Elohimgenius

g'day!

Welcome!

Hello Elohimgenius, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

neutrality of "Moors"

The Neutrality is disputed. The article is left intact, save for that warning, which is used to further the dialog. It will stay, or further action will sought against those who delete it. This is more than fair. JBull12 22:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

comments on Talk:Talmud

Wondering why didn't you read the links at the very end of the article, disproving your exact cases. Talk:Talmud#TALMUD_RACISM.3F_Can_anyone_explain_this.3F

Epl18

"When the Talmud sees the Hebrew word Adam it sees an allusion to Adam of Genesis 1-5 who was at one time the only person. The Talmud understands this as referring to the Jewish people who are an organic unit like one person. Gentiles do not have this organic national bond with each other and are therefore excluded from this concept. If i'm not mistaken Adam being the first of God's creations was a man of dark skin. As it is racially put a Black Man.

If this is true then why are Jewish people of different (darker) skin color are called (Black) Jews or (Black) israelites and are not accepted as being the same even though history proves the original Hebrews to be of African decent? This in itself labeling a person as a (Black) Jew follows the definition of racism. If this is true that Gentiles do not have this organic national bond with each other and are therefore excluded from the above concept. What about original African Hebrews? Why are they not considered equal if they are the ones the religion is founded upon?"

Just to address some of your questions: Your first underlying assumption that Adam was "a Black Man" is extremely specious. How do you know this? Did you pick this up from an archeologist's speculation that man seems to have orignated from Africa?

Same thing with your second assumption that Jews originally from Africa are "not considered equal." Jewish Law doesn't distinguish between the skin color and racial origins of different Jews. If some Jews do, then that is attributable to other factors aside from Judaism. Any hypothetical distinction between groups of Jews in Jewish Law would be due to entirely unrelated factors.

In general, if you have questions about these things, Wikipedia isn't the most appropriate forum to raise them. If you have any points to raise about improving an article, then Wikipedia is the perfect forum. Hope you find what you're looking for. Cheers, HKT 09:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is much dispute among archaeologists about the supposed origins of man, and it is usually based on extrapolations from the evidence (often distant extrapolations), not the evidence itself. The Israelites indeed resided in Egypt at one point, but it is not largely accepted that they were originally from Africa. Anyway, this is a pretty tangential and irrelevant discussion.

"Those other factors would obviously be racism." Yes, indeed those factors would typically amount to racism. However, racism towards other Jews is not widespread (though, particularly in Israel, one sometimes finds regional cliquishness: e.g. the French, Russian, Ethiopian, Israeli, Anglo Jews often tend to associate with others of shared backgrounds). In any event, Jewish Law doesn't directly speak on racism at all (Jewish Law certainly doesn't distinguish between races) - but it does state that all Jews must treat each other with extraordinary familial love and that all converts to Judaism must be treated with extra sensitivity. (If you would like some specific sources for this, please let me know). Anyway, concerns that have been raised about whether groups from Africa claiming to be Jews can be consider Jews according to Jewish Law are based on legitimate issues concerning establishment of ancestry, etc, not racial discrimination. The same concerns would be raised if similar groups emerged from Denmark.

I already wrote [twice] that the Schottenstein Talmud is a good primary source of information in general. If you want book sources specifically addressing the alleged quotes that you pasted on the talk page, I don't know of any devoted to doing that. Someone mentioned to you a website addressing these claims [1]. This site belongs to Gil Student. I haven't looked into it yet, but I know that he is a good source of accurate information in general, and he usually documents his sources. If you further want to question him or ask him for sources, you can email him.

"These questions are asked to challenge articles posted." Challenges to Wikipedia articles that are not well grounded, are not appropriate for Wikipedia talk pages. Writing something like "It seems like ______ might be true" or "I saw this on website _____ (not known as a reliable source), is this true?" is not appropriate criticism of an article. If the issues are raised in a lengthy manner, it would probably violate Wikipedia's guideline to not disrupt Wikipedia. If you think something might need to be changed, do the research so you can present criticism that is valid according to Wikipedia's guidelines. HKT 12:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Fqueen.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Fqueen.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 04:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Charcorocharlottesophiabritain.gif

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Charcorocharlottesophiabritain.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 04:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

VandalProof

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof; however, at this time, I'm afraid I can't approve you to use it. You are just shy of the 250 mark, and I don't see much "vandal fighting" in your user contributions. As VP is much more fast-paced than the old-fashioned RC monitoring, I'd like to recommend that you gain a little bit more experience dealing with vandalism before you use the tool. You might want to check out User:Lupin/Anti-vandal tool and WP:POPUP, both of which I've found to be very useful tools in fighting vandalism and are open to anyone. Once you've gathered up a bit more experience, after a couple of weeks or so, please resubmit your name, if you're still interested. If you have any questions or disagree with me, please contact me on my talk page. AmiDaniel (Talk) 22:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Tokey Hill Page

Rory, what needs to be cleaned up on the Tokey Hill page? Thanks--Gnosis 14:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It just needs to be a little less POV. Try replacing some "soon, he..." with specific dates, and have less adjectives inflating him. Also, you need to provide a source for that picture, or it can be deleted in 7 days. --Rory096_(block) 16:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't, because it's fair use, but you have to say where you actually got the image. If you scanned it, you have to say so on the image's page, if you got it yourself, you have to say so, etc. --Rory096_(block) 16:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Tokey.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tokey.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Signature stamp problem

Hi, I noticed your question at Help talk:Contents. Customizing_your_signature and How to fix your signature might help. Often the problem is forgetting to tick "Raw signature" in your preferences. To make your signature you just do ~~~~ on the page.--Commander Keane 17:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Caucasoid and Negroid

What are you talking about it? The article needed major changes because its quality was reduced. How dare you accuse me of vandalism when I am only trying to make these articles better? Look at what Mr. Sweet is trying to do. Hei s tryinbg to reshape all articles he thinks are politcally incorrect. I am all for keeping the info he provided but he can't just change everything around because of things.

Look at these articles now. They are a mess. I can easily accuse Mr. Sweet of vandalism because of his massive changes. Do you agree? Zachorious 00:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I actually did leave a coment at the bottom of the page but it seems like it wasn't read. Also I did provide an article where it was still being used. I understand that they are not used as much anymore but they are still being used in feilds like forensic anthropology. These terms may not be used as a "race" anymore, although a new term called "cline" fits the description on what they really are. Zachorious 01:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)`

Race refers to skin color? I think most anthropologists even 50 years ago would agree that skin color is the least detirminent of "race". Caucasoids for example can be be the lightest brown to as dark as most negroids. The modern view of the 5 "races" puts skin color least.

Race does go further into facial features but yes they do overlap. Obviously there are Africans with some caucasoid features. This only shows the mixing that has gone on between different ethnic groups which is common throughout history. First of all how do we define "race". Race means many things. Some use it to describe a subspecies while others use it to describe a further division. And why do you think there being minute differences between the races will promote racism? This is what I am talking about. Just because there are differences between human physical features it doesn't mean it will lead to racism. Human phenotype varies from place to place and some phenotypes do get isolated in different places. This is common throughout the animal kingdom as well as in different domestic animal breeds. A great dane has a very different skull shape than a british bulldog despite belonging to the same subspecies. You canb call this "race", "breed", or "ethnicity". It really makes no difference.

I did state in the article that the 5 "races" can fit the description of a cline, which is difference in phenotype rather genotypes. Why was this deleted? Zachorious 02:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

We'll cont. this discussion on the caucasoid talk page. Zachorious 02:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Moors

Great job at the article. -- Szvest 19:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC) 19:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Memetic engineering

Hello. Sure, I've read Dawkins (and Dennett, Blackmore, Aunger, most of the defunct JoM, and about half of Distin's recent book so far). Memetics is an intriguing theory, and I've enjoyed following its scientific development over the past decade or so. "Memetic engineering," on the other hand, has not been effectively developed as a theory (let alone an applied science!) Can we have a meaningful theory of memetic engineering before we have a meaningful theory of memetics? The current memetic engineering article is a conglomeration of neologisms and untested (untestable?) hypotheses. I personally find it to be an interesting discussion, but the article does not adhere to WP:V or WP:NOR. --Vault 01:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No offense was taken! I'm glad to see someone is interested in developing the article. As I mentioned, I think the theory has heuristic value. Maybe I'll take a stab at cleaning it up when I have more time. There is already so much popular memetics pseudo-theory on the net, I thought I'd take a stand in the name of science. --Vault 01:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Mauritania

Hi Elohimgenius, I noticed that you added an NPOV warning to the article on Mauritania. Can you outline your issues with this article so that they can be addressed? Regards, Rodney Boyd 16:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thought this might interest you

Hey, I found this portrait of the Moorish ambassador to Queen Elizabeth. I originally saw it in my Othello playbook. It comes from this British educational site about Othello, and discusses all the old English views on Moors. Thought it might interest you. Here's the link: http://www.rsc.org.uk/othello/teachers/moors.html --JBull12 03:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Moors

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the Moors article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! --HonztheBusDriver 21:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message: Has the author (Yvonne Clark) explicitly granted permission for this text to be released into the public domain under the GFDL? Although the text is mirrored on a number of sites, there is no such release of copyright on any page that I've come across. If she has released the text under the GFDL then you're free and clear, but she should still be cited in the article's bibliography. --HonztheBusDriver 13:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Joel rogers.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Joel rogers.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 82.83.96.252 09:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Joel rogers.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Joel rogers.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 82.83.96.252 09:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Indian American classification problem

there's a war brewing over that section.--Dangerous-Boy 23:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

VandalProof 1.2 Now Available

After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)