Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:59, 25 February 2006

Thanks for visiting my Talk: page.

If you are considering posting something to me, please:

*Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page.
*Use headlines when starting new talk topics.
*Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here.
*Do not make personal attacks.

Comments which fail to follow the four rules above may be immediately archived or deleted.

Thanks again for visiting.

Old talk archived at Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8, Archive 9, Archive 10, Archive 11, Archive 12, Archive 13

Jewish Views of Jesus

my main source ares stated at the bottom by see also namely

1. Most Jewish views on Jesus and Christianity was stated by Nahmanides in his dispute with Pablo Christaini in 1254. Vikuach HaRamban found in Otzar Havikuchim by J. D. Eisenstein, Hebrew Publishing Society, 1915 and Kitvey HaRamban by Rabbi Charles D. Chavel, Mosad Horav Kook 1963.
2. The Real Messiah? A Jewish Response to Missionaries. Aryeh Kaplan. New York: National Conference of Synagogue Youth / Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, 1985, © 1976. (pdf)

Should I move this to a references section? Jon513 19:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Messianic Judaism

Thanks for inviting me to look at the talk page. I'll do that and drop one or two comments into it:=) David Cannon 20:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Jay... After reading through the talk page and the article, I feel physically ill. There is so much work to do on the article. Unfortunately, nothing on the talk page is of any practical value whatsoever in actually improving the article. Tomer 02:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you for supporting me in my successful RFA. The admin tools will definitely be handy for dealing with vandalism more swiftly. Please drop a note on my talk page, should you have questions about any of my actions. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 00:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Appeal of VeryVerily

Dear Arbitrator,

There is a vote under way which would maintain the main restriction on me which forced me off Misplaced Pages. If it goes through, I will be effectively hard-banned, since (as the last year has shown) I can't function under these conditions.

I know I've had good interactions with you in the past, and I hope you will believe that, though I have edited in controversial areas and thus been in conflicts, I have always been a careful and conscientious editor. I once made hundreds of edits a week here, and every time I read Misplaced Pages see how much more I could do were I allowed. But with that rate of editing and the expanded defintions of "revert", I am too vulnerable to the stress of constant blocking.

I spent hours laying out a specific defense for everything the AC complained about last time. It will all be for nothing if this goes through. I explained my reverts "without discussion" (e.g., I was being stalked), the supposed basis for this. No "findings of fact" or anything like that have been put forth to respond to my points or justify continuing these restrictions, especially after a whole year!

I urge you to not go along with this. Thanks for listening,

VeryVerily 18:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome

You earned it. Keep up the good work. It benefits more people than you know of.

WP:RCU

I am leaving this message to all 10 people at Special/checkuser list. Therefore forgive me for its being impersonal. Please take a look at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for CheckUser#cleanup needed. Your response and/or actions there would be very much appreciated. Thanks! --Irpen 23:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

You were super quick to do that tor proxy, faster than I could post the template and come back :) -- Tawker 09:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Iran-related articles

Hi. A number of users have tried to re-introduce the (racist interpretation of the) term "Aryan" into Iran-related articles such as Demographics of Iran, Persian people, and Iranian peoples. I've explained how this is factually inaccurate in these articles' talk pages. Could you take a look at these articles and either get involve or extend your comments? Thanks, Aucaman 16:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)