User talk:Avraham/Archive 6

1

←

4

5

6

7

8

→

10

20

30

40

50

60

SomeGuy1969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You've just blocked this user 48h; may I be so bold as to suggest the user's contribs mandate an indef-block? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 05:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

i laughed my ass off over the 0-Lazy English certificate

Props on the superfluous comma in "...adhering to correct spelling, grammar, punctuation, and capitalisation." I wish more admins had a sense of humor. TRWBW 03:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

MA, Markovich

a recent comment of his. I feel it's a personal attack/incitement on a few users/adminstrators and also a lie. it has support from both camps which was the reason. [1] Amoruso 07:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm sure he did not mean to purposely mischaracterize the proceedings; more likely it is the result of frustration that all involved are feeling about the article. Regardless, I'll drop him a line. Thank you. -- Avi 07:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, work on this article has indeed been frustrating, you're right about that. For one thing, I have Amoruso following me to other people's talk pages and turning them into a battleground, and now his actions make me think even stronger that he is looking at every single entry on my edit history pages. Don't you see anything wring with him calling one of my statements a lie and choosing to to another one of my statements a personal attack when he has no good reason to say either?

I presume you have seen all the stuff he has done, and as an administrator you should have addressed this long ago, or at the very least referred another admin here if you felt too involved in the debate. Instead you seemingly let it slide by, only to jump on me about WP:AGF after a single comment by him that falsely accuses me of lies and personal attacks. It is bad enough to have had Amoruso make actual personal attacks against me, but to have an administrator who ignores that and talks to me about AGF when I have not even come close to violating it is annoying to say the least.

Anyway, I have responded to your comment on my talk page here which hopefully debunks the claim of personal attacks and lies. I have also asked you to clarify why you are using the term "mischaracterize" as well. Markovich292 04:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Avi, it seems the compromise is even larger now with official acceptance of it by the user Mantanmoreland on the MA talk page, one of the chief discussioners.[2] Note than nobody disagreed to this proposal as a temporary solution, never, also not at the first time, except for some anon named TopRank [3]. So basically there was never an explicit disagreement to the compromise and there's a wide agreement to the compromise now. Cheers, keep up the good work.Amoruso 11:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Jack Coggins article

I have done more work on footnotes - appreciate your comments when you get time, thanks. Dave 19:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

Thanks for a reminder. I didn't realise I had crossed the lines of civility and made a personal attack :). I didn't mean anything bad by my comment that he constantly added Zionists comments. I just wanted a good justification for why I was rechaning it. I'll be more careful in the future. BTW, should I appologize to him on his talk page (since I can't take back the edit summury) or otherwise let him know that I did not mean to be negative to him. ??Sup dudes?[[User:Kitler005]] 20:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Category vote

Hi Avi: Please provide your view at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 10#Category:Saintly person tombs in Israel. Good Mo'ed. Thank you. IZAK 04:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Vote to delete Medzhibozh (Hasidic dynasty)

I have written the following to the nominator:

Meshulam: You should avoid this kind of move (the hasty nomination to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medzhibozh (Hasidic dynasty)) because it's a slippery slope and could lead to the nomination for and deletion of similar articles about smaller Hasidic dynasties - by people who are not experts and don't care - with unintended consequences. Votes to delete are open to the world and you are inviting people who have no idea what this topic is about at all to cast a vote, which is very unfair and lacking insight. It seems that you may have been better off trying to add a {{merge to}} template or considered MERGING the material at some point perhaps and WAITED (at least a month!) to do so. You should also have first started a discussion at a number of places where people who know something about this topic could have given their intelligent input, such as at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism and Wikipedia talk:Orthodox Rabbinical Biography Collaboration of the Week. Or you could have contacted other editors who deal with topics like this to solicit their views. This action of your is extreme and I do not condone it. I urge you to withdraw this nomination. Thank you. (I am cross-posting this message on a couple of relevant places, to get people's attention.) IZAK 10:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

RfB With A Smile :)

BXO article

Thanks for your comments, Avi. I'd definitely appreciate it if you could take a look, as I think in particular that your abilities at narrative writing would help the article. But there's no rush. Thanks, Jakew 19:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Good edits!

Good edits on the article, thank you for being willing to meet me in the middle! Lordkazan 19:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of that article, I hope niether of you mind my change to the structure of that sentence? :) --Crimsone 19:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Avi - there is a jewish group that specifically opposes religious cirucmcision. I would feel more comfortable with you adding it to the article's section on jewish circumcision. The group is "Jews against Circumcision" - http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/ Lordkazan 20:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the new section on RACP - i didn't want to quote it all because of the length, but doing it all to prevent cherry picking is good to (though it's fairly one sided) Lordkazan 21:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
• Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 04:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean

Please don't say that I removed sourced information when you sourced it AFTER I removed it while it was unsourced. Plus, it doesn't even matter if it sourced or not, presenting the NYT's translation as Wikipedia's POV is a violation of the neutral point of view policy --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 04:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

the Good Book

Hag Sameach!

Do you think it is controversial to claim that Jews call their Tanakh "the Bible?" I don't. Do you think it is controversial to claim that "the Bible" refers only to the combined "Old Testament" and "New Testament," i.e. is a term that refers to the sacred scriptures of Christians (but not Jews)? I do, but this is precisely the claim Home Computer is making on the Bible talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bible#Current_layout

Feel free to weigh in. And please watch out for Home Computer's attempts to change the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This allegation is untrue.. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Slrubenstein Peace --Home Computer 15:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The Seven Worlds, is it Kabbalah?

Please review the The Seven Worlds article. What is fact and waht is fiction? Anyone know? IZAK 11:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't call other people's edit vandalism

Please don't call other people's edit vandalism, as it's against wikipedia guidelines. Thanks. --Hossein.ir 12:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Except when it is vandalism . -- Avi 12:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

It's a tad rough going towards the end. "Confirming their Locations Diversely in their Ancient Condition" might be more like "which confirms to the diversity of locations of the time of the camps" (conditionem possibly being more akin to condo). But barring my old Latin teacher showing up with her red pen, I'd never be certain. Thankfully, it ain't exactly the Aeneid. -- Kendrick7 06:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

CRT and LCD being ksiva

BS"D

CRTs and LCDs are ksiva, I asked my Rov. --Shaul avrom 00:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

And so did I, BTW. Also, I have discussed this with Talmidim of R' Moshe ZTL. If anything it is a machlokes heintege poskim, but I would like to hear his p'shat in k'siva that has LCD's and CRT's as such. Where is the Dyo, where is the G'vill, can you have a Sefer Torah on the screen? Are you chayav Skilah on Shabbos? Please let me know his sources for that, and how he understands the mechanics. Remember, people thought telephones were fire and such at one point (check the old t'shuvos). R' Shlomo Zalman went and spoke to physicists! -- Avi 00:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Muchas gracias

Hey Avi, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoikhoi 04:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

About the Ahmadinejad article

I'm curious: Is there a group named, "African Americans for self-reenslavement"? And could you name any African-American or Jewish group which the KKK is allied with? Otherwise, I fail to see your reasoning. Surely, you don't actually believe that Neturei Karta are anti-semitic as well? Robocracy 00:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. -- Avi 03:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There's only been three reverts. Robocracy 11:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. -- Avi 12:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

etiquette discussion at circ talk page

Avi,

You know that longish section at the circ talk page that focuses more on the etiquettes of inter-editor dialogue than on the subject of the article? Would you consider moving that whole section to the complaining editor's talk page? Based on your post there it appears that you might agree with me about this. It is an unfortunate request because both the primary editor involved and the target of his discontent are both generally excellent contributors to that page and I hadn't been aware of any specific conflict between them. However having such a personalized dialogue on a "public" talk page is not fair to the targeted editor. I've discussed this with the affected editor by e-mail and while he would be content to just let the thing get archived away eventually, he also wouldn't mind if the thing were removed to an appropriate place. This request comes from me, not him; I discussed it with him by e-mail just to see how he would react if I contacted an admin about the situation. The only thing that comes to my mind while writing this now is that if the discussion is removed to a user talk page it may linger in plain sight much longer than it would if archived at the circ page. Anyhow, I still don't think it belongs at circ -- but I have nothing more to contribute on the point. Do what you think is best for all concerned. Thanks much. Dasondas 12:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User:SafeLibraries.org

See my response on WP:ANI. Prodego ^talk 14:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop personal attack, thanks

My point for removing those lines were obvious. This is journalism, and here, in wikipedia, is not allowed.

It seems that you think anyone that do not accept your opinion is a vandal: [diff]

Anyway, read Biographies_of_living_persons, writing style section for more information. You can read parts of it here:

The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view.

The nice thing about you is that you do your personal attacks with what I call "misunderstanding voice of common with your opinion". When you want to call someone a vandal, you say that "All the wikipedians think that you're vandal". This is not different with saying "I think you're a vandal".

So, don't call me vandal again. Thanks. --Hossein.ir 16:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. -- Avi 16:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

CPS statement

I couldn't quickly find the full 1975 text, but I found this reference (in the CPS most recent statement)

"In 1971 and 1975 the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) took a stand against the routine circumcision of newborns on the basis that there are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period.2,3 In 1975 the Fetus and Newborn Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) reviewed the literature available at that time and reached the same conclusion.4 In 1983 this position was reiterated by the AAP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in their joint publication Guidelines for Perinatal Care.5 The CPS Fetus and Newborn Committee re-examined the issue in 1982, in response to an article on the benefits and risks of circumcision,6 and saw no reason to modify its 1975 statement.7

[4]

The current version does not accurately reflect their position.TipPt 22:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The conclusions section of the most recent study is all that is necessary, and is 100% accurate. If you do not like the way the CPS sums up their policy, please take it up with the CPS. This is wikipedia. If you would like to publish your analyis in a peer-reviewed journal, then it too will be eligible for inclusion. But including your original synthesis in wikipedia is a violation, and must be reverted. Thank you. -- Avi 22:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are the 1982 and 1975 statements ... [5]. The current (text in the Topic) version refers to the 1982 statement, which in turn refers to the 1975 statement. Without the 1975 information those reaffirmations are missed.TipPt 22:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you refuse to see their bottom line (and refuse to let the reader see the info). Their bottom line position is that there is no medical indication for neonatal circs. That position is lost in your current version.TipPt 22:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again, original synthesis. We are quoting the current CPS; not what we think the CPS meant when it wrote what it did; not what logical syllogisms we can string together, but the source. The case is clear, we have quoted the entire section where they gave their conclusion (it is even titled Conclusions). What you are doing is a combination of cherry picking and original research and is a violation of official wiki policies. -- Avi 22:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's the CPS in their most recent statement:

"In 1971 and 1975 the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) took a stand against the routine circumcision of newborns on the basis that there are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period.2,3 In 1975 the Fetus and Newborn Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) reviewed the literature available at that time and reached the same conclusion.4 In 1983 this position was reiterated by the AAP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in their joint publication Guidelines for Perinatal Care.5 The CPS Fetus and Newborn Committee re-examined the issue in 1982, in response to an article on the benefits and risks of circumcision,6 and saw no reason to modify its 1975 statement.7"

Seems like you would insist on saying "there are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period" in the summary intro paragraph!TipPt 22:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

PS ... I find no fault with the CPS and their statements. I don't like your cherry picking parts of the most recent statement, omitting references reaffirming prior statements ... that are the heart of their statement (in the conclusion sections)TipPt 22:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page to stop this back-and-forthing -- Avi 22:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You should not question my honesty.

I have never misquoted a source or misrepresented their meaning. your omission of facts is the same an misrepresentation.TipPt 22:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. -- Avi 22:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for correcting my link in the header (and offering a link to the style guide). Had no idea that was the preferred style. IronDuke 03:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on AN

Hello, based on our conversation on the Administrator's noticeboard, I wasn't sure if you wanted me to try to talk to Hossein.ir or not. (Like I said, I can't mediate, because I would not be neutral due to the fact that I know you, and like you more than someone I don't know.) Anyways, just wanted to clarify. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 23:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Cites on Kosher tax

Sorry, I think I might have crushed your cite templates on Kosher tax... Jayjg ^(talk) 23:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:UW

Hi Avraham,

I see looking at the WikiProject user warnings page, that you are a participant in this project. I have recently started an undertaking to harmonise all user page warnings and templates. For this I would like your assistance. I have listed a number of ideas on the project template page here as a first draft. I fully appreciate that as with most editors and admins, that you are fairly busy. Therefore I am not looking for anyone to carry out the actual work, I am willing to do that myself, with help from a number of other RC Patrollers who have come forward. But what I am looking for is your invaluable input, on the draft ideas and also to suggest other ways you believe we may improve the templates. I do however require the services of a couple of administrators to put into effect some of the new templates, as they are currently protected. Please take 5 mins to look through the new templates page, and both the project and templates talk pages and leave any ideas or suggestions that you may have. Best regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 09:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Defamatory non-factual edit summaries

Do not make false claims in your edit summaries such as you did here - your claims are disproven by the 1975 Statement by the Canadian Paediatric Society Lordkazan 14:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you invest in a calculator or calendar; 1975 is not "since" 2004, but 29 years prior -- Avi 14:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you learn how those policy statements work - anything not rescinded by a later statement remains their official position. Lordkazan 14:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:OR regarding original synthesis. Secondly, let's please keep this to the article's talk page. Thanks. -- Avi 14:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a 1996 revisit, not a 2004 guideline AVI. The 1996 revisit (of research/policy) defers to the 1982 policy, which defers to the 1975 policy. Those references make the date irrelevant. Why do you have a problem (can't properly quote the sequence and fact) with the CPS doing that???TipPt 15:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Article talk page please. -- Avi 20:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

John M. Walker, Jr. article

You caught the latest change to John M. Walker, Jr. at the same time I did. Good job, but aren't you supposed to be studying? :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes :( -- Avi 15:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Moving Pictures

Well, Avi, I wasn't involved in the original edit as you can see. However, I thought those photos went particularly well with the section comment that wound up alongside them, This section is a stub. You can help by adding to it.. Dasondas 23:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

/rimshot -- Avi 23:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Tutu

I can read edit summaries perfectly well. Please discuss this on the artice talk page. Thankyou. Arniep 00:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I did :LOL: You should too. ;) -- Avi 00:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It was totally unnecessary to contact me on my talk page. I will continue to delete any messages you post there. Regards Arniep 12:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You are harrassing me. Please stop. Arniep 18:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove user warnings. Secondly, I was trying to engage you in dialogue. Please see Harassment for the defintion of harrasment. Thank you. -- Avi 20:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I asked you to discuss the issue on the talk page of the article. Instead of doing that you decided to harass me on my talk page. Arniep 20:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it's a typo, not a spelling mistake. Regards Arniep 20:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Somebody responded to you on their talk page

Hello Avi,

While RC patrolling I noticed that a new contributor responded to a comment you made on his talk page there. I thought it unlikely that you'd run across it on your own, so here's a link. User talk:63.138.87.171

Regards, —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Your note

That was funy. IronDuke 15:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Arniep 20:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Funny, the user himself took it as a good-natured jest. So I guess you just enjoy enjoy engaging in wikistalking and trolling, since there was no personal attack. Well, thanks for dropping by, Arnie. I'll see you around . -- Avi 21:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't see WP:V sources for any of this lot - someone needs to provide them, not vandalise my "citation needed" additions

You reverted the "citation needed" additions I added to Israel. I'm pretty sure none of what is included here is up to encyclopedia standards. And this is just what I found in one paragraph. It's a good thing I didn't waste too much time on something that was going to be summararily reverted no matter how careful the contribution. PalestineRemembered 21:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

During the Gulf War, Iraq hit Israel with 39 Scud missiles, even though Israel was not a member of the coalition and was not involved in the fighting. The missiles didn't kill Israeli citizens directly, but there were some deaths from wrong use of the gas masks provided, one Israeli died from a heart attack following a hit, and one Israeli died from a Patriot missile hit. During the war, Israel also provided gas masks for the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. The PLO however supported Saddam Hussein. Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza marched and famously stood on their rooftops while Scud missiles were falling and cheered Saddam Hussein calling for him to bomb Israel with chemical weapons. Ultimately, Palestinians also used the gas masks against Israeli use of tear gas in the coming years.