User talk:Avraham/Archive 56

This is an archive of past discussions about User: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.

1

10

20

←

→

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Noted. -- Avi (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI: Doug agreed to push the close of Workshop back to 9/16 or 17 (still being finalized). I didn't really think having the last 48 hours of Workshop on yom tov was quite right, and he agreed. See talk page of main case page. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

יישר כחך -- Avi (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Although, between work, and my absence from the general area for a number of years, I'm afraid I do not have much of substance to add. Do I perceive a disparity? Yes. But I recognize that may be as much due to my own POV as a problem with Wikipedia. Hard evidence for either side needs to be brought, and I do not think that I have much to add at this point. -- Avi (talk) 00:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I always like it when people spell that right. (;-) ... I'm not sure if I have much content to add myself. But the play I'm going to make is about process: restrict/forbid NOTHERE people from editing, and make sure all other edits are sourced. If everyone editing in the area is HERE, and if all material edits are sourced, there will be much more goodwill, the atmosphere will improve, and quality will improve. That's all I'm hoping for now. StevenJ81 (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

PS: After I'm finished doing whatever I'm going to do at ArbCom, I'll probably write you over on Meta, figure mid-September or so. I have a bunch of questions about things I want to improve on ladwiki, and while I don't assume you have all the answers, I'm hoping you can give me advice on where to go to get answers. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete Edits

Hey Av, would you mind deleting all my contributions? I like to look back at my edits and see what I've done (as far as minor edits, new pages, etc) and I haven't been marking my edits.

Thanks, Baleni (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC) Baleni (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Not marking the edits as major or minor isn't the worst issue in the world. More importantly, edits to mainspace have already been licensed to Wikimedia and must be kept unless they fall into one of our deletion or revdeltion categories. If it is just the major/minor issue, don't even worry about it, and just start paying more attention now. We all mess that up every now and then

. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Haha, thanks for the response to my (admittedly) trivial question. I'm just fretting over nothing, I suppose. :) Baleni (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal ^talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. -- Avi (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Archiving

I noticed that you set up archiving here. But you should also include a search bar like I did here. Otherwise the archives are not easily accessible from the main page. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 02:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Asking for your Advice

User:Avraham, if I should take Content dispute to WP:Dispute resolution, will I be able to count on you to give me your profession advice with regard to edits on this page?Davidbena (talk) 04:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm still on wikibreak due to this being one of the busiest parts of the year for me, so I'm sorry, but I cannot commit to any time now. -- Avi

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case proposed decision posted

Hi Avraham. A decision has been proposed in the Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk))

Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

WP article: "Festival-day"

User:Avraham, As of yesterday, there was no specific article on Wikipedia dealing with the specific Jewish festivals known as a "Festival-day" (Yom-Tov). That means 15-years of Wikipedia without an article on the Jewish "Festival-day." This prompted me to write an article yesterday on the subject, which you can read here: Festival-day, but now a person has wrongly suggested that it be deleted. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Festival-day. Can you please interject here and voice your opinion whether or not the article should be deleted, as your view is important here, I would think. It's urgent.Davidbena (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Just a reminder: WP:CAN states: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.

However, canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior."Davidbena (talk) 03:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the friendly notice; I have opined on the Afd page itself. -- Avi (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Hi Avi, and best wishes for 2016. I know you're not very active on Wikipedia these days, but when you get a chance, I'd appreciate it if you would change the "Retired" template on User:Malik Shabazz to "Semi-retired". I stop by periodically to reply to messages and maintain Malcolm X and do a few other things, which means I'm technically not retired. Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. Good to see you around, even if intermittently. -- Avi (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yom-Tov

Reb Avraham, shalom. Since I respect your opinion more than almost anyone else here, on Wikipedia, because of your vast experience in editing on this venue, can I please ask you what you personally feel was the main problem/issue with the article posted recently by me on the Yom Tov and which has since been deleted? Looking for constructive criticism. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

My main concern was that it seemed to be a picayune inconsequential differentiation using a term which does not exist in English. The literal definition of Yom Tov is "Good Day". The connotation and proper usage in English is "Holiday," for which we have an appropriate article. Wikipedia is not the Shaagas Aryeh (L'Havdil Elef Alfei Havdalos) and it doesn't operate using pilpul or lomdus. Any differentiations about the various levels of yom tov (drabannan vs. dorrayso, moed (including Tisha Be'av) vs. non-moed, dependant on Megillas Ta'anis or not, etc.) can be handled without a new article whose title, no matter which way you slice it, would be confusing (what is a "Festival Day" different from a "Holiday" different from a "Yom Tov" etc.). Can you synopsize what your intended article wished to add, and how you feel that it cannot be addressed with the articles that the project already has now? Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Reb Avraham, I beg of you to be patient with me, even if we should differ in view. My main emphasis has always been to give adequate encyclopedic coverage of the Hebrew term "Yom Tov," which appears more than 115 times in our Mishnah alone (based on my copy of אוצר לשון המשנה), and to outline some of the halachic implications relating to those days. I do feel that it would be an oversimplification to simply say that "Yom Tov" is merely a "picayune (petty; worthless) inconsequential differentiation" when compared to the more general word, "holiday." Since there may be some out there who come from frum backgrounds, as ourselves, and may wish to learn more about this term (and its dos and don'ts), I conceived the idea to create a page that will provide for them this need. Maybe there's no such need, as 15 years had passed-by and no one seemed to have brought it up, but me. Anyway, my intentions, though good, were ill-received by my own people, who (in hindsight) seemed to have felt threatened by me, when I had no intention to make them feel that way. I will let your decision stand, unless you should be willing that we give it another try, this time with its proper Hebrew designation, "Yom Tov." But if not, I have no bad feelings. There are many other articles that are "waiting to be written" on Wikipedia. Your friend, Davidbena (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Aleichem Shalom, R' David. Firstly, Iwould certainly hope one would not use Wikipedia for understanding the halachos of Yom Tov from any perspective. That is what one's local Rov is for (or at least, for simple shaylos one's home copy of Shulchan Aruch, Mishne Berurah, Aruch Hashulchan, Kiztur, etc.). That being said, I am still not clear on what you want to add to Wikipedia which cannot be added into the existing Yom Tov (which redirects to the English language title Jewish holidays) article or on the article about the particular Yomim Tovim (ledugma, Pesach). Are you thinking about a "Hilchos Shabbos V'Yom Tov" type page? I would strongly counsel against that. Forgetting about frum vs. non-frum, mihagim alone will make the page untenable. Moreover, if you really wish for people to be mkayem the halacha, it is absolutely best that they follow chazal's dictum of asay L'cha Rav. As you know, Kol Hatumos K'shaas Mitziyasan, which in general implies that each sh'ayla depends very much on context, and even sefarim, let alone a website, cannot hope to encompass the possible questions. Forget about the s'yata dishmaya that any posek needs before answering a shayla! Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, and a compendium of halachos is not its main purpose, just like the Britannica is not going to include a complete copy of the Shulchan Aruch. At least that is my opinion. If you want a wider view, I recommend starting a conversation on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. A guten chodesh -- Avi (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You are right, Reb Avraham, that anyone seeking to know the halachos of Yom Tov, in depth, e.g. Yom Tov versus Shabbos or other holidays (Purim, Hanukka, etc.), is hardly going to resort to Wikipedia for this type of in-depth information. עשה לך רב והסתלק מן הספק. I never intended, chalilah, that such laws in a WP article should be exhaustive. Still, a general overview of such laws might be good, and where, conversely, if they were added to the more general article on Jewish holidays, under the sub-heading "Yom Tov," might make that article a little bit too cumbersome. Usually, specifics are dealt with in their specific places. That is my personal view. Nevertheless, it may well be that the article at this time is not very important, considering that it hasn't generated any interest until now. With that said, may we all do our best to improve this online encyclopedia, in helping to disseminate knowledge; in our specific areas of expertise, in the WikiProject Judaism. And may this maxim in Pirke Avos be our guide: לא עליך המלאכה לגמור ולא אתה בן חורין לבטל ממנה (It is not for you to finish the work, but neither are you a freeman to desist from it). Let me extend to you and your family a belated Rosh Chodesh Sameah.Davidbena (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Soliciting Your Opinion

Shalom, User:Avraham. I wanted to know if you think that my proposals were reasonable here. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I know very little about the JFK assassination and the various theories behind it. -- Avi (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Shavua Tov.Davidbena (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Grenada 1066

I had a look to see if other sources refer to 1066 in Grenada as a massacre, and they do! So, please accept my apologies - massacre seems to be a fairly sourced term for the lead. Assassinated though? It's a little ambiguous - to me, it's the same as saying someone was murdered - killed is far more neutral. But, crucified is far more specific. Which do you think deserves the emphasis in the lead? Assassinated - which deals with the political motivation of the killing, or Crucified - which deals with the method? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Spacecowboy420:No need to apologize; we work on the basis of cordial collaborative editing

. As for the lead, my opinion now is that "crucified" is better than "assassinated," although on further review, "murdered" would be acceptable, as the method of death is clearly stated in the section dealing with it. Perhaps we should have any further conversation on Talk:1066 Granada massacre so that 1) interested people can see and 2) it stays with the article for posterity. Thank you! -- Avi (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Your clerking RFA

That guy questioned the motives of most of the opposes, calling them nothing more than "Rah Rah cheerleading for Eric." Yet you left his bad faith assumptions and redacted my calling him out on having done so? I don't understand that at all. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 23:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Because if you read it from a neutral perspective, it is making the point that his opinion is that the oppositions are more geared towards supporting Eric than opposing Hawkeye. That is not ipso facto bad faith, IMO, which is what I tried to make clear in the note. Also, I'd prefer not to adjust actual phraseology, just remove clauses unnecessary for making the point. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

So you see no issue of assuming bad faith in accusing most of the opposers of having ulterior motives? Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 23:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect; I see no issue of bad faith in someone saying that to them, the opposition appears more as a support for an opposer than an opposition of the candidate. He did not say these people are evil, violating Wikipedia policy, are liars, or hateful. He said that he thinks the opposition is more of the form of a "moral oppose" (ala moral support) than one focused on the candidate. Not only may that be true, but it is something that 'crats may need to consider if this was a very close case. Is it possible that you may be perceiving more malice into the statement than was intended? -- Avi (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't think it is. If you look at that guy's other comments to me, it's pretty clear he's pissed off and in attack mode against those with whom he disagrees. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 23:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Found a couple of statements better off removed; thanks for the note. -- Avi (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Clerking

Hey Avi, thanks for the clerking at the RFA. Would you mind looking at this redaction you made as I think it might have changed the meaning a bit. I think the "the only editors who actually" part was important for the meaning. If you think it's better to leave that out, it's your call (as a crat and steward you probably know a bit more than me), but I just thought you might have broken it at the wrong point. Thanks, Wugapodes (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wugapodes. All my being a 'crat and steward means that I spend too much time on Wiki[p,m]edia

. I'm always open to constructive criticism and I always retain the right to change my mind if persuaded by suitably convincing arguments. In this case, I thought about it, but decided that leaving it in means that the editor was explicitly saying than older Wikipedians were exhibiting bad faith—or at least not AGF, which I felt wasn't helpful. I could have refactored the sentence, but I think I'd be less intrusive just removing statements instead of putting words in people's mouths, even if it is very close to their own actual. Your thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I can see why you removed it, and given that, I don't see much of a problem. It's a little choppy, but I guess I'd take a choppy sentence over an inflammatory one. And if anyone really wanted to see it, it's still in the page history. Thanks for taking the time to look over it and respond! Wugapodes (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

TY

Nothing ever goes 100% the way any person hopes it will. RfA can be very ... difficult? Thank you for doing a great job at trying to keep some sort of decorum there. Regardless of my own personal feelings on this one individual RfA, I think the entire community benefits when you (and you plural for crats), oversee the procedure in positive ways. Thanks. — Ched : ? 09:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Awesome clerking. Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Hearing that our work is appreciated is always welcome and feedback as to what the project wants from its volunteers is the best way to guide those volunteers. A few kind words always go a long way

! -- Avi (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Just wanted to thank you for your top work clerking this RfA. You ventured into the unknown, and it was hardly a walk in the park (even as RfA goes!) While redactions can always be contentious, I think you dealt with the whole process very well, and managed to keep things on track and pretty civil. Thanks! Harrias ^talk 19:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Harrias beat me to it. I may disagree with your clerking decisions, Avi, but I never doubt your motives. Good work! Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 19:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you both! -- Avi (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Question

Regarding the RfA: I got an evasive answer to a follow-up question, asked a different follow-up question, all about my concern that the candidate gave a barnstar for a block without a warning to the blocked. Why do you hide that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Because while we allow follow ups, your last question seemed to be a third one (bold added to make point):

Even if you say you would block only vandals, I would like to know how you feel about {{user talk before you block}}
Follow-up:Thank you. They were blatantly ignored (literally, the user couldn't know them) in a recent case, starting with step one, and you gave a barnstar for the block. I like your content work and collaboration, but was not happy about that. Care to explain? (In case you don't remember: Kirill Lokshin blocking Eric Corbett for edits that were in no way detrimental to Wikipedia).
Gerda back: I don't see any edit on a user talk page being harmful to Wikipedia, - edits to articles can be when facts are distorted. Would you agree?
Different question then. While you thought ArbCom was "going to desysop Kiril", I thought that ArbCom was going to desysop Yngvadottir, and they did: desysop a capable female admin with a heart to revert something that was wrong, in the name of closing the gender gap. What do you think about that? - I try to write a daily article on a woman to close the gender gap.

Per Wikipedia:2015_administrator_election_reform/Phase_II/RfC#B2:_Limit_the_total_number_of_questions_that_may_be_asked_by_any_individual_editor, it is clear that the community has decided on a hard limit of 2, which is why I did not erase it, but hid it. -- Avi (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Enforcing this as a "hard & fast" rule would seem to mean, then, that a candidate would just need to filibuster the two questions, and the questioner is then proscribed from trying to get them to actually answer the questions by probing a bit deeper. Is that a fair reading of how the RFC intended the "letter of the law" to be? Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 20:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Hallward's Ghost:How the candidate answers is, of course, an important component in making one's decision about the candiate. Also, there is not necessarily a "hard and fast" rule. My understanding is that bureaucrats are instructed to use their discretion in these matters. In my opinion, Gerda asked two questions including one follow-up prior to the one where she says "different question". Perhaps another bureaucrat would be different (just look at our cratchat discussions), but I think the community is clear that they do not want the candidates over-burdened with questions, and to me this was an example. -- Avi (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I missed yet another regulation, sorry. This means I may end up opposing, while I wanted to give the candidate another chance. - I think it would be nicer to candidates if THEY could say: "enough", instead of teh rulez. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt:Perhaps, but the bureaucrats were clearly tasked to enforce the community decision. Moreover, if we make the allowance as you suggests, that completely defangs the RfC decision as cndidates who do not "voluntarily" answer a slew of excess questions will be looked at with askance. -- Avi (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, English is not my first language, "excess" seems excessive, but thanks for trying. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
For the next 2 RfAs, one question was enough to reach a support ;) - Different topic: when you remove admin rights due to inactivity such as Riana, do you really have to leave a valuable editor with "none", instead of at least autopatrolled, in case she returns? (I always keep hoping.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Any admin can give those rights, so the moment she returns, she can get them lickety-split. I'd be thrilled to give them to her were she to come back, but if she hasn't edited in over a year, she probably doesn't need them now, and they aren't wikiposthumous badges 8-). I don't think anyone thinks any less of Riana because she doesn't have rollback/autopatrol; at least I hope not! -- Avi (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining "the moment she returns". I didn't think at all about what others think. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on my RfA

	Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
	Clerking is not easy. You handled it well. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Thank you very much. You should feel very proud that so many people think so highly of you, and I think that should you address the concerns about responsibility and judgement over the next year or so, the Wikipedia community will respond. Thank you as well, for acting with grace and maturity throughout this difficult process. -- Avi (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Your clerking works so well that the disruptive minority had to use cheap metaphors to describe it. Well done.

Esquivalience ^t 02:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Avi (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I guess the mountain isn't coming to me...

Hey Avi, you're an Oversighter who's been active in the last hour or so...

Do you know who's currently running the oversight-l and functionaries-en lists (I'm assuming things are the same as they were 2 years ago, maybe that's naive)? I should do whatever I need to do to get back on them. Also, I guess I need to get access to requests that come in via oversight-en-wp; is that through an OTRS interface or something? I didn't handle incoming requests when I was on the committee, so I never actually dealt with any of that. I kind of assumed there'd be a Welcome Wagon (probably dating myself) or something with pamphlets and coupons and instructions who would just show up after the OS bit was flipped. If you can point me in the right direction and give me a better person to pester, I'd appreciate it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Floquenbeam, pop me an email to let me know what email address to add to the mailing lists, and I'll get you set up. I'll also ping Keegan to check out your OTRS setup. Risker (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Risker, email sent. And sorry, Avi, for the (now unnecessary) orange bars. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: your OTRS account for oversight requests has been reopened. You can visit the login screen to reset your password. Keegan (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam:, sorry, you must have caught me just as I left the office. Left early as I had to go pay a shiva call

. I could have only helped with func-en anyway. Risker is a list admin for both (and a wikijaguar par exellance) so you are much better off in her capable hands than my fumbling mitts 8-) . -- Avi (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

No worries, I'm in no rush. And while typing this I just got my invites to both. Sorry to hear about the shiva call; my condolences. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I am almost afraid to ask what a wikijaguar is... Floq's paperwork seems to now be complete. Condolences to you, Avi. Risker (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and WikiJaguars are also known as Wikipedia:Talk page stalkers 8-) -- Avi (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Tor exit node block

Hi Avi, I've planned to use Tor browser by running from a USB drive. But today, while editing a WP article, I've received this message in the Tor browser.

"You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

Your IP address, {0}, has been automatically identified as a Tor exit node. Editing through Tor is blocked to prevent abuse. For additional information and instructions to legitimate users, see the No open proxies global policy."

And as per WP:IPBLOCK, I understand that I should contact a CheckUser to request an IP address block exemption. Could you consider my request? Vipinhari || talk 12:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Vipinhari, as you are well established I've temporarily added an ip block exemption to your account, normally editing via tor is not allowed. Avraham, please review this request on your talk and comment if this should be temporary or long term. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Tor block exemptions are given out only under "highly exceptional circumstances" in general, see Wikipedia:IP_block_exemption#Used_for_anonymous_proxy_editing. Are you editing from a geographic location in which you are in danger of harm? Are you editing from a totalitarian country which blocks access to Wikipedia? Please contact the checkuser or functionaries list with more details if you feel you are in jeapordy. Otherwise, to the best of my recollection, exemptions just to run a ToR exit node are not granted with no other pressing reason. I will ask among the fiunctionaries/ArbCom if this policy has changed, but in the interim, forgive me but I will be removing the exemption for now. -- Avi (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Avi - will leave this in your capable hands now! — xaosflux ^Talk 18:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Xaosflux.

Avraham, I'm from India and thankfully none of the situations which you've mentioned applies to me. Wikipedia is openly accessible here. Advice to users using Tor said that registered users in good standing may choose to use Tor in order to exercise their right to anonymity. So I thought that I'll try this option. No worries and I'll wait. Vipinhari || talk 17:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Vipinhari: Hi. The good faith there means that if people apply for Tor Exemption in accord with Wikipedia:IP_block_exemption#Used_for_anonymous_proxy_editing claiming that they are behind the great firewall, for example, good faith applies in that we don't have assume they are actually in the UK and are using a proxy to look like they are in China. However, the basic requriements for the exemption still stand. @Xaosflux: I've confirmed with at least one response on func-en that IPBlockExemption should be handed out only for pressing need like government-level blocking and fear of bodily harm. For cases where that is not obvious, the user should apply to ArbCom or func-en. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Avi for explaining this in detail. Vipinhari || talk 18:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

My pleasure, Vipinhari. On the one hand I'm sorry this didn't work out for you. On the other I'm very happy that you do not need it!

. -- Avi (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you send me the content of a deleted page?

Hi Avi, I'm interested in creating Santosky v. Kramer but saw that it was previously deleted and wanted to look at the content and see if it could be improved. I'm not sure how requesting the contents of a deleted page is typically done, so if I should post somewhere else, let me know! Thanks. Wugapodes (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Restored with history at User:Wugapodes/SvK. -- Avi (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: Anti-Judaism's use is primarily synonymous with antisemitism

This might almost be true,[1] but not until after the 12th or 13th century, as the article already explains. This is an historical/theological article. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the thank; I'm glad we can at least meet halfway on this. It doesn't quite solve the WP:OR problem with article's somewhat bizarrely bullet-listed c-c-c-combo-reference #2, in which the only one of the bunch which even mentions the term "anti-Judaism" is Paul Johnson, exactly twice in his book per searching through it via Amazon,[2] at first mentioning the New Testament (which is, of course, from a theological POV, anti-Judaic), and the second instance of which, I have to assume, is perfectly valid indictment of Pope Gregory the Great's role in promoting anti-Judaism and that leading to violence (and while Johnson doesn't point to anything specific and contemporary, that's hardly a stretch for the 6th century; bad times all around). Skimming through the pages of his book that Amazon gives me suggests he's more or less just rehashing Bernard Lazare anyway, who, to be fair, I also rehashed while expanding the article in the first place.

Anyway, I've tagged the original research, Avri. I'm sure you could marshall better(ish) sources. Still, I think it would be better said that anti-Judaism ultimately became a major driver of what we now call antisemitism; but again, that's already said in the body of the article. What do you think? -- Kendrick7^talk 02:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't have the time at this moment to do much research, but my concern has mainly been that the modern definition of antisemitism includes hatred/opposition of Jews because of their religion, which is anti-Judaism. There was someone who was trying to push the point and improperly intimate that opposing Judaism is something distinct from antisemitism. Now it's true that opposition to Jews and Judaism far, far precedes the term "antisemitism". It goes back one, if not close to two, millennia prior. If the article is meant to discuss that, by all means, as long as it is clear that modern usage is synonymous with antisemitism according to most sources. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

It's sort of the detritus of an old edit war that the article is using such a canned lead to begin with. I personally believe that there's a ton of daylight between, say, thinking observing the Sabbath is a dumb idea and, you know, Nazism. Unfortunate historical events, of the 20th century in particular, shouldn't give Judaism a special status beyond that of various other systems of thought for which there exists an oppositional point of view (e.g. anti-Capitalism, anti-Catholicism, etc.), but I admit that the matter has become a tangle in recent scholarship. Frankly, were I Jewish, I'd actually welcome being treated as an equal in this regard, rather than going down the path of woe-is-me victimization. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Link en page to part of el page

Is there a way I can link a page with a part of another page: Wood of Ephraim want to put for el link the header Δρυμός Εφραίμ Εφραιμ#Δρυμός Εφραίμ. Thanks. Wolfymoza (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Would this work? Δρυμός Εφραίμ -- Avi (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

No that's not that what I meant, but that's ok, I ve done it. I added in the end of the article, el:Εφραίμ#Δρυμός Εφραίμ, and thus is added in the links. Wolfymoza (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Help, please

Avi, I would be grateful for your assistance with a new user, User:Luke de paul (who appears to be very young) who wants to change his user name to User:Roger Delacroix, and who asked for advice on my talk page.

My interpretation of WP:RENAME as applied to this user was that the best course of action – since this is a new editor with relatively few edits – was simply to set up a new account from scratch and discard the old one. Unfortunately, our young friend moved his user pages without waiting for my response to his request, and has since has been very reluctant to follow my advice. As I feared might happen, other users have edited both the old and new pages, meaning that, without admin assistance, he now can't follow my instructions, even if he wanted to. Given his reluctance to follow advice, I suspect some force majeure may be required, but I leave it to your very capable judgement.

Thanks in advance for your help,

--NSH002 (talk) 08:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@NSH002: Sorry, my grandmother passed away last week and it was Purim as well, so I have really been out of the loop. Do you still want me to look into this, or has it been handled? -- Avi (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

המקום ינחם אתכם בתוך שאר אבילי ציון וירושלים.

StevenJ81 (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, StevenJ81. ברוך ה', we pasken against כל המתאבל עליו, מתאבל עמו, and it is my mother who is sitting, not I, but I was in the room בשעת פטירה, and was zoche to be מלווה the נשמה on its next step. בלע המוות לנצח, ומחה ה', אלוקים דמעה מעל כל פנים וכו’ -- Avi (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Avi, thank you for the response, so sorry to hear about your grandmother. The user in question left a note on my talk page requesting the matter be deferred, so I think it best to leave it for now. Best wishes, NSH002 (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear Avi.Sit ei terra levis.Nishidani (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Be well Avi. Simon. Irondome (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for an Opinion

Shalom, User:Avraham, can I please receive an opinion from you on the Emmaus Nicopolis Talk-Page, there in the sub-section, where there is a Discussion on whether or not the following edit, "The site today is inside Canada Park in the West Bank, and maintained by the Jewish National Fund of Canada," should be amended to read: "The site today is inside Canada Park in what was formerly Jordan (i.e. West Bank), but now in Israel and maintained by the Jewish National Fund of Canada." Another option might be simply to write, "The site today is inside Canada Park near the Latrun Monastery, and maintained by the Jewish National Fund of Canada," in which case we bypass this contentious issue. Sincerely, Davidbena (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the friendly note. -- Avi (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Just a tiny suggestion, Avi re your proposal:'The site today is inside Canada Park in Area C of the West Bank'.

To be factually correct,given the marginal overspill of Canada Park at some points over the Green line, you need a comma after 'inside Canada Park,' so that the 'in Area C' does not qualify all of Canada Park. We'll see how it goes.Cheers Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction! -- Avi (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

If the author won't retract, I'll often an apology, for what it is worth. Very sorry about this distressing contretemps. Best Nishidani (talk) 07:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Nishidani. I appreciate your efforts, and you are not the one who needs to apologize here! -- Avi (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Stanley Milgram

Hi Avi, I hope your Pesach was great! I would like you to take a look at Stanley Milgram's talk page. Apparently you need to be frum in order to be labeled as Jewish in Wikipedia land. I don't think that's acceptable and CIR issues are mostly in play. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Leaving early ...

Then Shabbat Shalom to you, and also Hag Kasher v'Sameah. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Request

Hello. Is there any way all my edits can be removed, or at least my username from it? If you may recall I was a sock in 2009, and got granted a return to editing and changed my name in 2013. I originally requested for my old username to no longer be visible (due to privacy reasons_, but it still is present in some areas. All my old contributions also still exist under my current username. Could all my contributions be stripped from my username? --NGSF (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, there is no way to disassociate edits from a susername. As a matter of fact, that would probably violate the license (GFDL/CC). The only option is to change the username to something disassociated from you, bid those edits farewell, and start completely fresh. -- Avi (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)