User talk:Avraham/Archive 44

< Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45>

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)

SPI/DVDfan12

Can you take a look at this one? [1]. Past results were unrelated, but the matching demographic information is a little suspicious. Thanks, Nathan ^T 14:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Haredi vs "Ultra-Orthodox", again

Hi Avi: Please see Talk:Modi'in Illit#Ultra-Orthodox/Haredi. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Koestler

Hi, I have put a lot of work into improving and extending this bio. Arthur Koestler. Can you help with a peer review (or other) to give me some idea how I am doing and if the article is now better than its prior 'B' Class rating, plus any suggestions for further improvements? Thanks 3ig-350125 (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Nesting - Thank you

Avraham, I had not known how to nest project boxes. It proved quite useful to me here: Talk:Religious response to ART. Thank you, Joe407 (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Dewan

Drawing your attention to this comment on SPI.—Kww(talk) 17:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked because of Sock

Why am I being accused of being blocked when I am not. I thought the situation was fixed by KWW. Sorry if I sound mad but may I know what sock I am accused of. Thank you User Talk:Dewan357 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.91.18.154 (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Dewans 2 ip socks

this user is a sock of the nth degree [2] check the ip and its edits on several pages different range same articles same pov i find it hard to believe "he forgot to log in" after he made 25 edits 86.151.125.218 (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Another sock account [3] ip 159.91.16.212 made several edits on the same articles when will this vandal be blocked forever? hes already made 3 sock accounts and now uses alternating ips 86.151.125.218 (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

sock account active yet again? so he forgot to log in again? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/159.91.18.154 86.151.125.218 (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

::Dewan back again [4] we can clearly see whats going now please finish this troll off cheers 86.151.125.218 (talk) 19:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Mughal Empire mess.

I'm pretty sure that user 86.xxx is banned user Nangparbat (the one who's commenting on your page from the thread above and from the thread here and the one accusing sockpuppetry towards Dewan) edit warring with user 159.xxx based on their edit summaries and IP range. Nishkid semi-protected the talk page for this article because Nangparbat was editing. This seems to be the only remedy in stopping him because his IP changes frequently. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 18:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

so dewan gets way with being a sock? 86.151.125.218 (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You're banned which means that you're not allowed to edit. Plain simple as that and anyone is welcome to revert your changes. Sorry Avraham if this is making a mess on your talk page.Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 18:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

And you are aiding socks such as Dewan357 so i must revert all your edits 86.151.125.218 (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aiding at all. Per wikipedia policy I may and can easily revert anything you do. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 19:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ the sock master Dewan357 and his ips have been adding pov material to the article for weeks you keep letting him/her why not use a user check on the ips and dewan357 im only removing the pov material not adding any just restoring the article to its former self if you bothered to pay attention to the sock dewan357 you would know 86.151.125.218 (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S I will stop if the sock master Dewan357 stops adding his pov image and info to the mughal empire article the image of shalimar gardens was there for a long time and along came dewan and his sock ips and they added shalimar gardens of indian administered kashmir which is clear pov 86.151.125.218 (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL! You've been a disruptive editor for over a year based on the watches people have been recording. So I don't think you will simply stop. Again, sorry Avraham for having such a long thread on your talk page. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 19:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

(<-)No problem, that's what archiving is for -- Avi (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet activity on the Kushan Empire article?

Dear Avraham: I notice you have been involved with the blocking of User:Dewan357 so I thought I should alert you to recent activities on the Kushan Empire page. I really hope someone will investigate and do something to stop the edit warring there. Here is the most recent note I have just added to the Kushan Empire Discussion Page:

Would someone please investigate? Is this a sockpuppet?

Someone using the IP 159.91.18.154 keeps changing the opening paragraph of this article to make it sound as if the Kushan Empire was originally formed in ancient India. The changes are extremely similar to those made earlier by User:Dewan357 who has been blocked recently for "edit warring" on other articles. This IP:159.91.18.154 is apparently located at the Trenton State College in New Jersey which is of interest as Dewan:357 claims on his User page to be "a present or former student of The College of New Jersey". Now, "The College of New Jersey" was previously known as the "Trenton State College" - so they are the same place.

Soon after User:Dewan357 was blocked, edit changes from IP:159.91.18.154 started happening here. It seems more than coincidental that such similar edits seem to be coming from people connected with the same institution and continue via an anonymous IP after the original user has been blocked. I suspect that a sockpuppet is involved here but I don't know how to follow this up. Can anyone else please check this to see if I am right? Many thanks, John Hill (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Middle kingdoms of India

Dear Avraham: Thank you so much for dealing with the matter I mentioned above. Now, User:Dewan357 has also been conducting an edit war with me on the article Middle kingdoms of India. I have tried to explain to him the reasons form my changes but he keeps reverting them. I was just about to reverse his latest change there when I thought perhaps I should ask you if you would be kind enough to look into it first as I really don't want to get into a constant battle with this person? Many thanks, John Hill (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Caution

Avi, any suggestion you might make to User:Jayjg I take as applying doubly to me, since I believed the Arbcom decision more or less would be understood to extend to the area I am now editing, and I had refrained from touching these grey zones. This place tends to run to facile suspicions. Rest assured that I won't be on that article long, and certainly will not use the occasion, or ambiguity in the judgement, to return. I realize it may look, indeed reasonably (suspicions can be reasonable) like I am following Jayjg there. It was only seeing, as an idle observer, the quote on Al Baqara come up on the ANI board that, once the go-ahead was given, I thought it only responsible to chip in on the Islam and Antisemitism page, since it has some serious problems. I think both he and I are more than aware of the delicacy of the moment, and I'm sure he wouldn't mind if a few sharp experienced minds like yourself, Nathan, and Slim Virgin looked on to see that the differences that may emerge are ironed out in gentlemanly fashion, efficiently. Sorry for the intrusion, on this and the actual page under discussion. Imagining the 'other', particularly in a world as conflicted as ourts, with tact and precision has seminal importance for the global public that reads us. This is particularly true of religion. Regards Nishidani (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Your mate Dewan357 is back [5]

Looks like your mate cant keep his promises [6] of not using sock accounts to edit during a blocking period I hope you take this further If not I will to other responsible admins cheers 86.156.208.95 (talk) 12:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Your note

Hi Avi,

In line with your note on my Talk: page, do you think you could take a look at Talk:Unification_Church_antisemitism_controversy#Al-Ahram_sentence? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be taken care of, thanks! -- Avi (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

request

Your input would be appreciated here if you could spare the time and aggravation. I dont know which way you will go but I would very much like to hear your opinion. Thanks, nableezy - 21:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

•  Done -- Avi (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ludwig Wittgenstein

Dear Avraham, was Ludwig Wittgenstein a Jew? An IP is claming that he was, and inserted category Jewish philosophers. I've not seen in any source that claims that he was a Jew. AdjustShift (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll erase category Jewish philosophers from the bio. AdjustShift (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

{{anonblock}}

I didn't know {{anonblock}} belonged up top. I use Twinkle to do my blocking and it puts it at the bottom by default. Thanks. --Admrboltz (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I may bring it up on the twinkle talk page to see why it gets put on the bottom. Thanks for the WP:Oversight on that user btw. --Admrboltz (talk) 02:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello...

Hi there. --eric dilettante' (mailbox) 03:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

More abusive account names

See my block log -- thanks. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done -- Avi (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

administrative request

Hi Avi, is it possible you could lend a hand here and admonish Al-Ameer for not being able to help actually just tell him how, I seem to recall seeing something about a hide revision setting, but I aint an admin so wouldnt actually know how to do it? Thanks, nableezy - 21:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Carol_Moore_(2nd_nomination)

An article that you have edited is currently up for deletion. Please take a moment to respond.Ikip (talk) 00:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

I notice that much of your hard work has been up for deletion in the past, that troubles me, and I am really sorry to see that. I would like us to help each other. I am a member of a group called the Article rescue squadron, with almost 300 members strong. I would be honored to see you become a member. Thanks.

WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing Hello, Avraham. You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing. For more information, please visit the project page, where you can >> join << and help rescue articles tagged for deletion and rescue. Ikip (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Just an analogy

Perhaps I should add a note I caught last night which perfectly illustrates where this parlous principle would lead us. While rereading an old classic Weston La Barre's The Ghost Dance, I came across this remark:

"Shaman" should always be used in the strict sense of Eliade to mean ecstatic possession of a human practitioner by a (supposed) alien spirit or power (Delta Book 1972 p.186 n.4)

In my marginalia nearly 4 decades ago, I wrote dame(Japanese = hopeless, don't do/say that etc.). For La Barre, though an authority on primitive religion, peyote cults, and to a lesser extent shamanism etc., has got Eliade, the authority, back to front, or, if you will, arse up. Eliade in his classic study, le chamanisme et les techniques archaiques de l'extase, 2nd ed. 1968 Payot Paris says shamanic ecstasy is diametrically opposed to possession by an alien spirit (passim) and specifically he adds, 'One does come across, of course, cases of shamans who are literally 'possessed', but they are rather the exception...' (p.23). La Barre got his own subject wrong. He confused shamanism (ecstasy, the projection of the spirit outside the subject) with possession (the intrusion of a spirit inside a subject, where it takes over). It is a slip, a lapse in attention. One simply ignores such material in an otherwise good book.

If I were to edit the article on Shamanism, which is in a woeful state, or on Mircea Eliade, I could, in the wiki rulebook, cite La Barre's definition since he is an authority on shamanism, or I could cite him on the section of the Eliade article dealing with his great treatise. Discretion and a knowledge of the subject (not 'original research' as Jayjg persists in saying) would however lead me to refrain from inserting La Barre's blooper into either text. Even Homer nods. Even authorities get things wrong. Books by reliable sources contain bungled comments due to bad editing, or slipshod review by the author going to press.

Laqueur made a huge slip. One should ignore it and cite him on other things.

I fear my work here is being taken either as motivated by a desire to elide material hostile to a 'good image' of Islam from the article, or as evidence I, as a scholar, make 'original research' into subjects. As to the latter, when I read and edit an article, I simply check sources, and read as widely in the subject as my resources allow, so that I can come to the article confident I know something about the topic it deals with. That is not original research, which means having one's own conclusions. It means undertaking to find material pertinent to the article.

With regard to the former issue. To the contrary, there is much material, reliably sourced, on this subject, readily available in works by qualified scholars of all persuasions. I can't stand errors of citation, misquotes, manipulated readings of original texts, whatever, in scholars let alone by outsiders. That's why I am so reluctant about wiki. The volume of copied and pasted website material thrown into article without the exercise of quality control is unbelievable, over a huge number of articles. I'm quite happy to elaborate on what Bernard Lewis remarks. I have not the foggiest notion of whether the three hypotheses I cite are true. They are however what reliable sources say on the point Lewis raised. If Lewis's point is valid (and I think it is), then what his younger peers now say on the same topic is also pertinent. There are many good articles on the injurious Jew = ape image. But this stuff should be cited from reliable specialist sources, not from someone who, though famous, has mixed up his quotations, and intruded a statement that reads like propaganda for the view that the Qur'an contains a passage that constitutes incitement to genocide. To insist it be retained is to play politics with the page, in defiance of the aims of the encyclopedia. Regards Nishidani (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

p.s. and I repeat. I strongly believe neither Jay, nor I, nor G-Dett or anyone else on the proscribed list should be editing a page as delicately poised on the borderline as this. Nishidani (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Avi, you're an administrator in whom I repose trust, and whom I think of a friend. Forget the idea I would think your judgement on this influenced by malice aforethought or suspicion. You don't, I well know, think like that, and there's no need for you to defend yourself from such an absurd idea. I was just surprised you cannot see the point I think clear as day. I don't blame you, since I have written at such boring and intricate length. I'd ask G-Dett to edit all of my comments, since she has an extraordinary gift for precise and laconic synthesis. But like me, she comes under the Arbcom ban, and I can't presume. The seven under sentence shouldn't be touching articles like this. Forgive the Nestorian longwindedness that follows.

I never read the wiki rulebook, under the presumption I know from long experience how to distinguish what I think (for myself which is nobody's business, except if I choose to publish it) from what scholars in areas I have no expert knowledge in think. At university level, you are trained to write papers summarizing research using the best available specialist sources. If, in a Greek seminar, you present a paper on the Iliad's hexameters with summaries of Milman Parry, Albert Bates Lord, C.M.Bowra, G.S. Kirk, Gregory Nagy, M.L. West and then chuck in a comment on the same subject by Patrick Leigh Fermor, or Victor Berard, men who specialized in modern Greece or the epic tradition generally, and whose comment happens to be misprision, or error, or superficial, your tutor will put a red mark beside the Leigh Fermor/Victor Berard blooper, and just nudge you to stick to what specialists on that particular form of Greek say, even if Fermor and Berard were fluent in classical Greek. It's not their chosen field.

What the tutor would never do would be to say. 'Well, Berard wrote a great series of books on the Odyssey, so he is RS. But you'll have to start a series of footnotes, now that you have included him, citing Bowra, Nagy, Parry, Lord and Kirk on the error Berard made when touching on their field' (for those scholars would, while reading his book, merely note he was out of his depth, and ignore the slip from an amateur). The tutor would not say: 'Well Leigh Fermor certainly knew a huge amount about modern Cretan extempore verse-making, from his war years listening to shepherds up in the Mt Ida area. Now that you have included him, you must quote what Bowra, Nagy, Parry, Lord and Kirk and other specialists say about it, in reviewing Fermor.'

That is a recipe for disaster, in scholarship, in reviewing, as in wikipedia. Most errors made by outsiders are never the object of review or correction by specialists because (a) they are far too numerous (b) they are dismissed as irrelevant to the field. Tutors simply tell their neophytes: 'Don't include remarks by rank outsiders onto a difficult topic, however authoritative in their related fields they may be, and especially if those remarks are clearly false.

To suggest, as you do, that Laqueur's error be footnoted by scholars who are experts in the field, is to set an impossible condition. Scholars who would have read that book, would never in all likelihood, have troubled to comment on this terrible slip. Therefore, in the absence of WP:RS on Laqueur's error, which is I think not doubted by yourself, and even Jayjg, to say it must remain in the text unless a WP:RS proves it to be wrong, is only to beg the question. Who, not checking, put it there? Why should self-evidently false information secure for itself an impugnable status within an article simply because its author happens to be a RS for (modern history)? That is fetishism of the person, surely. An excessive regard for the person, and not for the quality of the article.

Sometimes, given the intensity with which experienced administrators and editors have to argue about grey zones and wiki rules, the risk arises of them being so overwhelmed by the rulebook, that the fail to step back, and simply ask themselves the obvious commonsense question. What on earth do people drafting articles in the real world (for encyclopedias) do here? They follow the methods that scholars writing neutral summaries of the state of the art in their fields do, in this instance, they stick to a summary paraphrase of the key authoritative scholarship, and keep out trivial errors and contentions made by scholars with no experience of the subject. You are deeply versed in the intricacies of wiki rules. But isn't there some wiki editing page that says, when perplexed, be bold, throw away the rule book and use your commonsense. The option you advise is not, to me, commonsensical. It is an open-door for lunacy on which a mezuzah has been appended, and if you look inside the mezuzah, you won't find the Shema Israel, but rather a sacred writ that reads: 'If an editor makes a mistake, introducing a piece of text that is patently wrong from a scholar who has slipped up, a scholar who is not even an expert on the argument touched on, no one can remove that mistaken citation, or scholar's remarks, unless he can find a source, written by a specialist in the field, who has noted in a book that particular error.'

Such a principle would open a can of worms. Most books in my library have a back page listing errors by their authors. We all make them, even in our own fields of research. I know this may be hard to understand given the principles of conserving error in say the Tanakh, errors due to the vagaries of textual transmission and scribal lapses in attention (Kethibh and Qere), but in modern scholarship, however deeply indebted (and the debt is huge) it may be to the practice of close reading developed by rabbinical tradition, this particular principle is not used (of course sacred text is one thing, secular text another. But in the Christian textual tradition of the Gospels, the Greek principle is followed, not the tradition of Hebraic scholarship). In every Greek, Latin, Chinese or Japanese text, where an obvious error is embedded, all later editions will simply replace the error, with what the editor conceives to be the correct reading, and relegate the error to a footnote. Hope you don't find the analogy sacrilegious or impertinent, Avi. But it came to mind just now, precisely because I intuit that on this, our disagreement may just slightly also reflect a difference in background? Best Regards Nishidani (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A little in anticipation, but, Avi, l'shanah tovah tikatevu v'taihatem, my friend.Nishidani (talk) 08:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

picture question

Hi Avi, I have a question I am hoping you can answer. My understanding of the non-free content policy is that a non-free picture of a living person is by definition replaceable and cannot be used. Am I incorrect? nableezy - 01:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a specific question would be better than the general one. What are your thoughts on whether or not NFC allows for this image being used in this article? I am on the fence about it, if it is being used just for the controversy then maybe it can go in, but as a picture of the subject I think it may not be acceptable. Really, I have no idea and I figure you, commons admin and otrs, would know. nableezy - 05:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, and if you wanted to make that view known on the talk page of the image it may help settle the issue. nableezy - 05:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

note

thank you for caring re: my loss. DS (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Editor meltdown

I think we crossed paths on reversions on User:Deathgleaner. Could you direct your attention to Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Nosubst and close it a little early? It seems to have become a disruption page.

Thanks for consideration & regards! Franamax (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Can you help me? is there possibility to check these users for sockpuppetry?

• User:Kedadi
• User:Kreshnik25
• User:AnnaFabiano

There must be some relationship between them. All edits are identical, and Kreshnik25 is new account, as AnnaFabiano, and they are deep into discussion already, as they are there for days.

Many thanks, i wait for your answer. Tadija (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Just because people don't agree with you, that doesn't mean they're the same person. --Kreshnik25 (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:WPADMIN

Are you aware of this (new, I think) WikiProject? Wikipedia:WikiProject_Administrator -Pete (talk) 06:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Guilty

Yeah, this 206.15.235.10 guy is guilty of vandalizing Ethnic Cleansing. Please toast him. WATCHER —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.141.240 (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Expanding Article on Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd

There appears to be a group of individuals who consistently impede any constructive additions to the article in question. Undoing and blocking all editions pertaining to users outside their nest of selections.

The editing recently done to this article has been referenced to credible sources, some already available on other related articles, regardless of the fact of the neutrality displayed in the additions manifested in the facts and phraseology in use.

It would be detrimental to Wikipedia if a consensus is not reached on this question pertaining to all articles not only this one. If the material being added is not significant it would be understandable, yet where the facts could be correct and the community interested in the subject at hand are in conflict with the manner of its publication, the rational and professional solution would be to offer an alternative to the edition being proposed. Simply deleting and blocking any attempt to contribute to this and any other article in a constructive manner can only be viewed as autocratic in the least and a hypocrisy of what the globally renowned Wikipedia stands for.Wsa1 (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)