User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/66
 | This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/66. |
 |
Andre🚐's Talk ☎️ Page Archive 📇 Index |
|
☕ Threads archived by ClueBot III after 72h ☕ | |
.jpg) | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start or revisit a discussion, please do so here. |
🌳 🍀 🌳 🌿 🌳 🌱 🌳 🗄️ClueBot Detailed Index Archive #AndreJustAndre/Archives/66🗄️ 🌳 🌱 🌳 🌿 🌳 🍀 🌳
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Help request: very simple image thing | 2024-10-26 03:06 | 2024-10-26 03:35 | 2 | 731 | User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/66 |
| 2 | Take a look | 2024-10-27 18:55 | 2024-10-27 21:55 | 5 | 1676 | User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/66 |
| 3 | My talk page | 2024-10-28 20:28 | 2024-10-28 20:28 | 1 | 189 | User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/66 |
| 4 | DYK for David de Pomis | 2024-11-02 00:03 | 2024-11-02 00:13 | 2 | 1666 | User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/66 |
| 5 | Move for Wikipedia and antisemitism | 2024-11-03 18:14 | 2024-11-03 18:15 | 2 | 737 | User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/66 |
| 6 | Notice of Arbitration Committee clarification or amendment | 2024-11-07 19:39 | 2024-11-07 19:39 | 1 | 573 | User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/66 |
| 7 | DYK for Moses da Rieti | 2024-11-13 00:03 | 2024-11-13 00:04 | 2 | 1711 | User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/66 |
| 8 | American Academy, or the New Gilead | 2024-11-13 03:37 | 2024-11-13 04:01 | 7 | 4966 | User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/66 |
| 9 | Citadel Securities Partnerships Edit Request | 2024-11-13 16:10 | 2024-11-13 23:52 | 2 | 663 | User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/66 |
| 10 | Disambiguation link notification for November 13 | 2024-11-13 19:52 | 2024-11-13 19:52 | 1 | 273 | User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/66 |
| 11 | Talk:Kahina | 2024-11-13 23:48 | 2024-11-13 23:51 | 2 | 775 | User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/66 |
Help request: very simple image thing
Hi. As you can see on this talk page of this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wahbah_al-Zuhayli#Photo I wonder if you can help get this image to the English Wikipedia of this biography from the Arabic one. Thanks. DivineReality (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, as Anachronist already informed you, that image seems to lack the proper licensing to be used. See Licensing Andre🚐 03:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Take a look
I notice that you added some good content, but the essay has undergone a number of changes, and I now wonder about the proper location of that addition. Please take a look, and feel free to integrate it where it fits best. Also, feel free to improve that essay. It addresses some very important concepts that the community really needs to understand, accept, and incorporate as a formalized modus operandi.
With certain revisions, it could be used as the basis for an article. It is related to Ideological bias on Wikipedia. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Feel free to "refactor mercilessly" my text. Andre🚐 18:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Okay. The idea is legit and valuable. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't mind if you want to remove it though. Maybe it belongs in a different essay. Andre🚐 19:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oh no. It belongs. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't mind if you want to remove it though. Maybe it belongs in a different essay. Andre🚐 19:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Okay. The idea is legit and valuable. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
My talk page
Please do not edit it again except for required notices. Thank you. nableezy - 20:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
DYK for David de Pomis
On 2 November 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article David de Pomis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that David de Pomis published a trilingual Hebrew–Aramaic, Latin and Italian dictionary in 1587? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/David de Pomis. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, David de Pomis), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! Andre🚐 00:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Move for Wikipedia and antisemitism
Hi. Just a quick note -- you "agreed" with my points about an alternative article name, and I thought you should know that I edited my comment. I hope you'll still agree, but I figured you should be aware of the edits. Cheers, ProfGray (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- Generally still agree :-) thanks for the ping. Andre🚐 18:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Notice of Arbitration Committee clarification or amendment
You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.
Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
DYK for Moses da Rieti
On 13 November 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Moses da Rieti, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a poem by Moses da Rieti includes an encyclopedia of the sciences, a Jewish paradise fantasy, and a post-biblical history of Jewish literature? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Moses da Rieti. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Moses da Rieti), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Cool, thanks! Andre🚐 00:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
American Academy, or the New Gilead
Trump has made the opening salvo in the elimination of the Department of Education, calling for the creation of the "American Academy", a kind of educational online version of Conservapedia written by far right extremists, who will offer online degrees for brownshirts to work in the federal government. Note, this is the beginning of the final push of a two-prong attack for complete control of education, followed by a reorganization of the military. Once those are complete, the seven mountain mandate of Christian nationalism will be complete, and the US will be a theocratic republic. The GOP already has control of business, religion, and the media. They are in control of the courts but do not have control over education and the military just yet. Viriditas (talk) 03:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- I thought they have that already. It's called PragerU. Why would a conservative use government money to do what the private industry can do cheaper and shabbilier? Andre🚐 03:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- This question actually comes up a lot. As it turns out, whenever the GOP comes into a new admin, government spending goes up, not down. The elimination of the department of education is a money grab for private industry, mostly cronies of the Trump family and the wider network, who stand to make billions cutting services and raising costs. It’s the same grift they always pull. Don’t forget, the vast majority of wealthy businesspeople who support Trump rely on government contracts, kickbacks, subsidies, and aid. It’s socialism for the rich and rugged capitalism for everyone else. Viriditas (talk) 03:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm, I think you may be right about most of that, but I don't think the Wall Street financier people are actually going to give the fundamentalist wing what they think they are getting. They want to cut spending and reduce taxes for the wealthy, and will pretty much promise whatever they can to get that done and not necessarily follow through on it. Also, don't forget that Trump failed to repeal the ACA and only barely accomplished the tax cut agenda while failing at most everything else he wanted to do legislatively, and this Congress is going to be even thinner of a majority than the one Trump had in 2016. Andre🚐 03:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Wall Street, venture capitalists, and Silicon Valley are on board. The whole "cut spending and reduce taxes" thing is a bit of smoke and mirrors. The GOP will cut taxes on billionaires and raise them on the rest of us. They have admitted that. As for cutting spending, I would invite you to look at all the attempts to cut spending in GOP admins since Reagan. It may surprise you. It turns out, that contrary to conventional wisdom, it’s the Democrats who cut spending after every GOP spending spree with a Republican president. Look at the data and you’ll see it for yourself. It may also surprise you to learn that the vast majority of Democratic programs actually save money, which is one reason the GOP is always against them. It turns out that the GOP plan is always about enriching themselves and disenfranchising and impoverishing the rest of us. Viriditas (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Although I think you are right about the GOP writ large, and while that is probably true and I haven't researched any budget numbers, that probably is mostly military spending that conservatives spend more on I'll guess? E.g. Reagan in Latin America, Bush in the Middle East, etc. The main things they want to cut are domestic "entitlement" programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the EPA, the NIH, CDC, NOAA, and the DoE. They also tried to cut stuff like the NEA. Any vestige of New Deal or Great Society stuff. Whereas they will spend more on military adventurism in the Middle East and Latin America. At any rate, Congress controls the purse. I don't see any change that Trump wants to enact will be easy and may not happen at all before midterms neuter him. Andre🚐 03:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- From your lips… Viriditas (talk) 04:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Although I think you are right about the GOP writ large, and while that is probably true and I haven't researched any budget numbers, that probably is mostly military spending that conservatives spend more on I'll guess? E.g. Reagan in Latin America, Bush in the Middle East, etc. The main things they want to cut are domestic "entitlement" programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the EPA, the NIH, CDC, NOAA, and the DoE. They also tried to cut stuff like the NEA. Any vestige of New Deal or Great Society stuff. Whereas they will spend more on military adventurism in the Middle East and Latin America. At any rate, Congress controls the purse. I don't see any change that Trump wants to enact will be easy and may not happen at all before midterms neuter him. Andre🚐 03:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Wall Street, venture capitalists, and Silicon Valley are on board. The whole "cut spending and reduce taxes" thing is a bit of smoke and mirrors. The GOP will cut taxes on billionaires and raise them on the rest of us. They have admitted that. As for cutting spending, I would invite you to look at all the attempts to cut spending in GOP admins since Reagan. It may surprise you. It turns out, that contrary to conventional wisdom, it’s the Democrats who cut spending after every GOP spending spree with a Republican president. Look at the data and you’ll see it for yourself. It may also surprise you to learn that the vast majority of Democratic programs actually save money, which is one reason the GOP is always against them. It turns out that the GOP plan is always about enriching themselves and disenfranchising and impoverishing the rest of us. Viriditas (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm, I think you may be right about most of that, but I don't think the Wall Street financier people are actually going to give the fundamentalist wing what they think they are getting. They want to cut spending and reduce taxes for the wealthy, and will pretty much promise whatever they can to get that done and not necessarily follow through on it. Also, don't forget that Trump failed to repeal the ACA and only barely accomplished the tax cut agenda while failing at most everything else he wanted to do legislatively, and this Congress is going to be even thinner of a majority than the one Trump had in 2016. Andre🚐 03:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- This question actually comes up a lot. As it turns out, whenever the GOP comes into a new admin, government spending goes up, not down. The elimination of the department of education is a money grab for private industry, mostly cronies of the Trump family and the wider network, who stand to make billions cutting services and raising costs. It’s the same grift they always pull. Don’t forget, the vast majority of wealthy businesspeople who support Trump rely on government contracts, kickbacks, subsidies, and aid. It’s socialism for the rich and rugged capitalism for everyone else. Viriditas (talk) 03:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Citadel Securities Partnerships Edit Request
Hi Andrevan. I see that you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies/Participants, so perhaps you would not mind taking a look at an edit request I recently posted at Talk:Citadel Securities#Add to Partnerships and History. Thanks, Cduffymul (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, sorry, I'm not sure I'll have time to get to this. Andre🚐 23:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bible, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charity.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Kahina
I told you that would result in a contentious discussion. AnonMoos (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, and may not lead to any consensus, but I do think the issues are worthy of discussion, I think there is a valid concern about WP:TITLESINTITLES and WP:PRECISE, and sufficient sourcing to support what I proposed. The last discussion was in 2022, that is sufficiently long enough, and I do not think this discussion is the same one as last time either. Andre🚐 23:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)