User talk:Tzadikv

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 23:30, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Image Copyright
I noticed you uploaded Image:Shul.jpg and Image:RabbiGoldberger.jpg.I wondered if you could elaborate on the source and copyright status of the of the image. You can contact me on my talk page. Cheers. Burgundavia 07:14, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Cool. If you wouldn't mind making a note of that on the image page, and choose a license. See Copyrights for more information. If you are still stuck, I can help you. Also, you can use ~ to sign your name. Burgundavia 20:17, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * I noticed you removed the PUI tag, but didn't add any other tag. Can I assume you licence is under the GFDL? Burgundavia (&#9992; take a flight?) 06:59, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * The GFDL is probably best. It is the same licence as the text. Burgundavia (&#9992; take a flight?) 04:17, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks Burgundavia (&#9992; take a flight?) 08:44, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Maimonides
Hey Reb Yid, this picture is a bit small and does not do justice to the Rambam. Could you find a bigger version & upload it? JFW | T@lk  10:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Beautiful. JFW | T@lk  13:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

CipherSaber
Hi Tzadikv. I have left an answer on your CipherSaber question on this page Talk:CipherSaber. --David Göthberg 17:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I understand now. Thanks, I learned something! --Tzadik 18:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

curse of the bambino
Please put discussions about edits of an article on that article's Talk page, instead of personal Talk pages - that way every editor can see it and weigh in, rather than just the people involved. I revereted your edit because it seemed irrelevant - who cares what happened to Renteria the next year? What's that got to do with the curse? - 01:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

rootenberg
these sites indicate "one of the first two players" ... --Epeefleche 05:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Shul.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Shul.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Congregation Tiferes Yisroel
Hi. Can you please add more information to the article about Congregation Tiferes Yisroel, explaining why this particular congregation is notable? —Remember the dot (talk) 04:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, would you be willing to relicense Image:RabbiGoldberger.jpg like you did Image:Shul.jpg? —Remember the dot (talk) 04:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Rashi.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Rashi.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rosenzweig 09:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:RabbiGoldberger.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:RabbiGoldberger.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at Possibly unfree images if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Dave Trembley 2007.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Dave Trembley 2007.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 03:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Jered Weaver pic
Hey, can you crop and re-upload the Weaver pic? Right now there's a lot of extra space at the top and on the sides, and it's too wide for the infobox.► Chris Nelson Holla! 03:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of Phelpsian
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Phelpsian, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Phelpsian is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Phelpsian, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Shlomo Carlebach.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Shlomo Carlebach.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 00:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:JamieMoyerInningsPitched.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:JamieMoyerInningsPitched.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 03:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I immediately responded to the above note, on Eeekster's talk page, explaining that even prior to the note I had put a copyright notice on the image and explained the rationale, which was "copyrighted work which is fair use because I am using only a small portion of the work". I had also included the full copyright information, from the very beginning. Nevertheless, by image was deleted with no explanation from Eeekster or anyone else.
 * Eeekster did reply to your post; the reply has since been archived here so you may have missed it. The reply was

"That really isn't enough. You can't just say something is fair use, you have to explain why it is fair use. Please use the standard fair use template. Eeekster (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)"


 * Eeekster hasn't edited since 11 December, so may be away. Your best bet would be to ask nicely at Requests for undeletion for another chance to add a fair use rationale. The standard template is Template:Non-free use rationale. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Petter chamor.JPG
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Petter chamor.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

October 2013
Hello, I'm Me and. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Dd (Unix), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —me_and 13:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Congregation Tiferes Yisroel


The article Congregation Tiferes Yisroel has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No claims to notability or independent sources

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TM 02:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Congregation Tiferes Yisroel for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Congregation Tiferes Yisroel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Congregation Tiferes Yisroel & until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TM 02:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Re:Switzerland
Hallo, and thanks for writing! I don't think that your reasoning applies here: all the states that you are mentioning are microstates, practically financially dependent from the states of which they are enclaves. Switzerland is a financial giant, and its currency, the swiss franc, is maybe more famous than the country itself. Anyway, you can restore your edit (I am in hurry now since i am in vacation): my experience in 10 years at wikipedia taught me that redundand or insignificant edits like this one are sooner or later removed by other users. Bye Alex2006 (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

March 2018
Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Book of Isaiah seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

 * Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes ( ~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
 * "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:


 * "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
 * Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
 * A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.  In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence.  In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
 * Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
 * We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)