User talk:Avraham/Archive 32

Help against personal attacks
Hi Avraham: If you can, I would greatly appreciate some admin help with the situation that has unfolded on the talk pages at Talk:Circumcision where User uses some plum words against me when I have said nothing against him personally in any way, in the course of a general discussion. How can I ignore it when he says: "is a skill to talking out of your arse and you have certainly mastered it" or when I requested   that he please sign some of his unsigned comments with the four tildes,  after quickly deleting my brief reminder  he responded on my talk page User talk:IZAK with a string of personal attacks: "Keep your hypocritical lectures for those who are stupid enough to pay attention to your incoherent ramblings. I correct both my unsigned comments a before you sent that stupid message' so in the future, kindly keep your vacuous nonsense to yourself." And: "Given the vile judgemental filth you have been posting in the circumcision article name debate, you are not only a hypocrite; but anything I have said to you is remarkably restrained.It is clear that your only motives are to troll and to push a truly perverted point-of-view." . I am always glad to conduct open and civil discussions on talk pages. I have requested that he refrain from violating WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:NOT at least three times , but it seems to no avail. I would appreciate it if an admin could review the matter. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Message left for Finn earlier today. -- Avi (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Avraham: I have informed User that based on the type of unacceptable language he has used against me in personal attacks, and even threatening to use worse against me, I have filed a complaint at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents . Thank you, IZAK (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Midrasha
There seem to be two different meanings of Midrasha. The women-only institutions (primarily in Israel?) and the coed Hebrew high school programs (like www.midrasha.org). If these are sufficiently different in your estimation that they cannot be part of the same article, can you assist me to set up a separate page (and a disambiguation)? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.14.218 (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC) This comment is from me. Berkeleyyossi (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There are 4 Midrashot in the East Bay Area of San Francisco. In Berkeley (www.midrasha.org), in Oakland, (http://www.oaklandsinai.org/lifelong_learning/midrasha.php), in Walnut Creek (www.ccmidrasha.org), and in Pleasanton (http://www.bethtorah-fremont.org/midrasha/). There are similar programs in North Carolina (http://www.communitymidrasha.org/), Rhode Island (http://www.mymidrasha.com/), Wisconsin (http://www.jewishmadison.org/section.aspx?id=1252), Minnesota (http://www.ttsp.org/midrasha/), etc. All institutions that I've encountered called "Midrasha" in the US are coed Hebrew High School programs like these. You can Google "midrasha" to find more. Thanks for your help in setting up the disambiguation page! Berkeleyyossi (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Avraham, I never claimed that this was a "movement", but clearly the word "Midrasha" means (to many people) a high school program like I'm describing. I would like to acknowledge this meaning in the Wikipedia entry for Midrasha. If you feel uncomfortable with having a single article for both a US coed high school "Midrasha" and an Israeli women-only "Midrasha", because they're too different, then please help me create a disambiguation page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berkeleyyossi (talk • contribs) 21:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you're familiar with Wikipedia standards, and I agree that of course articles should conform, and there should be a bar for notability. Please explain specifically how the Israeli women-only "Midrasha" is in compliance with these standards and how the US coed high-school "Midrasha" is not. Thanks! Berkeleyyossi (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I would be most appreciative if you undid your most recent change to that article (which essentially removed my edits). Berkeleyyossi (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply
Never an intrusion (I've lost two long replies down the virtual tube due to computer probs, perhaps just as well). Yes, I agree. I did remark he had made 'notable progress', but that was apparently condescending. He's a nuts and bolts man, with the kind of military forma mentis Ashley himself has, whom I've been informally mentoring. I.e. 'gimme the gist, no frills and faldarol'. Such a cast of mind tends to ignore nuance, and tread on toes in the pursuit of 'the facts'. Unfortunately, articles are not built up of 'neutral facts', which are embedded in what Whitehead called 'observational' and 'conceptual orders'. Many a proud empiricist hunts his facts, and doesn't notice the natives are trampled by what looks to them like a bull in a china shop, for whom the facts have a value quite different from those the hunter observes in them. Articles require a balanced evaluation of varieties of evidence, each with nuanced weight, bias, assessing which requires tact and an ear for connotative drift. I note, to illustrate, that in synthesizing and formatting my lengthy remarks into an aesthetic shape he, quite properly, thinks more appropriate to his talk page, he excerpted twice only two contentious summations of an opinion, and then placed the rest of the actual logical argument and linguistic evidence in an embedded, invisible link. Fine, that is his right. But the given reason was to highlight the 'relevant' point. The effect was to imply that an hour of closely focused argumentation was 'irrelevant'. I note this, rather bemused, and am far from offended. It was not an intentional snub, again. But that cast of mind will never understand why people find certain editing approaches thick-skulled, and if their objections are met with a sense of defensiveness and injury, that is a pity. We all have our peculiar natures. I have noted to Tiamut that if she has problems with anybody, to drop me a note, and I will look closely on, without messing in the text, to ensure things like this do not recur. A little company, if such things eventuate, or are in the air, would be welcome. I hope there's no need for this, but, at the same time, hope you don't mind if I drop you a note were it necessary. Best (scrub this as soon as read, if you like. It's just a personal note Nishidani (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It must be highly questionable why you're defending an editor who appears to be going backwards, from the generalised (including problems with Europeans) to the particular, abusing valued members of the community. PRtalk 19:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I give up, PR. I could nail you like T.S.Eliot's butterfly by writing a very minute essay on what is implied by that 'highly questionable why', and the hidden prejudice it hints at. But I won't. You also are tone-deaf to nuance. All I have to say has been said a month ago, and, as is PR's right, wholly ignored in that long thread. If needed I would happily wear a lifetime ban from Wiki if I had to spend even intemperate language, in full attack mode (never shown, but be assured it's not a pretty thing to hear-I was raised in rough streets) in defence of Tiamut, one of the best, if not the best, editors in the I/P area. So, good luck. You're on your own.Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Feigl Article Recovery
This is my second appeal, as I have not received any response, one way or another. My very short-lived article on Erich Feigl which was found in need of improvements was deleted around Aug 4th 2008. Since other editors had also contributed to it and I do not have a copy of the original material plus improvements, I would like to recover the article as it last appeared in Wikipedia so that I can further clean it up for a re-submission. I am hoping you can help me recover the text. Thanks much.--Murat (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you. I am not sure what all the instructions mean yet, but I will figure them out. I hope you can maybe look it over for me later and make some suggestions. Thanks again.--Murat (talk) 23:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you please take a look at the article User:Hudavendigar/Feigl and make some comments and see if it is ok to release? Thanks.--Murat (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again.--Murat (talk) 11:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Image licensing
Hi there, I've now uploaded the first Europa Barbarorum-related image under the new license; is the licensing etc. correct? If so, then I'll be happy that I won't get any more problems regarding image tagging and will be able to proceed with uploading relevant images. Thanks in advance. It Is Me Here (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Problematic user's name
Hi Avraham: As an admin could you please take a look at the notice I gave User and the request I have made of him to change his user name per Wikipedia policy at User talk:Holy Bible of Judaism & Christianity ASAP. I have also placed a notification at Usernames for administrator attention. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 12:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Is CE/BCE official Wikipedia policy?
Recently I changed an article containing BCE to the standard BC but it was reverted. If BC/AD is the most widely used form, why shouldn't that be used?

Also - while BC/AD refers to the birth of christ and is exclusive, calling the approximate birth of christ the beginning of the common era is even more POV. The only way to remove religion from dating would be to change the year 1 to a much earlier time. While I would be for that, as I have no religious views, I doubt people as a whole would accept the change. The answer to the problem of religious exclusion isn't to be even more exclusionary. LASirus (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar!

 * Well deserved per "Did someone say Maths?"


 * Congratulations! I saw and enjoyed that, too! See also funny math. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment
Re the third sentence of this comment: please comment on content, not on the contributors. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For whatever it's worth, I'm not sure that I see what you are. It looks like a commont about someone's opinion, and how they may be "pushing" that opinion. But I'm also merely looking at only that diff and may be missing something contextually. - jc37 06:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've also posted several messages to Blackworm. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to discuss this further if you're interested (jc37 or Avi or anyone else). ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the compliment, Avi: I really appreciate it. To be honest, I wasn't completely sure you would still feel that way after the above comment from me.

Re "trying to be sensationalistic" and some similar comments on the talk page, and re the second sentence of this comment, and re this comment: I disagree with your characterization of Blackworm's motives, and unless we can read minds only Blackworm can know for sure, so we're on more solid ground as well as more diplomatic if we don't comment on editors' motives. It's also unnecessary to do so: GTBacchus said, "I've personally blocked people, and supported community bans against people, all the while assuming good faith." Note how ArbCom refrains from commenting on motives or qualities of editors, completely or almost completely restricting their comments to behaviour, for example here; their style is worth carefully studying. The phrase "emotional attachment" here seems to me to be referring to another editor in a way likely to be unwelcome. Please think about the implications of asking someone you're having a content dispute with to step back from the article. I'm also posting a message on Blackworm's talk page. Friendly greetings, ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Re "It appears to me that in this particular instance you are the sole editor not wishing to have the article be more neutral.": as I had suggested above, please avoid making assertions about editors' motives. Please AGF. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind
My wishing you L'Shanah tovah for your yamim noraim. Shalom Nishidani (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks in edit summaries
In this edit's summary, you make a personal attack, while also reverting neutral material based on original research (as you have not shown in any way how the language is sensationalism or otherwise to be banned from the article). Please note that the "sensationalistic" language you have determined must be banned (and without reason) is used in plenty of reliable sources, and if you haven't noticed, is used elsewhere in the article.

(a Jewish book source), ,  .

It's even used on web sites specifically advocating circumcision. You argument against this material, with no sources, no proof, and no rationale, is completely without merit. Stop making personal attacks, incivil, baseless accusations of POV pushing, and reverting neutral material with no rationale. Blackworm (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Responded on BW's page. -- Avi (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Avi, reading the article, apart from being fruitfully instructed, my eye caught 'disposition of the foreskin' and I must confess to a slight thrill, because I'd only ever met the use of 'disposition' with 'foreskin' in James Joyce, and, quite young, thought he was being funny, until I checked the dictionary. My mother was a pharmacist, furthermore, and 'disposition' was written all over the pharmacopeia, and medical lit. for a set of treatments to be carried out, not necessarily with foreskins. I much prefer this exquisite word to 'disposal' which, however, is perhaps what most people would call it, though that implies 'waste disposal' and jars on the sensitive ear. Whoever made that exquisite editorial choice deserves our thanks.Nishidani (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have about 20 books of critical commentary on Joyce, my favourite author as a youngster. If you need a cite for its correctness, I'll try and hunt it out, though checking two I found nothing in the indexes, and can't promise anything. Why it probably stuck in my memory, apart from a chat with my mother, was (if my memory's still reliable) because at the time I'd also read of a nun who had devoted her life, around the 8th cent. CE., to writing a theological disquisition that worried over what happened to Christ's foreskin. This was, technically, a very serious, if extremely recondite, issue if one was a strict theologically minded Catholic, apparently. Self-evidently so, since, if in that belief system, Christ was God-made-flesh, the foreskin was a snippet of divinity. Did it rise on the third day, etc.? Go figure, pal! I need some sleep without worrying the greying grey cells over it! Nishidani (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Dates of Jewish holidays
I haven't been able to find on Wikipedia an easy way to find out when the Jewish holidays are in terms of the calendar we usually use (Gregorian or whatever it's called). Even to find out when the Jewish holidays are in terms of the Jewish calendar is not extremely easy on Wikipedia, but getting the conversion from one calendar to the other is the main thing that's missing or at least not easily found. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)