User talk:Avraham/Archive 4

Barbara Bauer
Hi. I read the info at the link you posted with the latest Barbara Bauer edit, and find it difficult to see that it quite applies here. At the time the sentence about the Google search result was written, it was easily verified by doing a Google search - in fact, the SWFA list was briefly #1 on some of the Google servers. This was reported in several comments on the Making Light site around May 27th. Making Light was pretty much ground zero for the controversy at the time, and the thread made numerous mentions of the Googlebombing in progress, both explicitly and implicitly. Is it truly the case that these comments are inadmissible, and that Google itself was inadmissible at the time, in a factual claim about the Google search itself? The fact of the Googlebombing is not particularly in dispute; cf. several reverted article edits by (presumably, from context) Bauer herself. (The username Cannoliq matches Bauer's posted email address, the claims in the historical edits seem to match things said by Bauer elsewhere, and the anonymous IP edit is similar in some respects to the Cannoliq ones.) As of today, the SFWA list is the #3 result, which has been the case for several weeks at least in my personal experience. Right or wrong, the concerted effort of large numbers of people to link Bauer to the list in search results is a legitimate part of her notability, I think, as it speaks to the degree of rancor Bauer incurred, deserved or otherwise.

Perhaps I'm off base here, but it seems that the bar on some of the sourcing for this article is set impossibly high, beyond the reach of facts or common sense. See, for example, Jules' reply to your point about the Usenet dating. Can I perhaps persuade you to research this a bit further and offer guidance on acceptable sourcing for the specific circumstances? Several people have done extensive research on what was said where and when, but I'm a little unclear (as are others, most likely) on which if any such citations will pass muster, and why or why not. It also seems that pretty much everyone involved is heartily sick of edit wars and incivility, and consequently hesitate to do anything likely to unleash another round of unpleasantness. Thanks! Karen 05:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the great edit! It's much cleaner than mine.  The more detailed reference format kind of confuses me, so I'm grateful that you took the time to make it all consistent, and work out the best way to present the relevant citations.  Karen 03:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello again. Sorry to bother you, but things are getting out of hand again over on the Talk:Barbara Bauer page, especially at the Verifiability and Blog citing guidelines sections.  In the former, Marky48 is attacking the edit on the basis of a) reading in things that aren't there, and b) drawing the conclusion that if there's no citation of the links list or the PublishAmerica connection, the whole paragraph is invalid and an attack. (These happen to be two links that you removed as unnecessary, but I haven't told Mark that.)  In the other section, he's essentially calling one editor a liar, and accusing another of "bullying insulting trollery."  Sometimes a kind but corrective word from an admin gets Mark to calm down and ease off on the attacks for a while.  Is there any chance you could stop by and give it a try?  Thanks!  Karen | Talk | contribs 05:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's an interesting response. I do like your most recent edit.  The only thing I would mention in that connection is that the only evidence that Barbara Bauer has ever placed any books for clients is a) the front page of her web site, which generally provides no details, and b) claims made in several unsourced edits to the article (some anonymous, some not) as a glowing endorsement of Bauer and/or attack on others.  That's why the text said "mostly self-reported," because there was nothing to cite in her favor.  However, it's probably better to give her the benefit of the doubt wherever possible, even if it means taking her word for it on things that don't attack someone else. Karen | Talk | contribs 06:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "generally prior to their involvement with Bauer." I probably should had said, "at least some of them." This was in replacement of Mark's version, "Several authors have had their previous books issued by self-publishing houses and vanity publishers...."  What we know for sure is that Field Rue published with both PublishAmerica and AuthorHouse before signing with BB. Quoting from someone on the Talk page: "I did some poking around on this author's web site and found that his PublishAmerica book was released in August of 2004 . His agent page states that Bauer has been his representative since July of 2005. There are two other books listed on the author's home page, but no release date or publisher has been provided. I found the author and work also represented here. It's a division of a Welsh publisher, but doesn't mention whether they are publishing that particular book." The significance is that if such people self-published after signing with Bauer, then they paid an agent as well as the publisher, and Bauer did nothing they could not do for themselves.  Saying they self-published before finding Bauer actually makes her seem less predatory. However, one example is not the same as going over the entire client list again to see whether the word "generally" is justified. No reference to her involvement or non-involvement with these titles is perfectly fine with me.  The rest of my edit was to clarify that she may have placed books with major publishers in the 1980s and possibly 1990s (giving her the benefit of the doubt on several books and authors she's mentioned), and it's largely her recent track record that is at issue. I think Mark's concern is that she not be shown as leading people to PublishAmerica, which would be a rather large strike against her in the eyes of those who consider PA to be predatory. Karen | Talk | contribs 03:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Quick Question
Hi Avraham. I'm wondering how I can edit the "More info" box on the right hand side of this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sandbox. I would like to add a new category to the five already listed on there. Thanks! QuizQuick 00:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply on your talk page. -- Avi 01:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I was actually thinking about starting a new game. Can I come to you for approval once I finish it? QuizQuick 20:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This isn't exactly the game I'm talking about, but do you think this game can have it's own subsection? QuizQuick 21:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Revert
I do not think so. There are undoubtedly Activist Zionists, but I do not believe that Zionism in-and-of-itself is activism. -- Avi 18:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know about all those "modern Zionism" groups and post-Zionism but Zionism's goal was is to bring Jews to Israel. Even in the 10th grade History 1 Bagrut is it taught the Zionism is activism. Psychomelodic (people think edit) 18:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

(I'd like if we continue the discussion in one page)

Apartheid
In the ArbComm case on the article, Arbitrator Fred Bauder has cited an earlier edit which added the article to the cat Category:Anti-Semitism as an example of "extreme bias". That is why I removed the Islam and anti-Semitism cat and similar links, they seem to be an attempt to make a POV comment on the phrase.Homey 21:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

See Homey 21:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

While your edits can be viewed as biased, categories are a special item. For example Golan heights can legitimately be included in both the geography of Syria and Israel. Inclusion in a category does not signify a fact, only that information regarding a matter may be found there. Certainly there is information extant which paints discussion of Israeli apartheid as anti-Semitism. I think use of the term is mostly by the Western left, particularly South African, English and Israeli. Arabs, who are practitioners of segregation and discrimination themselves, are unlikely to take such a tack. Fred Bauder 20:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"I think the edits you made are disruptive and biased but not actually violations of policy. Categories are not information in themselves. Fred Bauder 16:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not factualy true. the use of Apartheid accusation of Israel is all over the Arab world. The barrier which israel call in the euphamism "anti-terror barrier" is called "the reacial sugregation wall" (and apartheid wall) in Arabic. Zeq 07:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

There hasn't been a discussion....
The following sentence does belong in that paragraph:

Physicians in "nearly half" of neonatal circumcisions "did not discuss the potential medical risks and benefits of elective circumcision prior to delivery of the infant son. Deferral of discussion until after birth, combined with the fact that many parents' decisions about circumcision are preconceived, contribute to the high rate of elective circumcision."TipPt 16:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

PS ... looks like Jakew dismissed the addition, calling it "excess detail."TipPt 16:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Where are you currently working...
With respect to Wiki and Circ's?

When you read explainations of jewish and islamic circ practices ... there's room for debate. Regardless, "requirement" is too strong for the majority, who don't even go to worship. "Rite" is the best word technically, but unfortunately it then reads religious rite (right?).TipPt 16:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * For some it is a rite, for others a requirement. This should be more fully documented in the proper aticles, but look at the Judaism subparagraph in this article, if we can desecrate the Sabbath, a capital offense—punisheable by the Sanhedrin by the most severe of the four forms of death under Jewish law, I tend to think that gives proof beyond a doubt that it is more than a rite. -- Avi 16:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Removing sock puppet accusation since I think I was mistaken about this. My apologies. SkipSmith 07:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Popups
Please try to use the revert feature of the navigational popups only in the case of blatant vandalism. Some of the edits you rolled back at Wikipedia are not vandalism, and a helpful edit summary would be useful to explain why you feel that their change is not necessary. Isopropyl 22:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ron Hoeflin
Avi, have the arguments you've seen persuaded you that Ron's article is worth keeping? Would you consider withdrawing the AfD as you did with the Triple Nine Society? --Michael C. Price talk 04:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My heartfelt thanks! It's refreshing to meet someone prepared to publicly change their mind on any subject (and I agree the article should be expanded).  Thanks again.  --Michael C. Price talk 06:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope this won't be seen as a cheeky request, but I wonder if you would consider withdrawing the AfD against the Prometheus Society? I realise that the article is even more of a stub than the others, but being a stub is surely a reason for encouraging people to add to it, not to delete it? Just a thought. I should add, perhaps, that I'm not a member of the Prometheus Society. Whether this makes my request more or less appropriate, I'm not sure. --Michael C. Price talk 10:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Just noticed the withdrawn AfD: thanks once again for making Wikipedia a saner and more informative place. --Michael C. Price talk 16:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Question First of all, thanks for your help and work on the Prometheus article. Now, about Ron Hoeflin. I just received an email from him, and he offered to write a short biographical sketch for Wiki -- but only if your rules allow it. Do your rules allow him to write his own article? Am I allowed to take his sketch, edit and/or rewrite it and submit it as an article? I am an officer of two of his societies and for the purposes of this question, assume that I am his friend. (I believe I am.) Promking 15:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Prometheus article
I've expanded it. Wrote about 600 words. Obviously its a first effort and can be expanded, corrected and improved... but it's a start. In case of vandals I've put a copy on my talk page. Thanks for your suggestion that we expand it. Promking 16:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help Avraham.--Tstrobaugh 19:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Beit Hamikdash article
Hi Avi: Please read the attached request I received. Thank you. IZAK 07:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Need administrator help in Temple in Jerusalem

Hi Izak,

A user by the name of Biblical1 has completely rewritten the Temple in Jerusalem article multiple times, presenting some rather speculatve views of a few contemporary thinkers as objective fact and scholarly consensus. At this point, would it be possible for you or some other administrator to freeze the page and guide a discussion on the Talk page? Thanks, --Shirahadasha 04:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Shirahadasha: Thanks for contacting me. I am not an admin, but I will bring your message to the attention of others who may be able to help you. It is also very ironic and sad that on the eve of Tisha B'Av that this needs to be dealt with. Sincerely, IZAK 07:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Orthodox Judaism
Hi again Avraham : Thought you would be interested in the latest adventure that has started at Wikipedia:WikiProject Orthodox Judaism (perhaps you may want to join) and the discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orthodox Judaism. Shabbat Shalom. IZAK 12:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Categorization
Hi, if you are saying what I think you are saying about Category:High_IQ_societies, that it cannot be under more than one category, then you are mistaken. Please see Wikipedia:Categorization. Please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks.--Tstrobaugh 19:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
for all the work you put in editing the Prometheus article to proper format. I especially admire that you did the work silently; anyone else would have boasted about it. I've tried to learn some of the format. I found some nice long articles with lots of references and clicked "edit" I didnt edit them of course, I simply observed the code that was used for references, etc. Promking 17:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel and the UN
Please stop pushing POV - I think you will find that it fact it is YOU who are closer to the 3RR breach. Please coply with policy. Thanks. 86.27.55.184 21:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from pushing POV - it is against policy. Furthermore accusing aonther of bad faith is also contrary to guidelines. As an admin you should know better. Thanks. 86.27.55.184 21:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Take a look, it is well-sourced and documented, and it is not POV. Read the talk page as well as the citations. -- Avi 21:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You two know better than this, sorry Avi but you did break WP:3RR in the article as well by having 4 non-vandalism reverts in a 24 hour period. That I see, 8 hour block. Jaranda wat's sup 19:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You're correct, I missed this: Note: There is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count. I cannot argue with the block. -- Avi 20:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I unblocked via your email that said you would avoid the article for 24 hours. The annon is still blocked. ThanksJaranda wat's sup 20:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Avi 20:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Lieberman
Avi, the vandal is back on Joe Lieberman with a registered account -- same edits. Sandy 02:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Avi, I'm not a vandal - I've never changed anything on the Lieberman wiki before. I just noticed an obvious error on the Joe Lieberman page. That is, Lieberman never checked into the Betty Ford clinic for a cocaine abuse problem. You can check this out - but it should be changed. Thanks. Bezalela 02:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, Avi and Bezalela: I was wrong.  I see now that vandalism got left behind in the last spree, and that you were reverting it.  There was so much activity that I really got confused.  My apologies! (Will add an apology note to Bezalela page).  Sandy 02:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Please Dont Vandalize User Pages
Please refrain from vandalizing my userpage. It is apparernt that you have an agenda to push and continue to disregard Wikipedia's NPOV rule. I urge you to cease and desist with your blantant disregard for civil discussion and your "ownership" of articles. --Oiboy77 17:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My dear Oiboy, it has nothing to do withvandalization. You had violated wp:npov with your Jeruslaem --> Tel Aviv edit. You know better than that. -- Avi 17:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"my dear Oiboy77"?? Please don't patronize me.--Oiboy77 20:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, Oiboy it will be, -- Avi 20:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI Mega Society Judgement
As you may have heard the Mega Society article was deleted awhile ago, at the end of an acrimonious AfD/DRV process. There is a wide divergence between deletion policy (as defined by various policy guideline documents) and deletion practice, as implemented by admins (who claim to be following the "spirit" of the law). Consequently there are lessons to be learnt from the experience, which will not be obvious from reading the guidelines. Here are some tips for future conduct:


 * Single purpose users are frowned upon and were a frequent bone of contention during the AfD and DRV processes. So I urge you all to "establish" yourself as Wikipedians: create, edit and even ... delete articles!  There are plenty of articles that need attention.
 * It is a very good idea to put something on your user page, (it doesn't matter what) to avoid showing up as redlinked users -- being redlinked will count against you in any debate.
 * When voting, include brief reasons which are grounded in policy (votes not backed by reasoning may be discounted; too much reasoning will be ignored).

Given the bias against soliciting (see judgement) I may not be able to contact you again, so I suggest you put the Mega Society in your watchlists. The closing admin's comments on the Mega Society:


 * Within the argumentation of the debate, the most significant point raised by those who supported the article was that a new draft was available. The article is not protected, so this may be posted at any time and (assuming it is not substantially similiar to the older version) it will be judged anew on its merits.  This is good news for you.


 * The bad news for you is that it is well-established practice within Wikipedia to ignore completely floods of newer, obviously "single-issue POV", contributors at all our deletion fora. I'm among the most "process-wonkish" of Wikipedians, believe me, and even process-wonks accept that these sorts of voters are completely discountable.  Wikipedia is not a pure democracy; though consensus matters, the opinion of newcomers unfamiliar with policy is given very little weight.  Your vote, that of Tim Shell, and that wjhonson were not discounted.  The others supporting your view were.  I promise you that it is almost always true that, within Wikipedia, any argument supported by a flood of new users will lose, no matter how many of the new users make their voices known.  In the digital age, where sockpuppeting and meatpuppeting are as easy as posting to any message board, this is as it should be for the sake of encyclopedic integrity.  It is a firm practice within Wikipedia, and it is what every policy and guideline mean to imply, however vaguely they may be worded. (I do agree that our policies, written by laypeople mostly, could do with a once-over from an attorney such as myself; however, most laypeople hate lawyers, so efforts to tighten wording are typically met with dissent.)


 * If your supporters were more familiar with Wikipedia, they would realize that, invariably, the most effective way to establish an article after it has been deleted in a close AfD is to rewrite it: make it " faster, better, stronger." This is, in fact, what you claim to have done with your draft. Good show.  Best wishes, Xoloz 16:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

So the outcome was not entirely negative, although I was disappointed by the admin's rather cavalier approach evidenced by the response to my enquiry:


 * .... why did you discount the votes of, say, User:GregorB or User:Canon? They are not new users, nor did I solicit them.  I presume by Tim Shell you mean Tim Smith? ...... --Michael C. Price talk 16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

to which I received this rather off-hand reply:


 * User:GregorB offered a very brief comment not supported by policy. User:Canon did take the time to offer analysis at DRV, but he had been among the first voters at the AfD to offer a mere "Keep" without explanation; therefore, I assumed he had been solicited by someone. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

which didn't fill me with confidence about Wiki-"due process".

Anyway, my grumpiness aside, the Mega Society article, is presently under userfied open-development at User:MichaelCPrice/mega, and will reappear at some point, when (hopefully) some of the ill-feeling evidenced during the debate has cooled. I am very heartened by the article's continued development, and by the development of associated articles. Thanks for everyone's help!

--Michael C. Price talk 14:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

86.27.62.142 09:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Aren't I allowed to edit articles then? Please assume good faith and let me contribute without threatening me. 86.27.62.142 09:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Removing properly sourced pertinent information is considered vandalism. -- Avi 09:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As is constantly pushing POV. Sorry - but you know you're being naughty here. Stop it. 86.27.62.142


 * No, you are. Please stop violating policy, including removing relevant encyclopedic information from reliable sources, and making up original research about what you imagine the rest of the world did or did not do. Jayjg (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

ANI
Avi, chill, baby. I don't need an advocate. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I know you don't, but why miss out on all the bloody fun (read with english accent) ;) -- Avi 05:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Warning
With these edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Israel&diff=68210563&oldid=68210173 Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Human rights in Israel. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Oiboy77 16:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Very funny. Pasting improper warnings is a form of vandalism, Oiboy. -- Avi 16:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Removing sourced material and over all disrupting NPOV editing is vandalism. By editing in your POV on just about every article related to Israel you disregard and attack everyone who disagrees with you. Calling people anti-semetic or anti-Israeli IS a personal attack. Posting bogus warnings on peoples user page as you did mine is also a personal attack. BTW I'm Jewish and find being called a ant-semite highly offensive. I believe in a two state system and you are a Zionist. There is no need to attack me. Though I disagree with your viewpoint, I value when you make contructive edits to topics, not POV BS.--Oiboy77 20:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing my edits and using your POV on wikipedia article
Hey, what the hell are you doing? I'm editing the article, and I am adding the sources gradually. Why do you remove all of my edits? And the article itself is full of your edits, and as you're a Jew, it's full of your POV. Stop removing my edits. Although you're an administrator, you can not use your own view here. Hossein.ir 19:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A few points. Firstly, the fact that I am Jewish has absolutely no bearing on the topic, any more than the fact that I am a male, or that I am an American. You are skirting painfully close to a personal attack. I would suggest you read WP:NPOV, as opposed to making comments that are likely based on a lack of understanding of the policy. Also, you removed and rewrote the section on Hezbollah using human shields. ALl I did was replace it with seven sources, more than enough to justify it. Throwing in the US military support for Israel has as much to do with the article as does the US military support for Egypt. Also, the heading for the human shields section is perfectly descriptive, and is used against Israel in the Human rights in Israel article among others. If it is good enough for the Israelis, it is good enough for Hezbollah. Step back, and try to ensure that both POV's are accurately represented with proper sources.


 * However, for the record:


 * Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.
 * Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.
 * Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

--Avi 19:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Why did you remove the US aid part? It has some good sources. I'm adding it again, and with a LOT OF sources, it's unreasonable to remove it. --Hossein.ir 19:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you explain to me what it has to do with the article? If it is germane, perhaps it does belong, but it is a classic response "Let's blame the great Satan America too". It has to be relevant to the article. If you can show that it is, fine, otherwise, it has as much to do with the article as does Mozart, which has plenty of sources as well. -- Avi 19:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Germans? That's funny. And to many, it's obvous. US is the greatest military supporter of Israel, and most of its attackes are done by the F16s US gave them. Btw, who's Mozart? :-) I prefer Betthoven. And about being a jewish, I don't think it's bad or good or whatever, but I thought it's the reason you're editing the article, and I thought this caused to edit the article with your POV. Right? this is my thought, and it's not an attack. At least you should tolerate the label of This is a US people idea thing, until I find some good sourcesm by googling, just like you.

Hossein.ir 19:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I had the same problem with a new administrator, and with giving plenty of sources, more than usuall, I could convince him. I should do this with you. Giving more and more sources. --Hossein.ir 19:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see the talk page of the 2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict. --Hossein.ir 21:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank You
Thanks for the reverting the vandalism on my talk page!--1568 06:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Hi Avraham. I appreciate working w/ you. -- Szvest 17:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What did I do to deserve that?! 8-) -- Avi 17:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 'cause i remember now your RFA as i forgot when i did interact w/ you before, except lately in a few articles. I supported at your RFA's and i am very glad i was right. -- Szvest 17:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;

Dates
I am unsure as to why you wish to use American Dating in an article concerning a topic where International Dating is appropriate. See WP:MoS for guidelines on date format. --Jumbo 21:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict
Just to let you know quite a few of the refs you added into this article don't seem to work properly.AndrewRT 22:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Scrap that it wasn't you!

Request your attention to the GoldToeMarionette case
had a WP:RFCU inappropriately completed on their account by and  blocked the account after it was identified as a multiple account despite their being no violation of Wikipedia policy by GoldToeMarionette. These users did not respond to requests to undo the action.

Other steps in dispute resolution have been tried


 * Comments on RFCU itself


 * Other Admins contacted


 * Hall Monitor was emailed with no reply


 * GoldToeMarionette posted on the account's User and Talk Pages seeking assistance when the talk page was protected without the issue being discussed. User:GoldToeMarionette User_talk:GoldToeMarionette

GoldToeMarionette notified article contributors that illustrative examples were subject to an AfD. The account strictly followed the WP:SPAM guideline. The AfD was without controversy. GoldToeMarionette did not participate in the vote. HereToCleanup removed the posts following the AfD in accord with the widely accepted Wikipedia Guideline Spam that states "Clean up your mess. For example, after engaging in cross-posting to promote some election, be sure to remove those cross-posts after the election is complete." 


 * GoldToeMarionette Contributions
 * Breakdown of GoldToeMarionette's Posts
 * Example post to 66 article contributors
 * Example post removal from 66 article contributors
 * HereToCleanup's Contributions
 * No AfD participation

Since GoldToeMarionette was strictly following Wikipedia Policy, there should not have been a Check User completed by Jayjg. Hall Monitor only blocked the account because it was labeled as a sockpuppet by Jayjg's completed Check User. Absent policy violation it should not have been processed in RFCU or been blocked. I am asking for your help to confirm that policy was not violated, administrative action should not have been taken, and request that the administrative action be reversed by unblocking GoldToeMarionette and unprotecting the talk page. Thank you for your time with this request. RealTime 02:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This user went around spamming all the admins beginning with A, see my talk page Ashi b aka tock 18:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Disputed Tag for St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine article
A disputed tag merely implies there is a content dispute. Looking at the recent history and the mediation-cabal case that appears to be fairly obvious. Addhoc 22:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Talk: Second-class citizen
Please do not encourage Mike18xx; if you look at his history, it's pretty obvious that he is out to cause trouble. He is not above namecalling and baseless accusations, and has declared his (apparent) intention to ignore the three-revert rule. I see today he has progressed to advocating flaming of IP addresses. This is someone who needs HELP, but not helpful suggestions, IMO. I am the original author of the article; he is a pox on it, and I have already requested help in dealing with his negative contributions. Zephyrad 18:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The "2006" BMA statements on circumcision
Please explain why the quote you force is better than the one I prefer for the association position?

Why are individual doctors opinions relevant?

My prefered quote represents "Best Interests." Can't get better.

Here's the quote I prefer: "Best interests In the past, circumcision of boys has been considered to be either medically or socially beneficial or, at least, neutral. The general perception has been that no significant harm was caused to the child and therefore with appropriate consent it could be carried out. The medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven, and it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks - read more here. It is essential that doctors perform male circumcision only where this is demonstrably in the best interests of the child. The responsibility to demonstrate that non-therapeutic circumcision is in a particular child’s best interests falls to his parents."

(TipPt .. forgot to logon)

This quote should be included in the upper section. "The British Association of Paediatric Surgeons advises that there is rarely a clinical indication for circumcision."

The whole statement is a "synopsis of the principles the BMA." I feel like most people don't make the distinction between religious and "hygiene" reasons when they read "Non-therapeutic circumcision" The mentioning of divergent doctor opinions (when it is non-therapeutic anyway) misleads the reader. Individual doctors opinions are not relevant to the association level principles.

Can I take out the first sentence?TipPt 01:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right, I shouldn't have added that last sentence to the first statement paragraph ... the meaning is conveyed earlier. I'm sorry.


 * You seem quote pro-circ for religous reasons, which I respect.


 * You label me anti-circ, and yes I am against parents in the US having their boys circ'd without accurate knowledge ... but with strong bias assuming that there are medical reasons. The practice serves no (see cost/benefit) medical purpose, and can do great harm.  I do get carried away, but I'm honest.


 * For example, if the frenulum is excised, damaged, or reduced (as is common in neonatal circs in US hospitals) erogenous sensation potential is lost. Parents don't have a clue.  Know that the frenulum is the primary orgasm/ejaculatory trigger zone.


 * Do parents know that when they look at their child's circumcision where the scar is within 1/4 inch of the corona?


 * The Circ article is biased pro-circ at this time, and misleads the reader. For example, your mischaracterization of the AMA and BMA statement in the third opening paragraph.  You should also object to the listing and detailing of medical aspects TWICE, as though they were particularly important to parental decision making.  It becomes a problem when they (parents) want to hear what they expect to hear.


 * Note that the BMA labels non-therapeutic the same as ritual ... "any reason other than physical clinical need is termed non-therapeutic (or sometimes “ritual”) circumcision."TipPt 15:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation problem
Hi Avraham, I noticed you're reverting changes to a number of refs in 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, claiming that the refs are being "killed". However, when checking the refs, I found they work fine after having been changed. Part of the problem is that a few users have recently started an almost full version of Template:Cite web in this and related articles, instead of the condensed version of Template:Cite news that has become the established template in these articles. In addition, these users insert the template in a line-by-line fashion instead of the recommended "stream" solution:, usually which means that the page becomes very cumbersome to work with in edit mode (especially when people add 5-6 references after each other), as every section becomes a mile long.

Using the line-by-line mode is fine in other types of articles, where the number of references are limited, but in 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict we already have some 140, when including those pointing to the same reference, and if all those would consist of eight lines instead of one, the article becomes 980 lines longer in edit mode!

The modified Template:Cite news looks as follows:, however, the order of the items is usually thrown around  , as that is how the template finally displays it in the reference section irrespective of the order of the items. It is the ideal template for a developing story article which quotes newspapers, as there is no need to insert the name of the writer, coauthors and the date the news article was accessed.

The biggest problem with reference losses in these articles is the stupid practice by some to use the pointer form of the command, i.e. you point to an existing reference simply by inserting, as that will only work as long as the reference starting with  exists, and in an environment where references quickly become obsolete and there are hundreds of people editing and re-editing, such pointers will quickly have nothing to point to. Using the is a good thought, as several references will point to one line, but in this environment even using the command is risky unless the name chosen is very unique, as two users may very well start two different references with for instance , in which case the system will only display the first and point the second reference to it. Best regards 13:32, 13 August 2006 Thomas Blomberg

G8 cite
The citations were apparently condensed. You can find the full sourcing at Zar'it-Ayta al-Sha`b incident.  Tewfik Talk 19:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

RE: Military and economic aid in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict
Excuse me, but I did specify my reasons in the edit summaries asking for clarification. Your recent edits were not clear, so my actions in removing such edits and requesting clarification is justified. --Inahet 22:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, I think you should familiarize yourself with WP:WEASEL. --Inahet 22:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes I concur. That's what I asked for. Thanks.--Inahet 04:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFP
I spoke with Voice of All and from what I understand, his bot can archive WP:RFP, so I don't believe it's necessary for us to archive it. Also, either way it's probably best for there to remain at least one case in the requests area so people know what a requested protection looks like. Thanks, though :D Cowman109 Talk 00:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I Apologize
I apologize, i didn't see it in the articles, but there was one qutoe where words where added to the end that made israel look bad. It was the nbc qutoe. But I hope your family is doing good, I support Israel because I realize what hezbollah, iran, and syria, and bascially most muslims want israel destroyed. So are you from israel? --Zonerocks 02:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No. but i visited for two weeks last year. --Zonerocks 03:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

A Request
I am aware of the 3RR rule, so it is not necessary to "warn me" when you think I am "getting close." Thank you though, I assume you are being genuine in helping to insure I am not unknowingly about to break a rule. Sarastro777 05:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to User:Primetime
Regarding your change to User:Primetime (diff), you've put your comment between Ashibaka's signed comment and his timestamp (which moved below it). Try to move his timestamp back to the position after his sig, please. -- ADNghiem501 07:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

polls
The polls have closed. --Zonerocks 17:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV warning
What are you talking about? I'm adding factual information from a reliable source, not personal commentary.

Also, there is no consensus on the talk page, I have outlined my objections again and again. Deuterium 00:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Replied on your talk page -- Avi 00:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So do you admit you were wrong when you said I was adding "commentary and personal analysis"?


 * Secondly, other people in talk agree with me; there is no consensus. For example,


 * Hello all. I saw the RFC and wandered to see what all the hullabaloo was about. May I suggest including the (admittedly bizarre) Times reference but following it up with a statement to the effect of "However, the Jerusalem Post has questioned the credibility of the Times' coverage of Israeli issues" or something like that. Additionally, if any others have questioned the credibility of this report then those sources should also be included. I think that TheronJ is right that WP:V demands we include the Times' article. I would further suggest that this issue be revisited in the not-too-distant future (a month or two) and if no other sources have reported anything about this it be deleted to prevent from giving undue weight to what would then appear to be a very minor issue. --ElKevbo 03:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you keep lying about the situation and threatening me I will bring this to an RFC. Deuterium 00:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page yet again, if you can discern the truth inmy web of falsehoods, that is :D -- Avi 01:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. And accusations of lying are not appreciated :) -- Avi 01:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You still haven't answered any of my questions, so I will continue to add the well sourced, relevant information to the article. Lying isn't appreciated, nor are threats and I may well bring this to RFC for your behaviour here is atrocious for an admin :) Deuterium 01:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page yet again, if you can discern the truth inmy web of falsehoods, that is :D -- Avi 01:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by Oiboy77
Check this very weird vandalism. If you ask me, this is worth a month's block. --Daniel575 17:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick correction
Thank you for the quick gramatical correction; it looked like a coma-splice sentence to me--until I re-read it. In the English language you can have 2 sentences "jammed" together into one (long) sentence; just use a semi-colon, not a comma. Some people forget that small rule, and simply use a coma. Take care. ProfessorPaul 23:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Article on terrorism
You may find the article Terrorists of Pakistani origin interesting. It may be deleted soon in perhaps a few hours.

If you have any views on having such articles on Wikipedia, please do share them at Articles_for_deletion/Terrorists_of_Pakistani_origin

--Robcotton 01:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Leonora Jakupi
I do not understand why you deleted a Leonora Jakupi-image. It was a CD-cover. Please put it back.--Noah30 18:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Responded on your talk page. -- Avi 19:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)