User talk:Avraham/Archive 50

AN/I Discussion
Please note that I have referred to one of your comments on a post in this AN/I discussion. Thank you. (Archive link.) Blackworm (talk) 07:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We've been through that on your talk page already, Blackworm. -- Avi (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I know. But it lingers, especially when my comments get removed and I get a stern block warning when I act the way you taught me with that comment.  All the best, Avi.  Blackworm (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, it could not be that there is a difference between the way you write and the way I write that people recognize 8-) -- Avi (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have the "admin" tag. Steward even.  Very recognizable, that.  Blackworm (talk) 02:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not a difference in the way we write, Blackworm, although it is an indication that I have earned the trust and respect of hundreds of wikimedians and the vast majority of those who take the time to weigh in when volunteers stand, for whatever that is worth. -- Avi (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If only you could claim your statement on the parallels between the points of view of some editors and the "nothing new" "antisemitic techniques" of some ancient antisemites had the same wide support. Perhaps it does, but we don't seem to know, as few have the courage to comment on it.  Blackworm (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Or, perhaps, others choose not to interpret it as you have. But looking at your talk page, you have accused other project members of making accusations of editor antisemitism before. -- Avi (talk) 04:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I accused them of supporting insinuations about the antisemitism of editors. It's happened three times in the five years I've been here, and in one case it was merely a poor choice of words on the editor's part and an misunderstanding on mine, so it was well resolved.  In two of those cases, which were related to the same article topic, there seemed to be no misunderstanding and you (and not Jayjg, to my memory) defended both yours and Jayjg's statements and their right to state them to the very last.  I just got slapped for insinuating unpleasant things about editors.   Perhaps the few who read the comments did "choose not to interpret it as" I have.  But it seems we shan't know, regardless of the reason for the silence.  Blackworm (talk) 05:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Using "Smurf" to describe Rav Shach ?
Hi Avraham: Please take a moment to review the discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents that has arisen as a result of the insistence of a user or two to describe Rabbi Elazar Shach as a Smurf, from here Talk:Elazar Shach (latterly renamed). Thanks so much, IZAK (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2
Because you participated in Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 34, you may be interested in Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. Cunard (talk) 07:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. -- Avi (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

which student?
Which student has the sock? I remember a student telling me that she had problems re-entering her account and I told her to make a new one.Thelmadatter (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ill ask her in class this afternoon.Thelmadatter (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I just spoke to User:Natquintana. Both accounts are valid. The second one is from a different student. They both created their accounts from the same computer at school.Thelmadatter (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Precautions against hacking
Hi Avi, I noticed your AN/I comment regarding weaponbb7 not being protected in certain ways that may make it difficult to recover his/her account. For obvious reasons, I expect that I am on the target list of the same vermin that hacked her/his account. What would I need to do to increase security and enable recovery?--Peter cohen (talk) 10:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The best protection against hacking is a strong password. For example, my wikipedia password is >20 characters and contains glyphs from the 96-character set of upper and lower alphanumerics, numbers, and punctuations. It's a pain to memorize, but it makes the password all-but unhackable. My comment on ANI was regarding proof that Weaponbb7 regained control over the account so we can unblock it. If he had a committed ID or PGP key signed by another wikieditor, he could prove his identity by either giving the phrase that corresponds to the committed ID (that created the hash) or by sending an e-mail signed by his PGP key to someone, or posting a cleartext signed message on his talk, either which way could only be done by the person controlling the e-mail associated with the account (if that was determined beforehand) and that would show us he regained control. Now, how do we know if the person controlling the account truly is Weapon, even if he claims to have regained the account? I guess I could checkuser a comment posted to the talkpage, since the JIDF group geolocates to a different part of the world, but that is about it. -- Avi (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if you are still online. If so, it would be great if you could answer my question on Jehochman's talk page (where to send related information). Hans Adler 18:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you think it is safe to give back all the old userrights that Weaponbb7 used to have, on his new account? Confirmed, reviewer, rollbacker.  — Soap  —  21:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * user rights
 * Yes, I think it is safe, and I see that it has been done 8) . -- Avi (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Inka 888 Reviewer Rights (removal)
Hi Avraham, I've added a note to Inka 888's talk page letting him know (in addition to what was already communicated) that his reviewer rights have been removed. In doing so, I also noted to him that the reviewer icon was removed as well. Besides simply letting the editor know about the reviewer rights removal, I'm hoping it explains the icon removal and implies it should not be restored until such rights are re-granted. Please feel free to redact my entry if you deem appropriate. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI  TALK/CNTRB 03:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

question
Are you the same Avraham as the steward with the exact user name, I'm just curious? -- Inka 888 01:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Avraham is a 'crat. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 01:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Avraham is my single-user login for all wikimedia projects, and yes, I am a wikimedia steward besides for my roles here and on the commons. -- Avi (talk) 04:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I am so sorry I'm an idiot but I really have no clue how to make appropriate request to get my name changed. If this is not appropriate way to do it, I really apologize, but could you still PLEASE change my user name from Bruno Lovric to Bizutage?? Thank you million times.Bruno Lovric (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI discussion (FYI only)
Avi - as you are offline I've requested a continuation of a rangeblock you applied two weeks ago. The ANI request can be found here. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 14:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

User:JacobFrank etc sockpuppet at work
Hi Avi: Ok, so here's the problem, there is definitely a user who goes by the name "User:JacobFrank" and he has a clear history of posting under that name of JacobFrank, a big problem is that his User page at User redirects to the key Jacob Frank article, which makes it impossible to contact this user on his "JacobFrank" talk page, since that redirects  to User talk:La comadreja (is La comadreja being abused by User JacobFrank?) that makes things even more confusing (who is the real user, "JacobFrank" or "La comadreja"?), and to let him know in no uncertain terms that he is in violation of WP:BADNAME and probably more policies of vandalism. Then on the "User contributions" page of user JacobFrank it's evident that user JacobFrank was started by a BANNED user SOCK PUPPETEER, that was started by another user User:ChildofMidnight/Bacon Challenge 2010, because: (1) when you click on the "contributions" page of "JacobFrank"  and then (2) go to the bottom and click on User:ChildofMidnight/Bacon Challenge 2010 it (3) "redirects" from User:ChildofMidnight to User:ChildofMidnight/Bacon Challenge 2010 and (4) User:ChildofMidnight has been BLOCKED, and therefore (5) User  and User  are also puppets of banned user User:ChildofMidnight and should be blocked. It is a tangle meant to cover up and deceive. So it's sock puppeteering, avoiding a block, and I picked it up noticing choosing the name of a known and controversial (Jewish) historical person, and that some people might find it offensive and very confusing, as he has also posted comments on the WP:TALKJUDAISM page under the "JacobFrank" user name creating some serious confusion. Can you somehow help to contact this user and convince him to change his user name or that it will be dealt with. Thank you for your help, IZAK (talk) 10:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Central problem remains unresolved
Hi Avi: Thanks for your response. I also asked User Malik Shabazz for help in his capacity as an admin, but he has not resolved the central problem. To avoid repetition, see my response on my talk page. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 02:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of Messianic and Hebrew Christian congregations (2nd nomination)
Would you please comment on Articles for deletion/List of Messianic and Hebrew Christian congregations (2nd nomination)? Thanks. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 12:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Although you claimed the article was not a candidate for speedy deletion, it was removed over the weekend. In other words, although "the mills of the gods grind slow" the vandals on Wikipedia work fast.--DeknMike (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The speedy deletion was cancelled because you can't speedy delete an article that was speedy deleted in the past. So I did a regular RfD.  Did you look at the page?  It was virtually unanimous.  You chose not to participate, which is fine, but a pretty much uncontested RfD is going to result in a deletion.  Referring to the deletion as vandalism is... I can't think of any better word than "stupid".


 * And you should read the reasons. It was right to delete the article.  It violated OR badly.  Giving websites as references isn't good enough.  I could make a List of Jewish blogs, or something of the sort, and reference each item to itself.  That isn't what reliable sources are.  Not to mention the obvious fact that many of those links were bad, or otherwise don't reflect what they're supposedly referencing.


 * If you want, you can probably request that they put a copy of the deleted article in your sandbox so that you can do what you want with it. It just isn't a Wikipedia article.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 22:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Stats stats stats
You might enjoy http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/gay-sex-vs-straight-sex/. I certainly did. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

PGP key
Can you please sign my PGP key. So that I can use it to verify ownership of my account. Morgankevinj(talk) 16:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC) -BEGIN PGP MESSAGE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32) - GPGshell v3.76

hQQOA5SyA3xlFDnMEA/9EgsBsepH4Vs7ffBwEwpb7hR11qs6RKP8C6Y9tWQvQb8I p/aA2TAXGPbc/kaylYYOc0ayNXXC2M28Sak12p6jXLI1mBB1HO7BHKhkV1dhQ92N Zzgl3YS5GZfsQbZeLLD87wCo33I97YZ44qZ5EVLHB0nLPtjjzmmLBFliRSetUBjt yaO99zXvjiIxKEDredDMPRJCX49TKPWhE2qkSzlaW4Kd61Z/iGUn0ehGX/RydhWY HsspuVNnXCSvhFkzMv3xfCuXHGK3e8MVMPbCKk6oPy9OmS4+AjeOHd4yNoRcSa/I Me/CXHDct6GJ2g0HDM5brpAVv1Ekkp+fFH3ZY6KumMfIautxiZR4MRz8B168t2tZ GwnI0kcyPXUw6R+wpi+obrP2OQDrRGOBSoJDUF47b4vqugIEeU35/5U2IftNDEHR M96ySA08xL8TT++Y8OLmOcVjXbY+rFgRGLs2GiXfF1jia2h2P9Xs1yNyQ2ZKYmM2 iIxN92DHJXrsPIumed8CFpOfrCWlajmCckTwFRaIAIa2noaUeXWsNLBw8LXj+uni TrslPbT2YodMRrJ5vbCcwboe9VqndBfUSzlCa8lM26u5CgE3StYExGhxqO1MVfzX RJXL5ciJ0OJqcX0TJS4EX10oLqk49Vo52a2s47nBT1wqDXgvNv+79QV4k2TlzMwP /Ro0YSpEdeWtwikl0EulSDioWPkHFnelXYQ+wko8zkLjydd6Gloq/sg/Iu4TFXCg fEdHayO+ostVBNt++6b39vWyOyoizva+TpA14S9ChNlOQJOZbAUH6/9TJfTuLJ0G WOwWO3GlQzG/dOpcH74Hf2NhPuNzj/C0wTW7wMhqH1bmPq7uXUjI14ca3WYskLNb j5nqRKz4btT1akFs/OdBCl2DFq3gYAST6iJtE0WaLBrsTSRJpE4uZPfI7zx1/69w 0zO5zgGp2FYrfG3i/qdYa5cqz4J5Z9qF1sxM0HC0t6Q+CcZun+gT2Ji2+hhrjTlx yXOkyWLM8/Wy6sMVObXVvgQKXVK+DYEFwrZ01709t59Km2hvBlJGz2qLM5OnYr7F /VJbiQFshdulJWe5hmiT+tfNdRJW9iSmsM2KE95OuduEMOvKo8gzeM0XL01EfJZu opvjs9AKNQugsI9ap/VadjaCYLq4gwIoFvNDqKzCPdfHDbFs41zlIshIVY+NpDKP zJQr6EwDTllxA3R6FnNJI7JiFsJ4NIJUAKwn8IXQgz7P9M/4QjMzpIrHzastBCOX G1XdWGDiHu3jUKxkAe+YQLtihMzFo7/5uY1tmAsegOnrVoymBe1xAebrOJhb0Wqh o+6I63+cGTojs08dM5Nwfm39xG/cyQt+haGJx2VT92C/0ukBUmGqVz6ABG/VNw52 F5/dgs6nTsXEggz+FSwAPHqRDCICZdcnRa8+iRWhjbmioOaQQlqKowzav+HPck5X 4mga8gajvKVCVfIekEJknfsvPuPAZylnXILkBrXu0FofR4Is5aME6PPO0CxvoiNF Pdqp/tlHQC6CcSWVGfmlW/bkZS0+nEfiCtbeXppFQA9X4z+l008cNy338LoGJIc+ pdtsV1U5eWrzwy0jlluabCT6Ue02UOe0d5FjsO9aBcXpLG5Y0vHnnUpXs0HhkPwj W5U+W7pRk0InWXXcVXabaloz+zfqvQb24UNtjCzZSsoVwkD7999XMLxHjfB0YDUm vwHWInWcYhGYnR5Zb6Kws49u3Lq5h1EW8RvXMuZDzv4/EDeTd6kTiqpFP3eSqbKY mJWPx848/lDjbtzpnEGA+HOIVIMp/A6KLJFTl0rO21/pPZdJ+4kGrHpvra9Ksgx0 FwySK03y+JpGw7q20v/U4PhF96KCrAd0OTxDXQNieHxw7MZ6RTwQyzX+NKm/bNnc xIaTjoSPIAlx/xFG2y2gG/fw7zbtzO/rd8UcyqrJWqrYNvxqo9VBZQik2haZ+Ezq yRFc28FYZlPVcDwixWx87tp3z38zQXqVDj+jGf13XA7xlptOLktGQaZjaAvdQV0u QsuXw5OleB6ux3KdtXM1ccHo6cAIMJQAdweruUMqIIe49sjCuGhv/CoxoU87c4uE PrF1OyIRBtiw5qutwch4xVLDIXA0B6A8W9bPzOEA+YZKo+0lcIh8UGeQm0cn/aWv jZcFIXZbQFXOiV1UtR8YHMnCwlvzP4QWdJe+8FnFoM4r5qwMTaNjhBc4uYuhDGL7 JeMWAJ6iUUc+O92Wfk1782RshV+5JHgETmEQj57Q4EKGAY+dGmkv7RwxnkS+pUCc idQeSbj5/eDCx00aGshJjU/fdRLYObR7PLqpVZU= =2LH8 -END PGP MESSAGE- Morgankevinj(talk) 20:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC) -BEGIN PGP MESSAGE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32) - GPGshell v3.76

hQQOA5SyA3xlFDnMEA/9E1bvNXck/3g0M1omoXhN8/1q/6A7nc/UQSOML+4uNGC3 ngvw80zk83ustk/IsL6p97XLtbUoH5JFbSdy/KBP3eueRZa5LTe7JpAXM5F2t9J8 HZUxRkUyH5MlFxYzKaApIhmzuXmsrjwgwPffxYh7BfWk5ERbWJNOTWiX6E3r+bHO zr7q6DxitPu/wshERrsk+5D+fqy/f3SL2A5e8szhn4ow6xWxuyhhV3ATOMazLW/F zWlWDZzZEk5Lo6NE6vkdHs1eP7oCFfsYjjJyQZQEZBf03PBCYmAzPF9mjNLP/ti6 TdNOqY8xGTv9P1nJNqkI6tObb/JQS0JKNG5bO3OXoWkiXOkXpfWqqx0bL73tZwir /Ipqv+0mrX84X9naJhpaOymOVxg+Qy/xliU9WGhPDn5eiiwVrcIAocfs8l741bUx s4dph88VaU3ovGKrHiUS6UlasKWEvSisXEj23J7KofTem/38JbNTCJEwtnJTk8fJ AcdxE+U9ZnwW3KxnI5gZK0oKJiFCgc/X2yQCzZ2dVVwQVH5YuQjtQbQxGMiol7rI czrc1x25xWtZ0OPl+Uf07ViM/zW37r/LitmUI/z3zN1ecjJv28sb2/x2M7In0BQR HrcJzlnqopiOgLiVrbMKmD9zE0a1gJv7UvY0Noq23Xe9VuRr7vp5xVY5TD4GCNYP /RcvX6b+KRc3mOgyG+Bau3J1kJZNIRZblkhv90bHVS0UeC8aIE2gA/t3ReUGzD9h +5+v61k/cCGJfrnD+G9piTjBotLch2GRGRE7qo372qKOcqT2G1aQwaNMCSozLDTP 93yLCOn2de5lOYSTMXt1ily8JawiodTZ4jZvV5A+yOTcZYMhyYbG43+F/B0LmS5l if9vgjAvIi3wKutYirGQYmSWVl94PQRYsuiFp3Tm6Ykt4LjQOR/S2msm/JGILK5c zqhWahtvq1HYJQVMOTbp72FCkqJee8JV1lMFNUfI9eRouRWOdWxkoZs+uYOvbqQw GxLIa8CzVekvkSIQLYNfxy5l3nyjG5P48qRLA3jUa5HOomQygVRFGgJCLec4R9OW RlAH0ubVDvy6jVwfaAf/+DDyuDGtU8Ixwj8/Glfrm0p1dE8VHjDJhMdVRQe14otl 4Yzsx60h4nNli4IC+qH8LBLyuK3YmHX66iHo11LSTznDaJGPZ4w/2hq00cXD9Ytq rjgtnPnZwPu/8ythSK827HQseTM7B2vA1s3AMc+mY/8IhRDhROAaBCOy7u48xlGN hAM1v7/GhTPpghlIr+wnW1EDsOdAyYASCrJIyvGWjOGW3gqd2McD++2wjs7JtUId x7yjIarUgplhiZFnqK0SnbaTDoQtbPQuNLzjCfke32E70ukBy45brJ6QiqZPahe8 3bwA4r7Tk/24ivDlesh48Kx60xASOfLXTvtjycqiPXP9HbSV5wBEQ/VDMymCbWRf 1dOcn09dclCQWP23NNAxhqPQXwGqKuN++qs2nXWnEixsCfseZSarJgSF9IaKm5Q0 xTzckUG8xyS4W65YC3XGkRoKsyCKBiaPAV7CFXU+5DHyR14HS/i+tx8nuOaJBrgl C+Pn1o3PBhWXX4uLKVvhl+kYzd7r9Cg8WoT+yWN/dT0Da6Al5KBGXsOObgH3Xn4E Fc7+cfattUidNr5Pp0W6J4LoTNJP72DZEz2cUYcWSZHegENxULaT7vlNGro4EBgt VfqfmIp4CI4Fampf/ESnslVZRTG6dRnCn3DzqO3clqNVuoYrUNrnSOW+WN8Zt3ug MmfSl0OnPJzjTq4hlOL/FfS2TSaVhmJF18WGBNOztK2YI5c8eMSFcZjOFEIshnt6 hCeB94/FXqhxnBcDilNnfscHLd8tPuOvahToCaWn4kHo2i/pm1efcTffutcAI6ig AZEGUV9nDQuVIBcosqQK9aQoMq3eH6L+K6fGJWbKbAkfzFgLceT6Ltawrjuu9cgf 4N5+BefNVK6L6yUV7tRhnXaXG5CvYIF3PqjSBG2m+LnG6/FdpNjKYwFuLwTAF/X5 /T7I16iOPR6K0s8it7OFjpAX4A+UuMfUr8x7o7amlBC0sMQ= =sffI -END PGP MESSAGE- Morgankevinj(talk) 21:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Question about your sources
Avraham, thanks for the sources you gave to the Messianic Judaism article. I note that you've found one of the "compound unity" sources. Do you know how pervasive this particular heresy is within the Messianic group and how the Trinitarian Messianics are responding to them? Years ago they were ignoring them, but are they still doing so? Appreciate any help you can give. Thanks. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I do not, but if I come across anything as I research, I'll drop you a note. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. -- Avi (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Avi.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Admin
Avi, you once asked if I was interested in being an admin candidate. I wasn't at the time, but I think the timing is right to test the waters. Your advice would be appreciated.-- SPhilbrick  T  02:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I replied at my talk page, but one more thought just occurred to me - you may feel the obligation to do some due diligence before doing a nomination. While I am comfortable you won't find anything troubling, I understand that some people feel the need to verify things themselves. ((For example, I !vote in only a handful of RfAs; sometimes I'll see the !vote of someone I respect, but I never !vote per nom. I do my own homework. I'll occasionally use the phrase "per nom" at MfD, but that doesn't mean I accept the nom's word for it, I checked it out myself and reached the same conclusion. Given that and (to scare you) I've been reasonable active in Climate Change articles since you asked me about running for admin, so I would quite understand if you wanted to do some homework before nominating. As it is very busy for you, and I realized I'm pushing to do it now simply because when you asked I said something like "maybe in the fall" and that isn't a solid reason for the timing, so if you've prefer to wait until January, I could work on a GA (my major shortcoming on the list of admin desirable accomplishments). Your call, I'm really not in a hurry.-- SPhilbrick  T  20:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yassin pic
Hi Avi, could you please take a look here and see if you think the rationales provided for the other articles are acceptable?  nableezy  - 17:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed; same with Yayash on Hamas page. I've removed both and commented on the talk. -- Avi (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Rlevse's RTV
Is there any way that certain pages, such as User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and User:Rlevse/Today/Archive can be restored and their content moved somewhere else? Both were related to Rlevse's wikipedian of the day thing, with the first one being the userbox and the second being the archive of users awarded. I would be happy to have both moved to my userspace, so as to preserve the archive and userbox for those interested. Is there any way this is possible at all? Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a  message on my talk page. 05:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Already moved to User:Bibliomaniac15/Today/Happy Me Day!, User:Bibliomaniac15/Today/Archive. All I deleted were redirects. Sorry for the inconvenience :( -- Avi (talk) 05:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, did you also delete and/or oversight the user talk page? Why? Per WP:RTV, talk pages are normally not deleted, and I can't see who deleted the page.  Sandstein   06:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The page has been deleted—not suppressed. I will usually delete the talk and user pages of people who vanish when there is connection between their username and their real life identity. Is there a particular piece of information on the talk page that you needed for posterity? -- Avi (talk) 06:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info; I didn't know that there was a real life info isue. You should know that I mentioned this at WP:ANI. That ANI thread also has a link to a RFC on the matter, where your perspective might be welcome. What I find puzzling is that some edits to the talk page appear to have been suppressed; I can't find any edits in the undeleted view of the talk page that are newer than October 27. Do you know why that might be so?  Sandstein   07:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Due to the rename, most likely. I've added my comments to the RfC, thanks! -- Avi (talk) 07:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the deleted revisions view works correctly now.  Sandstein   07:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Avi, Rlevse contacted me by email yesterday permitting me to create the redirects to merge my Today project with his. I've recreated the redirects, so as to prevent a couple of templates and links associated with the Today program from breaking.  bibliomaniac 1  5  08:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Avi, as you suggested I reviewed Right to vanish and I was not able to find anything about blocking an account. I still believe it is a bad block. Unless the user themselves requested to be blocked, they should not be blocked because such blocks could make them feel as they are not welcome to come back. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I said it was not part of the written process. What I meant by the review was that you seemed not to understand that RtV means a permanent departure from wikipedia. They have voluntarily committed NOT to come back. -- Avi (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk pages
Hi Avi, thought I'd bring this here rather than adding to the mess at ANI. Both WP:CSD and RTV say clearly that usertalkpages are only deleted when a need is established through MfD - they are not speedy deleted. This has come up on the boards (including the crats board) on several occasions that I recall, and there has never been consensus to change this. Your action, well meant as it was, did contravene policy. We already have enough problems with perceived clicquery and favouritism, something that crats have generally managed to stay above. DuncanHill (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Duncan. Thank you for raising your concerns. My understanding has been per Right_to_vanish:
 * Vanishing typically involves: Having a bureaucrat change the username of the account, Replacing references to the former username with references to the replacement username, Deleting the account's user page and subpages (talk pages are rarely deleted, and can be undeleted by community consensus).
 * It does not mention XfD there; rather, that deletion of the talk page may (rarely) be part of the RtV process, not a discussion. It also says that it may be overturned, which it has been, and which I respect. However, the wording there implies that the deletion itself is part of the RtV, not the opening of an MfD. Perhaps it is too ambiguous. -- Avi (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That stands in contradistinction to the paragraph above, "As a discretionary courtesy the request will be considered and - unless there are reasons to refuse - any steps that are practical will be identified and there will be discussion of which pages are not needed for community purposes and are reasonable to delete, blank, or collapse, after checking they do not contain any entries that need to be kept." So it may be self-contradictory. -- Avi (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You'd be hard pressed to find any policy or guideline on Wikipedia that doesn't contradict itself somewhere! That said, I would suggest that the wording in RTV and CSD would amount to "reason to refuse" speedy deletion of the usertalk page(s). I think we need to read the RTV page as a whole, and the CSD also, and between the two, and many previous cases on the boards, it seems to me well established that we don't speedy user talk pages. As for "deletion of the talk page may (rarely) be part of the RtV process" I would say that this is recognised and regulated by the reference on the same page to them not being speedied but sent to MfD instead. DuncanHill (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * In short, CSD explicitly prohibits speedying of usertalk pages, and says that they should be sent to MfD, and RTV ecplicitly says that they should go to MFD (as well as making less explicit references to deletion elsewhere). So, to me, I do not see anywhere that says they can be deleted without discussion, but I do see specific instructions to use MfD. DuncanHill (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply
Check the reply to your message.--Banzoo (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Continued at WP:ANI. -- Avi (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Solomon's Temple
The neutral point of view is the view that follows the available evidence and common sense. Solomon's Temple is a fictitious edifice erected by a fictitious king. The Bible is NOT a reliable source. So anyone who claims the temple's past existence violates Wikipedia's NPOV and RS policies. Stop threatening me. &equiv; CUSH &equiv; 13:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Continued at WP:ANI -- Avi (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Existing Policy on Deletion of User Talk Pages
As Per WP:DELTALk Clearly States that a User Talk Page can be deleted when only when it meets the Criteria for WP:CSD or when a User is Permanently leaving Wikipedia.Rvelse's WP:RTV should be dealt under existing Policy.Can you clarify whether this has changed.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is an RfC about this now. -- Avi (talk) 17:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI
I finally found time Requests for adminship/Sphilbrick-- SPhilbrick  T  21:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good Luck! -- Avi (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this up again
As you handled a lot of stuff with Rlevse's RTV, just wondering if it would be appropriate if you created his username again to prevent disruption and whatnot or if you were leaving it open if he came back? / ƒETCH COMMS  /  23:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Since he still controls the SUL across wikimedia projects, no one can create that username. The worst that may happen is that a bureaucrat can rename someone Rlevse, but I am certain no EnWiki 'crat would do so. -- Avi (talk) 01:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, got it. Thanks, / ƒETCH COMMS  /  05:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyright
Talk:Ahmed Yassin

And as a side note, those images should not be here without a valid FUR. I understand that you were trying to make it easier on everyone and that there is likely not going to be any legal issue but that does not change the fact that you infringed on copyright and ignored policy. They should be nommed for speedy deletion. You requested that this be closed in 7 days (which I strongly disagree with) and the speedy probably wouldn't close before then. I probably wouldn't have mentioned it but you have some decent responsibility on Wikipedia. You kind of screwed up. Cptnono (talk) 07:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I did, but let me explain my reasoning. We allow a claim of fair use when the images can be used in instances including "commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship." Deciding on the approriate image to use in an encyclopedia qualifies under teaching, scholarship, and archiving. The selections presented in the gallery are:
 * Portions of the original images, not the full image
 * Low resolution, the largest image is less than 0.26 megapixel
 * The purpose is to decide upon the appropriate image for the article, which qualifies as fair use above.
 * There are no free-use equivalents
 * I did not post a FUR on each, true, but that is because I wanted to make it clearer that the images are only here temporarily. Even though any one of them is appropriate on a permanent basis under fair use (although one of the reasons I like #1 is the information that we have about it), I was afraid that if I put a FUR on all three, people would get confused and start using all three when we should restrict ourselves to one. -- Avi (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Yassin Temp 3.JPG
 Thanks for uploading File:Yassin Temp 3.JPG. 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, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Tidying up
Thanks for tidying Sphilbrick's rights. I always forget all that, and I can't remember the last time I was conscious when an RFA closed successfully! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My pleasure :) -- Avi (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Yassin Temp 2.JPG
 Thanks for uploading File:Yassin Temp 2.JPG. 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk  03:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Yassin Temp 1.JPG
 Thanks for uploading File:Yassin Temp 1.JPG. 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk  03:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You seem like the person to ask...
Can you take a look at this from commons, regarding the Wikipedia logo. I figured I'd ask you when I saw the native level understanding of the Hebrew alphabet userbox. That, and you're one of the few people powerful enough to get it changed if it actually is a problem. Considering the traffic this site gets, I think it's just me, but I still would like your opinion. Thanks, Sven Manguard  Talk  05:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not Avi but that seems to be a link to edit a new section of Avi's talk page, is that what you intended? ++Lar: t/c 22:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed the link. Sorry about that. Sven Manguard  Talk  03:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Kohen Update
A very respected Rabbi and Website recently published the following article. Perhaps you should update Wikipedia's Kohen article accordingly.

"With the importance and centrality of lineage in ritual matters, one is compelled to question how we can be so certain that after so many centuries in Exile the chain of lineage has been properly maintained. Can anyone who claims to be a Kohen simply be relied upon? Indeed, a number of authorities rule that the tribal designations in use today are merely “assumptions” with no halachic or scientific certainty as to their accuracy. It is actually presumed that most Kohanim today are likely not of pure lineage.[1] In fact, already in the late Biblical era, and certainly in the Talmudic era, there was considerable doubt as to who was truly a Kohen.[2] Because we are not sure who is truly a Kohen, there are several mitzvot which are no longer performed today in their entirety such a ma’aser, teruma, and challa.[3] Similarly, a number of authorities rule that Kohanim today are not entitled to all the rights and honors that Kohanim had commanded in Biblical times.[4]"

"One who was raised in a completely assimilated or unobservant family should not necessarily conduct himself as a Kohen even if his father should tell him that he is one.[12]"

~Rabbi Ari Enkin

http://torahmusings.com/2010/10/kohanic-lineage.html
 * Blogs, in general, are not reliable sources. Enkin, for that matter, is not a posek on the level of R' Moshe or R' SHlomo Zalman, or yibadel machayim l'chayim, R' Elyashuv. -- Avi (talk) 06:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Christianity and violence
There is discussion on the above page regarding how much space to give antisemitism in the article, and we could probably use some input on sourcing as well. I think your input on the subject in general, and regarding antisemitism particularly, would be more than welcome. John Carter (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sudais.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Sudais.jpg. 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk  04:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Vandalism corrected. -- Avi (talk) 04:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Creativity, image, copyright
Hi, Avi. :) Hope you're well; I've not spoken to you for a bit. The reason for my harrassment note today is that there's a copyright question concerning File:Polenabzeichen.jpg at my talk page. It's actually multifaceted, but at base is this: is that emblem creative enough to be copyrighted? Images are not my major area, and you being an admin at Commons and all I thought you might have feedback on that. (If it is, we need then to determine whence comes the new version of the image. Formerly, we had a non-free version, and somebody replaced it. If he made the emblem or took a picture in a museum and the emblem is not itself copyrightable, then we could be clear. But we need to figure out that core question, first. :))

If this isn't an area of images where you work, no problem; please just let me know, and I'll find somebody else to bug ask. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Avi. I see you're editing, but haven't answered. Does that mean you don't have an opinion or would prefer not to take a look at this? If not, that's fine, but I would appreciate it if you could let me know. I don't like to ask two people to do the same job, and I'm leaving town tomorrow for a few days, so I'll need to try to find somebody else to help out before I go. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I just haven't had the time to look into your issue in detail, although the letter "P", some colors, and some squares don't strike me as copyrightable. Sorry about the delay. -- Avi (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and no problem! I don't mean to rush you. I was just hoping to get some feedback before heading out of town tomorrow. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Loosmark
Wow. I just saw Sockpuppet investigations/Loosmark. Incredible. Are all those socks certain? Because I see you only blocked the master for a month, but if that's the extent of the socking, and considering the highly disruptive behaviour of several of the socks, and the master account's own checkered history, I'd consider much stronger sanctions. Especially given the fact that he was even running for Arbcom, this cries out for an indef community ban, in my view. Thoughts? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am more than happy to have the master blocked for good, but I leave that up to the community. I am still appalled bythe abuse of trust. For the record, four separate non-arbcom, non-candidate, checkusers reviewed the evidence and we all agreed, so either we're all wrong, or, you get the idea :). By all means, a longer term block is well called for, but I was going to leave that up to the community! -- Avi (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks, sounds reasonable. I guess I'll put up a note on AN then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of it! -- Avi (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

OTRS ticket
Can you do me a favor and let me know if the OTRS ticket labeled on File:Victor Sydorenko.jpg is applicable to all of the images at Victor Sydorenko? If not, we'll most definitely need to {{subst:npd}} those. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The permission only references "File:Victor Sydorenko.jpg". Sorry. -- Avi (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Grattan Flood.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Grattan Flood.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Handled. -- Avi (talk) 06:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)