User talk:Kaisershatner/archive6

Featured article review/United States Bill of Rights
I noticed the article on the Bill of Rights has an unreferencedsection template in it; possibly, the paragraph immediately following this template may need additional inline citations.

It may turn out that such citations are not necessary; on the other hand, detailed citations assist in guarding against copyright violations, so I think that discussion should be part of a formal featured article review, for which I have nominated the article.

Please post your views on this matter to Featured article review/United States Bill of Rights. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I need a wikibreak too. Hopefully the WP:FAR process doesn't move too quickly. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 04:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Rc Patrol
I use twinkle to revert the edits and issue the warnings and it kinda does it automatically but you can take a look at Template_messages/User_talk_namespace which may help i am almost positive you will find the template with what you need.

Thanks  Staffwaterboy  Talk ♂ 16:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Re Re: Rc Patrol
The template you are looking for is

Thanks  Staffwaterboy  Talk ♂ 16:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Philippe de Montebello
Thanks for your help with this article, it's been on my to-do list for some time as it was in such a state. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 18:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Per this which cited the oath of allegiance, they do need to renounce. When I first quickly read your comment I read it as 'notability' instead of 'nobility' and was thinking 's/he is working on the Met and it's curators and is questioning notability??' and then I learnt to read properly :) If you're interested in museums in general, I'll poke you lightly toward WP:MUSEUMS ;) TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 18:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Steiner Redlich
hello. i trying to understand you actions with regard to. you blanked his talk page then removed him from the administrators notice board without addressing the block request. please advise. --emerson7 19:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * oic...i didn't scroll down far enough. anyway, he's been blocked for 48 hours. hopefully that will keep him at bay for a while. cheers! --emerson7 21:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Bill Ayers
Ok, I see now. thanks, It is me i think (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I posted on the Discussion page for the article. No, I don't think it's animus on your part.Flatterworld (talk) 09:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad this worked out. I now know who to talk to when I have questions about my political articles. :-) Unfortunately, I don't remember which articles were in that other format. If I run across them again, I'll update them.Flatterworld (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

And I've now changed my mind. Go knock yourself out with your POV garbage. Flatterworld (talk) 06:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Parashah
Hi, the parashah article is about spacing divisions in the masoretic text. The standard modern Weekly Torah portions are much later, but they nearly always coincide with a space division (as is noted in the article). The relationship between parashah divisions and public reading in the synagogue is discussed in the halakhah section (which largely deals with the period before such readings were fully standardized.

But I take your point that there could be more in the article about how parashot relate to or coincide with other divisions. Dovi (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hasmos
Hi Kaisershatner, thank you for the note. I usually have between 5 and 30 wiki-windows open at any given time, doing research related to my World History Maps. When reading any articles, if I see a way to improve it (even in minor ways), I do it as best as I can. (In this case, someone pointed out that my map of 100 BC was missing Judea, and they are right. So researching Judea I found out about the Hasmoneans. I'm almost finished updating the Image:East-Hem_100bc.jpg map and hope to have it's updated version uploaded to Wikipedia by tonight.) Respectfully, Thomas Lessman (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

user:24.176.36.149
Hi I think this user should be blocked for a lot longer. All his edits were in bad faith and the user kept vandalizing after numerous warnings.Bit Lordy (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

cleanup of Killian
Hey Firs, just a silly error, but your correction in Killian documents altered a direct quotation of a cited reference. I agree with you and AWB that the wording is better your way, but obviously we can't change how it was said in the original. :) Cheers, Kaisershatner (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Kaiser,
 * Thanks for your friendly note. Obviously, sourced direct quotes shouldn't be altered. Thanks for reverting the mistake. I was actually watching for direct quotes, but missed this. Thanks so much for fixing the blunder. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester  20:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability of B'rith Sholom
A tag has been placed on B'rith Sholom requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 12:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Torah

 * Hi, I'm just hoping to continue some copyedits at Torah, and I'm a bit perplexed by this sentence, I imagine it's yours since I think your version of the intro is the one that stands (sorry if I am wrong). What does this mean? "The names Five Books of Moses or Pentateuch, used here as synonyms, not as two distinct options of application, are also applied, predominantly in Christianity." Used where as synonyms? In the article? And what is meant by "options of application?" I'm not being snarky, seriously, just trying to understand the meaning so I can translate it into, you know, English. :) But since I might not have as deep a religious or academic grasp of the subject as some of the other editors, I don't want to foul it up. Can you clarify?

Sure thing -- I didn't write the sentence as it is now -- I had a parenthetical in there that someone deleted. The sentence initially read something like:


 * The Torah, also called the "The Five Books of Moses" or "The Pentateuch" (used here as synonyms...

to indicate that I was not intending to portray these two (FBoM and P) as options of referral, as though the Torah is either called the FBoM OR P (mutually exclusive) -- as in or opposed to and. Rather, I intended to make the sentence indicate that all 3 are synonyms with one another. However, someone else came along and removed my parenthesis to produce what is probably confusing you and everyone else. If you understand and can make it work, go for it. :)  DRosenbach  ( Talk 19:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I see it's already gone -- on another point, though, I see you removed all reference to Torah being translated as "Law", as well as the evidence against it. This is not contested -- the definition of "Torah" is not "Law."  It's as clear as the definition of anything.  The Torah is called the "Law" because it is the foundation of Jewish law and contains the bibilical laws.  Due to I don't know what (poor translation skills, weak social standing of certain aspects of Jewish culture at the time, etc.) there are references to this "Law" translation -- most commonly occuring, as I see it, on the blessings placard upon the bimah upon which the Torah is read in the snagogue.  It's such an archaic way of referring to the Torah, and people, perhaps uneducated, might have thought that it was proposed as a translation.  But clearly, anyone can do little more than look up the root (shoresh) of the term Torah to see that it has absolutely nothing to do with law.  However, it is a common placard, and many non-Jews may think it's a translatios because they are ignorant of the Hebrew language -- I think it should be returned and that it is not controversial at all.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 20:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed forever -- good job!.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 20:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say "oh please" -- but only if I knew you better :)...I wouldn't want you to misunderstand my 'wave of disaproval' as referring to you; it refers only to your sentiment. Birnbaum is in not insulting Christian intellect; what he is saying is that non-Jews, as non-Jews, will necessarily possess an described (rather than acquired) perspective of Torah.  Because non-Jews are not Jews, they lack a fundamental understanding of what Torah is and means to a Jew -- not that they can't.  I'd like to use an example from my field, dentistry: Even the smartest patients won't understand what I say to them with all of the nuances and particulars, because they didn't learn about teeth for 4 years and experience working on patients for X number of years.  That doesn't mean that they can't understand -- as though they are inherently deficient -- it just means that they won't, because they are extrinsically deficient.  They haven't put in the effort, time, energy, etc. necessary to comprehend what I tell them on a level like I understand it.  I still talk to them, and I don't call them "deficient" to their face.  The same is true here.  Christians will never know the Torah from a Jewish perspective -- it's impossible.  It's like being in someone else's shoes, nearly impossible.  Now although a Christian can work and work and work at trying to understand just what a Jew means when he says Torah, most are satisfied by just reading this article on Torah.  So as to provide them with some insight, Birnbaum merely stated that "the common misperception of Torah as Law limits the non-Jews perception of what Torah really means to a Jew.  That's all -- hope this helps. :)  DRosenbach  ( Talk 21:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't remember much from 1906 -- that far back is kinda blurry. It's highly likely that socio-religious nuances that existed back then have changed dramatically.  Whereas quoting religious doctrine, thought and tradition from Maimonidies or the Shulchan Aruch is valid because he's writing from a Torah perspective that either doesn't change or permits within its own framework the ability for modification due to changes in society, quoting from a Jewish Encyclopedia, which may very well have been spun by reformers of the tradition, and that was published at the turn of last century might, might not lend itself to providing insightful insight into Judaism, but then again it might.  Do you not have access to anything more recent?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 04:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's frustrating that the other contributors to the discussion not only don't share my views (which is expected) but don't share the rules by which one should come to an opinion.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 15:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * From a Jewish perspective, Torah is just as "Jewish" as "tefillin" and "Rosh Chodesh," so for the Torah article to be presented in such a way that marginalizes the Jewish perspective in a diplomatic scheme to promote NPOV (which, granted, is one of the tenets of Wikipedia) undermines the validity of an article on Torah from the Jewish perspective because things will be censored and the article will remain undeveloped. If people question the Shulchan Aruch, The Guide for the Perplexed and Rashi as sound sources, what could be the hope of establishing a well authored, informed article on something that has to be objective from completely opposing positions?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 16:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We have similar views :) If you check out the article I am focusing on these days -- milk and meat -- you will see that it takes dedication, determination and serious research to get good article content. If one did this for the Torah article, those people would destroy it, so nobody (including me) bothers.  They talk and talk and talk, but no one edits for increased content -- they edit for removing and modifying content.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 02:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting discussion. I would be interested in your comments regarding the idea that in the story of Exodus in the Penteteuch the Ten Commandments were an image of the law carved in stone housed in an ark and the ark placed in a sanctuary in the Egyptian manner.


 * Subsequently in Leviticus and Deuteronomy we have a number of laws and precedents listed in the manner of a lawbook. The original language of the Exodus was not semitic but rather afroasiatic. Many translations later we have discussion of judges or competent administrators of the law and the precedents they set in IE languages such as Persian and Greek.


 * Since the Egyptians regarded the carved image in the ark, in this case the Ten Commandments, to be representative of a god doesn't that suggest that here we have an example of the written law as sovereign over the spoken decrees of god kings being treated as carved in stone, and considered both secular and sacred? I would submit that from a NPOV perspective which might include non jewish bible scholars such as myself the Penteteuch is indeed a lawbook.Rktect (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I'm not yet sure what I think about that. Kaisershatner (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR
I think I have been extremely civil given the continued insinuations levelled at me. However, if you think I have no, please point out where--Meieimatai 21:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that was an appropriate thing to say considering the content of the article :) Based on my academic experience "Abrahamic religions" is not used as a classification for grouping monotheistic faiths, although it is used as a literary term, and notably a political one, something easily shown by reviewing the works of the authors who use the term as an idiom; none define it. I think the creation of this article should have begun with defining the term, but that is lacking in any commonly available comparative religions or reference sources I have looked in so far, including specialist references on religion and theology. What this amounts to is building an article on what is essentially an idiom used as original research. The article should never have passed WP:OR in the first place, but some tendentious editors forced it through on Wikipedia procedural grounds rather than as a notable referenced article. So far I see a couple of editors badly wanting to preserve it despite mounting evidence that the term is not defined in comparative religions field of study, is not widely accepted, and does not purport to be what it is seemingly desired to be by some authors. In effect it seeks to strip the cultural ownership of the Jewish scriptures from the Jews and make it common property by glossing over the facts that other faiths borrowed it; a process that exists in linguistics, cultural studies, and history of technology. However, Wikipedia is a reference work, and reference works are about facts. These facts need to be backed up by reliable sources, and verified, meaning the sources need to be read to ensure they are in context to the article content--Meieimatai 21:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meieimatai (talk • contribs)
 * "the traces of annoyance" you detect are entirely with the wholly unsubstantiated manner of editing that is not based on published sources, of citing sources out of context to the author's intended message of the work--Meieimatai 23:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meieimatai (talk • contribs)

WP AH
Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Guardgif.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Guardgif.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Palin
Automatic archiving is generated once a day. The link is in the talkheader. You may create additional links, but they have to be exact what the bot i creating, or we may end up with double sets of archives. Thanks for your concern. --Hapsala (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Feel free to respond here, Kaisershatner. The lead should have an "emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources."  I don't think being a "runner-up in the Miss Alaska" contest or being a "sports reporter" are significant focusses of reliable source coverage of her.  I'll rework the lead, please don't revert without first discussing on the article's talk page.    user:j    (aka justen)   17:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi J, I agree with your view of the beauty pageant, I suppose, although her previous employment is relevant IMO, but in any case my apologies for the revert. It was faster although coarser, and the article was/is getting 50 edits a minute.  My note to you was intended to be courteous.  Best, Kaisershatner (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

re: Sarah Palin
Hi Kaisershatner - You are right - thanks for pointing this out. It's actually been referenced by a number of news organizations, so if the current references had to be tweaked, I would say to remove the NY Times article which simply mentions it and to replace it with ABC News http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/02/2353379.htm

which also mentions it in passing. There is also this article from The Politico: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/13009.html

Take a look and see what you think and I can make a note on the talk page. I always appreciate feedback so thanks again for your comment. -Classicfilms (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kaisershatner - I have one question regarding the Sarah Palin page. Maybe I missed it in the history, but why was this removed:

High approval ratings In July 2007, Palin had an approval rating often in the 90s.[45]

A poll published by Hays Research on July 28, 2008 showed Palin's approval rating at 80%. [46] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1platoonabe (talk • contribs) 17:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied at your talk page.Kaisershatner (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin
I replied at my talk page to keep the discussion in one place. Feel free to tidy this page by removing this notice once read. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there a reason why you consider mentioning the reaction to Sarah Palins contraversial acceptance speech at the Republican national Convention, while applauded at the convention has been subject to fact checking in the media, to be inappropriate for the article? Rktect (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, first of all "controversial" depends on your POV, and secondly I don't think any of that belongs in the lead section. Best, Kaisershatner (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Something is contraversial if its disputed. That pretty much sums Sarah Palin up so why wouldn't we want to point that out, that the contraversies surroundering her and her ideas, actions and statements are the essence of why people are interested in her? You can be entirely NPOV and recognize that Rktect (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the thread info and your hard work managing THE article.--Buster7 (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

HI:

I can see both sides of the Alaskan Republican PArty views being cited. I don't see it as a non-sequitor. The Alskan Party has a view on Creationism on their platform. She is a member and participant in that party and helped develop that platform, and ran on that platform in her last recent election as Governor, didn't she? As their (Alaskan Rerpublican Party) view on Creationism and hers are the same, I'm not sure why it is not applicable. If someone were to assume her "guilty by association", wouldn;t that be fair? Also, keep in mind that there is more than one view here. There are large numbers of people who agrre with her, and the Alsaskan Republican Party on that viewpoint, and would consider her having that view as a very good thing. Anyway, regardless of how people perceive it, I think remaining true to the facts and reliable citations is the right way to go. Atom (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I am also for trying to remain on Palin's position. However, you have twice used the term "Non-sequitur". That means, One sentence/statement that in no way is related to another. These have not been that, they have all been related to the same topic. Atom (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridge to Nowhere
Hey Kais, I don't mind at all your rearranging the article. As I said on the talk page, the only thing that really gets me concerned is deletions. But please be very careful about sources. Last night I was up until 4 am carefully making sure that each statement is supported by each reference and Tpbradbury worked hard to make each reference beautifully presented down below. (All I do is Bridge to Nowhere now. I've decided to pick my battles, and it's easier for me to watch intensely one subection than worry about the rest.)  Your most recent revision says Congress reversed itself in 2007. Untrue. The reversal was in 2005 (same year as earmark). Yes, I know it seems weird Palin ran for office on something that had already been reversed but heck, I guess she was talking about the no strings attached transportation funds. In any event, please make the factual correction and PLEASE compare the sources with the original as I had it. I really don't want to do refs again tonight. I'm very confident they were accurate before your changes, so if you just make sure right text goes with right source, you don't have to read all the sources yourself (unless you want to). Thanks!GreekParadise (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Stylistically, I should say, I see why you made the changes. Except for the problems above, good job! If you can fix the source problem and make the Congressional reversal in 2005 flow well, we can combine the first two paragraphs again. But I'll put that task on your shoulders. :-)GreekParadise (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Please correct 2007 problem. It happened in 2005. I don't want to have to revert because I don't mind your changes but I fear for my sources, which are now inaccurate. I'll give you some more time. Thanks!GreekParadise (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin
Thanks for the advice. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Theosis4u
I see you offered some advice to the wp:single-purpose account, User:Theosis4u. If you read his user-page, you'll see that his purpose on Wikipedia seems to be some sort of psychological experiment, running test edits to see how Wikipedians react. I just thought you might want to be made aware of what's going on.--Appraiser (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

blamed Congress
Let me work on this in a NPOV way. Doing it now. What you wrote is not supported by her statement which says she's only doing it because Congress won't provide enough funding.GreekParadise (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please check my talk page and new version. Does this satisfy your concerns?GreekParadise (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"health" cited in source
Karst, which source says Palin would allow abortions where woman's health was in danger? I saw life, not health. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreekParadise][[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've now found a dozen or so places Palin said "only when life" is threatened and none say health except the one by the spokesperson. Can you find one by Palin herself? If not, is it possible that the spokesperson (who is not quoted directly) got it wrong? If so, will you consider changing "health" to "life"?GreekParadise (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What do we do about criticism of Palin for mentioning the bridge in the campaign?
Originally, in the Bridge to Nowhere section, I mentioned Palin's mention of the bridge in the campaign and the criticism of her for it. That paragraph was moved to the campaign section. I was against the move for reasons I said in the talk page. Many readers do not read the entire article but just sections. Moved to the campaign section, divorced from the actual facts on the bridge meant that: 1) readers of the bridge section had no idea it related to the campaign; and 2) readers of the campaign criticism had no idea whether criticism was justified. Therefore, I put a media section back in the bridge section to explain what the critiques were and pointed to the campaign section so that people who wanted detail could get it there. Hobartimus erased my changes because of his POV. He did so without consensus, without warning, and without mention that he would do so on the talk page. He replaced it with a sentence that said virtually nothing that you removed (and I don't blame you).

Do you understand why divorcing the bridge facts from the criticism on the bridge facts used in the campaigns necessitates at least a reference to the media criticism in the bridge section?GreekParadise (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion on NPOV Sarah Palin? TAKE TWO
Please visit the discussion page to cast your vote - is the article biased or neutral? LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hasmonean Descendants
Hi Kaiser, how are you..

Do I need citation about my own life? If you need, I can show Ketubahs, ID, Passports, DNA Certificates, and everything else. The story that was published on the article is 100% true. Now, there is this writter who is working to publish the story of my family on a book. I will continue adding infos on the article! I will display citation of every phrase, and I will post copies of birth certificates, ketubahs with Hasmoenean symbols for 4 generation, also I will display pics of the places where the Hasmoenan has dwelt as PEREA (My last name) and also I will post info from the Jewish Enciclopedia, wich tell us that MACHABI (My mother surname) is the latin version of Machabee. Why are you fighting against such a important information for readers?

I will send a fax to the headquarters with all info about my family tradition and claim. Lets see if they will let me add the information on the main article or not.

I have plenty citations, of every single point that was explained on the text. Also, I have one letter from my rabbi in New York, who is recognized as chief rabi for NY Orthodox jewish community. He is recognized by the Israeli Rabbinate.

Take care

Cohen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriscohen (talk • contribs) 21:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Operation Varsity - Thanks!
Hey there! Just wanted to drop by and say thanks for all the help you gave, and are giving, when Operation Varsity was on the Front Page. Very kind of you. Skinny87 (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Crisis of the Third Century
Hi! I think that the removal of the refimprove template was not a good idea. Crisis of the Third Century is already highly problematic both because of its concept (it is debatable between modern historians whether there was indeed a unique crisis or just the culmination of the intrinsic instability of the roman political system) and, most importantly, because of the inadequate amount of citations. Perhaps one could say that the local "fact" warnings make the refimprove redundant but I don't think so; the rest of the article says things that, although they seem "ok" to the average reader (and they had been almost universally accepted by the old school historians), today they controversial. Your recent additions didn't improve that defficiency, therefore I think we should bring back the template.--Dipa1965 (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Atlas Shrugged Article
Hello! As a member of Wiki Project Objectivism would you please see my post on the excessive coverage of fictional technology, etc. in Atlas Shrugged and my proposal to replace it with more coverage of the meaning of the events in that novel. Thanks. —Blanchette (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Nicely done, Kaisershatner — not only did you trim the Fictional Technology section to a more reasonable length, your entire reorganization makes this a much better article. I would not have edited nearly as well, so many thanks.—Blanchette (talk) 08:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Objectivism
I am clearing the participant list at WikiProject Objectivism due to inactivity. Please add yourself again if you want to participate. --Karbinski (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Oklahoma City bombing
Thanks for expanding the lead of the article. Leads are usually one of my weak points, and it's great that it was expanded. The article is currently in peer review if you notice any issues that you think should be addressed. I plan on taking it to FAC at some point and would appreciate any feedback or continued copyedits. Thanks again! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. I'll appreciate any copyedits if you have the time, but if not, no worries. Keep up the good work. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for copyediting the article. I'll be asking a few more editors to take a look before I take it to FAC. Your edits are much appreciated, especially for developing the lead. If you ever need help with an article, let me know and I'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I added a few sources to the sentence, hopefully it will clarify for readers who want to see more information on it. If you got more than your two cents, I'm always ready to hear it! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies
Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Loganlifeclock.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Loganlifeclock.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Jack Merridew 14:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Astor Row and speculative townhouses
Yes, you got it exactly. Rather than the landowners building houses for themselves, or for clients, they raised money to build these houses in the hope of selling or leasing them to unknown parties at a later date. This was common practice elsewhere in New York, but not yet in Harlem when these homes were built.

Out of curiosity, how did you stumble across the astor row page? Uucp (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

civility?
What was not civil in my edit summary? remove list of attacks, ketp the only one with an article and just said the mfs attributed attacks to these groups (note: mfs should be mfa, typo and obviously ketp should be kept) and doesnt need to be a subsection are not civil how exactly?  nableezy  - 15:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Israeli MfA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs). Sorry bout the typo and happy editing.  nableezy  - 16:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't related...
To your expansion of space. I just find that section to be POV as its not balanced out by a mention of the attacks carried out by Israel against Palestinians over the same period. If we had a list like that one for those too, the article might be all background. Anyway, I'm not planning on deleting it right now. I'll add some stuff to try and balance it out and then open a discussion about whether and how to cut down the background section. Sound good? And thanks for the compliment on my work on the article. Much appreciated.  T i a m u t talk 16:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Funny. I see Nableezy already removed the list. (Its like he can read my mind! or my edit summaries - either way ;) I think that was a good edit. Certainly saved me a lot of work trying to write up an equally detailed section for IDF incursions. I see you've two just met recently too (above). Nableezy's cool. I think you'll like each other (I have a good feeling that we all will get along just fine). Thanks again for your note, and happy editing.  T i a m u t talk 16:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. Look forward to working with you too.  T i a m u t talk 13:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for Participation in Wikipedia Research
Kaisershatner,

Your Request for Adminship (RfA) process was reviewed and studied by our research team at Carnegie Mellon University early in our project to gain insights into the process. We reviewed what voters discussed about your case, and what qualifications you brought to the table as a candidate. In total 50 cases were personally read and reviewed, and we based our further research questions in part on your case.

In continuing our research, I would like to personally invite you to participate in a survey we are conducting to get perspective from people who have participate in the RfA process. The survey will only take a few minutes of your time, and will aid furthering our understanding of online communities, and may assist in the development of tools to assist voters in making RfA evaluations. We are NOT attempting to spam anyone with this survey and are doing our best to be considerate and not instrusive in the Wikipedia community. The results of this survey are for academic research and are not used for any profit nor sold to any companies. We will also post our results back to the Wikipedia community.

This survey is part of an ongoing research project by students and faculty at the Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science and headed by Professor Robert Kraut.

Take the survey

Thank you!

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free comment on my talk page.

CMUResearcher (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Question
Hi Kaisershatner! I noticed your edits on War of the Spanish Succession and hope that you might have some input about this question. Any ideas are welcome. bamse (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Gettys.nyt.jpg
File:Gettys.nyt.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Gettysburg Address, New York Times.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Jenin
How can you claim there was no massacre in the camp? Israel refused to let in journalists or even medics into for days after the end of fighting - the most that can be claimed is that it wasn't proven but everyone knew quite dreadful things happened. 86.158.184.158 (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your note. You may have me confused with "the encyclopedia," as I am not claiming anything.  The article states that evidence of a massacre was not found, which is objectively true, and that official Palestinian estimates matched those of the IDF and the UN very closely, which is also objectively true.  And when a group has a history of making false claims to manipulate media coverage, well, let's just say it calls into question "what everyone knows."  Best wishes.  Kaisershatner (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

:)
per Nableezy has to be my favorite phrase here. And also the least convincing :)  nableezy  - 19:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Zohar
Chimed in over at WikiProject Judiasm regarding Zohar. Here, this is for you: 

Noraft has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 19:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Zealot Temple Siege
Hi! Its me again. Thanks for your work on Zealot Temple Siege. Your contributions really make it look good. Something I wanted to mention is that from my reading of The Jewish Wars by Josephus, it is not stated that Hanan ben Hanan knew that John of Gischala was going to lie about inviting Vespasian. This seems important, since that lie came back to haunt ben Hanan in a pretty big way (he got killed, the justification being that he shut out the Edomites but was prepared to welcome the Romans).

The way you've edited the article, it seems that ben Hanan sent John in to lie. Josephus never indicates that ben Hanan told John to say that, and it also seems like a stupid thing for ben Hanan to say given the political climate of the time (he wouldn't want people to think he invited the Romans, and according to Josephus, ben Hanan also really loved democracy and liberty).

Can we somehow indicate that John lied of his own accord, or that ben Hanan was never described as instructing John to lie? Thanks again for your work on the article. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 17:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Noraft; I was going to ask you about that very issue since it wasn't clear to me if John was freelancing or what exactly. I can change the wording.  Thanks for the ntoe.  Kaisershatner (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Henry Kirke Bush-Brown
Hello! Your submission of Henry Kirke Bush-Brown at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Calmer  Waters  01:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Chabad movement evidence
Would you please look at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence and rewrite/reformat as and if appropriate your evidence to answer Fritzpoll? Thanks. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee Dougweller (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Chabad movement evidence
Would you please look at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence and rewrite/reformat as appropriate your evidence to answer Fritzpoll? Thanks. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee Dougweller (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Motion to dismiss or keep the Chabad editors case
Hi Kaiser: A discussion has started if the Chabad editors case should be dismissed or should remain open. As someone who has been involved in the discussions leading up to this ArbCom case and presented evidence you should be informed of this motion and have the right to explain if you agree or disagree with this proposed motion and why. Please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Batista lead
Hello Kaisershatner, and nice to meet you. I wanted to contact you in reference to your large expansion of the lead at Fulgencio Batista to 6 paragraphs, by essentially copying parts alredy present in the article's body twice (to the lead as well). Per WP:Lead that is way to long, as ideal would be 2-3 paragraphs for an article of that current size. Moreover, you removed the phrase "U.S.-backed" which corroborated with the given source and the dozens of others listed previously on the archived TP. However, I wanted to contact you because I am happy to see another editor interested in improving the article and did not want you to think I am trying to WP:Own or discourage your future involvement. You seem like a very competent editor and it would be nice to corroborate on the article if you were interested. Let me know your thoughts, and if you vehemently disagree please say so and we can discuss. Red thoreau -- (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War
I have made new edits on the article and I'm expecting for answers in the talk page. In the talk page, you may watch the sections dealing with the infobox / belligerents, the infobox / result, the casualties and the aid. I hope we will finally reach a consensus in some issues. This message was sent to many editors. Megaidler (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Language and linguistics in Frank Herbert's Dune


The article Language and linguistics in Frank Herbert's Dune has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Entirely unreferenced essay on a minor plot point; no value in merging to parent articles

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Language and linguistics in Frank Herbert's Dune
I have nominated Language and linguistics in Frank Herbert's Dune, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Language and linguistics in Frank Herbert's Dune. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

May 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Newt Gingrich. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Aleksa Lukic (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If I was wrong, please tell me. I haven't understand why did you remove content from the page. Greetengs Aleksa Lukic (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

File talk:Wiki.png
On the page File talk:Wiki.png has started a discussion and voting for the file Wiki.png to be returned to older version. Please get involve in discussion. Thanks, Aleksa Lukic (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:CorriganWilliamsbook.gif
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:CorriganWilliamsbook.gif, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ecemaml (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mylifetolive.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Mylifetolive.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 11:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)