User talk:A Sniper

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! If you need help feel free to drop a line at my talk page. :) --Actown ^e 05:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

old postings archived October 2007 A Sniper

Thanks...

Thanks for your edits to the Reform Judaism article. Egfrank 21:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Reform Judaism

You can count me in! Improving the coverage in this area was my High Holidays tzadaka project commitment so I'm here come what may. You can see User:egfrank/Workroom for a partial list of things I think need work. I'm sure you have your own - perhaps we can consolidate?

I wonder though - do you really want an official separate project or just a way for those concerned about the quality of these articles to connect to one another? Might we want to consider a WikiJudaism subproject? (is there a framework for that?) As painful as some of these dialogs are, I think they need to be carried out in the context of the WikiProject Judaism. The non-NPOV material is spread across a lot of articles and will continue to be re-added until we raise the awareness that Progressive Judaism is not something that can be described (or criticized) in an academically responsible manner with one liners like "rejects the law" or "doesn't believe in God" or "thinks personal autonomy is everything". Egfrank 06:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Hope you had a fun simchat torah. I'm wondering if we might want to consider renaming this project Progressive Judaism? For the benefit of those more familiar with the terms "Reform" and "Liberal", we can have a "Reform Judaism" and "Liberal Judaism" wikiproject redirect there. I feel like I'm being a PC stickler about this, but "Progressive movement" is the name chosen by progressive movement congregations across the world[1] and it wouldn't really make sense to put the rest of the progressive jewish world into a separate project. Also, FYI, the Israeli movement's prefered name "HaTenua HaMitkademit HaYisraelit" (in English - the Israel Progressive Movement - and we're a bit sensitive over here about the name "Reform", precisely because of its strong association with the USA). Also, FYI, Progressive is also the preferred name of the modern incarnation of the progressive movement in Germany. Also, among UK congregations it comes across as more inclusive than either "Reform" or "Liberal" both of which have a lot of history attached to them. Egfrank 20:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Name change. Yeah! Thanks. BTW I think your call on needing a project was right on. As I see our emails evolving it is increasingly clear to me that we need our back and forths to be somewhere more public than our user talk pages. Egfrank 04:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection for Reform Judaism

If you feel the article needs protection, I think there is a process for that, see WP:Protect. Kol tuv, Egfrank 15:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project page

I moved your project page to the correct namespace at Wikipedia:WikiProject Reform Judaism. NawlinWiki 16:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Judaism and edit summaries

Hi. Regarding your recent edits to Template:Judaism, please read Help:Minor edit. Unless your edit is a spelling correction, a formatting change, or a similar minor edit, it is inappropriate to check the box and say that you have made a minor edit.

Please bear in mind that I am not commenting on the specific individuals whose names you added to the template. I don't have any objection to adding them, but the addition of three names to the template cannot be considered a minor change. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 18:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Progrsssive Judaism has a new user box

I just added a new user box to WP:ProgJew. You might want to consider using that to indicate your commitment rather than the administrator user box - you could set the participation parameter to "an administrator of" if you wish (:Category:Wikipedia Administrators clicks through to a page saying that the category includes those with sysop privileges/responsibilities - so it has the same problems as the user box that you accidentally added a bit earlier). See Template:User wikipedia/WP Progressive Judaism for details. Egfrank 11:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Returning your hi!

Hi and Shavua Tov! Thanks for your warm greeting. I'm a bit reticent about personal details on Wikipedia (it tends to show up in Google and after a stalking incident by a disgruntled Wikipedian I'm a little cautious). However, I would be glad to tell you more about myself via email. To email me, you can click on the "E-mail this user" menu item on the sidebar. I'm also constrained by time, so perhaps we ought to spend some time brainstorming about how to get more people involved. Kol tuv, Egfrank 22:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brit milah

I have some difficulties with your sources and tone for some of the edits you recently added. I want to begin by acknowledging that before you met the article it presented things mostly from a fairly Orthodox Jewish perspective, and no question this was a one-sided view. You're welcome to add the views of Reform Judaism, academic historians, and similar, and I'm not in any way attempting to prevent you from doing so. However, you do have to follow Wikipedia policies to prevent your edits from being reverted or radically re-edited. Difficulties with your recent edits included citing sources that don't meet the reliable sources policy, including partisan websites like [2] and [3] unless these sites have been previously shown to be independently notable. A particularly problematic example is a cite you made to the anti-circumcision advocacy website [4] for a view presented as that of "Jewish tradition." Generally speaking, traditional religious sources are needed for traditional religious views. (In many Jewish and Biblical subjects there are separate sections labeled e.g. "traditional religious views" and "historians' views".) Another problematic edit was a characterization of a traditional Rabbinic Jewish view as "traditionalist" and "literalist"; the neutral point of view policy frowns on editorial characterizations of views in ways that might be perceived as disparaging (readers can reach their own conclusions). Once again, nothing in Wikipedia policy is preventing you from adding this material as long as you use suitable sources, present the material neutrally, don't disparage existing views and sources representing points of view you disagree with, and otherwise comply with policies. It might also be suggested that if you want to delete or change large amounts of existing material you should discuss it with other editors first (see our consensus policy). Note that adding material without removing existing material is welcome at any time. Finally, Jewish holidays have traditionally been a time when articles on traditional Jewish subjects have been vandalized since observant editors cannot edit during this period. For this reason large-scale changes made over the holidays are particularly likely to be reverted -- sometimes unnecessarily or in error -- as a gut reaction if substantial policy compliance problems are perceived. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ShiraHadashah: I know you care deeply about the Judaism articles and their integrity, but did you check the edit history carefully? Don't you think you are being a bit harsh with User:A Sniper? Your tone implies he was trying to vandalize the Brit Milah article and sneak in changes behind the backs of observant Jews when all he did was (a) add citations that others had requested with {{fact}} templates (b) add an antivandalism notice (c) add the words "traditional, literal". There is no dispute this is the traditional perspective. As for "literal" ("pshat") - I'm not sure how that can be considered pejorative. Either it is or it isn't or its a matter of debate as evidenced by citations. The pshat/drash debate has a long, long history in both Jewish tradition and academic criticism. Question his/her choice of sources if you will (I agree that one of the sources he/she chose is polemical), but it might help to acknowledge that his/her intentions were good and that some of his additions were helpful (e.g. Oxford Dictionary of Religion).

As for the edits and deletions on the Reform Judaism article - although it might have been nicer to wait on the deletion until after Chol HaMoed (A Sniper, you may not be aware that some observant Jews treat it as stringently as Shabbat and will not edit), I don't think he was entirely out of line. WP:Be bold does allow for deletions when prior discussion merits it and he made a point of justifying his edit based on those prior discussions.

I should also point out that neither User: A Sniper nor myself (User:Egfrank) have removed your addition of Samual Hirsch's criticism even though we have both expressed concern about its lack of historical justification. From both our points of view, that is as much a breach of good scholarship/appropriate citation as misreprenting minority opinions as majority opinions would be from yours (and ours). Kol tuv, 07:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egfrank (talk • contribs) [5][reply]

Just wanted to mention that although I initially reverted the whole set of edits (as a gut reaction as part of a quick post-holiday patrol for vandalism), I realized I had made an error, undid my revert, and restored these edits. I ended up making only a relatively small set of changes. I distinguished historian's and traditional religious accounts leaving the accounts themselves intact. I also removed a comparatively small amount of material sourced from advocacy in accordance with Wikipedia's self-published sources policy. As an FYI the Brit Milah article has previously had a series of work-overs by people representing an anti-circumcision point of view who re-wrote the article unduely from that viewpoint (See (the undue weight policy), citing to self-published sources for views both of history and of religious doctrine. Best, --Shirahadasha 15:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record (I am unable to write on Shirahadasha's talk page), I spent a fair bit of time at the Brit Milah page with the following intentions: a) accurately portray the historical, classical Reform position, b) limit the POV problems with the entire page, and c) find references where none were present previously (my suggestion is that better sources are found to replace some that I offered in haste). It was certainly not intended to deface the page or bias it in an anti-circumcision direction - far from it. Best wishes to all, A Sniper 16:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Geiger

Why did you remove my paragraph on criticism of Geigers stance during the Damascus blood libel? It was sourced (NEJ) and it is of importance. Otherwise, keep up the good work. The article might also use a summation of Geigers view of the Pharisees and Sadducees which influenced his own view of a developing, evoloving Judaism. (Its neatly summarized in Meir Waxmans History of Jewish Lit.. I imagine S, Heschels diss. is also useful.) Kol TuvWolf2191 14:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you active

Just thought I'd say that. Hope all is well. Egfrank 16:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol

looking at your user page and talk page one certainly wouldn't think you were into death metal...or any kind of metal, for that matter heh.Navnløs 22:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can certainly see you seem to be obssessed w/ Death and Motley Crue. One thing you're forgetting is that the Seven Churches album was not Possessed's first work, but rather Death Metal was.Navnløs 22:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ended up reverting your last edit on Death, sorry. I did so because I thought the things you got rid of, about Death being one of the earliest death metal bands and chuck being the "father of death metal" did have references. They are POV, yes, but not the person who wrote them there but rather the referenced website may be showing POV. And since it is referenced I view it something like a quote. Doesn't mean its right but its what one website has to say on the matter.Navnløs 22:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I left the quotes on the Death page intact as should the ones on the Possessed page be, I guess. I have proposition for you, though: I am searching for those knowledgeable about metal...you seem to know what you're talking about. If you ever need any help with an article let me know and I will take a look and give you an opinion or w/e is needed, and may offer my help if I think you're right. All I ask is a similar favor.Navnløs 22:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, I do other stuff but I do mostly focus on music pages. Anything metal.Navnløs 23:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC) no, I thought the references should be kept on both pages.Navnløs 23:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, happy editing.Navnløs 23:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing discussion on the progressive judaism project talk page

Hope you had a restful and relaxing Shabbat. Just wanted to let you know of two discussions on the progressive judaism talk page:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Progressive Judaism#Abraham Geiger and Leopold Zunz - the discussion concerns the exact wording of a line you added about the influence of Leopold Zunz on progressive judaism.

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Progressive Judaism#Is Progressive Judaism OR - discusses whether or not it is legitimate to use the term "progressive judaism" in article titles and category names.

Shavuah Tov, Egfrank 16:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

A new section has been added to Progressive Judaism to discuss the intellectual history of the progressive movement. The discussion I think needs some nuanced exploration of the thinkers. I know you have been collecting information on this area. Your contributions would be more than welcome. Kol tuv, Egfrank 15:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A Sniper. How's it going? Glad to make your acquaintance and hope you don't mind our back and forth discussion / reasoned argument. Anyway, I notice that you mark alot of your Talk edits as "minor". When you've written a chunk, I think it's more common to leave that box unchecked. Thanks. HG | Talk 20:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note and your pertinent question. I didn't start the Orthodox Project and haven't given its existence much thought until now. At one time, I think it was very active. Some of its efforts seem ok, like a weekly collaboration. But it's annoying to keep track of too many different projects, we've already got J History and Judaism (plus Israel). Indeed, personally I stopped paying attention to the projects, don't know how I recently got interested again. I certainly don't want to see one for each plausible sector of Judaism with a few enthusiastic editors. Better the energy should be used to sustain and try to keep vibrant the Judaism project -- that's difficult enough. I'd say, (along with Shirahadasha?), decommission the Orthodox project. Run any collaborative editing and tracing efforts through WP:Judaism (or J History). (There's a defunct Jewish Culture project, too!) Honestly, too, I think it's been difficult for the Orthodox and non-Orthodox to collaborate because of certain POV-oriented folks (esp among Orthodox newbies?). Instead of walking away from the mess, as I admit I've done myself, I think we should try to make the Judaism project itself a better working environment for everyone. If anything, the Orthodox Project may have given some folks the impression that they should have a free hand w/their topic area, which isn't quite on spot. Do you catch my drift? In short, I'd be inclined to speak some "tough love" to both you and the Orthodox, tell folks to chill out and get back under the big tent. If this means that the tent-keepers, like IZAK, need to be more welcoming and flexible, so be it. How's that for a long response? Would be glad to hear from you. Thanks. HG | Talk 22:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. BTW, maybe check your "preferences" to see if your default marks the "minor" box. See ya, HG | Talk 00:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK and Wikipedia's systematic Orthodox bias

Hi. I wanted to let you know that I had been sitting on the sidelines for much of the Progressive/Reform discussion, including the discussion of the new Wikiproject, primarily because I don't know much about the name "Progressive Judaism", but I support you and Egfrank 100%.

With respect to IZAK and Reform-bashing, get used to being insulted for not being an Orthodox Jew and having your movement described as something other than Judaism. Other editors have written that Conservative Judaism is a movement made up of Orthodox Jews who don't follow halakha, and Reform Judaism is made up of Conservative Jews who don't follow Conservative halakha. IZAK described the function of Reform Judaism as a rationalization to eat pork. He also used the word Judaism without any qualifier to refer to Orthodox Judaism, which is simple (though possibly unintended) honesty on his part — many of the editors who are involved with Judaism-related articles consider Orthodox Judaism "Judaism" and anything else non-Jewish.

As I wrote, because of my ignorance of the subject I don't feel qualified to join your new Wikiproject, but I support anybody and anything that contributes a non-Orthodox viewpoint to articles concerning Judaism. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 19:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS - It looks like there may be some minor problems with your settings that you might want to fix. Under "My preferences", "Date and time", check that you've got the right "offset" for your time zone. Also, under "Editing", uncheck the box next to "Mark all edits minor by default". — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 19:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unjust use of personal criticisms

Hi there guys: Regarding User Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) comments here and at User talk:Egfrank#Wikipedia's systematic Orthodox bias. May I say a few words in my own defense? (a) At the outset I am really disappointed to read User Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) comments here as I have until now had great respect for him and his work on Wikipedia. (b) Malik, what you are doing here is a violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. I have never addressed any personal comments to you or to User A Sniper (talk · contribs) or to User Egfrank (talk · contribs) because that is beneath contempt and violates WP:CIVIL. (c) I have not made a single edit to the Reform Judaism or Progressive Judaism articles at this time, so I do not know what you carrying on about. (Unlike User:A Sniper and User:Egfrank who have recently made lots of controversial edits to Judaism articles that reveal their POV biases.) (d) I had some questions which I brought up on User:Egfrank's talk page and which were also brought up on the WP:JUDAISM talk page. During those talks, when the meanings and differences between Jewish denominations outlooks are/were discussed, all sorts of things are said. It is not false to say that both Reform and Progressive Judaism allow Jews the eating pork unlike Orthodox Judaism which forbids it based on the Torah. (e) If an editor were to state that Islam forbids pork but that lapsed Muslims do eat pork chops would that be a slander? Nope, it's statement of fact. (f) There is no "Orthodox bias" on Wikipedia, what a joke! Just go and read all the Biblical articles and see how many of them have Christian and modern critical views. So don't be funny please! (g) If you think or imagine that anything I stated about any subject in the body of any article violates WP:NPOV or WP:CITE rules then point it out and I will be glad to discuss it with you or with anyone else. But please don't go around making hateful and hurtful comments behind my back, right here out in the open, when all you do by that is reveal your own prejudices a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and probably even WP:LIBEL against me. Thanks for taking note. (h) If you honestly believe in "Wikipedia's systematic Orthodox bias" then take it up at some official forums and discussion groups such as at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on articles and let Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism know about it, so that this perceived bias can be corrected, if any such exists -- but do not make me into the straw man and fall guy of your beliefs and misconceptions -- it is intellectually dishonest and is not appreciated. Finally (i) Malik, I hope you will apologize for fairness' sake. This message has been copied to User talk:Egfrank#Unjust use of personal criticisms; User talk:Malik Shabazz#Unjust use of personal criticisms and [[]]. IZAK 03:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to IZAK's original comments at User talk:IZAK#Offending comments. I am not participating in any further discussion between A Sniper and IZAK (below). — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry buddy, but anyone who insinuates that Reform Jews are lapsed Jews cannot be taken seriously as an editor of anything related to Progressive Judaism. Do you even understand the biased things you write? I don't know whether you are an Orthodox Jew, and frankly I couldn't care less, but if you ARE then there is certainly an argument that could be made that thousands of years of being obsessed with rules, laws and rigidity has been at the expense of ethics. I consider this matter finished, as far as my talk page is concerned. I'm not continuing in any silly banter and I offer nobody any ill will. L'chaim, A Sniper 22:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, A Sniper, L'chaim: I have not written a word in the Progressive or Reform articles and related ones, I leave that to others, but to debunk the views of Orthodox Judaism by attacking me because you don't like Orthodox Judaism makes no sense. It is true and verifiable that Orthodox Judaism regards Reform Jews as "lapsed" Jews or worse because according to Orthodox Judaism they (the Reform and Progressives) reject the classical Shulkhan Arukh and the Halakha, that is not "my" view, see Who is a Jew? to understand that Orthodoxy does not accept any of Reform's converts and in cases where the child's father is Jewish but the mother is not, the children are not Jews according to Orthodox Judaism, and that is also not according to "me" or anyone else. If you missed that lesson somewhere then you fail to understand Orthodoxy. Lamentably you are again personalizing the discussions and the outlook of a movement with an editor's private life. Who we are as people does not count, what counts is the accuracy of our words as editors. I cannot remake Orthodoxy any more than you cannot remake Reform and Progressivism and what they stand for. It is sad that you wish to trivialize what I say by calling it "banter" and I look forward to the time when you will treat those views that differ from yours with respect and seriousness. IZAK 04:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is something seriously wrong here?

I am beyond belief that no one except you, I, User:Jheald, Malik and maybe User:HG sees something seriously biased about this group of editors. I'm beginning to feel that a significant number of editors on the Judaism project are either afraid of a certain user or have created their own group definition of WP:NPOV or both - one that reduces neutrality to little more than slander dressed in objectivity. This just seems wrong - NPOV is supposed to be about inclusiveness and it is instead being used here to exclude.

I'd like to wait a bit and see if things calm down, but if it doesn't what do we do? As sincere as we are, I think all of us have only so much emotional energy and we need to do something constructive before we get exhausted. Any ideas about taking this up a level? If so, where would we go? Egfrank 11:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egfrank: Even though I am trying to stay out of the general debate for now, I must really object when you say things like "I'm beginning to feel that a significant number of editors on the Judaism project are either afraid of a certain user or have created their own group definition of WP:NPOV or both - one that reduces neutrality to little more than slander dressed in objectivity" that are just not healthy. If you can cite precise problems in editing articles then go ahead and do so, but to make personalized generalizations about your "perceptions" is unfair to everyone. No-one is afraid of "a certain user" nor has anyone created any "group definition of NPOV" -- but by the same token, you, Sniper, Jheald and Malik are a group too and that's already four people and I don't think that that number have even opposed you seriously, so not only is your math off, you are also off in the way you are steering your comments here. May I remind you again, that I have not made a single edit to Reform or Progressive articles at all, yet both you and Sniper have tried to implemenet quite a number of serious changes in a some very important Judaic articles, so your complaints do not hold any water. Perhaps you are not familiar with the give and take of editing on Wikipedia, especially when {{Controversial}} or {{Disputed}} or {{POV}} or {{Totally-disputed}} and such like issues come into play. But to claim that "fear reigns" and that therefore it stops you or anyone from editing is an insult to everyone'e intelligence and freedom of action. Kindly reconsider your harsh assessments. IZAK 11:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reform rabbinic organizations

Am I right in thinking that the German rabbis never actually organized under the name Reform? I've been looking through sources and I can find a Union of Liberal Rabbis (founded Germany, 1898) but nothing but synods of rabbis with pulpits in state-recognized synogogues before that? Egfrank 15:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Greif photo Human.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Greif photo Human.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. --OrphanBot 09:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death

Great article! I was in college when the whole death metal thing got big. Never quite got the hang of the heavy screeching bust your speakers sound (too much Bob Dillon and classical training I guess), but in retrospect I miss the musical diversity.

Hope all is well, Egfrank 10:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Paul_Masvidal_of_Aeon_Spoke.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Paul_Masvidal_of_Aeon_Spoke.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jusjih 03:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mairtin O'Griofa.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mairtin O'Griofa.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed - can you find an image?

The Reform Judaism (magazine) article needs some sort of image and I've never really learned how to add images or do the fair use bit. Would you be interested in finding a suitable image? Thanks. Egfrank 19:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - looks great. Hope you had a great Shabbat! Egfrank (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mairtin O'Griofa.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mairtin O'Griofa.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Reform Judaism Magazine.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Reform Judaism Magazine.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:GLI LP.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:GLI LP.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. Qrsys Cstrp 23:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classical reformers and Judaism

Hi! Hope you are having a great Channukah! I've noticed that you haven't contributed to any articles related to Judaism for the past two weeks or so. I hope all is well. Just wanted to let you know that your participation is missed. Egfrank (talk) 11:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Dokken Back In The Streets.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dokken Back In The Streets.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death

I'm always here to help. :) −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 00:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well sure I will do it but looking at my watchlist all I basically see are image alerts. That's like 100 of them plus the pages I don't watch. So I didn't know where to start. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 00:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is pretty hilarious. Death were never melodic in any sense of the word. Hey, a quick question for ya. I know they decided to make tech death and prog death the same thing on the death metal page, but I dont understand something. How come the technical death metal page says nothing about prog death then? If wikipedians have decided to say prog death and tech death are the same (I wouldn't really know, I'm not as knowledgeable about death metal nor do I like a whole lot of it besides old school and a few certain bands) then shouldn't the tech death page at least mention that it's the same as prog death? I mean, take a look. Here's the article on the death metal page and here's the tech death page. Thoughts? Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

=( You never got back to me on this. I was going to also ask how you were and if you needed any help with any sort of editing as we had not talked in quite some time. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for that! I agree with everything you were saying about dm. I'm just saying that I think the tech death page should at least mention that tech death and prog death are the same. Cool, I have family in Canada. If you ever need any help with an article or something, feel free to ask! Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy metal fashion

What do you think of this article? I think it is incredibly shitty. I put it up for deletion. If you agree (or disagree by some chance) with my reasoning cast your vote, please. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early black metal

Thanks for keep that in the stylistic origins of death metal! I originally added it in but some people still bitch about it. It's obvious, though, that bands bands like Hellhammer, Venom and Bathory had huge influences on death metal, not just black metal, so thanks. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT!?! YOU CAN'T BE!!!

Well, to answer your question, I love Morbid Saint, and so do many of my friends. We all live near the capitol of California and when we discovered Morbid Saint we went crazy. Even though they only made the one album I still consider it one of the best thrash albums ever. Unbelieveably brutal and just great for thrash. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a pleasure to talk to you. I found it interesting, the high number of edits you did on Death and even your own article *wink*, although I think anyone could figure out who you are if they just saw the comment on my page and knew anything about Morbid Saint. But yeah, I and a lot of my friends, love the album. We only wish they had made more material. Thanks for your contributions on wikipedia! And it's pretty awesome to be talking to a celebrity (the only kind I would care to talk to really, heh). Cheers! Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt you'd really need to worry about the name disclosure seeing as how many would not believe you anyways, but I also understand intimately the benefits of privacy. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

K, I erased it and saved the good stuff. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death (band)

The album images used in that way are a violation of our non free content criteria, and calling my edits vandalism is really, really not going to get you anywhere. J Milburn (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a crusade, this is me removing non-free media used in an incorrect way. In just the same way I would remove album covers from the userspace if they were used there. Without critical commentary, album covers should not be used at all. When used in a discography listing, the album covers are there for decoration only, and add nothing to the article. I mean, take a look at our featured article bands (and featured list discographies) and you will see that none of them use them. If you cannot respect our non-free content criteria, you can at least respect our featured articles as examples of our best work. J Milburn (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not my opinion, no: consensus that has been formed. I have a rather third rate little piece of writing explaining it here, but I assure you that it is in violation of our non-free content criteria, specifically points 3A and 8. Find a featured article that has such heavy use; in fact, finding any article would be difficult, as they have now, for the most part, been removed. J Milburn (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn is right about the album covers, (although nicely done in a gallery but still nfc goes against it) so no need to be alarmed. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 00:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too agree that J Milburn is right. Album covers are regarded as being fair use on the album article only. --John (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm alright, nothing but a cold though. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 01:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, J Milburn or w/e has been doing that to other metal band pages, too. He's not deleting the images but he is taking them out of the article. He's an admin and I'm sure he knows his stuff, so he is probably within the guidelines of wikipedia and there's most likely nothing we can do, sorry. I'm gonna ask an admin friend, though, just to be sure. I like it the other way, too, with the album pictures, but we'll see what happens. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morbid Saint questions

I was just wondering if you might happen to know where to get a certain piece of info. On the list of thrash metal bands I wrote under Morbid Saint's short bio that, "They were a favorite opener of Florida death metal greats, Death." This also happens to be on Morbid Saint's article. However, it has been brought to my attention that the only source that can be found that says that is on metal-archives, which is not a reliable source on wikipedia. So if that sentence is true (and I'm guessing it is) do you know where I could find that info? I looked on google and supposedly Chuck said that MS were his favorite openers, but I can't find the interview or anything. I found a site that has all the interviews Chuck ever gave and interviews of Death, but there's way too much informtation to look over, so I thought you might know where to look, if that sentence is, indeed, true. Thanks. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, someone asked if I could find a source priving that comment. Tony Paletti's site would work as a source probabaly but he doesn't actually expressly say, "Morbid Saint was a favorite opener for Death/Chuck," which is basically what I need to prove it. It would seem that if I can't prove it, it will eventaully have to be removed. If your friend at blabbermouth (or even you) said anything about MS being a favorite opener for Death or Chuck on a website, that would work and could be used as a source. I wonder if I can source emails or something...cuz if I can you could always email me about it =). Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, man, how's it going? I was wondering if this: "Keltic Records, on limited release licence from Eric Greif & Morbid Saint 2005" in the infobox of the Morbid Saint article is neccesary? Would it be okay if it just said "Keltic Records" and then where it has the dicography it could say the rest next to that album? Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, cool. Well if those vandals keep messing with that information just keep your trigger fringer ready for reverts and warnings (and possibly reporting them). Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Viogression

Sure, man, sounds great. As you said they pass notability requirements. Just gotta make sure the article sounds good! Let me know if I can help at all!! Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, alright, cool man. I might start it, but I'll definitely help one way or another. We can even "ask" Brian who can then give us official information which would count as a source, instead of searching the internet for all that crap. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
and you must always:
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. dissolve ^talk 21:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised my concern about a possible conflict of interest at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Eric Greif, if you would like to add to the discussion. Thank you. dissolve ^talk 23:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]