User talk:Arniep/Archive2

Is the guy I had the argument with over Jennifer Aniston. No, it's not just over Jewish people as far as I can see. He did Zeta Jones and the two Douglases, so he was probably just working on that clan. This user seems to think that no one can be called an American if we know their ethnic background, and they have to be called something like "American-born English/Swedish/Greek actor", which leads to Kirk Douglas being called an "American-born Belarusian actor" !!!!!. He's also putting Jennifer Aniston and a couple of others into the "List of Multiracial Americans" and doesn't seem to understand the difference between race and ethnicity. Anyway, sorry I haven't had time to check out the Antidote thing, I'll do it now. Vulturell 22:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arniep. I didn't actually disambiguate the link - all I did was to circumvent the redirect which was already in place. By default, anyone clicking on Jewish will go through to Judaism. If that's something you disagree with, you could consider changing the redirect page to a disambiguation page. Regards, CLW 22:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had a look at the history page for the redirect - looks like it did indeed previously point to Jew. Obviously this is something of a contentious issue - good luck with it! And don't be afraid to stand your ground! Regards, CLW 22:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the IPA template doesn't help much on Samuel Pepys. But [pips] on it's own looks even stranger. I'll try to improve it without "breaking the rules" too much. See what you think. Thruston 17:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't alter or revert these templates. We have a central mechanism for ensuring they all look the same. Any complaints or requests for change should go to Wikipedia talk:Sister projects. -- Netoholic @ 04:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikiquote

Why would you use inline styles instead of a classname? Classes get you a consistent, easy-to-change look. It still looks the same. (By the way, I was just changing the Wikiquote template so it would be the same as the others; someone else had changed the others.) —Josh Lee 22:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination is noted. I have put my reasons forward for keeping said article (which took several hours and was done for a good reason) on the appropriate page. Please try not to come across as too precious - you have rubbed long-timers me up the wrong way numerously judging by the comments on this page, and I'm now one of them. Bentley Banana.

I think it's impractical if the list is unsubstantial. But for a programme which is long-running and with guests from all walks of life thereon, it's worth a catalogue. There are a lot of names on there. Bentley Banana.

The category works because it's so substantial. It is a definitive list of worthy people with something in common. It's extremely doubtful I would have considered doing such a category for a TV show on which only a handful of folk had appeared. Guests themselves have said, especially in recent years, that they feel they have achieved something if they are asked to appear on this programme, and any journalist who appears always writes a column about the experience afterwards because the interest is there. I think you're doing the programme a disservice. And if it sets a precedent, then it's up to you and others to nominate for deletion - you surely can't omit one article or category because it might inspire similar ones from elsewhere. That's ludicrous. All articles and categories should be judged on their own merit, not on their effect on separate articles yet to be written. Bentley Banana.

Unfortunately due to AOL's open proxy implementation that puts good editors and vandals on the same IPs, our options for blocking are limited. You'll notice that it's a different IP for each of the different articles (that's the way AOL works), and long blocks on the entire IP range would quickly be unblocked. At some point I think Wikipedia might have to require registration by AOL users. -- Curps 20:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The way AOL seems to work, the AOL IP assigned is always the same for a given Wikipedia page even if the edits were made days apart, but different across different Wikipedia pages even if the edits were made only a few minutes apart. So the edits could be anywhere in the 195.93.21.* range, and a lot of legitimate edits by other AOL users are made in that range (not to mention registered users who might use that range). -- Curps 21:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It won't be everyone in AOL, because they use different IP ranges. So this particular vandal seems to be confined to the 195.93.21.* range, and not other AOL IP ranges like 64.12.*.*, and this may be geographically-related somehow. I don't have any inside knowledge of how AOL works, so all of the above is just from experience watching vandals on Wikipedia, you can often tell whether it's the same person or different based on their edits.

See [1] I'm giving you the cache version because the article itself has gone offline. Also, apparently they both say they're Jewish on the Thirteen DVD commentary, but this is the original articleVulturell 02:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RachelBrown socks and comment if you want. --Mistress Selina Kyle 02:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since she apparently referred to herself as "Jewish" on the DVD commentary and was also referred to as "Jewish" in the interview (i.e. as opposed to "half Jewish" or whatnot in both cases) I guess it's fine to say she grew up in a "Jewish American family" (notice I didn't say "Jewish American parents", but rather used the general term "family" i.e. her upbringing). I mean, frankly speaking, we don't know her exact ancestry, for all we know her mother is Jewish and her father is part Jewish too, etc. or a dozen other scenarios. If the only ethnicity/religion information available to us on Wood just says "Jewish" then that's what we have to put in, until (and I'm sure we eventually will, no question about it) see a source that goes into more detail. Anything else (i.e. the family tree, which we can't even necessarily verify is hers, though it's likely) can be considered original research. Vulturell 02:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if she's referred to herself and been referred to as "Jewish", it means that she was most likely brought up Jewish (i.e. religiously or culturally speaking) as opposed to anything else. The comment on the DVD was in regards to her character wearing a cross (i.e. "shouldn't be wearing it 'cos am Jewish"), wouldn't she have commented on her father (or mother?) being Christian? I guess if her mother was Jewish maybe her father converted, but again, that's more speculation. We hear actors say "Jewish" all the time when it comes to their background without further specification, and we don't question "how Jewish" they are unless it comes up in later interviews, so if the information we have regarding her family upbringing says "Jewish" without further specification then that is how we should list her family upbringing, until we have more information (which I'm sure will be sooner than later). Vulturell 03:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we don't know if her father isn't Jewish, that's the thing. We just have "Jewish" in regards to her background, so that's how I'm listing her until we have some first-hand notice that she's also something else. Vulturell 03:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Her parents identify as Jewish"? Why not grandparents and great-grandparents and everyone back three thousand years ago? (plus you used that scary word "identify") I'm sorry, but I'm certain that you wouldn't have questioned someone with a "more Jewish" last name or whatnot as being "just Jewish" if they mentioned "Jewish" as their background. The info that we have right now says "Jewish" for Wood without further explication, we can't just assume until we hear concrete info otherwise. Vulturell 03:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfair. If RachelBrown was a permanently banned user, then a block would be reasonable based on a suspicion of sock puppetry. But RachelBrown is not a banned user. Indefinite blocks can only be approved by Jimbo Wales and/or the Arbitration Committee. They can't be unilaterally enforced by admins. There is no justification for a block full stop, let alone an indefinite one. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just an addition - this is apparently the "resolution" of an edit war and dispute, which, from what I can gather, was perpetuated by Lulu of the Lotus Eaters, who refused to cooperate or act appropriately. Extraordinarily suspicious. I think that there is merit for this to go to ArbCom against Lulu of the Lotus Eaters, mentioning Mindspillage and SlimVirgin as accessories. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a page to go over the evidence of the whole thing. Please look here User:Zordrac/Poetlister. Also, do you know of a way to ban someone from editing your user talk page? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm investigating this situation. If you have any information or comments, please contact me (via talk page or e-mail). Dan100 (Talk) 20:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually I have one question in particular for you: do you believe that these people know each other in "real life", and if you do, what makes you believe that? But again, please feel free to send me any other questions or comments. Dan100 (Talk) 22:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Hello Dan. As I understand it, yes they do know each other in "real life", or at least have met in real life. I can say that Poetlister sent me an e-mail to advise me that she and RachelBrown were best friends IRL, that Londoneye is RachelBrown's cousin, and that both Taxwoman and Newport went to the same university as RachelBrown. Poetlister however asked that I not reprint her e-mail due to privacy reasons. You can e-mail her via her user name and I imagine that she would explain it. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 23:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure AOL will be very responsive (especially at this time of year). I'm monitoring the pages and reverting what I find (we missed Oliver Stone last time). An effective strategy might be to add a comment to the talk pages of the articles in question, letting people know that they should revert Tufano on sight. I might go ahead and do this. -- Curps 18:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summary on Reg Cox was too hasty. Trampikey did provide a reference [2] [3], so this seems to have been good faith on his part. However, while IMDB does have a listing for Marc Tufano he is only given one credit and Reg Cox is not listed, and I would consider IMDB to be authoritative. As for the uel.ac.uk link, well, perhaps the Tufalo hoaxing extends beyond Wikipedia, or perhaps that one very minor role (unlike everything else) might actually be true... but if not verifiable then we shouldn't add it to Wikipedia. -- Curps 19:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arnie, those are good ideas, and thanks for letting me know about them. I've withdrawn from editing the article, because I don't think I was doing any good, and I didn't want to get in the way of the normal editing process. But I wish you all the best with it, and also Happy Christmas/Hanukkah. ;-) Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Her mother is a convert to Judaism? Where did you see this? This is interesting info if true but I wasn't aware it was on the net. Vulturell 07:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks, but I appreciate the civil tone in your comment to me on my talk page. I am a very outside view on the issue since my only experience with any of that was with Stab Rule, who I believe was a disruptive influence on Wikipedia. I also disagree with Zordrac's opinion since it basically seems to be "Go and whine to Jimbo about it", which isn't a productive way of resolving this dispute. karmafist 21:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it was the part about being ticked off at Stab Rule. The rest of the view is fairly irrelevant to me, as with most of the rfc. I particularly don't agree with Zordrac on his approach trying to fix the problem and his view on sockpuppetry, but than that and Stab Rule, I have zero opinion on anything in that rfc, and Zordrac has the right to his opinion. karmafist 22:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I can't help you there, Wikipedia from where I see it right now is in a state of flux. Every policy and guideline can be changed with the click of an edit button, and changed back and forth given enough "consensus". I deplore sockpuppetry, as it seems you do with Antidote, but the waters are too muddied there to make a clear distinction anymore, I know from personal experience since I have made mistakes in regards to trying to determine sockpuppetry when it isn't particularly obvious. I nominated your description at the top if that means anything, but I apologize, I don't see the big deal otherwise. At this point, i'd start an rfar if you'd like to go further. And when you're there, make it very very clear that Antidote is trashing WP:POINT, and i'd also ask for a recusal of Jayjg, because even though he a nice guy, he has a heavily jewish slant and would probably be biased. I've toned down my endorsement of Lulu's to partial endorsement(just endorsing the Stab Rule part), since that, like I said before, is all my involvement in the situation and what I think is to only clear part from looking at this from the outside.karmafist 22:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did you e-mail her father or something? (Through the Theatre in the Park website?) Also, did her mother convert for marriage (I.e. if Wood's father was Jewish) or just as a personal choice? The entry doesn't make it clear exactly what the situation was, i.e. if her father was Christian and her mother was a convert to Judaism. Oh, and could you post the e-mail please? It would need to be posted here, or maybe on Wood's talk page, in order to not be considered Original Research. Vulturell 22:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An edited version is fine, but what do you mean by info that couldn't be released publically? Vulturell 22:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, that's not really relevant anyway. Go ahead and edit it and I think Wood's talk page would be the best place to post it. Oh, two questions, did you ask him about 1. Roger Moore being her uncle and 2. I'm still not clear, her mother was born Christian and converted to Judaism before Wood was born and Wood's father is Christian too, right, not Jewish? Vulturell 22:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, gotcha. I'm glad you remembred to ask him about Roger Moore. I'll tidy up the entry a bit and remove the "Trivia" section back into "Private Life", as point form trivia isn't really encyclopedic and recalls the IMDB. Thanks for the research. Vulturell 22:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... you might be right about that. Yeah, remove it and ask him before re-posting. Vulturell 22:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep the info from Trivia, but not the name Trivia and the point form. I am aware that some articles still have Trivia on them, but I've seen it removed time and time again. The point form structure is simply not encyclopedic (i.e. you probably wouldn't find anything like it in Encyclopedia Britannica) and I am under the firm belief that any piece of info can be inserted into the article itself and thus made more relevant. Vulturell 22:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I just saved my version of it, fixing up some of the parts you added in (i.e. phrases like "recognized and honored"). Honestly though, a few sentences strung together into a paragraph under "Private life" look a lot better than point form trivia and a section explicitly labeled "Trivia". Vulturell 23:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no offense to him, but a relative's opinion can obviously be POV. We can't used "acclaimed" for a role that there is little info about unless we have a citation to some sort of article and/or review of it. As for the last paragraphs, having three uses of "She", after one another, is awkward. This way there's an evener balance of "She" and "Wood". Vulturell 23:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should put the cfd tag on all the sub-categories rather than try to get them mass-deleted. Not many people will have the parent cat on their watch list, and would have missed the possible mass deletion of various long standing categories. --TimPope 23:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Since I am not using Wikipedia at the moment, I have lots of free time :). So I had enough time to waft through all of the edits and included blow by blow bits of evidence, that I think prove quite definitively ZERO COLLUSION and also provide both timeline and its relationship to other cases (such as Antidote's) as well as why RachelBrown left. I know that you think that this is related to Antidote's case, and in terms of who is involved it is. But I couldn't find any evidence that Antidote even edited List of Jewish jurists, or its talk page, and hence it really doesn't seem to have anything to do with it. It might in a very indirect way but yeah. I've also seen SlimVirgin/Lulu both supporting and opposing Antidote at different points in time, so they seem to be neutral in terms of him as well. Antidote's POV might have been anti-semiticism, but Lulu's was of ownership. Lulu was just on a power trip, and that's about the scope of things. Anyway I've detailed it there. Its funny really that he called me a liar for reporting on evidence. Can you find any evidence of collusion amongst any of their edits? I can't see any carefully coordinated edits or anything. Or were they deleted from their contributions page somehow? Have Wikipedia's own tools been manipulated by these horrible people? No. The simple answer is that there was no collusion. Them being sock puppets is the fanciful answer. The simple answer is that they were framed by POV pushers. Oh and if you look at Wikipedia:Privacy policy you'll note that they CAN show these CheckUser results publicly - so long as the users it concerns permit it. Since they are supposedly all the same user, just ask any of them if its okay. Since that will prove their innocence, I bet they will say yes. Wanna ask them? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please look into the facts of things before you try and berate people. Zordrac has a tendency to see a conspiracy where none exists. In this case, he does not have access (due to Wikimedia's privacy policy, which prevents the arbitrators from divulging user IPs) to technical evidence which proves beyond doubt that these people are the same person. I can assure you that all three sockpuppets are still blocked, and will remain so in the future. I have thus reverted your edits - please don't do that again. Ambi 13:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dan100 has been taken for a merry ride here, but that doesn't change that the technical evidence incontrovertibly proves that the three are sockpuppets. The three remained blocked when I checked ten minutes ago, and I can't see that changing any time soon. Ambi 13:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, how? Psychic powers? Ambi 22:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arnie, I don't know what the context of this discussion was, but I saw the reference to Zordrac's page. You might want to note that it's full of factual errors and misunderstandings, too many to list. No one "framed" these accounts. It's not even clear why anyone would have wanted to. Occam's razor applies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly too many to list, that's why you can't list even 1. And of course I am "always looking for a conspiracy theory when none exists". Thats a WP:NPA you realise. LOL. The same way that you attacked Peter Falconio, eh, User:Ambi. Yet you couldn't find a hole there either. You just try to destroy everyone's good work. And Slim, my goodness, plain as the hand in front of your face. Or were your efforts with User:Marsden and User:FuelWagon just a coincidence? No, no, never happened before. Of course not. And your involvement in this case is coincidental too, right? Yes, you're right that obviousness applies. There was 0 collusion, they were not sock puppets, and they had totally different edit histories for 7 months. So unless you believe in some ridiculously impossible theory that they waited for 7 months before "colluding" in voting on the same AFDs (in totally different ways) as their only "collusion", then I think that you're the one that can't see the hand in front of your face. Or, wait, are you going to give us some more links and tell us what they mean, yet when we click on them they tell us the opposite? LOL. This is a joke. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt you mean well, but you're being taken for a ride in this case. The sockpuppeteer in this case is a good one, but the IP evidence is obvious - they are the same person. It's only gotten this far because Zordrac is gullible and insists on believing in a conspiracy because the CheckUser folks are not allowed to divulge IP information to him. The CheckUser folks are mostly well trained in this sort of stuff, several of them having dealt with Usenet abuse in the past, and they don't label someone a sockpuppet based on tenuous evidence. Ambi 02:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arniep. Because it was published in 1901-6, the JE is considered public domain in the United States and many other jurisdictions. This covers the entire work, including any images found therein. As an interesting side note, many of the images, in particular those of flat works of art over a certain age, were themselves PD even in 1901. The developers of JewishEncyclopedia.com have done an extraordinary and valuable service to scholarship by posting the work on the internet, but they can no more claim copyright ownership of the JE or of images used therein than I could claim copyright ownership of one of Shakespeare's works. I believe that Wikipedia has extensive information about copyright law in the US and other jurisdictions if you are interested in investigating the issue further. Regards, Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is strange. They are certainly entitled to copyright for their original work (for example, if they added info to an article on Jews in Germany to deal with the Holocaust, or wrote a commentary on an article, etc.) but they cannot legally claim any rights on text which they have copied verbatim from the Encyclopedia. As long as the article text and images are identified as coming from JE (and this is for reasons of fair attribution, not legal ramifications) I see no problem with including them anywhere in Wikipedia. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I responded to your most recent comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish historians 2. It's candidness made me feel a bit less hated by you, so I appreciate that. Anyway, discussions like these will be very productive I believe. Later. Antidote 07:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Arnie, I just sent you a reply - I hope you can find it - it might be on your personal discussion page. Thanks, Chandler75

No worries. Thanks for adding them. I think they're useless because I just don't see a reader going "I wonder who else was in their fifties when they died" and besides, we don't do it for other sorts of people so far as I can see. James James 06:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arnie, thanks for the heads up. I won't bother voting though; I think lists and cats of this sort are "Mostly Harmless", and they are never going to be definitive, so I really think it doesn't make a difference whether they stay or not. Also, I'm going to be taking a break from Wikipedia for a while, until my exams are out of the way at least (although I might do a few edits as an anon). So long and good luck! RMoloney (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's fine. If the consensus is to delete them all, just delete them all. I thought people found them interesting (others seem to be religious about updating them as famous people die) but if that's not the case, then so be it. Maybe I'll make a list (that someone can nominate for deletion). wknight94 22:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created the ones I find useful - that's only three or four of the ones nominated. The rest of them seem useless to me - that includes all of the age-based suicide cats and the base category as well as the older ages. A famous person's death isn't interesting to me if they were 82 years old. wknight94 22:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Among film-related artists, for example,

• Peter Bogdanovich
• Emir Kusturica
• Karl Malden
• Steve Tesich

This, of course, is not invitation for you to rewrite the articles. Nikola 06:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, but in these articles the ethnicity is mentioned in the first sentence after the introduction (or in the second sentence of the introduction, depending on your POV) whereas for Catherine it is almost off the screen. Obviously, less room is given to her ethnicity than people would expect. Nikola 09:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

done - thanks for bringing this to my attention.

toodle-pip

Smerus 19:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? The historical listing or "Jewish encyclopedia" (which no doubt has errors in it). I'm sorry, but from now on I refuse to discuss the Jewish lists as separate from any other lists. It is balatant racism and anti-semitism to "single out" Jewish lists as being "separate" or "unique" from other ethnicities or religion and needing to have their own special rules. Vulturell 23:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arniep responded "Hi, the Jewish Encyclopedia is very well respected in academic circles (see the opening paragraphs of the article). Arniep 23:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)"

Umm.. Arniep, you do realize that the Jewish Encyclopedia was published in the early 1900's? While it may well be accurate in terms of historical Jews, it certainly wouldn't have Evan Rachel Wood or Natalie Portman on it, would it? My comment about the Jewish Encyclopedia having errors in it was an off-hand remark that had no real connection to my main point, which is that your "Compromise" has no real connection to the topic at hand, though it has every connection to your proposal of historical lists. The Jewish Encyclopedia can certainly be used as a source for historical individuals, but it should certainly not be followed to a tee in any sense. Vulturell 23:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, and as the article states it is still considered an authorititative source. As I said in the discussion I don't think identifying living people as Jewish is a good idea. Arniep 23:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Of course, and as the article states it is still considered an authorititative source. As I said in the discussion I don't think identifying living people as Jewish is a good idea." Excuse me? Have you read anything I said? if you wanted me to answer that last point you should have said "I don't think listing living people by ANY ethnicity is a good idea". Otherwise it's back to the same old crap POV that Jews are "unique" among all other groups, and it is "bad" to listify living Jews while it's "OK" to listify living everyone else's. Doesn't work that way. Vulturell 23:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

response::::As I said before I'm not interested in listing living individuals. Arniep 00:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. Then you should make a proposal extending to living individuals of all ethnicities and religions, rather than just Jews. Vulturell 00:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have made a general proposal that should cover all ethnic and religious groups. Please take a look here.--Pecher 08:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The risk is small but real. As I got to thinking about the matter I read up on some other situations: Matthew Shepard and the ethnic/religious killings of south Sudanese. That led me to the conclusion that there can be genuine reasons to respect an individual's decisions to keep this information private. There would be relatively few situations where such information satisfies verifiability and relevance without the individual's consent. Durova 02:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your proposal. Orthodox Jews do consider Felix Mendelssohn to have been Jewish by halacha because his mother, Leah Salomon, was Jewish. --Yodamace1 19:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to halacha, despite any conversions, if your mother was Jewish, you're Jewish. Felix Mendelssohn's mother was Lea Saloman. Lea Saloman's mother was Bella Itzig. Bella Itzig's mother was Miriam Wulff. Miriam Wulff's mother was Lea Wallich.

I'm sorry if I came off as impatient. I'm learning here myself, I just looked this stuff up. I'll attempt to answer your question about Shabbos Saturday night, but I must now prepare for Shabbos (which is prolly why I'm coming off as impatient. Have a great Shabbos! --Yodamace1 20:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, but I didn't really understand your proposal too well and I'm prolly leaving the Wiki tomorrow. However, it may work out. Gut Vach! --Yodamace1 04:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section, called "Part Irish", already existed - I just moved it to the bottom of the page, where that kind of thing usually belongs. I tried (and still am in the process of) fixing it up and moving people with significant Irish heritage to an actual group list. I think the "Distant" section should eventually store people like Mohammad Ali or whatnot. Vulturell 19:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, idealy all ethnicity, religion, etc. pages should have sources. The big question might be how to present these sources? I'm not sure if I like the way I put them in for the British Jewish list, or for the (slightly different) way that I put sources in for "Entertainment" in Irish Americans. Those numbers are two big, I think, too distracting. Do you have any idea how we can put in a link that looks somehow smaller? Vulturell 02:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something you may not like - some user created a bunch of new categories, like Category:Greek-American singers, Category:Jewish-American singers and Category:Greek-American actors... So now someone like Jamie-Lynn DiScala, who has a Greek Jewish grandmother, is under "Greek-American actors". I think this may be pushing it in general and proving your prediction that we could end up having a "multi-ethnic" person listed under dozens of similar categories. Vulturell 02:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the image need critical commentary? It's just a picture of her posing. --DrBat 16:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quadell, this has been going on since November with this user continually ignoring consensus opinion, therefore it's pretty clear they are now acting in bad faith (Talk:Jennifer_Aniston#Greek-American). Arniep 22:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Jennifer Aniston specifically, you may be right. About the subject in general, I haven't seen evidence of consensus yet. (It could be that I just haven't spotted it, and if you could point out evidence of consensus, I'll be happy to take that back.) Anyway, Leon has made lots of good contributions to Wikipedia as well, and if it is consensus to only mention national origin (and not ethnicity) when listing a person's nationality, I think it would be better for Leon to see the consensus is no uncertain terms. I also think it's more productive to convince someone, rather than drive them away, so long as they generally want to contribute. Even if they can be stubborn. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 00:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually a modeling picture from her main site. I posted the wrong site. But I know that the copyright was fine. What should I do?

Thanks,

JJstroker