User talk:Avraham/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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 6 |
Archive 7
| Archive 8 →

Contents

[1]

Is this only so funny to me because it's 12:30 in the morning? -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 05:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Then again, I don't think Bignole actually violated 3RR, just the other two. That might be a problem Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 05:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I did look at the page, that was why it made me laugh so much. I was a little surprised FF7 would actually report the other guy when he was in such blatant violation himself. It's like two kids in the playground, both telling on each other for doing the same thing. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 05:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems like he did. -- Avi 05:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Gosh, I didn't notice; prob wasn't as guilty as the others, but you're right. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 05:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR

I see that you are currently active on the 3RR board. There is a user that has continued to revert since being reported - I was hoping you could review the report to stop the disruption. Thanks, TewfikTalk 16:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Nwe's block for 3RR and your correction

You've jsut corrected your previos block with the comment " I misread the diff at 12:29, October 28, 2006 as October 29. There are only three reversions proper here. My apologies" - but there is no diff for "12:29, October 28, 2006" . Isarig 23:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Correct. The diffs listed were not enough (one was a correction to a previous and should be considered the same). I was basing it on the edit history of the article and the user, and that is where I made my error. -- Avi 23:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
But there ARE 4 reverts in less than 24 hrs on the page by Nwe, at 18:39 [2], at 22:01 [3], at 22:16 [4] and at 23:28 [5]
Oy vey. At this point, it may be better to have another sysop review it before I make an even bigger mess. -- Avi 01:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandal note

User talk:206.148.148.166 did it again, could you block? Thanks :) --Quiddity 04:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Haredim and Zionism

Hi Avi, could you take a look at the article and at Talk:Haredim and Zionism#POV and sources in particular. I took the liberty to give a diff of your post I found very relevant. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Horror Icons Template

I must thank you for enforcing the 3RR rule on me and the other users involved in the October 28-30 edit war on the TEMPLATE: Horror Icons. Believe it or not, User:Bignole and I helped to establish a fair survey, which follows Wikipedia standards, by placing it in the template's discussion page [6]. The page is protected right now but when enough votes supporting a monster's inclusion to or removal from the template is evidenced, could you please temporarily unprotect the page so that they can be added? Thanks. (FF7SquallStrife7 01:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)) PS: I've learned my lesson regarding the edit war and as you can see, have tried to resolve the conflict. Unfortunately, some people in the Horror Icons War continued to disregard the rules in general: [7]

Hey, Avi. User:Bignole informed me that another editor, User:Piecraft, created his own template, Template: Horrormovie Icons. The problem is that this template is almost an exact copy of Bignole's Template: Horror Icons, which was created first as you'll probably remember from my documented "Horror Icons War" on my "Discussion page" [[8]]. I believe that creating the template is User:Piecraft's way of circumventing the protection on Template: Horror Icons that resulted after the edit wars on the template so that he can add his own "horror icons" to the list.
In addition, User:Bignole informed me that User:Piecraft replaced Template: Horror Icons with his Template: Horrormovie Icons on most of the horror-related pages such as Michael Myers (Halloween). Take a look at the history [[9]]. By the way, notice how User:The Scourge deleted Bignole's Horror Icon's template and then Piecraft placed his/hers on the page? Conspiracy? Sock Puppets?
Anyways, can you or another editor please delete Piecraft's template? It's just a sneaky way to get around protections in order to add things of your own.
(FF7SquallStrife7 06:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC))
By the way, could you or another editor please add The Invisible Man & The Phantom to Template: Horror Icons. I believe the voting has reached a consensus since User: Mikedk9109 doesn't wish to edit template anymore, the few editors working on the template have all reached the conclusion to add them to the template, and (believe it or not) even though User: Piecraft didn't vote, he basically went ahead and added them to a "Horror Icons" template of his own (while copying Bignole's right down to the heading color; black).
User: Bignole has agreed joined the consensus to add both Invisible Man and Phantom to the template as stated by him on my "Talk Page": [10]. As the date indicates, he did this after his initial vote.

(FF7SquallStrife7 06:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC))

Thank You

I was reading circumcision (I randomly find interesting topics while reading and look them up on wiki) and was very impressed by the work you've put into it. Not only have you devoted a lot of time to it, but you remain very civil during disputes. Wikipedia needs more editors like you.

--Ruebrylla 02:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom question

I've added a question to your qutestions page (currently #11). Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 15:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Exam

Hello Avi. I hope it went well. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Moller Skycar

Thanks for checking on Moller Skycar. I don't really want to feud with the Skycar enthusiasts. It's sad; Moller just can't make it work, after three decades. If Burt Rutan was doing this, it would be flying in two years. --John Nagle 18:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ryan Karben.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Ryan Karben.PNG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 03:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Cooper citations

You do realize that Cooper's quote makes no sense without context, ie why he's being asked the question about his sexuality and indeed why he answered it? The Musto article was a major article in Out magazine, one of the most prominent gay magazines in America, second only to The Advocate, hence, it does not stand as gossip. Mowens35 01:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Michael laytman

why i dont understend helpAshpaa 18:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


Michael laytman 2

18:01, 8 November 2006 Avraham (Talk | contribs) deleted "RAMLAN" (Recreation of deleted material see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Laitman)

I thing ,that we must recreate THE page RAMLAN
  • The page RAMLAN is not a recreation of the page Michael Laitman
  • The page RAMLAN is only a form of the real facts ,not more
  • The page RAMLAN is absolutely neutral and objective
  • the word of rav on Hebrew means large and it is used independent of the presence of the diploma of rabbi
  • Michael Laitman is a very popular person in the world
    • Google-Results 1 - 10 of about 49,000 for Michael Laitman. (0.46 seconds)
    • yandex /ru/-Результат поиска: страниц — 68 560, сайтов — не менее 1 093
  • The fact ,that its activity prevents determined peopls- this is not a reason to not opening information about it
  • there is fact in the world ,named Michael Laitman- why WP hides it from the people
  • And more else reasons...

Explain me ,pleaseas how to restore this very important page excuse me for my "english" 82.81.149.209 17:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Laitman failed an article for deletion AND a deletion review for not being notable. He was judged not important enough for wikipedia. If you can bring more proof that he is, fine, but as of now, the article remains deleted. Sorry. -- Avi 17:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


Michael Laitman 3

According to following criterias from WP:BIO ,Michael Laitman corresponds to WP

  • The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.1
  • The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.5
  • The professor test -- If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor (based on the U.S. practice of calling all full-time academics professors), they can and should be included. (For a discussion, see: Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics).)
  • Search Engine Test -- Does a search for the subject produce a large number of distinguishable hits on Google ([1]), Alexa ([2]), Yahoo! ([3] or other well-known Internet search engine?
    • This is not a neutral attitude to the person in WP.I do not agree with this,it"s not a mistake it"s a policy of some not neutral peoples.

Sorry Ashpaa 19:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Legal threats NOT

Avraham, We are under no intention what so ever to threat anyone on Wikipedia, specially Mr. Kramer. We simply will like to know if he's and admin? If he is we will like to get direct instructions from him that will facilitate the contribution this organization will like to make to the Freaky Ice definition and contect, as well as the information value or facts have that are relative, related and important to the history of this product. This product has a bad or non conforming track record worldwide, and we are not happy to learn how this banned product as hip as it may be, has made its way to other states in our union even though its been banned in NY and other countries in the world for the reason we state. We feel very strong about this becuase Wikipedia is widely used by students and minors worldwide and it wouldn't be right for us to know what we know, and do nothing about it. Thank you for your understanding. Protecting FL's youth 18:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for answering my questions on your ArbCom election candidate page. 87.78.151.16 01:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring over question

Please see my remark at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006#Edit_warring_over_question. I'm directing you to the remark so that I don't blindside you. I don't necessarily have any need to discuss this, unless you want to, and I won't be watchlisting that page, but please feel free to ping my user talk page if this is something you want to talk about. - Jmabel | Talk 17:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Responded there. -- Avi 20:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Joe Lieberman

As you were semiprotecting, I was requesting protection be changed to semiprotection. I don't know how to indicate that this has happened, and I understand that I should not delete material from the request for unprotection page. Can you fix this? Jd2718 05:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow you are fast. Thank you! Jd2718 05:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Fake third holiest sites

At the moment I am not interesting in editing fake third holiest sites. I am only editing Al-Aqsa mosque section. You can edit the fake ones. I hope there will be no problems. --- ابراهيم 16:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No shia is disputing this claim. They are voting to delete the article too (for example BahiSaab and Armiz). But somehow some non-Muslim who are related to Israel are doing that. You are welcome to use travel website and CNN as reliable source to support fake third holiest site and discarding the Quran and Hadith which mentioned Al-Aqsa. --- ابراهيم 16:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I doubt you neutrality. Given that your vote of Keep in the AFD and neglecting all of Muslim sources for some travel/News web site. Please do not leave any more message on my talk page. I will be thankful. --- ابراهيم 16:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Neglecting all the Muslims in wikipedia begging you. Furthermore, using western Media websites to promoting other fake site as Islam holiest and neglecting Muslim sources, put me very serious doubts about you. I cannot trust you any more without having serious doubts. --- ابراهيم 17:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I am asking question against on your nomination page. Try to undestand them this time. Wait and let me ask them again. Answering on my page is not desire. --- ابراهيم 17:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read the question page, I have already answered you image:smile.gif -- Avi 17:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop avoiding answering them

I have posted the questions once again. Instead of blaming me of not assuming good faith try to answer them. Thank you. --- ابراهيم 18:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Please try to read before accusing, I answered all of your questions. image:smile.gif -- Avi 18:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid edit warring

[11] This is an example of nonsense. What you're doing is very close to Internet trolling. Please note that even when you've reverted less than 4 times a day you may be blocked for trolling and engaging in edit wars. --Hossein.ir 18:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. -- Avi 18:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Your revert is nonsense, because it's not consensus. And, do you want to keep your talk page clean that each time you leave the thread and response somewhere else? Hey, man. We're talking. Don't go away. --Hossein.ir 18:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Responded on your talk page. -- Avi 18:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Blanking

Your edit summaries, must be mistaken because this link seems to work perfectly. For the record: Please do not remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Third holiest site in Islam. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Avi 04:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record - I did not remove that link (see my - per my edit summary). All of my edits were removal of dubious content from unreliable sources (mostly self-serving tourism websites) and I tried to leave properly sourced content untouched. Wikipidian 21:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Lieberman

Thanks for answering my edit request when the page was still protected. I didn't mean for you to get caught in the crossfire, though! It seemed to me that there wasn't an edit war over his party affiliation anymore so I thought it would be okay and was just trying to reduce confusion. Fortunately, a consensus seems to have been reached. I just noticed your edits in the history and wanted to send along a reply. Bridger 22:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Vote request

Please Vote, as per wiktionary the correct spelling is Wiktionary:anti-Semitic NOT Antisemitic. 70.49.85.238 20:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Your comments

In these edits you make some comments to which I would like to respond. I did not do so on your questions page to avoid exapanding that section with issues that I believe are tangential. Although tangential to what I was asking, I think they are issues which I believe deserve a resopnse. I will comment inline:

Firstly, let me remind you that you are not informing me of anything I do not know. On the contrary, it was I who provided both the citation, and the quote that you are bringing image:smile.gif.
Not quite accurate. You supplied the citation [12], but the text of what I quoted was supplied by me [13].
Secondly, and much more unfortunately, you seem to be working under the misconception that the purpose of this article is somehow to demean the importance of al-Aqsa. Perhaps it is poor experience with other editors, perhaps it is Freudian projection, only you can answer that.
It is not a question of working under misconceptions, nor of Freudian projection, but of correcting misrepresentations, whether accidental or otherwise. You should WP:AGF. See my next comment.
To me, the purpose of the article is simply to document the apparent world-wide disagreement as to the third holiest site in Islam. If that means al-Aqsa is the second, then G-d bless; it is irrelevant to this article. I did not see the need to place it in the text, as it was clear in quote; later on someone added it to the text. Again, I am afraid that was more due to the feelings of "attacking" and "defending" various religious beliefs as opposed to enhancing the encyclopædia, but c'set la vie.
I added the text, not out of "attacking" and "defending", and certainly not out of religious belief. The lead for Third holiest site in Islam declares:
Mecca and Medina are recognized as the two most important sites in Islam. Based on scriptural references, the Al-Aqsa Mosque is widely recognized as the third holiest site in Islam...
Mosques other than Al-Aqsa Mosque have been referred to as the "third holiest site in Islam" based on other considerations. None of these sites are mentioned in the Qur'an or Prophetic Hadith.
In my humble opinion, a bald assesrtion that for some the third holiest site in Islam is a shrine in Turkey is in this context misleading by omission. A reader who does not read the citation would have most certainly concluded that according to some, the order of holy sites goes Mecca, Medina, location in Turkey.
On this topic, I have unfortunately seen much editing here where wiki guidelines and policies take a back seat to various ideologies, and editing becomes a war. This is most unfortunate.
I agree.
While I personally have my own points-of-view which are well documented, I have always tried to ensure that the primary motivating factor is to enhance the project in accordance withits policies and guidelines. I am sure you feel the same way, but perhaps you have become sensitized to the point where you find it hard to assume good faith with editors whom you feel have a distinctly different point of view. If that is the case, I hope that you can overcome that cynicism, for your sake and the projects sake. Trust me, i know it is hard, I work on myself in that way constantly.
If the truth be told, I think you need to work on it a little more.
Now, as for your point about the paper. Once again, that does not belong here, and I have asked to discuss it in its proper place, the articles talk page.
Again you refer to "the paper". I have seen no evidence that there is such a paper. But the proper place to respond is where I asked the question, on your question page.
For various reasons, you continue to ask it here. Oh well. According to my discussions with the Library of Congress when I was registering a work of short fiction, something posted on the internet is considered published. Now that the legalese is out of the way, I would like to ask you, how is this any different from a news article on CNN or Al-Jazeera?
Um, yes. CNN and Al-Jazeera have fact checkers, editors etc. Is there any evidence that the paraphrase of research performed by Prof. Bowen was reviewed by anybody?
You raised some valid points on the articles talk page about the attribution. Now, I think it is rather obvious that as I have provided more than one link between the name "George E. Bowen" and the paper (Only one Bowen in UofT,
Not true. If you think there is only one Prof. Bowen at UofT, you have hardly done your research very well. But you are correct that the author is George E. Bowen.
only Bowen Fullbright scholar in Cyprus, paper hosted on UofT server,
No, summary of research hosted on UofT server
multiple connections between Bowen and Assesing Cyprus, paper itself taks about Profesor Bowen, etc. )
Don't you find it odd that the web page talks about Prof. Bowen in the manner that it does?
that the paper can be reliably attributed to him
Do you really believe that is an appropriate way to document contentious assertions on Wikipedia? It seems like he wrote it, I believe he wrote it, so what the heck, thats good enough.
While we prefer topics published in peer-reviewed journals, a depiction of the analysis of a Fullbrigt scholar is eminently notable.
Who reviewed the "depiction" of the analysis? Who is even the author?
To answer your specific questions, the name of the paper is "Assessing the Isle of Cyprus", it is paraphrased on the servers of the University of Tennessee for all to see (pure poetry, without a fee ;), the parahrase was published on April 3, 2001.
Evidence please that there is a paper with that name?
More importantly, I am beginning to feel that your problem with this paper is neither the paper nor its source, but the thesis it portrays. You seem to have personalized this article, and feel that it is an attack on you and what you believe. I feel badly that you have become so defensive, and I understand how that can happen. But the nly way this project will succeed is if we are able to all understand that the application of the policies and guidelines trancend each and every one of our personal beliefs, mine, yours, Jimbo's, and how if we were all to abide by them, it would actually serve to remove the negative spin that we each psychologically fear. -- Avi 21:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Again, more psychologizing. Please understand that your perceptions of my beliefs are probably wrong. I think it is unfortunate. However, as you state, you have to struggle to assume good faith. I wish you success in your struggles. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 01:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Responded on user talk page. -- Avi 03:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Avi

I would like others to have a look at these citations and the talk page. I am not interested in this article anyway. I am not making a point either, when I see that the whole article was written to make a point Almaqdisi talk to me 05:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

re: univerity sites

Sorry if I offended you. I know from working at a university that it is not always easy for persons outside the university, or even persons inside the university but outside the academic field in question, to evaluate the quality of the content posted on the university's servers. Usually a university, by policy, does not evaluate what particular departments or professors within departments post on what can look like an official page. A university is concerned with the presentation factors of its front page, usibility of the university site for students and potential students, and other such non-academic issues, except as content pertains to the univerity as a whole. Individual departments at a university are free to organize and post content as they like, and departments in academic areas are not neutral. Furthermore, a particular professor within a department may have a disparate viewpoint at odds with the department's stand as a whole on particular issues. Still, that professor would be free to post as he likes on what can be presented as an offical page. Hope this explains what I mean as I have to go now. Please ask more if I have not answered your question. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 12:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

3rd site

Hello. If you think it is obvious, can you please answer this question that I asked yesterday? Thanks. -- Avi 01:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

When referring to hadith, Muslim's are referring to the Prophet's words or actions - not his companions, other islamic scholars or any old joe blogg. The two primary sources of evidence in Islam are the quran and prophetic hadith. The Imam Ali source was clearly referring to the saying of Imam Serdeg. Anyways I earlier clarified the lead section so that it now says "Prophetic hadith". Wikipidian 01:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Avi 01:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA

... I am finding it harder and harder to assume good faith based on your proven track record of misquoting cittations, adding POV's, delivering threats, misunderstanding editors, and lack of civil replies to those who would attempt to talk with you reasonably; ... [14] Please do not consider it a misquote because your write very long and one can see your whole quote from above mention URL. I am here to friendly warning. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; 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. --- ALM 20:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No need of above after this . Lets start fresh and hope for the best. regards. --- ALM 12:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Please consider your personal biases before editing articles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Actuary#Request_for_comment:_WSJ_.22top_jobs.22_survey--75.4.244.221 03:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Responded on Talk:Actuary regarding the application of Wikipedia:No original research. -- Avi 03:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Stats

Avi, may I email you privately? I have a question on statistics and would appreciate your assistance. Thanks, Jakew 22:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure; e-mail sent. -- Avi 22:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Soapboxing

Avraham, this type of edit by User:Amoruso (who created the article) is what I've been talking about when mentioning WP:SOAP. The whole, " Organization of the Islamic Conference, whose raison d'etre is to "liberate Al Aqsa from the Zionist occupation", refer to Al-Aqsa Mosque as the third holiest site in Islam." line really gets at the heart of why this article has come into existence and should just be deleted. Do you disagree? (→Netscott) 05:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Avraham, with self-identified Shi'a editor User:Striver now changing his mind and calling for the deletion of this article, all editors who've identified themselves as Shi'a that have contributed to the deletion discussion are calling for its deletion. Your earlier 15% of the world's Muslim population argument strikes me as not holding water as given this empirical evidence it seems clear that not all of those 15% would be in agreeance about the holiness of the Al-Aqsa Mosque. (→Netscott) 14:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Shabbos

See [15] - crz crztalk 02:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

POV pushing

I note that you removed every piece of evidence that I added to the section on oral suction in the article on circumcision. I note that you objected to some of the information or wording as being biased. Fair enough. However, that does not justify removing every skerrick of evidence that I added to the article. You object to POV pushing. Please remember that it applies to you, too. Michael Glass 00:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Mega Society

Avi, could you, as an admin, restore the Mega Society and its talk page, with histories? User:JzG admits he raised the 2nd AfD in error[16] but refuses to restore the article in despite of a number of complaints on his talk page, from various users, about his violation of procedure. Or should I go to arbitration? --Michael C. Price talk 16:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Please help

Totally Inappropriate Block

Hello Avram Admin Glen S has made a totally inapprobriate block here. Please Unblock. There are Two very good reasons. 1- The users are not the same and 2-Just as Important the reason given was evading of block! But the the previous block of 31 hours had already EXPIRED!! 3- As far as I know users do not always choose their ISP address so it wouldn't be intentional (this is moot since these two people are not sock puppets)

Please see time diff: (over 31 hours had pasted even for the sake of argument it was the same IP address user which it clearly was not) [[17]] [[18]] Please unblock User 119.60 and notify/Warn User:Glen_S of his terrible mistake. Thanks

I have reason to believe that Glen_S's block of this user therefore was a pretext and possible racially motivated for attempted contributions to the Michael Richards article, which would be a is a serious violation of WP. Thank you. 71.111.117.65

I keep getting harassed/blanked and reverted by User:NetScott also from my userpage and ANI page. Please warn or block him him. Thanks for your help with this intimidation. Its like a cyber lynching or pogrom or something. It is very unfair. 71.111.117.65 13:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Avraham, I would suggest just blocking this latest block avoiding IP. This user has proven to be repetitively abusive. See User_talk:71.111.119.60 and User_talk:71.111.115.155 (you may need to review the histories of those talk page for they may be targetted for blanking by this editor). (→Netscott) 13:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Naeim Giladi

Regarding your edit summary [19]. Yes I think your second revert was better explained than the first one. I still have some minor problems with the new version, but I will express those at some other time. Taxico 08:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Naeim Giladi and malicious breaches of Biographies of Living Persons

Most of what I'm saying is not aimed at you.

I cannot understand why the time of editors is being wasted in this fashion. The inference made is highly unpleasant, and the statement brings nothing whatsoever to the encyclopedia.

We now seem to have reached a consensus that this slur not remain, but that the citation from religious anti-Zionists be cut out too. This is a loss to the article, readers need to know that Giladi's position is shared by other non-Zionists (who, needless to say, are not making allegations of anti-semitism against him).

Many people will come to the WP having only heard claims made by the Zionists, they need links to find other material along the same lines from sources other than Giladi. POV editting has damaged the community, it has also damaged this article.

Why you compare Giladi, a victim of racism in Israel and a victim of malice in his entry in the WP, with Arial Sharon, a racist killer and ethnic cleanser is difficult to understand. See Qibya massacre for another proven (indeed admitted, perhaps even boasted) example of the evil perpetrated by Sharon on behalf of Israel.

PalestineRemembered 11:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom questions

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're doing a series on ArbCom candidates, and your response is requested.

  1. What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
  1. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
  1. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Messianics again

Hi Avraham: The Messianic Judaism editors have been busy lately, you may want to know the following. Thanks. IZAK 19:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Messianic "Halakha" etc?

Hi Avraham: On 25 October 2006 [21], User:Inigmatus moved Messianic religious practices to Messianic Halakha with the lame excuse "moved Messianic religious practices to Messianic Halakha: As discussed in prior archives, with the creation of the new Messianic Judaism template, this page can now be targeted for clean up: This entire page is better split into two articles" [22] thus opening up a whole new can of worms. This fits into this new pattern of vigorous pro-Messianic Judaism POV edits, moves, categories, projects and articles, basically without warning and ignoring the consensus that has been maintained for some time. The main problem is that the over-all thrust of the recent pro-Messianic Judaism activity is to mimic and and get as close as possible to any and all Judaism, particularly Orthodox Judaism, articles and efforts, so that anyone looking at the one will arrive at the other by sheer proximity and similarity. And I repeat this again, because of its relevance: *User:Inigmatus (contributions), self-described as "A mystery user with a point to be made" (wouldn't that make anything he does as automatically POV?), has added a number of features to Messianic Judaism. A month ago he evidently plagiarized [23] the Template:Judaism and created Template Messianic Judaism based on it. He also created Wikipedia:WikiProject Messianic Judaism also obviously plagiarizing the Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism page. This may mislead unsuspecting readers and there ought to be some warning or guidance about this. I would suggest that a new template be develpoed that would be placed on Messianic Judaism pages with a "Note: This article deals with Messianic Judaism. It does not represent normative Judaism and does not have any connection with, or official recognition from, any Jewish denominations." IZAK 03:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Messianic religious practices

Avi, Messianic Halakha is properly called such in the majority of Messianic circles. Please lets discuss this in the talk page first before we continue our edit dispute. Please. :) Let's get other opinions on this. I want to help things be NPOV, but I think moving the article to "religious practices" is not really adding to NPOV. But please, lets focus discussion on this in Talk:Messianic Halakha. Thanks! inigmatus 04:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Template:Messianic Judaism

You are close to WP:3RR on the template. Please discuss changes in Talk first before making edits to the template. Please respond to the objections raised before reverting over them. Please be patient, I'm not the one starting an edit war. Status quo is good for me; and I want to work towards consensus moving forward. Blatant major editing without consensus, is only asking for trouble in light of the past history of the entirety of Messianic Judaism articles. We don't want edit wars any more than you do; and we all want NPOV, no matter what POV we may bring to the process. Let's work together and not against one another. After all, you'd probably want me to discuss major changes to Judaism before you'd want me to make them. Correct? inigmatus 04:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Oh Ignimatus you are now threatening to change Judaism articles are you, don't you have enough to do pushing the Messianic POV all over the place now? IZAK 05:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • IZAK, I'm not your enemy. Please assume good faith. I was putting the recent changes in light of "if you were in my shoes". inigmatus 05:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Avi, per your comment, I will assume good faith as well. I will not revert any changes regarding the move issue. :) I'm sorry if we butted heads on this. Thanks for your patience with the wikiprocess regarding these things. I'll accept whatever consensus is arrived at. inigmatus 05:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome the NotJudaism template

Hi: In view of the above, please see the new {{NotJudaism}} template:

Note: The subject of this article or section does not represent normative Judaism and does not have any connection with, or official recognition from, any Jewish denominations.

Feel free to use it where applicable. Thanks. IZAK 05:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

While I understand the sentiment, I don't think this particular template is the way to handle this in wiki. Explained further in e-mail. Thanks -- Avi 05:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Good call on that T1 Avraham. Thanks for the demonstration of sensibility. (→Netscott) 06:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)