User talk:Avraham/Archive 11

< Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12 >

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)

Thank you!

I saw your essay on someone else's RFA, as it happens. Clicked over and read it through. What you said certainly rings true for me, too, and I'll definitely bear it in mind for future votes. And thanks, too, for your support :) - Alison^☺ 05:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

WARNING?

I am warning you to not preemptively warn me because I have done nothing wrong nor will I. I assure I will maintain my no POV and continue to edit articles which I believe I am capable of editing accurately. I am here to have the truth be heard. Thank you. 23 March 2007—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wa3ad7 (talk • contribs) 01:03, March 23, 2007

FYI - again

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid#Recent_edit —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeq (talk • contribs) 09:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

oops sorry?

What did i do just now? i was try to improve the article, please do not use ur POV while on wikipedia. and Again what did i do just now? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.52.25.23 (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

I have no idea what you are talking about. If you mean the {{ISP}} tag, it is a courtesy to other editors to inform them that the ISP is dynamic, nothing more. What POV are you referring to, and which edits? -- Avi 18:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

oops sorry, i'm mistaken something again, sorry, sorry bothering u.--Towaru 18:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RFA. As you may or may not be aware, it passed with approximately 99% support. I ensure you that I will use the tools well, and if I ever disappoint you, I am open to recall. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talkpage. Thanks again, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

BLP

Take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Criticism_and_overwhelming_clause. Discussion seems to have reached a standstill, and still no alternative interpretation of the "overwhelming clause" that would make the criticism on the Sudais article legitimate.Bless sins 04:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Again users have commented on what they think should happen, not on what wiki policy suggests should happen. I don't think anyone has attmepted to provide an explanation of the "overwhelming" clause, which still exists in BLP.Bless sins 04:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm not asking for a comment on the Sudais article, rather on BLP in general. I know very well that one user might come to Sudais, allow massive criticism there, and go to Gilbert, and remove every last word of criticism there. I'm asking for an interpretation of wiki policy. None have provided that yet.Bless sins 05:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Application to join block list

There is an application to join the unblock list from User:Avi with an address of avi _ wiki @ yahoo . com. (Spaces added to avoid spammers). Given the circumstances, I assume this is from you. Could you please confirm either through an e-mail or by a message on my talk page.

Capitalistroadster 19:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

The User:Waldork just returned with another abusive post - I don't know what happened but after I deleted it, I went to the history to get the diff and it has disappeared (maybe it happened concurrently with your clean-up). Anyway, thank you VERY much for your help! --Pete K 22:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the latest from this Waldorf person. I'm sure this violates WP:Harass at some point. Should I be bringing this here or somewhere else? Thanks. Pete K 01:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's yet another one --Pete K 01:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Your question to Core

I have Core's page watched and saw your question. The vandal added a lot of identifying personal information about Psychonaut to various pages, and I brought Core's attention to them. He told me he filed an RFO, so I assume the vandalistic edits have been oversighted. But a definite vandal. – Chacor 05:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I filed a RFO as he created an attack page and made at least 12 edits posting personal information about Psychonaut on random articles. None of the edits will be visible to anyone without oversight permissions. --Coredesat 05:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Internet for Learning

The block you have in place looks good. Every time we relax the parameters we wind up being subject to abusive account creation and causing more headache for our CheckUsers than necessary. The {{school block}} template should be sufficient, as it includes instructions on how to go about creating an account, either from another network or by contacting the unblock mailing list. I'll add a notice atop that talk page with the same template if it isn't there already. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Warning

I would strongly suggest that you back off. Not only are my contributions to Move America Forward factual, they are also logical. If you take issue with every one of my edits and talk page comments I will almost certainly begin to take issue with you personally.. this is not a personal attack but please do not attempt to silence the underdogs. --Asucena 18:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

TFD noms

I don't know about this, but it may be a good idea to combine all those nominations of IP templates into one discussion. There's no harm in qualifying. The discussions will probably be very similar. I doubt this myself, however, so it's your decision. Gracenotes^T § 20:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Extraneous shared IP templates

Your concerned is covered by {{SharedIP}} which covers for everything. -- Avi 00:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I replied on the template deletion page. :) - Denny 01:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocking User:Asucena

Avi, I have no problem with this user's being blocked. However, you should have got someone else to do it. It's easy to let a troll like this sucker you into doing an action that, although thoroughly warranted, can be painted as an involved admin abusing his powers. I say this because you had made reverts to the page in question. Also, try not to describe other users' edits as "vandalism" even if you consider that they are valueless.

Also, you blocked for 48 hours. This is contrary to the policy. Take care to stay strictly within the bounds of the policy when dealing with a user like this. I do not think you should block for WP:COI "violation" (it is not a policy and carries no sanctions) or for WP:NPOV "violation" (this is subjective, and it is ultra vires for you to punish other editors for making POV edits; you have to take that to an RfC and then an RfAr and get official sanction). Do not allow this troll to become a martyr by abusing your powers. Do it by the book and that is prevented. Grace Note 04:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Avi. You absolutely have not been acting within the "bounds of propriety". I would not have written to you if you had. I must reiterate: I have your interests at heart. I write only to help you avoid being painted as a villain. However, your understanding of what you did wrong is very flawed. First of all, you may not block users you are involved in a content dispute with. See this section of the blocking policy. Second, WP:COI is a guideline, not a policy, and you may not block other editors on account of breaching it. Please read the policy and get a clear understanding of this. Third, the editor has not been previously blocked for 3RR. Please read the policy, which is quite clear that 24 hours is the correct punishment for breach. I think that most editors would agree that 48 hours for a second breach would be unduly harsh. Most of us believe blocks are preventive, not punitive, and should not be escalated lightly. Fourth, the only editor to agree with you on WP:AN/I was User:Durova, who has a vested interest. Finally, I have no influence at all with User:Asucena but if you look through my contributions you will note that I have urged that they edit within the bounds of the policies, just as I do you. Grace Note 05:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Faisal barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar, I appreciate it! Slackerlawstudent 06:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Exercise physiology

Thanks, that p. has been a headache in every possible direction. This gives us a good chance to start over. DGG 06:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian template

Hi Avi, I answered your question on my talk page. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Help?

Hi Avi - if you have any spare time/energy, I'm trying to source & rewrite Circumcision worldwide at Talk:Circumcision worldwide/Temp & would be grateful for any help. Jakew 20:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel editing

I would like to call your attention to the discussion page on that article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#.22population_transfer.22 ). In light of that, my editing is not vandalism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.157.15 (talk • contribs) 22:27, March 29, 2007

your sig

Minimal/trivial issue: Upon reading a comment of your's on this RfA, I tried to search the page for your vote, and discovered it isn't quite easy to find your sig (having). I just wondered b/c I frequently scan talk pages for my own comments. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Darn, it never crossed my mind! Thanks and sorry for bothering you. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict

I'm very sorry, but I seem to have accidentally deleted a comment by you during an edit conflict. I've given the following message to user DennyColt to ask for help fixing it, since I think that user may be archiving the page right now:

I'm sorry to have caused this mess, but apparently I accidentally deleted a comment by user Avraham during an edit conflict here. also a comment by Radiant!, but apparently the latter user added that comment back in. The comment by Avraham is still not in, I believe: "# First version; at least there is a representative range of choices. -- Avi 13:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)" in section "Option 3 - Verbose version" subsection "Endorse". Apparently the page is being archived so I don't know how to restore this comment to its proper place. I would appreciate help or advice. Thanks. --Coppertwig 23:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Your input, please

I have posted a question over at the anti-Semitic people category that we've been debating. It is a very specific BLP concern that I would like addressed and, since you have been the most articulate and passionate supporter of this categorization scheme, I figured that you'd be best to take a crack at it. It is about subcategorization in the likely case of this sticking around via a non-con ruling. It is towards the bottom of the discussion. Thanks in advance.

PS--being an actuary: is it as dreadfully boring as it might seem or is it fun in a morbid way to make educated guesses about untimely (or, I guess, timely) demises? Take care. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I have become someting of a WP:BLP stickler on Byrd and Heather Mills, as both articles seem to be targets from time to time for those that wish to bash the two (and also apologists that want to excuse their past indiscretions). Anyhow, take care. If you ever need a pair of fresh, disinterested eyes to take a look at an article or a discussion of some sort, do not hesitate to look me up. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 05:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

HQ9+ Deletion

Today I was doing some reading on programming languages, and I clicked a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HQ9+ - and the article was missing. The article is linked to from http://www.parrotcode.org/languages/ - the Parrot project is pretty notable, and they trusted Wikipedia to act as a reference work that they could link to. Please consider reversing the deletion of the HQ9+ article. Thanks. - Chandon 20:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Can you please see User talk:Zeq#Doc Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad#Isreal is Poison? I am convinced that Zeq's addition is OR but despite my attempts I can't seem to get through to him. For some reason I think that you may be better at reaching him than I. Thanks in advance for any help in this matter. The Behnam 06:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Spam problem on Rob Bel--Virgil Vaduva 14:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)l

Avraham, our interaction on the Brian McLaren article showed that you are a discerning admin. We are having a problem on Rob Bell with user User:Gump - he has done now 7 reverts within the past 24 hours and he insists on keeping a paragraph in the article that is blatant advertising and spam for a third party group that has nothing to do with the living person or biography of Rob Bell. I can no longer revert his changes since I am at the limit myself; he has also ignored all our attempts to discuss the changes and participate in constructive development of the article. I don't know what else to do. --Virgil Vaduva 14:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

In addition, User:Gump has just made a veiled threat against myself in the comment on his latest revert, implying that he knows who I am and issuing a threat regarding my employment: Reverting censorship. Neither DAPSCO or Reynolds would be proud of your bandwidth waste. If someone could intervene, it would be greatly appreciated. --Virgil Vaduva 14:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

196.2.124.251

I see this IP address, which is mine, is blocked for vandalism. Could you give me the details of when and where the vandalism occurred? Thanks Paul venter 20:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

R" Pinkus

BS"D

Avi, You have stated a number of times that you are a Litvok. Just so you know, for the most part, R' Pinkus was not recieved well in most of the litvish oilom, but was recieved very well by some(including Yeshivas Ner Yisroel)litvish Yeshivos and also in the Gantze Chassidische oilom. I can bring a source, but someone who can quote R' Shach, The CHozon Ish, R' Elyashiv (Please note they are all livoks) and bring down the source properly can put it up. --Shuli 18:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For being on it so fast. IronDuke 15:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Evidence Zeq 18:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent Revert

I recently sent you an email. I was hoping you could give me a response to your revert from earlier today.

Leftd23 09:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Rooz

Gerash has broken 3RR to keep his POV at Rooz, please comment Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Gerash77_reported_by_User:Rayis_.28Result:.29. Regards, --Rayis 13:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop vandalising pages

This is a good example of nonesense [1]. Stop vandalising pages like Human shield. You're removing sourced content; take time and read sources, and then make strange statements. Thanks. --217.219.236.17 21:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Essay-type prose written in story format such as "For several years, Palestinians…" is not acceptable under wikipedia's manual of style. Please see Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Information style and tone. Avi 21:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the tone is ok. This is what I've read in the sources. Please read the source Israelis use Palestinian as human shield, Denver Post. I think you haven't looked at it, and just tried reverting first. Now you know that it was not vandalism, and your comments was not appropriate. Btw, please respond here. It would be better and easier for me. Thanks. --217.219.236.17 21:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The tone is inappropriate. As the MoS says, we need to be "dispassionate" as well in text. The information remains; only the posturing has been removed. -- Avi 21:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

As the MoS says. What do you mean by this? How do you state that this is inappropriate? Do you think this way, or you have reason for saying this?

Ok. Thank you for removing my request from you in your talk page. I'd only requested you to stop posting rude messages to me. Why do you delete it? What's your fear? I can't see it even in your talk page's history. What are you doing? --217.219.236.17 21:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

To what exactly are you referring? -- Avi 21:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about my message on your talk page that disappeared, and I can not see it even in its history. --217.219.236.17 21:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attacks by Yossiea and Avraham where it has been determined with absolute certainty that you must be under a misconception as what you claim is impossible for me to perform. Secondly, your lack of assumption of good faith is rather disturbing - especially in light of your comments here. -- Avi 21:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't assume good faith when you're calling me a vandal. --217.219.236.17 22:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please continue any discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attacks by Yossiea and Avraham] Thank you. -- Avi 22:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I wanted to create a user

Maybe It was me, I wanted to create a user, and I used Avraham as name. I tried it ignorantly. Sorry. If I knew, I never would have done this. Do you want to block me for being a new user? --217.219.236.17 22:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Dog agility GA failed

Please see the talk page of Dog agility to see my reasons for failing the article as a GA. Please let me know if you have any questions on my talk page. --Nehrams2020 00:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Userpage violations

Hi Avi. Thanks for your prompt action. Much appreciated. I am really just fed up w/ people coming over this place to disrupt and promote hatred coupled w/ much stubborness. This is just not the place for that. Cheers. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Avi, thanks a lot for being fair. I was about to put another query on WP:User Talk when I saw you had taken the appropriate action. Thanks again. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Avi, i'm not sure why the extract was removed. Matt57 pursued a calculated pattern of harassment against me by putting up a partial quote which he thought would draw protest from me [2][3][4], despite him believing that scriptural extracts on user pages was userpage violation.[5] unlike Matt57, i have not put up any extract on my page to attack anyone, or be provocative, or violate WP:POINT. ITAQALLAH 14:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah, its a verse from Quran, which says "no one should die except in the state of Islam". Campaigning for or against anything is not allowed on Wikipedia. Either all users should be allowed to have religious quotes on their user pages, or all should be disallowed. Please dont pursue selective application of Wikipedia's policies. I have agreed to have my user quote removed as well. You should have no objection as well to have your quote removed. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I will respond here instead of both of your pages for efficency. I am not proposing that no religious quotations per se exist, but there should definitely be no statements that lead to project disruption. Pointed comments about stoning women, pedastary, killing infidels, ritual murder, theft, superiotity of any one religion, race, or creed versus others (to name some hypothetial examples) are forbidden under WP:USER. Things like love your fellow man, live in peace and harmony, likely help the project.

In this situation, I felt that possibly disruptive comments should be removed, especially in a foreign language where the intent of the statement is unknown to 99% of project members. This issue needs to be hashed out and a consensus reached. My own personal opinion (FWIW) is that positive comments, even if religious in origin, are likely not disruptions, and should be permitted, but anything that can be considered disruptive should be removed, religious or non-religious. I removed the arabic comment because I could not be sure as to its meaning, and it was brought into a conversation about disruption, and the fairest result in my mind was to remove it for the time being, and reinstate it if it can be shown to be acceptable. It is not a comment as to the nature of the statement, as of now, since I am not certain as to the exact meaning just yet. -- Avi 15:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

the translation of the extract can be found here. ITAQALLAH 15:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The quotation is what I said it was: "die not except in a state of Islam." which attempts to say that Islam is a superior religion. I dont agree with it and if you should be allowed to say that, I should be allowed to say that Islam is not a state in which a person should die in. I found the verse offensive and I'm sure other users will do too, so its better to keep it off your user page. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Let's continue the discussion here, please: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Arabic, Itaqallah, and Matt (arbitrary section break). Thanks -- Avi 15:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

user pages

Can you also remove all the "independence for Kurdistan" userboxes in Wikipedia on behalf of WikiProject Turkey? I also feel offended and provoked! :) Nazi flag, I am 100percent behind the decision to remove, but Palestinian one really falls into a marge of appreciation really. Baristarim 15:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, I most probably would have also supported the second removal of the Palestinian flag/Israel combination - it is just that I see so much political soapboxing on userpages which go unnoticed that it was a bit odd that this particular case (not the Nazi one - it was more than legitimate: I mean the second PL/IS combo) kept on getting deleted by so many users. That's all really. Anyways.. Cheers! Baristarim 16:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I imagine that it got a lot of attention because the editor in question had appeared recently – and more than once – on WP:AN/I for edit warring and trolling. In other words, he was already 'on the radar', as it were. Given that I posted a notice on WP:AN/I about reverting his abuse of the Palestinian flag, it's not surprising that his user page drew a lot of eyes.

I note that it only took fourteen minutes for you to notice and revert my change to his page, Baristaram; it shouldn't be surprising that other editors were also watching his page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Male genital mutilation

Please will you keep an eye on this article & its talk page? Someone is determined to redirect it to circumcision. Jakew 14:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Just trying to make things more neutral. And don't violate WP:OWN! --193.198.16.211 15:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Gross bias

You couldn't have read my edit ... you reverted it too quickly! If you had, will would find no place where I'm bringing any point of bias to the Circumcision topic.

I can find several places where you bring bias to the topic. For example, there are three extremely painful steps in a circumcision procedure. An authentic bris performs two of those three without anesthesia. Your quote misleads the reader to think authentic means painless (or doesn't need!! anesthesia).TipPt 16:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not IP!

I just modified Male genital mutilation from redirection page to stub article because I have intention to expand it, and you reverted it and wrote in edit summary: "IP getting around semi protect. This is rediculous. Needs full protection". Why? --antiXt 18:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

ah, ok --antiXt 19:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)