User talk:Avraham/Archive 24

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 23

Archive 24

Archive 25 >

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)

Barnstar

I'll fill you in by email, but I'm sure you've already had messages on the subject. Rudget (review) 14:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks

Thank you for your comments on my RFA. Even though it failed with 28 supports, 42 opposes, and 15 neutrals, I am grateful for the suggestions and advice I have received and I do hope to improve as a Wikipedian. If you ever need my help in any endeavor, feel free to drop me a line. --Shark face 217 20:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

inuse

sorry, i felt bad when I saw the tag after making my edit. Good luck with your project.--Chakira (talk) 06:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Concerning your recent warning to me.

I really like it how jews try to Hagana over the net when they encounter people who are critical of the zionist nuclear weapons manufacturing programme at Dimona and militarism in general (and the general oppression of arabs and the occupied Palestinian territories). This is shameless censorship, which only creates more hostile feelings towards the jewry and sympathy for the plight of Holyland arabs.

Zionists receive many billions of dollars in military and economic aid each year from USA, therefore jews should respect basic american values, especially the First Amendment right to the freedom of speech, instead of trying to censor the net. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 09:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA...

Thank you...

...for your participation in my RFA, which closed with 85 supports, 2 neutrals and 1 oppose. I'm extremely grateful for all the the kind comments from so many brilliant Wikipedians I've come to respect and admire, as well as many others I've not yet had the pleasure of working with, and I'll do my best to put my shiny new mop and bucket to good use! Once again, thank you ;)
EyeSerene^talk 17:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail.

Ping. Rudget (review) 16:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Runtshit

Hi Avi

Can you explain the criteria you used to divide "confirmed" from "suspected" sockpuppets? I have previously been told that the use of anonymisers and proxies makes checkuser inappropriate here. If you are going by content and MO, I can see no difference between the IDs in each category. Can we mark them all as confirmed?

I don't know if you have seen them, but I suggest that you also look at Truthprofessor, Zuminous and Borisyy, who all seem to operate in the same manner and can safely be assumed to be part of the same operation. I have identified so far 2615 abusive edits from 474 different IDs, not including dozens of libellous edits deleted from history but probably available to admins. Is there anything more we can do to put a stop to this? RolandR (talk) 13:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. There are many more which meet your criteria, either naming me or linking to the attack blog. So, unless you object, I propose to relabel them. I would suggest that those who refer to Trotskyism can also be assumed to refer to me. If any IDs have made identical edits to an already confirmed sockpuppet, can this also be taken as confirmation?

As to having different political views, I have always been struck by the honesty of your edits, and the collaborative way in which you approach discussions. On many articles (eg Gilad Atzmon, Ouze Merham, our edits have been "on the same side". I have no doubt that you are closer to me than you are to the Kahanist/s responsible for this abuse, and we could quite conceivably find ourselves on the same barricade confronting them. For all I know, we already have done.

חג שמח

RolandR (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, some of the "suspects" with no apparent reference to me -- and in particular, several blocked by Slim Virgin -- had made extremely offensive and downright libellous edits, including to now-deleted article Roland Rance and to my user page, which have now been removed from history, but can I believe be viewed by admins. These too should certainly be "confirmed". RolandR (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RolandR (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)!החג שלי יהיה אכן שמח, אך לא כשר[reply]

I suggest you clowns stop playing games and make-pretending that you do not know why Roland Rance has been singled out for such attacks on Wikipedia. Rance is a vicious cyber-vandal who has inserted malicious smears into the wikipedia entries for dozens of people. He has systematically sabotaged scores of other articles to give them an anti-Jewish or anti-Israel bias. Rance is a malicious anti-Semite and Stalinist who is misusing his position at Wikipedia to smear others and to distort entries. He then introduces administrative blocks to "protect" his mischief. Wikipedia administrators have done nothing to stop him. The result is that he has left his victims with no choice but to respond to his harassments by inserting attacks on him. Rance may whine that he is a poor innocent victim of cyber-stalking on wikipedia but in fact he is a malicious smearer and slanderer. No doubt the attacks on him from a team of his victims will continue and escalate until he desists from his michchief, issues an apology, and cleans his vandalism off the many entries he has sabotaged. Genghis (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.196.16.98 (talk) [reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:AAA 40Year Logo.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:AAA 40Year Logo.PNG. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:ASI logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ASI logo.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]