User talk:Avraham/Archive 14

Another inappropriate block (User_talk:129.78.64.106)
I request that the block time be reduced to something normal such as 24h rather than the inane time of 6 months. This has happened before with Wikipedia admins who indiscriminately block access to large portions of University users because only a few partake in valdalism (I cite User_talk:129.78.208.4). Reduce the block time or unblock. NB: The University of Sydney is not a "primary or secondary" school.
 * Replied here -- Avi 14:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're not going to take responsibility for your actions and at least discuss with me the length of the block, I really don't see what the point is me bothering any further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moo13 (talk • contribs) 18:31, July 1, 2007
 * Handled by Netsnipe. -- Avi 14:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it hasn't. What sort of admin are you? You are supposed to at least know what you are doing and what your fellow admins are doing. Netsnipe has dealt in the previous instance of rash and inconsiderate adminship which I quoted you. Forget it; your sort of behaviour is a good reminder why I should stay away from this place in future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moo13 (talk • contribs) 00:48, July 6, 2007

Blocked?
Hello,

I'm a first time contributor, and notice you have blocked my IP address, although I am not sure why you have chosen to do this?

Regards,

Paul.

requesting help with parser function
Hi

I hope this is the right place to post this I'm a newbe.. I'm using a local installation of mediawiki and I use templates from wikipedia. the problem is that any template that includes parser function syntax such as #if is being rendered on the page as regular text.

It's as if the parser function syntax is not available in the wiki do I need to install/import something?

Might you be able to help please?

Thanks!


 * Gargamel573 17:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)--

Happy Late Birthday
 ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * FROM YOUR FRIEND:

Medcab case
Hello, you were a participant in a Mediation Cabal case that has been re-listed as possibly needing a new mediator. The case is listed at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-20 Male genital mutilation. As some time has passed since there was last any activity on this case, I'm checking in to see if this is still an active dispute that requires mediation, and if so, to indicate that I am willing to take it up. Please let me know. Otherwise if this is no longer an active dispute I'll simply de-list the case, and thanks for your time. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yassin
but do you really think it belongs in the lead? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have an unfortunate misunderstanding of wikipedia's neutrality policy
Avraham, your message on my user page accusing me of a "lack of understanding" and "misperception" was insulting. Please try to be courteous in your future messages. If you want to discuss the Hamas article any further, post your messages on the Talk:Hamas page. Nbauman 21:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you mean, "consider yourself warned"? What are you threatening me with?


 * Once again, I request that if you have anything to discuss about the article, discuss it on my article page, not my personal talk page. Nbauman 16:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hamas is responsible for suicide attacks
Hello, I have some difficulties convincing other editors that writing "responsible for" is better than "best known". You did agree with me, so maybe you can revert to my version next time. Humus Sapiens gave me a 3RR warning, saying that I have already reverted 3 times. I checked and agree with him. However, I don't understand why Humus Sapiens and Jayjg don't like my edit, because it is not really a positive thing to write about Hamas. Anyway, I'm not going to edit that article today...

Also, all the references that Jayjg put in to support the "best known" sentence are still used to cite a simlar sentence later on in the article in my version (also in the current version). So, it is also not the case that by reverting to my version a lot of effort to find the references would go to waste. But even if that were the case, when we write articles, it is not a good argument to say:" I spent a lot of time to write this sentence, I don't wan to replace it". It often happens that one needs to throw away entire sections and start from scratch again. Count Iblis 14:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

OR
Can you please stop adding original research to Ahmed Yassin? Wikipedia is clear that original research does not belong in any of its articles. Respond back on Talk:Ahmed Yassin.Bless sins 14:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Statements in the articles that have sources ipso facto cannot be OR. Please read articles before making unsubstantiated statememnts. -- Avi 14:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The sources you used are not in relation to the topic of the article, as WP:NOR states. Perhaps you need to re-read NOR. Anyways, please respond back on Talk:Ahmed Yassin, not my talk page. Thanks.Bless sins 14:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI
Not sure whether you were aware of this. Jakew 14:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
For the reasonable compromise on the Hamas quote. Since everyone is always quick to warn/complain etc I think we should acknowledge listening and reasonableness too... Thanks --BozMo talk 18:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Confused messages at User talk:TipPt
Re this edit: I'm confused as to who said "The dishonesty of those who have been vandalising the page is simply amazing." -- was it you? It's also not clear what page is being referred to -- but I don't need to know that. Anyway, it looks to me like the sort of message that does not tend to promote good feelings and cooperation among editors; I'd like to ask whoever said that to remember policies about civility etc.  --Coppertwig 15:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Sourced categories"
Please stop making false statements. I have asked you nine times on Talk:Ahmed Yassin to provide me the source for his antisemitism. You have refused to do so every one of those nine times. As I have read the article many times (and searched for the words "antisemitism" and "anti-semitism"), I know that there is no indication in the article fo that word.Bless sins 04:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey
I saw this edit, and I'm just wandering, what's nesting? SGGH speak! 23:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah I see. Thanks! SGGH speak! 14:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Chinese apartheid
Hi Avi, I saw you'd (prematurely!) closed the AfD on Allegations of Chinese apartheid. No harm done, but I'd like to ask you to recuse yourself from closing this AfD. Given the very heavy involvement of members of WikiProject China, WikiProject Judaism, WikiProject Israel and WikiProject Palestine in the dispute, I think it would be asking for trouble for an admin member of one of those WikiProjects to close the AfD. I can certainly see it causing additional controversy, which is the last thing that's needed in this situation. I'll post a message to WP:AN asking a completely uninvolved admin to do the job. -- ChrisO 18:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Request
I'd like to request that you reverse your move on Voßstraße since it violated our protection policy. I've started another thread on ANI. pschemp | talk 19:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm asking you again to fix your violation of policy. You clearly violated the protection policy where it says "Except in cases of clear vandalism, or issues with legal impact such as copyright or defamation, pages protected in an edit war are protected in whatever version they happen to be currently in." There is no exception listed there for MOS violations, and a naming dispute is neither vandalism nor a legal dispute. I will continue along the line of dispute resolution should you continue to ignore this. You policy violation is a separate issue from the naming dispute, I hope you can see that. pschemp | talk 23:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being decent, I'm glad we could work things out. Certainly I feel much better now that no one can accuse you of moving the page to serve your own ends. While I never thought this was the case, removing the suggestion of that is helpful. pschemp | talk 00:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Request
Hi Avi,

Could I ask a favour? I don't need the full text, but could you please copy the text of the first sentence and footnote of Allegations of Chinese apartheid to my user talk? Alternatively, please insert it as a reply to this. Thanks. Jakew 13:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up after me...
One of these days I'll get the hang of closing off debates with pretty borders, thanks for stepping up and stepping in! Carlossuarez46 20:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read better
See page 76 (and elsewhere):

"He also says that his cousin has longed for some time to rid Neturai Karta of its extremist element, especially after the spate of suicide bombings in Israel, which has made Karta’s open support of Palestinians anathema to moderates within Neturai Karta, and to long-time Neturai Karta contributors in the United States"

"“You want the dirt?” Zelig Reuven Katzenelbogen asks. He goes on to describe combat ultra-Orthodox–style: extremists grabbing the synagogue podium on Sabbath eve"

"Zelig Reuven Katzenelbogen says the extremists once doused him with water thrown from a second-story window"

"the elder rabbi’s son-in-law sides with the extremists and openly humiliated his father-in-law in synagogue"

"Another important Neturai Karta elder has remained with the moderates while his wife supports the radical faction."

"Biton attacks the extremists for their deep involvement"

"The counterclaim of the extremist camp is that their outreach efforts are aimed at saving Jewish lives."

"Still, Neturai Karta extremists have aligned themselves not with the “gentile” United States, but with America’s fiercest international opponents."

And you claim that you do not see the words 'extremist' and 'radical' anywhere being used to reference to the camp of Hirsch / Weiss? If you say that again, I'm going to have to recommend that you get new glasses. Not meant to insult you, just a remark. --Eidah 15:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So, no, I'm not going to self-revert. You should get new reading glasses. It was your error that you erroneously reverted me. My edit was NOT wrong. Your edit constituted the removal of sourced info. I suggest that we leave it at this. --Eidah 15:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI, I'm off, back online in a few hours. So if you leave me any messages, don't expect an answer right away. --Eidah 15:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered
Hello; this is to inform you that I have unblocked, whom you recently blocked, based on their unblock request. Please see my rationale at their talk page. Best, Sandstein 18:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello Avi - I've sounded off about what happened on the 3RR page. I'm not blaming you or anything. PalestineRemembered 19:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

List of palaces
You may want to keep an eye on that article too. It may soon deserve a 'lock' like Rideau Hall. Sooner or later, those opposing editors have got to compromise. GoodDay 19:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

One of your 3RR decisions
About your decision upon this 3RR-breach report, I'm altogether stumped as to how arrived at "no violation", and how you reckon that "there are not 4 eligible reverts in a 24 hour period; neither is there any listed above." Meaning no offense, but I am sure that you are mistaken. I'm not even quite sure what you mean by that statement: that there are fewer than four actual reverts among those listed? that there is not even one revert? that some of the listed reverts are not "eligible", somehow, so that there are "not 4 eligible reverts", but some lesser number of such reverts (or even none of them at all)? or that the 4 do not fall within a span of 24 hours? Please read what follows. I'm sure you will see that there were, in fact, four reverts by G2bambino within a span of 24 hours. I'm not sure what you mean by "eligible", but I'll get to that afterward.

If by "not any" you mean "not even one" revert then you are certainly mistaken: The first revert was of the most straightforward kind -- a total revert of an edit to the version before it. Please look again:


 * 1st revert: 00:58, 7 August (rv to 18:45, 5 August 2007)

Compare 18:45, 5 August 2007 against 00:58, 7 August 2007: they are identical. The single edit in between them is different. That's an unequivocal revert. So "that's one".

The other three are less obvious cases, but each is also a revert, unless my understanding is in error as to what, for the purposes of the 3-revert rule, constitutes a revert. I'm quite sure that it is not in error. As said by WP:3RR, "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor...in whole or in part..., whether involving the same or different material each time." At Help:Reverting, it is likewise explained that for the purposes of the three revert rule, "a revert is defined ... as any change to an article that partially or completely goes back to any older version of an article." Thus the essence of a revert, for the purposes of 3RR, is that it undoes the work of another editor (or of other editors) by turning the article back to an earlier form with respect to the particular material concerned. The reverted-to version need not be the immediately preceding one; it may be from farther back in the page-history. Nor must the reverted version be identical in all respects to the reverted-to version; it need only be the same with regard to the particular reversions, and may vary considerably otherwise.

Each of the latter three reverts which I have listed is certainly a revert according to those just-given definitions and explanations. In case you have overlooked that, or my presentation of the 3RR-breach has been confusing, or non-standard, or both (I did my best to avoid either flaw), let me explain somewhat: There is some complication in these latter three cases, in that the reverts were not in the form of a single edit each, but each consisted of a number of consecutive edits by the same editor (G2bambino), each such edit-series having the net effect of at least partially undoing the last editor's work. Generally this was as a revert-in-stages, the consecutive edits undoing more and more, but there were also a few steps backward, de-reverting bits that G2bambino had reverted earlier in the same sequence of edits. I therefore thought it clearest (and even fairest, in light of the slight de-reversions involved) to treat each edit-series as a unit. Thus each is visibly labelled with a time-range, instead of the usual single-time label of a single edit-of-reversion; and each time-range links to an overall diff between (on the one hand) the last of G2bambino's edits in the given series and (on the other hand) the version right before the first of those in-series edits. I also gave the version-reverted-to in each case. These are each chosen with respect to the particular reverted material, not the article as a whole. In one case, the reversion was to a form last seen in early June, so the article had somewhat changed in other ways, meanwhile, but neither of those things matter, here. The other two reverted-to versions were quite recent. Lastly, because I thought the reversions might not be obvious among the non-revertive edits accompanying them, I particularly listed what was reverted in each case.

Please take another look, and you will see that there were, in fact, 3 further reverts after the most obvious one, for a total of four. For your convenience, I list them again here, slightly re-ordered to make the reverts plainer (I hope):


 * 2nd revert: 14:30-16:44 (showing overall diff of consecutive edits by G2bambino, over the given timespan) revert is to the version of 14:34, 31 July 2007 and consists of:
 * in the opening sentence, re-adding the "monarch" stuff, plus a small wording-revert from "a purpose..." to "having served..."
 * in the 2nd paragraph (which was the 3rd paragraph back on July 31), deletion of the "guest residence" material


 * 3rd revert: 17:03-17:11 (showing overall diff of consecutive edits by G2bambino, over the given timespan) revert is to the version of 18:47, 4 June 2007 and consists of:
 * in the opening sentence, re-adding the "monarch" stuff (including "Ottawa"), with "top billing"


 * 4th revert: 18:27-19:23 (showing overall diff of consecutive edits by G2bambino, over the given timespan) revert is to the version of 17:11, 7 August 2007 and consists of:
 * in the opening sentence, re-adding the "monarch" stuff (including "Ottawa")
 * in the second paragraph, deleting all "guest residence" material

The four reverts fell within a span of 24 hours, between 00:58, 7 August, when the first revert was made, and 19:23, 7 August, when the last edit in the last revertive edit-series was made.

So there were four reverts within 24 hours. The only rationale left, then, as I interpret your given reason-for-decision, is that you thought one or more of these was not an "eligible revert". I'm not sure what you mean by this term. A revert is a revert, and they are all just as "eligible" to be tallied in a 3RR breach. The only exceptions are for a few special cases such as reversion of vandalism, which are meant to be "construed narrowly", and none of which apply here at all. Or do you think otherwise? This was a content dispute.

Please re-consider your decision, in light of all the above. Failing that, please explain to me how you figure there was no 3RR breach in this case. With all respect, I cannot fathom how you reached such a conclusion, other than through oversight -- and I shall be even more perplexed if you still deny that there was a 3RR breach, having read the foregoing.

I am particularly concerned about this because of the repetitive nature of G2bambino's breaches of 3RR and because, based on my observations of him (including, but far from limited to my own interactions with him), if he gets away with breaking 3RR without being blocked, that will embolden him to pay it even less mind. He broke it another time only last week, but escaped blocking. (See here.) I think that this was unwise, and I suspect (partly in light of his seeming view that the report "went nowhere") that it has contributed to this new breach.

Finally, if you believe that my understanding of 3RR is in error, please explain to me how this is. The reports are a pain-in-the-ass to put together, and I'd much rather not waste such effort through some misconception about what is report-worthy.

Sincerely, Lonewolf BC 00:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Please reply here, rather than on my talkpage, for sake of continuity. I will "watch".-- Lonewolf BC 01:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You know, you are correct, I missed the GoodDay edit in the middle. I had:
 * 14:27-15:23, August 7, 2007
 * 10:30-13:11, August 7, 2007
 * 20:58, August 6, 2007
 * With the 14:45, August 5, 2007 out of the scope. In hindsight, I am not going to block as the purpose is to prevent edit-earring and the page is locked, but I must supply a mea culpa on miscounting. Maybe I need a wikibreak [[image:smile.png]] -- Avi 01:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No sweat. ;-) Please at least change the "Result:" from "No violation" to "No Block", though. There is some worth in keeping the record straight in these things, and even more worth in making sure that G2bambino realises that he really did break 3RR.  He apparently thinks otherwise -- doubtless you noticed his wikilawyering to that effect, featured in the comment he left below the 3RR report -- and if he is not disabused of that belief then he'll be even more liable to break 3RR again, and to verge upon breaking it.  That might suit me fine if my goal were no more that to see him "nailed" for 3RR-breaches, but what I want is for him to stop playing chicken with the rule. Though it may seem paradoxical, that part of why I wish that you would block him for a while:  He's just not taking the point, the blocks he's gotten so far seem not to have driven it home, and his escaping, for a second time running, any personal consequences for breaking 3RR is bound to worsen matters.  Certainly, blocks for breach-of-3RR are meant to prevent edit-warring, but they do so partly -- mostly, I think -- through their deterrent effect.  After all, blocking someone for 24 hours does not, in itself, make much difference to how much edit-warring they do, if they just go right back at it when the block expires.  If the block is really effective, the effect is mainly an inhibitory one, afterward.  For harder cases, a succession of escalating blocks might eventually get a body to knock it off -- more likely for fear of what the next offence could bring upon them than because of some personal epiphany, but results are what matter the most.  I think that such is the situation with Gbambino; if he works his way up to week- or month-long blocks, his attitude toward 3RR and edit-warring generally might become less cavalier.  It might take even more than that, but hopefully less. The other part of the reason that I think a block makes sense, here, is that the dispute goes across multiple articles, so protecting the one article does not really elimitate the edit-war potential. I reckon that the best thing at this point is to solicit some more outside comment; this is not the first go-round Gbambino has had on this "monarch's residence" issue in relation to the residences of Governors-General in Commonwealth countries, and the consensus has always gone against him in the past.  I recommend blocking him for a while, though, to deter his future edit-warring over this (or other things).  I'll even avoid editing the contended parts of the articles, myself, while he's blocked. In any case, I'd be grateful for any help you can give in attacting other editors. -- Lonewolf BC 04:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * PS: Sorry if the above seems untimely in light of the below. It wasn't there when I began, and I didn't feel like re-writing when it showed up as a (dreaded) edit-conflict. -- Lonewolf BC 05:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly, Lonewolf, get off your high horse and bugger off. Really, where do you get off "recommending" people block me? And Wikilawyering?  Your 3RR witch hunt is a perfect example of that.
 * I'm perfectly in control of myself and aware of my actions; because my view doesn't agree with yours doesn't mean yours is automatically right. Please, get off my back. --G2bambino 14:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Lonewolf's vendetta against me is getting a little out of hand; it would seem that he spends so long preparing his 3RR reports as he needs to be so creative in finding any actual violations. Really, his above evidence is a compiled mish-mash of "evidence" cut and paste together to make it appear as though I intended to, amongst other things, restore a composition put together well over a month ago!  Can this be serious? All this while he himself brusquely reverted with edit summaries that diverged from his singular explanatory comment on Talk:Rideau Hall, thereafter ceasing to participate further in the ensuing discussion.  His supposed concerns over breaches of 3RR are similarly false - he's guilty of multiple breaks of the limit himself.  Provocative, uncooperative, and disingenuous, breaching WP:CIV, WP:POINT, and possibly WP:HAR, Lonewolf is a disturbing character, indeed.
 * I apologize for bringing this up on your personal talk page, but something needs to be said about this. --G2bambino 02:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Be that as it may, there were technically 4 reverts in 24 hours. However, as, in general, blocks are not meant to be punitive but preventative, I will not be taking any further action as the editwar has stopped due to the page being locked. If you believe that there is a pattern of editing which more closely resembles stalking or a vendetta than regular editing, your best bet is to follow our dispute resolution process, and you may wish to think about opening a request for comment. Good Luck! -- Avi 02:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay then, if it need be, I will do so. In the meantime, can you similarly lock Monarchy in Ontario, Royal tours of Canada, List of palaces, and Golden Jubilee of Elizabeth II, as Lonewolf has expanded his initial "problem" at Rideau Hall to encompass those articles as well.  This will prevent his reverts there, and force him to resolve the matter at Talk:Rideau Hall first, which he truly seems loathe to do. Thanks. --G2bambino 03:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll try to look into them, but it is better to file formal requests at the request for page protection page. As long as there is no evidence of edit warring, wikipedia really, really prefers not to have pages locked. Page lockings are ALSO preventative and not punitive. We are supposed to be the encyclopædia that anyone can edit. [[image:smile.png]]. -- Avi 03:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just as a bit of a post-script; I was thinking about the 3RR thing last night (is it bad that Wikipedia is the last thing I think of before going to sleep?) and honestly can't see a 3RR breach in this case. It's the supposed revert back to June 4 that really gets me; if there were similarities between what I did a couple of days ago and what was done in early June, it must have been pure coincidence.  I certainly didn't go searching through more than month-old records to find something to revert to. Not sure if that explains anything, but thought it might at least shed a little more light on the (already wrapped up) matter. --G2bambino 14:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm such an awful guy. I should be banned. It should be a snap: just substantiate all those accusations... If you don't want to take any further action in relation to the 3RR violation, Avi, that's fine. I still think a block would make better sense under the circumstances and given the offending editor's history of breaches, but it's your call. Please do right the "Result:" of the (for your total ease) report, though. Striking your mistaken comment and perhaps writing a quick substitute would not hurt either. Best regards, anyhow. -- Lonewolf BC 05:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I also struck the first sentence of your earlier remarks -- the one saying you saw no violation.  Hope you approve.  Apologies, if not. -- Lonewolf BC 06:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If G2B & LwBC decide to 'edit war' again, then both should be blccked. Meanwhile, I'll re-add my 'compromise edit' (again if 'edit warring' continues). There's really no need for this or those other pages to be protected, everytime these 2 lock horns. Continuous 'protections' hurts innocent editors, no reason for everyone to suffer. Just a 'third party' comment. GoodDay 19:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Same ole, same ole
I was about to do the same. Any idea why this article isn't under semi-protection or anything like that? I thought it was supposed to be. Hopefully this kind of thing won't become a problem again. The Behnam 17:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

An important question
Avi, I am unfortunately new here at Wikipedia and do not know my way around yet. The deletion discussion so far regarding the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. page has bee dominated by their order members and agents posing as objective editors. Is there some way to get some other truly objective editors to look at the discussion and independently evaluate whether the page should be deleted or not? It would be a shame if the discussion remains as biased as it has until present. I initially even had my comments reverted repeatedly and removed by user IPSOS, as is clear in the history. Would you please answer my question on my talk page? I think that that would be the correct way to communicate with you, would it not?--Rondus 20:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
I must say I'm quite surprised that you would protect an article when you are directly involved in the mediation for that article. I'm even more surprised that you would actually state in the protection summary that you are protecting the page because of the mediation. Even more so, you have reverted this article to remove the content your protection serves to prevent from being re-added. If there isn't a more obvious conflict of interest, I haven't seen it. Please remove your protection of this article as soon as possible; it is completely inappropriate and unjustified. . - auburn pilot   talk  05:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Re barnstar
Wow! Thanks! --Coppertwig 22:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Rideau Hall
Hello Avraham: Would you insert my interim-compromise edit at Rideau Hall? While LonewolfBC & G2bambino 'work things out', the page should have an 'edit' that isn't hotly disputed (at least to the degree of their own edits). Lonewolf accepts it as an 'interim' solution (though G2bambino, prefers his 'recent edit') -- Since myself & LnBC are in agreement, would you consider it. If you choose not to, no problem. GoodDay 00:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

PR Mentoring
Just for the record, which is somewhat important considering the instinctive reaction of any number of wikipedia editors to automatically stereotype others due to their upbringing, religion, politics, etc. I'd like to point what I believe is an inaccuracy in your statement here. Thank you. -- Avi 06:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Woops. That's actually twice I said it was jpgordon :-|.  I'm terribly sorry about that.  I'll correct my other reference (on my talk page). Mark Chovain 07:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

ref tag
I partially reverted this edit of yours because I don't think we know whether the rates in (all) those places are for religious/cultural reasons or whether they're for other reasons, e.g. medical. The real reason for this note, though, is to point out that you had left off the terminating slash on the ref tag. It should be, not  as you had it. (If that were the only problem I would have just fixed it.) Moving the sentence may be OK but the wording would have to be fine-tuned. --Coppertwig 21:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Edits to the Michael Kay Page
Please stop removing matieral All sources are verified and accurate as per ESPN and Variety. You deletions are regarded as vandalism as the original posting were made and remained unmolested for several weeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.193.238.46 (talk • contribs) 15:41, August 16, 2007

Human rights groups and the Middle East
I understand that you'd still like to keep this article. I had just wanted to point out that the HRW section is completely empty and that about half of the material appearing on Amnesty International (specifically the Don Habibi quote) already appears in the Amnesty International article. As such, I agree with you that a merge makes sense as it is essentially what I'm suggesting. I just don't know how to do everything in Wikipedia, and I didn't want to just delete half of the material in this article after throwing up the merge tags for a day. Would you suggest I throw up the tags now or wait for the AfD process to complete? If Human rights groups and the Middle East shrinks significantly after merging (which I expect is the likely case), does it make sense to nominate for deletion or is there a different course of action to follow?

Thanks, Noob-artu. --Nosfartu 14:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears you were online again and I was hoping you could provide me with more information at your earliest convenience. Thanks.. --Nosfartu 20:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Once the AfD expires I'll try to begin the merge process at it is outlined. As you can tell, the one article is dead.. so I think that moving the information out in to the parent articles will make everyone happier. :) --68.72.37.26 03:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Michael Kay Page
THe Arbitron weekly is weekly online and paper report of the brodcasting industry and cites all brodcasters under FCC suspension.

Variety is and entertainment daily industry  Both were cited as references.

Also Kay's susnpension was announced on his rival station WFAN on July 28.

It was you who removed the material in an incorrect edit. By the way Neil Best is a very famous NYC columnist. SoO you cannot be from the NY area.

Since you are clearly not in the briadcasting industry you wouldn't be aware of Best, Arbiton of Variety. Therefore you edits and tags are truly incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heartinthebayou (talk • contribs) 14:57, August 17, 2007

RFC not showing up
I signed my RFC at Talk:Operation_Entebbe with 5 tildes per the instructions (I think). I wanted time'n'date, I didn't want it to say it was me, either on the main RFC page, nor on the TalkPage of the article. I trust my TalkPage is not going to fill up with really confused people. PalestineRemembered 21:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No prob, just trying to be helpful. -- Avi 23:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Request
Hi Avraham, you were the first sysop I could get and I have an urgent request: I have reason to believe that someone may want to download my photograph : Image:Muriel.jpg for something that I'm not to keen with. Can you please delete it as soon as possible. Its just my photo, its not linked to anything and its rather useless. I would appreciate your help with this. Thanks. muriel@pt 15:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheers! muriel@pt 15:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi
I am back. waiting for your response regarding this [], cheers. --Pejman47 21:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)