User talk:Avraham/Archive 19

Hi. You know the range block you performed a while back (79.211.96.0 ranges)? Well it's doing no good now...they seem to have found a way around it. If you lift it, I'll be happy to keep reverting them daily. Also, thanks for making me a rollbacker :). Seraphim  Whipp 14:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Megalogo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Megalogo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Avi
You did ask that I contact you. How do I do this please? Adon Emett (talk) 11:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I responded on my talk page to your message
Can you take a look? Thanks! Qwertyqazqaz1 (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Avi, I left another message on my talk page. Thanks again Qwertyqazqaz1 (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Dropped another note on my talk. Qwertyqazqaz1 (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Avi, can you restore my 15:37 edit as this is sourced using only the sources information? It was automatically reverted since I had to establish a new wiki account and it doesn't allow new users to reference blogspot addresses. Thanks for your help. Qwertyqazqaz1 (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SOA Logo.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:SOA Logo.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

SOA Logo
No problem. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Adon Emett
The little Irishman from oz e-mailed you, but so far no response. Did the e-mail get there? Or did it get intercepted by an Eleland or a Crotalus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adon Emett (talk • contribs) 08:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Regan
Hi Avi, in response to your edits of the Andrew Regan page, I would like for us to discuss the inclusion of the Guardian (which can be found here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2003/aug/11/2) citation as I have posted previously. The current citation which is used on the page ^ Tomlinson, Heather (August 10, 2003). The Thing Is: Andrew Regan. Business News. The Independent. Retrieved on 2008-01-11, is in fact older than the Guardian article I feel better reflects the completion of the CWS case. I do feel that by including the most up to date references we can keep the page neutral, up to date and accurate which is the basis of Wikipedia. I strongly believe that with the correct wording and references we can offer the users of Wikipedia a version of events where the full version of events in this instance is displayed. Many thanks, Fiona. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fionamcgowan (talk • contribs) 11:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Avi, thanks for the insights. I believe we both follow the code of Wikipedia very closely, and because if this I am of the opinion that the Andrew Regan page shows and incorrect weighting to section in which the CWS case is outlined. I am hoping to make this page more balanced by slight reword and have included all citations currently used in the paragraph. I thought to avoid us both unnecessary edits to the page, we could discuss these prior to my posting. Here is the wording I think is more suited to the page, given Andrews acquittal 5 years ago:

In 1997 Regan led an attempt to gain control of the CWS in a £1.2 billion take-over bid but the bid was rejected. An investigation started by CWS during the takeover revealed apparent unethical behavior of two senior CWS executives and they were dismissed. An investigation by the Serious Fraud Office[1] led, in 2001, to the trial of the two CWS executives who were convicted and imprisoned for corruptly accepting £1 million each in 1995 from an intermediary acting for Hobson. A solicitor acting for Hobson was acquitted of aiding and abetting corruption. In 2003, in connected proceedings, Regan was acquitted of one count of theft, from a subsidiary of Hobson, alleged to have occurred in 1995 and was awarded his defence costs reported to be £2 million.[2] [1] Keep reference to SFO site - Serious Fraud Office (August 6, 2003). "Andrew Regan acquitted of theft of £2.4 million". Press release. Retrieved on 2008-01-08. [2] Use correct figure with citation from the Independent

I am a strong believer (as I know you are) that biography pages must be fair to the individual and offer the public a neutral and accurate account of events. It is because of this I have drafted this revised paragraph and look forward to your response prior to my editing of the page. Thanks, Fi. Fionamcgowan (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Avi, thanks for getting back to me. I'm glad we are both looking at the page and knowing that the CWS paragraph on Andrews page has been edited many times, I feel it is important to get it right once and for all. I'm sure you'll agree, the current wording is not grammatically correct for one ("investigation by the was opened" and "a 2001 trial in which of Regan") and two, I still believe too much weighting has been placed on other 'unnamed' people in this paragraph i.e. the 2 CWS executives (who are unnamed) and the solicitor (also unnamed). I realise there has been communications in the past which I am not privy to, but I am sure you'll agree that we could, with a few simple reworks bring this paragraph and Andrews Wikipedia page squarely in line with the Wikipedia policy on the biographies of living persons as I still feel this is has not been achieved. Here is my rework which I feel will keep Wikipedia, myself and Andrew Regan's team happy. In 1997 Regan led an attempt to gain control of the CWS in a £1.2 billion take-over bid but the bid was rejected. As part of its bid defence CWS suggested that Regan had acted inappropriately and this led to him being accused of theft and the opening of an official investigation by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO). At his trial in 2003 Regan was acquitted and was awarded his defence costs reported to be £2 million.[2]"

Thanks Avi. As always, please shoot me a reply and we can discuss. I am enjoying the openness in which we are communicating and would like to see us continuing to do. Thanks, Fi Fionamcgowan (talk) 12:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Avi, thanks for getting back to me. I still feel even with the way the page is written now that there is a strong tabloid feel to the entire CWS paragraph. I feel there is too much information regarding other peoples involvement in the case and to be honest, too much detail of the case itself. Given this took place over 5 years ago and the fact Andrew Regan was acquitted of any wrong doings I firmly believe this still requires rewriting and I am more than happy to do this off my own back. As I'm sure you're aware of, the Wikipedia guidelines around biographies of living persons states that a bio "should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid" And I believe as we stand today, this paragraph on this page does not do this. I realise there has been monitoring of this page in the past both by Wikipedia and Andrew Regan's team and I am sure you'll agree the best way to solve this issue is by adhering to Wikipedia policy and making the CWS paragraph on this page proportional, correct and about Andrew Regan's acquittal, of which I am happy to write. Thanks, Fi Fionamcgowan (talk) 10:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Avi, I've not had a response from you in regard to my post dated 6th Feb. Please confirm from a Wikipedia perspective when I will able to go a head and edit the CWS text on Andrew Regans biography of a living person page to bring it into accordance with Wikipedia law. Many thanks, Fi. Fionamcgowan (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Avi, oh no problems, I can see you're flat out!

Here is the existing first line of the CWS paragraph: In 1997 Regan led an attempt, to gain control of the CWS in a £1.2 billion take-over bid which was rejected. In the early months of 1997, CWS performed an internal investigation into the activities of two senior CWS executives and their dealings with Regan.[3] These executives were subsequently dismissed by CWS.[3] Here is my rework first paragraph taking into consideration all Wikipedia rules and laws by outlining Andrew and only Andrews involvement in the case: In 1997 Regan led an attempt to gain control of the CWS in a £1.2 billion take-over bid but the bid was rejected.

Here is the 2nd paragraph as it stands: In April of 1997, an official investigation by the was opened by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) into the 1994 contract and the 1995 extension, accusing Regan of the theft of £2.4 million from Hobson Plc subsidiary FE Barber Ltd in order to bribe the two CWS executives.[3] This investigation led to a 2001 trial in which of Regan was charged with theft, the two CWS executives were charged with corruptly accepting £1 million each, and a Hobson Plc solicitor was charged with aiding and abetting corruption.[3] The CWS executives were convicted and sentenced to 42 months” imprisonment and were ordered to pay £50,000 costs to the SFO; the solicitor was acquitted. The jury failed to arrive at a verdict on Regan, and a retrial was ordered by HHJ David Radford.[3] Regan was acquitted at his retrial, and was awarded defence costs which could be as much as £2m.[4]

Again here is my rework, which is factual, only relating to Andrew Regan and demonstrating the initial investigation, first trail and second trail. Again, all of which is factual: As part of its bid defence, CWS suggested that Regan had acted inappropriately and this led to him being accused of the theft of £2.4 million in order to bribe two CWS executives. In April of 1997, an official investigation by the was opened by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and a trial ordered. With no verdict being reached in the 2001 trial, a retrial was ordered and in 2003 Regan was acquitted and was awarded his defence costs reported to be £2 million.[2] All references and internal Wiki links will remain as they stand. Thanks Avi. Cheers, Fi. Fionamcgowan (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Avi for your help. Fionamcgowan (talk) 10:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Avi, Hope you're well. Thanks for your feedback and for your help with the CWS paragraph on Andrew Regan's page. Fionamcgowan (talk) 10:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yisroel Dovid Weiss
What personal analysis? Please explain what on earth you mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.254.200 (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Your note
I'm not changing anything. I'm trying to stop these changes. There's a big difference.

This is disappointing behavior. You know that you're just pissed off because you were prevented from adding templates to NAS. So now you turn up at WP:CITE, a page you've never paid any attention to before, to cause trouble. It's not a good thing.

Please discuss this on the talk page so that everything's in one place. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 01:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Responded on user's talk page. -- Avi (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa
My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 04:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

MAF
I don't know what you are talking about. Please stop littering my talk page with gibberish. Thank you,.67.81.157.233 (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:CITE
Thanks for your input into WP:CITE, additional insight is always welcome - but you really need to refrain from edit warring, and instead discuss your proposed changes on the talk page. Dreadstar †  22:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the talk page recently? My edits are all over it . I notice that you have not made the same comment to User:Slim Virgin whose edits to WP:CITE are even more frequent than mine and whose explanations have come up short. Can you please explain the disparity? Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You are reverting to keep your disputed proposed changes to a Wikipedia Guideline in place without consensus, thus my comment and recommendations to you. The main point is for you to find consensus and not continue attempting to get your version into place via edit warring.  Dreadstar  †  01:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the edits were to different sections and I am discussing it on the talk page. I understand and appreciate your zeal to protect the wiki, and would appreciate it even more if you were to apply your notices to all involved parties, as there is currently a lack of consensus on this issue. Regardless, I commend your enthusiasm and look forward to continuing to working with you. Perhaps I can convince you to read the discussion and weigh in with your opinions? Right now, there are only two to four editors discussing this in detail, and as you saw fit to contact me, it seems that you are following this conversation, so your input would be appreciated. -- Avi (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me be clear, these edits are revert warring and violate WP:3RR: . Dreadstar †  01:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As pointed out to you, 3 and 4 are sequential, and for the purposes of 3rr are considered one. Please review WP:3RR. -- Avi (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to re-read WP:3RR, "The motivation for the three-revert rule is to prevent edit warring. In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive".  Dreadstar  †  01:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(<-)Responded on user talkpage. -- Avi (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Anno Mundi
Avi, thank you for your message. But BC/AD is not, at least in Wikipedia, "Christian distinctive", it is equally valid with the more novel reckoning style. The article you are commenting on began in the older style and was not stable in the style to which some editors had changed it. It had continued to use its original style, including quite recently. Under these circumstances the original style is appropriate.Mamalujo (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Warnings
I have removed your vandalism off my page. If you have nothing to explain, then don't put it back on. I did absolutely NOTHING wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.157.233 (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Daniel575 is back
FYI, Daniel is back. I added a sock puppet tag to his new account Suspected sock puppets/Daniel575 (9th nomination)Yossiea (talk) 03:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice that. I used TW to add the case, and I guess it doesn't check to see if there already is a proven tag. Yossiea (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * User has admitted to being a sockpuppet: Administrators%27_noticeboard

"Jewish Gestapo" and "Rabbi" Abraham Gancwajch?
Hi Avi: Seems that User has just added articles about Jewish Gestapo and a "Rabbi" Abraham Gancwajch who worked with.for the Shomer HaTzair? Is this legit? Sounds very odd and the sources seem POV antisemitic. I redirected Jewish Gestapo to Group 13. See also some of the "funny" discussions at Talk:Tykocin pogrom. IZAK (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Informing past contributors of new TFD for Template:Maintained
As you were a contributor in the last TFD, I am letting you know that Maintained is again up for deletion. Please review the current version of the template and discuss it at the TFD. Thanks! &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2008-01-30 17:48Z

Your message in my talk page
Hi Avi, we are discussing if this is a discussion forum or not. Then in the middle of the discussion you're posting a warning message to my talk page. Can you rather explain why do you think it is a link to a discussion forum ? --Lysytalk 18:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Avi, I guess it's the first time we are meeting on wikipedia. Please to not make any prejudiced assumptions about me or my contributions. I do not appreciate your obvious attack on the article and your WP:WL approach only because its contents does not suit your agenda. Would you nominate the Tykocin pogrom for deletion for the same reason (no reliable sources) as well ? --Lysytalk 18:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

in regards to Abraham Gancwajch
I have responded on my talk page. Jon513 (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Your vandalism
>>Adding unsubstantiated statements about demonstration of semicha is inappropriate

It was substantiated. And you have no right to riddly me page with frivolous warnings. You are warned 67.81.157.233 (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Your Failure
You have failed to explain what I did about MAF. The article said he is not a Rabbi, so I took out his title as Rabbi. Stop harassing me for no reason and littering my page with nonsense. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.157.233 (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

hi, can i help?
hi, i see a lot of tagging and checks and stuff. can i help? --70.109.223.188 (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Problematic new Christian/Jewish template
Hi Avraham: Please see the discussions at Template talk:Books of the Bible concerning the new troubled and troubling Books of the Bible template. Your attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Maurice Princet
Thanks. I worked on it for a while in my User space before I put it in Main space. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 15:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian POV pushing
Recently, a new User created a number of controversial articles and categories that are profoundly POV. Some attention and input, as well as some discussion, would be welcome regarding: Zionist hunter (Articles for deletion/Zionist hunter); Category:The Nakba (deletion discussion); Category:Israeli war crimes (deletion discussion); and his creation of Daniel Machover and contributions to Doron Almog; Sabra and Shatila massacre‎ and Qibya massacre‎. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Jewish history
Hi Avi. Can you explain why the WikiProject Jewish history template is broken, and hopefully fix it. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your editing data!
You may be interested to know that your editing patterns have been used as a sort of baseline in a sock puppet investigation. I hope you don't mind. Cool Hand Luke 05:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Martyn Woolford
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Martyn Woolford. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Alex Rhodes (footballer born 1988)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alex Rhodes (footballer born 1988). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Jason Goodliffe
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jason Goodliffe. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Allah in Judaism
Hi Avi,

I am working on Allah article. I have found some information about the concept of Allah among Christian Arabs. I was trying to also find some information about the concept of Allah among Sephardi Arab Jews. I'd appreciate it if you can help me. I don't know whether there is any difference, and if there is, where I can look at to find some information...

Thank you, --Be happy!! (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Avraham
Hey Avraham. That's a cool name. It's like Abraham but with a V. Anyway, I personally didn't really intend to edit many Wikipedia cites. I just wanted to add a sentence to an article referring to something the New York times and other papers used to talk about. It's on the article about circumcision, which doesn't really make good conversation so I wont bore you. I just want to add my sentence to the world of Wikipedia here. I mean the "Circumcision" article mentions the term HIV and AIDS more than anything else. It doesn't mention herpes and chlamydia once. I'm sure you get what I'm saying. Something is way too prevelant and others are way to lacking. Well, Thanks for the greeting. -Scotty2

Archiving Talk:Palestinian people
Hi Avi. I was wondering if you could archive item 1 through 41 on the talk page of Palestinian people. I don't know how to archive it using the format in place there and I remember you doing it once before. The page is so long, it takes some time to load now. Everything previous to item 42 is dead discussion anyway. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 13:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Avi. You rock.  T i a m u t talk 15:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Gil Student
User Alansohn has deleted the tags you placed on Gil Student despite no changes haven taken place in the 3 weeks or so since you placed the two flags on the article. I pointed this out, but he persisted. You may wish to take a look and decide on appropriate action, if any. Qwertyqazqaz1 (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Advice on Wikipedia policy/guideline change
Would you be available for advice on the subject of Wikipedia policy/guideline change via email?--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 08:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Anytime mate. Rgoodermote  20:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)