User talk:Cecropia/Archive 20.3

Hey

Hello Cecropia,

I just saw your note to Angela. I think I can understand how stressful the job must be, and how too often it's too thankless. I for one think you've been doing a fantastic job, and I'm sure I'm far from alone. It's saddening that you've been put through so much, and no less that you've asked to move on, but you know best Cecropia, and one cannot doubt that it's the right call. To one who has made so many right calls: thank you. Regards —Encephalon 09:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Encephalon. Your kind words are really appreciated. The good opinion of my fellow Wikipedians has always been the most important thing to me, and the best reward. And now, as promised above, I shall throw myself to the gerbils. ;-) -- Cecropia 09:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I've unwillingly carried out your request to be debureaucratted. I'm sorry the ongoing hassles at RfA led to your resignation. :( Angela. 09:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm hoping this is some kind of april fools prank :(. I only saw this through the recent changes at meta and am positively shocked... Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 10:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Nah. Don't do April Fool's. -- Cecropia 14:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I am disappointed. You have always done a very good job in a job where only the controversies get attention. If you wanted love, you should have done more name changes ;). I won't say more because I don't want to be argumentative. This will give you an idea of what I think, although it was not written for this specific situation. NoSeptember ^talk 14:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a very good page, NoSeptember. I guess some melodrama is inevitable, rather like watching the mourners (or celebrants) at your own funeral. But I already took a Wikibreak last September, and I thought the community deserved my simply bowing out so they can get the Bureaucracy in order (so to speak) the way they like it without me flitting in and out of the picture. Despite my natural propensity for verbiage, I really don't want to say much more because I hate massive Why This DemiGod is Leaving You declarations. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to pick up my briefcase. I'm having lunch with my colleague, Mr. Smith. -- Cecropia 14:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Admin powers not working

Hello. Considering that you were the one who closed my rfa, I'll assume you were the bureaucrat who promoted me. First, thank you. But second, I haven't noticed any of the abilities showing up. Interiot's tool still shows me as a user. But since the tool is subject to replication lag, that may explain that. I was wondering whether replication lag had anything to do with why, for all intensive purposes, I am still just a user. Can you look into this, please?--HereToHelp 12:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoah

A toast in congratulations of happier times to come

Uhhhhhh, so..... you're not a B'crat anymore? Because that would suck. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that would really suck. I'm sorry if what I said was uncivil - that wasn't the aim. I trust your judgement totally and even if I disagree with it occassionally, I also trust that you're doing everything in the best of faiths and for the good of Wikipedia and its community. I do hope you reconsider. Esperanzial regards, --Celestianpower ^háblame 14:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. This actually made me... sad. You did so much great work on RfA. But if it means that it'll reduce stress and keep you here in the larger sense, then good for you. Thanks for your hard work over the wikiages, and here's a toast to more! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

We haven't interacted much, so this may be a bit forward but I am sorry to see you decide to step down. This flap is not worth losing valuable 'crats over. I too hope you reconsider. That said, I would like to express my thanks to you for your services, and let you know that I respect your decision and wish you all the best in whatever you decide to do. Happy editing! ++Lar: t/c 15:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It is a dark day for Wikipedia. Dragons flight 17:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh crap! I knew you were under stress but I didn't know it was this bad. I'm very, very sad to see you resign your bureaucratship Cecropia. Very sad indeed. Over the last year, you've performed just over 50% of the promotions, with nearly four times as many promotions as the next most active bureaucrat (Nichalp). You've left behind HUGE shoes to fill. It's going to take multiple people to fill in where you left off, and I doubt any will be as good as you have been. --Durin 19:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to chime in and say, thanks for all the hard work you've put in as a b'crat over the last couple of years, and I hope that contributing to Wikipedia stays fun and satisfying for you! All the best, FreplySpang (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to say thanks for all the hard work and I'm sorry to see you leave b'cratship. On the other hand, if you have more fun as a post-bureaucrat than you did as a bureaucrat...then alls well that ends well. All the best. Guettarda 20:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

NOOO! At first I thought it was a sadistic April Fool's joke, but not it appears to be real. Thanks for all the time you've put in over the last few years and we're really sorry to see you go as a 'crat. Many cheers. — Ilyanep (Talk) 20:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see you leave the post; your considered thoughts were an asset there. Enjoy your freedom from bureaucracy and take care. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oh God No! Yikes! Please Wikipedia needs you! Without intending disrespect to your b'crat peers, your loss absolutely decimates the high reputation of the b'crat corps. You were (and are) the Dean of the b'crats (irrespective of tenure length.) A world without your button-pushing is a sad, sad world. In praise, Xoloz 21:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Having just learned of your resignation I took the opportunity to read to my wife Heidi from your user page, and although we've not met you have touched us both. Warmest regards from hydnjo talk 00:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Please say this is an April Fool's joke from you. Please. Please? NSLE _(T+C) at 00:34 UTC (2006-04-02)

Celestianpower has said all that's in my mind about this. Can't really add to it other than repeat: Please reconsider. --Mmounties (Talk) 01:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no! Two respected Bureaucrats resigning in one week? We must be doing something wrong if we are creating so much stress for leading members of our community. I'm sure you know best, but this is another body-blow. :( -- ALoan (Talk) 10:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I don't know you that well, but I still feel compelled to add my own tip of the wiki-hat here, below those who knew you better. I do recall the day you promoted me to SysOp, and I recall that the edit summary gave me (and at least a few others) a good chuckle. It's the little humourous things that stand out. So from another member of the community, thanks for all your very hard work, and all the best in the future. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 05:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Awww...That sucked. :( Sorry to hear about your resignation. You've been doing a great job - I hope that you're still alright, yeah? - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 06:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This sucks, and I am shocked to see two great bureaucrats resigning in a week. You were a great bureaucrat but you are still a great admin and editor. Cheers --Terence Ong 08:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

My salute to you

Hello, Cecropia. I'm deeply sorry to hear that decided to no longer be a bureaucrat. You had my full respect, and always performed your duties with care, diligence, and great respect to the community. You were always there, throughout both good and rough times, responding to the community and handling your job exceptionally. You were not only a valued Wikipedian but a valued bureaucrat. Regardless, I'm glad to hear that you'll still be here on Wikipedia, working on this great project. Also, my greatest thanks for commenting on my request for bureaucratship; I appreciate your comments and feedback. Thank you once again! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Staten Island Railway

Hi Cecropia, I noticed your edits to LIRR related topics...I wonder if you have heard of a "South Pole" on Staten Island, which is located after you get off at the last station on the Staten Island Railway? Apparently, its just a hike away from the station along a beach of some sort. Do you know anything about it? --HappyCamper 23:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah! Tottenville was the key word I was looking for. Yes, the "South Pole" is an actual pole. It's colored like a candy cane. I've been there before on a hiking trip, but had forgotten what the place was called. Nevertheless, I was able to find it on the web after all with your note! [1]. Too bad it probably isn't "encyclopedic" enough to warrant an article...maybe if I find more information about it I'll add it to Wikipedia. --HappyCamper 15:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Just saw...

...that you'd resigned too. Thank you for your message on my talk page, if ever you need anything on Wikipedia don't hesitate to let me know (although not at the moment - I'm on wikibreak). I don't know about you but I have no plans whatsoever to ask for bureaucratship any time soon - I have better things to do with my time tbh. Perhaps we should start a wikicommunity of ex-bureaucrats complete with userboxes, categories and project page? (joking) -- Francs2000 14:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hammer to Fall edit

"Please be more careful of your edits. The article is about a particular song, not the rock group. The link you posted belongs on the Queen (band) article, if anywhere. You removed the link to Brian May's website. He is the song author. -- Cecropia 23:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)"

??? [2] -- Candyfloss 23:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC) -- P.S.: You mean there should be TWO different articles? One about the song and another one about the single?! Does this make any sense? Candyfloss 23:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

(a) I can't see any reason why http://www.brianmay.com should be included in the 'External links' section of a song article: it's a site about May/Queen, not about "Hammer to Fall". This is just my personal opinion - as you are the author of this article, of course you should decide on that. Anyway, I think it would be better to include this link in a 'References' section, whereas the dead link in the article should be removed.

(b) Please could you explain, why http://www.queenpicturehall.com/singles/q27htf.shtml is not "appropriate" and "belongs on the Queen (band) article" instead of the Hammer to Fall article. Best regards, Candyfloss 10:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels

Hi thank you for joining the WikiProject. There is still plenty of scope for influencing things and making your contribution count. We are about establishing standards for Novel based articles and writing articles that meet our own and others high standards, and to improve Wikipedia's diet of articles on Fiction books, otherwise called Novels. I see you don't have any userboxes on your userpage, we usually like participants to user ours {{User WikiProject Novels}}, however if you have a dislike could just add the Category:WikiProject Novels Participants if you would be so kind. If you have any questions, do ask. Please be very welcome. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Great Expectations

I see you have spent quite a bit of time trying to improve this article, for which I would like to thank you. However your treatment of the spoiler material, particularly sidelining this to a seperate article if highly individual, different from everything else I have experienced here on wikipedia so far. Therefore I have raised a discussion issue on the project about how we should proceed with this sytle of editing. Personally I think is is unnecessary and overly complex. However I will willing conseed this may not be more editor's view. What we do need is a consistent recommendation for the writing of articles, and standard with which to guide our approach to them. i.e. should this approach not be used (my view), should we do this for all articles, should we use this approach for only "major" novels. This could represent a significant shift in the way fiction is treated here on wikipedia. Do get envolved in the dabate and put your viewpoint. The discussion is on our General Forum and is linked to from our announcements banner at the top of the project page. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Inspiration behind user name

Nothing anywhere near as exciting as that I'm afraid. When I first created the name as an email address back in 1998 with yahoo, the year 2000 was a big deal and everything was being called 2000 for some reason, so that become part of my online persona. And the francs bit is a shortened version of one of my middle names. I find it endearing that everyone on here calls me Francs, when my name is actually Graham... (you can find my full name and title on my "about me" page). -- Francs2000 20:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Indebitably my dear Mr... er... Opia.  :-p -- Francs2000 20:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Missed out big time...

File:Johnwaynegacyclown.jpg

Gacy as "Pogo"

I think you missed out big time by not including, perhaps before the last couplet in your clown poem, a line with something like

And although it may seem racy

I'm not afraid of John Wayne Gacy

or something along those lines. Gacy would have been a good rhyming word (Macy's; play, see; tasty; baste me; etc.) Oh well, I'll give you an 89%. :-) See ya. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

RFC regarding editing dispute at Rationales to impeach George W. Bush

Your comments are invited at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Merecat.

Merecat 20:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Coney Island

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/coney/peopleevents/pande06.html 75.3.4.54 04:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Coney Island

You've done a great job on the Coney Island article. 75.3.4.54 06:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Happy Spring celebration / Easter (as your preferences and beliefs dictate)

Here's hoping that if the bunny leaves you any beans they're this kind! ++Lar: t/c 15:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination)

This was posted on your userpage (which, as always, I have great pleasure reading :) ). I have no further comment. Snoutwood (tóg) 21:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You are invited to vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). All this is is ramblings/blog/rants about Bush. Not encyclopedic, should've been deleted long ago. Happy editing! Morton devonshire 20:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Your userpage

My great pleasure, me dear. Yours is a fine stop for a weary traveller in the realm of the User: namespace. Snoutwood (tóg) 23:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination)

I see that just now, you edit and closed/protected AfD page. While I agree with your rebuke of Nescio, I wonder why it's fair that you get to keep editing there, whilee the rest of us are blocked. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination) and User Talk:Cyde. That AfD was closed improperly by an admin whose vote there stated he was prejudiced against it - and it was closed after only 24 hours. What can you do about that? Merecat 00:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it highly irregular that you are editing and commenting an archived protected page that non-admins cannot (and should not) edit. I would advise you remove your comments following the closure and move them to the talk page. --Mmx1 01:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Consensus to delete an article is approximately 2/3, and this article met that criterion. Protecting an archived AfD or RfA is what is highly irregular. I believe that Cyde both decided this wrongly and protected the page inappropriately. I have no intention of removing my appropriate comment. -- Cecropia 02:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not about the rightness of the protection/archive, but of writing to a purportedly archived page, which non-admins cannot edit. Since you feel the protection is wrong, the proper course is to push to reopen the discussion, not to continue editing just because you have the power to. But using your admin privs to edit a discussion that we cannot smacks of misuse of admin powers, even if that's not your intent. --Mmx1 03:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of content on AfD for Rationales to impeach George W. Bush

Hello, I see that in this edit you deleted content off of the AfD for Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. This included the deletion of two votes (including my own, which is why I noticed). Could you explain this please? Thanks. -- noosphere 05:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Responded on your talk. -- Cecropia 06:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Where? My talk page is blank. I archived it some days ago and there hasn't been a single new comment on it since. -- noosphere 06:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I found it. Looks like you clicked on my "green e" and then on the discussion link for that page, which is actually not my user talk page. I should fix that because I can see how it can lead to confusion. Anyway, now that I see your reply I understand your deletion on the AfD page was just an accident, which is what I suspected. Thanks, and sorry to bother you. -- noosphere 06:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

comment back

I am going to keep the lightly toned... tone it up yourself if you wish ;). The Jesus article is all based on personal unsourced interpation of verious sources (new testament; koran; etc.). This is exlcuding the other views section. The intro is totally unbanlanced with views so-to-say pro-Jesus. I could go on but that wouldn't be a good idea. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 06:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to take a mini-vacation from religious articles. Still, if I had my way, I would start with the historicity of Jesus, and I would make more of an effort to iron out the gospel descriptions, given that they don't all agree, and what little we know from Josephus and inference. -- Cecropia 06:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Feedback requested!

Hello! I hope you’re well. Some months ago, I solicited your feedback regarding a particular vote result regarding Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker. This is a request of your opinion of another.

Around a month ago, there was significant edit-warring at the Republic of Macedonia article, namely, there was contention regarding the appellation "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)" and the degree to which it should be emphasised in the intro of this overview article. As a result, the article was protected from editing ... a condition which persists to this day.

I initiated a poll, reviewed beforehand both by those involved and not with the debate (including one Admin), to determine the precise lead for the article. The poll began with two options (*) – the prior agreeable one and another – with options to add. An additional seven were added during the course of the poll. Upfront, victory conditions were indicated: through approval voting, a clear majority or plurality for a single option would prevail upon the vote’s conclusion.

As of 30 April (the poll’s end), no option has a garnered a majority (or by extension, consensus); however, one of the initial options has garnered a clear plurality; see below (in vote share order):

• 35 votes for option #2 – Extended version ... 23% *
• 24 votes for option #5 – Detailed version ... 16%
• 22 votes for option #4 – Brief version (2) ...14%
• 19 votes for option #1 – Brief version ... 13% *
• 15 votes for option #6 – Extended version: variation of #2 ... 10%
• 12 votes for option #7 – Extended version: another variation of #2 ... 8%
• 12 votes for option #9 – Brief version: variation of #4 ... 8%
• 8 votes for option #8 – Extended version (3) ... 5%
• 5 votes for option #3 – Extended version (2) ... 3%

Total: 152 votes

Some of the options added later differ little from the initial versions posted. Similarly, there has been minor dissent and few abstentions regarding the structure and results of the poll (e.g., supposed vote splitting, preference for multiple binary polls); the latter was discounted given the nuanced nature of the issue. However, the poll has garnered significant input, with most either explicitly supporting the poll or (by choosing whichever option(s)) implicitly doing so ... including most of those who expressed dissent.

So, the questions are:
(1) Given the above, do you believe that the vote result above is legit/decisive enough to solve the issue, and sufficient to remove the long-standing article block?
(2) Do you suggest additional courses of actions, if any, to help resolve this issue, e.g., subsequent run-off poll, different poll altogether, etc.?

I’d appreciate if you can peruse the actual poll and promptly provide feedback to me, soon after which (hopefully) we can retract the article block and continue legitimately editing the article. I want to proceed carefully and not necessarily be divisive but feel that the results of the vote should guide our collective actions. Please let me know if you’ve any questions; thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Great ... thank you! :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in at Republic of Macedonia; I appreciate it. Do you, or can you, have e-mail enabled? I'd like to connect with you on the QT, if possible. Merci! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Matrilineality

There seems to be a misunderstanding regarding my edit of a week or two ago to the "Matrilineality" article. (That was I, by the way - I had not contributed to Wikipedia for about a year, and, being out of practice, forgot to log in before editing.) I am not claiming that the halakhic rules on paternity are not post-Biblical. Rather, I am stating what the Mishna has to say on the subject of paternity, such as it defines it: for halakhah, the child of a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother (or several other kinds of forbidden union) has no father, period. The relevance of this ruling *within the halakhic system* is obvious. (It also happens to be dealt with in some detail - if memory serves me well, the book by Prof. Shaye Cohen I quote elsewhere ("The Beginnings of Jewishness") makes a case for this to be one of the actual causes for the rabbinic ruling in favour of matrilineality. (There is an actual debate about the latter in the Gemara, though it is decided on competing biblical prooftexts. As for the ruling on paternity - consult your favorite halakhic source (printed or human). Its relevance is hardly something made up by Sh. Cohen; there is a mention of the matter in one of Dershovitz's books, of all places. Again, I am making a reference by memory.)

In most circumstances, halakhah does accord paternity (as opposed to merely maternity) to the children of a Jewish mother. Apparently, some women were trusted, after all; in particular, priesthood is passed patrilineally.

I don't really understand your deletion - perhaps the misunderstanding can be cleared? Obviously, I am not advocating one rule over another; I am simply trying to describe the history of certain rules, within the systems of rules in which they originated. Hasdrubal 06:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Hasdrubal 07:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The root of this problem is not your edit, but the difficulty in understanding who matrilineality is justified in a way that can possibly sensible to the average reader. Notwithstanding what you added, I have read the references by which the policy is justified and frankly, I can't find one that makes encyclopedic sense. Some sources say, in essence, that since intercourse between Jews and Gentiles is forbidden, that the result of this forbidden union is Jewish if the mother is the Jew but not if the father is a Jew. Does this make sense?

To an average human being in the 21st century, no. To a 3rd or 6th century rabbi, yes - and, since such rabbis set out the rules that are followed by the Orthodox (and those who see Orthodoxy as normative) nowadays, it is crucial for us to understand their mindset. Within the halakhic framework, the offspring of most kinds of forbidden relations has no paternity: this is not a fact about the world, or an opinion of mine about the world, but simply a fact about what halakhah states. We may go further into how this general rule evolved - the influence of Roman law is there, according to many - but we will have to be careful not to do original research (since doing so would violate Wikipedia policy). The general rule, in itself, is worth quoting - it allows one to put the rule in a general framework. Hasdrubal 08:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Other sources cite the "for he shall turn your children against Me" argument: "Me" being the Lord, and him sometimes interpreted as the non-Jewish father, or the non-Jewish spouse's father. That doesn't make sense either. One Jewish source, recognizing this, says that the "he" should be "she," the non-Jewish spouse. But the wording is "he." So my point isn't to argue one way or another either, but to exhibit how difficult this is to explain coherently.

I do not know of any mainstream historian nowadays who believes that descent in Biblical times was matrilineal. What you are bringing into the discussion here is simply a usage of Biblical prooftexts on the part of rabbis in order to justify a policy post facto. This usage does not tell an outside observer something about the Bible, but, rather, something about the rabbis' belief system and mode of argument. (For what it is worth - there is a discussion in the Gemara on this very issue, and both sides bolster their arguments by means of references to Biblical passages that would seem to have no bearing on the issue to our eyes.) Hasdrubal 08:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Now to your edit. Here is the paragraph with your edit in bold.

Orthodox Judaism states that, to be a Jew, one must be either a proselyte or the child of a Jewish mother. This ruling seems to be based on the fact that intercourse between Jews and non-Jews is forbidden, and any offspring resulting from such an act is considered to have no paternity. Matrilineality is not mentioned directly in the Bible, but derives from the Oral law (Mishnah tractate Kiddushin 3:12). The Talmudic commentary finds scriptural proof from various verses in the Torah and the rest of Tanakh (the Jewish Bible).

OK, your edit does not add to understanding, because it again asserts that sexual relations between Jews and non-Jews is forbidden, but the "no paternity" is yet another dance to defend a non-Biblical policy that noone seems really able to justify except by starting from the specific (mother is Jewish) and then tries to find justification in text.

I am defending nothing. I am simply relating a rabbinic ruling to a general rabbinic framework. It is not clear that the latter framework is somehow a justification for the ruling; while we should be careful not to wade into the waters of interpretation, it is held at least by some - here I must check my sources - that the framework led in reality to the ruling. The justification by Biblical texts is a different kettle of fish: it is fairly clear (to you and me - must find support in literature!) that it is post facto, and that it is attempting to find a Biblical basis for a policy which is post-Biblical. Mind you, as I said, it might be worthwhile to mention this justification in Wikipedia - just not in the auctorial voice. Hasdrubal 08:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I think an honest assessement would find one of two (or both) reasons to be the root of the mateilineal descent issue:

• You know who the mother is, but you don't know who the father is, which is an unflattering assumption because it both says women cannot be trusted, and because it assigns a racial/genetic component to Judaism

Or, more to the point, some women are to be trusted and others aren't. Priestly descend is transmitted patrilineally, through intercourse with Jewish women. Hasdrubal 08:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

and/or

• The common sociological truth that the mother tends to determine the religious upbringing of the child. This is the position of the late Rabbi Schneerson, is common sense, but probably scriptural impossible to justify as a religious requirement.

Perhaps it would be possible to make your point in a way that would be more comprehensible to a non-religionist? -- Cecropia 07:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how this is a "common sociological truth". It may be mentioned in some apologetics, but I wonder whether anybody actually believes in it - it wouldn't make sense to have it justify a requirement, as you say. Hasdrubal 08:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

(interjecting - please respond to cecropia and not me) i believe the best way to deal with apparent contradictions is to incllude both points of view, attributed. Kevin Baas^talk 07:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

PS: It would be great if you could get a copy of Shaye Cohen's The Beginnings of Jewishness, or some other historical work on the subject - that way (a) we would be on the same frequency, (b) we would be able to avoid making any statements that violate the no-original-research policy. Hasdrubal 08:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

PPS. I emphasize: in all of the above, I am not describing any sort of personal opinion on what should or should not be the case, or what policies should be followed. I am simply trying to describe the framework of other people in our century or other centuries, to the best of my ability. Hasdrubal 08:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand. Encyclopedically speaking, I am frustrated by the inability to have a sensible entry that would, perhaps, take account of the various views of the mixed parentage issue in a way that would allow the reader to draw sensible conclusions. As to the issue that the mother (not just Jewish mother) determines (or at least has the greatest influence over) the child's upbringing seems me to me to be something that any married (or unmarried for that matter) person with married friends or relatives is well aware of. Though that would be original research stated in that form, I think it could be easily backed up with citations.-- Cecropia 08:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I cannot but disagree with this last statement. The side with the greater influence depends too much from case to case and from place to place for any such general statement to make sense. (Also, for what it is worth, the entire Muslim world seems to have the opposite opinion from yours.) In any case, a (statistical) description is not a prescription.

Here is what we ought to have: (a) an account of what seems to be the consensus among academic historians as to which views came to be held by whom at what time and where; (b) how each group's views fit into its legal and philosophical framework. The main difficulty, it seems to me, is that some editors oppose (a) vehemently, either through a disconnect with what is now held to be true by historians (with abundant documentation) or through a direct disregard thereof. This is why I stopped editing these pages a while ago; I still plan to leave most of the editing to others. Ideally, we would have faculty from History and related disciplines editing these pages and dominating the discussion numerically. I doubt that will ever happen. Hasdrubal 08:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you do agree that the information given in the sentence you deleted should be included in some form, would you be so kind as to include it again - if possible in your own words (or those of a source)? I will stop paying attention to this page. As I implied, it does not make sense to keep the post-facto justification based on a very particular interpretation of a Bible verse, and to leave out what was probably a real factor in the framing of the halakhic system. Again, I am not making any statements about factual reality, except in so far as the rules of a legal system constitute a sort of factual reality (as are, say, the rules of chess as played nowadays, or the rules of chess as played in India in the 12th century). Hasdrubal 18:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

FYROM or Republic of Macedonia or Macedonia

There really is no personal or ethnic or whatever reason behind me rejecting your conclusion. In fact, I liked your spelled out option (as Avg did). I just think we cannot conclude on that based on the results of the poll. Nothing more - nothing less. Please reconsider after you count how many the contradicting votes are. See my example subpage for your first point (fYRoM and spellout in intro), where there are only 3 contradicting votes (out of ~89) and another ~70 double votes. We can't conclude that, so I suggest you remove it so that we verify the first point that was the reason why this poll started anyway. It will really help stop edit warring and create consensus!  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 17:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

DRV and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination)

G'day Cecropia,

would DRV really tell you to "pull your head in"? Well, generic "you", yes, the awe-inspiring Cecropia, no :-). I skipped two-thirds of your point in order to make mine, which ended up making us both look silly. My apologies; it's not as if there's any rush, is there? Deary me.

Let's try again, with a bit of politeness in place of my earlier haste: AfD is not a poll, and the vote tally is irrelevant. I whinged because it's irritating when admins (let alone bureaucrats!) who aren't familiar with AfD (or who know it only as "that stinking cesspool") bring up the tally, and thus give this view (which tends to contribute to half-baked discussions and incivility) the imprimatuer of adminly authority. I hope I've explained it better this time 'round ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Brighton dates

Okay, I guess it makes sense to go with the opening dates for the current stations and not former incarnations of them ... but is there some place where the elevated openings are listed all in one place, or will it be necessary to go hunting for them? — Larry V (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem with that, I'll just have to recode the infobox template to allow omission of the opening month/day. — Larry V (talk) 02:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Who was the first admin?

I've been doing a little research, trying to figure out who the first person selected as a wikipedia administrator was. I found your name as the first bureaucrat to sysop someone in the current log (in December 2004), which seemed to indicate you've been around for a while. Do you know who was the first admin or no of someone who would? Cool3 19:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Cecropia is too much of a newbie ;-) to answer your question, but if you ever find someone who knows this stuff, send them over to the page I set up to record that sort of history. NoSeptember ^talk 19:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Btw, Cecropia, if you want to brag about your days as a bureaucrat, just refer people to this table. NoSeptember ^talk 20:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for improving...

Hot dog stand.

I was thinking it was never going to be improved. Good work. Knowitall 19:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Franklin Av Shuttle

Do you have any dates/places to find them for the opening/closing/reopening/final closing of Dean Street station? — Larry V (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

So basically the dates that are already in the article are more or less correct? — Larry V (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I trust your dates, I was just making sure. Thanks! — Larry V (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Favorite Songs

My survey has changed. I am now continuing my mission for the best songs, but now I am accepting all genres. I'm giving you a chance to revote for your top ten favorite songs of any genres (not just classic rock which is still the best). I've made a executive decision to keep the existing survey results and just add on to that with the new entries. My feeling for doing this is because classic rock is the most influential genre in music currently so it should be expressed more in the survey. Thank you for contributing in the past, and hopefully in the future. ROCK ON. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 03:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Brighton Line opening - Prospect Park to DeKalb Av

I don't particularly trust nycsubway.org anymore regarding this line, so do you happen to know the date for the opening of the northernmost segment of the Brighton Line, from Prospect Park to DeKalb? nycsubway.org says August 1, 1920 here, but the pages for the individual stations along that segment (DeKalb, Atlantic Ave, and 7th Ave) give dates that conflict with the first page and with each other. — Larry V (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Novels WikiProject Newsletter June 2006

Here is a new initiative for our project. You are recieving this as you have at some point signed up as a "member" of the project. Have a look at the newsletter via the link and see what you think. The June 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.hotdogchicagostyle.com/funfacts.php

I found this site that copies some of the information on the hot dog article (now on the regional variations article) upon which we both work. They cite one of our mirrors, answers.com, and I do not think that they mean any harm. The article, however, does seem to indicate that they have a copyright on the information. What actions should be taken? youngamerican (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. youngamerican (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

57th St/6th Av

It seems that around the NYCS project, it's come to be the convention to refer to 57th Street/Sixth Avenue as part of the IND 63rd Street Line. I'm really uncomfortable with this. I know that IND 63rd Street chaining starts at 57th, but so does Sixth Avenue chaining. The emergency exit there declares "6th Avenue Line - IND." Also, this station was open and served as a northern terminal for decades before the 63rd Street Line came into operation. Likewise, I don't like how the Sixth Avenue Line has been deemed to start south of 59th-Columbus Circle, where the current B/D tracks diverge. Seventh Avenue's emergency exit signage says "Queens Line - IND," and again Sixth Avenue chaining starts at 57th/6th and continues southward. I've moved the article to "57th Street (IND Sixth Avenue Line)," but I was just wondering what your opinion would be on this. — Larry V (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I was reading your stuff under the "War Crimes" article. I'm currently new to this Wiiki stuff and went to the List of War Crimes where I found the united states as being implicated for war crimes by wikkipedians. I tried editing, reasoning and (unfortunately)arguing. But all of my edits keep getting reverted as they seem hell bent on claiming allegations of The US in War Crimes are valid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_crimes

Could you help out here with some expert reasoning and show me how this wiki stuff is done?

Thanks -Ryan

42nd Street Shuttle

I'm sure you are aware of the chaos that has been circling the article about the 42nd Street Shuttle. However, I have now discovered that the problem is much deeper and convoluted that I had previously thought. At first, I thought that I could resolve it with a simple move request, and maybe a request for a history merge, but now I've decided to come to you and lay out the whole situation in one place, in the hopes that you as a sysop might be able to resolve this mess. This is the story, as best as I can figure it out.

The article started a while ago as "S 42nd Street Shuttle (New York City Subway service)". At some point, I renamed it to "S - 42nd Street Shuttle (New York City Subway service)" to clarify; this went smoothly, and caused no problems. At some point, Imdanumber1 renamed the article to "IRT Grand Central/Times Square Shuttle"; I easily reverted this move, and still there were no problems. Then, in an apparent show of stubbornness, Imdanumber1 renamed it again, to "S - Grand Central/Times Square Shuttle Shuttle (New York City Subway service)" (with duplicate "shuttle"), and then to "S - Grand Central/Times Square Shuttle (New York City Subway service)" (fixed duplicate). This seems to be where the problems started. Since then, the article "S - Grand Central/Times Square Shuttle (New York City Subway service)" has remained untouched; edits to the article shifted to the article "S - Grand Central/Times Square Shuttle Shuttle (New York City Subway service)]]. It is for this article that I placed the latest move request, which resulted in its being moved back to "S - 42nd Street Shuttle (New York City Subway service)". However, inexplicably, Imdanumber1 decided to be a vigilante again and oppose all popular opinion, moving it again, this time to "IRT Grand Central/Times Square Shuttle (New York City Subway service)", claiming "Moving page since this is much popular (since the shuttle serves these two stations only and trains say "transfe" (note the cut-off message). Here, Pacific Coast Highway moved it to "S-42nd Street Shuttle (New York City Subway service)" in an attempt to replicate the original name; he then somehow moved it again back to the original "S - 42nd Street Shuttle (New York City Subway service)". And there are more that I have not documented but have just found after writing the above "history". So now there are several separate edit histories (not counting edit histories only documenting a move operation):

Main histories:

• S - Grand Central/Times Square Shuttle (New York City Subway service): contains original edit history back to the original version
• S-42nd Street Shuttle (New York City Subway service)
• S - 42nd Street Shuttle (New York City Subway service)

Additional histories:

• 42nd Street Shuttle
• 42nd Street Shuttle Line

I've given up looking, for now. There are probable more double redirects floating around than I'd like to count, as well. I'm hoping that you can help straighten this mess out; I'm sure that if I had posted requests for this on WP:RM and such other pages, this would have never been resolved. This way, perhaps it can be fixed, or at least addressed, in something resembling promptness. Thanks in advance.

--Larry V (talk | contribs) 19:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a million! --Larry V (talk | contribs) 04:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Beverley/Cortelyou

How accurate is the statement that Beverley and Cortelyou are the closest stations in the system? A lot of the stations in Lower Manhattan look like they could challenge that. --192.193.221.142 17:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC) --Larry V (talk | contribs) 17:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)