User talk:Avraham/Archive 21

Edit summary
Classy :) Pedro :  Chat  14:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

RfB
At this stage I dont expect plain answers, so I have merely noted that my position is basically final - I dont expect a change of position on your part either. Please notify me if you do tackle the body of my concerns. John Vandenberg (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Responded on user's talk page. -- Avi (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

RE:RFA
I was just reading that when my little orange bar lit up! :-). I'm going back there now.... Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  20:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that your RfB is over, I have to say, I'm extremely impressed by you. You have a grasp of things beyond what is considered normal, in fact, I would say you "get this place" better than most. Your technical (read:statistical) grasp of this place blows me away.  I appreciate what you do for this community and only wish you the best.  Glad I was able to squeak in a support, albeit a late one, and I'm looking forward to supporting you again in a future RfB.  Cheers,   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  22:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And while you're at it, if you don't mind, please continue to offer your opinons at RfA (I agree that was a silly (but good faith) reason for opposing an RfB as you seemed to attract). Your contribs are valued there!   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  22:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Your RfB was unsuccessful
I am sorry to inform you that I have closed your RfB as unsuccessful. I hope you will not be too disheartened - an unsuccessful RfB shouldn't be taken as a sign that other users don't appreciate your work as an editor or as an adminsitrator. Should you still be interested in serving the community as a bureaucrat, I suggest you take onboard the comments made by opposers and address them as best you can before making a future request. Best wishes, WjBscribe 22:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your RfB
Hi Avraham, I just wanted to say that I'm sorry your RfB did not pass this time around: I think you'd make a fine bureaucrat, which was why I supported. :) I noticed you haven't received the admins' T-shirt yet, so here's one. Better luck next time, and best wishes. Acalamari 22:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * T-shirt moved to userpage :) -- Avi (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I plan to support next time you run! I hope we can see you again at RfB in a few months time. Acalamari 16:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Avi, I'm sorry that I didn't have a chance to respond on your RFB before the discussion closed. I think the answer to your question, would he have believed you if you said that you had asked not to be canvassed, is yes.  Instead your response on the mailing list indicated that you believed canvassing to be irrelevant, because the article had in fact been damaged.  I am also somewhat incredulous about your response when asked about the nature of the mailing list.  John wasn't asking you to count the number of e-mails you received from Jayjg.  Your statement that we'd have to ask Jayjg to know why he sent it to you is a bit difficult to stomach -- I've never received an e-mail on Wikipedia where I had no idea why I was a recipient.  I believe you when you say that you are your own person, and I hope to be able to support in the future.  Apologies for the confusion on this issue. --JayHenry (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry about the RFB. These things happen I suppose. And extra thanks for the personalised message I got. :) Rudget  (?) 17:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You are welcome, and best of luck. I really think you are a great sysop, and hope to improve to your level. Bearian (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your exceedingly kind note, Avi, it's very much appreciated. I understood the initial hesitance of your opposers, but after seeing you express your opinions coherently and eloquently, I was sure that you were worth supporting. You can be sure that you will receive my support again next time you stand for bureaucrat. :) GlassCobra 18:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear your RFB didn't pass; I hope to support again next time. · AndonicO  Hail!  18:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to see it didn't work out. The only suggestion I can offer is to get more involved with RfA, which albeit is not something I can personally recommend in good conscience... Dorftrottel (troll) 19:16, March 7, 2008


 * I'm very sorry to hear that it didn't pass. Like Doftroffel, RFA work is always good. Best of luck next time, and I plan to support next time. Spencer  T♦C 20:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I opposed because I had concerns that you could not be neutral in contentious issues. However I feel that you have been graceful in accepting the verdict, and I want to wish you the best of luck in your next rfb. Noor Aalam (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In this note, you are continuing to misrepresent what my concern was, minimising the value of my concern, and dodging the questions I asked on your RfB. You are basicly saying that I am a "lone nutter", and you hope that I become less of a nutter by the time you run again. Have you considered the very real possibility that my oppose represents another 100 people who didnt turn up, or know how to put their concerns into words, or are frightened to be clear about why they oppose? I hope that by the time you run again, you have prepared a forthright answer to the concerns raised. John Vandenberg (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry that your RfB didn't pass, best of luck next time. And your thankspam was awesome. :) Just drop me a line if you need anything. Keilana | Parlez ici 22:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Avi, thanks for your message and please run again when you feel ready. I want to ask you to WP:CANVASS me when you do, but since I know you won't, I'll jusy try to keep an eye on what you're up to. Cheers. IronDuke  03:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your personalised thanks note. I have to ditto WJBscribe's advice, good luck and happy editing. I hope to be able to support a second time if you re-run in the future. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the user page note. I am not editing much but will hope to be around to offer support next time around.   Bigglovetalk 17:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind thank you note, Avi, I will still be here to support you next time around. I think you're certainly trustworthy and qualified, and a dedicated contributor to the project. : ) -- M P er el  06:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The Soloveitchik pages
Good to see you have them watched. :) I was looking through your contributions, and I saw your reverts of WikiBrisker. My father was a talmid of Reb Yoshe Ber.

Also, sorry to see your RfB failed. I didn't get a chance to support you this time, but if you do run again, I'll be keeping an eye out.  Enigma  msg! 17:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem
Feel free to mangle my username, I called you Avruch on the mailing list! Relata refero (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oi! I just read your RfB for the first time in a bit, and I think you might have misinterpreted my use of the word "fix". I meant "fix" as in "RfA is broken", not "fix" as in "that match is fixed, Milan's much better than Arsenal." Relata refero (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify, my concern was that 'crats have a straightforward job now, but if we ever change promotion criteria, that might not be true. Given that, I could understand people who wished to be extra careful. I don't know if that's clear, but I made a similar point on the mailing list. Relata refero (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The other Avi
שלום, my friend. Re the account : the account was only used briefly in June, 2004. I've put hatnotes on the user and talk pages suggesting that people may be looking for this account. If you ever change your signature, it may be appropriate to modify the hatnotes. By the way, how do you pronounce "Avi" (אבי) – long or short A sound? It sure is tricky editing text that goes in two directions at once. :-) Regards, --Coppertwig (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Follow up
Thanks for your thoughtful reply on my talk page, Avi. I will say this: that John Vandenberg is one of the highest quality editors I've ever encountered on Wikipedia and I feel saddened that the two of you seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot. Your explanation on my page addressed many of my concerns, and perhaps if John saw it, would address some of his concerns as well. (How confusing is it that we're Jayvdb, Jayjg and JayHenry?) As you say, some people are capable of working on Wikipedia without making enemies with everyone. You seem to have this ability (though John and I may have opposed, I am fairly certain that I speak for both of us in saying you're in no way an enemy!) and perhaps this is because pointing fingers of blame is not your style. Of course, some times people need to be held accountable, but if everyone were always recriminating everyone else, not much work would get done. It's a tightrope that we all must walk, and I can see that you've put thought into that balance. I'm sorry if you and I have gotten off on the wrong foot as well. Hopefully our paths will cross in improving an article some day. Cheers! --JayHenry (talk) 03:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

JayHenry is right to assume that you are certainly no enemy of mine; my concerns on the RfB relate to giving more buttons to you or others close to Jaygj, as concentrated power is a cause of problems. You are right in your message on JayHenry's talk that my vote on your RfB was in part because Jayjg's actions concern me, but only in as much as I don't want such a polarizing figure to have a large and powerful support network, because then his (few?) inappropriate actions are swept under the rug quickly and efficiently, and people who speak out are harassed by this support network. My main concern is that you believe that the email in question was appropriate under wiki policy; if you believe that, then I see a willingness to stretch policy to breaking point in order to protect friends. Sometimes that can be sensible esp. in the short term, but long term it is problematic. My concern about your involvement in this canvassing has only been strengthened by answers that do not tackle my concern head on. I have been using the term "recipient list" rather than "mailing list" in order to ensure that the adhoc nature of this list wasnt used to side-step the query. I also understand the need to use email in order to deal with sensitive issues, but this email was not relating to a sensitive matter, so long winded replies about email communications on sensitive issues are misdirection. It is the blatant canvassing that disturbs me, on the face of it you appear tightly entwined in a "recipient list" that is engaged in efficient content control, and I haven't yet seen you distancing yourself from this canvassing.


 * all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing - oft misattributed to Edmund Burke

Something to think about. John Vandenberg (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Your RFB
Thank you for taking the time to leave me a message on my talk page, despite the fact I opposed you. I look forward to your next RFB and your continued involvement here at Wikipedia as an administrator. --Ozgod (talk) 01:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Contentious Editor
An editor wrote the following on the Semicha Talk Page;

The following sentences in this article are problematic:

"seems to have died out"

"ceased to exist"

"chain from Moses onward was broken"

"it is likely that formal semicha came to an end"

These uncited assumptions are not shared by all historians. These opinions should either be removed or accompanied with the opposing view. CWatchman (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought that sounded like a fair proposale, but Zsero replied:

Yes, they are shared by all authorities. Precisely when it happened can be debated, but that it happened cannot. It's no more debatable than the roundness of the earth. -- Zsero (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Watchman replied in a very nice manner:

Terms such as "seems to" and "it is likely" are obviously unsourced information. The one concrete term "ceased to exist" is just as totally unprovable as the Apostolic Succession and requires the same element of faith to accept as proven. But after all, isn't that what religion is all about? Faith? Who am I to question the Catholic historian who believes he has evidence of an unbroken succession, or an historian who believes he has evidence of an unbroken Smicha? The remaining fact is they believe it and the burden is upon us to disprove it, which we cannot. Mr Zsero I have looked over your talk page and you are a very bright and quick witted individual. I am sure you can discover a reasonable way to state that while most do not believe it continued there are some that do. It is just that simple. I will leave this to your fluent and concise editing skill to make whatever changes are necessary. editing skill to make whatever changes are necessary. CWatchman (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Zsero shot back (you can read the whole discussion on the Talk Page):

Good Grief !....... This is Wikipedia, not Uncyclopedia. Zsero (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Watchman continues to complement zsero here:

The bottom line is this: There are those that believe their is sufficient evidence that Semicha was unbroken and you cannot disprove them anymore then they can conclusively verify it.

I am a bit stymied as to why there seems to be an anger in your tone. I am trying to be as amicable as possible and even said I would leave editing of this article to you. Please try to bit a bit more open minded. You are a very intelligent person and have very much to offer not only this article but Wikipedia as a whole. CWatchman (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Zsero shot back:

This is not a place for lunatic fringe theories. -- Zsero (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Watchman said:

Thank you for your scholarly reply and amicable responses. Have a pleasant life. CWatchman (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Watchman later wrote what seemed to be a afair and reasonable proposal:

Editing Needed This article is parsimonious in content and fails to deliver a neutral point of view. Rather then barging in selfishly editing I would prefer to civilly discuss this matter further and attempt a joint edit text that we can then propose on the basis of our mutual agreement. CWatchman (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Zsero flatly refuses saying:

That's not going to happen, because the position you are trying to promote is complete bollocks. It's not even a notable fringe theory. It doesn't belong in this article. -- Zsero (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Now i enter the arena : Even if it was not a notable fringe theory, if you continue to provoke people to defend it, it will soon become popular just from the exposure. Nothing makes people come out and speak up more then persecution. Natzi's should know that by now. Remmo (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I also found this statement made by another editor Zsero was warring with:

My second attempt was a brief quotation from Rabbi Worch which was reverted with the following comment "(rv nonsense sourced to a vanity press publication from some idiot)" which hurt me very deeply because of my deep reverence for the Rabbi. I next added an apostrophe after "1800's" which was immediately reverted. I provided Zsero information from "Guide to Punctuation", by Larry Trask, University of Suxxex wherein he states "In British usage, we do not use an apostrophe in pluralizing dates. American usage, however, does put an apostrophe here." After which he instructs his British readers not to adopt this American practice unless writing for an American audience. Zsero, however, continued to revert the apostrophe. Now that apostrophe was not important to me but he insulted me in my very first editing experience in Wikipedia and then makes a big deal out of an apostrophe,which angered me. So I kept putting the apostrophe back and he kept reverting it, over and over. Finally I just gave up. I went to another site and he followed me there. So I decided to test him. I made a "no change" edit in the Halaka article. He immediately reverted it although there was nothing to revert and no reason for doing it. This angered me and I confronted him with this. He denied there was a "no change" edit and reversion although it is on record for all to see. RebCoh (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Anothe Editor wrote Zsero:

Zsero - I'm at a loss to understand edits like this, which seem to show a revert of no real value at all and have an inflammatory effect on the matter. Also reverts like this with inflammatory edit summaries, that have lacked discussion. When it's clear a matter is the subject of dispute, then reverting with no discussion may not be best every time. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Another editor wrote:

Hi, I think that that was a really mean thing to do to just remove my template as if it were nobody's business without telling me first about it. It seems to me that you're not listening to me. Please do not brush this off as if it were a little minor comment, because it's not. You should really communicate and behave more respectfully. Cuyler91093 (Contribs) 09:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. I won't stop you from removing whatever you want from the pages. FYI, I got those templates from the French Wikipedia, and I just thought it would be a good idea to share it on the English one, but, should my contributions go unappreciated, then that's fine too. Cuyler91093 (Contribs) 23:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

ANOTHER editor wrote:

If you have information as to my error I can't see how this is constructive to keep going around in circles when I have stated that I will gladly apologize if I can see what the mistake was. I feel you just trying to provoke an argument and I have raised this issue to the adminstration in hopes of a resolution that shows me exactly where I have made my mistake and thus allows me to apologize to the party I mistakenly wronged, something it seems you are hard-pressed to not to allow.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And this is just what I have gathered from his most RECENT edit history.

This man is an inflammatory, obnoxious individual that refuses to reason with any other editors. One last case in point: Just go to his Talk page and read the complaints against him.

All that is being asked is that either uncited ambiguious statements be removed or give the opposing view a small bit of space. Zsero will do neither. It is his way or no way.

Please advise.

Remmo (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Broken Tag Mystery
Zsero has accused me of intentionally breaking a tag. Before my edit the tag was fine. I did the edit and when I went back to the article there were letters in red saying the tag didn't work. I went back into my edit history and sure enough...it was changed during my edit BUT I NEVER TOUCHED THAT TAG! I went back in to fix it but I couldn't. I think I made it worse. This is not the first time this had happened to me. What is going on?

Than you.

Remmo (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Remmo
I'd happily engage him in discussion, but it seems to be impossible. I greatly suspect that he and CWatchman and RebCoh are all the same person. They're all pushing the same far fringe Da-Vinci-Code-like theory that's taken from the writings of some self-published Pentecostal heretic called Curtis Ward, and all they do is dump kilowords.

It is universally agreed that the semicha ended some time around the middle of the first millennium. The precise date, and even the precise century, is a matter of speculation. I can spend time looking for sources for the various hypotheses, but one thing is clear: by the time the Geonim flourished, the semicha was already extinct. These people are trying to deny that, and are willing to sabotage the article in order to make their point. Deleting uncontentious content that's been there for a long time, and then accusing the one who puts it back of vandalism, is not something one can argue rationally with. -- Zsero (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Linking me with those other individuals seems to ring a bit as a conspiracy theory in itself!

The parsing in the article does need to be more precise. This is dodgey ground due to the dearth of extant records and as Jewish history does not recognize the confluence. As I mentioned previously I would like to suggest an off-Wiki meeting of the minds and attempt a joint edit text that we can then propose on the basis of our mutual agreement.

Neither Zsero nor Remmo has done anything drastically wrong. Each believes he/she is correct and will do their utmost to uphold what they believe to be true. Ironically this is a commendable trait. Thank you,

CWatchman (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I teach at a local College and I made the error of discussing the Semicha Wiki debate to my students. It is highly probable this is where these other debaters have come from. The history of the initial debater begins around the time I first began teaching the class the reversional history of unbroken Semicha and it was one of my students that insisted I become a Wiki editor to make my contributions. If my suspicions are correct I owe everyone an apology. Actually, in light of this theory, I am surprised there is not a more influx of debaters then has been heard from. I also speak other places frequently in various places in the U.S. I have also written much. But the timing with the College and the debate history seem more confluent. I will instruct the class to please leave this debate to me. I appreciate everyone's patience and my desire is not to debate and inflame but it is to enlighten and to share. Thank you for understanding.

CWatchman (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW any personal communication with me may be directed to the following email address: CWatchman2@gmail.com

CWatchman (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

RfB comments
Thank you for your kind words - they are extremely flattering coming from someone I respect so highly as an all-round Wikipedian and administrator. I was extremely happy you indicated you plan on having another shot at RfB, and if you remember I'd be happy to be on the end of a casual poke to the fact that you are re-running, should it happen, in the event that my activity is sporadic and as a result I may miss it. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Email, by the way :) Daniel (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for unprotect
There's been a lot of discussion since March 7 when you responded to Bobblehead's RFPP and applied full protection at Barack Obama. While consensus has yet to emerge, the contending viewpoints have been carefully examined, and a proposal was made to return the disputed paragraph to a previously stable state. Would you consider unprotecting the article now so we can see if the edit warring has abated? --HailFire (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * While there has been discussion on the talk page, I haven't seen anything from the participants involved in the edit war(s) that got the page protected that indicates that the edit war will not restart as soon as the protection is lifted... If anything, the comments that I've seen seem to indicate that the edit war is virtually guaranteed to restart as both sides feel The Truth is on their side and the other side is a bunch of POV warriors. However, if the participants pledge to not undo the edits as they stand now and continue to discuss the matter, I would not be opposed to having the protection lifted. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that one of the lead combatants could be convinced to lay down his arms, or take a break from the article, which may give pause to the other. Failing that hopeful scenario, would it make sense to call for a WP:FAR at this time, given that the article remains editprotected for edit warring and so clearly fails WP:FACR 1(e)? Doing so might at least bring extra community pressure to bear on the situation and help clarify what is the current consensus view of the article's NPOV. Disclaimer: I probably made a mistep on this early on, so I'm not a total bystander, but I am repentant! --HailFire (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have glanced at the talk page earlier today. May I suggest that since there does seem to be some unanswered issues, that the protection run its course for another few days and create a new section on the talk page in which the major contributors hammer out a compromise solution. If this solution is reached earlier, the page can be unprotected earlier. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Response
Avraham,

Thank you so much for your instruction. I am somewhat new to Wikipedia.

Please notice that I have at NO TIME interjected ANY of my opinions in ANY articles. A simple review of my edit history will reveal this. Concerning the Semicha article please take note that all my editing has been on the Talk Page ONLY discussing my position accompanied with requests to assist me in making the article a bit more NPOV by removing uncited assumptions and perhaps to add little blip of information stating a small minority do not adhere to the broken Semicha theory. At no time have I attempted any of these changes myself. I am leaving that in more Wiki-experienced hands then my own.

(There are various groups that I could cite that are much more adamant about this and although I do not wish to advertise a fringe theory is there some way we could briefly mention their existence which is a concrete reality?)

Coincidently Unbroken Semicha is but a sideline research as my forte is in Psychology, English literature, and Religion.

Again I have not added anything nor reverted anything from this article confining all my requests and comments to the Talk Page to where I understood such comments should be confined. If I am in error I humbly apologize and submissively accept proper instruction in this matter.

Thank you for your assistance.

CWatchman (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Zedla RfA
Avi, I just wanted to say thank you for participating in my RfA. Although I'm sad to see your RfB not working out, your detailed comments in my RfA were immensely useful; much more than any particular position you could have taken on my candidacy. Having just passed, I do realize I will need to work harder in other areas to build on the trust bestowed on me. I am always open to counsel from you or others in this regard. Thanks again – Zedla (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Your comments needed
...at Bot requests Max S em(Han shot first!) 07:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments on my page
The 2008 Jewish Week article on Rabbi Schachter referred to a series of prior press controversies from 2003-2006. The goal was to add them. This is how the Rabbi shows up in a newspaper search. I have no intention of adding any more controversies. The section is large enough. Since, the Rabbi had a controversy this week that section was written first. In fact I worked on the opinion section also so that it would not be unbalanced. Every line had a source. The edit war is not over WP:NPOV but over the WP:NOR that another editor is engaged in by presenting non-sourced materials and taking out the sourced. Thank you for looking into the article. --Eat-more-radish (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that he should not sound like a crazy but since this got started this week through a controversy let's handle it. Lets take the 2003-4 controversies and produce another 2-3 lines that are respectful- because if I found them quickly than so can others. I do not think that they should be taken out entirely. Also the Prof. Kaplan article is on the web and will certainly return to the entry by another editor. Dont take it out, please find a proportional way to include it. --Eat-more-radish (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hawking radiation
Hi Avraham, I wonder if you could semi-protect Hawking radiation against anon edits? We have a quite a problem there with an anon editor who keeps copying in pages of their OR.--Michael C. Price talk 17:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm impressed -- you must be one of the fastest admins around.  Thanks. --Michael C. Price talk 17:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Invite
Jccort (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The Categories
Dear Avraham, I am writing in order to discuss about this issue in hand. I recently created certain categories such as Jewish Christians, Jewish Buddhists, etc which were deleted by you. The reason i decided to create these categories because being "Jewish" is also an ethnicity and not just a religion and culture. Thus, Jews in general are an ethno-religious group. Even if a Jew leaves Judaism and becomes an apostate, he is still ethnically a Jew irregardless of whether or not he still considers himself Jewish. Even if a person is half Jewish and at the same time a member of another faith such as the actress Debi Mazar, she still comes under the Jewish category.

Then why cant i create these categories. For as far as i know, the are categories which are included in Wikipedia such as Jewish Skeptics, Jewish athiests, etc. I understand that there are conflicting definitions of who a jew really is among the Jews themselves but the use of the term "Jew" to denote ethnicity is commonly held and widely accepted. There are apostates such as Jay Alan Sekulow and the late poet Alan Ginsberg who still consider themselves Jewish.

Also if the term "Jewish Buddhists" or "Jewish Christians" is misleading for the categories, then can i use some other term. For example, "Christians of Jewish ethnicity" or "Buddhists of Jewish ethnicity", etc.

You also recklessly undid certain revisions to many articles for which i have contributed that have nothing to do with those categories.For example, Richard Glücks and Bela Kun. This was greatly frowned upon.So next time, please take a proper look at whatever changes are made to any article before you carelessly undo them. I hope to receive a reply from you.

Regards, Joyson Noel

My RfA
Thanks for your support. - J Greb (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

riana'z rekwest 4 'catship
By the way, you called me a 'he' throughout my RfB! Pink RfB thanks, hence. :P ~ Riana ⁂ 12:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Have I done something wrong?
Hi Seanor3 here you left a message on my i.p. page, a sort of warning. I was wondering have I done something wrong?, and if I have can you tell me what, thanks.Seanor3 (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA - Discospinster
Thank you so much for your support in my RfA, which was successful with a final count of 70/1/1! ... disco spinster   talk  23:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Hawking radiation
Hello Avraham. I notice that you semi-protected the Hawking radiation article on 11 March. Semi-protection is also being requested for Talk:Hawking radiation at WP:RPP. Though admins have some reluctance to protect Talk pages if it's not plain vandalism, I think this request is worthy of discussion. The IP editor in question has made 29 edits to the talk page in the last two days, and one might argue that he is preventing work from being done. There's also a thread at Talk:Hawking_radiation. You are welcome to join the discussion over at WP:RPP if you have an opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Discussion at User talk:EdJohnston.
 * Thanks for your reply. This is a long-term IP, so there would be no difficulty in issuing a block if a consensus could be found. The problem is that 'cranks' fall into a gray area in our policy. They seem to be viewed as harmless-but-unsuccessful content contributors, since all their edits get reverted. (This is not just a member of a minority group, as in Homeopathy, but a group of one). But meanwhile they can cause a lot of annoyance on Talk pages if they don't respond to any social cues. I suggested over at WP:RPP that the offended editors open up an RFC/U against the IP.  EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Let us be clear once and for all. I have a phd in physics, i teach in columbia U. i have published 12 books, i have offered my credentials to whoever wante dto show that there was no OR in all the posts i put in hawking radiation with a section called 'criticism', to show the fact that hawking radiation acording to many authors is a hypothesis filled with self-contradictions. Finally i put a contradiction by the same hawking (which sometimes says there are 2 particles coming out of the bh and sometimes one in a time loop in which case black holes dont evaporate). All my attempts to put some criticism have been erased and now they are erasing even te dialog we opened in the talk page. This is 'fundamentalism'?', 'censorship?''self-interest? 'some of the people who erase work at cern which is the con-cern this dispute is about as they will do black holes this summer and if hawking is wrong we might be evaporated. All this said, im not a hypocrite so my tone is not so sweet but to the point. What is going on? Can this be a neutral media? Why people cannot be informed of the facts about hawking radiation, the many doubts we have about it, the consequences of doing black holes on earth? Why can we criticie global warming or forbid marketing of products in wikipedia and we cannot criticize the 'industry of nuclear accelerators' that is risking this planet on the basis of some 'idealist' knowledge reached (that of course without theoretical dissent) by making those black holes on eart? I believe the article must be blocked, the constant erasing of the criticism i made to this article with zero original research reposted and certainly the massive erasing of all the argument there was about those criticisms which have been erased from the talk page on my holidays reposted. Censorship in a matter which affects all mankind who deserve to be informed is not the way to conduct science of any kind anywere in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.246.73 (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Eraseheads at hawking radiation
i saw one of the people that is erasing the talk at hawking radiation now trying to convince you against the decision of the administrators, to block the talk, please allow free conversation, this cenosrhsip is going to far.

Let us be clear once and for all. The page was blocked because of me and some supossed OR i put there. which i didnt. I have a phd in physics, i teach in an IVY university. i have published 12 books, i have offered my credentials to whoever wante d in private to show that there was no OR in all the posts i put in hawking radiation with a section called 'criticism'. In all my attempts to do so quoting from Einstein to Aristotle, from the same Hawking to Wilczeck I just wanted to show the fact that hawking radiation acording to many authors is a hypothesis filled with self-contradictions. Finally i put a contradiction by the same hawking (which sometimes says there are 2 particles coming out of the bh and sometimes one in a time loop in which case black holes dont evaporate). All my attempts to put some criticism have been erased and now they are erasing even te dialog we opened in the talk page. This is 'fundamentalism'?', 'censorship?''self-interest? 'some of the people who erase work at cern which is the con-cern this dispute is about as they will do black holes this summer and if hawking is wrong we might be evaporated. All this said, im not a hypocrite so my tone is not so sweet but to the point. What is going on? Can this be a neutral media? Why people cannot be informed of the facts about hawking radiation, the many doubts we have about it, the consequences of doing black holes on earth? Why can we criticie global warming or forbid marketing of products in wikipedia and we cannot criticize the 'industry of nuclear accelerators' that is risking this planet on the basis of some 'idealist' knowledge reached (that of course without theoretical dissent) by making those black holes on eart? I believe the article must be blocked, the constant erasing of the criticism i made to this article with zero original research reposted and certainly the massive erasing of all the argument there was about those criticisms which have been erased from the talk page on my holidays reposted. Censorship in a matter which affects all mankind who deserve to be informed is not the way to conduct science of any kind anywere in the world. Now you write me in my talk i am correcting the talk page. What i was trying to do is to repost what in my holidays the ''eraseheads' have erased - all talk concering those points (some physicist working at cern tat patrol any article that has to do with cern, the lhc, the black holes they are doing there and any dissident physicist who think there might be some criticism of this). Basically they eras all warnings that anyone ads to any of those articles after a long ocnsensus, then they block them, (strangelets, hawking radiation, lhc, etc.) and now they erase in all those pages every comment on the arguments that went on in the talk pages. So i was just trying to revert some of the content at least in the talk pages but it seems they are a dedicated group. well As einstein put it (since basically if hawking is wrong einstein is right black holes dont evaporate and the cern will evapoate us this summer), when they publish... '300 physicists against einstein' if cern, the lhc and mister hawking were right and einstein double wrong as mr. hawking said in his original article, only one physicist with reason not erasing, even the talk pages for god's sake! should be enough to disqualify the poitns i did (and none OR, reason why they blocked the article, please i was pointing out contradictions in the same work of hawking!) anyway take care. I will keep though confronting censorship of facts that deserve to be known. i have survived already a holocaust and i dont take lightly repression of freedom of thought. shalom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.246.73 (talk) 02:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA - Toddst1
Hi Avraham, thanks for supporting my RfA, which passed with 42 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutrals. Special thanks goes to my nominator, Kakofonous. I'm pleased that the Wikipedia community has trusted me with the mop and I take it very seriously. Cheers! Toddst1 (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support!
Hello, and thanks for your support in my recent RFA! The final result was 61/0/3, so I've been issued the mop! I'm extremely grateful for your confidence in me and will strive to live up to it. Thanks again! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

ActuarialWiki.org
Hi Avi, I noticed all the hard work you've been doing on Wikipedia. I'm the founder of www.actuarialwiki.org and would like to invite you to become part of the team. If interested, let me know. Any comments and suggestions always welcome.

Many Thanks! Johan (johan@primeresource.co.uk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.227.175 (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Rabbi Herschel Schachter
What I wrote is PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, VERIFIABLE. To ask for a source doesn't make sense. If you live in Washington Heights, you witness it, on a regular basis. (Highland14 (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC))
 * What Wikipedia is not: just controversies. It seems to me, particularly in this article, that's what the contributors thrive on. Just a reminder!!(Highland14 (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC))

'Saharon Shelah' modifications
Dear Avraham

I noted your request to post only notable students in the scientific infobox table at the Saharon Shelah page and changed it to include only three of his students: Mati Rubin, Uri Abraham and Menahem Kojman. I am not trying to engage in an Editing War, just to correct the information in this site to reflect the facts. Though Rami Grossberg and Shai Ben David were students of Prof. Saharon Shelah they are less notable than these three and therefore less deserving to be included in this list (though one of them has a page of his own in this site.)

In the hopes that I didn't offend you

Yovav123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yovav123 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for changing the article back.

Yovav123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yovav123 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)