User talk:Avraham/Archive 18

RfC Circumcision
Sorry to bother you, but I've been responding to the RfC on Talk:Circumcision. And the only person responding has not been fun. Am I just beating my head against a wall (as in is this a dead issue/steam attempt to push POV)? If other editors have come to the conclusion that things are ok the way they stand, I'm going to disengage from the quibbling over whether or not UN/WHO terminology is biased. Your input on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Please feel free to respond here or on my talk page. Thank you.Phyesalis (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam wikiproject
I have proposed a new wikiproject and was thinking you might want to join WikiProject_Council/Proposals --Java7837 (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Sudais
Ur Welcome. Regards Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there
Do you remember that I asked you to perform a range block on range (87.167.xxx.x)? (User talk:Avraham/Archive 17)

Well it appears they are using a new range. I've checked here and found that they are from Germany, the same as AFI-PUNK. Using common sense, a IP user who; appears out of the blue; starts making the same edits; uses the same typography in edit summaries (here); and uses the same kind of broken english (as they are German here) definitely suggests that this is also. Today is their second spree of vandalism using this IP range.

I didn't want to bring this up prematurely, but if it does indeed seem like they have been assigned a different IP range, then the range block on the other range should be lifted to prevent collateral damage on other users. However, taking into account that it's only been two days, they could be at a library or a friend's house to avoid the block on their own range, so lifting the range block might not be suitable yet. This is only the second time they have vandalised using that IP address.

I just wanted to keep you posted as the blocking admin :)

IP's so far:
 * 15:50, 21 November 2007
 * 16:21, 22 November 2007

Cheers, Seraphim  Whipp 17:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

OTRS issue
Hello. I'm contacting you because you are listed as a user with OTRS access. User Londo06 (talk · contribs) has filed OTRS permission for a number of his image uploads, but the images in question are incorrectly tagged – they include both a non-free and GFDL tag. If you have time, can you take a look at the OTRS ticket and confirm that the images have been cleared for use by an OTRS volunteer, and fix the licensing details for these images accordingly?

The affected images: Thanks for your consideration. --Muchness (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:ScottHill.jpg
 * Image:TyroneSmith.jpg
 * Image:Purdham.jpg
 * Image:BillPeden.jpg
 * Image:TonyRea.jpg
 * Image:BrianMcDermott.jpg
 * Image:Worrincy.jpg
 * Image:JonWells.jpg
 * Image:JoeWalshQuins.jpg
 * Image:Tootill.jpg
 * Image:Temata.jpg
 * Image:PaulSykes.jpg
 * Image:Sheriffe.jpg
 * Image:ChadRandall.jpg
 * Image:HenryPaul.jpg
 * Image:DannyOrr.jpg
 * Image:McLinden.jpg
 * Image:Mbu.jpg
 * Image:LeeHopkins.jpg
 * Image:Heckenberg.jpg
 * Image:Grayshon.jpg
 * Image:Gafa.jpg
 * Image:Clubb.jpg
 * Image:McCarthyScarsbroook.jpg
 * Image:Melling.jpg

Classification of admins
Hi Avraham. Please consider adding your admin username to the growing list at Classification of admins. Best! -- Jreferee    t / c  23:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Jewish politicians, etc.
Hello Avraham and Eliyak,

I am contacting both of you for two reasons: First, to bring to your attention the change I made to Category:Jewish politicians, and second to ask for your assistance in proceeding with the next step.

In scoping out my further response to the CFD discussion that is under way for Category:Jewish politicians (and Category:Jewish American politicians), I immediately saw that Category:Israeli politicians was shown as a sub-cat. As you both understand, that is almost right, but not quite. Since both of you were recently involved in dealing with this issue, I thought you would like to know what I've done. My interim solution was to remove Category:Israeli politicians as a sub-cat, but also to post a prominent cross-link at the top of the page.

So now the question is, how best to finish the job? At this point, every Israeli politician needs to be placed in his/her appropriate category, either Category:Jewish Israeli politicians or Category:Arab Israeli politicians. (I don't think anybody falls outside of those two groups.) Arab Israeli politicians are few enough that I can take care of them myself, but I could really use some help with the Jewish Israeli politicians. Unless this task can be assigned to a bot, they will all need to be done manually.

Please respond on my talk page so our discussion proceeds in one place. Thank you! Regards, Cgingold 21:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello again, Avraham. I hope you will find time to share your thoughts on this issue. Eliyak has already responded, and I have given a reply, but I am holding off on creating Category:Jewish Israeli politicians as I would like to hear from you before proceeding. Cgingold 02:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have responded to you reply, please have a look. Cgingold 18:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Froyen
The person behind the CV requested that his pesonal information be removed from Wikipedia. I have done so. Thank you. -- Avi 18:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I could not get you. --Bhadani (talk) 10:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You had a person's CV posted in your talk archive (#25). That person contacted OTRS and requested that his information be removed. I deleted it off of your archive, and left you a note as to why I made changes to your talk archives. -- Avi (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine. Thanks. --Bhadani (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Anna Slotky
Shalom ubracha! I am curious to know why you believe the article Anna Slotky should be deleted? She is a notable actress and had many leading roles in many famous movies and TV shows. Sincerely, Bstone (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Instead of nominating the article for deletion, perhaps tag it for proper copy editing? Bstone (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Isarig
Regarding the topic ban, do the articles Canadian Islamic Congress and Basic Laws of Israel fall under its scope? I have asked Isarig myself on his talk page (his answer is here) after seeing one of the edits in my watchlist. Your thoughts?  T i a m u t  23:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Comfort
Hi,

I never said anything about being "uncomfortable", as you accuse me of being here. You are only imagining this. I have brought up a possible violation of WP:BLP, and I expect your response on the talk page before you restore the contentious unsourced info.

Bless sins (talk) 04:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Spinka
Can you please take a look at this it's talk page, and this. Thank you--Shmaltz (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

RS or not
Can we please get your input here Talk:Naftali_Tzvi_Weisz? Thank you.--Shmaltz (talk) 05:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Protect?
Did you intend to protect Barbara Schwarz when you created it? Picaroon (t) 15:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

RE:Hamas
I don't believe Jerusalem and Hamas should be compared; Jerusalem was ruled by the Arabs of Palestine for centuries and till today there are hundreds of thousands of Palestinians living there. It is a claimed capital by the PNA and the international community does recognize Israel's annexation of Jerusalem's eastern portion. Hamas on the other hand is a political party and militant group that could be compared to the Likud or the IDF. Then should WikiProject Palestine add Likud, Kadima and the IDF and WikiProject Israel add Fatah, the Palestinian People's Party and the Preventive Security Service to their Project? --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I referred to Hamas as both a political party and a militant group. Anyhow, as far this entire discussion goes, I really apologize. Now that I think of it, its actually pretty ridiculous to have removed a project tag from any article that has a major relation to the Project's main topic - especially without any consensus from fellow Project members. Hope theres no tension between us, cheers and have a happy New Year! --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course, so I guess in that case have a happy Gregorian New Years! --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wright93
I would advise you NOT to edit my homepage! --J.Wright (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

M.K. Perker
I have been away for a few days, please can you fill me in to what happened with Kutlukhan Perker?, I am well aware now that it should be M.K. Perker, but I got "Kutlukhan Perker" from this website, and assumed that since the amount of people that I have met who have names made up of 2 letters in a initial format is currently 0 that his real name is most likely Kutlukhan Perker. To sum up, apart from the title was there anything fundamentally wrong with the article?-- Kerotan Leave Me a Message  Have  a nice day :) 22:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Userpage
I noted that you were very active in getting the Hezbollah userbox banned. What do you about this user page (see fifth quote, 'show me just what...')?Bless sins (talk) 08:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Responded on editor's talk page. -- Avi (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Nicholas Winset AFD
Question, (And I honestly mean this as a question. I'm not trying to challenge anything, just interested in becoming more informed with this sort of issue.)  I was under the impression that if it was a foundation issue, those dealling in that area could take action without the need for consensus on AFD. Or is it that the complaints are of note, but not to the level that require that form of official action. (I originally was going to reply on the afd thread, but decided it might be cluttering it with something that doesn't belong there. Hope that's ok.)--Cube lurker (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning
do not close Afd's which aren't yours. once i have seconded a nomination it is no more yours to close before one week. thanks--יודל (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes i did so before u closed it--יודל (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See yudel's talk page. -- Avi (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stay on issue here, on my talk page there is non re this issue. U closed a AFD after i seconded it and u even tried to say that u may because u r an admin, this is wrong and u cannot do it. since u use a power against others who don't have it while u are involved in the difference of opinion with that user--יודל (talk) 13:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See yudel's talk page. -- Avi (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is nothing there re this issue, just see that Avi tries to influence his opinion on wikipedia by brandishing his Admin tools this is wrong.--יודל (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Avi has followed policy. Stop harassing him. Seraphim  Whipp 13:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No he has not if 2 people nominate an article for deletion one cannot say its only my nomination. both have to retract it. and i didn't--יודל (talk) 13:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

See yudel's talk page -- Avi (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would he tell u this million times? it comes to show the real issue here that he wants u to ignore this talk page, i would like somebody to look here and tell me if i am wrong.--יודל (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

See yudel's talk page. -- Avi (talk) 14:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no problem answering on my talk my page. but the issue should also be on your talk page since this isnt the first time we have this issue with u.--יודל (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

speedy delete?
Hi, here I would consider a snowball rule just for the mercy of the user, who is apparently stressed and sparing him further comments and deletion requests may be reasonable (this is also a reason why I don't vote). Pundit | utter 19:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * and thanks for the nice followup :) Pundit | utter  15:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:2001 ed The International Jew by Henry Ford.jpg
Please see WP:NFURG. A non-free image requires a separate rationale for each article in which it is used, as the purpose of each use is different. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 23:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Potentially disruptive edits
Sorry, I don't see how these user boxes fall under those policies. I thought all userbox templates were deleted anyway as part of the German Userbox solution. If not, I'll just file at DRV. -- Kendrick7talk 03:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm confused whether DRV can help or not here, so I've asked for more feedback at the AN/I discussion. I don't think we can ban user space support for political parties, and you should know better. -- Kendrick7talk 04:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You can fool some of the people some of the time, but, you might recall, Hezbollah disarmed after the that little spat with Israel a few summers back. Hence that lack of Israel still bombing them. I've kinda been following the history of the Israel-Lebanon conflict, ya know. -- Kendrick7talk 04:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- I really haven't been paying attention I guess. I'll have to update the article tomorrow. -- Kendrick7talk 05:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Took me a little longer than I had planned, but added your source now. As long as I don't open the paper tomorrow and read Olmert said he had been blissfully unaware of the situation, but said he had the IDF launch the attack after reading about Hezbollah's rearming in Wikipedia. But hey, a "This user started WWIII" userbox would be kinda unique! -- Kendrick7talk 00:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Strangest thing -- I meet a guy tonight on the Red line and he chats me up (out of towner, wife at one of Boston's cancer clinics, he says) and out of the blue tells me he's one of the survivors of the Beirut barracks bombing. I got to my stop before I could inquire any further. Weird huh? -- Kendrick7talk 05:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Being offended
I wasn't offended by you, but rather Bless Sins opinion. Perhaps a momentary lapse, as the feeling has now passed, but for a minute there I was certain I could perhaps walk around forever and for always being offended by all sorts of other peoples opinions and beliefs. Is it worth it? -- Kendrick7talk 08:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Your "note"
Do not place templates on my talk page. You're adding multiple tags to a page that already has a tag on it, and it's disfiguring. You're trying to add citation templates in violation of WP:CITE, because there has been an objection. The article is about to undergo a copyedit to shorten it by the sounds of several people on talk, and therefore this is not a good time to muck around with the citations. And please keep this on article talk only. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 16:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Responded on user's talk page (check the history as responses were removed). -- Avi (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Barbara Schwarz
After seeing this, I deleted this page and protected it from creation because we haven't used templates for salting for over a year now, and I thought you had not realized it is now possible to protect pages directly from creation. Afterward, I saw in the log that you had previously protected it from creation, and then changed that to a protected blank page with no explanation; is there any particular reason this page should exist? —Random832 16:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I've already done this; I just thought I should check with you since you were the one who originally protected it. Having it as a red link is probably better for BLP since then it won't show up at all in search engines. —Random832 16:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The protect tab now works for nonexistent pages - You actually did it once, according to the log, maybe you didn't know you did it (or maybe you didn't know it worked, as until today Mediawiki:titleprotectedwarning was pretty weak). —Random832 17:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Userbox
Sorry, you are having to face these "supports violent aggression" userbox users alone. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Question
I changed my vote from oppose to neutral in an RfA. Should I move my vote (and ensuing thread) to the neutral section of the page? (I'll also state explicitly that I've changed it, which I forgot to do.) Thanks --Coppertwig (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry -- I don't usually ask this many questions. But here's another one: On the page The Underland Chronicles about a fiction book, there are some prophecies (like longish poems) that I'm pretty sure need to be deleted as copyright violations. But I'm not sure exactly how much to delete. Can very short poems be kept? What about the translations/interpretations of some of the prophecies? Maybe I should just be bold and delete stuff but I thought I'd ask someone for advice first. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind: I was bold and deleted most of the presumably copyrighted material, leaving a few lines which I think are OK per "fair use". --Coppertwig (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

NAS citations
Hey Avi, are you converting all the cites? &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

re: Canberra guy
Thanks for blocking that guy. Do you think the message on my user page is feeding the trolls, should I take it down? &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 07:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a real good job you did! Defending, truth justice, and a pillar of Wiki establishment. Tov Meod, a Wiki star for you!Adon Emett (talk) 11:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Avraham
Why have you blocked user 124.191.88.235? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adon Emett (talk • contribs) 06:59, January 11, 2008

OTRS ticket on Randi
Why did you add an OTRS ticket note on the top of Talk:James Randi? It pertains to a vandalism attempt that lasted six minutes, and in the context of the individual, was about as believable as "James Randi is a poop master." Having it there without context confused me, and it feels like a vicious slur in itself by implying that the claim is serious enough it had to be defended against.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of user box
I appreciate that you were offended by me having the userbox supporting against Israeli aggression but you should have requested for me to remove it and I would have kindly done so. I do not support the killing of innocent people including both the Israelis and Palestinans who are murdered in there hundreds every year. My point of having that user box was that armed conflict is not that way forward and the Palestinians and Lebanese are helpless and will incidently become aggressive in retaliation to the agression of the Israeli army who kills countless of INNOCENT Palestinans yet their lives dont seem to have any meaning to the Israelis. I wuld like to apologise if the user box offended you and I expect you to do the same for other userboxes which are offending. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aisha uk (talk • contribs) 19:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Idea for Talmud articles
Hi Avraham: I am reposting the following request from User on my user talk page for wider notification:


 * I was thinking of trying to stimulate development of a series of articles on Gemara concepts and doctrines, maybe to help children or newcomers to Gemara with explanations of some fundamental concepts that recur throughout the Gemara. Some examples might be articles on Yiush, Chazakah, Ta'aninun (as in "Ta'aninun L'Yoresh"), Eidim Zomemin (forgive my awful transliterations), Migu, etc., etc. Maybe we could even create a category or subcategory for it. I created Breira in this vein. As I don't have the experience or expertise in Wikipedia to know what to do to best develop this idea, I figured I'd come to you for your opinions on: (1) whether it's a good idea; and (2) How to best go about implementing it. Thanks Sh76us (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized discussion at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 05:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ed O'Loughlin
I have followed your suggestions. (I hope that you can justify this to Crotalus). Thank you for your advice and I hope that you will keep an eye on how the "antelope" responds, but most importantly I'D like you to comment on how you see the content of the article. You have a lot of experience and no doubt can understand the predicament. Adon Emett (talk) 07:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for giving this article your attention. Just one query. Reference #7 - the entire report is now available only on HonestReporting.com website. While the report was NOT produced by HonestReporting or any affiliates it is accessible to readers here. Possibly the site hosts the report because its conclusions are in accordance with HR.com's views, but this is coincidental. http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/reports/pdf/The_Age_Newspap_version2.pdf. Adon Emett (talk) 08:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Avi. ("Avi" is OK, right? I'm fine with "the antelope", though nobody asked.)
 * The Ed O'Loughlin article we have now appears to be a slightly cleaned-up version of a revision which was deleted via AfD. I'm not sure if Criteria for speedy deletion "Recreation of deleted material ... provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted" applies, but I don't want to slap on the deletion tag myself, as there are obviously strong feelings here. Could you take a look at the deleted revisions and the AfD discussion, and tell me what you think? &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 01:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Not having the deleted article on hand, I can't say exactly how close the article is to the deleted version. It does seem to attribute its claims more honestly, however, it wasn't deleted for not attributing its claims. With the exception of Mr. Emett, all participants in the discussion, including the one other "Keep" !voter, agreed that the article suffered from WP:COATRACK problems, ie, the criticisms were not necessarily relevant to the subject's notability, and they tended to overwhelm the article. I'm not sure the apparent lack of online or print sources defending O'Loughlin is reason enough to assume that the criticisms matter much to his biography. Nor am I sure that he really needs a biography here in the first place; aside from his profile page at the newspaper, the only sources are a pargraph & two sentences in a JCPA piece, and a Jerusalem Post op-ed rebuttal to an O'Loughlin report. That's really scraping the edge of WP:NOTE guidelines as far as I'm concerned.
 * Anyway, I'm not screaming for the article to be deleted. Its present form may be rather unbalanced, but at least the facts are stated as facts, and the opinions are stated as opinions. (Except one thing which I'll have fixed by the time you read this.) &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 02:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

124.191.88.235's block
Hi. You blocked 124.191.88.235 on 10 January for two weeks. I noticed this subsequent edit, the new editor making it and the signature he used -- this looks like he is trying to evade your block. -- A. B. (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me just say, I'm fine with Mr. Emett getting a fresh start. He's registered under his real name, he seems to be reasonably co-operative so far. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 05:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Gee thanks, Eleland. And are you co-operative? Adon Emett (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Beginning of Ed O'Loughlin's post

Dear whoever you all are

My name is Ed O'Loughlin - this is my real name, I stress - and I am the subject of this article.

The article as it has appeared in its various manifestations in recent months is a starkly one-sided attack on my personal and professional character which is based entirely on highly partisan sources and falsehoods. The moving forces behind it are anonymous people who do not have the integrity to reveal their identities or interests, and whose malicious intent is quite clear from their contributions to the discussion pages and their vandalisation of posts expressing differing views.

I note that the article has already been deleted once on precisely these grounds, and I am puzzled as to why it has now been re-instated. If it were published in the "old media" - which is to say, by people who have to publicly stand over and justify what they say and suffer the potentially severe personal consequences, such as loss of livelihood - it would clearly be actionable.

Please note that my work has been repeatedly critiqued in the public domain in Australia for the past five years and in that time not one factual error or instance of bias has been substantiated. Please also note that every newspaper reporter covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has to stand up to a level of vexatious attack from interest groups and ethnic partisans unknown in any other posting. Nevertheless, all the complaints against me to our internal ombudsmen and to the Australian Press Council have been dismissed as entirely without merit, including one (Press Council number 1305, December 2005) which went to full arbitration. My employers, whose commitment to truth in journalism comes second to no media organisation in Australia or indeed the world, has seen fit to extend my contract here from the original two years to five years and counting.

I am, overall, an admirer of the Wikipedia project but I am disturbed to see how easily it can be manipulated by those hell-bent on imposing their personal beliefs, without regard to balance or empirical truth. I recently watched an episode of the Colbert Report in which the presenter demonstrated the pitfalls of what he terms "wikiality" by editing the page on African elephants to assert that their numbers are exploding. I now understand what he meant.

I am requesting that this article be deleted. If anybody wants to write about me in future I would expect them to at least have the courtesy and guts to put their real name to their writing, as do I. If the article is not deleted I expect this letter be prominently displayed both on the front page and on the discussion page, and that the letter be protected from the vandalism which has been such a marked feature of this supposed debate.

Yours, Ed O'Loughlin, Middle East Correspondent, Sydney Morning Herald, The Age

PS contrary to what he or she is allowing this community to believe (see extract from the administrator Avraham's talk page below), “Adon Emett” is not using his or her real name. Unless, that is, the contributor in question really is the Hebrew “Lord of Truth”.

From administrator's talk page:

124.191.88.235' block Hi. You blocked 124.191.88.235 on 10 January for two weeks. I noticed this subsequent edit, the new editor making it and the signature he used -- this looks like he is trying to evade your block. --A. B. (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Let me just say, I'm fine with Mr. Emett getting a fresh start. He's registered under his real name, he seems to be reasonably co-operative so far.  05:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Gee thanks, Eleland. And are you co-operative? Adon Emett (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

end of Ed O'Loughlin's post

Avi O'Loughlin
It is pretty clear what's happening. Isn't it? You are a clever actuary. Already Eleland and AB are making noises about deleting the article or subverting its point. You've put quite some energy into making it a good article. Shall we calculate the probability that the article will be flicked or stripped in the next 24 hours? -	If that's the modus operandi of some people around Wiki, then isn't the project being compromised? Threats of blocking people that disagree with them vigourously, overt threats, implied threats? Why? Why Avi? Adon Emett (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

In regard of the above from Eleland. (1) The Coatrack claim is not sustained. There were a significant number of "keep" votes that were incorrectly disallowed by the false label of "sockpupets" that did not hold the article to be a Coatrack. The whole "consensus" was a sham.

(2) Ed O'Loughlin easily qualifies on Wikipedia notablity criteria. Some may attempt to debunk the references but those mentioned in the article at present are only a sample of the available data. Perhaps softer, they all summate to make a compelling case that O'Loughlin is highly noteworthy. Adon Emett (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is it rated "start" class? Had a higher rating before. Anyway, seems completed to me.Adon Emett (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ed O'Loughlin
An article that you have been involved in editing, Ed O'Loughlin, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Ed O'Loughlin 2nd attempt. Thank you. A. B. (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Suspected sock puppets/Avraham (2nd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. I apologise for not assuming good faith but I find the edits of the new users suspicious for very first time edits. Matilda talk 05:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Avraham
What I am seeing here makes me despair about the Wikipedia project (which offers so much potential).

I personally object to:

(1) The need for deletion threat, after clear,concise explanations in the discussion page

(2) The introduction of the deletion proposal as "second attmpt" when the article was completely revised and reconfigured

(3) The false accusations of sock puppets - brought against me when I know what I have written and what I have not - I am not C1818. (by the way I have my own suppositions about the opposition sockpuppertry - which I would have to discuss with you privately).

(4) The new header on the deletion page which now states that it is not a "vote" when before (when it suited them) was a sham vote anyway.

(5) It seems to me that the processes of Wikipedia we are witnessing are extremely arbitrary, suspect and opaque

(6) Also, who are these Crotalus, Matilda, Orangehead, Mongoose, etc who had nothing to say earlier and are suddenly so vociferous in their views?

Irrespective of all this tripe, I just want to say how impressed I am with your clarity of mind and your steadfastness in the face of pseudo- arguments and intimidation. Thank you.Adon Emett (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

From Matilda

 * Just to clarify who I am and why I have entered into the debate. As an Australian editor I monitor (nften but not always) Australian related deletion debates and decided to join in.  I find the addition of commetns by new editors, properly formatted and signed disconcerting - allow for one but two suddenly becomes very suspicious.  I feel very very bad about accusing User:Avraham of being a puppet master, however, I believe firmly there is a puppetmaster and it is linked to supporting keeping the article.  If somebody wishes to nominated an alternate puppetmaster, that is OK with me.  I nominated Avraham because the new editors supported his views and it seemed the most logical place to start.  The last deletion debate seemed also to be clouded with such disappointing accusations.--Matilda talk 06:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that I had already explained why I have nominated you as the puppetmaster. Checkuser is not allowed. requests will not be accepted for debates not completed.  I have no idea of the ISPs for the new accounts.  There is no suggestion that they are SAustralian - not even their names indicate this.  The new accounts supported your views, emphatically given in the debate.  Hence I have linked them to your account.  No other account stood out to me at the time I opened the case as a candidadate.  You will notice on the commetns I have nominated another candidate.  I believe that candidate is an Australian editor and you have blocked hi IP address in the past.  I will not pursue that alternate accusation without a checkuser and by the rules I apparently cannot request one.--Matilda talk 19:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have withdrawn my case for a suspected sock puppet request. I fully accept that you are not the puppet master.  Moreover I have no alternative puppet master to nominate.  Requests for checkuser/Case/Adon Emett raised by another editor was inconclusive.  I am sorry for any distress my raising the case for you being a suspected puppet master may have caused you.  I appreciate you are editing in good faith and that you are advocating the keeping of the article on O'Loughlin in good faith.--Matilda talk 21:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your gracious acceptance of my apology. Regards --Matilda talk 21:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * At the AfD you wrote Crotalus horridus, Matilda, Major, among others believe that this person is not notable. I think that they are forgetting WP:BIO#Basic criteria, but that is for other participants and the closing admin to decide. I certainly am not forgetting the basic criteria, I just don't think he meets it - depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability - I don't see the depth of coverage as substantial and although there are multiple sources I don't see them as very independent of each other (ie linked by the same bias and perhaps referncing each other if not closely aligned) and I don't see their coverage of him as very substantial either - I think his critics would rate him as a pest and unreliable but not significant, almost beneath contempt perhaps - they aren't devoting a lot of energy or space to him. I fully appreciate that you do think he meets the basic criteria - matter of opinion and I agree let the closing admin decide.  Note Australians are very good at cutting down Tall Poppies and I am normally an inclusionist not a deletionist. Regards --Matilda talk 22:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Avraham
Post I made to a fellow who wrote to me:

Thanks for your post. I appreciate that there are concerned individuals at Wikipedia.

I despair at the treatment, accusations, and what seem to be arbitrary procedures at Wikipedia.

I have approached this issue with a pure heart.

I have applied as clear a logical approach as I could summon, despite often being quite upset at the response that unfolded.

On the advice of Avraham Admin Editor, I re-submitted the "Ed O'Loughlin" article. It was a topic I felt that I knew something of. It is true that I have not been the progenitor of multiple articles, after all it is hard to imagine that a single individual could be highly knowledgable and have sufficient expertise on multiple diverse topics. Instead this was held against me. No matter.

I now wish that I had not re-submitted the article or perhaps left it all to Avraham.

I've written chapters in books, I've written articles, I understand the process of being edited. But my experience here has been disappointing to say the least. Persons clearly unfamiliar with the material come barreling in at an advanced stage of discussion and make categorical remarks and judgements that show clearly they are not familiar with the issues, that they have not read the discussion, that they themselves have a partisan view. It's pitiful. I thought I could make a contribution about bias and advocacy in journalism with a specific well-documented case in point. Evidently not.

In the end the article was not even written by me. It was written by Avraham. He saw the facts, he vetted the references, he applied the Wikipedia rules.

Apart from this, he is clearly a brilliant man. But, he was run roughshod over by people not even aware of their own biases. His comments were treated with contempt. I single out especially Crotalus, who as a Wikipedia administrator, functioned in the most glib, offhand, disrespectful and anti-intellectual manner. He spent his time ferreting around looking for sockpuppets, and the depth of his arguments extended to one word "Coatrack", well and truly addressed by Avraham long before.

It is also true that this particular topic has been raised, justifiably, in outside fora. Blogs, discussion groups, media monitoring groups, newspapers, etc, etc. It is not within my control to instruct intelligent, motivated, persons whether or not to contribute to the discussion, and what to say. I am sure there are interested, knowledgable people among them.

I am sure that some have made comments in Wikipedia. I have been told directly and indirectly that some have. Why not? They probably know more about the issues than some of the "house" editors. I ask Wikipedia why they should be labelled "sockpuppets"?

The first deletion discussion was nothing more than a setup. It was engineered, it was arbitrary. Antagonists to Crotalus's view were relegated to a secondary page, their views discounted and they were wrongly labelled as sockpuppets. This is extraordinarily poor, unprofessional, indecent and borders on censorship.

Initially I opted to contribute anonymously (not as Adon Emett) I used different computers at different places where I happened to be to make comments on the article as it was in imminent danger of deletion. I hope this does not make me a sock puppet.

I am sure you are aware of much outside criticism of Wikipedia's methods. Perhaps there is something in it?

I think I was foolish to believe that anything I said could make a difference to Wikipedia.

All the best

Adon Emett (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth ....
Avi, we may not agree on everything, but I'd bet money you're not a puppetmaster. I've added my opinion -- for whatever it's worth -- to the appropriate discussion page. I hope this whole mess can be cleared up shortly, you're exonerated, and that you and Matilda can make peace. Best of luck, Majoreditor (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Shalom.
Can you email me ? --Zeq (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Contact
Anonymous e-mail? How is that possible on this site?

Let O'Loughlin really speak for himself: another balanced & impartial example in today's Age NEWS section. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/01/18/1200620211329.html Week in, week out. Ho Hum.

Thanks again. Adon Emett (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)