User talk:Avraham/Archive 48

This is an archive of past discussions with Avraham. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

< Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49>

All Pages:

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 - 21 - 22 - 23 - 24 - 25 - 26 - 27 - 28 - 29 - 30 - 31 - 32 - 33 - 34 - 35 - 36 - 37 - 38 - 39 - 40 - 41 - 42 - 43 - 44 - 45 - 46 - 47 - 48 - 49 - 50 - 51 - 52 - 53 - 54 - 55 - 56 - 57 - 58 - 59 - 60 - ... (up to 100)

Challenge response

-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
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=XI1k
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----

Thanks --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 09:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add a "public interest" clause to Oversight

A proposal to add a "public interest" clause to Wikipedia:Oversight has started at Wikipedia_talk:Oversight#Proposal_for_new_.27public_interest.27_clause. SilkTork *^YES! 10:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Avraham. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
Message added 07:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

—Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded -- Avi (talk) 06:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeblock unblock request

See here. Related to this block. Thoughts? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re

Hi Avi. It seems a customer services rep for "TalkTalk" has filed an unblock request at User talk:81.170.35.68 for the IP range 81.170.0.0/17 (see here). Perhaps you might want to talk to them? Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded -- Avi (talk) 06:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI#WP:OFFER unblock request of MyMoloboaccount

Hi - as one of the blocking admins, you might be interested in this. Regards, Sandstein 22:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Offer by Molobo

Please see [1] as you are the blocking admin in the case.radek (talk) 04:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Avraham. You have new messages at Wikipedia:CHU/U.
Message added 23:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

iBen (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded -- Avi (talk) 06:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needed Consensus on the Genesis creation myth page

Being a latecomer to the article, I'm unclear exactly who is committed to the article and what they are committed to. I've heard a good deal from those in favor of the "myth" title, but not so much from those opposed. Eactly WHAT would be needed for a consensus title before you would be comfortable making improvements to the article? Please let me know on my talk page. Thanks.EGMichaels (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I did not find this to be controversial at all and did not expect ANY controversial responses. So, if I was involved in such a debate, it was purely on an accidental basis. I also forgot about my pledge, and was not aware that it was still binding after over a year without problems. I think most Jews on Wikipedia should not consider me as their enemy, and should also peacefully acknowledge that there have been abuse problems in the Jewish community, just like in the Catholic Church. ADM (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my decision, it is the project's decision. If they agree with you, the ANI complaint will be closed. -- Avi (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:ADM

Hi. Sorry if my comment interjected between yours and the one you were replying to - as it wasn't indented, I hadn't realised it was a direct reply. -- Boing! said Zebedee 07:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; that's why I clarified :) -- Avi (talk) 08:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Avraham Debresser Newman Luke has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Avraham Debresser Newman Luke and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Newman Luke (talk)

Refused while RfC is in progress. -- Avi (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Avraham Debresser Newman Luke.

For the Mediation Committee, Seddon ^talk and Xavexgoem (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Beneberak and Bnei Barak

These are not the same place, so I undid your redirect of Beneberak to Bnei Barak. As you can see in the source cited in Beneberak (which I also added to Bnei Barak, the latter was founded 4 km to the south of the former. Ancient Beneberak now lies under the waste treatment center of Hiriya, where the Palestinian village Ibn Baraq/al-Khayriyya used to be until it was depopualted and estroyed in 1948. Tiamut^talk 18:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond on the talk page of the article. -- Avi (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing My User Name.

I have decided to change my user name to Rondo.--Remisx (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Newman Luke/AV

User:Newman Luke/AV, a page you are substantially part of, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Newman Luke/AV and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. --IZAK (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reg. User:Huckamike

Hello Sir, Is this user User:Huckamike a kid? Or something……? I don’t remember asking him for a message. I’m approaching you because I noticed a message in his talk page from you. Regards -- XETELI ^{(HELLO • FOOTAGE)} 06:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Purim!

CordeliaNaismith (talk) is wishing you a Happy Purim! This greeting promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy Purim, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.

I concur and wish you a Happy Purim. I hope you have forgiven me for what I said.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli art students

Hi Avi,

Would you mind providing me copies for viewing of the original article on this subject that was deleted in 2006 and the one you speedily deleted today? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 19:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not so interested in working on the article myself, but a quick review of the material of both articles shows them to be rather different from one another, particularly in terms of the reliability of the sources cited. I'm a little concerned that your speedy delete was out of line in this case. The new article is not a copy of what was there before at all. Should it perhaps be restored as is? And Factsonthegound allowed to pursue its development? If people feel its still not up to snuff then it can go through a regular AfD, no? Tiamut^talk 19:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than welcome to file a request for review; I am usually the first to admit that I make mistakes, and through the DRV process, such mistakes can be investigated, and, if necessary, corrected. One of the nice things about wiki is that close to everything is reversible. :) -- Avi (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Avi. I'm aware of you ability to admit when you've erred, which is why I came here first. I was hoping that after taking a second look, you might simply reverse your decision yourself, and save me the trouble of having to file the review. Is that still possible? Or am I deluding myself? ;) Tiamut^talk 21:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The meat of the newer article /is/ about the spying scandal, which was the main thrust of the older article. The scam only really appears in the first sentence. There are other significant NPOV issues with the tone at the least. The nomination of the older article was "Speculative and badly-written original research. Self-described as a conspiracy theory, full of weasel words (which is the only way such speculative content can be written). Not even encyclopaedic. Title of article is not a candidate for redirect, as it is non-encyclopaedic and non-notable." and this one shares many, if not most, of those issues, so I believe I was correct in in the deletion. However, as I said, I would recommend you file a DRV (and of course I would not take it personally) as my decisions are not always correct, and I always allow myself to be swayed by well argued and well-reasoned explanations. I am sorry to disappoint you, and if, as Factsontheground says, other admins believe that I erred I will of course conform to the decision. Personally, I'd counsel working on it in userspace to make it more NPOV and fixing the issues that affect both the original article and this one, and then moving it back to userpsace once it can be shown it does not suffer from what was deemed inappropriate in the first article, but that's just my suggestion. -- Avi (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your honest assessment and good counsel on how to proceed. I disagree of course (otherwise I wouldn't have asked for you to restore it) but I will take a closer look at the article you deleted and see if it can be improved further before being posted again. I'd rather not go to deletion review since its just an unnecessary extra step, if indeed you will accept having the article reposted in a similar form with improvements. Thanks again. Tiamut^talk 21:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usurp

Hello. You reviewed my request for usurpation here and it seems that the period for the user on the Icelandic Wikipedia to respond is up (expired Feb 28, it's 23:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)). WOuld you mind following up? Thank you--iBen (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First things first: thank you! However, there's an issue: the global account doesn't work on these sites: ar.wikipedia.org

bg.wikipedia.org bs.wikipedia.org commons.wikimedia.org cs.wikipedia.org da.wikipedia.org de.wikipedia.org de.wikisource.org en.wikibooks.org es.wikipedia.org fi.wikipedia.org fr.wikipedia.org hr.wikipedia.org id.wikipedia.org is.wikipedia.org it.wikipedia.org ja.wikipedia.org ko.wikipedia.org www.mediawiki.org nl.wikipedia.org pl.wikipedia.org ru.wikipedia.org sk.wikipedia.org sl.wikipedia.org sv.wikipedia.org th.wikipedia.org tr.wikipedia.org vi.wikipedia.org zh.wikipedia.org You get the picture. ~~Some~~ Most of these languages I don't even speak! I know I now have the rights, but how do I take these over?--mono (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mat need to speak with the stewards on Meta for that, as renaming you did break you away from SUL. See m:Help:Unified login for more. -- Avi (talk) 14:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli art student scam

Hi, Avi, just letting you know that I am going to go ahead and post the fixed "Israeli art student scam" article that I have been working on in my userspace. Hopefully this will address some of the concerns you had with the previous article regarding POV and sourcing. If you have any problems please let me know and perhaps we can work something out.

Thanks again. Factsontheground (talk) 07:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it can be shown that the new article is substantially different from the old article and it does not suffer the issues that caused the old one to be deleted, then it is obviously NOT a recreation of deleted material and it will not be a G4 issue. Of course, it may be nominated for AfD on its own, but that is just part of the wiki process, especially in these extremely contentious areas :(. So, by all means, improve and work on the article and when you think it's ready, get a few (and I'm sad that I have to say this, for all wikipedians) neutral people to compare the two, and if it passes muster, move it in to article space. Good Luck. -- Avi (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's great Avi. I am happy to say that I canvassed several neutral admins at the CSD discussion page and the consensus among the admins was that the new article was sufficiently different from the old article for CSD#G4 not to apply. You can read the discussion here. Factsontheground (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, in that case, you should be able to move it into article space. -- Avi (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse filter question

Would it be both possible and allowed to have an abuse filter disable changing the "Kurd" to "Turk" or "Kurdish" to "Turkish" in the Saladin article? This happens often enough to be more than an annoyance, but I am not sure if it would an acceptable use of the filter. nableezy - 18:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible, of course. However, most of the filter admins prefer not to have such specific filters as they do aggregate to slow everyone's usage of wiki with a very narrow area of focus. It is better to use spurts of semi-protection in that case. I'll semi-protect the article for a week; perhaps that will do the trick. -- Avi (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Avi, nableezy - 20:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Avraham. You have new messages at NerdyScienceDude's talk page.
Message added 15:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 15:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded -- Avi (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Avraham. You have new messages at NerdyScienceDude's talk page.
Message added 00:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 00:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your response. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 00:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have again replied. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 00:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded once again. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 00:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal info of a minor

Re: the info you removed from a userpage, I emailed that user some time ago but I didn't know there was a specific policy or I would have done the same. Could you link me to it so I can have it handy if I run across something like that again?--~T P W 20:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is the accepted working of the OS committee as approved by arbcom over years (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Protecting_children's_privacy#Proposed_remedies #3 -- Avi (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that confirms what I suspected. --~T P W 14:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Avraham)

Hello, Avraham. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Avraham, where you may want to participate. Newman Luke (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC) .[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Avraham. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mattisse.
Message added 08:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Clarification needed. –MuZemike 08:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

userpage of a minor

Could you look at this userpage, please? I am aware of the policy concerning personal information and minors, but unsure of what should be done other than suggest that such information be removed, which I have done, but the user has ignored. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it contains personal information. Be sure to keep the edit summaries. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 03:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, but that's the problem, I think they're generally hidden unless the user requests otherwise. That's why I was asking for a more experienced opinion on what should be done. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 03:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Handled, thank you for the heads up! -- Avi (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help at the Hurva

Hi Avi. I'm wondering if you have a bit of time and would be kind enough to skim through Hurva Synagogue to see if there's anything you think needs attention? I wish it to attain FA, (in time for March 15!) Gratefully, Chesdovi (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

דייל

מזל טוב. Tomer A. 20:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article at WP:FEED

Someone has created a list of Muslim athletes and asked for review: Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback#Muslim_Athlete.

I have not responded, but my initial reaction is the same as User:Reconsider the static. My very quick search did not uncover a similar list for Christians or Jews, but there is this: Fellowship of Christian Athletes Do you have thoughts, or can you pass this on to someone who might? My guess is that there has been discussion of the broader issue - to what extent should religious based articles or lists for categories other than religion be included, but I haven't been a part of those discussions, so I hope that either you have, or know someone who has. It's obviously a sensitive subject, and I don't want to run roughshod when I have no special knowledge of the issues.--SPhilbrick T 13:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I wrote what I thought about your behaviour I'd be blocked as well

Avraham, what the f**ing ell do you think you are doing blocking a whole region of scotland because you personally can't deal with one idiotic contribution: [[2]].

YOU PERSONALLY HAVE CAUSED ME TO WASTE AN HOUR AND A HALF OF MY TIME trying to find out what I could possibly have done to get myself blocked from normal editing. If this is the kind of heavy handed approach you use to all your admin edits, then may I suggest you are largely to blame for inflaming the situation and causing people to spam.

If someone did what you have done off the internet, I'd be calling the police for anti-social behaviour. Seriously, this is not acceptable behaviour for law-abiding society. You don't just condemn a whole population because of the crimes of a few. Now please unblock me right away and apoligise - not only to me, but to the thousands of other people you think it is alright to use collective punishment! Isonomia (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPI: Gaydenver

Hello Avi. A couple of users at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gaydenver are requesting some clarification between the suspected socks and results from the checked socks. Would you mind clarifying? Thanks. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 14:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note posted; thanks! -- Avi (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pot and kettles

I went back to the page I was going to add a comment to, and I found some awful spam. [[3]]Isonomia (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's old. Good catch! -- Avi (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal information of a minor

You might want to oversight this user page. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ msg • changes) 13:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done You will get faster results if you contact the oversight list directly at oversight-l

lists.wikimedia.org.

BTW, why do you have ip-block exempt? It is included with the sysop bit. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ msg • changes) 13:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check the user group rights, there is one right in IP-exempt that is not in the standard admin package. -- Avi (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom throws out Newman Luke's RFAR

Newman Luke's most recent WP:RFAR against Users Avraham, Debresser, IZAK, has been officially dismissed as of 16 March 2010. IZAK (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Received. -- Avi (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thaks for removing but many users have their age on the user page. -- Extra999 (talk) 06:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then please let the oversight list know at oversight-l

lists.wikimedia.org. -- Avi (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Jivesh boodhun

I'm a bit perplexed. He somehow got past our current blocks, but you have narrowed the blocks rather than expanded them. How did he create the account in the first place?—Kww(talk) 19:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was one IP different which I forgot to block, thanks for reminding me. -- Avi (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TAWT again

I don't think you nabbed them all: Special:DeletedContributions/Just breezed away. –MuZemike 00:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Used his phone to edit. -- Avi (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, User:AaronCarlin (which led to me full-protecting TAWT's SPI archive page). –MuZemike 19:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership behaviour

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#WP:OWN in Judaism articles and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,

The above has been dismissed. -- Avi (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nahmanides, the critic of Judaism???

Now Nahmanides is criticizing Judaism too? This is utter nonsense, the kind of view that could only come from someone completely ignorant of the topic on which they write. Nahmanides' disagreements with Maimonides, among others, were not criticisms of Judaism, they were disagreements with fellow scholars over Biblical exegesis! Jayjg ^(talk) 02:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rediculous. -- Avi (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV discussion regarding Criticism of Judaism

A point-of-view discussion has been initiated at NPOV notice board to discuss the deletion of material from the Criticism of Judaism article. The material (seen here) discussed how critics claim that Judaism sometimes is used to justify or motivate violence, particularly violence in the Middle East in modern times. (Disclaimer: I am the editor that contributed the deleted material). --Noleander (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. -- Avi (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: email

Wow, Avi....that was quick action. Thanks. Tiderolls 16:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We aim to please

. -- Avi (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Thank you for all you do that the general public does not see Moxy (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly note

Just to inform you that an user in an IP range that you rangeblocked with the reason: "Checkuser block" is requesting an unblock here: User talk:85.211.138.85. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. -- Avi (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passover vs Passover (Christian holiday)

See discussion at Talk:Passover (Christian holiday)#Merge with Passover. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed while I was away. -- Avi (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Yom Kippur discussion

Hi Avraham: Regarding serious Christian content in the Yom Kippur article, please see Talk:Yom Kippur#Theological significance and Talk:Yom Kippur#Poll: Yom Kippur and Christianity. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. -- Avi (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consider entering this at WP:RESTRICT

Hello Avraham. I noticed your action at User talk:Newman Luke#Topic-banned from Judaism-related articles. Please consider logging this ban at WP:RESTRICT. This provides a single place where the wording of any ban can be looked up, if discussions about it should occur in the future. A user is free to archive his own talk page, in which case the ban notice may disappear from public awareness. When filing the ban, you may wish to specify whether it includes talk pages. To ensure against future challenges, consider posting a notice of your action at WP:AN. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being discussed at WP:ANI#Topic-ban for User:Newman Luke on Judaism-related articles. -- Avi (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Topic Ban

I saw your note on the topic ban. I am clearly not familiar enough with how these work to understand how this took place. Is it stated anywhere, or is it automatic? Thank you, and Good Shabbos.Mzk1 (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being discussed at WP:ANI#Topic-ban for User:Newman Luke on Judaism-related articles. -- Avi (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

You are mentioned in ANI http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Deleting_content_in_Criticism_of_Judaism_without_prior_discussion --Noleander (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, and note that major additions, as you are trying to make, need to have consensus. A consensus of one (yourself) is insufficient to make said major changes. -- Avi (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. But there have been about 4 additions I proposed on the Talk page that no one replied to. Zero. Then I add the content and it gets deleted. That is very childish, and as a senior Admin I would expect you to join me in frowning at that behavior. The latest proposal I have made is for a section on "Slavery". Can you help by commenting on that (on the Talk page) sometime in the next few days? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:NSD

He shows his minor age (born 1997) on his infobox. --Extra999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 11:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it.
In general, these notices should be e-mailed directly to the oversight list.

Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 13:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OOps, really sorry, it was Kayau. --Extra999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 16:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you an email

Dear Avraham, I have sent you two emails about a highly sensitive and confidential matter. Kindly please review and reply. Thanks. With kindest regards, Zwinglio\^pray 23:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. -- Avi (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Zwinglio\^pray 16:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rename (plaese)

user : Bot-iww -> user : Brox. --Bot-iww (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) This is not the place to request username change. Please see WP:CHU. ~NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 23:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... you you can(n't)? --Bot-iww (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To keep the records in one place, if you would like your name changed, please file a request at WP:CHU. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

one more question on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Valleyside show

How can Loonjustice be stale? He edited on April 14, and has 7 edits since March 10.—Kww(talk) 14:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that. I missed the 2009 part.—Kww(talk) 14:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

new notable actuary: citation

Added heral cramer to notable actuaries but need help formatting the citation so that it is consistent with the rest of the article. I have currently included bibtex code as an inline footnote

thanks Sugarfoot1001 (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I brought it in line with the other citations; thanks! -- Avi (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user called Blessing-light

...who requested a rename in CHU/U is a self admitted sock of blocked user Pretty Lydie. I think that warrants a block for block evasion. Cheers, Pmlineditor ∞ 15:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And others. She happened to pull a 'crat with CU, lucky for us :) Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Case

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Genesis Creation Myth has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Myth and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Weaponbb7 (talk)

inappropriate revert

Avraham, I didn't see any part of the text as a direct quote, but rather a slant against Messianic Judaism. I had tried to make the paragraph more neutral and in context with the beliefs of those inside the movement, rather than the words of those outside who seek to discredit their beliefs. DeknMike (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on user talk page that the change was made to a direct quote from the book. We should not change direct quotes. -- Avi (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

toda

thanx avraham. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by XKV8R (talk • contribs) 11:24, April 28, 2010 A pleasure -- Avi (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concern.

It's been two and half days since my renaming, and I still don't see any of my edits after (the following is quoted): "00:31, March 7, 2009 (diff | hist) Nm User talk:173.79.28.8 ‎ (Level 4 warning regarding TAG (BBS))". - Donald Duck (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on user talk page. -- Avi (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Criticism article

What standard practice? You do not own the article and you've provided no reasons to justify the section's exclusions supported by policy. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on user talk page. -- Avi (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no default response to material, not exclude nor include, intentionally. The fact that you've never been able to cite a single policy nor rational or coherent argument to justify exclusion makes your motivations embarassingly transparent. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review: Category Jews vs Category: Jewish people

Dear Avraham: Please see the serious Deletion Review discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 3#Category:Jewish people regarding the arbitrary and illogical replacement of Category:Jews by Category:Jewish people and its implications. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the friendly notice, and thank you for posting it to WT:JEW where interested participants of all opinons can see it. -- Avi (talk) 00:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Founder group description

A minor correction - the abusefilter-private right provides checkuser-like access (allows you to see the IP address of an edit in the AF examine interface) - not log access. Prodego ^talk 04:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, it should be removed, I reckon. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 04:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. -- Avi (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP block exemption

Hello Avi. I saw you gave yourself the IP-block exempt right. However, doesn't IP block exempt come with being an admin? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. Most likely not, or else Avi would not have given the permission.--moɳo 00:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admins and ipblock-exempts do both get the ipblock-exempt right, but ipblock-exempts get the additional torunblocked right, making those with it immune to blocks of Tor. The admin group does not have this right. Prodego ^talk 00:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please create a list

I've asked multiple times for you to come up with a list of topics that would fit under the subject of Criticism of Judaism. If you feel that the properly sourced information doesn't fit under the subject, then can you please propose some alternatives that can be worked on? Deconstructing the article without giving constructive alternatives isn't all that helpful. Silver seren^C 03:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can work on that when I have time, hopefully by the end of the weekend. Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not pay my mortgage and bills, so I do have to work. Quick responses are one thing, detailed responses require thought and care. -- Avi (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further responded based on Jay's excellent analysis. -- Avi (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Judaism

I hope you will support me in my proposal to pull the wikiproject Judaism banner from the said article and pull any support of fixing it. I truly believe this is in our best interest to show once and for all what kind of a POV-pushing article it is when left with those that have an unhealthy obsession with working on it and other negative-aspects Jewish articles. I personally dont see why an editor who ONLY works on negative aspects about a religion is allowed to continue to edit, obviously there is a COI and we know about at least one editor working on that article who has a big history of anti-Jewish article creation and editing.Camelbinky (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

An ANI discussion has been started that involves you. You may wish to go and leave a response there. Silver seren^C 00:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that

you are well aware of this: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Jerusalem_Post_article_on_Wikipedia but just wanted to make sure.--SPhilbrick T 01:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I am aware of the concerted and concentrated effort from people on both sides of the argument to twist wikipedia to their own political issues. -- Avi (talk) 02:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]