intellectually dishonest and is not appreciated. Finally (i) Malik, I hope you will apologize for fairness' sake. This message has been copied to User talk:Egfrank; User talk:Malik Shabazz and. IZAK 03:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I responded to IZAK's original comments at User talk:IZAK. I am not participating in any further discussion between A Sniper and IZAK (below). — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry buddy, but anyone who insinuates that Reform Jews are lapsed Jews cannot be taken seriously as an editor of anything related to Progressive Judaism. Do you even understand the biased things you write? I don't know whether you are an Orthodox Jew, and frankly I couldn't care less, but if you ARE then there is certainly an argument that could be made that thousands of years of being obsessed with rules, laws and rigidity has been at the expense of ethics. I consider this matter finished, as far as my talk page is concerned. I'm not continuing in any silly banter and I offer nobody any ill will. L'chaim, A Sniper 22:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, A Sniper, L'chaim: I have not written a word in the Progressive or Reform articles and related ones, I leave that to others, but to debunk the views of Orthodox Judaism by attacking me because you don't like Orthodox Judaism makes no sense. It is true and verifiable that Orthodox Judaism regards Reform Jews as "lapsed" Jews or worse because according to Orthodox Judaism they (the Reform and Progressives) reject the classical Shulkhan Arukh and the Halakha, that is not "my" view, see Who is a Jew? to understand that Orthodoxy does not accept any of Reform's converts and in cases where the child's father is Jewish but the mother is not, the children are not Jews according to Orthodox Judaism, and that is also not according to "me" or anyone else. If you missed that lesson somewhere then you fail to understand Orthodoxy. Lamentably you are again personalizing the discussions and the outlook of a movement with an editor's private life. Who we are as people does not count, what counts is the accuracy of our words as editors. I cannot remake Orthodoxy any more than you cannot remake Reform and Progressivism and what they stand for. It is sad that you wish to trivialize what I say by calling it "banter" and I look forward to the time when you will treat those views that differ from yours with respect and seriousness. IZAK 04:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Is something seriously wrong here?
I am beyond belief that no one except you, I, User:Jheald, Malik and maybe User:HG sees something seriously biased about this group of editors. I'm beginning to feel that a significant number of editors on the Judaism project are either afraid of a certain user or have created their own group definition of WP:NPOV or both - one that reduces neutrality to little more than slander dressed in objectivity. This just seems wrong - NPOV is supposed to be about inclusiveness and it is instead being used here to exclude.

I'd like to wait a bit and see if things calm down, but if it doesn't what do we do? As sincere as we are, I think all of us have only so much emotional energy and we need to do something constructive before we get exhausted. Any ideas about taking this up a level? If so, where would we go? Egfrank 11:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Egfrank: Even though I am trying to stay out of the general debate for now, I must really object when you say things like "I'm beginning to feel that a significant number of editors on the Judaism project are either afraid of a certain user or have created their own group definition of WP:NPOV or both - one that reduces neutrality to little more than slander dressed in objectivity" that are just not healthy. If you can cite precise problems in editing articles then go ahead and do so, but to make personalized generalizations about your "perceptions" is unfair to everyone. No-one is afraid of "a certain user" nor has anyone created any "group definition of NPOV" -- but by the same token, you, Sniper, Jheald and Malik are a group too and that's already four people and I don't think that that number have even opposed you seriously, so not only is your math off, you are also off in the way you are steering your comments here. May I remind you again, that I have not made a single edit to Reform or Progressive articles at all, yet both you and Sniper have tried to implemenet quite a number of serious changes in a some very important Judaic articles, so your complaints do not hold any water. Perhaps you are not familiar with the give and take of editing on Wikipedia, especially when Controversial or Disputed or POV or Totally-disputed and such like issues come into play. But to claim that "fear reigns" and that therefore it stops you or anyone from editing is an insult to everyone'e intelligence and freedom of action. Kindly reconsider your harsh assessments. IZAK 11:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Reform rabbinic organizations
Am I right in thinking that the German rabbis never actually organized under the name Reform? I've been looking through sources and I can find a Union of Liberal Rabbis (founded Germany, 1898) but nothing but synods of rabbis with pulpits in state-recognized synogogues before that? Egfrank 15:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Greif photo Human.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Greif photo Human.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. --OrphanBot 09:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Death
Great article! I was in college when the whole death metal thing got big. Never quite got the hang of the heavy screeching bust your speakers sound (too much Bob Dillon and classical training I guess), but in retrospect I miss the musical diversity.

Hope all is well, Egfrank 10:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Paul_Masvidal_of_Aeon_Spoke.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Paul_Masvidal_of_Aeon_Spoke.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jusjih 03:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mairtin O'Griofa.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Mairtin O'Griofa.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Help needed - can you find an image?
The Reform Judaism (magazine) article needs some sort of image and I've never really learned how to add images or do the fair use bit. Would you be interested in finding a suitable image? Thanks. Egfrank 19:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks - looks great. Hope you had a great Shabbat! Egfrank (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mairtin O'Griofa.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Mairtin O'Griofa.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Reform Judaism Magazine.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Reform Judaism Magazine.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GLI LP.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:GLI LP.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Qrsys Cstrp 23:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Classical reformers and Judaism
Hi! Hope you are having a great Channukah! I've noticed that you haven't contributed to any articles related to Judaism for the past two weeks or so. I hope all is well. Just wanted to let you know that your participation is missed. Egfrank (talk) 11:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Dokken Back In The Streets.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Dokken Back In The Streets.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Death
I'm always here to help. :) − ₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪  kaiden  00:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well sure I will do it but looking at my watchlist all I basically see are image alerts. That's like 100 of them plus the pages I don't watch. So I didn't know where to start. − ₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪  kaiden  00:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That is pretty hilarious. Death were never melodic in any sense of the word. Hey, a quick question for ya. I know they decided to make tech death and prog death the same thing on the death metal page, but I dont understand something. How come the technical death metal page says nothing about prog death then? If wikipedians have decided to say prog death and tech death are the same (I wouldn't really know, I'm not as knowledgeable about death metal nor do I like a whole lot of it besides old school and a few certain bands) then shouldn't the tech death page at least mention that it's the same as prog death? I mean, take a look. Here's the article on the death metal page and here's the tech death page. Thoughts? Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 22:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * =( You never got back to me on this.  I was going to also ask how you were and if you needed any help with any sort of editing as we had not talked in quite some time. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for that! I agree with everything you were saying about dm. I'm just saying that I think the tech death page should at least mention that tech death and prog death are the same. Cool, I have family in Canada. If you ever need any help with an article or something, feel free to ask! Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 21:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Heavy metal fashion
What do you think of this article? I think it is incredibly shitty. I put it up for deletion. If you agree (or disagree by some chance) with my reasoning cast your vote, please. Blizzard Beast <i style="color:#666666;">$ODIN$</i> 23:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Early black metal
Thanks for keep that in the stylistic origins of death metal! I originally added it in but some people still bitch about it. It's obvious, though, that bands bands like Hellhammer, Venom and Bathory had huge influences on death metal, not just black metal, so thanks. <b style="color:#0066CC;">Blizzard Beast</b> <i style="color:#666666;">$ODIN$</i> 21:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI
I have raised my concern about a possible conflict of interest at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, if you would like to add to the discussion. Thank you. dissolve talk  23:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Offshore book.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Offshore book.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem
No problem. Oh that's what it means, thanks. Ref name does exactly that for you, it uses the instances of one reference and let's you go to each of them. Also, I can't help but say that you should of emailed that thing about you to Nav... Hope all is well. − ₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪  <sup style="color:#082567;">kaiden  04:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, it just needed a slash that I forgot to put in. − ₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪  <sup style="color:#082567;">kaiden  05:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Eric Greif out in front, '91.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Eric Greif out in front, '91.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Motley papers1.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Motley papers1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Chuck Schuldiner
Apologies. I just saw Schuldiner when popping around looking for Vyper, Shock and all the other bands from Greif's past, trying to see which if any are notable. Know of any article that has a sort of timeline of him? I'm sure some of those bands are notable for their members so I feel bad not including them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Jackmantas
That long message he directed at you on the Chuck Schuldiner talk page breaks WP:Etiquette, is a form of WP:Trolling and passes WP:POINT, as well as that WP:Single-purpose account thing (which this proves) among many, many other things. Seriously, I think something should be done about him, he should stop this now and move on in all honesty. − ₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪  <sup style="color:#082567;">kaiden  07:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The edits of User:Jackmantas are getting out of control... does he not understand that personal attacks is a serious offense? and going against WP:Talk Page guidelines as well... hell... I could list all the Wikipedia policies he's broken which is a ton and would take way too long to list them here. He is tossing policies back into your face like you are the one with the wrong doing and has a disregard for many (mostly) behavioral policies. I think this is it, this is enough, we need to file a report on him at WP:ANI or wherever the place is for this type of thing. I have serious work to do though and will be extremely busy with these last few weeks of class with reports to do and with a testing week soon. I would of helped you, I really would, but the best I can do is suggest you find someone that is unbiased of the situation and file a report on him. Make sure everything is taken into account and that the nomination is well organized, etc and maybe we can end this dispute once and for all. So you now can chose a non-biased editor you think will file a good report (probably best that people with close ties with us don't file the report though). And please understand that this is for your (and my) own good, I don't want anyone to think of the report as biased. So best of luck, you will seriously need it in your time of need. − ₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪  <sup style="color:#082567;">kaiden  03:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion to all this COI crap
I suggest making some sort of official webpage thing about your life if you don't already have one, on a reliable site, so that it can be sourced or something. Then all this crap will go away. <b style="color:#0066CC;">Blizzard Beast</b> <i style="color:#666666;">$ODIN$</i> 00:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)