User talk:Teb728/Archive

Ablaut
Thank you for your help in Talk:Ablaut. I'll follow this up. To begin with I merely wanted to know what "strong verb" meant but what's now really interested me is how these faint echos of an inflected system lead back to Indo-European. West Germanic strong verb does seem perticularly helpful. Thincat 10:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

PIE
In case anyone actually reads this, the following is Dbachmann's response to my post in User_talk:Nixer: "Nixer, you seem to think that Dbachmann is just a user like yourself. Not so; he is an admin. As such he has the moral right to enforce policy. Perhaps more significantly he has the power to do so (whether you agree with him or not). You can't win an edit war with him, and by trying you just fill up the history, spoiling things for everybody else. --teb728 06:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)" --teb728 06:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * what are you talking about? Being an admin does not give me an advantage in editing disputes; being an admin gives me a few extra buttons I can apply in cases where I am uninvolved. I didn't touch any of these buttons in the PIE case. I am reverting Nixer's edits because I believe they violate policy, and are also poor otherwise. If he would care to communicate, there could be a solution. Since he stubbornly keeps reverting, there will be no debate, no consensus, and no change to the article. If you decide that I am wrong, and argue so on Talk, I may be forced to reconsider, or walk away. So far I have heard no objections to the points a made on the PIE talkpage. Until I do, the article will retain its status quo. See Consensus on how decision making is supposed to work on Wikipedia. dab (&#5839;) 06:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

But I don't think you're wrong: Your changes to Schleicher's fable and Deivos Verunos are definitely improvements. And it's probably better to link to the Christian texts as you have done. I just want the edit war to end. It loads the history page with several meaningless entries per day. And it may well inhibit useful changes to the page (for fear they will be reverted away). If, being involved, you can't block Nixer's reversions, maybe some other sysop can?
 * I see -- I thought you were complaining that I was throwing around my weight as an admin; admins do actually not have any more rights than anyone else. Thanks for the external link; we cannot block Ilya just for being stubborn, not unless he violates WP:3RR, but I'll be of course careful that when reverting him I don't throw out good edits. Thanks for the telecore.net.ru page, it doesn't show up with google. Probably Ilya's own page? It's a pity there is no comment to the texts, the Neputne one looks quite appealing (but what is the meaning of "Aquan nepot"? "to the water, grandson"? :) dab (&#5839;) 07:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

PIE dentals
Hi; I've tried to clarify exactly what Sihler says and what Beekes says. It's really only Sihler who gives the standard view; Beekes is overfond of reconstructing pre-proto-IE (without saying he's doing so), and has bought in to the less-than-mainstream glottalic theory. Neither Sihler nor Beekes does a good job of citing their sources, though, which makes life extremely frustrating. --User:Angr/talk 17:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Glottalic theory
Yes, I know. I don't have the time, energy, or bibliographic resources to fight with him about it though. All I can do is keep him from POV-pushing in the articles on my watchlist, which glottalic theory isn't. --Angr (t·c) 09:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

wiktionary links
Hiya, thanks for your note about strong verbs. I'll work on making all those links live this week - cheers. --w:User:Widsith

Einstein
I've put a quick recap on my talk page.

Desdinova 20:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added some cites: Hartle, Penrose and K Thorne.

Desdinova 23:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Relf
Thank you for the comments you left on Jeff Relf's talk pages. You are quite correct, I was out of order with my interpretation of the rules and I will drop my protests on his page. However, I do think Jeff is removing a lot of the messages on his talk page to "clean his slate" more often - as very few people will bother to read through all the commentary. He has repeatedly tried to post "original research" onto the Einstein page and each time people give him the benefit of the doubt because his "warnings" (informal though they may be) are removed. Anyway - sorry for the mini rant. I will get over him now :-) --TWake 09:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection
Thanks for restoring my inadvertant deletions on that page. I checked back in the history and I really did manage to delete those sections - I just don't understand how I did it though. Richard W.M. Jones 20:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Redirect bypassation
Hi, I noticed that you made an edit to bypass a redirect at English language. However, WP:REDIRECT specifically forbids editing solely to avoid redirects - it introduces needsless verbiage. Processing a redirect is not expensive either - every edit is far more expensive, so no performance can be gained by removing redirects. There is nothing inherently wrong with redirects, and can be beneficial because there's less unnecessary piping, making the wikimarkup easier to read &mdash; they're not broken, so don't need to be 'fixed'. Please bear this in mind when you are pondering circumventing redirects. --Sam Pointon 20:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:REDIRECT does not “forbid” bypassing redirects (nor could it, not being Wikipedia policy). Rather it presents two reasons and one unsupported assertion why doing so may not be advisable:
 * Redirects to possible future articles should be maintained. This is absolutely correct, but inapplicable to my edit. For “Anglo-Saxon” is just an old-fashioned name for Old English.
 * One should not bypass redirects merely to reduce server load because the server hit for an edit is hundreds of times greater than that of a redirect. Well yes, but the server load of both an edit and a redirect are miniscule. If you are concerned about server efficiency, you should note that posting to a talk page causes the same server hit as straightening a redirect. You may infer my lack of concern over the server load of an edit from the fact that I post this reply both on my talk page and on yours. I don't worry about performance.
 * One should never replace redirect with redirect . This is nonsense (except as the two reasons above may apply). It is also inapplicable to my edit.
 * In short: Thank you for your opinion, but I will continue to bypass redirects as I see fit. --teb728 22:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Einstein 2
Hi TEB728. For starters, I don’t mind being reverted, so no worries. But, maybe you can take away my confusion/lack of knowledge on the following:
 * …due to large probable errors. – Does that mean:
 * - there are probably large errors, or
 * - large statistical confidence errors (as in probability)

Thanks. --Van helsing 12:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I was convinced, maybe wrongly, that Newtonian laws don’t predict star position change due to gravitation. I that’s true, gravitational lensing cant be twice Newtonian predictions?


 * With regard to your specific questions:
 * In any physical measurement there are always errors associated with the accuracy and precision of the equipment. (As a simple example, if you use a meter stick calibrated in millimeters to measure a length, there is an error on the order of half a millimeter (or however closely you think you can eyeball fractional millimeters).) An experimenter then always combines the various sources of error to estimate an upper limit on the error in his measurement. I don’t have access to the reference cited it the article, but I presume that the Lick Observatory astronomers were not able to set an error limit that excluded Einstein’s prediction. Check the reference, if you want to know more. In any case I can’t imagine what “probability error” might mean.
 * Newtonian mechanics predicts deflection of light because a photon has a mass of hν/c² and thus is attracted by the gravitational field of the sun. General relativity predicts extra deflection due to the distortion of space-time in the strong gravitational field near the sun. Check a book on general relativity for details.
 * More generally, Wikipedia encourages you to be bold in adding links, correcting grammar, etc. (Thank you for your helpful links.) But the content of featured articles like Albert Einstein is usually pretty clean; so I would suggest that before making substantive changes to a featured article you go to the talk page first unless you know whereof you speak. --teb728 19:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your elaborate response.
 * As English is not my native language, I trust large probable errors is the way to describe the accuracy and precision errors than, I thought it was a typo (with probability (of) error I mean a large $$Y$$ in: the outcome of our measurement/experiment is $$X$$, with a confidence interval of $$Y$$, with $$Z%$$ certainty).
 * My bad, I thought photons where massless when using Newton's laws of motion.
 * --Van helsing 08:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Identifying Einstein as a Jew
I wanted to discuss your recent edit to the article on Einstein in which you removed from the beginning blurb the fact that Einstein was a jew. I would argue that though Einstein's personal religion is difficult to really characterize (he made many spiritual statements but one couldn't legitimately call him observant) the fact that he was jewish is relevant enough to merit the word in the opening sentence. Aside from the fact that his jewish background was a significant factor in his life and the way his work was accepted or rejected. Consider, also, his statement that "A Jew who sheds his faith along the way, or who even picks up a different one, is still a Jew." For those reasons it would seem to merit that one word in his opening description... and I think Einstein would agree himself.

However, I didn't want to simply revert what appears to be a sincere intellectual decision on your part without first hearing your opinion on the subject. Thanks in advance for your opinion. --Geeman 10:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There are many labels that one could attach to Einstein, Jewish, German, Swiss, American, pacifist, vegetarian. People have tried to add most of those to the header at one time or another. If all of them were included, it would make for an unwieldy header. The inclusion of such labels has been extensively discussed on the article’s talk page in the sections Talk:Albert Einstein, Talk:Albert Einstein/Archive 9, and Talk:Albert Einstein/Archive 9. The consensus of the editors seems to be that the Jewish label was appropriate in the header only if a person’s Jewishness is the reason for his notability, which is not the case with Einstein. (You should note that I was not removing a label that had been there for a long time: It was reinserted only a couple of days ago.) --teb728 19:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the prompt and thoughtful response. I've responded more fully in the Einstein article's talk page. --Geeman 04:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I should have called to your attention that only the first talk page section is in the active talk page. The others are in an archive, which is probably not on anyone’s watch list. I would never have seen your post in the archive if you hadn’t said here that you had written something. --teb728 04:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks for the head's up. I'll move (or just reproduce) those comments in a more appropriate (read: recent) talk section. --Geeman 09:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
TEB728 for redirecting my edits on the Einstien page to the quote page. I'm aware of the existence of the wikiquote but I somehow forgot about it. Thanks again for the edits and keep up the good work. Marwan123 07:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks...
i should appolgize about my english again...this semester i probably joind to an english class at my university ,since my high school days i didnt study this language as well... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by --Gilisa 18:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

On ethnicity

 * This section was originally titled “to TEB728”; I changed the title to be more descriptive (all the posts here are to me). And I have standardized the English (not as any implied criticism but for my convenience in reading it). --teb728 19:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Before you go too far, blaming me for getting close to violating the policy of Wikipedia - I hope you read it:

To me, some of your statements looked not to the point, and against Wikipedia policy, like you are trying to provoke me-i.e., telling me that I am following the Nazis with my definition of ethnic group (and this definition is very, very common, by most of the non racist people). I am sure, now, that you didn’t have any intention to mean that. I was I just telling you how it seems to me.
 * I am sorry I seemed provocative. It was not my intent to provoke you, but I see now how it could have seemed that way. --teb728 00:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I already get several anti-Semitic comments from people of which I never talked (only because of changing the term "Palestine" to "Judea" (according to the period in History) or because I add the Jewishness of someone to an article (or sometimes users just delete it without even living a comment -even though I gave a reliable reference for the Jewishness of several great persons).
 * I am sorry if you got anti-Semitic comments: they would surely be a violation of Civility. Please consider, however, the possibility that the comments were not really anti-Semitic: What I mean is: Perhaps the other guys were writing in good faith (like Schultz and me) but you misunderstood. Or perhaps they thought you were pushing some agenda and reacted to that. (If you still think they were anti-Semitic, don’t prove it to me—I take your word for it.) --teb728 00:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

So, and you can deny it or disagree with me if you like, but for me it wont change the facts, there is much effort put in by users just to limit the Jewishness of great persons (sometimes totally, and I didn’t see such a phenomenon against any other ethnic group; in the case of Einstein you my recall users which left links to Nazi and racist sites ("white power" "white superiority" and etc) claming that Einstein was a plagiarist) with out giving any good excuse - Einstein article is only one of many...I think, and it get to my knowledge that I’m not the only one who think that this is an output of anti Semitic feeling at least in part of the time - So, I’m very sensitive to this subject and it seems that you are not aware for it.

My comments have no intention to sound personal but I guess it may seem to you like that only because I can’t see how your comments fit with the facts-and it can sound to you, might be, like that when I'm trying, in any possible way, to explain it to you and to Schultz with my limited English.
 * Your English is really quite understandable; it just takes a little longer to read. You are difficult to understand, however, when you get upset, but that is a problem not with your English but rather that you express yourself poorly when you are upset. Your present post is expressed very clearly; I standardized its English only because I wanted to make it easy to read it several times as I reply. --teb728 00:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Now-for the Einstein article:

"...If the relativity theory will be proven true, the Germans will say I am a German, the Swiss I am a Swiss and the French that I am a great man. If not, the Germans will call me Swiss, the Swiss will call me German, and the French will say I am a Jew...."Albert Einstein, long before the nazis, long before Hitler rise to power.

German Jews are acctually from the very same origin as other Jewsih groups of Europe ,North Africa and most of the middle east (there are few Jewish groups which are from a different historical lineage). So, a Jew which born in Geramny is only from a different culture (not necessarily) and in any way the Jews of Germay are only an ethnic sub-group, at most , within the very same ethnic group.So there is no justification to mention Einstein as a "German Jew".--Gilisa 12:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Do you agree with me that two different ethnic groups, or more, can live in the very same country ? (Take Canada for example...French and British; or Israel -in which there are 600,000 non Jewish Russians, actually serving in the army, going to a Jewish schools and Universities, speaking Hebrew, eating the many kinds of Jewish ethnic food and etc- but belonged to a different ethnic group (i.e. Russian) and many of them also consider themselves as such)

2. How can you say that the people who were hunted by the Germans for their religion but also for their different ethnic origin for centuries are actually of the same ethnic origin??

3. Don’t you know that for the vast majority of humans ethnic origin means first of all the historical group from which someone came from and also his racial definition...why is it so bad? Does it mean that somebody who is not of one race is inferior??

Let’s sum it like this: Einstein was an ethnic Jew which born and have also educated, part of his life, in Germany.

Best, and nothing personal of course. --Gilisa 10:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 3. Let me answer your third question first because I want to define concepts in this answer that I will use in my other answers. I distinguish ethnic origin from ethnicity. Ethnic origin refers to the ethnicity of your ancestors particularly those of the last few generations. So if I understand you correctly, we agree on that. Ethnicity (including its use in defining “ethnic origin”) refers to the group that you identify with and/or are identified with on a basis of several factors including both descent and culture. So for example my ethnic origin is English, Irish, Scottish, Swedish, and French, but my ethnicity is American. Ethnic origin is a useful concept for a few things like genetic research or determining eligibility for immigration to Israel. But aside from those few uses (or a general interest in personal trivia) ethnic origin does not define who a person is. For one thing, most people don’t know who their ancestors were more than a few generations back; beyond that their ethnic origins are unknown. If you try to extend the concept of ethnic origin much further you get increasingly into the concept of “race,” which is a discredited concept (see the article on Race). What defines a person meaningfully is his ethnicity (based on multiple factors).
 * Perhaps you are thinking that culture goes with ethnic origin so that ethnic origin and ethnicity are practically the same thing; let me give you an example where they are radically different: When the Spanish colonized California, they captured Native American bands, put them into missions, and forced them to adopt the Spanish language, the Catholic religion, and the Californio culture. Now consider two closely related bands: One is captured and converted to Californios; the other escapes to the hills and is more able to retain its native culture. Their modern descendents are quite different from each other—different ethnic groups. But how do we describe the difference? It’s not their ethnic origin, for they are closely related. It’s not their citizenship, for they are all US citizens. The difference is their ethnicity (based in this case mostly on culture).

Shortly as i can (and not fully):I been on a travel to South America few month ago, and i saw the peopole of Peru (for example) which are mostly indians ,keeping the local ancient traditions -BUT also mix it with european (i.e spanish) chrisitanity ,spanish tallking (this is the only way,allmost, to communicate there) but consider themselvs to be purely local peruvians (as my peruvian guide to machu pichu said). only thus which very commonly mixed with spanish europeans ( espcially the peopole at Lima and in the well developed parts of this city and allmost never at the city of Cuzco) seems that they had ethnogensis process which made a new ethnic identity -but it took alot of time, and also have what seems to me as a different culture with in the very same country.--Gilisa 11:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. Yes, different ethnic groups can live in the same country. And the best example of course are the Jews living as an ethnic minority in Eastern Europe for like 1000 years. They were a social/cultural group who identified and were identified with each other; so they were an ethnicity. (Of course we don’t know how much conversion or intermarriage there was; so we don’t know how “pure” the “ethnic origins” of either the majority or minority ethnic groups were.) As examples of what I mean: Sholom Aleichem was born and raised in Ukraine. His ethnicity was Jewish and not Ukrainian because he belonged to the Yiddish, Ashkenazi culture and did not become assimilated to Ukrainian culture. Your father, as you say, was of Jewish and not German ethnicity because he did not identify with the Germans. Einstein, on the other hand, was thoroughly assimilated to German culture. He married a gentile woman, and until the Nazis he tried to be as German as he could be. Until the Nazis he identified with and was identified with both the Jewish and German social/cultural groups. Only when the Nazis came to power did he say that maybe he was not a German any more. I agree that his ethnic origin was Jewish, but his ethnicity was both.

I wont answer you the full answer now-as it taking alot of time from me, which i barely have.Any way-about the intermarrige question-dozens of genetical studies that been done by leading research groups all over the world and were published in the most well known A journals (i.e Science,Nature,Human Genetics and etc) and check it from any possiable angle (i.e from maternial heritage (mtDNA) ,paternal heritage (Y chromosom) or both (otosoms, genetical dissorders perevalence and etc) state that "racialy" the Jews are very much "Pure" (i.e more realted to the non Jewish populations of the middle east then to the Europeans) .It fits very well with the historical records that suggest that since the 4 A.C Jews (preety close to the time in which the diaspora formed) were not allowd to convert peopole -acctually there are several groups of non Ashkenazi Jews which have non-Jewish genetical markers at different extants(Etiopians (which convert to judaism in unknown way 600 years ago) and Yamans (which are a mix of local convertion and Jews) and other few communities near the Caspian Sea).And i didnt understand again how does the ethnicity is affected by the culture...you mixed between 2 different aspects:ethnic origin refer to the historical group from which one came from and was born to and not to the culture which can be changed several times trough ones life span (any way when you get into it a clause it dont refer to the cultural element but to the heritage ).Best--Gilisa 10:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

1 question:there were alot of Jews with in the former USSR (manily Russia ) that didnt keep any part of the Jewish culture (i.e didnt know to speak hebrew,yeddish and other Jewish languages ,didnt know nothing about Judaism,didnt know nothing about Jewish history and etc) because of the ideology that forbiden it -what are they? More,many Jews at the diaspora didnt know much about their origins since it is very hard to preserve it when you have no sovernity -so what does it mean about them?--Gilisa 12:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 2. Jews were persecuted not for their “different ethnic origin” but for their ethnic separation, which is quite a different thing. In other words they were persecuted just for being different. In plain terms the difference is that until the Nazis, an individual could avoid persecution by converting to Christianity, which didn’t change his ethnic origin. Also it wasn’t only the Germans who persecuted them: Indeed until the rise of the Nazis, Germany was one of the better places to be a Jew. The Nazis were certainly horrible, but they were kicked out over 60 years ago. In modern Germany anti-Semitism is totally in disfavor. There are of course a few individuals left, but they are effectively opposed both by cultural leaders and the law—indeed Holocaust deniers are subject to jail. The attitude of modern Germans is shown by the fact that they chose Einstein as #10 in a list of the greatest Germans—ahead of #12 Beethoven and #20 Mozart. Marx, another German Jew, was #3. I think that’s a great development!

Well, this is really not a serious one...:-) (you acctually made me laugh-a little step for the man agreat one to the humanity)..every one will be happy to say that Einstein is more related to them (including me, i admit) acctually there are many peopole which try to denay the Jewishness of several great figurs for anti semic reasons and to claim, lets say, that they were German-it have nothing with tolernce, acctually -one of the most common explantions to the Jews hatred in Germany due the 30' of the 20 centurie (but i dont agree with it-it is too superficial explanation) was the great sucsess of the Jews after they get eqallity -so,to say that a great Jewish person was really great but lets dont remanid that he was a Jew -is not serious.More,even if one great person would convert to judaism, than i agree with you that culturly he became to be a fuly cultural Jewish (like one scandinavic who recive the Nobel Prizer for medicine at the 70' and which his name i forgot,did) but when i will tell peopole that he was an ethnic Jew i missleading them since they are really asking :what was the historical group for which he was born.and allow me to be sceptical about the anti semic views in Germany,the histoy shows countless times that anti semiti is very prefound with in the European culture at general and at the German society at part.This is another explenation for my claming that Einstein wanst cultural German in the same aspect in which non-Jewish German wa, because there must been something very wrong within the culture that made the holocaust, and its not like the Nazis came out of no where, like many German intellectuals claim. You can argue against it as much as you like, for me (and for many Jews ) this is a fact.Best--Gilisa 11:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I’m curious: What is your take on Hans Albert Einstein. His mother was not Jewish; so according to Halakhah, he would not be Jewish either. But I suspect you would say he was half-Jewish, which would be in disagreement with what a lot of Jews would say. (As far as I am concerned, he was Swiss.)
 * --teb728 00:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You are totaly wrong... I would say that he is not a Jewish (So im saying about Garry Kasparov which said that he is a Jew when he been at Israel ;but i also think that any one which is from amix origin is not easily to define-no matter from which side his mother was) -but i would understand if he would seen himself as one (since one cant allways ignore his ancestors history so easily;and it even will confuse me) and the Halahhah (הלכה) would said that he is not a Jew but as he is a son of a Jew the convertion process (Giur גיור), which is a long one (1-4 years or even more,depend on several varibales -the most important is how much you convinced the rabbies that you are willing and want to be a Jew and that it dont realated to any hiden interst of yours) should be considerbly easier for him (few month usually) and with out checking his intentions seriously as he calld "one who return to the tradition of his ancestors" (שב לדרכי אבותיו) .But can you explain me please why did you ask this?.Best--Gilisa 10:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And im storngly dissagree with what you just have wrote "Jews were persecuted not for their “different ethnic origin” but for their ethnic separation, which is quite a different thing" this is not a strate forword answer ..if you are claiming the the culture is what define ethnicity than  persecution of someone for his "ethnic separation" is similar to saying that they were persecuted for his culture i.e for what you define as ones ethnicity (and that what make a lot of Jews to run a way from their own ethnic identity) but any way, the Germans never saw the Jews which live aside them as beeing from the "same family".More , you might dont know it but Jews were described as having different physical appearence long before tha Nazis (acctually there are alot of paintings (very important ones) that describe the big nose ,dark hair and other Jewish stereotypic features at the 12 A.C or even earlier).Due the 19 A.C. jew which convert to christianity was considerd as christian -Jew in distinction from any other no Jewish chrisitan.Any way , i dont accept your claim that the persecution of Jews was only for their heavy unforgiven sin of beeing different in their culture as there is no other minority in Europe that have to handle with the same extant of persecutions, it seems that the different costums and belives was only the exuse many times (Jews were described as a femainen peopole or as having bad traits (with which they were born) as early as the first milenia).Even in a very secular countries (like the USSR) antisemti took amajor part and in the very secular Europe of now days -it is not hard to find anti semtic views which have nothing to do with different culture (or even with different race). it is only paritally answer, i will get into detalis in the next coming days.Best--Gilisa 10:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Last questions (and last for today i hope): you wrote that some one who keep the Jewish tradition and didnt assimalite is not an ethnic German (sorry for the bad English for all the comments, i just writing too fast) , what does it means? that he is not part of the local society? i.e-if i was born to an immegrate family in UK but im taking the British culture as arole model but im aloyal citizen-can i call to myself "British" ?(i would say :"hell, yes").but does it will change my ethnicity ? and how does Jewish with culturly is totaly a German (i.e dont even want to consider himself as a Jew- it can happend where ever the Jews are under heavy prushers from the hosting culture) but his ethnic origin, of course , is Jewish -how come that "practising" the gentile culture will make his ethnicity to be the gentile (i.e ethnicity referd to an ethnic member which keeping the tradition/culture of his ansectors otherwise is only an assimilate human).

And more, i ask you to explain why you are saying :" did he say that maybe he was not a German any more" or "einstein was ageramn apart from the 15 years of the nazis regim". 1)Einstein said clearly that he is not longer a german (and as i told you he said about Jewishness that a Jew will allways stay a Jew even if married a gentile woman for example -something that he never said about his German-ness) 2)Even after the fall of the 3 reich Einstein never cited as saying that he is a German again, not after one third of his own peopole were killed by the Germans, it not only a poor mistake.--Gilisa 15:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

comment to your comments
I will discuss with you later-as the corresponds take alot of time from me and i prefer to explain it in one or two comments insted of writing many .More,might be that my long writing make you think that im hungry or so, but i realy have hard time with english (i have a love-hate realtions with this language ,and i also know hebrew,arabic and spanish-but in a native speaker level and not on a poor level like in english) and as i want my ideas to be clear-i need to use many words.but it seems that you didnt understand me at least in part of my arguments.i will discuss you later.--Gilisa 10:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You’re fluent three languages? Wow! I have enough trouble with one. I don’t think you need many words to make your ideas clear: I find that many words make your ideas less clear. For example, I got the mistaken notion that you were talking about race from the quote on the ethnogenesis of the Germanic tribes in your first post. --teb728 02:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I made some very short, unfocusd ,comments on my tallk page-to you and to otterpops..--Gilisa 10:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

for the meanwhile you might used this definition of ethnicity as it appeard at Wikipedia "ethnic" article-basicly, thats what i consider as going well with my notion of ethnicity : '' "An ethnic group or ethnicity is a population of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry (Smith 1987). Recognition by others as a distinct ethnic group is often a contributing factor to developing this bond of identification. [1] Ethnic groups are also often  united by common cultural, behavioural, linguistic, ritualistic, or religious traits. [2] Processes that result in the emergence of such identification are summarized as ethnogenesis..." ''--Gilisa 15:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that this definition supports your notion of ethnicity, but it also supports mine. And the same could be said of the Webster's dictionary definition on your talk page. --teb728 02:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok,we will continue our corresponding as we both have time.Any way, i think that this definition only support mine , cause it is widely accepted that Jews and Germans dont share the same genealogy or ancestry (and it is not the racial matter that important here even if you can find such a differnce as a result of a different history) and commonly peopole dont consider "German born Jew/converted Jew and etc" and achristian/non relligious German to be from the same ethnic group.More, common culture only make the ethnic realtions which are allready exist to be stronger , but it can make an ethnic group only trough along process of "ethnogensis" -something that never take place between Jews and Germans .acctually , apart from a very short period in history Jews were allways persecuted and discriminated and even today there is no consensus with in the german non-Jewish society about the notion of eqallity between Jews and Geramns (the last survey i saw 20% of the non-Jewish Germans defind themselves as anti-semic, 33% said that the Jews have to much world wide infulence , more then 50% claim that the memory of the holocaust is going too far end etc (i have more exampels if you are willing to hear).The German govrement ,which tried to rebuilt the Jewish community within Germany (so they have more Einstein,Marks and Heina as one minister said)consider,as far as i know, the Jews to be a sparte ethnic group-and for me this is very right thing to do :from the factual percpective as well as from the humaneness aspect.There are , however, peopole who see the Jews as sub-ethnic group with in any hosting country (i.e Iran for example consider the Jews live inside it to be from the very same ancestry of the other Iraninans many times and having only a different relligion (might be for a political reasons),this is ,of course-not true and the Jews of iran are highly dont accept such a claims) -this is happend sometimes when peopole fail to understand the Jewish history and think about Jewishness as merly a matter of relligion with no common genealogy. One paradox that i want to mention is the differnt ethnic idntity of Austrians and Germans (i.e -you may consider it as different) which acctually share very similare genealogy,culture and history and while many peopole of thus two nations consider themselves to be from one ethnic group (and claim that the separation between this nations is an historical error -they dont have to be Nazis for saying that)you will consider them, i assume, to be from a different ethnicity (i dont have a clear opinion for this dilemma)even though they are much similar in any aspect to the Germans and vise versa than the Jews.Will give you a better comment later on,Best wishes--Gilisa 08:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you get tired from our corresponding, so -if you have no objection ofcourse -can i delete all of my comments on this page,at least? (since i made them to long and with bad english - and i also guess that you would prefer it to be done (correct me if im worng)) Best--Gilisa 06:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don’t get tired of corresponding with you, for I have enjoyed it (even though it is sometimes frustrating), and I want to continue it when I have the time. But I do get tired from it, for you make me think hard about what I think and how to express myself (but that’s a good kind of tired). [There is a little lesson in English idioms there.] Per your suggestion I have deleted the posts about resolved issues. And I have finally completed my reply to your March 16 post above. --teb728 02:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I am a German Jews, Yeddish to be Correct Like Albert, I discovered a very strong light source mid 1996 which I call lazer Canon !!! For the rest you can understand for yourself. The Project are savely locked up ! Two Yeddish created two destructive weapons in a short time ... what would be the next discovery ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmhrae (talk • contribs) 14:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi TEB :)
This is a great resource site for the history section of Assassins (which is looking pretty thin, to tell the truth) - did you put it into the article? I just logged on and I'm only on my second cup of coffee for the morning so I haven't looked at any articles at all yet. Regarding "book", there really is a literal book, available on Amazon.com. Amazon lets you read the first chapter and it looks like a script modified for easy reading while preserving the sense of reading a play.

Otterpops (coy) "Are you following me?"

Now I have to go back to Einstein to eat my hat, drat!

~ Otterpops 17:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The script sold on Amazon.com is not as modified as you seem to think. It looks pretty much like any script I have ever seen. The only things at Amazon.com that I would not expect in any script are the fancy hard covers, library indexing information on the copyright page, a preface, and maybe a more attractive typography. When you say “modified for easy reading” you might be referring to the stage directions, but stage directions are always included in a modern script. (If you wanted to do a production of Assassins and ordered a perusal script from Music Theatre International, it would include the same stage directions.) If on the other hand you are referring to the typography, yes, that is different from some scripts; some scripts (including probably the MTI script) are distributed as typewritten manuscripts. --teb728 22:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Einstein article
The article is not vandalized more than most other major articles, and it heavily watched and quickly reverted, as the history shows. I think with articles like this, which really do need a lot of work done to them, everything should be done to facilitate editing. The article's biggest problems have nothing to do with an excess of (vandalistic) editing, but are instead related to a lack of editing in general. In any case semi-protects should be reserved for small periods of sustained vandalism, not generally applied, at least in my understanding of the protection policy. --Fastfission 12:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * ('snork!') 11 vandalisms in the last 5 hours! Gee, I'll have to put the other major articles on my watchlist.   ;-)   Shenme 01:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is where (and how) to comment on vandalism. --teb728 06:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'll have to watch that for awhile and see what levels of vandalism they think warrants what levels of protection.  Shenme 22:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The levels of protection are not generally for different levels of vandalism. Rather semi-protection, which block editing by anons, is for vandalism by anons. Full protection, which allows editing only by admins, is for edit wars (or for high visibility pages or templates). With regard to semi-protection: I would expect them to protect if there are like 15 attacks a day from several IPs. (If it’s mostly one or two IPs, they will prefer to block the IPs. That’s why I mentioned that there were 8 different attacking IPs.) --teb728 22:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Thanks Teb for the holiday wishes, that wasn't directed personally at you, (though you did say you weren't going to bring the issue of the Jewish part up again,) rather, at the past disscusions and polls on this topic for this page. I am fine with German ethnicity being there, I can agree with both sides on the coin, it might be confusing to just have his Jewish ethnicity on the page. But I'm not particularly concerned based on the repeated mentions of his "Germanness" right in the first bit (3 actually even without the ethnicity one), though I wrote that all on the page. Epson291 23:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh and as for past disccussions, you would have to go back and read them, there have been several comments to limit and negate it. Claims for instance that come to mind, I cannot remember who but feel free to look, such as equating the Jewish nation with the religion of Judiasm, which of course is not the same. (And since Einstein only nominally if at all practiced Judaism, that he isn't really a Jew, that sort of rubbish.) Also commments that he is a German, and that is the only thing important, (again since he was not religious) or on the flip side of the coin, claiming that the Jewish is equilvent to something like "African American" and that Jews are simply an ethnic minoirty in a country, which of course if far from the truth, especially for Jews in that period of time. Anyways, that what my comments stem from. Epson291 00:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks
Thnaks for your kind comments on my talk page.I might use some help later on, for now my user page is not of immediate importance.Best,--Gilisa 10:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Albert Einstein in popular culture
Hi TEB728. You are off to such a great start on the article Albert Einstein in popular culture that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day and appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Also, don't forget to keep checking back at Did you know suggestions for comments regarding your nomination. Again, great job on the article. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 20:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Overlinking

 * Cheers for pointing that out. I seem to take spontaneous interest in articles with no relevance but I will be sure to stick to the guidelines in future (I hadn't read that section). Bamkin 12:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Vossstrasse
I find your argument interesting. If you can reach consensus on that ground, fine. I would phrase it differently: we should spell as English does. We should not use long ʃ, because English no longer does. We should not use ʃs, for the same reason; and we should use ß only where it is predominant usage in English. I'm not sure how much this is operational disagreement. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment; I will consider whether I am being too forcible. I should note that the closing admin expressly found that I had not violated 3RR; and that Komusou was irascible and abusive before I arrived at the article, and on cases, like this, which have nothing to do with me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Albert Einstein
Thank you for your input Dustihowe 16:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

For your protection
of my (I just feel that way) article on the Home Building Association Company from the long arm of Michael Jackson and his cohorts, you have earned the seldom coveted Thumbs Up Award.  Congratulations. Einar aka Carptrash 23:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you for your help and contributions to my ISSCH page. Do you have any suggestions as far as other info that can go on this page. And FYI ISSCH is not the name of the school there. ISSCH's school is called Morton Memorial

Dustihowe 16:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC) (This message is copied from a page that someone mistakenly created; I found this when checking Special:Newpages. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

I apologize for the above mistake, thank you for your last comment on my page, and the "resolution", do you always treat community members like this? Dustihowe 17:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, yes and no. I treat you like anyone else in the sense that if I don’t like a change someone is trying to put in an article, I try to persuade them. But I noticed that you were a newcomer and that you could use some help. So I fixed an Image reference on your talk page and fixed up your ISSCH page into a decent stub. That, I guess, is not something I ordinarily do. You seem like someone who will become a really good Wikipedian. Welcome to Wikipedia. --teb728 02:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Cultural Zionism
It doesn't really have a whole lot to do with Judaism. Ahad Ha’am, like many of Israels founders were born into a religious family but abandoned it. There are really three types of Zionism, Socialist Zionism, Cultural Zionism and Religious Zionism. Cultural Zionism would be in the middle, but really what he was trying to do is create a sort of secular Judaism if you will, where as the Socialist Zionism had complete socialist, views, so much so most kibutzim had no synagogues for prayer. Religious Zionism came later, (especially after the Holocaust), and thats the Zionism which uses Judaism as a justification for Israel, (e.g. That the land was given to the Jewish people by G-d, that it will bring about the Messiah, etc...). So cultural Zionism is really focussed on the revival and speaking of Hebrew, Jewish culture, and the settling of Israel. I googled an article, and here's one from the Jewish Agency], but basically the Wikipieda article on it is poorly written. Epson291 21:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Ooo, I've never had the opportunity to use interwiki links before, and didn't know about them! Thanks very much. TriNotch 01:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Response

 * I'm sorry, I must have made a mistake when posting the template about an AIV report on your talk page. I skimmed over the text and missed the part of 'may be blocked'. The way that some users told me was that a uw-vandalism4 or uw-vandalism4im is a final warning and that the uw-vandalism3 is just the level before. In this case, since the user made continuous acts of vandalism after the warning, they were appropriately blocked. Sorry for any confusion, and happy editing! Icestorm815 22:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Usernames
Thanks for your note. Per WP:UN, prohibited usernames include "Promotional usernames: Usernames that match the name of a company or group, especially if the user promotes it." (It's about in the middle of the page.) --  But | seriously | folks   09:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Wmhrae 14:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There's nothing ambiguous about "usernames that match the name of a company".  --  But | seriously | folks   21:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If the user requests that the name be unblocked on the basis that her given name is "Dianes" and her surname is "Jewelry", or that she was just talking about her private collection of necklaces, we can have that discussion. Until then, I think there are bigger things to worry about here at the ol' Wikipedia. --  But | seriously | folks   02:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Erudecorp
I've replied to your comment on my talk page. Go there if you feel like continuing the discussion. -- VegitaU 20:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

word
thanks for the help with my copyright infraction :) -joshuatrees- 19:25 GMT 16 November 2007

Regarding your reply to my Media Copyright Question
Firstly, thanks for your comment. The second image that you can't make out has a larger version here (my drawings is pretty much an exact copy of a TV screenshot of those seemingly throw-away props, if that helps). And I feel I need to check whether I got your comment right: "I’m not sure if your first image is new, but it does seem to have achieved inapplicability" means that you think my GDFL license seems alright, right? I just want to prevent that someone deletes these images as not properly tagged in a few months/years when I may no longer be an active wikipedian... – sgeureka t•c 23:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I get it now. Thanks. – sgeureka t•c 00:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks
i just copied that into the image description... hope that works Iamandrewrice (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

World Record Club image
Thanks for your message. I have imported an appropriate template following your advice, but I can't pretend to understand how to enter the name of the article in it. The 'Article' line that appears in the template when it is shown on screen (as it finally appears) doesn't seem to exist inside the template when one is writing in it. I confess this has blown a gasket in my html skills! Can you advise? Cheers, Sedgefoot 00:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thankyou very much, that seems extraordinarily simple by comparison! Sedgefoot 12:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Accidental deletion
Oops! Thanks for cleaning that up for me. east. 718 at 21:33, December 23, 2007

Thanks for the help
In the alternative, could I simply create a similar chart with the same data and cite it back to the website? --Kallahan (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for help
Thanks for help on the image, I wasn't sure how to go about setting that up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M1rth (talk • contribs) 06:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Logos
Yes it is. Logos are fair use by itself and I have discussed that before with even the bot owner accepting that it commits that kind of errors. So please stop promoting copyright paranoia without fundamentals.

The tag was removed appropiately. The bot is blind and you seem equally so. --Sugaar (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ut clearly reads: "This is a logo of an organization, item, or event, and is protected by copyright and/or trademark. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, of logos for certain uses involving identification and critical commentary may qualify as fair use under United States copyright law".

Fair use. You are not a bot: you can read!

Anyhow, the party is now illegal. No legal entity has any copyright anymore. But this is not the issue in any case. --Sugaar (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, if you think it requires a rationale, you may add it yourself (use your brain!). I am not going to cooperate with that corporation-promoted copyright idiocy. If you want to delete all images and leave Wikeipedia blank, it's your problem and that of those silly bots.
 * Why not dedicate your energies to improve the encyclopedia and not to sabotage the efforts of others on blatantly corporativist concepts that help nothing to Wikipedia? --Sugaar (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank You
Thanks for sorting out the Image: Green Wing (Series 1).ogg file, had no idea what I was doing! Cheers londonsista  | Prod  00:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

On Einstein
Dear TEB, nothing what I said was meant to be personal and I apologise if my statements have been perceived differently. It is however an undeniable fact that you destroyed my contribution which was well-thought-of and to my best judgement amounted to a positive, even though modest, contribution to the biography. --BF 23:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me guess
An educated guess, you did not bother to read through the entire context of the whole page which are in question by "user:Mil" before applying those rules as they were, right? oh btw, you did bother to read the problem from the start and not just came in the middle of this issue, did you? Tell me something you did not miss then I might just keep the lid on. --Dave1185 (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that when you are emotionally upset that you should take time to cool off. That way you won't make a fool of yourself with an irrelevant rant. —teb728 t c 08:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you do not want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message on my talk page. Happy editing! Malinaccier (talk) 02:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback can only be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback may be removed at any time.
 * Thanks. —teb728 t c 02:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Helpdesk
It appears that a help desk request you submitted has been answered. Please take a moment a view the reply over there - if this doesn't quite help you, please feel free to ask for more information or clarification.Tiggerjay (talk) 05:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:John C. Huang
Some additions have been posted over at the MfD that you may be interested in. Tiggerjay (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

On sharon johnston
On sharon johnston: A big thank you for your help. I am learning Wiki and many pages are unclear as to what they mean when they say they need something like a citation, reference or cleaning up. Appreciate your knowing what was needing and assisting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ImN2Fun2 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

John C Huang
Hi TEB I have recently become aware of John's original research posting on wikipedia. I have made contact with him in hopes I can get to become a more contributing member of the site. I saw your posting on his site and since it seems you have also talked to him if you had any insights. If you could message me on my talk page with advice I would be most appreciative. Thanks Skeletor 0 (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure what aspect of Huang you want me to comment on; so let me answer generally: It seems he has his own take on the Lorentz transformation and the Michelson-Morley experiment. At first he tried posting it in articles. When that was reverted, he tried posting it in article talk pages and at least one user’s user page. When you offered to explain the rules to him, he misunderstood and took that as an offer to discuss his theory on your user talk page.
 * At that point I left him a message that there is no place for his theory on Wikipedia. As I wrote that, it occurred to me that the presence of his theory on his user page negated what I was saying. So I proposed his user page for deletion. (Ordinarily I would accept almost anything someone puts on their user page.) Although my MfD got no support, Huang posted there agreeing to post his theory only on his user page until he gets it published (presumably coincident with hell freezing over).
 * I suspect his only interest in Wikipedia is as forum for his theory. I hope I am wrong. I think it is a mistake for you to try to discuss the merits of his theory with him. —teb728 t c 19:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping to show him that his theory was in error and that when he realized this he would stop. However it seems that he takes no interest in anything disputing his theory or anything I have to say about what Wiki is about. I will continue to talk to him but you are right, there is no future in discussing his theories since I have already disproved them and he is unwilling to listen. Thanks for your reply.Skeletor 0 (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou.
Hello User:TEB728,

Many thanks for the very good advice, I absolutely agree. I have had moments when I was going to dump wiki after being constantly attacked by just 2 editors who obviously have it over me due to experience. I still support the wiki concept, but I have noticed the lack of admin direction. Why should the average user be subjected to a battlefield. I still cannot see how anyone can get anything done when just one aggressive user (ScienceApologist) See with track record just run the page ragged with reverts and mass edits.

However, I agree with your assessment, I have been trying to be wiki, informative and pleasant... but I have had some dummy spits.

Again, many thanks for you warm and caring advice.

My very best regards to you. Vufors (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions
If you have some time, there are a few questions at Media copyright questions that need attention (including mine). Thanks. Bebestbe (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
TEB728, I appreciate your remarks and sentiments. You subscribe to the views upon which Wikipedia was founded, and made it great, i.e. mutual respect, assuming good faith, etc. Wikipedia's been invaded and overrun with trolls of every stripe, and I simply have just blown a microchip or two obviously about the whole thing. I'll try my best to take your advice, but in the real world, I don't take shit off anyone, nor do I in the virtual world either. We'll see what happens. Best regards, Googie man (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Persistence
Good on you TEB728 for helping me through this dizzying array of particulars. I'll finish tagging the remainder of the images. Newportm (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

OH FUCK
Well spotted. And no, that's not intentional. That's what you get when you use copypasta when you're not paying attention.... Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 08:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Help page
Good catch on that. I don't get involved in deletions, but that article really has to go. Mjpresson (talk) 02:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you mean Ray Liversidge, probably so. I hope my questions will help them understand that. —teb728 t c 02:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Magazine covers
I think I am perfectly well versed in the policies and I find it odd that just because I have a different view from you I must not get it. I always find that to be the most obnoxious way of making a comment (in case you are seeking ways to improve your communication skills). There is currently a debate about the appropriateness of these images and while you added your comment I would say there is no concensus one way or the other - there are plenty of folks who have taken my side on this.

I think Michael Milken's famous cover (and at least in my area it is well known) from the cover of Time is perfectly legitimate under fair use rules in articles about the collapse of the junk bond market in the early 1990s. There is a perfectly good picture of Michael Milken that I do use to show who he is -- the purpose of this cover is separate from that. Similarly Henry Kravis and George Roberts were put on the cover of Fortune right at the peak of the LBO boom in 1989.

This is all discussed in the text of the articles and the captions of the pictures. I think the OJ Simpson cover that you cited is a perfectly good example. How is that more relevant to an article about OJ Simpson than the Milken cover is to an article about the history of private equity. There are tons of magazine covers and I looked carefully at their usage and the usage of these covers is consistent with the vast majority of the covers used on wikipedia in compliance with the policies and precedent on the application of the policies. If you want additional article content about the cover that is fine but I think the rationale is well established in the content that already exists.

Finally, I am not sure why on an article that reviewed and was passed for good article status without any objections to the magazine covers which were all in place, that suddenly this has become a major issue. You are detracting from the content of the article by removing images that indicate the level of public awareness and public reaction to the private equity industry. It is situations like this that just frustrate me on Wikipedia. |► ϋrban яenewaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 02:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am truly sorry if you were offended by my guess that you were unfamiliar with WP:NFCC. (Is my change on your talk page better?) But now I am confused: If you were indeed familiar with WP:NFCC, why did you add Image:BoonePickens.jpg (for example) to articles for which there is no attempt at a non-free use rationale on the image description page? Whether an image use qualifies under WP:NFCC is to some extent a matter of opinion, but it is an undeniable fact that this image has no attempt at a non-free use rationale on the image description page for any article but T. Boone Pickens, Jr.
 * The O.J. Simpson cover is not relevant to an article on O.J. Simpson: It has a non-free use rationale only for Photo manipulation, and indeed it is used only there. Its use there significantly increases readers’ understanding of photo manipulation because it shows in a way that words alone could not how TIME manipulated the photo. In contrast, the caption of the Milken image on the history of private equity article says, “Milken's insider trading scandal, which brought on the collapse of Drexel Burnham Lambert [was] referenced on the cover of TIME Magazine.” This text is perfectly understandable without the image. (And there is no attempt at a non-free use rationale for any article except Michael Milken.)
 * The IfD discussions are not majority votes. The closing admin will not be swayed by the fact that some people agree with you. The images are certain to be deleted unless someone comes up with a better argument for keeping them than has been offered so far—one that shows that they significantly increases readers’ understanding of the articles. —teb728 t c 08:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Since I posted that, someone has added a use rationale for the Milken image on Private equity. —teb728 t c 08:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

POV, discussion, reference
I am sorry but you have failed to establish your reasoning in the apropriate manner. I am refering to your recent edits on English language. I suggest that if you wish to control the manner of this article, you do so correctly. Asserting yourself without reference will not be sufficient. I hope you can establish your ideas because I for one am most intrigued. ~ R . T . G  15:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually TEB728 acted entirely appropriately in the framework of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You were bold, he reverted, now the next step is discussion. But not here, with accusations of "failing to establish one's reasoning" and "asserting oneself without reference", but rather at Talk:English language while carefully remembering to be civil. —Angr 15:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Quote the guideline page you provided:


 * 1) BE BOLD, and make what you currently believe to be the optimal change. (any change will do, but it is easier and wiser to proceed based on your best effort.)
 * 2) Wait until someone reverts (or modifies) your edit.
 * 3) You have now discovered a Most Interested Person. Discuss the changes you would like to make with this person, and reach a compromise.


 * this person has avoided discussion with me therefore should not be in the loop. If you wish to community me out (civil? what?), feel free as is your privelidge. I saw a discrepancy and fixed it. I doubt I appear in any way incorrect. Good luck ~ R . T . G  18:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * He hasn't even been on Wikipedia since he reverted you, you can't say he's "avoided discussion" with you. If you read his edit summary in the revert, you'll see the issue is not that the info you added is incorrect, or unsourced, but merely that it is too detailed and too historical for the lead section of the article about the English language. The information would fit better in a paragraph in the article History of the English language. —Angr 18:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I queried TEB728 already and he answered me in part but deleted the section from this page. ~ R . T . G  22:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn’t reply until now because I have been away from my computer for almost three days. As for deletion, I replied to your previous post because I felt I owed you an explanation of why I had reverted your original edit; I deleted the section because you replied argumentatively, and I had no interest in discussing it further with you. On second thought I probably should have replied instead that I agreed with your stated intent to discuss your change on the article talk page. You really should have gone there in the first place. As you can see on the article talk page, I am not the only one who dislikes your change. —teb728 t c 01:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

So return the full content of this page without any alterations. In fact it is unusual and quite incivil to delete. I still haven't made a check of the guidelines on deleting stuff but I am almost sure I have seen deleting stuff to be questionable before. I suggest, if you wish not to comment with me you should state that and leave a record of the full text for all to see right here where it belongs. Why not? ~ R . T . G  19:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You are looking for the 8th bullet at WP:TPG. I normally keep and ultimately archive posts on this page; I only delete sections as a sign that I have no interest in discussing a topic further. —teb728 t c 19:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I was thinking more along the lines of the 8th bullet of Etiquette but it seems you are prepared to discuss the matter on the article page now. ~ R . T . G  01:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No thanks
Nah. I've already uploaded a pic. THX anyway.

--Blacky98 (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Puzl jdg.gif
Thanks for your message. Please see Image_talk:Puzl_jdg.gif. Cheers, --Edcolins (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Email
I sent you an email Deadstar (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Einstein (reply)
It wasn't vandalism actually, I removed 2 template inclusions. One of them was causing vandalism to be included (although I just looked at the previous revision now, and it no longer appears to be there, so it can be re-added), I was a bit confused why the vandalism was showing up, and found it must have been via the template. The other template (notable teachers/students) just didn't seem to make sense where it was, so I just pulled it out while trying to fix the vandalism. If you think it should be there, let me know, and I'll self-revert. -Freqsh0 (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You even...
Placed the afd3 (which I discovered when I went to today's log to place). Thanks!--71.247.123.9 (talk) 06:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Help desk post clarification
You apparently didn't notice when your posted you clarification to my post on the "deleted" redirected articles, but I provided a full statement of the likely reason they were redirected and links to the specific section of the notability guidelines. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I did notice; that's where I got my info from. I understood you, but I imagine the OP did not. The OP asked why his articles had been deleted. The reason why they were deleted (technically redirected) was that they were not notable. I restated your reply it a way that I imagined would be more understandable to the OP. —teb728 t c 10:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, with respect to the "Relentless" article, because of the page moves and deletion of the redirects, it is unlikely anyone but an experienced user would know the article wasn't simply deleted. Second, many, many users do not know what redirects are and when they try to access a redirected article and get taken to the redirected page, they are completely unaware of where the article is—how to access it; that it's available in the article history, etc. and actually think it is, in fact, deleted. The link to the redirect process page I provided informs them of what a redirect is; how to access it; reverse it, that the page is it's still available. That's why the link to WP:REDIRECT is such vital information and why explaining that the articles weren't actually deleted was perfectly on point. Yet, you are "sure that is not what [the user] wanted to know"? Your assumption could be correct, in this instance, but is false in general. As far as I can tell, all you did was disparage my post and then redundantly echo what I had already said at the end.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you felt my post disparaged yours. My intent was not to disparage your post but to expand on it: First, I wanted to tell the OP that his text was still there and give an example link to the history. (You didn’t say that, and as nearly as I can tell WP:REDIRECT doesn’t say it either. And without knowing that the articles are effectively deleted.) And secondly, I wanted to say directly that the problem was notability. (You linked to WP:NSONG, which says that, but I think the Help desk reply needs to say it directly, for it is the answer to the OP’s actual question. So I disagree with your calling it redundant. Your reply was also in a very formal register.)
 * I am frankly surprised that you took offense at my post. You quote my sentence, “I’m sure that is not what you wanted to know.” Is that what you found offensive? I don’t understand how you could take that as disparaging your post: It doesn’t even refer to your post but to the first part of mine. It was simply a transition between the two things that I wanted to add to your post.
 * Could you suggest a way that I could have expressed the two things without giving offense? —teb728 t c 05:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep it classy
What nonsense are you talking about?

File:TikiTag Reader and Tags.jpg
Hi - Thanks for the help. I cropped the image down to a more manageable size and noted that in the usage info box. I currently don't have a TikiTag reader, but I am getting one, and I noticed that there wasn't a Wikipedia article on it so I wanted to go ahead and try to create my first article. Thanks. --Christopher Kraus (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If I want to replace this image with my own, what do I do to this image?--Christopher Kraus (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Christopher, I'm sorry I didn't reply sooner. If I had, I would have said the easiest thing was to do nothing and let image be deleted as replaceable. I see that is what you did. —teb728 t c 23:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

United National Gridiron League
I found that information posted in the discussion section of that article, and I did not know that was on the web site, so I just removed it from the discussion page, and put it in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearsfan1234 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, so I now see. So it came originally from an anonymous editor. I recognised it a probable copyright violation from the unencyclopedic style of the text. —teb728 t c 03:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

So... what do I (or someone else) do about the copyright infringement sign... Can I remove it since this issue has been resolved to my understanding...? Bearsfan1234 (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don’t know how to reply. What certainly should have been done ultimately is for someone to remove the template and the offending text. I see that you have done that. But I couldn’t have advised it because the template said not to edit the page. —teb728 t c 23:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Banknote copyright
I have started a discussion on this issue at meta. Babakathy (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of Language
Concerning your recent edit to the Adoption article, the use of the AnneDVD photo is very much in keeping with the Adoption article. The book and movie about Anne of Green Gables has significantly shaped the public perception of adoption. Nevertheless, you wrote that the "non-fair use rationale" for the AnneDVD file is "completely bogus." Although this language is uncivil and not in keeping with Wikipedia policy, I thought that since you are very involved with Wikipedia copyright issues, perhaps you could help. The problem I encountered with the AnneDVD "non-fair use rationale" was that it is impossible to find a "non-fair use rationale" table that could be modified; I was forced to copy the original one for the main Anne of Green Gables page, almost verbatim. I had hoped someone would spot the problem and try to help fix it rather than simply making assumptions.Tobit2 (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason I wrote that the rational was "completely bogus" was that it said the image was used in the infobox, which was false; that there was critical commentary on it, which was false; and that it added to the understanding of the article, which was false. In principal you could have written your own Purpose by filling in the Purpose parameter of the film cover fur, but there is no valid purpose for using this image on the article. Notice that the Non-free video cover tag justifies use of a video cover only for an article on the video in question. The remote connection to Adoption is not sufficient for use on the article; a non-free image may be used only if significantly adds to readers’ understanding of the article. —teb728 t c 03:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I experimented a bit and found that the Purpose parameter does not do as much as I thought it did: It adds text to the middle of the Purpose section. But you can't avoid the text, "The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone." But that purpose is essential to any non-free use rationale, and it is something that the use of File:Anne dvd.jpg on Adoption inherently fails. —teb728 t c 04:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for looking into this. I appreciate the help.  I disagree, however, that the image fails the test for NFU.  The image is used in the subsection called, "public perception of adoption" and it is in this section where the image adds value; the movie has been one of primary drivers of of public perception at least in the US and Canada.Tobit2 (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the movie is pertinent to adoption. But the relevance of the movie to adoption can be explained without using the image. A non-free image may be used only if its omission would be detrimental to understanding the article. —teb728 t c 07:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Editing advice
Thanks bud, you rock. I've been wondering that for years. Baiter (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Irish republic
Hi TEB, the statistic lower down the page is specifically related to the republic. As for official names, you don't know what you are talking about... The Irish government does not refer to themselves as the gorvenment of "the republic". "Ireland" is an island and the state refers to that. If you want to talk about the republic, it is the republic. Again, the official name of the country south and west of the border is "The Republic of Ireland". The government does business as "Ireland" and they do not mean "Republic only". ~ R . T . G  09:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And, another edit you reverted was that "English originated in Anglo-Saxon Britain" (in the days when there was no "England".) That is correct. ~ R . T . G  09:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please discuss article content on the article talk page. That way other editors are involved. —teb728 t c 09:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Where are you from, TEB728? ~ R . T . G  11:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I was born and raised in the US. In case you are interested in other background: My parents and grandparents were also born and raised in the US. One great-grandfather came from Ireland; four of my other great-grandparents are of English background. I have no agenda about Irish politics; I don’t identify with any side.
 * Most of what I know about recent Irish history comes from the lead and “Name” sections of the Republic of Ireland article and its sources. I first read from that article only in the last few days as a guide to how the English language article should refer to Ireland. (Beside that I am of course aware of the conflict in Northern Ireland; my position on that conflict is that I am pro-peace.)
 * Ah, this is interesting: I just now noticed and was unaware until today that there was an abortive historic entity called the “Irish Republic.” Any place I may have previously referred the “Irish republic” [note capitalization difference] it was a generic reference (with a common noun). Does that help clarify? —teb728 t c 23:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see on your user page that you are Irish. What part are you from? —teb728 t c 06:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am from Belfast but most of my life between north and south. I would identify with a lot, and think that Northern Ireland has a very desirable cultural identity all of its own regardless of Jesus (and regarding also!) or political governments and good stuff comes of the place often. I think that most people in the republic would support removing the border if people in Northern Ireland wanted to, and even if they didn't want that forced on anyone, thats nationalism in the most non-wingnut way. Anyway, being American I am sure you know that the Irish of any part can have national pride without being conquested by the British (or any stuff related to that). Theres been a lot of respected people from all over the island with their own merits, thankfully. You can hold an Irish passport and citizenship, recognised anywhere, no matter what part of the island you are from (or religion and politics so long as of Irish descent of some sort) and none of them say thats a bad thing. I think that goes some way to distinguish the different scope between the government and the republic. The republic is squared off but the government goes some way to be available beyond that but both are referred to as a State causing confusion. ~ R . T . G  01:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought about this, and could have said, I live and have done most my living, in argueabley, the most beautiful and temperate part of the island, with the oldest city, some of the least troubles, and a large chunk of history (is there any part of this island which does not have a nearby ancient or prehistoric relic? Here there are many), including the most world renowned artisan(ism?) and one of the strongest Gealtachts (they speak Irish first closeby and thats rare enough). If I threw stones from where I live, I believe that some would hit the sea although it is the most human-deadly sea area of Ireland. We have a bog that is still wet and a summer fairground around the corner. We have a river flowing through rolling green hills and a budding international airport. We host large biker festivals and historic ship shows. Once the chosen relocation point for the nation of Geneva (although they never came because the were not permitted to live outside the law), and an occasional site of the famous Irish four seasons in one day (mild mediterranean sun punctuated with skin stripping hail and snow). The destination of choice for old American grannies but also for young Spanish students. All modern amenity and convenience yet change as rapid as a dirt road farming village where little lambs can be seen on the road if you know where they live. Theres no dual carriageways but it's not a long way from Tipperary. Apparently the cheese around here is world famous and we get the accent from France. We are less than 40 miles long and 20 miles wide but fortified by Vikings, Normans and English and producing some good sport, never winning out, but always the winners. Home of the Deise (dayshah) ancient tribe. The Hilly Shore, where I am equally from ~ R . T . G  13:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Millenniumshakespeare‎
That user was blocked some time ago as a spamusername, for obvious reasons. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  21:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am aware of that. I'm not just sure what your point is, but the account owner seems to be monitoring the user talk page and the article as an anon. —teb728 t c 21:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Image:Colombianfestivaluk.jpg
Hi I noticed the messgae you left on my user talk page, to be honest I don't know anything about status of images on Wikipedia besides the ones I obviously made myself. The user on Flickr said to me: Now I know this means I can use it, but I have no idea about the codes to input on Wikipedia, or wether it would be best to get him to email Wikipedia himself? Thanks Stevvvv4444 t talk 17:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, No that would be no problem at all. Use as many as you would like. Let me know when you're done, would love to see it. Phil.

Your edit to Albert Einstein
This edit was probably well intentioned, but both parts broke things. Since I don't know what you intended, I reverted it to the previous working version. —teb728 t c 04:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. Sorry.  I got up to help with the children, came back and somehow this got saved before I was done with it.  I can't imagine how it happenned.  It should be ok now.  thanks for contacting me.  -J JMesserly (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Forgive me, TEB728, but I do not know why saying "Jewish parents" does not imply Jewish ethnicity. I was born to Irish parents - this makes me "Irish"  Bigweeboy (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I replied to your post on the article talk page. —teb728 t c 23:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question
You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names, a procedure has been developed at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Changes to Gurney Noman page
There are different issues here. There is personal information the subject wishes removed. How you give a citation for removal of personal information? Also, I tried leaving a message on the conflicting editor's talk page and the format came out strangely, in a dotted box with the sentences running horizontally across the page in a straight line. Thanks for any assistance. Spudsparo (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned Image
Why is this showing as orphaned when I used a ;&ltref&gt; tag in the beginning of the Fangface article to point to this item as a reference item to prove the information that I had commented on? Below is the content from the top of the article exactly as it is entered into an edit form.


 * In the episode Don't Abra When You Cadabra, it is revealed that Fangs has an uncle named Arnie and that he runs a video arcade called Arnie's Arcade.

Even though the links appear under the Notes area, the system is still flagging these two images as orphaned currently:

File:FangsUncleArnie.jpg << [1]

File:FangfaceArniesArcadeSign.jpg << [2]

I need to understand how to link to these two items as a reference without flagging the orphaned notice. Thanks.

Cringer (talk) 09:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC) to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

File:3 WOMEN & A CHATEAU.jpg
Sorry, when it comes to possible breaches of copyright we don't deal in credible assertions. The website displays a clear copyright notice, and the user has provided no evidence that he owns it, therefore it should be speedily deleted. If permission is later forthcoming, it can be undeleted. I am restoring the speedy tag. – ukexpat (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing AfD template
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Houston Voice. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message about, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it. Snotbot  t &bull; c &raquo;  11:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please revert yourself. If you had read my edit summary, you would have seen that I removed the AfD tag because that article was never nominated for deletion. The article nominated for deletion is Montrose Star, and Houston Voice was copied from Montrose Star AfD tag and all. —teb728 t c 11:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

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

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

thanks!!
Thank you for providing the citation example in the James Doolin article I am working on. I really appreciate it! :D Norlns22 (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

So it's ok to upload that image right?
Do I have to do something special? Glock17gen4 (talk) 09:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * An FBI mugshot would have been OK, but I can't think of any reason to think an Oregon mugshot would be OK. —teb728 t c 23:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Uploading Flickr images
I noticed this edit on WP:MCQ but if you are not familiar with it I suggest using the Flickr upload bot which makes life rather easy for this purpose. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 04:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that? —teb728 t c 04:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a few other useful tools linked on my commons user page you may not know about. ww2censor (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note
No doubt, User:CatWizard777 is feeling frustrated. His edit history shows him as being on board since 2009, but his arguments are those of a newb. I left him a message which hopefuly clarifies a bit. If he asks for userfication, he'll get it... and lots of advice... but that article is not going back to mainspace unless and until the topic meets criteria.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Help desk
Thanks for that but it was that was asking the question. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, thanks for pointing that out. —teb728 t c

Image of Underworld (film series)
I discovered that you previously attempted to replace the DVD cover with your own image. I don't know what yours is, but I replaced the DVD cover with the franchise's logo, hopefully that should be fine.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You misread the history: I reverted an anon's attempt to replace the DVD cover. —teb728 t c 09:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So it is okay to replace the DVD cover with the franchise's logo? The reason I replaced the DVD cover with it is because the DVD covers only composed the images of the first three films, and now that there is a fourth, I believe that it should be a logo in its place due to there's gonna be more films before it ends.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I actually have no interest in the article. An anon had posted a question at WP:NCHQ; I checked what he was doing and noticed he needed to be reverted. —teb728 t c 19:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In other words, I guess what you are trying to say he's been vandalizing.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, he was just clueless. He may have been trying to do the sort of thing you did. But he didn't know how (and as an anon couldn't upload anyway). —teb728 t c 20:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

GESTR ROOMS
Good Day! Hi, Need your help to Requests for undeletion for GESTR ROOMS Sra30 (talk) 13:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)