User talk:Epson291

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome! 1.1 Additional tips 1.2 Be Bold!! 2 Psalms 3 Your Raptors Pictures 4 Fish and Chicken 5 Horseshoe Falls (Canada) redirect 6 Everything Bagels 7 Jews 8 Jose 9 V'Imru 10 Chai (symbol) 11 Dollar sign 12 Chai (symbol) 13 Einsteins tallk page 14 Ethnicity poll 15 Mediation 16 Making charts 17 Great Work!

[edit] Welcome!

 Joe  I 16:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psalms

I see what you've done with the pages on individual Psalms, with the "Psalms" tag on the front. Does this create the banner on the side? Does every page with that tag go on the banner on each page? Bernard S. Jansen 00:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, you answered my question exactly. Bernard S. Jansen 10:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Raptors Pictures

Hi, I notice you have contributed several pictures to the Air Canada Centre article. I have used one of them for the Toronto Raptors article. If by any chance, you have an opportunity to ever take pictures at a Raptors game, do add it to the Raptors article too. Some of us are in the midst of raising the quality of the article, and pictures help big time. I understand you already have a couple of shots of the Raptors in game, but they are a little blur when blown up. I myself had a torrid time taking pictures at the ACC, so it's a tough job I know. Chensiyuan 12:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fish and Chicken

Hi Epson291. I don't think the link to fish (food) should be added to the top of the fish article. There's already fish (disambiguation) where one can find fish(food). In addition, fish(food) is also listed in the "see also" part of the article. The same goes to the chicken article where chicken (food) is included in Chicken (disambiguation). Cheers. --Melanochromis 08:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I think I see your point. Let's say I'm neutral at this point. But how about proposing this in the article discussion pages first? Fish has several regular editors. I'm sure Chicken has some too. If they agree with this, then it should be added to the articles. Cheers. --Melanochromis 14:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horseshoe Falls (Canada) redirect

Hey! I hope I wasn't messing around with your page when you were in the middle of something. Basically when going to Horseshoe Falls and clicking on Horseshoe Falls (Canada), it just redirects you back to Horseshoe Falls. I 'fixed' that. Again, hopefully I didn't get in the way of something else you were trying to do. If I did, I apologize - just trying to fix what looks like a mistake. Chupper 03:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Everything Bagels

I think there is a sort of humour in the way "everything" bagels do not contain everything. This is not "POV" or opinion, but rather, a documentable fact that people have recognized and appreciated this strange irony. I had originally added a link to a website referencing this, but the link was automatically removed by an anti-spam bot. Perhaps "everything bagel" doesn't deserve its own paragraph, but I think that it's worth mentioning that an "everything" bagel does not contain everything--it may be self-evident from experience of eating a number of bagels from a number of different places; it is not self-evident from the name. I remember as a child being puzzled to find that an "everything bagel" didn't come close to containing everything offered by the bagel stand selling it. Cazort 14:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jews

Hi! I don't think it would be necessary to write Russian, French, German etc. because that is only a minority of Jews worldwide. It does not say what ethnic language or the such. Jews today, who are more correctly a nation rather than an ethnic group, are unlike Russians, Germans, Pashtuns, Armenians etc. since most of them do not speak their ancestral languages. If this were perhaps 60 or 70 years ago, Yiddish would probably be written first, since it was then the language shared by most Jews. The language shared by most Jews today is overwhelmingly English and it is the prime language of the community, whether or not it has to do with immigration is irrelevant. (Another factor to consider is the large portion of Israeli and European Jews who speak English.) I will post a discussion on the talk page. --Shamir1 23:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but speaking English is incidental to their being Jewish. It is a logical accident. Anyways, Epson, I am outta here! I just totally disagree with Mr. Shamir1 Oemb1905 18:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jose

They are not the same name. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 05:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] V'Imru

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article V'Imru, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Metropolitan90 07:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Metropolitan90 that the word itself is not notable. I think it may be a merge candidate with Amen (because it prompts the kahal to say Omein). Alternatively, it could be merged with Kaddish, because its main use is in Kaddish (although one would need to cross-reference it in any article on Hazkoras nefoshos, misheberach and so on. JFW | T@lk 10:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V'Imru. JFW | T@lk 10:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chai (symbol)

Chai חי is a masculine singular participle form, used as an adjective in Biblical Hebrew, and as a present-tense verb in post-Biblical Hebrew. It's not an imperative or optative form, and should not be translated that way. What specific evidence is there that the slogan is ancient? Please don't delete valid information about Black Hebrews. AnonMoos 14:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Dude, an English translation "The People of Israel Live!" only makes sense if you understand חי to be an imperative verb form, or a form which has optative semantic force, but there's no grammatical analysis of חי which makes this plausible in Biblical or Rabbinical Hebrew. And the words עם ישראל חי simply do not occur in the original Hebrew of Genesis 45:3. Furthermore, you may not like Black Hebrews, but that's no reason why that valid facts about them shouldn't be mentioned on the page. Why don't you confine yourself to areas that you know something about (such as modern history and songs), and just leave aside areas where you apparently know very little (such as ancient Hebrew and linguistics)?? AnonMoos 06:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You're the one who is now attacking me on the basis of what you perceive my apparent religion to be (though you know absolutely nothing about what my religion actually is except hasty deductions based on partial information on my user page), while I merely observed that you should stick to writing about what you know. Furthermore, I started the Chai (symbol) article from scratch (and also made the image in the first place), and I'm not about to let it be filled with nonsense by you. You have a way of rephrasing things in a way which adds a lot of prolix verbosity to an article, but unfortunately also has a tendency to change correct statements into factually false statements (when you're writing about things you don't have a thorough knowledge of). AnonMoos 07:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I responded on your page, I ask you don't edit what I wrote again on the talk pages. The comment was based on just based on you telling me what articles to edit, you're religion is irrelevant,,, Epson291 07:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I don't need personal attacks from you -- attacking me for what you perceive my religion to be (on the basis of somewhat inadequate evidence) -- nor condescending unctuous pointers to Wikipedia policy pages which attempt to cover for the fact that you refuse to address any of the factual matters involved in your edits. What I need is substantial FACTUAL explanations for the problematic features of your edits. For example, so far you haven't bothered to deign to answer ANY of the following questions: --

1. In which morphological paradigm slot of Hebrew verb inflection do you place the form חי in עם ישראל חי ?
2. What evidence do you have that this verb inflection can take on imperative or optative semantic value (something which would be required for a translation of the phrase into English as "The people of Israel live!" instead of "The people of Israel lives!")?
3. How can Genesis 45:3 be the source of עם ישראל חי when the original Hebrew of that verse doesn't contain the words `Am or Yisrael?
4. Why is your personal dislike of the Black Hebrews group any valid reason to omit the fact that they spell חי Kai? AnonMoos 15:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. To try to spell it out for you in words of one syllable or less, when you changed the English translation from "The people of Israel lives!" to "The people of Israel live!" , you transformed a simple present indicative into a kind of third-person imperative (the same difference as there is between "The king lives long" and "Long live the king!"). What valid evidence is there in the original Hebrew for this alteration? This is a question which you've consistently refused to answer... AnonMoos 15:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dollar sign

Hi,

while I don't disagree your edit on $ in principle, please consider interwiki while changing an article to a redirect. You might want to merge the interwiki links. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chai (symbol)

Just wanted to let you know that I had volunteered to mediate this case, but I wanted to find out first if there is still an issue that requires resolution, since the case is kind of old. Cheers - RJASE1 ^Talk 01:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that both parties have agreed to mediation, I've started the discussion here, at least for now. Cheers - RJASE1 ^Talk 16:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Einsteins tallk page

First , I wish to ask for your e-mail as i have a long story to tell you ( I can put it here but it will take alot of space).Secondly , I think that refring to Einstein as an ethnic German is at least very unclear (and so its not a matter of a poll to decide wheter he would considered as an ethnic German since there will never a strong agreement in favor of this idea even if it will win the poll) and it seems offensive for many Jewish peopole ( I admit that it offense me) -and as there is a storng objrction from some users , in many different ways, to make the Jewishness of many great Jews clear - i think that regarding the Einstein article and regarding to the history of this article the infobox status quo should remain as it is now (i.e only Jewish) .I guess that you can agree with me about this that an ethnic origin of one is not something that should be decide by using a poll (but it can be debate even if its clear).Best wishes.--Gilisa 20:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

שלחתי לך עוד אי-מייל , ראית?--Gilisa 08:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnicity poll

I am confused by your statement: “I am (and at the same time not) surprised on this artcle the number of people who don't want to reconize his Jewishness, and for another user to drag this to a poll once again (see the archives).” I have never heard of anyone anywhere who didn’t recognize Einstein’s Jewishness. And I am unaware of any previous poll on the subject. Please enlighten me.

Perhaps I shouldn’t have included “Jewish” in the poll; the answer is a no-brainer. I included it out of (imagined?) fairness someone who might think neither should be included (i.e. no Ethnicity field).

Happy Passover to you. --teb728 23:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Just wanted to let you know I haven't forgotten the Chai (symbol) case. Just have been a little busy. I will get the RfC drafted on Saturday or Sunday. RJASE1 ^Talk 03:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Making charts

Unfortunately, no, I'm not an expert with charts. However, you might want to take a look at the "month names" chart in the Iranian calendar article, which I tweaked the other day. This chart might be particularly helpful for your current situation, since it includes right-to-left text. Richwales 16:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm willing to at least try, if you can send me what you already have. Richwales 16:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I finished creating a chart (table) for the "Honorifics in Judaism" article, in place of the graphic image. Hopefully you'll find it OK, and I hope I didn't make any mistakes. Richwales 02:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great Work!

• Hey, I just wanted to thank you for your great work on the Jewish Music page! Between the organization and the new navbar on the side, it looks a million times better! I'd have given you a barnstar, but I couldn't find one with a Jewish theme! Great work! -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 22:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)