User talk:Avraham/Archive 25

Cohn-Sherbok
I'm working on this right now - in fact, I'm (once again) changing this misleading statement. The POV Messianic folks keep stating that C-S was clear in asserting legitimacy, but this is not the case. Thanks. A Sniper (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you Avi, but what I'm doing is changing the wording completely so that it merely mentions Cohn-Sherbok's publicized thesis suggestions, and not any clear-cut statement of legitimacy (which is not present in the text). Also, C-S was not writing the book in his capacity as a rabbi but as a university scholar - this is also a very important distinction that takes away the 'weight' that the POV folks wish to infer. I hope you agree... A Sniper (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * done - please let me know what you think. I believe that the regular POV editors will try and put the rabbi title back in, so I may insert it after his name - this is ONLY because his title is used on the back cover of his text. I also edited the bit about the Reconstructionist rabbi so that it is less POV. Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi
User:Egyption 4eva, User:Abdullah bahajri, and User:Lebanese heart appaer to be the same person engaged in abusive sock-puppetry. Can you please look into this?--Sina111 (talk) 04:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, regarding this reverts of the posting in Talk:Arabian Gulf and elsewhere, the post didn't appear to be especially vile or vandalous. Is there any proof that the person is a sock, or is someone gaslighting us with a false accusation? The reverts appear to be based on an unsubstantiated accusation. I will wait a bit before reverting it back in, as I want to know your reasoning, Avi. -  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  04:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I commented in the SSP complaint; thanks for filing it. As for the soapboxing, I don't see it as such. It seems a fairly cogent argument, and a heck of a lot more polite and less paranoid that I have seen from a few other users on the topic. As there do not appear to be any factual errors or incivility in the post, I think it should be reverted back in. If the SSP indicates a problem, we can always remove it again. Innocent until proven guilty, I say. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  05:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that. I recommended both as I wasn't sure of the core of Sina's accusation. I've also posted again in the SSP. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  05:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Everdon
You deleted, then restored, Everdon's RfA. I was about to delete it myself. do you know something I don't? it was never transcluded, so the two votes were premature, and in my mind this is a good candidate for deletion. --barneca (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Rfa thanks
Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad al-Durrah
Is the information from here and here in the article? --Shamir1 (talk) 06:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

His dads name
It took 2 mins to find that and that was the simplest proof of the risk (without much risk), they can oversite that with the rest it was scary how much info was out there, more than enough to get a credit card in his dads name. ( Hypnosadist ) 07:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The three admins incharge have oversited the info. ( Hypnosadist )  08:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Email
Responded. Rudget 20:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer review
You are very welcome - thanks for writing an interesting article. You can ask for another review at WP:PRV. Since you found my review helpful, please consider reviewing another peer review at WP:PR or one that has received no request yet at Peer review/backlog. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are welcome again - sorry for the PR spam, we just always need reviewers there! Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 11:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"unsourced speculation"
I don't agree with your assessment of the sentence I added to the Abraham article under the Hindu connections section. That Sarasvati is Brahma's consort is common knowledge among those with Hindu background. The apparent similarity of the names Sarasvati and Sarah is obvious. What is your bias? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandu108 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So what specifically is your problem with this? Can you explain, beyond saying "original research?" If I type into Google (without the quotes), "brahma sarasvati consort," it returns 44,100 hits. I learned of the relationship through disciplic succession, from my instructing guru, as is the proper method for receiving Vedic knowledge according to Chapter 4 of Bhagavad-gita. How would you reference it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandu108 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears from your phrase, "teachings of any one guru," that you don't know how Vedic knowledge is transmitted. There is no such thing as "teachings of any one guru," because a bona fide guru is one who repeats the words of his guru unchanged. Therefore it should be understood that my guru speaks what his guru spoke, and so on, to the point of the Vedas' self-described Divine origin. That is what is meant by "disciplic succession," or "parampara." Sometimes it is said that "guru is one," meaning that the teachings of all bona fide gurus are in perfect agreement. If hearing from a guru in an authorized disciplic succession is not accepted at Wikipedia, then that would explain why every Wikipedia article that I've seen related to Vedic knowledge is misleading or deceptive. Your insistence on deleting my initial contribution, apparently without any knowledge of the subject matter, is akin to saying that "here we take medicine according to Wikipedia's rules which require disregarding the manufacturer's instructions printed on the label." Without submissinve hearing from a bona fide guru in disciplic succession, no one can understand the Vedas or their subject matter.

I simply asked you to specify what was your problem with my sentence mentioning the similarity between the wives of Brahma and Abraham. Apart from your phrase that I quoted above revealing your unfamiliarity with the authorized process for receiving Vedic knowledge, it would be difficult to tell whether you were a human being or a bot. If you wanted a reference, you could simply say, "Please provide a reference to support your claim that Brahma's wife is Sarasvati." (Or maybe you thought the point needing reference was that the names Sarasvati and Sarah are similar.  I don't know because you've stubbornly avoided saying.)  Instead, your deltion of information that is common knowledge to anyone with even slight exposure to Hindu culture and religion, calling it "original research" and such nonsense, suggests malicious intent, undermines the credibility of this web site, and discourages participation.Pandu108 (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 22:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)