User talk:Avraham/Archive 46

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 45

Archive 46

Archive 47>

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)

Soncino Talmud

Thanks for pointing that out to me the problem with the come-and-hear Soncino talmud and the useful substitute at www.halakhah.com Now that I am aware of the problem, I will start systematically changing the links on the parshah pages. Thanks again. -- Dauster (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and stuff

Good call about nominating User:Malik Shabazz for admin. I'm sure he'll be really good with the tools, and the discussion about him was so positive!

Also, I appreciate your work in the Judaism article. I'd like to know if you're interested in joining the effort to improve the article as a whole. In particular, I'm concerned I would have trouble expanding the very incomplete section about "niddah and family purity" by myself, because I'm not very knowledgeable in that area. By now, I think that section looks like it needs more attention than Kashrut and it's also an important aspect of Halakha. Do you think you would be able to expand that section, or do you have any other ideas about how to improve the article? Thanks so much. --AFriedman (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you re: using WP for halakhic guidance. Even so, I think the Niddah section should be more than a couple sentences in the main Judaism article. I was imagining it expanded to the order of the Kashrut section, i.e. that it would mention most of the main points about family purity and leave the details to other articles. The Kashrut section doesn't have everything we know about Kashrut, either, and Debresser and I have been trying to get details about the "meat" vs. "pareve" status of poultry put into other articles instead. --AFriedman (talk) 01:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Video Professor revision deletion

Hi, I was wondering if you could justify this username hiding. It does not appear to meet the criteria for revision deletion outlined on Wikipedia:Revision deletion, or the oversight criteria outlined at Wikipedia:Oversight. I disagree that the reason given: "Other valid deletion under Deletion Policy (detail required): User afraid of extra-wiki reaction", is within the guidelines of the the deletion policy, particularly if the edit is allowed to stand. Thanks, Prodego ^talk 18:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded via e-mail. -- Avi (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteenth tribe

"Removing sourced and cited pertinent information" !!??? Is it not exactly that you and Shawwov have done? I put cited information in the text, more pertinent that the annoying citations that you support, but you seem to want to shut up every attributed POV which you don't like...Hopefully, contributors on the Schlomo Sand page have read Bartal's critics, and not only retained the bon mots. By the way, the reason I gave to definitively whitewash all the Bartal's critics is that he don't at all mention the Tirteenth tribe. As you can see, I am not the only user to think like this, so please stop menaces Levochik (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed annoying citations to replace them by meaningful ones. If you call this "whitewashing", I cannot help you any more. Hopefully, other contributors have different views and are able to read biasless Bartal's critics :) Levochik (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking mystery

Hello, can you help me? I see that you appear to have blocked me because I have used my account 79.73.32.019 abusively. My article about a living author has no intended abuse in it about anyone and I am most concerned that perhaps I have broken a rule in some way of which I am unaware. I have however,read that I might be mistaknely included inn a range block. As I am days away from what I believe to be a good entry, wont you please tell me if I have done anything wrong and what I can do to correct it and release the block. Oh yes one other thing, I have been able to make editorial corrections but wonder if these are actually beihng recorded becasue of the block. Thanks so much User LumenlittLumenlitt (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A project you might be interested in

Hi, I've recently created a project which, broadly speaking, will help to develop and support the enwiki community. At this stage, we're currently calling for individual proposals on how to improve Wikipedia. If you're interested, sign up and add your ideas here! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back to SPI tag consolidation

I've posted a reply to an earlier comment of yours at WT:SPI, we appear to be holding up the bot approval - though I didn't realize we hadn't decided. Also, I don't think you ever fixed the mapping issue I noted regarding the CheckedSockpuppet-nb (one of them is missing the -nb so it duplicates an earlier one - probably won't work well for the bot); I'm not going to touch the mapping as I don't want to screw around with anything there that you've done.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The change you made today is the change I thought was necessary. Did you not agree it was necessary? It seemed that it would result in a logic problem for the bot if nothing else.

Have we settled the issues so that the Bot can run? Approval of Chris G's bot was held up by a perception that we had not clearly decided on your master template or Foxy's. I think this is because of your comment: "Personally, I'd rather keep separate sockpuppet and sockpuppeteer templates, simply for categorization purposes. Otherwise, we could takeFoxy's work and tweak it, I guess. -- Avi (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)" - See the comment at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Chris G Bot 2 2. If we've resolved it, let's both post to the WT:SPI and the RFBA page to that effect so we can nudge along the move. We should probably make sure Chris G knows that you modified the map. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Ping" - Also, I've posted another issue with the code to the WT:SPI page.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 09:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Crappon

There's a current unblock request at User talk:Crappon, that you might be interested in. Looks like it has to do with an older SPI case from earlier this year, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paparazzixox, which we both commented on at some point. My lengthier comment at the user's talk page has a few more details. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked. -- Avi (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashkenazim photobox

Hi,

It seems like A sniper and Avya1 are insisting on Mendlosn and Arendt. While the first was born Jewish and converted to christinity (making him no less Ashkenazi, but certainly less conventional in the photobox) the last was Jewish women who was cited in few occasions speaking out against Jewish people and providing philosophical advocacy for Adolf Eichmann, she also undermined the legitimacy of the prosecution against him. More, A sniper void the RAMA with a waive of the hand. Still, aside for Mendlson and Arendt I'm willing to consider positively the candidacy of many others, just take part in the discussion on the talk page and we will get to an agreement soon, I hope.--Gilisa (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advocate versus advocates

Schoen's opinions are medically based. If they are factually inaccurate, he should not be representative of the group.Zinbarg (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usurp/SUL

WikiThanks

I just wanted to express my thanks for usurping this username. Also, I had a question: Would you be able to help me make a claim to SUL? I also add images to Wikimedia Commons and may make some adjustments to zh.wikipedia. Thanks again! –Nav ^{talk to me or sign my guestbook} 22:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jakew

Funny how it's always the circumcision apologists who come to Jakew's assistance. I think I've locked horns with you before. You don't scare me.--AlexanderLondon (talk) 11:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on user talk page. -- Avi (talk) 13:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BBC interview

Just spotted it... Funny the Beeb is giving Shlomo a platform...

See [1] Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for arbcom candidates

Hi Avi, thank you for your excellent questions. I have answered them here feel free to post any follow up queries you may have. Unomi (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe something went wrong with my username usurp.

As you know, I had requested to usurp the "RadicalOne" username. That usurp was completed yesterday (November 19, ~2200 EST), but it appears something has gone wrong in the process. While all my former edits are now listed as being done by "RadicalOne", and my user and talk pages have been renamed ("RadicalTwo" redirects to "RadicalOne"), my actual username appears not to have changed, as I still log in as "RadicalTwo" - "RadicalOne" does not work. Likewise, I am listed as "logged in as RadicalTwo", and my signature still reads that username. More, any new edits I make are once again listed as "RadicalTwo" - including this post here.

Worse, all of my preferences and watchlist have been lost. I was logged in at the time of the usurp, not expecting it until the next day - is this the cause of the apparent problems? More importantly, how can these issues be resolved, and is there anything I must do on my end? RadicalTwo (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When has a account made significant edits for WP:CHU/U?

Hi Avi. I noticed you are fairly active at WP:CHU/U, so maybe you can answer me a question: The rules are CHU/U say that users with GFDL significant edits cannot be usurped. But when do edits become GFDL significant? Any good faith edits? Article edits only? Articles created? For example, Annalise (talk · contribs) has created an article back in 2005 and there is a request for usurpation currently - can it be granted? I am unsure how to clerk such requests since we do not seem to have a guideline on what constitutes GFDL significance. Regards So Why 22:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheela

I was wondering what happened with the over-sighting there at the ma Anand Sheela talk page? Off2riorob (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, why were the edits over sighted and who requested they be over sighted. Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am happy with that, thanks for commenting. regards. Off2riorob (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

soxbot

Hi - I think soxbot may be looking for the word "end" in the RFB header - because if you look on WT:RFA you can see that it has messed up the format a bit... it picked up his first words after a word which ends with "end". Do you mind if I add "Scheduled to end" in front of your "pending" comment? Thanks 7 06:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a typo

"anyone who would support ... does have the judgment to be a bureaucrat"

^ I believe you are missing the word "not" between does and have. If not, disregard this. –xeno^talk 22:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was, thank you, Xeno. -- Avi (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and another simple typo: "on its own or the others on their own"... maybe slow down a bit, but you're managing good overall. ;-) -- Menti fisto 23:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And a thank you from me too

This is a pretty good summing up of the situation and whilst I opposed I do agree that there seems sufficent consensus to promote here. It would also be good for the community to show that to pass RFB you don't need some ludicrous level of support where even a handful of opposes will derail the request, and thus might make RFB's a little more common. Pedro : Chat 16:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a Job Well Done

Avraham, Thank you for the way you and the other Crats are handling the RfB . . . regardless of the outcome.

Thanks Again - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well managed indeed! If only others could have your grasp and response then "world peace" would follow :) hydnjo (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick heads-up

hope you don't mind. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all; thank you Julian. -- Avi (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about Mistakes

I almost choked on my coffee when I saw this. I know it was meant as a compliment to you and the other crats. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe RfB

It has been an interesting couple of weeks for me at WP. Haven't really been engaged in too many contentious events (but then, an emphasis on editing articles about women's basketball isn't exactly volunteering to walk through a minefield). The the ClimateGate incident broke (and I think WP is acquitting itself very badly) and the RfB issue was in progress. I was quite stunned to see the level of opposition over what I believe to be a fundamental misunderstanding of appropriate process. I feared, given the high bar (understandably) required for bureaucrats, that Joe would fail. I remarked to another editor that my world view of WP would be colored by the outcome, including my commitment to what has also struck me as an irrational project. I'm greatly cheered by the result. It would have been easy for crats either to note the level of opposition and close no consensus, or the level and the trend, making it an easier close, or not want to imply in any way anything other than a no-tolerance policy for pedophilia. Thankfully, you didn't take the easy route, and recognized that a pass could in no way (by an honest person) be construed as support for pedophelia.

The discussion and the result restored my belief that, while far from perfect, the process can lead to the correct result in important issues.

(I didn't realize until looking at the page that non-admins could weigh in, but that page feels stale now, So I'm posting this just to the opening and closing crats.)--SPhilbrick T 16:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi, I do indeed know about watchlists, however it had't occurred to me that someone might watchlist another editor's talkpage so I first thought of sock/meat puppetry. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User rights

Hi, I just noticed that you gave me some new user rights: "Rollbackers" and "Autoreviewers." Does that mean that if I see 6 different entries by an IP user that are all vandalism (as I saw last week on one of my watched pages), I can revert them all in one click? That makes it a lot easier! Thanks for the thumbs-up! Yoninah (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick heads-up

hope you don't mind. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all; thank you Julian. -- Avi (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about Mistakes

I almost choked on my coffee when I saw this. I know it was meant as a compliment to you and the other crats. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe RfB

It has been an interesting couple of weeks for me at WP. Haven't really been engaged in too many contentious events (but then, an emphasis on editing articles about women's basketball isn't exactly volunteering to walk through a minefield). The the ClimateGate incident broke (and I think WP is acquitting itself very badly) and the RfB issue was in progress. I was quite stunned to see the level of opposition over what I believe to be a fundamental misunderstanding of appropriate process. I feared, given the high bar (understandably) required for bureaucrats, that Joe would fail. I remarked to another editor that my world view of WP would be colored by the outcome, including my commitment to what has also struck me as an irrational project. I'm greatly cheered by the result. It would have been easy for crats either to note the level of opposition and close no consensus, or the level and the trend, making it an easier close, or not want to imply in any way anything other than a no-tolerance policy for pedophilia. Thankfully, you didn't take the easy route, and recognized that a pass could in no way (by an honest person) be construed as support for pedophelia.

The discussion and the result restored my belief that, while far from perfect, the process can lead to the correct result in important issues.

(I didn't realize until looking at the page that non-admins could weigh in, but that page feels stale now, So I'm posting this just to the opening and closing crats.)--SPhilbrick T 16:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi, I do indeed know about watchlists, however it had't occurred to me that someone might watchlist another editor's talkpage so I first thought of sock/meat puppetry. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User rights

Hi, I just noticed that you gave me some new user rights: "Rollbackers" and "Autoreviewers." Does that mean that if I see 6 different entries by an IP user that are all vandalism (as I saw last week on one of my watched pages), I can revert them all in one click? That makes it a lot easier! Thanks for the thumbs-up! Yoninah (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thank you for your notice.Zinbarg (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you join the discussion?Zinbarg (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DRosin

Hi there; I see you've removed a big chunk of the COI information on User:DRosin's page as being 'personal information'. The user in question vehemently denies that he's the person in question, so surely it doesn't count as 'personal information'. As he's using the account to make a whole bunch of COI edits, could you clarify your position on this? He's said it's not him, so it is, by definition, not personal information - right? WoodenBuddha (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hello - help

Shalom. i need some help from you, since you're a admin. there's any email I can contact you? please see to contact me as soon as you can. יישר כח מראש - --Korach (talk) 09:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this possible?

I note that you changed by username from William Saturn to William S. Saturn back in June. I was curious to know if my current usurp request was possible due to it's unusual nature. [2] --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General footnotes

I see that Wikipedia:CITE#Shortened_footnotes has it the way you did it. But in the case of one or two general sources, in my experience they are usually mentioned in front of the actual references. Anyway. Debresser (talk) 07:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Quincy Washington

Hi, Perhaps you can answer the question at the above talkpage?--Pink Bull 18:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Awarded to Avraham for his willingness to sacrifice of his time and for his extraordinary efforts making Wikipedia a safe and fair place to write and edit and for ensuring total fairness whenever the tide of unreason rears its misguided head. Whenever the applecart may be up-ended Avraham will judge fairly and set it straight. Congratulations! IZAK (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the World without Zionism Conference.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the World without Zionism Conference.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 06:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Avraham, I don't think that the speedy-delete-reupload-a-smaller-version dance, when the debate is tending to delete, was a very smart move. That said my interest has drifted elsewhere. I do wish you well in editing that article. Getting any sort of reasonable and neutral article when it relates to Israel-Middle Eastern Politics is a huge struggle on this site—a struggle I am happy to leave to others - Peripitus (Talk) 11:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EXCUSE ME!

December 2009

You said: "Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Ashkenazi Jews, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Avi (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC):I was trying to make it a bit MORE neutral!.82.36.89.155 (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)"

I was trying to make it look MORE neutral! I did not use personal analysis and cited a source. Who are you to issue threats? 82.36.89.155 (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Izzedine's refusal to engage in discourse

For the record http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIzzedine&action=historysubmit&diff=332049847&oldid=332049576. -- Avi (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

Ret.Prof (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone![reply]

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

File:Plakat Heine - Simplicissimus 1896.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Plakat Heine - Simplicissimus 1896.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 16:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ahmadinejad AP small.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ahmadinejad AP small.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 12:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for checkuser/Case/Tfoxworth

I have attempted to file the above case for action. Since problems with this banned user's sockpuppets have been handled promptly before (most recently by you), I suspect that I may have done something wrong or inadequate in submitting it. Would you please look it over and let me know if there is anything further I need to do, or if it is just a matter of workload & patience? Thankyou. FactStraight (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I have been spot editing away, but somehow, unknowingly got logged out, not an uncommon occurrence, but when I tried to edit while logged out I received this message:
Editing from 98.23.192.0/19 has been disabled by Dominic for the following reason(s):
I'd like to know more about why I am blocked. Can you help? Einar aka

RE: formatting for your comments on Articles for deletion

I apologize for editing your format instead of asking you to do so.

My rationale, though faulty, was that I thought, and still think, that two or more bullets for one comment to my decision puts more emphasis on your comment than mine.

The reason I think I refrained from asking you directly was my own impatience and my feeling that you were not open to reason. I shouldn't have assumed, and I will try not to assume in the future. Your friend in Wiki, Abie the Fish Peddler :-) (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gemach

Hi, I wonder if you could help me with this. An anonymous IP user made a ton of small edits to this page. Some edits are good, but most are unreferenced and a few are plain wrong. Since there's no one to talk to about these edits, should I just rollback everything and wait to hear from someone? I'm asking you what to do since I really don't relish the idea of combing through all these edits to pick out the good ones. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 22:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I took care of it. Yoninah (talk) 13:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Season's greetings

Thank you for being one of the people who has made 2009 such an interesting and enlightening year for me. It has certainly had its challenges, but also many highlights. I wish you peace and contentment in 2010, and a joyous holiday season to you and yours.

In honour of the season, I hope you will enjoy a little musical token. Your choice: traditional or cheeky.

Best, Risker (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking User:Breathing Dead

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		I was looking over a couple of your edits, and was really impressed by them, especially the diff on the "Anti-Zionism" article that you linked to from your user page. This is such a difficult and polarized issue, and I cannot even tell what you personally believe from your very neutral and excellent edits, which greatly improved the quality of that article. I was also impressed by your participation in the debate over whether User:Palestine Remembered should be blocked, because I think that too often users with strong points of view get blocked when they are willing to constructively work on improving the quality of the encyclopedia. Well done, you seem to be a great Wikipedian with a remarkably even temper. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 01:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One user who I hope you will look into because I think they have been unfairly blocked is User:Breathing Dead. This user made many constructive contributions to wikipedia before he was blocked. Then, he got into an argument with an admin in which WP:CIVIL was violated on both sides, and the upshot was that the user got blocked by the admin involved in the argument. I'm kind of worried about this user because I hope he is OK in real life, given the bold edits that he engaged in on wikipedia this July and the fact that he says that he lives in Iran and says he is active in promoting women's rights & human rights. So, I don't know if this user is still around wikipedia since he's been blocked since July and it's been a while since then, but in any case I think he should be unblocked and a nice note left on his user page. I also wrote about this on the admin noticeboard, but wanted to write to you also because I like how you deal with other editors. Have a good Shabbat! Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 01:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS ticket 2009122110036124

I answered on my page in the Hebrew Wikipedia. Tomer A. 20:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your "13th tribe" edits

Hallo Avraham. It seems that your last edits are automatically uploading an older version of the article. I just wanted to state that the topic of the book was not so new in French scholarship. (Koestler was not a historian but he "smelt" the opportunity to publicize this topic for English readers). See also the spelling for the Shlomo/Sholomo Sand (I really don't know which one is the exact transcription from Hebrew but the Wikipedia entry uses "Shlomo"). Yours, KTA193.135.132.138 (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Avraham. I am restoring that reference to Renan, Bloch and Ferro in the "Controversy" section. Now I think it suits better a "Background" or "Previous proposals of that thesis" section, but it would make the whole thing atomized. Yours, KTA 193.135.132.138 (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Unblocking User:Breathing Dead

Hi Avi, Thanks for your note. User:Breathing Dead doesn't seem to have email enabled, so I have no way to contact him. I did leave a note on his talk page though. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

I've nominated List of former Jews, List of former Christians, and List of former Muslims together for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Jews.Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Best Wishes for 2010, FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 12:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrat discussion for Juliancolton RfB

A bureaucrat discussion has been opened in order to determine the consensus in this request for adminship. Please come participate. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chabad 12 year old user

Hi Avraham: Please take a look at this User:Hayesgenius, a twelve year old Chabad-Lubavitch child editor on Wikipedia, in his edit history [3] he leaves information about who he is and what he's doing in violation of WP:NOTMYSPACE aka WP:NOTFACEBOOK for a start. Does Wikipedia need his pre-Bar-Mitzva photo uploaded at File:Sholom Myers.jpg? Looks like a troubling development. Will Chabad now send even 12 year olds to the Wikipedia "front lines" because many of them are online so much? This needs some guidance and guidelines. Please take a look. IZAK (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Chabad 12 year old user. (feel free to delete this) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per wikipedia policy regarding self-disclosure of personal identification of a minor. Could you please point me to this policy? -- Zsero (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on user talk page, -- Avi (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more: File:Rabbi Myers.jpg appears to be dupe of File:Rabbi Boruch Myers.jpg according to Google's cache? ninety:one (reply on my talk) 19:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if there's such a policy, but there's an essay, WP:CHILD. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely my point. It's an essay, and has no standing. If Avi had said he'd acted on his own discretion, because after due consideration he'd decided it was against WP's interest to include the information and photo, that would be one thing. But he cited a policy I've never heard of, so I'm interested in seeing it. Why does everything have to be seen as a battle? -- Zsero (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for handling this. After I logged off last night (this morning), I realized I should have sent a message to the oversight mailing list requesting that the page's edit history be blanked. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but maybe Avi was using the word "policy" to refer to a standard operating procedure by oversighters which might not have been formalized (yet) as a written policy. I think there's an unwritten rule on Wikipedia that there are some unwritten rules. "Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules" (procedural policy Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C-Twig said it better than I did. We on the oversight list deal with these kinds of things daily, and per WP:CHILD, will almost always (for legal and protective reasons) remove personally identifiable information about minors. If it is not de jure policy, it is the de facto action of every oversighter on the list that I know of. If you, Zsero, believe that I have misused the tool, I encourage you to contact the ArbCom subcommittee in charge of OS/CU actions or the meta:Ombudsman commission, although the latter may not be appropriate as there was no release of private information--Au contraire. -- Avi (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, why does everything have to be a battle? Why so defensive? I wouldn't go nearly so far as to claim that you've misused your tools, let alone to make a formal complaint about it. I am a bit concerned if you acted to enforce a non-existent policy, rather than out of an independent consideration of this specific case. Policies are written and publicly available for a reason: people must be able to find out the rules by which they are to be bound.

I'm much more concerned by your claim that minors are legally unable to release copyrights, and therefore cannot contribute to Wikipedia! That is surely contrary to long-standing WP policy! WP has many editors—and even admins—who are minors, and has always had them, and policy as I understand it is to encourage them, not delete all their contributions as copyright violations which they're unable to waive! -- Zsero (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While wikipedia allows minors to add their own edits, images taken by others do not belong the minor in question and cannot be released by them. Furthermore, edits or photos, even when made by the minor, if judged by a sysop to be potentially dangerous to the minor or his/her family may be removed, and if judged similarly by someone with oversight, may be suppressed. If it makes ou feel better, imagine this as an extension of the BLP policy. Even if there is no page on wikipedia specifically delineating what I have said, it has been the practice for years to protect both the project and its editors, which is, at its core, the duty of the sysops/OSers. -- Avi (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So how does his photo of his father endanger anybody? -- Zsero (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is almost certainly a copyvio. The assumption is that a minor, not even בר מצוה for goodness sakes, does not know what is a copyright, let alone who owns what. Have the father or mother send an e-mail to OTRS releasing the image and I will be happy to undelete it. -- Avi (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the file page he said he took it himself. And if minors can't license their work then they can't contribute to Wikipedia at all! Do you imagine there is some difference between a photo and any text that a minor writes? -- Zsero (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My judgment is as human as the next persons. Should you feel that I was in error, please bring it up at WP:DRV. If you do, please drop me a note. -- Avi (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Littman edits

Hello,

No, Drzzinfo relocates also to a full article, and not to a blog. It's a pro-israeli newschannel, btw. The info is well documented. No reason to dismiss it. Thank you. TwoHorned (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CHU question

Hi there Avi. Could you explain something to me? I noticed that on Wikipedia:Changing_username#Geronimo20_.E2.86.92_Epipelagic you told the user that some edits could not be re-attributed because the user has more than 25,000 edits. Now I have seen other editors be renamed with more edits, so I am wondering, did you say so because this user's first edits were in 2005 or because of the amount of edits? Regards So Why 17:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the CHU discussion, please :) -- Avi (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. :-) Regards So Why 21:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, I mentioned one of your actions on Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Username changes and accounts on other wikis. Regards So Why 21:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already responded to there ;) -- Avi (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chabad on Wikipedia arbitration request

Since you have been kind enough to comment at the unresolved WP:COI case at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/User:Yehoishophot Oliver, you may wish to know that it has now been nominated for arbitration. Feel free to review at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Chabad movement editors and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thank you for your input and patience, IZAK (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yerucham Olshin

Hi Avi, you need to take a quick look at the Rabbi Yerucham Olshin article that has been prodded for deletion and add info. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CDA wording

I have been updating Wikipedia:Guide to Community de-adminship with the results of the discussion at WT:CDADR. This included this diff based on a suggestion you made. Could you check that it is in an appropriate place as I was not sure what you originally intended? Thanks, Ben Mac Dui 15:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case opens/Chabad movement

Hi Avraham: Since you have been involved in the topic of Chabad, this is to let you know that an official arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement. You may wish to add your comments for the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence. The ArbCom asks that evidence be submitted within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Workshop. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Your RfC is missing a key component: When requested by the admin. I think you should amend your statement to include that.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 09:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. -- Avi (talk) 09:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Renan

I read the man's article (in french). It is indeed stated that it is a racial-theorist, but it is also stated that the views on Jews that he developped in this book are in complete contradiction with his previous position of racial-theorist. Hence, if it would be "disruptive" to write that he is NOT racialist, it is however maybe not adequate to write that he is racialist precisely in the context where he he opposed his usual racialist position. It seems to me better to avoid qualificative and to let the readers read the man's article to see by himself that, although racialist in many of his writing, Renan attacks the "jewish race myth" in this book. Levochik (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where?

Where might i find the RfC on de-sysopping inactive admins? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to the sentence immediately above, nit to the desysopping of inactive admins. -- Avi (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. It was rather confusing. Perhaps you might want to clarify your comments? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it was indented, and immediately below the comment to which I was referring, it seems clear to me :) -- Avi (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]