User talk:Avraham/Archive 49

Could you check an OTRS ticket for an image, please?
File:Bbturner1.jpg says that permission has been sent to OTRS. User:Fastily seems to believe that still means it should be deleted due to not having a copyright tag, since no one has placed the proper copyright template on it. Could you please check |the OTRS ticket and tag the file appropriately, to save it from deletion? Thanks. --GRuban (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Avi (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * [[Image:WikiThanks.png|43px|left|WikiThanks]] Thanks! --GRuban (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Rangeblock?
Special:Contributions/91.109.209.218 and Special:Contributions/91.109.241.245. User making vile and unwarranted personal attacks and IP-hopping.  Enigma msg  14:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Six hour anon-block on 91.109.192.0/18. There will be some minor collateral damage, but the predominant user is the one you have blocked. -- Avi (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :)  Enigma msg  15:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

SPI case
Hi Avi, if you have the time, could you have a look at the Johnreve SPI case? It involves some deleted Commons images, and since Alison isn't particularly active at the moment I think you are the only CU who's also a Commons admin. Don't know whether any checks are required, I didn't look into it at all, but it's been sitting there for over a week now. Thanks, Amalthea  16:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I will try to look at it in the next couple of days, thanks for the note! -- Avi (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Ping on usurp
See Changing username/Usurpations – xeno talk 14:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Avi (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Sudais
Hi Avraham, can you please look at User:Tariqsplot and his edits of Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais and File:Sudais.jpg? I am not sure I can revert the picture so it shows Sudais alone.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 11:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Avi (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Question
Hello. I wrote an article Jacob Barnet affair, but I am not sure what the articles to link to it from? I added it to "see also" sections of few articles. Is it enough that the article will not be called an orphan, or it should be linked to from the text? Could you please give me an advise? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You've been had... maybe
This is, apparently, an incarnation of a particularly disruptive user previously blocked on Wikinews.

I seriously doubt the legitimacy of claims made with userpage templates. All recent #wikinews IRC channel activity has originated from Pakistan; the initially disruptive username on WN has some contributions on enWP in 2005 in-relation to crypto/security subjects. When he much, much later appeared on Wikinews; blocks on substantial portions of Pakistan's IP allocation were applied, and evaded.

I am absolutely seething about the attitude and behaviour of anothor WN 'crat over this. Particularly considering his fulfilment of this users request to be renamed - allegedly for SUL purposes - without leaving a redirect behind; and acceding to requests for various of the socks I can dredge out of my memory to "vanish". The, what I consider, pathetic response is to claim he thought this person was trying to help the project when, in all probability, he has published a hoax or purloined and translated interview.

What can I say? --Brian McNeil /talk 01:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi
'''Wishing User: a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Gök han   ' '' 05:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Username change
I would like to change my username due to privacy concerns, and I have read that only bureaucrats can do that, which is why i am contacting you. What is the process, and what do i have to do on my end? Thank you very much!

Svetlana Miljkovic (talk) 04:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Responded on users page. -- Avi (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Canadian Forces emblem.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Canadian Forces emblem.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

MGA73
Hi, quick query before the admin promotion is announced in The Signpost: is it a permanent promotion to admin status, or is there a time-limit on it? Or was it left open? I ask just to forestall any queries from readers. (If the last, I probably won't even mention timing.) Tony   (talk)  09:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks; as it was, I didn't mention timing. Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-07-12/Features_and_admins. Tony   (talk)  06:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Technical help with Temple articles
Hi Avi: I inadvertently cut-and-pasted the Solomon's Temple article to First Temple (Judaism); the Second Temple of Jerusalem to Second Temple (Judaism); and Third Temple to Third Temple (Judaism) as well as their talk pages. I am not an admin so I don't have the tools but could you please make the correct REDIRECTS for the three articles and for their related three talk pages to the new pages and talk pages. This will of course restore and keep their edit histories. Thank you in advance for your help with this important subject. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ For futire reference, I beleve any autoconfirmed registered editor can move pages, I believe, not just admins, but an admin is needed for the deletion portion to combine histories when fixing cut-and-paste moves :) . -- Avi (talk) 23:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Second Temple
Hi Avraham. I left a comment on the talkpage here: Talk:Second_Temple_(Judaism). I'm sure you never thought you were being secretive, but I'm not happy about the page being moved without the normal process being gone through. Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Former IP: You are wrong. Firstly, there most definitely was a very lengthy discussion reaching consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism since 14 July 2010. Secondly, this page like all the others effected were notified about the proposed redirect, also on 14 July 2010 on their talk pages but now with the "corrected" redirects it's not showing up for some odd reason. So please do not complain now because all users who have this page on their watch lists had more than two weeks to partake, share their their views and make comments and suggestions. Those editors who did were mostly reliable Judaic editors who are trustworthy and responsible. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --FormerIP (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See my detailed response with more information at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Giacomo Bindi
as the player became notable, may i request restore the page history that deleted. Matthew_hk  t  c  10:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why does the old history need to be restored? If the player is notable now, let the article be started anew. -- Avi (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Message
-BEGIN PGP MESSAGE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)

hQQOA5SyA3xlFDnMEBAAjh4OEIvI7tex+qNggRGM6fI79tYAWnw1o7XhCfFvBs05 44fBc36hdWtblavZfDNHzxWP1zAlK30CJirz5bPXetn9eDglx+XsDpH7BEU2MJbC jRiPvGIDL6x002WC6FWCAQF/m9pczFWwYSYUr+4jAB4HcdDjEjeQvyP4afdP9Alq kInj93VOTNiuHDO3w8X7t7wG4UfPJBBXCs7RPM5A52V5m/D7Wycx4SiRoXAx1PoO d9zgcoy6DxtNmsENC0TF7Oe3pBpTwDGKY/8y+ghvQEe8AO8t6n2EgA97GhGAypgf oEqR3m4QJMaMdA/PL8Kf4PtP1ZDbijs74Eq2lCdlYPlTvWXrV44vnCrARhPtpKYt wqiw4JbaoOKhkm7X6SLSyWQyWbSHmxY4mfIspuKj2QghePItTTOklzZ/CZNSqHiN 9TgmzWjr37oYafQEexec7/RXRbWdDp0tT4WoOfqkQYdnujSyXK2lVGecRs8zbDZj z78XVYRlxm1LNrziks6KmAZcFGQOwn2h5rvOCOHWnlef77HkDKdhP0wXBkarUlVD qS5opEymDn3/WlWsxwRYaIKoIP9A2c3x994HwjQnEC3ZW4a59Ri8qOHEp8hD9j7z TWp/VbS4RRkfU0H8d4MmqZ+ZHLfp7oRK6g6rGcF/a2PpNFRNl5pBjnRrCOKWApgQ AKKifUhWRlDIL/sh1MXWbgpDBYug+D+0J3UzyQYFjl7CKiJUywpb/PhwhlJF/wWO X48cILnxi016JcdLlIedr4hrf52SPe6b+ywhamV1z8AXDwzZwQU3NbI/AsHKmaUD XSNM3McI6nhqps50FpufGUloJWZScP11YxoEgjJIEE5kw1HM7qyeGRvyClqK2stj asHOQQsFlmEI0elgclOhuLIp7avPNWZt/jH1crljbuvsXhkxMxEGDhXkaTu1hR2S 4jXytQAu0JPpLR5zN9XmeFDkizOjF52ftcRH9uHgUXecPh8HyVk+scUcxhtc/Khd jxv8MAEoGdxaQlosbKCkE1XumZUWWiBElSBVhDHjhlazxsu3UT2bnw5E4F9tQ5YK fhpP9r5KefwxSXtV8DbZ1AUutHoR6I23h441A3P/B8CMhPstCx6+hqM5/vKON4A8 lJ7r/YFnwc33NRb/4uOfnvfvBnrAAeoMFt1630uZlYM/mH2aej68ctLV8i/7MeyF M45lj5U5uvUHTEsirf1mwv3msGZjgzxp5jOmlOBl1rnBkhvqn1UjSy8CK8+Z4WCD jKsJImZpttMnmOW/Nva+C9gbTCgPF4lPZHde2eA8YQUOq47/RlhtNeNdIqfij35A bDKu4lCd39CcCBgbhIqosH06Wa6MNovo6vbOj67aSYL/0ukBSHToUOllA9esr/ls XdakkCAm/LGxcTI6yMfJe/j6zulUpDyMCDkldl2dA4WIiv5NXEKymZsrCYpfFZEy gQwg9Oa2/Jnn9TQ28HRlb7woKLSZ1UHuORgPUT5M8+W5eHhkrluE4tWGDLbh7YBQ VFSLHRL7kJ+DGym3I5DEXoyplrFLdQhUPV7TrCMXUKoeSW1BK1xKjXQwk/IEIlCT iTGVgxANdHIGHB3dEycjHQh9uEEVNohemh+2hgxXKqgcHKITkd0zrhCxRT+zNr3W gqVwaqCU52t9vS46sH3m973Itm7qtovr3D/r6V/kdOJgMHQELI9zzqwZMmGAabX1 NqRc6woKeOIVTIgZ4Yp/RgqKjLtmjqVnmKt9QcelNNb1x/YqLboGjc8sw68BbOEZ axoXESlrGDZG1ngyhtsun+3O4Zkmgej8RWHuAYVkKgW4WgflZBTdNpNJ2G5Wm1vX Ery5Xmhx8juB7hRXpK96kGFnr8Fek9jdC6O/90yaDR3hk7GG7YKBbYTKP+49c97y YYtDq0+03UAwKZp11t+lZcF6mgsbB3AgQZRx1GEEQcKYf8Ek0AohGPDCfR/43S7P X17s09ssz2V/raJHShgc4bwpvBscFXCPIFrgZ+jdpPJG2kAcuhojfTg2Sz/zx1rw Yl7K0ffFxt169xBG5JgLR5fi18A0LekM4MoDjgmPwixcn3WgtbjRs6F6L+we2Gf+ ThcbEk/XaIl/PZlRzo+mQ1ifbKMA9yHLBgNII5sG+A+TAYktBdt9v/3nquEch3nG LKK9QEoX4VB7t3eL/+K3gQGX3Zx71Qk6tM/d5+8W4TkDA48DL7au4GTCLNm1n823 Txf71uAslqWSpnM6CAuM3k5dEAYS6fbOXExEGv2mrgPNHO5PBin+7AIkVcSr61O3 /1F/rJMU02nGWmd0ew9IIyx2Hchuzj38VJxXlY9glGHUz/rTyXlvTAz3MXE12D7X G/+auFVB9UBWfDTWrtTBup7lcKSr6lyq5g== =GJ80 -END PGP MESSAGE-
 * Responded. -- Avi (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day

 * Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biblical wedding (2nd nomination)
Hi. Just notifying you that I bundled additional articles to Articles for deletion/Biblical wedding (2nd nomination). Maashatra11 (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 13:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Follow up
-BEGIN PGP MESSAGE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)

hQQOA5SyA3xlFDnMEA//fG4BygL3+3/w3HLEN3IREimNknhlWxkxvzYRkYfWdu1c ydUrczswZJr46qokYVwoiLQw1OAADaz8E0zNsPfhog8o+nST5xQn1jPpoJEfSJXa AL9qcifyEPyE6Mu7TCLde2k5bX2hJOqnDFQZPKzQXkMvVfQUTOMlt9c8j1tBIlHZ OMc8G6qwFHFx4ZlVGRRPzsHz+Sxj8Ay7aogHA5iYN9+R3RWfQr4/Rd76B6EJFslc y40NevCKVskqmFVBtz587J03tDbzgSlqvIl1nbs87S7mKqrWLDvldnUdw/i5yjmW fTqVblHIYWjD2l/9gUOLeOnfHGQnHFQg2BB7A9jxpzTIrlizJtcUNiHv+f1+3IIJ 1+weftfnY3HlWwxSom7JWSA9VMl//uCYYEo1VEmTiYkNXW+W0i5FxtN78hHOvQam +JS2e3vVs2J40FGpjWY229JkvMIKn6ORDKJf8qfgDHMyYGKvdUO1Ofj+4YgxRz6P fPtCvbuAatJiZmEZevgGV0u27SZIkVyZtLuAFn4CLbZywlmkQjXFY26SWH+inZMK zkIvOJxt/KFon47KcK53+d2xIUwI70zep7G4wTA+vUVLRxO66h6MRMIah4hax1Qb lakWeDe7IK/asOwYBCu02YKRehkWgFZ1oTnpNyPHzjH3jEb/bh9SjwBe2cYNP0UP /3831Cq97/hgroBCQUl9I38dVCynPpNP723BiS7F8H8CI3pLqdKdbouQHmwB3eUI KRCb3ASkKRANNTfBL/X4zFa7PQy2bZc5b8c/dUqXNRndflKwT6/mJ/DTZAeoGI7d tsGAXGXNxA4eWNOCWbQEuPkBErkBaeuyzRBE65r/GNm26KKMGDlqfE8ksM1NwI1v rLtBE/GTpOxBkPviXrGiL0+10GezKZYNfN0H+0oczrEkUZmgIxdsgIXEEvS+bpZv MkqQvnWMpEn+2uWxbGXZiHopyIoOLjvbk5eiBaKhWikj0FdL7s+q1wb6FK+Btm2E OwiqIRLcsc5HR2GajKITe2CfpH51v7h7+wy9nFlkbcHjhI3S1La9pCeeMNI+CV/y KWH4mfmGZEmswwzn9rFJA4h+QOzpc13Q4u/ffprLzKBf26f30SmJXEAAgOAp8fi1 BKmCtx+G6ExgJdVjQUMhU0zYrCpHGdVYqhXIqZCd4eTykb2p/zkI8qPkBj6155YT dbEAbvabKTP+AeP02ouuck5etNuR0IIu/1FtfeoKgKI9oAsb36D4KgWutbCRzPY9 c/JFak5TbSaeeY5eo7arPBS45RSSUxiDo09S5m2CNZRk0aWOO4T2qAjUiUuTx5TE Un0iQSFgXz/ne8qtPw9ACWVDWVpKnn+6a9Ng3KdMVXYF0ukBiRFa3F650pSFEp9q jXu6tD8xVeFOy2f+uMU0XxRim4iMSGiYt4wwX5XYFW3kXggxYJXZY4SsbD5Gznpx x4ZWvUDoitY4HrKWtoQ1RUA00P/zD0QETJNrH/7vfizEQVNdt0PuLK9uFooOvcRY M8nKWbkZfVd0HrIAcZVYpTvyeqURxz8s4yN9JBhCnU7cBs9wXrKmjohzsXEeQTjD dQ9TANu/2KQJG2jlcj5ng4nkD1D9V3Iyvue4Zyq6wIkyd8WZEque+iWe6Sba2qMI KbJgXwTsc4bo6PyWsh43DgBrp6FdMewHfPXldkdcn0m30d9e/zVVsTVVkXlypFqp AtlN9FT8iJtD4gYx0HmDKyJ0erIDulUM9mCVwIiWdzQs8TFXvuJ75mnkg27w5dv9 DZxW6F6GupKkueWhQPEZ2HUC4CMXUnIS4Q9sNCPUjKVSw2KHKeF80Ry+pUItoLPq d3X2LJDNJzgi5xiNllyXvuRxqJrDzyQ2oF7zMFMMt1jCoEHe95FYLZ51eD98LBRJ 9Frv9DEyu0ZjUixx/lcqYg0f19VUQeUymApktTbwZ8ICVAS71jdiO7RibDarhF2j g+uS996ZYD6C3Of7mGUNBnE7MHUbRrAMpjv/hfFRH1ur0aLcs9JRWB5QG+PuvDsL pEZWvlpdpd6YzQoo8fWFz30x2sCynHIvRyNcauptjtnBismIS/Gaywc8xdTw68qO YNkXTr9FqVHY+aEhGgda6eiYDlCYxs5ZxfDgMOz3UY7r7g+50+hndm4M6O2iv7w9 FSZP8OYbDiHbIXHLjihguZXBn2tbTPaOFT3wrNtgw2IFsAg8xBwSPUmsbORnY3Qx Mc87NH+xyStQHdOHsP7EdbDkodPsQ+lZKQWbPXTSUs3XTYN97rWW0oF2K8CNYMFP PPHT2tdsBTNcHqLlG4L/dZQ1cCE1mIHTkPHYduqRIwHi2lbpL/J+rdlfqfA8i8k+ pC03g+jkYMXAd1rOuvaNF/eTvHIDNqbqB7NOshNuitMSOwbakfUg7wbTfriQ9WJT 13tMUgAsigrV1dnWKJkw3Vl9v69xHqYxmsPTTmku5F1K2xMrdfvv+JcDZbuWRvIK fHe650g1XJzUdFvm9gaQX6P2XDitI0DfpzZIoJw1xFjWhGeDz683vpdBzVEot2aX UWQ9btL8pQ== =ejkm -END PGP MESSAGE- NonvocalScream (talk) 08:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Kohen article
Hi Avi,

I've run into a pretty inexperienced editor who is making edits to the Kohen article that I'm concerned about. Give your knowledge, would you be able to take a look? I've opened up a section on the Talk:Kohen page for at least one of the problems, though he's still making many edits, so there may be more by the next time I look. :-) Jayjg (talk) 04:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't it pretty obvious that is just  evading his block? He's making the same arguments, and referring to the same sources. Jayjg (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * CU indicates one and the same; blocked. -- Avi (talk) 20:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He appears to have continued editing as, even while blocked. Jayjg (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup. Clear violation. -- Avi (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Temple RfC
Hi Avi. Hope you don't mind, but I removed the words "pleas comment on all three" from the top of the RfCs, since I thought it read a bit like a requirement (eg if someone genuinely had opinions about only two of them their comments might be disregarded or something). Sure this wasn't the intention and let me know if I'm misunderstanding something. Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I will restore it, because 1) it is worded as a polite request, not a demand, and we expect a basic knowledge of English comprehension on the English Wikipedia and 2) we want people to comment on as many as possible and not to feel restricted. I fail to see how a request for more comments could be interpreted as a statement that we will ignore someone who doesn't comment. -- Avi (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser assistance?
See Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_778Showen778. I believe those are all socks. I keep blocking, but they keep returning, and I was wondering if a check could be done to identify if any IPs could be hard-blocked. Also, if it can be confirmed that these are all the same user. Thanks,  Enigma msg  05:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take a quick look, but the best thing to do is file a request at Sockpuppet investigations and ask for a CU. -- Avi (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Take a look at Sockpuppet investigations/778Showen778. -- Avi (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Enigma msg  15:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Admins who know how WikiProject Judaism works
Hi Avraham: In the present ANI discussions about the correct names for the three Jewish Temples at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents an admin (Fram) involved in the ANI discussions but not familiar with the history of WikiProject Judaism has raised some questions about how the Judaism WikiProject functions, such as "Whether that is standard practive [sic] at the Project, or only your standard practice, I don't know, but it has to change in either case. Subjects related to Jews or Judaism will not be named or treated in accordance with the Torah, but in acordance [sic] with reliable independent sources (and for the naming in accordance with English language reliable independent sources)." I have suggested that experienced admins familiar with the WikiProject be called in to answer those allegations. As an admin and participant in the project over a number of years your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Commented, thanks. -- Avi (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Your input required @ 4th attempt at closing Temple discussions.
Hi Avraham: There is now a 4th round of discussions at ANI (actually 5th, counting the original debate). Since you were one of 3 admins at the original discussion and for the sake of giving all sides their chance to voice their reasoning at the admin level, please add your views at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thank you for attending to this as soon as possible before the discussions are closed off. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 05:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Commented, thanks. -- Avi (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Quick note regarding SPI of User:Itsbydesign
I have unblocked the user, as the blocking admin has noted on their userpage that they may be inactive till Jan 2011, thus with no evidence and an inconclusive SPI I felt that the block should be lifted. I also left a comment here with my full rationale: User_talk:X!. Regards, -- Taelus  ( Talk ) 22:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

licensing question
Hello Avi. If a building is 1000+ years old, is the floorplan of that building in the public domain? Or is it copyrighted by whatever author (or publisher) put the floorplan together 50 years ago?  nableezy  - 04:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain; my hunch is that there may be some element of added creativity to that floorplan, and so it would be copyrightable, but I', mot sure. Try asking User:Moonriddengirl, she knows a lot about copyrights. Sorry I could not be of more help; if I find anything, I will let you know. What country is the building in? -- Avi (talk) 05:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The building is in Egypt. I'll ask Moonriddengirl, thanks for the suggestion.  nableezy  - 19:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Continual vandalism
Hi Avi, I don't know if this qualifies for a block, but this IP user keeps changing the burial place on the Oskar Schindler article to "Jerusalem, Palestine". Thanks for checking it out, Yoninah (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If it happens again, it is blockworthy. -- Avi (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Willy turner
A user has requested a review of a rangeblock you placed in March, due to expire in September. Could you stop by their talk page to review? TN X Man 22:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like Jpgordon reviewed the block. Cheers! TN X Man  23:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet vandal
Hi, I saw you also had problems with a sockpuppet vandal on en-wiki that was active with us as well. Also on nl-wiki a checkuser has been done and the results are here. Kind regards, Trijnstel (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC) admin on nl-wiki
 * Yes, it came across checkuser-l, so I blocked it here and locked the global account. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Picture vierification at wikimedia-commons
Hi there. I left you a message concerning picture verification at Wikimedia Commons. Would appreciate it if you could verify some pictures there. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Responded. -- Avi (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Temple discussion at ANI
Hi Avraham: A discussion and related vote you participated in is being reviewed at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. You may want to add your views to the ongoing discussion. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: handled a while ago. -- Avi (talk) 04:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Black Velvet Kippahs and Haredim
Although I may not currently have sources. The black velvet kippah is thought of as the universal badge of the Haredi movement. I said that it is "Typically Black Velvet" So dont say that it is untrue or irrelevent... — Preceding unsigned comment added by XavierAJones (talk • contribs) 16:11, August 3, 2010
 * Note: handled a while ago. -- Avi (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit filter manager
Avraham, I was wondering if you'd comment on my request to join the Edit filter manager group! If you're interested, here it is. I really need more people to comment, and I'd be so happy if you did! Thanks! Endofskull (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not have much, if any, experience with you as an editor, therefore I do not feel comfortable making a statement out of ignorance. If I have time to review your editing history and can make an informed comment, I will. Sorry. -- Avi (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

A request.
I have a request, can you please delete. I am Corey.7.11.1992. I admit that I was doing rubbish there. You can see that in view history, and if you can delete I'll be very grateful, and I will upload a new file. I asked another administrator to delete, and he replied that there was no problems and that there is no need to be deleted. I know that there is no need, but I really can't watch that. Please delete, how much that can be difficult. Thanks in advance. Corey.7.11.1992 3:36, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it is already in use, and its fair use is appropariate under wiki policy. Why do you want it deleted? -- Avi (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I deleted the unnecessary versions, I think that is all you wanted anyway, right? -- Avi (talk) 02:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And if you can please delete all what I have in the view history, and there's quite a lot things. I'm very sorry for that and I do not want that to be there. If you could just delete it or completely erase the view history, I would be very grateful to you. Thank you. Corey.7.11.1992 10:10, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

what?
re this: what are you talking about? I'd be ok with it if you think the dablink is a bad idea in itself, but this is just pure specious reasoning. I'm going to go ask to have the page locked now, because I'm tired of this stupidity; in the meantime, can you please give me a real (e.g. non-stupid) reason why you oppose a disambiguation? thanks. -- Ludwigs 2 02:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue was the a combination of the wording of the dab (see Wikifan's comments therof) and the assumption of a fait accompli mandate from MedCab. I'm sure a better-worded dab can be crafted, if a dab is actually necessary in the first place. -- Avi (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

yashar koach
..in dealing with the Kohen page in a courteous, diplomatic, and decisive manner--Marecheth Ho&#39;eElohuth (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * כחך מיושר. כתיבה וחתימה טובה. -- אבי -- Avi (talk) 03:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

CU request
Hello Avi, I realize that CU cannot "clear" somebody, but would you mind terribly looking at the allegations here and possibly weighing in? Thanks and no worries if you dont feel comfortable doing so.  nableezy  - 02:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see User talk:Jiujitsuguy. If he has evidence, he should bring it. If you are socking, you should know better, and preventative measures should be taken. But I do not think it is proper to make such accusation to individual editors. We have a central location for these kinds of investigations. -- Avi (talk) 03:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Good edit today
Thanks for ending the minor flurry on Messianic Judaism by adding "religious" to Jewish movements in the lead section. It reads well and states both side's position--DeknMike (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC).
 * Thanks :) -- Avi (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't block him; I'm not an admin.
I just posted the indef tag. He was physically threatening people. RBI and all that. Half Shadow  23:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * According to this, he's been blocked for about ten minutes now. But hey, knock yerself out. Half  Shadow  23:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * S'alright. We should probably expect more, though. Might not happen, but wouldn't hurt to keep an open eye. "Piss comes in a rain"... Half  Shadow  23:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Check user on this puppet (which ever he is Sock or Meat)
I have just added User:Jewdefence to EinsteinDonut's SPI case needless to say I am livid.... Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ❌ I already checked. Sometimes you have to start assuming good faith 8-) -- Avi (talk) 00:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So he is not appletree, then it has to be a meat puppet Was it at least on a proxy? Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * None of the above. People have their own minds, you know, and someone who has been reading JIDF and has the same political viewpoint may well feel that DA is getting the raw end of the stick completely on their own. The fact that this person has all the political savvy of a hippopotamus in a lace factory does not mean that DA is masterminding a plot. -- Avi (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I am being a little oversensitive here. However i do think it is a meatpuppet, coming hours after his  tweet. Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand; you were a target for this guy's ire. However, I believe that there is a difference between a meatpuppet, who is enlisted, and a follower who is not. For example, we have talkpage stalkers responding all the time. I understand that David is on thin ice here, and he will have to re-earn AGF, but in this case, all indications lead me to believe that this is not meatpuppetry but a JIDF follower who does not know how to handle his or her frustration in a wiki, nay socially, acceptable way. There is no excuse for calling people nazis unless they truly are (skinheads, Goebbels, etc.) One violation, I would have given a 4im, but this guy dropped 3 unacceptable bombs, and deserves the indef until they apologize and commit never to do it again. -- Avi (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"no"
I suspect this word is missing on your recent comment on the JIDF sock page. As your comment stands, it may create some confusion. (the language skills of one account vs. the other made it clear that this was the right opinion, but i appreciate you taking the time).Bali ultimate (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up; I can be klutzy sometimes, sorry. :( -- Avi (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * yes thank you for it. I am retiring for the night since I am just getting more and more agitated the longer i stay on. Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good move, Weapon. A few hours almost always helps things fall into perspective, at least it does in my experience 8-) -- Avi (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Appledonut
Running this past you as you proposed the change of tack. The JIDF and associated meatpuppets were just community banned (discussion, log of ban ). As you know "David Appletree" is currently contraving "Banned users should not create a new account to file an appeal or to post in a discussion. This would be considered sock-puppetry and the new account will usually be blocked. They should be seen to comply with their ban, which will gain a more favorable opinion." (WP:BAN). It's also difficult to see how his not using two socks at the same time over the past month or his suddenly deciding to use his pseudonym here can count in his favour.

On the community ban, the stated procedure is "Bans imposed by the community may be appealed to the community or to the Arbitration Committee" this would seem to preclude either unilaterally overturning a ban or doing so with the agreement of a handful of users. Given that the closer stated there was "near-unanimous consensus by the community" an explicit community endorsement of an overturn, via another discussion, would seem to be necessary.

As to whether the user should be trusted (and hence whether there's any point in going through the discussion again) there is of course the long-term socked/meatpuppetry etc. (Note the 1st two socks you confirmed are long-standing sleepers.) But more importantly, now that you've confirmed the individual behind at least the recent socks runs the website, what possible grounds could there be for trusting someone who e.g. accuses a broad swath of editors he disagrees with of antisemitism and hosts hatespeech such as:

As we have mentioned, we are against the Ground Zero mosque, just as we are against ALL mosques, as they are tributes to the genocidal pedophile false prophet (idol), Mohammed, who was a murderer of Jews, and anyone else who didn't think and believe the way he did.

...

Because Islam is a hateful and violent ideology which preaches hate and violence against ALL non-Muslims (especially Jews, as it is obsessed with us, and dehumanizes us as apes and pigs), we are against ALL mosques. We are against Islam, just as we are against Nazism. Just as we don't wish to see Nazi institutions springing up everywhere, we don't need to see Islamic one's springing up everywhere, either.

...

There is just Islam.

All one has to know about it, is what we saw on 9/11, and have seen in over 15,000 deadly terrorist attacks in its name since that tragic day. 

Should this individual really be given another chance simply because after being community-banned he decides to turn up with an account using his pseudonym & actually owns up to the above? Misarxist (talk) 11:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That is up to the community. I am supportive of an alternative that has the potential of being more positive to wikipedia than an outright banning. Then again, I proposed the suggestion that kept User:PalestineRemembered on wiki for an extra couple of years, and PR's position on Israel is pretty clear too. Blocks and bans are not punitive but preventative; please remember that. Otherwise there about 20 people on both sides of the I-P issue I'd have no problem indefblocking/banning from wiki for past actions and statements. Regardless of one's personal opinions, policy as I've always understood it is that with rare exceptions decided upon by ArbCom, if you toe the line, you may edit; and we prefer rehabilitation, when possible, to exile, which is a last resort. -- Avi (talk) 12:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you mean you will formally propose conditions for an unbanning & then let that discussion run it's course? This would seem to involve the existing ban being observed, perhaps with condition that Appletree can edit only to engage in that discussion. On that point (in my 1st two paragraphs above) I can't see any matter of "personal opinions", it's a simple matter of following an existing consensus until overturned or not as the case may be.


 * I assume when you refer to "personal opinions" you mean my characterisation of the user in question, which is substantiated, and can be further if needed. I brought those particular problems to your attention simply to check that you are aware of the implications, and obvious pitfalls of what you are proposing. The website run by the individual in question has been airing similar material for a year or two and has in fact toned it down. Previously it was plastered with quotes from the racist terrorist Kahane, and had the Kach logo prominently displayed. Not wishing to encourage such a person would fall well within the realm of "preventative". But if you wish to formally propose unbanning him, this can be discussed as appropriate. Misarxist (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There has been no opposition to the suggestion that Off2 and I mentor David for now, which automatically implies that the ban on Einstein is lifted SOLELY for the David Appletree account. However, if you like, I will bring it up on ANI for more clarification. -- Avi (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Warning
If you are not careful, I will set my granddaughter on you. So don't say you haven't been warned. RolandR (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Emblem-very-very-evil.svg -- Avi (talk) 17:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Unblock reviewed template
Hello Avi. I've commented at the talk page and I think that you should seek consensus for the change, or at least start a thread at AN. The changed wording certainly doesn't reflect the current practice, especially in regards to indef-blocked vandals. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Undone; let's talk there. -- Avi (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

thanks
Thank you from the barnstar Avi, from the POV of, ''your enemies are but friends with whom you have yet to resolve a disagreement. '' I will treasure this one. Off2riorob (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Um I think one got missed out along the line Spartaz Humbug! 16:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk page
Is there a way to lock the discussion page while I type my missive? I appreciate your comment, but it blew away the paragraph I had just finished writing.--DeknMike (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's an WP:Edit conflict, and the answer, unfortunately is no. Sometimes hitting "Back" on your browser works. If I type something long, I have the habit of copying it into memory (or a text file in the case or REALLY long posts) JUST for that reason. Sorry. -- Avi (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved?
I understand why you marked that thread resolved, but I for one think we at least need some understanding from the admin that he understands that it was improper. I've posted that in the thread though I didn't remove your tag.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Remove it if you want to, I was just trying to make it immediately apparent that the block was removed :) -- Avi (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've said my peace there. I do find it baffling that apparently it's excessive to think an admin would step up and say "I understand it was a bad block".--Cube lurker (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My conscience got to me. I actually don't find it baffling.  I understand the deal here.  It just sounded good.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that an apology from HJ would be nice, but the entire situation is SO fraught with tension now, that the better thing may be to wait until tensions settle a bit. When people are emotional, they also become defensive; at least I do (and as a megalomaniac, if it works for me, it works for everyone!! 8-) ). I think the project is better served as a whole if the tension bleeds out than if someone has to twist HJ's arm. Just my thoughts. -- Avi (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Erlau (Hasidic dynasty)
Hi. This is the third time that I've reverted attempts by User:Yankirosenberg to change the accepted spelling of the name of this Hasidut. I put a notice on his page and he just vandalized again. Could you help here? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note left. -- Avi (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It was a nice note. Yoninah (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

First Black actuary
I added a reference (video by International Association of Black Actuaries) on the actuary talk page, to qualify that Robert J. Randall Sr. is the first black actuary. Please respond or add the changes you removed. -- Sugarfoot1001 22:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll look at it soon, I hope, thanks for the note. -- Avi (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI
An SPI where you previously commented has been reopened. See Sockpuppet investigations/Nableezy. Sincerely, -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Please check your email--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Checked. -- Avi (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

falsely accused
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was falsely accused. It is quite clear to everyone that read this section. if it is left as "accused" then it implies that it wasn't falsified, when it was. I realize that wikipedia should not be used as a source, but there are good sources to that section. You mention a "whole article" about it. what are you referring to? Eyalmc (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Some people believe that Ahmadinejad was falsely accused, not others. Actually, he was truely accused; whether the allegations themselves are true or false is still a matter discussed by politicians and historians alike, as discussed in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel. You are entitled to your opinion, but not to force your opinion on wikipedia. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

My point is that those who believe he is rightly accused were subject to a misleading translation, that was distributed internationally, but when verified, was discovered as false. I didn't see a single source which claim otherwise. So i think that it is important to include in the article the fact that all those publications that spread like fire proved to be misleading. this is not the first time media does that and it's important to point it out INMHO Eyalmc (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is the opinion of some. Other translators, experts, and historians believe the translation was accurate and the following media blitz is an example of post-event spin and damage control. We bring both and do not assume one is more correct than the other, as you are doing. -- Avi (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you show a single credible translator which claim he said the Zionist entity should be wiped off the map, without ignoring the context? I can easily show you the opposite: here Eyalmc (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Now you are engaging in WP:original research, not to mention that personal blogs are never considered reliable, or did you not read the "about us" section where the website you linked is described as "One person's effort to correct the distorted perceptions provided by commercial media.". So what you have brought is not acceptable on wikipedia for various reasons. On the other hand, the initial translation was performed by a professional translator, an employee of the government in Tehran, and not some person with a website and an agenda like informationclearinghouse. This has been upheld by the New York Times deputy foreign editor, again, not some not some person with a website and an agenda. So while you may disagree with the opinion, you cannot impose your opinion on either the facts or wikipedia. -- Avi (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)