User talk:TEB728/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Ablaut 2 PIE 3 PIE dentals 4 Glottalic theory 5 wiktionary links 6 Einstein 7 Jeff Relf 8 Wikipedia:Requests for page protection 9 Redirect bypassation 10 Einstein 2 11 Identifying Einstein as a Jew 12 Thanks 13 thanks... 14 On ethnicity 15 comment to your comments 16 Hi TEB :) 17 Einstein article 18 Hi 19 thanks 20 Albert Einstein in popular culture 21 Overlinking 22 Vossstrasse 23 Albert Einstein 24 For your protection 25 Thank You 26 Cultural Zionism 27 Thanks! 28 Response 29 Usernames 30 Erudecorp 31 word 32 Regarding your reply to my Media Copyright Question 33 thanks 34 World Record Club image 35 Re: Accidental deletion 36 Thanks for the help 37 Thanks for help 38 Logos 39 Thank You

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia:Consensus on how decision making is supposed to work on Wikipedia. dab (ᛏ) 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 (ᛏ) 07:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 — 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 [[direct|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)

[edit] 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)

• 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?

Thanks. --Van helsing 12:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] 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#Nationalities, Talk:Albert Einstein/Archive 9#Opening Line: Jewish-German-Swiss-American scientist?, and Talk:Albert Einstein/Archive 9#Jewishness. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Albert Einstein

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] word

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] thanks

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Re: Accidental deletion

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)