User talk:Avraham/Archive 29

Moses
Thanks. I was thinking about doing that but didn't get around to it. At least there was an edit summary, you usually get a drive-by IP hitting several articles in one go. Doug Weller (talk) 06:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ping
If you get a free moment, can you pop onto IRC for a quick chat? - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a reason I don't have email enabled
There is a reason I don't have email enabled: I'd rather keep my true identity secret for a number of reasons, especially after what happened to User:Newyorkbrad. Also, I prefer to keep conversations in the open on Wikipedia; this way, when I revert trolls and vandals and the like, they have to post their unpleasant comments to me in the open, which makes it easier for me to point them out to admins for subsequent blocking. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

IRC
Not. :) — Kurykh  19:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we talk?
Is there a way for me to send you a private e-mail? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.53.177 (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Click here. -- Avi (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I sent you an e-mail but you didn't respond. Jewz4cheeses (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Very busy time at work for me, if you notice the top of my talk and user page, I do mention that I am on a semi-wikibreak. I'll try and respond soon. Sorry. -- Avi (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Dating Schema
"Per the wikipedia manual of style, please do not change existing dating schema, especially to one with specific religious overtones in an article not exclusive to that religion."

I do not understand exactly what you mean regarding religious overtones. Changing words and phrases like "nowadays" and "in olden times" to something less fairy tale sounding I think would help this article. Are these words specifically associated with the religious history of the Western Wall and the Jewish people in a way that I am unaware. I have learned by reading through the style manual that using non-specific words like "currently" or "recently" is generall frowned upon in lieu of specific dates with references, but I am very confused about the religious point. Could you (or someone) perhaps point to the section of the style manual that goes over this. I am not arguing for the sake of arguement, but would like to learn so that I can help out! Thanks,Eskimo79 (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Elc International school
You prodded Elc International school. Schools which offer high school grades are generally considered notable. On that basis, you might want to remove the prod. --Eastmain (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter
This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list.


 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  02:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ronald Ribman
I proposed the article for a DYK. Hope you don't mind :-) -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, this sentence needs some splaining: "For high school, Ribman graduated from Mark Twain Jr. High School in 1947 and from Abraham Lincoln H.S. in 1950". He graduated from two different high schools?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 18:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Metzitzah
Perhaps you should ask me why I made changes before reverting them? You don't understand why I added another halachic reference to the first three references that are also my contributions(If you go far back enough in the history.) Tell me, did you bother reading any of the source material cited? The three articles in question by anti ultra orthodox doctors "suggest" a link, nothing more. "several lines of circumstantial evidence" -Rubin 2000; "...raised suspicions that it was related to the circumcision performed a few days earlier. This assumption was supported by several factors:" -Distel 2003;  "may" be hazardous to the neonate /  "most probably" as a consequence of /  "it is likely" that other infants were infected/"We suspect", therefore /   "it was most likely" that the infection was transmitted /represents a "potential source" of orogenital transmission  /   however, "the possibility" that some previous cases were not reported /this "potentially" life-threatening medical complication /   oral metzitzah "may" cause oral-genital transmission/oral suction "may" not only endanger the child /which "might" endanger the newborns/ -Gesundheit 2004   That's bad enough, but if you understand neonatal herpes (I do, you can look at my edits for herpes) every avenue of testing that would have proven OR DISPROVEN a link to the mohel was meticulously avoided. There is also the common link between the three papers (the authors all know each other) that none of the papers discuss what the prognosis of normal maternally transmitted neonatal herpes is, because they all describe textbook cases of maternally transmitted neonatal herpes. Read up on pubmed on the last 40 years of research by Nahmias, Josey, Roizman, Kimberlin, Yeager, Whitley, Arvin, Zane Brown, Liz Brown, Ashley, Mertz, Stanberry, Wald, and Prober, then you'll understand why these 22 doctors that have never done a paper on neonatal herpes, don't know what they're talking about. But it's even worse than that, in their zeal to attack the ultra orthodox they cite references, than write the exact opposite of what the references say. or cite a reference that has nothing to do with the topic. That is not an accident, this was a deliberate broadside against the ultra orthodox based on lies. The Gesundheit paper was rejected TWICE by JAMA because it's garbage. The authors, in violation of editorial policy stacked the authorship with six more doctors in an effort to get it published. Who says so? Co-author Doctor Moshe Dovid Tendler. [Here are six pages of Tendler's lies in his own words http://dhengah.org/mbp/tendlervstendler.htm]

According to the article The Chasam Sofer, who died in 1839, being sufficiently influenced by Ignacz Semmelweis' 1847 discovery of disease transmission (in an obstetrics ward, not because a baby got tuberculosis from a mohel as they write)permitted the use of instrumental suction, even though the instrument, the tube, did not exist until 1887. If you would like to discuss where and how they lied, I'd be happy to discuss it with you. Read the three papers first, read the pediatric redbook online, and tell me what factor in these eleven cases goes anywhere outside of the textbook cases of maternally translitted herpes. None. The five factors that cite to blame the mohel are everybody else's textbook maternally transmitted herpes. I printed facts. Nothing more. This isn't POV it's fact. pikipiki (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see additional comments on my talk page on this topic.pikipiki (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of elc International school
As you proposed deletion of the article, I support the motion as it after all, does not seem to be a very notable school. Could you please delete it asap, as actually people from the school have contacted me about this and requested that the page be deleted, otherwise face nasty consequences. Thanks.-- Hana ichi  10:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for protection
Hey Avi, there's some repeat IP vandalism going on at circumcision. Could you please take a look to see if the page needs protection? Thanks, AlphaEta 17:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clean-up here. -- Fyslee / talk 06:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Question
am I edit chatting right - this is daniel from the baruch goldstein page. I'm sorry about the edit warring stuff. don't really know the rules but i am willing to learn. how can i discuss this problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.100.233 (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet of Signsolid
Hello. I think User:Verseruns, who registered today, is another sockpuppet of User:Signsolid. I was reading the Historical Powers article where Verseruns has done the very same edit as User:Offerpoint whom you blocked indefinitely today and tagged as a sockpuppet of Signsolid. Also, Verseruns has edited the Royal Air Force article, which is an article that Signsolid has edited a lot in the past. So most likely Verseruns is another sockpuppet of Signsolid. Could you tell me where I can report this? I'm not sure where to report it. Thank you. Keizuko (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering why Signsolid himself isn't indef blocked yet? 24 hrs is far too little for these gross offenses. -- Fyslee / talk 00:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for watching my back and taking care of this idiot! I doubt it's the last we hear from him, because such people are often obsessive misfits in one way or another. It's nice to see when the system here works properly. Personally I'm a hardliner when it comes to any deception, especially abusive sockpuppetry - I wish them blocked indef immediately. They don't deserve to edit here. -- Fyslee / talk 00:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Avi. I see now that Keizuko is blocked as a sock of Signsolid! Now that's either a mistake, or he did a real good job of playing two of his own socks as antagonists of each other in many instances. Hmmmm.... Take a look at the short series of edits starting here and forward, and then near the last edits on the Historical powers article where Keizuko and Verseruns are antagonists for some of this game of back and forth. -- Fyslee / talk</b> 05:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

al-Husayni
Shalom Avi, I answered on the talk page of the article. Ceedjee (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thx once more for your word at Shevashalosh. I was not aware that she also sent a complain at OTRS. Ceedjee (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Shevashalosh
Avi,

Would you please counsel Shevashalosh about WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. She has called those who disagree with her self-hating Jews, she continues to insult Ceedjee despite repeated references to WP:CIVIL, and now her edit summaries are belligerent toward me.

I think there are genuine WP:BLP issues with linking an article to Self-hating Jew that Shevashalosh doesn't seem to care about. If a "See also" section needs a footnote, there's clearly a problem.

Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Kiddush Hashem
Kiddush Hashem and Chillul Hashem are certainly very important concepts, but that is not exactly what the rating system deals with. The ratings are there to identify "major" articles and topics for the WikiProject, so that they can receive appropriate attention. That does coordinate somewhat with a topic's "worth" to Judaism, but not entirely. Kiddush Hashem and Chillul Hashem will never be major articles like, for example, Jewish philosophy, in which they are included. --Eliyak T · C 05:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)