User talk:Avraham/Archive 28

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 27

Archive 28

Archive 29 >

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)

RfA thank-spam

Avraham/Archive 28, just a note of appreciation for your recent support of my request for adminship, which ended successfully with 112 supports, 2 opposes, and 1 neutral. If there's something I've realized during my RFA process this last week, it's that adminship is primarily about trust. I will strive to honour that trust in my future interactions with the community. Many thanks! Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Avi, much appreciated :) Gatoclass (talk) 06:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks!

		RfA: Many thanks
		Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old RFAs

Avi, do you know what is up with Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Encephalon 2 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Encephalon 1? You voted in the 2nd, but it was never accepted. MBisanz ^talk 08:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nit-pick question

I realize I'm nit-picking here, but I was wondering why the neutral on EVula's RfB? Are you trying to tell EVula that the questions are important to you? Sorry to single you out, but I just don't understand the purpose of the neutral (I've seen it a few previous times, but chose not to ask). I also am waiting for answers before I express an opinion. Enigma ^message 05:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just ask to try to understand the purpose of being neutral first, as opposed to waiting until after the questions are answered, and then supporting or opposing. Just seems unnecessary to enter something and then have to cross it out. Sorry again for giving you a hard time about it, but I'm really trying to understand. Enigma ^message 07:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your question to Ryan

What you may take from the conversation is that JAZ, NK, and TorahTrueJews.com, are currently considered fringe groups and may not be used for sources outside of articles about them. If you have another source which you believe may be problematic from a WP:RS perspective, you are more than welcome to drop me a line on my talk page or via e-mail for comment. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned at the irregular fashion that two of these groups (the ones I want to use) are labelled "Fringe", a charge that's never been put to the community and I don't believe can be sustained. I've posted the numbers as I understand them repeatedly, I'm not seeing any better information, just increasing threats of a perma-block.

I'm concerned at the highly irregular way that this accusation of "Fringe" has become "not reliable" - that's not what WP:FRINGE says. (NK want Israel dismantled no matter what danger there is to Israelis, a position which is likely to give people more problems - even then, I don't see how we can simply label a group of devout Jews as being untrustworthy with no evidence).

I'm highly suspicious that the two groups in question (bizarrely, the smaller and truly notorious NK seems to have been acceptable until now) were labelled as "extreme" and expressing "hate-speech".

I'm very concerned that an editor claiming to come from this very community (telling us that JAZ is indeed "official" to the Satmars) was abused as being an inadequate editor (and presumably untrustworthy). (There was another such editor, now indef-blocked for sock-puppetry). This smacks of the personal harassment which has stalked many similar discussions and badly distorts articles. It is up to the knockers to prove that devout followers of Judaism are unreliable, because most of us are liable to defend them.

The community is united in its opposition to antisemitism - I don't see how that is compatible with this intense prejudice against the "True Torah Jews" and their large, carefully documented and multi-authored web-site, www.jewsagainstzionism.com. PR^talk 18:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Avi - you offered to help me over WP:RS - I wonder if you'd try to check out Joseph (B) Schechtman for me? I can see a string of objections to using him on anything factual whatsoever, but I won't bother you with them immediately, can you just tell me what you think based on your initial somewhat in-depth but non-specialist look? PR^talk 11:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion you may be interested in

Hey Avi, haven't seen you around as much lately. See this discussion. It starts with iridescent's comment (not the beginning of the thread). Enigma ^message 17:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My monobook

Can you unprotect it please? It wasn't doing much good anyway and editing with javascript turned off is the lose :( naerii - talk 04:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eden Natan-Zada, Asher Weisgan

Thanks for the either/or pointer on the CATs used to describe these two situations. It looks like there is a possibility of an edit war on the two pages. I have accepted your judgement here as correct, either a terrorist or mass murderer CAAT, but not both, which seems the sensible thing. However someone keeps tampering with it. I don't want to be dragged into rv. wars, and would appreciate it if your could use your authoritative judgement to clarify the point on the respective talk pages. Sorry for the trouble.Nishidani (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks indeed. Regards Nishidani (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Marriage Under Fire

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Marriage Under Fire. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for voting

Please visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Rietti and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mordechai Suchard for comment DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RFB

Thank you for your comments in my RFB. Since it was only at 64%, it was a shoo-in to be unsuccessful, so I withdrew. I didn't want it to run until its scheduled close time because my intent in standing for RFB was to help the bureaucrats with their workload, not give them one more RfX to close. Through the course of my RFB, I received some very valuable feedback, some of it was contradictary, but other points were well agreed upon. I have ceased my admin coaching for now to give me time to revamp my method. I don't want to give up coaching completely, but I'm going to find a different angle from which to approach it. As for my RFA Standards, I am going to do some deep intraspection. I wrote those standards six months ago and I will slowly retool them. This will take some time for me to really dig down and express what I want in an admin candidate. If, after some serious time of deep thought, I don't find anything to change in them, I'll leave them the way they are. I'm not going to change them just because of some community disagreement as to what they should be. Will I stand for RFB again in the future? I don't know. Perhaps some time down the road, when my tenure as an administrator is greater than one year, if there is a pressing need for more active bureaucrats, maybe. If there no pressing need, then maybe not. Useight (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twice this week

[1]. Getting out of hand! Avruch^T * ^ER 02:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does Jaakobou need your protection?

Hi Avi - you posted this "As per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions, it may be time to request that Pedrito refrain from making any post or comment about Jaakobu other than e-mailing or talkpage messaging Jaakobu's mentors (Durova and myself). ... Pedrito knows that Jaakobu has, on his own, requested experienced editors' help in trying to navigate the difficult shoals of I-P articles" -- Avi (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall how it came about that Jaakobou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) came to seek help - it was in the context of him refusing to answer questions about two suspicious accounts which seemed to follow him around, editing the same articles as himself. (We were presently told that this matter had been examined and they were definitely not sock-puppets of his, but a prompt denial would have saved around 5 days of drama).

And it seems a little strange to chastise anyone for picking on him, when he has such an outstanding record of handing out warnings and making complaints. PR^talk 17:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zionist offensive

Hello! Rabbi or Mr. Avraham. I am relativelly new in the Wikipedia, but I see that the Zionists made themselves very comfortable here, and are attacking everyone that believes different then them. I have created the Yishuv haYashan article, which is something important historically speaking. I see they are trying to remove any information about the Haredim who didn't participate in the Zionist movement. Furthermore the whole history of the Yishuv haYashan Kollelim was ignored but instead an article about Halukka in a negative spotlight. They are trying to persuade that all those who did for our brothers in Eretz Yisroel were Zionists. I would suggest that we incorporate in a WikiProject:Yishuv haYashan or WikiProject:Torah Judaism in order to clearify the facts.

HagiMalachi (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I woudn't mark Rabbi Abraham Kook are anybody who observed Torah as not Torah observent, but at least those who are not Torah observent as of today should not represent themselves as successors of the former, are talk in their name. HagiMalachi (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rfa thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA. The Rfa was successful with 64 Support and 1 Neutral. None of this would have happened without your support. I would also like to thank my nominator Wizardman and my sensei/co-nom bibliomaniac 1 5--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Vandalism watch

Template:Vandalism watch has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 22:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Avraham, hi, I see that you have recently been edit-warring a bit at Nuclear weapons and Israel. I am not saying whether your edits are right or wrong, and I do agree that per WP:V, unsourced information can be removed rapidly. However, as I have recently been trying to de-escalate some of the disputes in that topic area, I am trying to encourage those who are engaged in such "back and forth" situations, to ensure that they explain things at the talkpage. As near as I can tell, despite the fact that you have reverted multiple times at the article, you have never posted at the talkpage. Can I please get you to post at least a brief comment, explaining the reason for your reverts? This will be good not only for the specific situation with Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs), but will also set a good example for other editors who may be watching the page. Thanks, El on ka 05:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks a lot for handling the oversight. I wish you all the best. --Ragib (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright permissions question

Howdy. :) I see that on June 22nd you added a note to Talk:Fabric structure that permissions were being investigated. The copied material was restored to this article on June 27th, here. Has the material now been cleared? I'm working WP:CP and came to the listing for the article in the chronology and thought to check. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on article talk page. -- Avi (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was unwilling to just remove it myself in case the contributor had received an off-wiki notice that it's use was okay and the tag just hadn't been placed. I've already had some communication problems with that contributor and would so be extra careful to avoid the appearance of badgering. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to explain the problem(s) with this article. I have received permission to use this content via [email protected], and followed the directions to get it listed under the GFDL license. What else do I need to do to make this content appear? Please advise. Thank you. Mtc38118 (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint at ANI

Hi Avi: As an admin you may want to know that I have lodged a complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#POV spamming on user talk pages about HagiMalachi (talk · contribs)'s recent POV spamming on multiple user's talk pages with messages, addressing them all as "Rabbi" and with a lengthy canned message about a "Zionist offencive (sic)" and "Zionist intolerance" on Wikipedia. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jaakobou

Hi. On the past one or two occasions I've gone to Durova with this sort of thing, but she asked me to pass this one to you. Anyway as on previous occasions I'm not sure what I'm asking for, but it just seems a shame that Jaakobou is making relatively simple edits on articles where he seems to have a strong interest a cause for excessive complication and hard work on all sides. That then escalates into all sorts of bizarre and almost defensive accusations from him. Here's the link to the thread on Durova's page (as you can see another editor weighed in to it, you can probably ignore that). As I say it seems like a return to the bad old days, as his editing pattern seemed to have changed quite a bit in the last couple of months and there seemed to be less of the WP:OWN behaviour. --Nickhh (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, a favour?

Could you do me a favour and delete my userpage and then restore the most recent revision? This should be uncontroversial as there's nothing incriminating in the history :) Naerii 09:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, nevermind, I thought of a faster way of doing it :P Naerii 11:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter

This newsletter was automatically delivered by ShepBot because you are a member of the WikiProject. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) on 04:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image:Sudais.jpg

Hello, if you would have checked the image rationale, you would have seen that Saudi Arabia has strict rules about photographing human beings, and that this image is not easily replaceable. I have restored the image, left the notice on, and added a disputed tag, even though I think the rationale is obvious. This way a thrid party can make an informed decision. -- Avi (talk) 12:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did read it, and though I agree it might not be easily replaceable, it serves no purpose except to show what the person looks like. Please read this: {{Non-free promotional}} Near the bottom it says you must provide a rationale that shows the picture is useful for something beyond that. Melesse (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, whatever. But I'm going to leave the tag on there so that other image admins can see it. We'll see what they think. Melesse (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Independence Day!

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway! :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas Article

Hello. I thought this might interest you. I renewed the article on Hamas childrens' website Al Fateh. If you have time I will be grateful if you go there and have a look. Best Tkalisky (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OmbCom

Gut vuch, Avi. I have received your note about OmbCom. However, I must ask that you keep all discussion about OmbCom on it's talk page. It's important that it all be centralized. Thanks and cheers! Bstone (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]