User talk:Shlomke

Image of Rebbe
The image Image:Rebbe.jpg is not a free-use image, and has been removed by a bot from my userbox Template:User ChabadnikLubavitcher. Isn't there a free-use image of the rebbe? Isn't it possible to get one? Debresser (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Redirect of OK Labs
In 2006 you created a redirect for the tag "OK Labs" to OK Kosher Certification. I would like to share that tag - Open Kernel Labs, an entry that I have been editing, also goes by that name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linuxpundit (talk • contribs) 08:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Rollback
Per your accepted request, I have added rollback rights to your account. Ensure you only use rollback correctly, ie its intended usage of reverting vandalism only. For information on rollback see: New admin school/Rollback and Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback in the future, just let me or any admin know. Cheers. Nja 247 08:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Guthrie Prentice edits
Those edits were not unconstructive. They are all true and I was the one who created that article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabrinahickey (talk • contribs) 18:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Shlomke (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Golgi apparatus
ummm i don't know where to ask you a question, but hopefully you'll read this. i dont understand why you didn't accept my changes on golgi apparatus, when all i did was delete something that said 'wtfbbqLOL' or something like that. sorry for messing around with your page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.38.130 (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied at your talk page. Shlomke (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

sorryyyyy i still dont know how to send you a message :(

i thought that the vandals had messed that bit up, that's why i changed it. i dont have any evidence to back it up, but it the wiki page said 'cis-Golgi network, cis-Golgi, medial-Golgi, trans-Golgi, and trans-Golgi network' and i thought that vandals had added 'cis-golgi' and 'trans-golgi' just to confuse people. if the reference site says that there are five then i take it back. sorry for causing a hassle, and editing your page and stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.38.130 (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Otomo (movie)
i find you offensive- in america we have what is called freedom of speech. the media has been known to exploit creative works, plagiarize them, and pass it off as censorship. don't try and use Judaism as a defense to claim that you are some sort of good person. you ruined the article- it wss not polite helpful or politically correct of you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.0.115 (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you think I ruined the article and what you find offensive, but commenting about an article like this edit belong on the Talk page. Shlomke (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

i said its your article now, you ruined it. you took off parts that were left up, you are trying to censor me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.0.115 (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

reversion of vandalism in Sounds True
thanks for catching this. i have a question: is there a place you can go on WP to notice potential vandalism NOT occuring on your watch pages? i saw an editor who had done almost nothing but catch vandalism, after being here for only a week, and i couldnt see how they were doing it without having a huge watch list (i actually wondered if they were using multiple IP's to vandalize, then heroically stepping in to build street cred, but thats probably paranoia on my part). my list hovers around 600, and i catch very little. something like a "new edits" or "suspicious edits" page or special page? i suppose i could try to find it, but i may as well ask someone. thanks for your attention. i suppose replying on my talk page is best.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Your welcome. I'm using an anti vandal program called WP:Huggle. You need to have WP:Rollback rights to use it, which should be no problem for you given the amount of edits you have. Alternatively, activate WP:TW in your preferences and you should be able to see options in your toolbox for filtering edits. Good luck, Shlomke (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, if you don't have the permissions, you can do Recent Changes Patrol. Click the link to "Recent changes" (in the left menu, under the "interaction" grouping, below the search box.  It shows the most recently changed pages on Wikipedia. --ShadowRanger (talk 23:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"Arayot does not encompass all forbidedn [sic] relationships"
You wrote this at Articles for deletion/Forbidden relationships in Judaism. Would it be possible for you to explain this, there, in slightly more detail - preferably giving an example of a forbidden relationship which does not constitute Arayot/Gilui Arayot?

Many thanks. Newman Luke (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Shlomke (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

re:Judaism
Your revert to the changes in the lede was indeed fine, and my message was not directed particularly at you (or any other editors, really). I hope the added editing probation will help all editors to focus on the discussion instead of dealing with such kerfuffles. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Shlomke (talk) 23:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Antarctic Circle reverts
Sorry if I interrupted or confused you with my revert, since you ended up reverting both me and the anon editor. Keep fighting the vandals! :) --an odd name 06:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks. Shlomke (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Tinsel Korry
I made several reference to my changes in the talk page. The content was not relevent to the biography. As the "controvercy" has been generated by a very few people. Please read the talk page as well as the edit note in the future. Exvoxmachina (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed that you made discussion at the talk page, as you left no edit summary, just deleted a bunch of text. In the future you should leave an edit summary and write something like "see talk", especially when making major deletions like the ones you did. I'm still not convinced that you were right for the deletions, but I'm now aware that you were trying to discuss it. Cheers, Shlomke (talk) 04:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I did state in the edit summary, about an inch down, to "see talk page". I thought it redundant, if not silly to include it in every edit. As to THIS comment please make it clear that by answering this I am not vandalizing your talk page as it appears another admin escalated me to a tier 4 threat for simply adding the statement above. Exvoxmachina (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I now see that about 7 edits before my first revert, you wrote "see talk page". When I and others are scanning for vandalism, we (I at least) don't usually check that far. As far as you posting here, you are definitely not vandalizing my talk page. I'll leave a note to that editor about that. By the way, I'm not an admin, I just have tools to fight vandals. Don't get discouraged. Shlomke (talk) 05:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Rod Clarke
The edits consisted precisely of providing the inline references noted as being absent in previous comments. I agreed and did the necessary work. This took a considerable time to input correctly in the desired format. You revert it without any discussion, easy to do with no effort whatsoever, nor any rationale ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.169.110 (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm very sorry about that revert I made to your edit's, it must have been a false positive. I removed the warning. (In general it is always a good idea to leave an edit summary, which would usually help avoid such situations. Keep up the good work! Shlomke (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry for being so irritated. I appreciate your explanation. Thanks for removing the warning. Also you are correct that I often forget to leave an edit summary. I will try to do so in future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.169.110 (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 06:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Bigsuperindia
hi there please explain me what edit on Khare are bothering you. your suggestions will be appreciated. --Bigsuperindia (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Responded at your talk page. Shlomke (talk) 02:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Civility
This is a general warning to all users involved in recent COIN and ANI discussions. Please stop talking about other users mental status, mental health or their person. As the WP:CIVILITY policy says, "Even during heated debates, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment" and WP:NPA which states: "comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people". I am drawing a line under what has been said to this point so you all right now have a clean slate, but I intend to start blocking users on both sides of the dispute who continue engaging in violations of the behavioural policies so please accept this as a final warning. Thanks, Sarah 05:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Sarah, I'm very surprised that you gave me final warning about WP:CIVILITY when I have NEVER attacked anyone, especially not at the COIN discussion you mentioned. In fact I expressly condemned it! Please explain yourself. Thanks, Shlomke (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said, it was a general warning given to all parties. As with warnings in general on Wikipedia, if you feel that it doesn't apply to you then you can ignore it. I am not accusing you personally of making attacks (and if I was I would have written to you personally with diffs showing what I considered attacks) but lots of civility violations have been happening from users on both side and requests from admins to cease the personalisation and incivility have been ignored. So I was making sure that all parties received the same equal warning and were thus aware that any further incivility and personal attacks would result in blocks. You were a named party so therefore received the message. The purpose of general warnings is, if you are subsequently blocked for civility/npa violations, you can't say you weren't warned. But as I said, if you feel you honestly have not made any comments about other users that might reasonably be construed as uncivil or attacks, you can ignore it because it won't affect you if you are not and have not been violating NPA or CIVIL, right? (No need for talkback, this page is now on my watchlist) Sarah 02:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see now that it was just a general warning to all parties involved. Thanks for explaining that to me. All the best, Shlomke (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration notification
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Requests for arbitration and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Requests for arbitration;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Shlomke (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry, I wasn't trying to vandalize anything, I'm new to this editting thing and was just practicing and didn't know I was breaking any rules. I removed all of the description, but I don't know how to remove the rest of that article. Sorry again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snyder24 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. No one will ask you questions. These two pages may help and  which is a draft by an ex-clerk and new Arb. Respond when you can but hopefully within the week. There hasn't been that much activity. I'd guess that you wouldn't want to do more than comment on others edits on the workshop page. Anymore questions, please ask again on my talk page. Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Shlomke (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Chabad controversy
The workshop would probably be the best place, as a proposed finding of fact ("locus of dispute"). Put your own understanding there of what it should be rather than ask the Arbs, as they will need input to help make a decision, and this is a rather complex case. Dougweller (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Shlomke (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Your draft looks ok. Dougweller (talk) 09:40, 19 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. Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Motion to dismiss or keep the Chabad editors case
Hello Shlomke: A discussion has started if the Chabad editors case should be dismissed or should remain open. See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Editors are reminded to keep in mind Wikipedia policies, and seek content-dispute resolution if collaboration between editors breaks down. Editors are also reminded to continue editing in good faith. No enforcement motions are included in the final decision, but a request may be made to reopen the case should the situation deteriorate.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC).

Yitzchok Kogan
An article you created has been proposed for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.50 (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sholom Rubashin article and AfD
Hi Shlomke: Because of your interest in this topic, you will hopefully be able to upgrade the Sholom Rubashkin article and add a balanced WP:NPOV to this important biography. You may also want to take a look at Articles for deletion/Sholom Rubashkin. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

image:NCFJE-Sheloh logo.png
Hello Shlomke, I, along with this user, am working on a Hebrew article on the Jewish released time program, do you know how to make the image of the logo that you uploaded available for use on the hebrew article. Thank You, Larryyr (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Rabbi Jacobson - Hadar Hatorah.gif
Thanks for uploading File:Rabbi Jacobson - Hadar Hatorah.gif. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:OK Kosher logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:OK Kosher logo.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)