User talk:Avraham/Archive 39

Checkuser followup
Hiya. A few weeks ago, you wrapped up Sockpuppet investigations/98.180.202.52/Archive as inconclusive. Might knowing that the editor's expanded to another IP address -- User:98.180.196.203 -- be useful in winnowing in on whether he's operating under other registered accounts? --EEMIV (talk) 05:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Socks
Hello Avraham,

As you requested me I notify you that I suspect of two new accounts being socks of. The first one, wich has been blocked on es-wiki as a ✅ sock, and the seccond one,  wich have the same behaviour as the others. Best regards. -- Dferg (w:en: - w:es:) 11:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama FAR
Tvoz / talk 21:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to steal this section because I'm here to discuss that very FAR - Avi, the day the article gets hit by a bunch of WND kooks is hardly the time to start an FAR. Even if otherwise it is needed, no one will be able to tell what is an issue with the article and what is a temporary POV slant due to the WND crew. You are usually quite sensible; surely you can see that when you have 400 sewer rats running through a restaurant it isn't time to do an inspection, but rather wait until the rats are trapped or caged or whatever, and then inspect under more normal conditions. I urge you to withdraw this for a week or two, then list it again once the furor dies down. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In fact the reason the article is being highlighted by these outside sources is because it's so grotesquely biased. It's embarassing and all good faith editors should want the article to be shaped up so Wikipedia shows it's not censored and biased to a particular point of view.  Unfortunately, that hasn't been the response. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Many editors would disagree with you, CoM,about bias. But the environment created by the descending outside hoards, if prior experience serves, will not be conducive to constructive discussion.  That's why so many have said that this is the wrong time for FAR. Moot, as it has been closed for now, but the above is a point that you're missing. Tvoz / talk 06:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Tvoz / talk 06:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"dating schema"
Sir,

You advised me not to use "Christian-specific dating schema in articles that are important to religions other than Christianity" re AD vs. CE. AD and CE actually refer to the same dating schema, that is, one which numbers the years beginning from the year Christ was born (as "year 1"). For reasons I won't try to encapsulate, this calendar has been adapted as the default of the Western world. I used "AD" over "CE" for three reasons: It is more common and more widely recognized. It is more descriptive; "Anno Domini" defines itself, "Common Era" is vague, and could easily be interpreted by someone who didn't know otherwise as referring to something other than the Christian calendar. "Common Era" is a much more modern phrase, and I suspect its usage to be a scholarly "fad."

98.110.153.45 (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

CU
Hello Avi. User:AFI-PUNK has changed ip addresses and before I make a new range block, I was wondering if you could check the range to see if that would affect any good faith editors. I've documented a few ip addresses here. Seraphim &hearts;  18:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Warning"
Sir,

Thanks for your reply concerning "AD." vs "CE." Which is more commonly used seems pointless for us to argue, as it'd be so apparently difficult to guage, and whether "CE" shall ever fall into the realm of archaic words even more so, as it's entirely speculative.

Thanks also for your opinion on which term the "consensus" of wikipedia users prefer. I hope that I have given it it's due weight!

I hope you will please also review "Common Era" and note that it indeed refers to the same calendar as "Anno Domini," which would seem to obviate your stated reason for prefering the former, that being that "Anno Domini" refers to a "Christian-specific dating schema."

98.110.153.45 (talk) 05:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

New star for you
--mbz1 (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC) בבקשה להישאר בטוח!

Latruf
Hi Avi. I actually came over to the Latruf article to take over the semi-protection, but I see from the discussion that the image has been deleted on Commons. Do you mind if I unprotect the article and close the entry at RFPP? Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  13:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, it expired, so I cleaned out RFPP and took off the template. Take care. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  16:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"rvv" and BITE
Hi Avraham, I am obviously happy that you reverted this but I think you should reserve an edit comment of "rvv" for very clear cases of vandalism; an edit comment of "see talk archive" or similar would have been better. The edits you reverted are the kind of edits on this article which someone misguided might make in good faith and it undermines our claim of NPOV and fairness if we just revert using an abbreviation for "revert vandalism". Particularly on controversial topics it is good to be seen to be very fair (albeit rather tiring too). Thanks --BozMo talk 07:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Explained that this is a long-standing editor using an IP on BozMo's talk page. -- Avi (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine. Makes perfect sense in that case. --BozMo talk 19:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Canadian Forces emblem.png
Thanks for uploading File:Canadian Forces emblem.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC) ✅ -- Avi (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

source
The Hamas article has many sources on who is proscribing Hamas and in the great scheme of things 4 or 6 (with 2 putting the military wing as) is not many in total number of sovereign nations that could be described as "very few".... It should be me who is asking the right wing to back up their unproven claim...but "a number of" is a reasonable compromise as it is already linked to the Hamas article where those that do proscribe Hamas are named...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Cripes, Ashley. Now, Avi may well recall how, in a rather bizarre breach of wiki etiquette, I once donned Sigmund's cigar and spouted psychoanalytical hypotheticals with PR on the divan, and towards the end described how Hezbollah and Hamas could be analysed as rational historical agents (though of course most actors in history are not rational). But I would never, never prescribe them, especially since they are not available at your local chemist's (if they still exist, you might find them in an apothecary). They are certainly 'proscribed', in partibus infidelium, even if a scribe or two from the scrivener's tribe, like myself, would prefer they not be put without the law.
 * Sorry Avi, couldn't resist (probably can't be understood either!) Cheers Nishidani (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

many could never describe 4 sovereign nations one economic union parliamentary decision (that most EU nations ignore and go their own way) and one ban with two nations proscribing only the military wing....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

madoff reliable sources
i believe my sources are reliable and the same as many included in the page. click them and read for yourself. no original research. you must be confusing my documentation with some one else's. do a search on "ralph madoff" and see what you find independently.

Furtive admirer (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Avi, you might think about attempting to communicate with other editors instead of templating and attacking them right off the bat. I mentioned on Furtive's page that I started a Ralph Madoff article. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

madoff, like father like son
It should be included was that bernie's father was a stockbroker who put everything in his wife's name. i never said anything about bernie learning that from his father. that his father was also investigated with the SEC is notable. don't you agree? background info is not freudian, unless of course, you add references to oedipal issues, which have not been done.

besides, i am not the only one who thinks his dad's business propensity and pattern is significant.

Furtive admirer (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

WND

 * Yes I do indeed think a Web site that aspires to "mainstream" by carrying lots of AP articles, yet supports wholly fringe anti-evolutionist and similar views, should have its orientation presented in a lede.


 * I gather you are highly sympathetic "fringe" viewpoints but prefer to hide this from readers.
 * It's ultimately a losing proposition. Either that or, we're in big trouble and headed for a new Dark Ages.
 * Good luck. Burn all witches!!

Calamitybrook (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Responded on User's talk page. -- Avi (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

For the record

 * Some say "Hitler was anti-semitic and others disagree," which is "TRUE" certainly, but frankly, dumb.


 * Despite your citations of Wikipedia policy, I certainly don't accept what you are trying to impose on the article. Avoiding the obvious in lede is a sure route to eroded crediblity.

Calamitybrook (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Responded on User's talk page. -- Avi (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Policy is Policy

 * So simple. No argument on policy. I do think, however, the statements at issue are well-sourced. I don't hear a disagreement.


 * It's like saying the Daily Worker is a left-wing organization. Is this a matter of personal viewpoint or original research? Don't think so.


 * What is your view on Evolution? You do strike me as having weird, fringe ideas.

Calamitybrook (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Responded on User's talk page. -- Avi (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Crazy Fringe POV

 * I'd need to check someday the definition of "abiogenesis" but I suggest you consult Strunk & White regarding good writing and exotic words.


 * I'm glad you've got a job though.


 * The citations are included in (see below) and might be redundant. If you want to challenge the existing citations, that's a different question.
 * Regarding confrontation: You're the one saying that characterization of Drudge's favorite "news" site as "right wing" is unfair point of view. It's a patently silly statement.

Calamitybrook (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

 * If you're opposed to an accurate characterization of salient facts in the lede, then you don't have a reasonable understanding of what constitutes a lede.


 * I'm surprised you have confidence in what you're saying.
 * Am quite certain, however, that you're not to be convinced otherwise.
 * It's disheartening. Fortunately, however, I don't care enough about this article to engage in a fruitless effort at education.

Calamitybrook (talk)

Deep Benightment of another Wikipedia Administrator

 * You're a Wikipedia "Administrator" with a deep misunderstanding of basic principles for writing ledes. It's reasonable to assume that you are similarly uninformed about a wide range of subjects.


 * You've avoided responding to simple and obvious comments regarding your purely personal viewpoint about an editing issue. This makes me deeply pessimistic regarding Wikipedia.


 * Thanks for elucidating your utterly benighted personal views.

Calamitybrook (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"Abiogenesis"

 * WOW!!! Heck of a word......One assumes you introduced this term, in complete error, according to the usual reasons outlined in Strunk & White regarding ill-advised use of exotic words in writing. You've compouned basic error by utter misuse of the word.


 * This would be much in keeping with your "editorial" comments, which show profound misunderstanding of how to convey meaning through writing.


 * That said, certainly one cannot be extremely surprised that you are a Wikipedia "administrator."

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

All replied on users talk page, and at the risk of not being humble enough, I do like my response. -- Avi (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Use shorter paragraphs

 * It's a simple trick that makes for easier reading.
 * No time for more. Keep those 25-cent words coming. They're really impressive!

Calamitybrook (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I parsed it for Calamity on his user talk page; he seems to have an easier time comprehending if there are cr/lf's in the text. Fine with me. -- Avi (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Educate Thyself

 * Your work is cut out. But without understanding, you become an utter failure.
 * Common outcome.
 * Kierkegaard calls it something like "despair that doesn't recognize its despair." Disturbing psychological implications, according to K.

Calamitybrook (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Once again, deconstructed on the user's page. -- Avi (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Outcome for Obsessive & Uneducated Wikipedia "Administrators"

 * Who don't understand and are entirely unable to "get it."


 * Seriously tragic.


 * (In Kierkegaard's peculiar modern terms, this large category of people, in effect, end up in Hell.)

Calamitybrook (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * He can have the "last word". I tire of being the only intelligent party in a purported conversation. Simian repetition of catchphrases heard but not understood doth not an intellectual make. Au revior, but don't break any wiki rules. -- Avi (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sock blocks
I notice you blocked a couple of socks of Sunholm, you might also like to block User:Autocarmerseygeek which is a declared alternate account of one of those blocked. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wasn't you who blocked that particular one, but you might take a look anyway. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Position on Book lists
There is an interesting comment on this article Talk:Bibliography of Bruce Barrymore Halpenny, could you have a look at it please? What is the position? Both Bruce Barrymore Halpenny and Martin Middlebrook are important historians from Lincolnshire, and both notable, but what is the position on listing their books and also articles on their books? I’ve looked at Wikipedia notablity on Books and it makes it clear that if they have been reviewed they are notable. --BSTemple (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, this is how I saw it. To overwhelm the main article was pointless and I thought the editor did a good move in creating the Bibliography list - of course I would have done it myself when I had the time [[image:face-wink.svg|25px]] - or maybe not. Truth is I never thought of doing one. --BSTemple (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at this...
Im new here, basiclly getting involved due to the overwhelming violation of the "Be Neutral" policy in an article that is tagged as biographical information.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zecharia_Sitchin

This is not biographical information, it's massive opinion whoring. I'm convinced someone is attempting to use this wiki to further their own opinion on this topic.

The majority of this article's information is spent slamming what is admittedly a crackpot theory. The article is not about the theory, it's supposed to be biographical information about the man.

Please take a close look at this article when you get a chance. My changes just get reverted within minutes. If we don't intent to maintain impartiality in providing information, and focus on the topic of the information provided, it's time to throw in the towel on the biography project.--EyeRate (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Gordon Rattray Taylor
Hi Avraham, I wonder if your could userfy the above bio for me? I want to work on it to produce an acceptable article. --Michael C. Price talk 04:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Michael C. Price talk 07:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Terrorist cat
Hi Avraham, what would your thoughts be on creating a category 'Terrorist leaders' or 'Leader of designated terrorist groups' or some better wording to separate those who commit terrorist acts and those who exhort others to do so. I think the distinction should be made clear but wanted to know your thoughts. Thanks, Nableezy (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Terrorism. Post your thoughts when you get a chance. Thanks, Nableezy (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It's all greek to me
Hi Avraham...
 * how come el is for Greek...I saw gr being used in other articles and assumed gr was for Greek...what are the various lang abbriviations...and where do I find a list of them to ensure I get it right next time... thanks for spotting the error...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

In that case I've definitely seen quite a few errors in a number of articles...when I notice them I'll correct, now I know...mind you the lang conversion is not the first place I start looking at....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 14:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

GHcool
could you please sort out Ghcool for spreading factually inaccuracies here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashley kennedy3 (talk • contribs) 13:27, March 30, 2009

Judea Samaria West bank case
I missed the memo - what happeneD?--Tznkai (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

FlaggedRevisions
Hi Avraham, if you have time and interest could you take a look at User:Avruch/FlaggedRevs vs. NPP (particularly the last section) and let me know what you think? Thanks, and no problem if you can't get to it, Avruch  T 22:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Phi Beta Kappa Society
Hello, Avi. I've seen the Mediation Cabal case requested for Phi Beta Kappa Society here, and I'm glad to take the case. I have reviewed the relevant discussions and am looking forward to working towards an ultimate resolution. Regards,  Jd 027  (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

OTRS help
Hi Avi. I was wondering if you would take a look at the image uploads of User:Arielaloni and see if they should go through OTRS. I'm not sure since I've never used OTRS before, but my sense is that they are good candidates for OTRS. What do you think? Would you help Arielaloni use OTRS if you do think so? I would but I don't know how. So far the images are for the Arieh Sharon and Gunta Stölzl pages. This post on my talk page explains more. Regards, DVD 02:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and recommended OTRS to him even though you didn't reply, :( I think it would help secure the images since one has a deletion template on it. Best, DVD 19:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Happens to everyone every once in a while. Thanks for looking, and good luck on your RfB. DVD 19:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

New Rochelle discussion notice
New Rochelle problem discussion notification: I've opened a new discussion at Administrators' noticeboard.

This relates to the 4 part proposal i opened on March 26, which was closed on March 27 and archived at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive187.

This is a courtesy notice to all parties who had more than a one word comment in the previous discussion. I think it is a problem that won't go away, and I hope that you will be part of the solution, whether or not you and I have agreed previously. I hope that we can at least clarify the problem, if not immediately agree upon a solution. If anyone thinks this is inappropriate canvassing, I am sure they will express that. I don't anticipate too many separated discussions on this topic, but if this one is closed and a new one opens, I'll probably notify you again, unless you ask me not to. doncram (talk) 03:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the smile!
Thanks for making me laugh.

commons question
Hi Avraham, there is an. My question is that the image does not show up in in the open requests for the month or the day. Not sure if the nomination was done completely to list it, and as I don't know much about commons I thought I would ask you if the image should be listed there and how to do it if it should. Thanks, Nableezy (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration - Unjustified ban of users
I have filed a request for arbitration regarding recent bans of user accounts from which no activities could be found that dispupt Wikipedia. The arbitration request can be found here: Requests for arbitration You are not mentioned as an involved party, I send you this message as a courtesy for your information, and I hope that your opinion there can contribute to solve the issue. Thank you! doxTxob \ talk 23:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: E-mail
Yep. . – Juliancolton  | Talk 22:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Replied. Cheers, – Juliancolton  | Talk 00:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

All that we need to know...
Is that 1) he is Chief Rabbi of the Edah HaChareidis, and 2) the Edah HaChareidis opposes Zionism. The first has been done. The second is for that article (and is sufficiently clear there). There is no need to specifically note that Rav Sternbuch is against Zionism. That would be like demanding to see an independent verifiable source to see that Rav Sternbuch opposes eating on Yom Kippur. Proving that he is an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi suffices for that, just as proving that he is Chief Rabbi of the Edah suffices to prove that he is anti-Zionist. --Piz d&#39;Es-Cha (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg
I noticed that you restored File:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg. Could you also restore the corresponding talk page? I remember that there was a lot of relevant discussion on that page, and it may be important for future reference. Thanks JdH (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)