User talk:Historicist

I'm enhancing West End Avenue and you appear to be a Wikipedia savant. Can you show me how to put the word historicist into a sentence, and have it link to the architectural syyle historicism (art), not the philosophical theory. Gratefully, Historicist (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist[reply]

Take a look at Help:Pipe trick for more complete details, but if you look at the link here for historicist you'll see how it's done by typing [[historicism (art) | historicist]], which says to use the article for historicism (art), but display the text "historicist". I keep an eye on the article, and the easiest thing to do is edit away and worry about the formatting later. Alansohn (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ECCN

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel

UnReliable source ^{[unreliable source?]}

^{[unreliable source?]}

^[who?]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Terrorism

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

If the under construction tag hadn't been there, I would have nominated it for speedy deletion. The notability tag I put on it is a warning to the author that they need to provide some notability or it's going to be nominated for deletion. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Among the features on the Wikipedia main page is Did You Know?, which highlights new articles. To qualify, articles must have been created (or expanded) within the past five days, be a minimum of 1,500 characters of prose and contain an interesting hook to draw people to the article of less than 200 characters. I took a look at your contributions and saw the article about Asher Lopatin. I did some cleanup, added a few sources and categories and took the liberty of nominating the article at Template talk:Did you know. I have seen some of your other articles, and the one for Anshe Sholom B'nai Israel, which would have been a great example of a hook with its creation over a straw hat. I will monitor the nomination and respond to any issues, and you can check the page at T:TDYK to follow the progress of the nomination. As you appear to have an interest in creating and expanding articles, this may be an outlet to reach a broader audience for your work. Alansohn (talk) 04:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historicist: there's not a lot I can tell you, I'm afraid. I knew of the fact of its founding, prob. as a result of Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, but beyond that I know little.

On 2 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Asher Lopatin, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 07:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you have seen a paper or microfiche copy of the obit? If so, please remove the note. Otherwise, we need to mention that it has not been checked. -- Avi (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than happy to take your word on it; I just like to ensure that someone is vouching for the accuracy of texts that are not instantly accessible. I could have made it to my local library on Sunday if necessary, but as you already checked it, that's fantastic. However, I guess we should source the Saudi citizenship to the obit, as opposed to now where it looks like it's supported by a different source. Thanks again, -- Avi (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our job as editors is to ensure that accurate information is properly cited; which is why I placed the {{cn}} tag on the Saudi citizenship, since it was not found in the source supporting the rest of the sentence. Now that you have verified that information, the article is that much more accurate and complete. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Congregation Beth Israel (Scottsdale, Arizona), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate what you're saying, but we can still only go with what the sources say. If the article eventually gets to GA status, any unsourced claim will be immediately challenged. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see genuine attempts to resolve conflicts in a collaborative spirit and I give you full props for it. I hope we'll find an agreed upon final version sooner rather than later. Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 6 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Włodawa Synagogue, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 09:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your offercan you help me write the artical? here are some links: [1] [2] [3] [4] please tell me you have any questions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psycowitz (talk • contribs) 21:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there are ready is a page for a st. thomas synagogue but Beracha Veshalom Vegmiluth Hasidim was created first should we just mereger Beracha Veshalom Vegmiluth Hasidim with the other one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psycowitz (talk • contribs) 16:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

email communication. Alternatively, you can reach me via email by clicking on Special:EmailUser/Alansohn. Alansohn (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if you had a chance, but enable your email or send me one at [[Spe

thank you very much. i have cited many newspaper please tell me what you think Psycowitz (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. By including a pipe (|) with a space after it, the article Synagogue shows up as the first article in Category:Synagogues instead of appearing sorted under "S". That's often done with the "main" article for a category. For example, Judaism is the first article in Category:Judaism, etc. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on synagogue articles recently btw though your attention is needed at DYK for your wooden synagogue nomination so that it can be featured on the main page. Are you going to write an article on Wolpa? Best, DVD 07:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wooden synagogue, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 22:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wooden synagogues of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Category:Wooden synagogues

Your recent additions are most welcome. Włodawa Synagogue and Łańcut Synagogue have some great photos too. Thanks! Chesdovi (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Can you show me any sources that refer to the synagogue as the "Ancient Synagogue of Barcelona"? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On February 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Congregation Beth Israel (Berkeley, California), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. You do this by listing the parents near the bottom of the page, each enclosed in double brackets like so:

[[Category:Art Nouveau]] [[Category:Synagogues]] 

Contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards,--Stepheng3 (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. --Stepheng3 (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it - you've done the right thing. Speedying might take a little while, as I've found that long about this time of day things tagged for speedying end up staying around for a little while, regardless. But you've done everything that needs to be done. I don't think it'll be problematic. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 20:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to tell you again that I am avidly reading the synagogue articles you are writing. Hope you don't mind that I fix typos and use the "ref name" syntax here and there. What do you think of this article that I started: User:DVD R W/Cymbalista? You can edit it or add more information if you want before I move it to main space - please do. Kind regards, DVD 23:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll move the article into article space since you complimented it. I agree re: contemporary Synagogues. We can always start Category:Contemporary Synagogues. DVD 00:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I was just looking at material online about the play and thought that Wikipedia ought to have an article and you had done the donkey work. It's late so I'm packing up but I'll try and make the format of footnotes uniform when they are citing articles.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit busy now between work and this, but I can look at it soon, I hope. -- Avi (talk) 07:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Architecturally notable contemporary synagogues, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user User talk:Blakeblakeblake12345 has been adding articles on synagogues. I thought you might be interested. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This might interest you also. Moshe Shalit. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind having a look at the problem of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party's Nazi history and swastika flag being systematically deleted/vandalized? This removes an important aspect of neutrality from the article. References from many reliable sources are provided. See its talk page. The edits are being done by users with IP addresses from very similar domains. Thanks, Histopher Critchens (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding that and putting in the source! I'm hoping to take that article to FA eventually, and that's the first significant factual contribution by someone else. Daniel Case (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Purim! from Chesdovi

Thanks for your note. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the post on my talk page. I've now posted this [5]. You're welcome to join that project though I don't believe I have officially added myself as a member. The project rose out of a particularly heated dispute which went to Arbcom as an attempt to bring together people with different POVs who were nevertheless committed to a collaborative approach. It's worth reading the main page if you intend to join.

I don't feel that well placed to produce the article I suggest myself. As for the addition you suggest to the existing article, I wonder whether there is a source other than Muir that says something similar. Citing her alone is hardly going to help with cerftain complaints.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about the slogan? As far as I know, Habonim's motto has always been Aleh u'vneh (Arise and build). In fact, that's the title of the history of the American movement [6]. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you planning on creating a disambiguation page at Ohel Jakob synagogue? Agathoclea (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I was not planning on any as I don't know what articles are needed. Reason I brought it up was your pagemove to a disambiguated title. That is normally only done when there is more than one possible subject using that name. The only possible exception I can see is if a more unlikely candidate has an article and the article that should be there is not written yet ie Ohel Jakob synagogue (book) while Ohel Jakob synagogue isn't written yet. By all means create redirects in the form you want. Agathoclea (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I like what you've done and it's made the article much more robust and well categorized. I'm really not an expert, so I can't critique it, but it appears to be good work. In addition, it is pretty well-sourced, so this is a strong start to an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note; I've taken a stab at it: Beth Shalom. Regarding Oheb Shalom, perhaps Ohaveth Sholum Congregation should be included as well? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look I'm not going to try an include the Mashalha source again, but I'm frankly getting tired of the intimidation tactics on my talk page. I didn't violate the 3rr on this page. So stop lieing about me on my talk page. I felt that all the work Fatima put in deserved to be defended and no one objected to it until jaygj came along and deleted it. I've decided it isn't worth getting into another edit war on this article, but don't push me because I might decide to revert it back again just out of spite if the intimidation tactics continue on my talk page. annoynmous 01:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Violating the 3RR means you did it more than 3 times in a 24 hour period so stop lieing about me on my talk page. You are the one making threats. I have agreed to give up the edit in the article so this tone is rude and unfounded. annoynmous 01:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only stuff I reverted was redundant sources that were already cited in the article and one google book link where the relevant page number was omitted.

It seems to me that you should change your user name to revision-historicist because thats what your doing now. I was arguing for tags, I let you keep every edit you made except for the ones mentioned above.

Excuse me when editors lie and say I violated the 3RR rule when I didn't I get mad. I also get mad when instead of making arguments on the talk page for the article, cetain editors with the help of biased administrators use bully tactics to shut someone up even when there based on false claims.

I've agreed to not add back the section so let me decide what I put on my own talk page thank you very much. annoynmous 02:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm just curious why you moved the article Valley Beth Shalom to Valley Beth Shalom (Encino, California)? Is there another Valley Beth Shalom that it needs to be disambiguated? Or is there an equally major synagogue of the same name that would trump a "for other uses" on the Valley Beth Shalom page. If not we should keep it where it was as it just gets to be cumbersome. Valley2city^‽ 19:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. However I'm a little concerned about what sort of precidence it might create for articles that many more things will have locations attached to the titles. Unless there needs to be a disambiguation, I think it is sufficient for there to be the location in the first sentence of the article. As for Valley Beth Shalom, with 1,800 families and its over-reaching cultural influence I think merit a name without the necessity for a location attached to it. I also don't think there are any other locations that share the same name, at least those that would be notable enough for a WP article. I therefore am going to move it back, always with the future possibility, if needed, to be disambiguated, or as I mentioned above "this article is about the synagogue in Encino, California, for other..."Valley2city^‽ 00:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thank you for the assistance with the article. I felt a bit out of my league on that one, especially since I don't speak the language, but the subject seems very interesting and very deserving of an article here. Thanks again! Vulture19 (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article reads as if you would like to be (grin). I'm not prepared to restore as it stands, although I don't doubt your good faith. It needs some basic bio and career details to offset the hagiography. I'll put the text here soon so you can work on it. jimfbleak (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've expressed my concerns, but you have the text so there is nothing to prevent you from recreating exactly as before at any time. If you do so, in the light of your comments I won't redelete in the short term, but that doesn't mean that no one else will. jimfbleak (talk) 05:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Kate Baldwin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! I dislike when the hasty speedy taggers place incorrect tags on well-sourced, well-written articles. Cunard (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed merge with Maccabean Revolt. Your comments, please. Marshall46 (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Are you sure that "of Chicago" is part of their name? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Historicist! Do you have this book? If so, I believe we should have a great collaboration on the Jaffa–Jerusalem article. I am going through the book slowly, and stopped at p. 26 for now, but there appears to be a lot of new information there which did not appear in The Railways of Palestine and Israel by Paul Cotterell. Please let me know. Thanks, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, hope i didn't cause an edit conflict just now. I saw your edit to the lower Manhattan NRHP list-article, and visited Stanton Street Synagogue to add an NRHP infobox. Seems you are editing it too, so i won't further now. Perhaps you can add the photo to article, that appears in thumbnail at the NRHP list.

About names in the NRHP list, the intention there is to show the NRHP program names for sites, so I set up a redirect from Stanton Street Shul and also put a pipelink in to show "Stanton Street Shul" in the NRHP list-article. Also that should stay as the title of the NRHP infobox in the article, as it is the NRHP name for the site. Thanks for making the connection to the NRHP list-article! Keep up the good work in developing it further. :) doncram (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help! Could you please help me here too? --Mbz1 (talk) 04:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recently did about four NRHP-listed Orthodox synagogues from the rural Catskills, in eastern Sullivan County, New York:

• Hebrew Congregation of Mountaindale Synagogue
• Ohave Shalom Synagogue
• South Fallsburg Hebrew Association Synagogue
• Anshei Glen Wild Synagogue

Don't know if you've got anything in your books you can add to them. Just letting you know if you do. Daniel Case (talk) 05:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the people who write those things are occasionally known to make errors, but usually I have to trust them. And maybe they take the sukkah outside during Sukkot ... you know, why rebuild it every year? Perhaps I'll have to pay a visit during that time of year. Not being Jewish myself, when is it next? I might be able to pass by during that time. Daniel Case (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday May 17th, Columbia University area Last: 03/29/2009 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, establish a membership process for the chapter, review the upcoming Wiki-Conference New York 2009 (planned for ~100 people at NYU this summer) and future projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Curious as to your move of Richard Stirling (cricketer) - as there is no other Wikipedia article under the name of Richard Stirling, I was wondering if you knew of any other Richard Stirlings which are missing articles? The only other name I can find on Wikipedia is Richard Sterling.

All the best. Bobo. 19:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, problem solved, while I was writing that, you set up a new article! Should we change Richard Stirling into a disambiguation page? Bobo. 19:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've included a link on the disambiguation page to Richard Sterling, too. Bobo. 19:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure that this play merits an article in its own right. It's life and encyclopaedic interest seems to be secondary to Seven Jewish Children. From googling, I can only find it receiving coverage in community press. By community I mean either Jewish or North London. If it gets a review or coverage in one of the nationals or one of the four big London papers (meaning the Standard, the Metro (London edition), London Light or the London Paper), I think it will have passed the threshold.

I agree that it is appropriate to mention the play in the SJC article and that the author's other work probably means that he merits an article in his own right. It's just the SOC article I'm uncomfortable with.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I believe my thinking is in line with this essay Wikipedia:News articles. Not a policy, I know, but I think it reflects the spirit of the policy. Will there be stuff written in five years time that mentions SJC? I think so. SJO? Only in the context of material on SJC.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I replied at Talk:Congregation Shearith Israel (disambiguation). — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got it. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Josephus[edit]

Hi Historicist. Can you take a look on the Judaism discussion page? I am proposing a submission about Josephs descendants according to Major Jewish Literature. I mentioned only famous Jewish authors as reliable sources but two individuals are not happy with informations that they didnt know in the first place. Can you give me a hand there? Regards --Chris Cohen (talk) 02:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Historicist, thank you for your excellent edits to the articles on Michael Oren, Six Days of War, and Power, Faith and Fantasy. Could you please clean up the references you added? I apologize if I have not give you ample time to do so. I know how annoying that tedious stuff can me. Thanks!ShamWow (talk) 01:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a major book that undoubtedly deserves an article. In fact, it had one until someone inexplicably (and unjustly, without an RFD) expunged the page. I have no idea how well that article was written. Can someone tell me how to retrieve it?{{helpme}}Historicist (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi there.

I've moved this over to your own talk page, easier to deal with here.

Firstly, please have a read of Wikipedia:Notability (books), the guideline on these things.

Secondly, I will try my best to get a copy of the old article put into your userspace - where you could work on improving it (if you think you can get enough reliable sources to satisfy the above)

I'll put more here soon.  Chzz  ►  01:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historicist, I couldn't find an admin online to do it, so I will ask below, with this;

{{adminhelp}} Per the above, is there an older version of the page Just and Unjust Wars please, and if so - and appropriate - please userfy it for this user. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  04:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion was not inexplicable, nor unjust. We delete articles for all manner of reasons, including because they are attack pages, copyright violations, fail to assert importance in certain cases, have no content, are blatant advertising, and so on. The reason is usually set forth in the deletion log. The naked fact that a page is deleted is not a reflection on the worthiness of the subject to have an article but based on the actual reason it was deleted. In this case, the article was not an article at all. Rather, a user created the title not even as a reference to this book, but simply as an alternate name for just war (as a redirect to that title), and then asked that it be speedy deleted under CSD G7 for the very reason that he realized a book existed and it would be better to exist as a red link (an uncreated title), thus leaving it open for creation. All that is to say, the deleted title had no content on this book whatever.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, fair enough. Thanks Fuhghettaboutit. Historicist, good luck making an article; let me know if I can help further.  Chzz  ►  18:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos of nothing, but, well, this reminded me of one of my fave little poems, and I wanted to share.

The rain it raineth on the just And also on the unjust fella; But chiefly on the just, because The unjust steals the just's umbrella. - Lord Bowen

 Chzz  ►  01:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delightful poem. thanks for the chuckle.Historicist (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created the disambiguation pages and added hatnotes to assist readers in navigating among the articles. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Historicist, I've added the 1837 event to the Historical earthquakes list. Regarding naming, most earthquakes are named using 'Year' 'Place' 'earthquake', although there are no hard and fast rules for this. As to how to name events such as the 1202 earthquake, I've tended to go for the place (or country) where the epicenter (if recognised) or area of greatest damage is located, in this case southwestern Syria (the Sbeinati et al. paper on Syrian earthquakes [7], has a map of the main area of damage from Ambraseys & Melville 1985). Although it clearly caused damage elsewhere and was unusually widely felt, I would rather be more specific where information exists.

I would be very happy to collaborate with you on earthquake articles, I'll look at the three that you listed and see what I can add. Cheers Mikenorton (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Jonathan Rosenblatt, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Rosenblatt. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ccwaters (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bongomatic 21:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you chose to make your response in the AfD what amounted to a lecture/nearly personal attack on me, but I don't think you wp:agf'd. I have nominated only a handful of article for deletion in the past couple of years. Whether you meant it to sound like a lecture or not, it came across as one and I feel it was uncalled for and not very well grounded, considering the relatively few articles I have nominated for deletion. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for totally ignoring what I asked you. I am addressing your comments towards me, where you painted me as some rabid deletionist who nominates dozens of articles a week for deletion. You also when off on a lecture about how my actions (which you grossly overstated) drive editors away. That did not belong in the AfD discussion. To address what you put on my talk page: 1) Having a fan write and article doesn't make him notable. We have notability guidelines that I believe the man fails. The AfD discussion is there for a reason, to disuss whether or not he meets those guidelines, not how it makes the author feel. 2) Arguing about me being "dissmissive" and "arrogant" (which smells like a personal attack) by doing the same things (starting with "sigh" and making claims about how I just AfD without thought) isn't very compelling, nor is trying to sound like you are being reasonable ("please take a deep breath") while being dismissive. 3) Telling me how "ignorant" I am because I don't find the Boston Phoenix to be all that relevant isn't exactly Socratic debate, now is it? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a deep breath, re-read your nomination, consider that articles have been written about this man in real newspapers stating that people in New Hampshire love him and that the first page of a google search reveals not only several such articles but the fact that he has a fan club on facebook. I know nothing about him beyond what I have learned in the last hour, and very little about TV weathermen. But please consider how your comments must sound (arrogant and dismissive in my opinion) to what I presume to be a fan of this weatherman writing up someone he believes to be notable. And your comparison is way off. The Boston Phoenix is not comparable to a high school newspaper.Historicist (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You had two AFD's up today. Both on pages that appeared plausibly notable, albeit not well-sourced. I jumped to conclusions.Historicist (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I AfD'd a couple in the past day or so. In fact, I've nominated a few others (an article about chanin smoking and about an airline mishap) in the past couple of days too. But again, had you looked, you'd have seen 10-15 nominations in the past 2 years. Hardly a large number. At the same time, I got invited to join the Rescue Squad because I opposed deletion of other articles. I try to be fair and I try to look at each piece on it's own merits. Maybe you didn't notice, but I withdrew the other AfD a little while ago. I decided to give the benefit of the doubt to the subject. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Like I said, I do try to be objective on my AfD activity. I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the other reporter because he does seem to write for some pretty notable papers and is fairly prolific in terms of number of article. Since there aren't any clear standards for journalists, I decided to error to the side of leaving it. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're so prodigiously working on these articles, I suggest further developing this article: Kevin James (terrorist). What really needs to be created is an article relating to the bombing plot, which among other things, including target some synagogues in the LA/Beverly Hills area. Keep up the good work. ShamWow (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice going with the 2005 Los Angeles bomb plot article. Unfortunately, I can't find the exact name of the synagogues. Perhaps it's listed somewhere in the court files, but I would expect people in the Los Angeles Jewish community to know.

I would also check out these two good articles: [8] (external link at bottom page) and [9] ShamWow (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other cases, that may or may not be notable: "Randall Todd Royer, an American-born convert to Islam, was convicted in 2004 for his role in leading the so-called "Virginia jihad network," a group of Islamic radicals training for attacks on the U.S. Royer and another conspirator had trained in Pakistan in 1999 and 2000 with the terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba, which is believed responsible for the 2008 attacks that killed nearly 200 people in Mumbai. Royer was one of four American converts to Islam arrested in connection with the Virginia plot.

James Ujaama, who was born James Ernest Thompson in Denver, tried to establish a terrorist training camp in Oregon in the late 1990s, an idea he developed with his spiritual mentor, a radical imam based in London. Ujama converted to Islam and changed his name in the 1980s, according to the Associated Press." [10] ShamWow (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new Islam related terrorism section in the U.S. terrorism article is fine but there are some duplicates. They need to be integrated, merged or whatever you see fit. I understand you might have it "in the works" and just have not had time. Edkollin (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there I was reviewing your article and wanted to know if there is anything that makes this church notable? I was going to tag with speedy delete but saw your template so I wanted to ask before I do anything. thanks Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me, sorry to bug. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Beth Hamedrash Hagadol (Manhattan, New York)
• Beth Israel Congregation (Jackson, Mississippi)
• Beth Israel Congregation (Washington, Pennsylvania)
• Beth Israel Synagogue (Asheville, North Carolina)
• Beth Israel Synagogue (Halifax, Nova Scotia)
• Beth Israel Synagogue (Roanoke, Virginia)
• B'nai Abraham Synagogue, Brenham
• B'nai Israel Synagogue (Baltimore, Maryland)
• B'nai Israel Synagogue (Toledo, Ohio)
• Brodsky Synagogue
• Congregation Beth Elohim (Brooklyn, New York)
• Congregation Beth Israel (Austin, Texas)
• Congregation Beth Israel (Charlottesville, Virginia)
• Congregation Beth Israel (Honesdale, Pennsylvania)
• Congregation Beth Israel (Milwaukee, Wisconsin)
• Congregation Beth Israel (North Adams, Massachusetts)
• Congregation Beth Israel (San Diego, California)
• Congregation Beth Israel (West Hartford, Connecticut)
• Congregation Beth Israel Abraham Voliner
• Congregation Beth Israel West Side Jewish Center
• Congregation Beth Israel-Judea
• Congregation Beth Jacob (Galveston, Texas)
• Ohel Ya'akov Synagogue (Zikhron Ya'aqov, Israel)
• Park Synagogue
• Temple Beth El (Detroit, Michigan)
• Temple Beth Israel (Jackson, Michigan)
• Temple Beth Israel (Macon, Georgia)
• Temple Beth Israel (Niagara Falls, New York)
• Temple Beth Israel (Plattsburgh, New York)
• Temple Beth Israel (Sharon, Pennsylvania)
• Temple Beth Israel (York, Pennsylvania)
• West London Synagogue

These synagogues can be placed in Category:19th-century synagogues and do not seem to be there yet. --Carlaude ^talk 08:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have AWB; I can take care of this for you this evening so you don't have to do it manually. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 19:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary - thank you. By the way, would you mind e-mailing me at the link in my profile? --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 19:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 01:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Stifle (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw that Los Angeles Jewish Community Center shooting had been placed in two Islam-related categories. So I checked the edit history, and found this edit. I know you're a serious editor, so I have to believe this was simply a bizarre mistake on your part. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 10:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I think Category:Islam-related violence in the United States probably should be renamed in some fashion, as it is rather ambiguous. My first thought was that it was meant for attacks directed at Muslims or Islamic sites. Needless to say, that's not at all how it's being used. Cgingold (talk) 10:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I don't have a real problem with the category itself. The problem, as I said, is that the name you gave it is quite ambiguous, since it can easily be construed as referring to Muslims as victims rather than as perpetrators. That distinction is what needs to be clarified. Cgingold (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about "Category:Violence in the United States perpetrated by Muslims"? I don't like that because it's too broad. How about this: "Category:Politically motivated attacks in the United States perpetrated by Muslims"? Think that would work? I'm with Cgingold: the idea of the category is fine, but the title's a bit unclear as it stands now. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 13:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"perpetrated by Muslims" is very problematic. A Muslim could pick up a pistol and rob a gas station just because he's a crook. This category has to be limited ot crimes inspired by teh political, nationalistic, or religious ideologies associated with the Islamic/Arab cultures.Historicist (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the "Politically motivated attacks" bit. That excludes most robberies and the like. "Religiously motivated attacks..." gets at the same issue, but I don't like it as much; the distinction between a political problem and a religious issue should be delineated. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 13:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Category:Ideologically motivated attacks in the United States perpetrated by Muslims"?Historicist (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YES. That sidesteps the loaded words on both sides of the argument quite neatly. Shall we take it to the categories-for-discussion page? --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 14:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK - we don't necessarily need the discussion, if it's not going to be controversial. But categories aren't like articles - you can't move them. What we'll have to do is create the new category, then transfer all the articles from the old one into the new one. If you don't mind waiting until tonight I can do it when I get home; AWB is great for stuff like that. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 14:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure - anything I can do to help. Speaking of which...do you use AWB? If you ever want mass-recategorization done, or a mass adding of new categories, just let me know and I can take care of it. Saves a lot of manual stuff. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 14:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - I'll do that tonight as well. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 15:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was trolling through my watchlist and saw all of your recent work on Riverdale, Bronx. I had edited the article way back when and created a category of people from Riverdale, which was posted for deletion along with Category:People from Greenwich Village, New York. The same group of people pushed for deletion of both, but the Greenwich Village category was kept and the Riverdale one deleted. This was one of my first rude introductions to the rude world of CfD, only convincing me that people who have little to contribute to Wikipedia will decide to turn themselves into big shots by passing judgment on articles and categories, few of which meet their discerning sense of deletion. In the Riverdale article, I saw your addition of the RJC's Rabbi Jonathan Rosenblatt, a clearly notable individual and an article with more than a dozen sources that is now up for deletion, and for which I proudly voted to keep. A visit to your talk page turned up your recent article for the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting, which I also have a hard time believing justified deletion. I'm glad to see that you've put your nose to the Wikipedia grindstone and have started building and improving interesting articles thoroughly documented with reliable and verifiable sources. It's been a long time since we crossed paths and I'm glad to see the progress since you first started. Keep it up and don't allow the deletionists to get you down. Alansohn (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confused as to what you would like me to possibly do. I believe the category could possibly benefit from a more specific title but I'm not sure if editors would accept "Islamic Terrorism in the United States" as a subcategory of "Islamic Terrorism." I believe it would be more accurate to use the word terrorism though. ShamWow (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Terrorism" is an awfully loaded word, though, and I think we'd have some trouble if we decided to use it. I agree - I think it's the most accurate word. But we have to tread a fine line between accuracy and using loaded words. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 20:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I'll do it tonight, then. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 21:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I ended up being out later than I intended, and I didn't get to it until tonight. It's done now. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 02:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new page Criticism of the Anti-Defamation League was put up to counter the problem, shared by such groups as the ADL and Human Rights Watch, of aggressive ctitics overwhelming the page. This is a routine solution on Wikipedia.Historicist (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there may be a typo in the message you left on Supreme Deliciousness' talk page. --Nsaum75 (talk) 04:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One to go. Shouldn't "now welcome" be "not welcome"? Hertz1888 (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you’ve put an image of an equestrian statue in the art section of this page. I don’t know if you noticed there’s a bit of an edit spat over images at the moment; do you have an opinion on the subject?
Also, it’s in the art section, which already has a picture of the Balboa Park statue, but it's next to the paragraph about literature (and which mentions the Mocedades de Rodrigo, specifically); Do you think its worth swapping for an image of that document? Swanny18 (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On June 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom and thank you for your advice. I will try as best as possible to follow them. I may very well come back to you for help and more advice. All the best. --Boatduty177177 (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom khaverim! As you may have heared, I was unfairly blocked for some time. Someone falsely accused me of being sockpuppet. I think I will take a long vacation. I really don't like this place as much as I used to. It's unfair to see anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish users gangging up on people like this. Anyway, it was nice meeting you. Maybe we will talk again in better circumstances. All the best to you. --Boatduty177177 (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 more Nableezy (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 more Nableezy (talk) 03:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 more Nableezy (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't know whether you are clsoely following the deletion thread but, in case you are not doing so, I've made suggestions in the discussion. [11]--Peter cohen (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thought you might want to take a look at Talk:David Oppenheimer#Synagogues.Skookum1 (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a big fan of the new Koren Sacks Siddur. Glad you created the wiki page--not something I am good at doing. In fact, I created the entry for Elyahu Koren, but first spelled his name Eliyahu, then was told it was Elyahu (so I changed it), and now I'm told it really is Eliyahu and want to go back to that spelling. Can you help? Also, it seems i've not sufficiently done things in wiki style and all my be deleted. Would appreciate your help. Thanks. sheryl.abbey@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheryl Abbey (talk • contribs) 20:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed your proposal at Category talk:Beaux Art synagogues, and was about to complete it, but I'm unsure about one thing. Do you want it renamed to Category:Beaux Arts synagogues or Category:Beaux-Arts synagogues? The difference is concerning the usage of a hyphen between Beaux and Arts. I await your response. Regards, The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 03:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a lil confused, were your responses here intended to be their own view or an endorsement of Gatoclass's? If it was the former could you section it off as the others are, if it is the latter would you mind combing it into one comment and placing that as a numbered endorsement of Gatoclass's view? Thanks, Nableezy (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question for you on the talk page. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On June 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Congregation Emanu-El (Victoria, British Columbia), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wizardman 08:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated Montefiore Synagogue at DYK and created an interesting hook. Let me know what you think. Keep up the great work! Alansohn (talk) 01:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is currently legible for DYK? Are you planning on nominating. PS a good hook that springs to mind would be that it's the oldest Ashkenzi (I can't spell, sorry) Synagogue in the Enligh speaking world. Jolly Ω Janner 20:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for photos on both Geograph British Isles and Flickr, but I didn't find any (well, none with the appropriate licenses). I shall now nominate it for DYK... Jolly Ω Janner 21:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Historicist, I saw that you were discussing with John Nagle a possible move for the article. I recently put the article up for deletion, and John has already commented. I thought I'd tell you about it in case you hadn't noticed. Cheers, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and your rants about others is civil? kindly refrain from posting to my talk page, i have no use for hypocritical advice. Nableezy (talk) 03:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought about expanding the human rights sections Military of Nepal, Military of Pakistan, and Military of Morocco following your post at the AFD. Do you have any ideas? Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I have doubts about how long the information would stay up. I wonder about beginning an article on United Nations Peacekeeping troops, which would include successes, failures, and abuse of civilian populations.Historicist (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there not already an article on peacekeepers? I like that idea. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually interested in that too; a long time ago I did some research on the war between east and west pakistan and find it particularly interesting. Pakistan is in denial of that part of their history. Fuzbaby (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once you leave Western Europe (you don't have to go far, Poland will do) you will find that most articles on the history and politics of every nation are either the merest PR copy, or history as it is written by an active nationalist movement. Certainly the history of Pakistan needs editing. This makes it a nation like almost all the other nations. I have a couple of times attempted to edit aspects of national history in sundry parts of the world when I happened to have material on my desk for other reasons. I find that even when material is well-sourced and accurate, it gets expunged rapidly if it is also unflattering to the notions of an active nationalist movement. Do go ahead, it is work that Wikipedia desperately needs Did you see the recent article in the New York Times, mostly on edit wars over Scientology, but citing national history as an area where Wikipedia is conspicuously biased and laughably inaccurate. It is probably the area of Wikipedia that most desperately needs attention. So, while the work may not be yours to complete, I do hope that you will undertake some part of it.Historicist (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding to Middle Street Synagogue, Brighton and starting Brighton Regency Synagogue. I have a number of extra sources so I will try to expand the latter from tomorrow. As I'm local, I can go and take a picture if the Flickr ones aren't able to be released under suitable licences. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A better pic of the Sassoon Mausoleum should be possible; it's on a corner site, which makes life easier. I should be able to get down there in a couple of weeks or so. Sadly Middle Street Synagogue is now closed for the foreseeable future: it is completely encased in scaffolding and can't be seen at all. I'm lucky I got the external shot when I did! If I see any announcements about reopening, I'll see if they're doing interior tours (they have occasionally in the past, especially during the Brighton Festival). Totally agree about Brighton's architecture; here are some of the best examples. I'm preparing a similar list of Grade II* listed buildings as well; many of those are Regency-era. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On July 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sassoon Mausoleum, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Plymouth Synagogue at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! candle•wicke 19:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

You seemed to like my new page. I have a peer review and a Good Article nomination, both active. I wonder if you might find time to express your thoughts in one (or both) of them. I guess if you have feedback, that would belong in the peer review, and if you think its already pretty good and want to support it, that would belong in the GA review. Direct edits are obviously welcome as well.

Thanks!

Some links to save you time:

• Wikipedia:Peer review/Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt/archive1 (the peer review)
• Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt (the article)
• Talk:Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt (you can find the GA nomination here)

TachyonJack (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On July 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cheltenham Synagogue, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On July 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Merthyr Synagogue, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 08:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On July 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bloomingdale Insane Asylum, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 08:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On July 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sandys Row Synagogue, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]