User talk:Avraham/Archive 15

< Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16 >

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  11 -  12 -  13 -  14 -  15 -  16 -  17 -  18 -  19 -  20 -  21 -  22 -  23 -  24 -  25 -  26 -  27 -  28 -  29 -  30 -  31 -  32 -  33 -  34 -  35 -  36 -  37 -  38 -  39 -  40 -  41 -  42 -  43 -  44 -  45 -  46 -  47 -  48 -  49 -  50 -  51 -  52 -  53 -  54 -  55 -  56 -  57 -  58 -  59 -  60 -  ... (up to 100)

Replaceable fair use Image:Josephmassad.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Josephmassad.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 08:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Isarig been using sockpuppets

May I ask, what did you attempt to acomplish with this edit?http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHamas&diff=154032196&oldid=153147498

What gain did you intend for there to be? The puppets are indefblocked, and cannot affect the article anymore? Outside of trying to impugn someone's reputation, I am unsure as to the net benefit. Correct me if I am mistaken. -- Avi 21:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that some of what has been going on has had a deleterious effect on the project. Editors with considerable amounts to contribute have been driven from topics (and perhaps the whole project) by obsessive edit-warring. I can't do much to bring back those who've left us completely, but I can do a modest amount of good by informing as many people as possible that the project can and does deal with sockpuppets, barring them from further participation in the encyclopedia. I can't see your objection - unless you think sockpuppets play some useful part and I'm being unnecessarily cruel to remind everyone of their humiliation. PalestineRemembered 21:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

So, if I may respectfully play devil's advocate, if you were to be banned for disruption and/or personal attacks (as was discussed recently), it would be proper for Isarig to post notice of the bloack/ban on article pages to help restore editor confidence in the project? Personally, I disagree with both. Wikipedia is meant to be a collaborative project to build an encyclopedia. "Keeping score" ala the Hatfield-McCoy feud, in my opinion, only serves to further distance the collaborative spirit, not strengthen it. -- Avi 21:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A number of people have chosen to notify others of various allegations and blocks against me (all but one of them very disputed indeed). Perhaps you think such behaviour should get them blocked or mentored - in which case you should speak up.

In fact, you've pretty much done the same thing yourself, making it seem that I was some kind of problematic editor at the CSN on another user entirely, concerning proven sock-puppet behaviour such as I've never engaged in (despite great provocation to get me to sock-puppet!).

There was no point whatsoever in your doing that - whereas there is every reason for me to tell people if discussions have been scarred by sock-puppetry. PalestineRemembered 22:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

PR comment deletions

Response @ my talk, ty Eleland 00:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered new AN/I

i've exhausted my patience.

opened a new AN/I here and i would appreciate you, being the person who suggested it, mentioning that this is a case of failed mentorship. i'm not pushing for a total ban.. that is not my place to decide; but considering the number of blatant breaches after the sanctions noticeboard and after i've kept noting him that his activity is increasingly improper, i think a month seems like a good start (my first AN/I did not include a ban request, the second requested a 7 day ban but the WP:CN case was opened). the most important ingredient missing is a desire to change... in fact, as i see it, there's the opposite - a sincere desire to continue with this soapbox as long as he's allowed. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Avi - I'd be interested to hear your comments on whether I responded reasonably to the AN/I raised by User:Jaakobou. Given his history of abusive use of warnings on TalkPages and near enough malicious accusations like this (along with his flat refusal to deal with any concerns of mine related to WP policy, or carry out edits his own research prove need making), do you think I should escalate the matter with a complaint of my own? (Should I also target the use of the English language by this user, which I suspect is below the standard necessary to do anything other than be an infernal nuisance?)

In addition, I've started a a new section in an article TalkPage. It is receiving absurd objections that show either total non-understanding of WP policy, or an attempt to vandalise the discussion. My section starting presentation is being broken up with nonsensical comments inserted into it and the indenting used is all over the shop, making it very difficult for other editors to follow. At what stage (and where) should I blow the whistle and demand that this kind of idiocy should stop? I am desperate to avoid the article being locked in the absurd state that it's in, likely the worst article I've ever come across - I'd much appreciate your input on that too. PalestineRemembered 12:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Personally, I would suggest that neither of you "talk" to each other, directly or indirectly, for the next few weeks and let some of the emotions settle.

No, I do not think you were inappropriate, per se, but it seems that the both of you have histories of accusations of perceived personal attack-type editing.

Were I your mentor, I would advise you that part of being a part of the wiki project is learning to "swallow" some of the garbage that comes along with editing emotionally-charged topics. Sometimes, one just has to let the other person get the last word. Our goal here should not be "right" vs. "wrong"; there is no answer for that. Our goal is to make the best, least partisan, most informative encyclopedia. Therefore, it is appropriate to follow official channels, and better not to respond directly, especially if the comments make you "see red".

People with a history of perceived attacks are often, understandably, afforded less benefit of the doubt due to that history. It takes a while to rebuild that "good will", and it is not easy.

Speaking of which, have you found a mentor, or would you like some help trying to get one? -- Avi 15:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been making efforts to find a mentor, but people have seen the really unpleasant personal attacks launched on anyone comng to my support in many of the quite brutal attempts to get rid of me. Even a complete stranger who came forward as an "Advocate" when I was blocked (having had an astounding, blatantly false allegation made against me) was harrassed by an administrator who demanded to know what he thought he was doing. People who would have blown off the "Do you have a COI?" storm in a tea-cup were reminded that many people here would take really violent opposition to any link between someones service and the destruction caused.

And people are rightly nervous that prospective Mentors, before they've done anything, are liable to aggressive investigation and a perma-block. People have noticed this kind of jeering going on - malicious, utterly false, but part of a campaign. Here's a malicious attempt to smear someone as a sock-puppet for no earthly reason (and link them to me). As long as this kind of nasty trouble-making goes unpunished, it won't only be me that suffers.

I can find you 100s of diffs of the above if you wanted them ...... but I'm sure you get the message.

I pointed you to a case in which I'd started a new topic on a new "angle" - it's effectively been vandalised by people who are "in my face" and know full well they can get away with it - because of discussions like this. I could go back there and re-format the nonsense that's been inserted - I'd simply find myself facing another ANI with no comeback when it was found to be false (if it was found to be false).

Even if I abandon subjects on which I now know rather a lot about and start again on new subjects, there is aggressive ownership going on all over the place from people who know they can get away with it. Here's another one I just noticed. Are you telling me I should back away and not add this 100% genuine RS improvement to the article based on (what I'm almost certain) is the absurd logic of the "owner"? (This is an editor who references me in a disparaging way 4 times on his own UserPage - you must know that I'd never be allowed to behave this badly!). PalestineRemembered 16:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Isarig

Hello, Fayssal. Would you be willing to step in as a mentor for Isarig, or could you suggest someone? Thank you. -- Avi 18:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Avi. Of course no problem. I'd be needing your help as well in case or it would be better if we were both of us. Because, i am afraid one mentor would not be able to do all the work alone. Any thoughts? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I thought of you as someone whose background is significantly enough different from Isarig's to prevent any appearances of impropriety, and you are one of the most level-headed, fair-minded, calm, and respected editors that I know of. I would be glad to help out, but I am afraid that there will be allegations if I were to do it myself, since my background and upbringing is more close to Isarig's than not. -- Avi 19:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If you would become lead mentor I would be glad to be backup (time permitting both of us). Perhaps the community would accept such a joint mentorship? -- Avi 19:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Good deal. Note that your presence with me would be important as you are also a very level-headed contributor and i've always respected and trusted your judgments. I also the community and Isarig himself would be much reassured. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Applaud

I applaud both yourself and Fayssal for your fair, firm, reasonable handling of the Isarig CSN. If there were a relevant barnstar, it would be is yours. Italia^vivi 04:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The Half Star of Cooperation. For your cooperation alongside Fayssal at WP:CSN.

Mentoring...

Hi. Happened to leave a note for PalestineRemembered and saw your q about a mentor. Do you happen to be available and/or do you think I should try to find one? Ciao. HG | Talk 16:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Abrahma

Avraham,

I do not get it. The whole article is very subjective overlaid with individual interpretations, like from Anacalypsis, Gene Matlock, and so on. If my contribution, which I am backing with a lot of reference material, which is only highlighting what has been said by others, why are you against it? These authors are not admitted by the main stream historians and people can have their differences, so far differences are stated and personal opinions explicitly marked.

How an individual researcher can break the barriers set up by the academia? Geoffery Higgins and Gene Matlock published books - but that was before Wikipedia. I think Wikipedia should allow people to put their research under some guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunilsrivastava (talk • contribs) 15:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Template talk: Sockpuppet

I've left a response there relating to the change you made to the template. Acalamari 17:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Haredim and Zionism

User yidisheryid keeps on reverting edits to the page without posting on the talk page first. He he reverting prior edits that were reached through consensus and he just edits to his own POV. He was already blocked once for it. Yossiea ^(talk) 14:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a lie, please be so kind and read my tak page and the articles talk page, i have suffered insults from user Yosia and another now blockked user all my points are very clearly written out there and they ignore it.--יודל 14:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

All this would never happen if you would just use the talk page before you edit. Yossiea ^(talk) 14:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have used the talk pages in detail and u r evidently lying here, please lets keep it cool and to the issues, u have not only blanket reverted me but also user pinchus user eidah and others.--יודל 14:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

All one has to is look at article and see that you are not using the talk page. Yossiea ^(talk) 14:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

if they can look at the talk page and see my edits why do they have to look at the article itself? u dont make any sense. Danial i would like to say Mazel Tov for your new name.--יודל 14:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Avi, as far as the above article goes, you made the correct call (clearly, my protecting it for three days was insufficient), and I was going to do the same thing. As you are (very, very obviously) more knowledgable about the article content than I, I'm happy with your (apparent) bid to try and sort this dispute out. If you do need a second pair of eyes or a neutral perspective (neutral in that I am entirely unknowledgable about the article's topic), please do let me know. Neil ム 15:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Further to that, it would probably make things clearer for everyone if the use of Hebrew (or is it Yiddish?) was toned down, I can't follow half the discussion now. Everyone in the discussion appears to speak English, so there's no need to go overboard and make the discussion partially unintelligble to us goyim. Agree with making the squabbling parties source their edits or remove them. Neil ム 16:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

So now he has achieved his goal to confuse other gentile sysops from understanding the issue at hand, let me try to clear thinks up, Avi has agreed to delete that line that a particuer group is supportive of Zionism, but only after a week, i ask him please dont wait if we agree that this is unsourced material that can be viewed by some people as slanderous it should be deleted right away and never been add there without sourcing, Avi evidently dodges the point, since his POV is that it is not slanderous and negative but he does not deny the fact that by some people it is negative, so in essence it does not belong there.--יודל 16:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Moving a page

I'm thinking of moving the page Talk:Circumcision/Summary style to User:Coppertwig/Sandbox6. Can you think of any technical or procedural problems I might run into moving from Talk: to User: space? I'm the sole contributor to the page, and it's no longer needed now that I've pasted its content into Circumcision; I thought I would make it a sandbox and possibly use it for other purposes but the edit history would still be there on the off-chance I or someone else wanted it. Thanks. --Coppertwig 16:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Isaiah/Christianity

Hey,

I am sorry if I am posting this response in the wrong section. I didnt know where to do it.

The reason I changed the date is because it said that Isaiah was born in the 8th Century when in reality he lived in the 8th Century BC. Thats a 1600 year difference!

As far as the add in the Isaiah/Christianity section. My reference was the Chapter and Verse in the Book of Isaiah. Is that not sufficient? Also, I believe that that is the proper section because it is titled "Isaiah/Christianity". I was simply putting what Christians believe about Isaiah.

Please reply with your thoughts. Sorry for not signing: Itsadiel 20:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

A couple of questions/comments... 1. Is this the proper place for me to write to you? Or should I be replying in my own "discussion" section etc? 2. Thanks for the tip on correct dating method etc. 3. I did not post my "interpretation" (sorry I dont know how to italicize). I just put the verse and said that Christians believe this is speaking about Jesus. I understand that there is a Jesus article and even a Messianic Prophecy articles and that is good. Yet in the section titled, "Isaiah in Christianity" is it not logical to put how Isaiah relates to Christianity? Of course it is! But if it is more references that are needed, I will find them. Fair enough? Itsadiel 21:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites RfM

Avi, I have requested formal mediation for the Ebionites article in a last-ditch attempt to restore it to Feature quality. So far, the disruptive editor has refused to say whether he will accept mediation or not. He is claiming to be off-Wiki for a week and not in a postion to respond. I asked the Mediation Committee to hold the request period open for two weeks, so that absence can't be used as an excuse to avoid mediation. The article has been heavily modified since July 9th, the day it was featured on the Main page, so the FAR could proceed for this reason alone. I wanted you to know that I am doing what I can to resolve the dispute. Ovadyah 14:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, a request for semi-protection

Meanwhile, we have anon IPs and new users repeatedly adding names of fringe groups to the article, despite repeated requests to show verifiable evidence of notability on the talk page. Please put an sprotected2 on the article. Ovadyah 14:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

note

i'm displeased by the way you present my response to a person who accused me (repeatedly) as being a war criminal.

other than that, you can see exactly what i've "accused you of"^[1] here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

not that i think it matters to you, but i was seriously offended by your "neutral" comparison on this. i've taken all the steps that i possibly could have to dissolve this issue (repetative and escalating attacks on me) peacfully, but i've seen little to no progress as of yet. perhaps there is a comment of mine that you wish to point out to make your statement/accusation/threat ("before the community gets exasperated by the two of y'alls back-and-forth") clearer? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

When you have a spare minute...

Could you take a look at this and let me know whether you think it is a workable idea. Jakew 21:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game

Hey ... normally we don't add photo credits inline for a variety of reasons. (Inline credits take up extra space, are impractical in a lot of cases like tables, and potentially make article susceptible to advertising. For example, we wouldn't want to provide an inline credit on plumbing to some random plumbing contractor - that would just be invaluable free advertising.) I looked at the legal code [2] and section 4.c describes our attribution requirements:

“ Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit. ”

In other words, as long as we are consistent in our attribution of images, we are fine - there is no requirement for inline attribution. In fact, if we were to use inline attribution, that would probably require inline attribution for ALL creative commons images since each attribution would have to be "at least as prominent" as any other. --B 00:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Avi, thanks for filling out the fair use rationale for Image:Eden Natan Zada.jpg. I'm not completely up to speed on all the required criteria for fair use images, so I was happy to see you took care of it : ) --MPerel 06:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

ANI --> CSN

That was extremely unnecessary. CSN is not the go-all be-all for any sort of discussion that involves banning an editor. In this case, it was brought to the proper attention of an administrator who performed an indefinite block. In the future, leave things be.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I must agree that it was unnecessary. The fact of the matter is that more eyes are on AN/I than on CSN which provides for better community input. Please don't move it again.--Jersey Devil 06:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

List of inedible fruits is a good article.

Yay or nay, discussion about removal of your editing privileges was placed on hold subject to your undergoing mentorship. It has been some time now; have you a mentor yet? -- Avi 17:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I can ask another editor if he would be willing to do so, but in the face of this relentless harrassment the chances are not amazingly good. I can go back to editing the spelling of List of inedible fruits if that is your wish. PalestineRemembered

PalestineRemembered, let me be frank. You have been the object of a discussion on Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard. Whether or not you feel it justified, it does result from the patterns of behavior that you represent. The old adage relating the relative proximity of soot-laden breezes and incandescently gaseous oxidation comes to mind. You specialize in controversial articles and enough members of the community felt that your presence, style, and methods of interacting with other editors of the wikipedia project were sufficiently deleterious to the project to have more than halfway to a long-term sanction. The process was halted because the suggestion was raised that you had the potential to become a valued member of the community and contributer to the project, if you could somehow be able to curb the behavior that, for better or for worse, raised the ire of a significant portion of the community. That would have been the purpose of mentorship. As I said to Isarig as well, it is a process by which you could learn to vent the inevitable frustrations and disappointments inherent in editing tendentious articles in such a way that the wikipedia policies relating to editing and behavior are upheld. If that starts with editing non-tendentious articles, so be it. The purpose of an article ban is not punitive, but protective of both the article and the editors involved.

I still am convinced that you need some time away from articles which are hot buttons for yourself and others, and time away from the editors together with whom the interactions have been overwhelmingly fractious. The articles you have specialized in are ones that inflame passions on all sides of the discussion, as they do on the ground and in the field of battle. It is these kinds of articles that require the most discretion and iron-clad adherence to process. Otherwise it degenerates into endless cycles of revert wars interspersed with periods of article lockdowns.

You have developed a reputation; Despite the fact that my weltanschauung in these articles differs vastly from yours, I will offer you a piece of unsolicited advice. If you wish to continue to contribute gainfully, you will need to shed the reputation you have garnered and rebuild the community's faith in you.

Back to brass tacks, what you do now is sort-of up to you, but the Damoclean specter of the CSN discussion remains, and does need to be addressed. Thank you. -- Avi 00:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure I have many failings - but that my "style, and methods of interacting with other editors" are the problem is a brand new one. Difficult to be sure, but I'm not clear that either of those things has ever been raised before (certainly not as the subject of any move to silence me - but probably not in all the many personal allegations made against me either). Only once in 11 months has "my interaction with other editors" directly arisen. (I fully and completely apologised to that person, waiting until after the CSN ws closed, without needing anyone to ask or even suggest it was necessary/useful).

However, on the third point "your presence", I think you hit the nail on the head. There are many "Israel" named participators, they're not made the subject of harrassment for their name. Many of the people holding "their kind of views" (if I may describe them like that?) have also been hauled up (usually for real crimes, edit warring, reverting, incivility, reckless and repeated breaches of policy etc etc) before various disciplinary boards. However, I'm not seeing the people who "defend them" suffering immediate nasty personal attack - as is very clear happens to me at every turn.

I'm not being difficult about Mentoring, I rather like the idea and I publicly agreed to it (and you'll see I'm working far more closely with User:HG at the Battle of Jenin article than anyone else is doing[3]). I don't see HG (yet, anyway!) advising me to back off and stop editing any particular topic. (He did ask a pile of people to look at Battle of Jenin and strike out all personal attacks - I'm the only one to have attempted to comply - deleting 3 posts that were probably never objectionable[4][5]).

The problem here is that, as long as I can be kicked around in the fashion that has happened to me (and everyone who speaks up for me is guaranteed to get the same unpleasant treatment), mentoring by any editor in good standing (or indeed otherwise[6]) is impossible. HG would run a mile - he's already been accused of being my meatpuppet. (I'll not repeat what happened to my first "Mentor", nor what glee that provoked). I'm all in favour of teethful administrators. Take on and bully those people who cannot string two words together first (and are incapable of doing anything other than edit-war and bitch) and the whole project's atmosphere would improve enormously, with great benefit to the product. Carry on picking on logical, literate, cooperative people like me and you simply encourage editors who do not, and cannot, contribute anything useful. That's where the project's problems lie. I don't have to lower myself to naming anyone (let alone making personal attacks on them) because you know (or could very quickly find out) exactly who I'm refering to. PalestineRemembered 09:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Further to what I'm saying about an uncontrolled campaign of fraudulent accusations (started by a top admin with a completely baseless but never retracted allegation of Holocaust Denial), yet another well-regarded editor is now suffering this effect. The thoughtful and careful mediation that User:HG was attempting on Battle of Jenin has been deliberately stalled by 1) refusing to partake 2) defacing the mediation page and 3) personally attacking the mediator and me. Note that those doing this haven't even had the decency to stop editing the article. Some of their ways are being exposed at the very confusing new TalkPage opened here, but then these sections have come to conclusions before (eg over use of CAMERA and what should be in the lead) and those conclusions have never been implemented.

All of the above is a direct result of a culture of personal accusations that has been and is being encouraged against me (by, amongst other things, this nonsense). People must be very puzzled why User:HG (and everyone else who dares to deal with me in any kind of collegiate fashion) suffers these outrageous and personal attacks .... something about me must bring down the red mist on some people - can you guess what it is? One thing for sure, it's not due to any real or alleged misbehaviour on my part! PalestineRemembered 08:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Avi. FYI, I commented on PR's Talk about serving as a mentor. Hope this wasn't out of line. HG | Talk 18:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Avi, as you may have noticed, I've had further discussions w/PR about mentoring. See esp my Talk page. Latest effort is User:HG/workshop/Mentoring, a draft arrangement. (PR hasn't responded yet to the draft.) I'd like some feedback from you. Is this the kind of thing you envision? Do you need an admin instead of me? What time frame and outcomes do you expect of the mentoring? Thanks muchly. Pls reply to my Talk. HG | Talk 17:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible Sockpuppetry

If Wikipedia administrators come to a decision regarding the subheading in my Talk page, I grant you permission to delete the subheading if need be. I may not have time to log on to Wikipedia in the coming days. Your edits of my Talk page will be limited to that subheading only.--Kitrus 07:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Blanking

You posted the following on my talkpage:

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, you will be blocked from editing. -- Avi 14:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see the talkpage of said article (WRMEA) where I have justified my edits.--Kitrus 07:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Since you were an Admin involved in this...

I would like to bother u and ask u to clean my name, i do know why he is accusing me of those thinks, and i understand his approach, but since smoke is a sign of fire, i beg u please help me correcting my record[7]. Thanks--יודל 16:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Recoome and ip sockpuppets

Should all of the talk pages of the ips he utilized be tagged with {{ISP}} and {{anonblock}} as you did to User talk:219.89.161.120 and User talk:69.86.129.29? Also, what to do if he trolls my talk page repeatedly using a different ip every time? The protection policy doesn't guarantee infinite semi-protection of my talk page from what I've been told, but he has been harrassing and attacking me for days, see [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. His abusive behaviour is alike to a vandal we had at Dragon Ball wiki, see Prince Zarbon. Blocking his ips won't help, as he switches ips daily, unless it's a range block. If you could, please respond on my page instead of here so we could settle the matter at hand. Oh yes, I've just recently created an e-mail, you could try that instead. Thank you, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What steps should be taken in order to stop his round of ips from trolling my talk page? I'm tired of reverting, maybe a temporary semi-protection there would be adequate. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

To Da, Shukran, Danke She

For your help in undoing that autoblock. Tiamut 18:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Andrea Dworkin citation on VAW

I'll order a copy a look through it, though it usually takes a month or more for books to arrive interlibrary loan. Feel free to look it up yourself if you have access to it and are in a rush. Also, check out the discussion that clarifies the history of that section. Dkreisst 01:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

208.190.13.124 and 70.80.188.30

Hi Avi. I'm not sure if you would see this on the other page - 208.190.13.124 (talk · contribs · block log) seems to be just a normal school :/ [14]. 70.80.188.30 (talk · contribs · block log) also seems to be closed now [15]. Please confirm. I will leave you to adjust the blocks. Also, indef-blocking open proxies seems to be somewhat deprecated in most cases since they're usually quite dynamic. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Shraga Hager

Hi, there is currently a discussion about the notability of Rabbi Shraga Hager your insight on this would greatly be appreciated[16]. Have a beautiful day--יודל 13:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Also a week has gone by and u did not remove that un-sourced line that Belz is supportive of Zionism, and neither have u opened this page Haredim and Zionism that u closed without any edit war, please don't act like this and then cry that others complain on your abuse of power.--יודל 11:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

YidisherYid

Avi, would YY's actions here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Yidisheryid be considered beyond the scope of the page and perhaps even personally attacking me? Yossiea ^(talk) 21:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ, that page was reported by u and i am obligated and responsible to answer u the best i can, currently this is a collection of your edits against me and this is a major part in establishing my innocence, if use avi wants he can speak i already invited to say his opinion, but hw was silent untill today i hope he is smart enoughh not to use my edit on his edit today as reason to come into the argument because i will not sit there and be silent--יודל 21:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

1) Stop following me around.

2) You are not responding to the SP case you are just spewing nonsense against me. Yossiea ^(talk) 21:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies

I have called u some really bad words while i felt lost during a week of what i felt was an un-sourced slanderous line that u blocked from being taken off the record. The line is now gone after u opened the article again, in retrospective i feel i have gone overboard in my accusing u of abuse of powers i would like take that back, perhaps to delete it, i was wrong and i am wrong, please do forgive me.--יודל 11:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

woop-de-doo

You either are not being objective or you are too lazy to research how this original fracas started.

As for your holy divrei mussar vehisoreres, nobody asked you. Firstly, you are being hypocritical by telling me "no personal attacks" while you are personally attacking me by telling me that I am causing a chilull Hashem. Secondly, your administrator duties do not include giving mussar to who you think are religious jews. If you want to ban me or do similar action that will get you off, then go ahead and do it. --Yeshivish 05:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC).

I did not claim that informing me that I attacked somone is a personal attack against me. I claimed that accusing me of causing a chilull hashem is a personal attack against me. Your accusation that I have violated my religious principals is against Wikipedia's policies, notwithstanding your administratorship.

As for your shtickel toyrah, you are dead-on wrong. Even if I did something wrong "Lifnei Am V'Edah" it does not give you the right to be Tochiach me Lifnei Am V'Edah.

And yes, I would prefer that you relate to me as a wikipedia editor. If I want to hear (pseudo)mussar I would go elsewhere.--Yeshivish 06:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)