text:
User talk:Drhaggis

File permission problem with File:Mexican style bracelet.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Mexican style bracelet.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Sgian dubh.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Sgian dubh.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 04:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Please claim your upload(s): File:Haida Totem pole Face.jpg
Hi, This image was seemingly uploaded prior to current image polices, Thank you.

However, as part of ongoing efforts to ensure all media on English Wikipedia is correctly licensed and attributed it would be appreciated if you were able to confirm, that it was your own work, by marking it as own, amending the information added by a third party, and by changing the license to an appropriate "self" variant. You can also add  to the Media by uploader or Presumed self tag(s) if  present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the information where appropriate).

IF you have other uploads, please consider "claiming" them in a similar manner, You can find a list of files you have created [ here].

This will assist those reviewing the many many "free" images on commons that have not yet been transferred to Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Please claim your upload(s): File:MackenziePapineau monument 2.jpg
Hi, This image was seemingly uploaded prior to current image polices, Thank you.

However, as part of ongoing efforts to ensure all media on English Wikipedia is correctly licensed and attributed it would be appreciated if you were able to confirm, that it was your own work, by marking it as own, amending the information added by a third party, and by changing the license to an appropriate "self" variant. You can also add  to the Media by uploader or Presumed self tag(s) if  present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the information where appropriate).

IF you have other uploads, please consider "claiming" them in a similar manner, You can find a list of files you have created [ here].

This will assist those reviewing the many many "free" images on commons that have not yet been transferred to Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Please claim your upload(s): File:MackenziePapineau monument 3.jpg
Hi, This image was seemingly uploaded prior to current image polices, Thank you.

However, as part of ongoing efforts to ensure all media on English Wikipedia is correctly licensed and attributed it would be appreciated if you were able to confirm, that it was your own work, by marking it as own, amending the information added by a third party, and by changing the license to an appropriate "self" variant. You can also add  to the Media by uploader or Presumed self tag(s) if  present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the information where appropriate).

IF you have other uploads, please consider "claiming" them in a similar manner, You can find a list of files you have created [ here].

This will assist those reviewing the many many "free" images on commons that have not yet been transferred to Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

title: User talk:Drhaggis


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In the Air Tonight

Utter rubbish. RickK 03:32, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * But it is a legit song and the page can be rewritten accodingly. Besides I've at least heard a story similar to that before, even if I have no idea if there's any truth to it. Keep. Pteron 04:27, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep what? The copyrighted lyrics?  The unsubstantiated urban legend?  RickK 04:34, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * You know, we can quote passages without violating copyright. This page is terrible, but a real article could grow from it. If it's really no more than an urban legend though, then delete . Pteron 04:48, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, urban legend. See Snopes article on it at --Stormie 04:34, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * The only thing worse than getting an Internet hoax in your e-mail is seeing one on Wikipedia. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 04:47, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Wait, this is a famous story. I've heard it many times, and it was popularly referenced in an Eminem song a few years ago. Keep or at least merge into an urban legends article. Everyking 05:04, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's right, I remember again. This was mentioned on Stan. That article even mentions the story. Keep and mark story as famous urban legend. Pteron 05:18, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neither interesting nor notable. Agreed w/ Lucky 6.9. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:10, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Although an urban legend, it's an interesting and popular one, and should be described and noted as such. Don't delete inaccurate articles - make them accurate. (Alternatively, hang out on VfD and yell at other people for not making them accurate instead of doing it yourself.) Snowspinner 06:35, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Alternatively write an article on the album Face Value and redirect to it. But the hoax is not famous or interesting enough to be worth putting in an article on the album IMO, leave that to Snopes. The song is not IMO worth an article of its own, and certainly not when we don't even have an article for the album yet, although it is most deservedly on the list of albums needing articles. Andrewa 07:09, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten it with a strong focus on the urban legend. Tentative keep only to prevent the false version from reappearing. Rossami 19:32, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. We want people come to Wikipedia for information. Having no article on this urban legend will leave the curious still wondering (and will encourage false versions). We don't have to compete with Snopes on depth or breadth, but the major legends should have an article here.
 * Keep, but restrict the lyrics quotation to what is actually enlightening to the story. -- Jao 10:47, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * KEEP! As it stands now, very useful information on a famous song.  The urban legend is linked to the song --- I've heard it --- and it's good to have the debunk link too.  Good stuff.  Ensiform 03:31, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The current article is useful. Andrewlevine 06:36, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. JamesMLane 07:23, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article's improved greatly, and if we delete it, it's such a common topic that people will bring it up again. Johnleemk 12:54, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks very useful as is. DS 17:38, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Eupolemus

Eupolemus (ʾΕυπόλεμος ) is the earliest Hellenistic Jewish historian whose writing survives from Antiquity. Five (or possibly six) fragments of his work have been preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea's Praeparatio Evangelica (hereafter abbreviated as Praep.), embedded in quotations from the historian Alexander Polyhistor, and in the Stromata (hereafter abbreviated as Strom.) of Clement of Alexandria.

A sixth passage which Polyhistor attributes to Eupolemus in Eusebius' quotations of Polyhistor is usually considered spurious as being dissimilar to the other passages quoted and has come to be called Pseudo-Eupolemus.

Style and vocabulary indicate the writing as also originally in Greek and the date of composition of the seemingly genuine passages is about 158/7 BC. That the author dates his work by the Seleucids rather than the Ptolemies suggests Palestinian rather than Egyptian origin. It has been speculated that the author might be the Eupolemus who was ambassador of Judas Maccabeus to Rome as found in 1 Maccabees 8.17f and 2 Maccabees 4.11.

Writings
The fragments usually considered Eupolemus' genuine work are:
 * A statement that Moses was the first wise man, that he taught the alphabet to the Jews who passed it on to the Phoenicians who passed it on to the Greeks, and that Moses first wrote laws for the Jews (Praep. 9.26.1).
 * Some chronology about the period from Moses to David and some details of David's arrangements for building the temple followed by purported transcripts of letters exchanged between King Solomon and "Vaphres King of Egypt" and between Solomon and "Souron the King of Tyre", the Biblical Hiram (Praep. 9.30.1–34.18).
 * A short statement about gold shields made by Solomon (Praep. 9.34.20).
 * A very short account of the persecution of the prophet Jeremiah by King "Jonachim" who seems to correspond to the Biblical kings Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah followed by a short fictionalized account of the fall of Judah ending with the note that Jeremiah preserved the ark and the tablets (Praep. 9.39.2–5).
 * A chronological summary indicating 5,149 years from Adam to the 5th year of Demetrius (Strom. 1.141,4).

Writing of Pseudo-Eupolemus
The fragment usually known as Pseudo-Eupolemus (Praep. 9.17.2–9) relates:
 * The Assyrian city of Babylon [sic] was built by giants who escaped the Flood and they also built the tower. After its destruction the giants were scattered.
 * There follows a summary of Abraham's career based on the Biblical account with some changes and details similar to those found in the Genesis Apocryphon and Josephus and in Enochite tradition. Abraham is particularly knowledgeable about astronomy and when he goes down to Egypt he teaches astrology to the Egyptian priests and explains that Enoch first discovered astrology.
 * Then follows a puzzling passage which seems to have little to do with the context and may be garbled:
 * For the Babylonians say that the first was Belus, who is the same as Cronus, and that of him were born sons named Belus and Canaan. This Canaan fathered the father of the Phoenicians, whose son was Chum/Chus, called by the Greeks Asbolus and was the father of the Ethiopians and the brother of Mestraim, the ancestor of the Egyptians.

 * Traditionally many translators have emended Canaan to Cham, that is Ham since in Genesis 10.6 Ham is the father of Cush and Mizraim. However the author here claims to be relating Babylonian tradition, not Hebrew tradition, for whatever that is worth. Asbolus means 'sooty'.

 * Robert Doran in his translation in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Volume 2, emends einai Kronon 'is the same as Cronus' to einai Kronou 'is son of Cronus' noting that in no other text is anyone called Belus ever equated with Cronus. However, in Sanchuniathon's Historie, we find the gods Cronus & Elus in the same place on the genealogical tree, even though Elus is equated to El in this case.

 * The account concludes by indicating that the Greeks relate that Atlas discovered astrology but that Atlas is really Enoch and that Enoch learned from the angels of God.

Robert Doran gives reason for believing that this fragment may be part of the genuine work of Eupolemus despite earlier doubts.

Selected bibliography

 * "Eupolemus", translated by F. Fallon (pp.861-872), and "Pseudo-Eupolemus", translated by R. Doran (pp. 873-879) in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Volume 2, edited by James H. Charlesworth, Doubleday; New York, 1985. ISBN 0-385-18813-7.
 * Eusebius
 * Eusebius, Werke: Band 8: De Praeparatio Evangelica, ed. K. Mras. (Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte), 43,1–2 Berlin, 1954–56. (This is the standard critical edition of Eusebius.)
 * Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel: Part 1, Books 1–9, translated by Edward Hamilton Gifford, Clarendon Press; Oxford, 1903. Reissued by Baker House Company, 1991. ISBN 0-8010-3369-1 (ppr), ISBN 0-8010-3370-5 (clth). This is available on the web and the Eupolemus material begins in Tertullian Project: Praeparatio: Book 9.
 * Clement of Alexandria
 * Clemens Alexandrinus, Werke, eds. Stählin. O. and Fruechtel. L. (Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, 15), Berlin, 1960. This is the standard critical edition of Clement of Alexandria.
 * Clement of Alexandria, "Stromata" in Ante-Nicene Fathers: Fathers of the Second Century, Vol. 2, edited by Alexander Roberts, reissued by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988. ISBN 0-8028-8088-6. This is available on the web and the Eupolemus fragment begins in Christian Classics Ethereal Library: Anti-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2: Clement of Alexandria: Stromata: Book I: Chapter XXI.

title: Eupolemus