Jump to content

User talk:Avraham/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 < Archive 15    Archive 16    Archive 17 >
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)


Re: Undercover mosque

Hi,

Thanks for explaining. Just for future reference: Using {{inuse}} tag tells other users not to edit the page. If you use that, then other users are far less likely to catch you mid-revision.Bless sins 15:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User essay

Noticed that your user page is categorised as user essay, which I think is a great idea and never occured to me. — [ aldebaer⁠] 10:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Still, it inspired me to categorise my user page under user essays. — [ aldebaer⁠] 16:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, User:Avraham/RfA-B is now both in Wikipedia essays and in User essays. User:Radiant adjusted {{essay}} for namespace sensitivity (include in User essays if in user space, WP essays if in WP space). If you don't want your userpage to show up in Cat:User essays, it may be a good idea to noinclude the essay template and omit the cat at the bottom. Or, if you prefer to transclude the template box, to subst it and remove the cat inclusion, which I did here. Hope you don't mind my tampering. — [ aldebaer⁠] 16:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mtj

Avraham: don't you think that it should go by the name it is known by? There is no reason for it to be spelled that way. It's a typo that you are further perpetuating.--Yeshivish 19:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New page about Israel and the UN

Hello Avraham, you recently edited the page Israel and the United Nations. I invite you to have a look at my rewrite of this subject, Israel, Palestine and the United Nations. I intend to replace the first with the second. Let me know what you think.Emmanuelm 13:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shana tova, g'mar chatima tova, and toda raba

It's a real change for me to be accused of being a Zionist swine. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, I thought I was being called a Zionist swine, I got all excited :=) Bigglovetalk 01:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty of venom for everybody. I'm willing to share. :-) — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How generous ! Bigglovetalk 01:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AJOP

Hi, I'm having yet another problem with YidisherYid over at the AJOP article. AJOP clearly states that the P stands for Programs, yet he keeps adding in Professionals. It is irrelevant what others might call it as the organization states what they are called. Yossiea (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Avi, as if i did not address his concern at the talk page. But U R always welcome to block the article for another week like u did the last time when Yosia asked u to block Hasidim and Zionism, Go ahead and use your tools as u see fit, but please do not complain and post warnings that i personally attack u if u involve yourself in these kinds of thinks with your tools to win your points against me. I don't mind being called by you a disruptive user as long as in the end of the day u will talk about the issue.--יודל 20:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what is up with YY. I withdrew my AFD nomination, he now is reverting to keep it open because he now has problems with the article. It's very difficult to deal with an EN-1 on Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yossiea (talk • contribs) 15:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the proper chronicle of events i have asked that AFD to be open long before Yosia has withdrawn it, so he is not the only one who opened that nomination.--יודל 15:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like the article deleted? I am really having a hard time understanding you. Yossiea (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.--יודל 15:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you've gone from someone defending the article to someone who now wants it deleted? If so, by all means, open up a new AFD as the nominator, with the proper reasons and let's discuss and vote. Yossiea (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, and i already did that. Please do not close it, since i seconded your request long before you closed it so its not anymore your page and u cannot close it.--יודל 15:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I can close it. I withdrew my nomination. Get it through.... If you now want it deleted, just simply make your own AFD! Yossiea (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That AFD nomination was requested by me just like you. its not yours since i also signed the request form long before you withdraw it. so please do not delete it anymore yourself, leave it up to your friend Avi to use his tools here as he sees fit--יודל 15:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created the page, it's my nomination. I withdrew my nomination, so I closed the AFD. If you don't like it, open up your own AFD. 1) I'm not even sure why you want the page deleted after being so vocal for it to be a keep. 2) Instead of posting 30 posts about the AFD, why can't you just create your own AFD and get it over with? Yossiea (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since i asked it to be nominated for deletion and u closed it afterworlds it does not make it your nomination. It is just as mine as yours--יודל 15:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) that doesn't make you the nominator, that just means you changed your vote. 2)Instead of posting on and on on people's talk pages, just create your own AFD! Yossiea
1) I not only changed my vote i also nominated it for deletion, so that nomination is More exclusively yours then mine. 2) until that nomination isnt closed why open a new one?--יודל 15:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated it for deletion, you didn't. That is a fact. Learning English might be prudent in this case. You just changed your vote for some reason and jumped on the bandwagon, but the fact remains that I nominated the page and I withdrew the AFD. If you don't like it, then just create a new AFD. I will bli neder not respond to any more of this stupidity. Just create your own AFD and get it over with instead of flooding user's talk pages with on-and-on repeating illogical arguments. Yossiea (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
first of all stop with the personal attacks about my english where does anything about me personal come into play here? Never did i jump on any bandwagon i have given it utmost thought and i can show you whole e-mail exchanges that i had with many interested parties close to this subject, also i have posted lengthy discussions first on keep not and then on delete. And to the point: yes u were first in nominating for deletion but i requested it just like you, and stop arguing that since u first on this my request is somehow voided, i say that that since my request is before your withdrawal i could not be forced to open a new one, if Avi feels justice is with you i ask him to consider his vote in this page as somebody who makes it too close to make this call here--יודל 16:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isarig's topic ban

Hi Avi, has Isarig's topic ban been lifted?--G-Dett 21:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted at CSN regarding Isarig's violations of his topic ban, in light of which I've suggested he be perma-banned. Judging from his response, the core problem appears to be a simple one of dishonesty.--G-Dett 21:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Named Userpage?

The article does not refer to only "named" userpages. I have read the article several times now, and I'm pretty sure I am not insane. Or am I?--168.103.242.198 21:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A suspicious cat from a suspicious user?

Hi. I recently noticed there was a new category around, and, aside from its manifest problems of POV, I happened to note that it fits withing the patterns of a certain user (Pionier, Poor billionaire and other socks). Since you dealt with such cases in the past, I thought this info would interest you. Dahn 11:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop personal attacks in the edit summaries

Oy Vei and sigh isn't useful to the subject and is meant to tease and intimidate your partner in collaboration, together with harassing me on my talk page i want to remind you once again please assume good faith. This isn't a warning but a friendly reminder, it will be a nightmare for me and for the whole project if you will end up like Yeshivish, please stay and let me hep u here, thanks--יודל 18:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not lie about other users

You write that i have not explained my edit while showing one selective edit summary that was part of another revert, that i have fully explained myself, please before passing judgment on my actions read the history of the last few edit summaries as an admin i expect you should note such basic wiki behavior, at least have the courtesy that you say you want to block me you should do it according to the rules of the game.--יודל 14:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the template

Just wanted to say thanks for the holiday template I stole from you. :) Yossiea (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yidisheryid

After reviewing his contribs (including his baseless allegations on ANI), I blocked for disruption and incivility. (My block notice is here.) I'm sure someone will come along and yell at me for doing it out of process, but ... ugh. Claiming never to edit other people's comments in the very same edit as you alter others' comments? Claiming that some admin will just read your "vicious" attack and block without reviewing the case? Yeah. Disruption, end of story. -- Merope 18:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sure this isn't the end of it -- it looks like he's picking apart the diffs you supplied and attempting to explain away what he's done. (He omitted the sockpuppetry edit, it seems.) I'll continue to monitor it the best I can. -- Merope 18:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if I may be blunt, his defenses are complete bollocks. I'm quickly losing patience with him. I may ask another admin to tag in if it escalates. -- Merope 19:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the right of sockpupetry to vanish

Wikipedia suffered harshly from the case of sockpupetry, now regarding the opinion that since the sockpupets are blocked they have the right to vanish because a return would be detected, [1] Please note that it is a fact that the damage of the sockpupetry action is here today and has not vanished, so was the sockpupetry not so easy to detect in the first place, so the deletion of the record about this case isn't fair[2].--יודל 15:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was implemented after a discussion on arbcom[3]; any link to it?--יודל 19:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Yes.[4] Where to express concern? Link please?--יודל 19:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did express concern.[5]--יודל 19:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

m:Right to vanish#Exceptions is pretty clear on this. MER-C 03:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3 people have now expressed that it be restored and that the right to vanish isn't possible when the damage is alive, the community's will and policy should not be so brazenly dismissed and overruled. --יודל 13:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about any vendetta[6] its about following rules and policy and not dismissing the will of the community, 3 users against 1 is clear consensus.--יודל 14:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This[7] isn't about contacting another user, this is a discussion clarifying that the reverts where against the will of the community, i have already sent an email to arbcom last week, they have no reason to get involved since it was never ever their decision, this was clearly a revert against the will of the community.--יודל 15:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pages of penalized sockpuppet/eers

Hi Avi: Can you clarify why the {{sockpuppet}} and {{sockpuppeteer}}) tags were not placed on the pages associated with User:Yeshivish and User:Mrs random? Thank you. IZAK 03:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help?

Hi Avi, I notice that you are online right now. Can you please close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Behnam/Local news? It has been 7 days. I put a note on WP:AN as well but nobody seems to have taken to the matter, though I may be being impatient. I'm just trying to get out of here and that matter it bothering me. Regards, The Behnam 03:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for closing. I'm still not sure what I want to do with the page. Should I blank sections that 'resolve'? If somebody thinks that part of the page is attacking someone, wouldn't it be more appropriate for them to ask me on the page's talk page about the issue? With a lot of the deletion arguments it seemed possible that I could simply adjust the page to resolve whatever 'attack' was supposedly included. The Behnam 04:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I am perhaps most interested in is whether or not I can log in this way in the future. Of course I'll always have it on my local storage, but one of the beneficial aspects of the page is that it can encourage the user to comply with the rules (if the user notices the log). So, am I safe to interpret the 'keep' as meaning that I am allowed to restore the material if I need to? I'm thinking about going inactive, so I'm thinking about just blanking it for now (not much point in deletion in terms of Wikimedia memory if the concept itself is not unacceptable). If I blank it when the problem seems to have stopped, and restore it if the problem begins again (and also log the new offenses), can I be free from worrying about future deletion? If the concept itself is not invalid, it should suffice to just blank it when it is probably not needed, instead of deleting and restoring the info over and over again as time goes by. What do you think? The Behnam 04:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above is somewhat incoherent. My bad, I'm tired. To be more concise, I'm just wondering whether or not a 'blank' state is acceptable instead of delete-and-restore-and-delete-and-restore? I'm going to put it into blank state for now, but please do get back to me. Regards, The Behnam 04:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A 'stick' really isn't what I envision - I just noticed with Jeffpw that he started behaving once he realized I was keeping track of events. In this way the page solved the problem. As you can see, I've blanked it (so the stick is as hidden as knowing that I keep a copy locally), but what I am wondering is if I can just keep it 'blank' in default state instead of deleting it. The problem with deleting it is that I'd end up bringing that same info back if ever the poor behavior continues, and then if it stops again, I'd delete it again, and so on. As such I don't see the point in deleting it. If blanking is acceptable, can you please note that in the terms of 'keep'? The Behnam 05:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I'm just going to leave it blank, and it will sort of act as a "logging page" whenever these situations occur, and I will blank any section that resolves. Sort of like a DR sandbox. Anyway, that should be about it. Thanks for your help, and good luck with the Ahmadinejad mess. Cheers, The Behnam 05:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kay (sportscaster) deletion of "Trivia" item

Please forgive my faux pas and allow me to explain my addition, which you had reverted. Under the "Trivia" heading, I added "Michael Kay has a pronounced dislike for the sound of cowbells". I ought to have referenced it to Mr. Kay's statement about it at the Tampa Bay Devil Rays game, hosting the New York Yankees. The home team is notorious for the sound of cowbells, rung in enthusiastic exhortation. Mr. Kay made the paraphrased statement that he would like to go down to the stands and make the noisy fans eat their cowbells. That is partly the reason I made a link for the cowbell, as that article explains in more detail about the sound used to ramp up the excitement. I would like to cite the statement he made, but I'm actually not sure how, and I'm also wondering about the (strict) legality of it, as all YES Channel broadcasts are explicitly copyright protected.Prunar 00:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bans on ritual slaughter edits by anon

You've edited Bans on ritual slaughter in the past. There's an anon who's been editing there recently, and is trying to get more material about Jewish law into the article. The problem is that the anon doesn't understand Wikipedia and doesn't write well. He'll make a dozen edits in a row and leave the article in a mess. Then someone adds a "cleanup" tag, then he gets reverted, and then he complains he's being mistreated. He even complains he's being censored by the anti-vandal bots. ("You retain erronous information, refuse edits from professionals in the field, and accuse people of being vandals based on automatic computer programs. Sort of a model for a nightmare totalitarian state.") I can barely figure out what he's trying to say. If you could give him some guidance, or get him hooked up with an appropriate Wikipedia project, he might become more productive, or more readable, or at least less annoying. Thanks. --John Nagle 16:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smallpox vaccine

I notice that you reverted edits of 124.120.237.23 on the smallpox vaccine page. Just want to let you know that s/he made similar edits on the smallpox page. Regards—G716 <T·C> 14:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

I really don’t see how User:Yidisheryid past behavior is pertinent to anything. Also, posting notices to wikiproject boards may be well accepted, but I didn’t realize that adding the whole deletion review to a project page was allowed. That seems awfully POV. --S.dedalus 19:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My view on the barnstars

I said this to the barnstar's main page. And they didn't notice. So, with all due regards, respect and appology (if needed) I am addresing you, mostly because I don't know whom to addres about this issue and partly I saw you on the list of the administrators of Wikipedia and you have the great nickname Avraham. I think that one of the tings about Wikipedia is that it should be a collaborative project. And that means the oppurtinity for people to change the way the Wikipedia runs, so that it is better place. So, I don't know where to address this issue. I think there should be a change in the barnstars and awards thing. There should not be any barnstars and awards. I think that the whole idea of the barnstars is flawed. No disrespect of course for the people who have worked on the articles and earned their barnstar. But that have slightly undermining purposes in respect to the other editors. For exemple, I'd like to present myself. I've been working on Wikipedia for 3 years and I am among the 3000 editors who have the highest number of edits. Of course quantity doesn't mean quality, but I regard myself as a progressive and capable editor. I have made some great contributions. I don't want to brag about it - I consider it one of my greatest personal achievements to be part of this project. However, I am sure that there are people around the world who are contributing as much as I am and are here probably longer than I am. These people don't have a barnstar to flash around. We just do it, because of our love to Wikipedia and the community. I don't want a barnstar. I am perfectly happy the way I am, though sometimes I feel a little bit envious about other people's barnstars. And I feel that jealousy creates friction. It does so, because people shouldn't have a special order for their selfless and voluntary contribution to what is Wikipedia and to what Wikipedia stand for. I don't regard myself as any special than those editors, who have barnstars, and neither are they. These barnstars just undermine most of the oustanding editors, who are contributing to Wikipedia and who are doing their work without any expectation for a reward. It undermines them, showing most of the other editors as a selective clique, who have a barnstar, who deserve a barnstar, who are special. They are not. We all are not. We are part of the same project and none of us are more special than the others. They don't deserve special barnstars. I hope I made myself clear in this issue and my plea will not be disregarded.

Regards and with all due respect: Painbearer —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5

The Biography WikiProject Newsletter
Volume IV, no. 4 - September 2007
Project News
  • The three-month long Summer Assessment Drive, organized by Psychless, was a huge success! It ran from June 1 – September 1, and reduced the backlog of unassessed articles from 113,385 to 56,237. In all, over 100,000 articles were assessed. Over 60 people contributed in some way.
  • A barnstar has been created for exceptional work on Wikipedia biographies and for assisting the project. The Biography Barnstar is listed with the other WikiProject awards and can be awarded easily with a template. See the template page for more details.
Member News

Congratulations to the editors who worked on the newest featured biographies: Augustus; William Shakespeare; Adriaen van der Donck; Alfred Russel Wallace; Alison Krauss; Anne Frank; Anne of Denmark; Asser; Bart King; Bill O'Reilly; Bobby Robson; Bradley Joseph; CM Punk; Ceawlin of Wessex; Colley Cibber; Cædwalla of Wessex; Dominik Hašek; Elizabeth Needham; Frank Macfarlane Burnet; Georg Cantor; Gregory of Nazianzus; Gunnhild Mother of Kings; Gwen Stefani; Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery; Harriet Arbuthnot; Harry S. Truman; Henry, Bishop of Uppsala; Héctor Lavoe; Ine of Wessex; Ion Heliade Rădulescu; Jack Sheppard; Jackie Chan; Jay Chou; John Martin Scripps; John Mayer; Joseph Francis Shea; Joshua A. Norton; Kate Bush; Kazi Nazrul Islam; Kevin Pietersen; Martin Brodeur; Mary Martha Sherwood; Mary of Teck; Maximus the Confessor; Miranda Otto; Muhammad Ali Jinnah; P. K. van der Byl; Penda of Mercia; Pham Ngoc Thao; Rabindranath Tagore; Ramón Emeterio Betances; Red Barn Murder; Richard Hakluyt; Richard Hawes; Robert Garran; Roman Vishniac; Ronald Niel Stuart; Ronald Reagan; Roy Welensky; Rudolph Cartier; Samuel Adams; Samuel Beckett; Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough; Sarah Trimmer; Sargon of Akkad; Shen Kuo; Sophie Blanchard; Stereolab; Sydney Newman; Sylvanus Morley; Tim Duncan; Timeline of Mary Wollstonecraft; Uncle Tupelo; Waisale Serevi; Wallis, Duchess of Windsor; Walter Model; William Bruce; William Goebel; Yagan; Zhou Tong; Æthelbald of Mercia; Æthelbald of Mercia

New Members

Congratulations to our 225 new members

From the Editors

The newsletter is back! Many things have gone on during the past few months, but many things have not. While the assessment drive helped revitalize the assessment department of the project, many other departments have received no attention. Most notably: peer review and our "workgroups". A day long IRC meeting has been planned for October 13th, with the major focus being which areas of the project are "dead", what should our goals be as a project, and how to "revive" the dead areas of our project. Contribute to the discussion on the the new channel (see below)

We decided to deliver this newsletter to all project members this month but only those with their names down here will get it delivered in the future.

This is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue. Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned or post news on the next issue's talk page

New irc channel

Lastly, a new WikiProject Biography channel has been set up on the freenode network:

#wikipedia-en-bio

Our thanks to Phoenix 15 for setting it up.

Contributors to this Issue

We couldn't do it without you!

To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 15:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC) .[reply]

Three things

MA mediation

First I hope you enjoyed the holidays and can participate in wiki in full force. Any way, I have posted a proposal in MA mediation, which I think you missed. Would you please review it and maybe give change to it?--Pejman47 16:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see that?--Pejman47 19:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I answered you questions there. Hope, we can finally reach a compromise and unlock the page. --Pejman47 20:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chofetz Chaim Kagan

I believe all (most) Kagans are Kohanim. It seems the his last name was Poupko. He either adopted it when his mother remarried or used his wifes last name when he married his shteebshvester (stepsister). His last known direct male descendant (a Poupko) died in a France a few years ago. In Russian, where we use an H they use a G. We had a Russian cook that made Gotdogs and Gumburgers.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pikipiki (talk • contribs) 23:13, October 9, 2007

Thanks and question

Hi. Thanks for your precise help with R. Feinstein. Since you're around, can I ask you an unrelated question? I just noticed that my (first) PROD was removed by an anon IP for the article Cigarettes and Valentines without an edit summary or Talk comment. Does this mean that my next step, assuming I still think deletion is appropriate, must be to bring it up for an AfD? Or was that type of PROD removal reversible? Thanks. Kol tuv, HG | Talk 05:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isarig violating terms of mentorship.

Please see report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Isarig_violating_terms_of_mentorship.--RolandR 18:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monsey

Hi. We either use categories or a list page, but notable residents should not be on the page about the location itself. Thanks. -- Avi 05:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Who is this "we" you are referring to? While categories are one method that can be used, I can point you to a few thousand articles that include notable residents. Can you point me to any policy that forbids their use or that justifies your removal of sourced content? Alansohn 05:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's just much cleaner this way. See List of people from Monsey, New York. -- Avi 05:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List pages are only necessary when the list overwhelms the article; one individual on a page with a nonexistent category is a waste of time. If it makes you happy to put it on its own page, gei gezunte heit. Alansohn 05:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shkoyach, und a Gut Voch far dir oychet. -- Avi 05:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_in_Markazi_province.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_in_Markazi_province.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 23:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Rav

It would be a nice addition to the article if you could elucidate on this point (i.e., the point in your edit summary) within the article, immediately following the listing of the Brisker Rav. Kol tov. Tomertalk 04:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work.  :-) Tomertalk 15:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. :D -- Avi 15:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sourcing problem with Image:CAS logo.PNG

Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

(This is an automated message from a robot.)

Hello, I am an automated process which tries to help Wikipedia stay clear of images which may violate copyright laws by applying the Wikipedia Community's fair-use rules.

I noticed that you uploaded or modified Image:CAS logo.PNG, an image for which I could not determine whether or not it has a valid source. Uploaded images must specify where they came from, in order that others may confirm the copyrighted status, or lack thereof, of those images. If you did not create this image yourself, the owner of the copyright needs to be identified in the image page. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with an explanation of that website's terms of use for its content, is usually sufficient. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page.

If I have made a mistake and simply wasn't able to read the copyright information you've already included (bots like me have trouble reading certain types of data), I apologize for cluttering up your talkpage. If you would like to leave any feedback that might make this bot better, please contact my owner. Thank you. OsamaKBOT 04:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable actuary?

I don't know whether Paul Kitson (Baroncino di Benwarrad) should be included at Actuary#Notable actuaries or nominated for WP:CSD#A7. Most of the article was written by User talk:62.172.72.131, an IP at Watson Wyatt; oddly enough the Baroncino works at Wyatt. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that Prince Charles is an actuary at Watson Wyatt? LOL. Thanks for taking care of this. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Notable actuary" .... umm, oxymoron? ROFL, yet another actuary joke... HG | Talk 02:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage Question

Hello...I have a slight problem that maybe you might be able to help with. The little "menu" at the top of my userpage that has a time, links to my talk page, contribs and the like, and a little saying is normally right in between the line at the top of the page, for some reason it is slid way down (you will see what I mean) and I am not sure how to fix it. If you could help, I would appericate it. (Sorry for the bad explanation)(I asked Riana and DarkFalls, but I guess they are offline). - NeutralHomer T:C 00:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked User:Ryan Postlethwaite, since you were offline (no worries there) and he fixed it right up. Many thanks though :) - NeutralHomer T:C 01:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick with that button

While you are no doubt doing your best to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia, you can rest assured that the edit you reverted was not vandalism. the_undertow talk 03:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin help required with vandalism of nomination page

Hello Avraham: Unfortunately, there is a user Ludvikus (talk · contribs) who is tampering with the formatting of a nomination page [9]. See the wildness of what he is doing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Protocols of Zion (imprints). He is inserting and changing the original formatting and even the wording, totally unheard of. Please take a look at it. Thanks a lot. IZAK 15:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reversing a nomination on page

Hi: A user is reverting the legitimate template on the Żydokomuna page [10] that is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jewish Bolshevism that is already underway, under the pretext that it is "mass filing" when this involves only three articles with duplicated content about Jewish Bolshevism. Your admin expertise would be appreciated. Thank you, IZAK 17:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following me

It appears you are following me. Your last six edits have been in immediate response to my edits: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]

I'd appreciate if you stopped following me around and found something better to do.Bless sins 04:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to blame me for you following me around? That doesn't even make sense.Bless sins 04:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About MA article

Dear Avi, It seems that you don't have the time or doesn't interested in the article anymore. Man, I tried to reach a compromise with you with using your own reasoning: only the response from the MA himself should be included in the lead; and only adding the "(it is disputed)" after the Wiped of the Map phrase.

I have requested to unlock it, hoping the consensus of this community will lead to an article which represents all point of views, regards--Pejman47 20:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asad and Ezra

You supply no source for your claim about Asad. Unless you supply source I will remove it if I see it. You need to supply source.87.69.77.82 21:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Describing your edits

Please describe your edits accurately. Thank you. Michael Glass 23:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and antisemitism

Hi. I noticed your archiving recently. The two pugilists editors are arguing in Talk, but also going thru rounds of back and forth restorations (reverts?) of their favored wording/sections. What's your advice here? I've already appealed in Talk for them to stick to an editing truce. Is it appropriate to protect the page? Wait for them to get to 3RR (if ever)? Should I just walk away from this mess? Thanks. HG | Talk 02:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is highly partisan editing apparently designed to incite hatred/fear of Islam.
The article is already heavily skewed in the direction of making such fear/hatred "respectable" eg I see nothing from the many Jewish scholars who insist that Arabs and Jews did and do and will live perfectly happily together. The current basis of this article is non-encyclopedic and is bound to strike some people as nasty.
(The nearest equivalent "opposite" article I can find is Zionism and Islamophobia - but it was created today by a new account and I have nominated it for deletion!). PRtalk 08:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metzitzah

Thanks. Nightscream 04:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I didn't know I should do that in the first place. if you see all of my contributions in this year, I have never informed a user before opening a case in ANI, and in the case of my only block, the initiator of that case (Jayjg) didn't notify me. I also didn't see your talk with Omegatron.

I would be happy if you exactly point out the sentence which I violated the civility, so in future I will make sure not to repeat it.


In any case, if you are offended (?) I apologize sincerely. --Pejman47 20:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope my answer in ANI have solved your misunderstanding , I must go offline now, I hope we can continue our discussions on mediation page tomorrow. --Pejman47 20:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read again your response in ANI, and I was shocked by your quick "worst case" interpretation of my words,I hope in future you will never judge me anything like that, really I am not the type you thought while you were writing those sentences:). Bye--Pejman47 20:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete my userpage

Hi, could you take a sec to delete my user page which was involuntarily created for me by that guy? Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel 16:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yahweh

I see many edits by you of Yahweh. At least one is mistaken: kurios is not Latin (but Greek). Most edits only add markup, but in the case of the Kabbalah ref you changed the actual text. Are you sure of your change? I have often seen 2-letter abbreviations. 213.84.53.62 23:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moses

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Moses. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Mike0001 09:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Avraham reverted only once, to your three reverts in that edit war, so this seems rather like a facetious 'warning'. Avraham, I'd encourage reverting his latest changes to Moses also: 1) a parenthetical "see also" inserted in the midst of a lead like that does not conform to our usual way of doing things; leads are supposed to be summaries, not a place to insert a new "parallel". 2) "Known extra-Biblical references to Moses date from many centuries after his supposed lifetime, and contain significant departures from the Biblical account." was changed to: "The historiography of the biblical accounts is discussed in Dating the Bible and in the Torah.", which has totally departed from the actual point being made in the context, which is supposed to be about the extra-Biblical references. Til Eulenspiegel 12:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About recent vandalism. . .

I have noticed that recent vandal hits have been made on child oriented pages, especially the one on toy r us that featured a woman doing yoga, and I was appaled to find out that this was the actuall photograph that was being used for the "Naked Yoga" page.

Most you guys use a picture of this caliber.

Maybe can you use a picture of a female that has a bush thats, Oh i don't know, less bushy.

thanks, for sparing my eyes.

Hanover —Preceding unsigned comment added by HanoverNewH (talk • contribs) 20:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Avraham/Archive_16&oldid=1141272777"