User talk:DRosenbach

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome, and thanks

Thanks for your contributions! I see you're adding content about things that hadn't had articles before, that's great. Hope you stick around and continue to make good edits. BTW, don't get discouraged if you ever find one of your articles tagged with a Vote for Deletion. Some could argue that Removable partial dentures should go into the dentures article, for example. So, if you ever find that your content gets merged, don't take it personally. Most of the people here are remarkably kind and well-meaning. Hope you enjoy your stay and keep up the good edits. Friday 04:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, DRosenbach, 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! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  and Bruchim Habaim. IZAK 09:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] about Dentures

I have put the following comment on the Talk:Dentures page:

There seems to me, from my own experience, to be another problem with stability of dentures; when biting with the front teeth, the incisors, there is a tendency for one or both plates to tip the rear of the plate toward the other plate, and tip the front of the plate away from the other plate. I hope that the anonymous User:DRosenbach (who seems to be a dentist, and who completely rewrote Dentures) will see this comment, and address the problem. Too Old 01:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ritual Decalogue

In the Ritual Decalogue article you wrote, "according to the Jewish faith, there is absolutely no difference between the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 and Exodus 34." This is something I'm curious about, and planned to ask the rabbi the next time I'm at temple, but that could be a long time! Given the very obvious differences in the commandments of Ex. 20 and 34, how is this reconciled with the belief that they are the same? Could you add something to the article to clarify this?

Also, do you know anything as to why the ritual commandments were abandoned for the ethical ones?

Thanks, kwami 04:13, 2005 July 25 (UTC)

You make some interesting points, but don't really address the first question. Maybe it's a non-question in Orthodoxy. (I'm not concerned with Xty here.) As far as I know, the Decalogue is called the עשרת הדברות in the Mishnah, but this phrase nowhere occurs in the Torah. Instead, we find the similar phrase עשרת הדברים. This is only used three times, and only once identified explicitly: in Exodus 34. A literal reading of Ex. 34-35 would leave no doubt that it was these laws that were written on the tablets and placed intact in the Ark. However, Orthodoxy teaches just the opposite. There's a conflict there, and I'm sure it's resolved somehow, but calling it 'baloney' would hardly be good enough for an inquiring mind. (As for your example of the Mishna being necessary to clarify the making of fire on the Sabbath, I never would have understood it otherwise: in the Torah, Moses quite clearly says it is the making a fire that is prohibited, not the keeping of one.) Thanks, kwami 19:08, 2005 July 27 (UTC)
Hi Dale,
Okay, I think we're narrowing it down. You say that "Exodus 34 merely mentions another bunch of other religious regulations, but does not assert that these regulations are presented to replace anything." Clearly, they aren't considered the Decalogue, by Jews or Christians of any sect I'm aware of. And I'm not asking about them replacing anything. What I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain around is that they are called the Decalogue in the Torah, and are the only laws that are. They're also described as the laws inscribed on stone as the Covenant with Israel. They are further described as being placed intact in the Ark of the Covenant. Reading Ex. 34-35, I can only conclude that these are the true Ten Commandments, and that the laws in Ex. 20 and Deut. 5 are something else. I've read historical Biblical scholars who believe that the Decalogue changed over time, and what we have are two different versions. That isn't the Orthodox view, of course, but somewhere there must be an explanation for how Ex 34 could be called and described as the Decalogue, if the actual Decalogue is Ex 20/Deut 5. Just saying they aren't doesn't clarify why they should be presented as if they were. kwami 00:31, 2005 July 28 (UTC)
Well, I'm disappointed that this is the best anyone could come up with.
"I hereby make a covenant.
[Laws of Ex 34]
"The LORD said to Moses, Write these words; in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel. [...] And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, עשרת הדברים."
The wording "covenant" is parenthetical around the Ex 34 laws; usually with such parenthetic material in the Torah, the enclosed material is held to be relevant. Sure, we can simply deny that they're the laws in question, but that only works if the conclusion is assumed beforehand. It's no way to convince anyone. Oh well.
I'd wondered if perhaps the wording dibros vs. dvarim were used, so thank you for clarifying that. A surface reading would suggest that they are synonyms, but I wasn't sure. kwami 20:25, 2005 July 28 (UTC)
Why am I interested — well, let's see. I'm not a religious person, but often religious concepts come to the fore, and I become curious about them. Such as, say, whether Islam is a religion of peace or a religion of war. (A lot of fascinating history before the Koran was "standardized", and there are still three different versions that are endorsed by different govts or sects.) Recently there's been a lot of debate (and a lot of nonsense) as to whether the US government should implicitly endorse the Ten Commandments by posting them in the courts and other federal buildings. You hear all sorts of reasons why this wouldn't amount to a state sponsorship of religion, such as the common claim that the TC aren't a religious document. (It was declared by the Supreme Court that the word "God" is not a religious concept either, and therefore it is acceptable to put it on US currency — something I suspect should be even more offensive to truly religious people than it is to atheists.) Anyway, I became curious as to what the TC really were, and how anyone could claim they weren't religious. I looked them up in a Biblical concordance, and was quite surprised to find that the words were in Ex 34, not Ex 20 or Deut 5, and that there were even terms in the lit to distinguish the two versions. I was further surprised that, not only did my Christian friends not have an explanation for this, but they had never even heard of it, and then they started wondering why they'd never heard of it. (My Jewish friends aren't very Jewish, and wouldn't be surprised or troubled by this.) I think I understand the Orthodox position now that you've explained it, but I wonder how a fundamentalist Christian, who rejects the Oral Law and takes every word of the Bible literally, would deal with it. Maybe the same way a Catholic deals with the 2nd Commandment, through denial? That's the next thing to look into.
Take care, kwami 21:48, 2005 August 3 (UTC)

[edit] Vote for Deletion

Hi, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ritual Decalogue. Thank you. IZAK 10:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About removing encyclopaedic information

Please do not remove encyclopaedic information. The forms tallét gedolah and tallét gedolah are well-established forms and should not be removed because of your personal/ethnic POV. Respectfully, Olve 18:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cute kid, but...

Some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Rosenbach, the next generation may not be sufficiently well-known to merit articles of their own. The Wikipedia community welcomes newcomers, and encourages them to become Wikipedians. By starting an account or logging in, each user is entitled to a user page in which they can describe themselves, and this article's content may be incorporated into that page. However, to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia proper, a subject must be notable. We encourage you to write or improve articles on notable subjects. Feel free to use the image of your little one on your user page; just don't create an article for her. Thanks, android79 03:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:IMG 4666.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:IMG 4666.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:

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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Darstellergale-1-.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Darstellergale-1-.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Darstellergale.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Darstellergale.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:IMG 4666.JPG

Can you please clarify which Rainbow Bridge this is? It's currenly orphaned right now, so I wanted to put it in an article, but as I disocvered there are at least seven Rainbow Bridges around. Hbdragon88 16:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:My first day on the job and I already need a barber.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:My first day on the job and I already need a barber.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conversions to judaism on a bunch of pages.

however, "conversion" to Judaism without intent to properly follow Jewish law is not considered conversion at all.

Is it really necessary to add this all over the place? 192.75.48.150 16:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Since you're so bold as to post without revealing your identity...I wonder if your remark deserves response. Is it really necessary to have all these people parading around as Jews?

You responded, so I guess you think it did deserve one. Maybe consider just changing "converted to Judaism" to "converted to Judaism", rather than adding a lengthy qualifier. This is less obtrusive, and the issue is discussed on that page more thoroughly and neutrally. 192.75.48.150 16:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Conversion of Judaism is not subjective beyond the scope of its subjectivity among the Torah-true rabbis of Orthodox Judaism. Non-orthodox Judaism is not Judaism, and statements made about the religion of certain people when in fact they are not of that religion are false. The fact that they attempted to convert doesn't make them Jewish. This is not a POV issue. It's a truism of Judaism.

[edit] Your RfA

Hello Dale! I have removed your RfA from the main RfA page since you have withdrawn. I urge you not to be discouraged, though. Remember that adminship does not reflect the value of a user's contributions to the encyclopedia; it is just another set of tools. If you continue to visit WP:RFA, you will get a good idea of what administrators generally use the tools for, and what !voters are looking for from candidates. Continue to gain experience and the trust of other editors, and you may try again in the future. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Happy Holidays! Dar-Ape 20:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you have taken the right decision. You are a good contributor. Once you work on any shortcomings, I am sure your next RfA will certainly succeed. Best wishes, Asteriontalk 01:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I am surprized there's another user from Passaic. Nice to meet you. See you around. - crz crztalk 01:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Jezzdale4.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Jezzdale4.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 01:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Jezzdale3.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Jezzdale3.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 01:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Jezzdale1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Jezzdale1.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 02:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] YU Roshei Yeshiva, etc.

Thanks for the kind words. The truth is that I should have been doing some serious real life work this evening, but I kind of went on an impulsive editing spree with this Roshei Yeshiva business. You should know that while Rav Willig should stay 100% in my opinion, I'm not so sure about Rav Sacks... and I'm pretty sure that many of the currently redlinked Roshei Yeshiva should remain without articles to their names. Regardless, the navbox was a great idea and long overdue. Best, DLandTALK 03:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked??

Am I blocked from uploading pictures? For some reason, I cannot do so. Dale 00:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You have no enties in the block log. What error message are you getting? --Selket Talk 01:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mandelbrodt

I hope you don't mind - I posted the photo of your daughter at Talk:Mandelbrodt, for potential use in the article. Cute picture! --DLandTALK 04:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar - I appreciate it! Have a good Shabbos, DLandTALK 19:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

I have just added a 'merge' tag on both Bridge (dentistry) and Crown (dentistry). You could now possibly watch this page for discussions on the merge and show your opinion. Thank you, Extranet (Talk | Contribs) 21:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, with regard to the merge, it has automatically been added to the Articles to be merged since February 2007 category, so you can just leave it and when an administrator gets around to it, they will merge it. About the adminship offer, maybe you could possibly wait a few months because my 2nd personal nomination request that in fact ended on Saturday did not reach consensus. The people that opposed have recommended to keep editing and contributing and try again another time. I thank you for the offer, but you would have to wait a few months before nominating me again. If you require any more assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Kind regards, Extranet (Talk | Contribs) 05:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the barnstar. Its much appreciated. Kind regards, Extranet (Talk | Contribs) 20:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maryland Bridge -- JRS' reply

....

However, bonding is extremely unreliable and, with any real function, the Maryland bridge will be popping off weekly.

In my case, that's very true. After having my dentist repeatedly put mine back in, and then it falling out a few days later, I finally decided after 6 months of this crap, to just go with a gap in my teeth. --John R. Sellers 04:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removable bridge

Both my father and my maternal aunt had a removable prothesis with hooks around adjacent molars - it did not have the extensive gum line plastic, and the term "removable bridge" was in common use for this type of device. This was before bridging crowns were in common use. Is this just a missuse of the term? - Leonard G. 00:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The hooks you speak of are actually clasps of what was most probably a removable partial denture, commonly called an RPD. The term "bridge" refers to the fact that the 3-unit fixed partial denture spans the edentulous space. Any reference of a bridge to a removable partical denture is purely a projection of the name actually reserved for the fixed partial denture. The removable partial denture is the poor man's bridge, so to speak, but only in terms of treatment planning, as they would serve the same purpose of restoring partial edentulism. The extensive gum-line plastic you refer to is required on dentures for broader tissue support and, for maxillary complete dentures, in order to establish a proper seal for the suction that works to hold the denture in place. RPD's do not require such suction because the clasps provide retention. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 00:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pin

Oh, perhaps so? No telling. Maybe a post is what they meant, but then again "even down into the jaw to support a crown"? The only thing I could think of is an implant. No post would be used for that sort of thing. - Dozenist talk 00:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Memphis, TN. You? - Dozenist talk 00:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
We should talk sometime via a quicker medium. Do you ever use google talk? - Dozenist talk 01:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crown/Bridge merge

I put a response on the talk page. Let me know what you think. Dr-G - Illigetimi non carborundum est. 20:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Wise.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Wise.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Juliasti.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Juliasti.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charge of an electron

Re Millikan, the symbol for an electron is e-, but its charge is usually qe or some such, is it not? Dicklyon 13:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hold up on the crown and bridge development for one second

Hey ;) I like some of the changes you have made to this page, and the pictures are great, it was one that obviously needed work. There are some changes I dislike though, so could you please discuss them before you go any further Talk:Bridge (dentistry) :) Bouncingmolar 21:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. You have added some useful contributions to the crown and bridge page. However please try not to get offended by critism. When discussing articles, I think emotive language does not help. . All I am saying is just state the facts and your reason and that should be enough. If it is logical enough I don't see any reason why others, including myself won't agree with it. I think people in general find it more difficult to see the facts presented if they are surrounded exaggerations and emotional language. Again, i have to say your contributions are good, and I hope we can work together on this one :)Bouncingmolar 23:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
yes.. I did ask dr G to comment, but actually, I was hoping that the comments would be more relevant to the current discussion ie. the format of the article and my recommendations in this section. I have re read alot of the discussion and agree that talking about ong et al etc is off topic. I also asked for dozenist's opinion but he is currently on holiday. They seemed to be the only other active contributors to the page i could find apart from you and me. Since that didn't work out, can you please comment on the recommendations i have made. Thanks :| Bouncingmolar 02:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] invitation to WikiProject Dentistry

I consider you to already be part of this group, but would you like to put your name on the list? Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dentistry/Participants.

Feel free to add {{User WikiProject Dentistry}} member userbox to your user page:

This user is a member of the Dentistry WikiProject.


Bouncingmolar 02:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Natan Slifkin

I see you are also interested in Natan Slifkin. Please review these articles, because I have run up against an intransigent editor:

Perhaps you could also review the changes the same editor has made to Natan Slifkin. He does not come from the Jewish perspective, and he seems to be following me around and looking for ways to harass me. --Metzenberg 05:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the articles Jewish opposition to evolution and Jewish reactions to intelligent design over the last two days, mostly. If you find these articles to be not neutral or biased, then I would like to see someone with your perspective contribute to them and make them better. I searched through the wikiproject Judaism portal for other editors who are aware of these controversies. I don't think it helps to have an outsider tagging and deleting things arbitrarily, as the other editor was doing, including interfering with my writing as I am writing. He seemed to have a desire to interfere, but no knowledge of Judaism. It is difficult for me to tell why this person was trying so hard to interfere with my work. My guess is that he objected to my inference, on talk pages, that although there is Jewish opposition to evolution, it is of a very different character to what is called creationism. Since you have tagged one of the articles again, please tell me what you think is missing or incorrect. --Metzenberg 06:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I certainly do not claim that the article Jewish opposition to evolution is complete. If you look at the talk page, you can see that I have listed sources I am waiting for, like the new University of Chicago Press book on the subject, which contains about ten different essays, and seems very comprehensive. But I do think that I've made enough of a start for the unbalanced tag to be removed, that I've tried hard with a difficult subject. When I first discovered the article, it was under the title "Jewish creationism" in an infobox that appeared on many evolution, creationism, and intelligent design pages. My effort has been to reorganize pages and present the spectrum of Jewish opinion accurately on all of them. What I think is the most important point is that, while there are Jewish opponents of evolution, they are not "Jewish creationists". They are very different in essential ways from Christian creationists. A person like yourself with training in Talmud, Rambam, and knowledge of later commentaries can be a big help. --Metzenberg 11:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] YU Userbox

There were a couple of issues with the YU userbox you created which I have fixed. First, education (alma mater) boxes should be in Template: space and follow the naming convention Template:User yyy. Your box can now be found at {{User YU}}. Second, it was not categorized and it did not populate users into a Wikipedian category. Third, it did not have the "nocat" option - which would allow you to include the userbox without joining the Wikipedian category. Fourth, it contained a fair use logo, which is not allowed in any template. I also have created Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Yeshiva University that is populated by this userbox. If you have any questions, please let me know. --NThurston 13:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I know you see them from time to time, but User:Durin patrols these pretty heavily, referring people to Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy #9. I used to not care, but have found it less disruptive to fix things when I see them rather than have them mysteriously blanked. --NThurston 17:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree either. My recommendation is that you find a clever use of letters, fonts, colors, etc. or possibly a free use image to resolve this. As you look at the many userboxes in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education/United States you might get some ideas. Let me know how I can help.--NThurston 17:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lentulo spiral

A tag has been placed on Lentulo spiral, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Andante1980 13:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome, I suppose. Still, with all the (R) symbols, I can see why it was tagged. Isn't there anything more than can be written on the subject? If not, it should probably be merged somewhere. Mangojuicetalk 18:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Ridge resorption.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ridge resorption.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Knowledge of Haredi rabbis

I liked your long comments about the knowledge of ultra-O rabbis and their world views. But we have to have a sourced comment if we are going to include something in the Wikipedia. It can't be just an opinion. Do you know of a good article that describes it, by a responsible and respected journalist? --Metzenberg 04:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Avi weiss.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Avi weiss.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. - NYC JD (interrogatories) 20:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My proposal

I have added my proposal here. I would appreciate your response. - Dozenist talk 15:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/r/o/User_talk%7EDRosenbach_2b34.html"