Jump to content

User talk:Avraham

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.81.157.233 (talk) at 22:24, 30 January 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

AFI-PUNK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi. You know the range block you performed a while back (79.211.96.0 ranges)? Well it's doing no good now...they seem to have found a way around it. If you lift it, I'll be happy to keep reverting them daily. Also, thanks for making me a rollbacker :). Seraphim Whipp 14:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Megalogo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Megalogo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avi

You did ask that I contact you. How do I do this please? Adon Emett (talk) 11:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on my talk page to your message

Can you take a look? Thanks! Qwertyqazqaz1 (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avi, I left another message on my talk page. Thanks again Qwertyqazqaz1 (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dropped another note on my talk. Qwertyqazqaz1 (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avi, can you restore my 15:37 edit as this is sourced using only the sources information? It was automatically reverted since I had to establish a new wiki account and it doesn't allow new users to reference blogspot addresses. Thanks for your help. Qwertyqazqaz1 (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SOA Logo.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:SOA Logo.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adon Emett

The little Irishman from oz e-mailed you, but so far no response. Did the e-mail get there? Or did it get intercepted by an Eleland or a Crotalus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adon Emett (talk • contribs) 08:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Regan

Hi Avi, in response to your edits of the Andrew Regan page, I would like for us to discuss the inclusion of the Guardian (which can be found here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2003/aug/11/2) citation as I have posted previously. The current citation which is used on the page ^ Tomlinson, Heather (August 10, 2003). The Thing Is: Andrew Regan. Business News. The Independent. Retrieved on 2008-01-11, is in fact older than the Guardian article I feel better reflects the completion of the CWS case. I do feel that by including the most up to date references we can keep the page neutral, up to date and accurate which is the basis of Wikipedia. I strongly believe that with the correct wording and references we can offer the users of Wikipedia a version of events where the full version of events in this instance is displayed. Many thanks, Fiona. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fionamcgowan (talk • contribs) 11:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]



Hi Avi, thanks for the insights. I believe we both follow the code of Wikipedia very closely, and because if this I am of the opinion that the Andrew Regan page shows and incorrect weighting to section in which the CWS case is outlined. I am hoping to make this page more balanced by slight reword and have included all citations currently used in the paragraph. I thought to avoid us both unnecessary edits to the page, we could discuss these prior to my posting. Here is the wording I think is more suited to the page, given Andrews acquittal 5 years ago:

In 1997 Regan led an attempt to gain control of the CWS in a £1.2 billion take-over bid but the bid was rejected. An investigation started by CWS during the takeover revealed apparent unethical behavior of two senior CWS executives and they were dismissed. An investigation by the Serious Fraud Office[1] led, in 2001, to the trial of the two CWS executives who were convicted and imprisoned for corruptly accepting £1 million each in 1995 from an intermediary acting for Hobson. A solicitor acting for Hobson was acquitted of aiding and abetting corruption. In 2003, in connected proceedings, Regan was acquitted of one count of theft, from a subsidiary of Hobson, alleged to have occurred in 1995 and was awarded his defence costs reported to be £2 million.[2]

[1] Keep reference to SFO site - Serious Fraud Office (August 6, 2003). "Andrew Regan acquitted of theft of £2.4 million". Press release. Retrieved on 2008-01-08. [2] Use correct figure with citation from the Independent

I am a strong believer (as I know you are) that biography pages must be fair to the individual and offer the public a neutral and accurate account of events. It is because of this I have drafted this revised paragraph and look forward to your response prior to my editing of the page. Thanks, Fi. Fionamcgowan (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yisroel Dovid Weiss

What personal analysis? Please explain what on earth you mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.254.200 (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

I'm not changing anything. I'm trying to stop these changes. There's a big difference.

This is disappointing behavior. You know that you're just pissed off because you were prevented from adding templates to NAS. So now you turn up at WP:CITE, a page you've never paid any attention to before, to cause trouble. It's not a good thing.

Please discuss this on the talk page so that everything's in one place. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on user's talk page. -- Avi (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 04:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MAF

I don't know what you are talking about. Please stop littering my talk page with gibberish. Thank you,.67.81.157.233 (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITE

Thanks for your input into WP:CITE, additional insight is always welcome - but you really need to refrain from edit warring, and instead discuss your proposed changes on the talk page. Dreadstar † 22:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the talk page recently? My edits are all over it . I notice that you have not made the same comment to User:Slim Virgin whose edits to WP:CITE are even more frequent than mine and whose explanations have come up short. Can you please explain the disparity? Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
You are reverting to keep your disputed proposed changes to a Wikipedia Guideline in place without consensus, thus my comment and recommendations to you. The main point is for you to find consensus and not continue attempting to get your version into place via edit warring. Dreadstar † 01:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the edits were to different sections and I am discussing it on the talk page. I understand and appreciate your zeal to protect the wiki, and would appreciate it even more if you were to apply your notices to all involved parties, as there is currently a lack of consensus on this issue. Regardless, I commend your enthusiasm and look forward to continuing to working with you. Perhaps I can convince you to read the discussion and weigh in with your opinions? Right now, there are only two to four editors discussing this in detail, and as you saw fit to contact me, it seems that you are following this conversation, so your input would be appreciated. -- Avi (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be clear, these edits are revert warring and violate WP:3RR: [1][2][3][4]. Dreadstar † 01:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out to you, 3 and 4 are sequential, and for the purposes of 3rr are considered one. Please review WP:3RR. -- Avi (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need to re-read WP:3RR, "The motivation for the three-revert rule is to prevent edit warring. In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive". Dreadstar † 01:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(<-)Responded on user talkpage. -- Avi (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anno Mundi

Avi, thank you for your message. But BC/AD is not, at least in Wikipedia, "Christian distinctive", it is equally valid with the more novel reckoning style. The article you are commenting on began in the older style and was not stable in the style to which some editors had changed it. It had continued to use its original style, including quite recently. Under these circumstances the original style is appropriate.Mamalujo (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

I have removed your vandalism off my page. If you have nothing to explain, then don't put it back on. I did absolutely NOTHING wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.157.233 (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel575 is back

FYI, Daniel is back. I added a sock puppet tag to his new account Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel575 (9th nomination)Yossiea (talk) 03:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice that. I used TW to add the case, and I guess it doesn't check to see if there already is a proven tag. Yossiea (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User has admitted to being a sockpuppet: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block

"Jewish Gestapo" and "Rabbi" Abraham Gancwajch?

Hi Avi: Seems that User Lysy (talk · contribs) has just added articles about Jewish Gestapo and a "Rabbi" Abraham Gancwajch who worked with.for the Shomer HaTzair? Is this legit? Sounds very odd and the sources seem POV antisemitic. I redirected Jewish Gestapo to Group 13. See also some of the "funny" discussions at Talk:Tykocin pogrom. IZAK (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Informing past contributors of new TFD for Template:Maintained

As you were a contributor in the last TFD, I am letting you know that {{Maintained}} is again up for deletion. Please review the current version of the template and discuss it at the TFD. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-30 17:48Z

Your message in my talk page

Hi Avi, we are discussing if this is a discussion forum or not. Then in the middle of the discussion you're posting a warning message to my talk page. Can you rather explain why do you think it is a link to a discussion forum ? --Lysytalk 18:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avi, I guess it's the first time we are meeting on wikipedia. Please to not make any prejudiced assumptions about me or my contributions. I do not appreciate your obvious attack on the article and your WP:WL approach only because its contents does not suit your agenda. Would you nominate the Tykocin pogrom for deletion for the same reason (no reliable sources) as well ? --Lysytalk 18:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in regards to Abraham Gancwajch

I have responded on my talk page. Jon513 (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your vandalism

>>Adding unsubstantiated statements about demonstration of semicha is inappropriate

It was substantiated. And you have no right to riddly me page with frivolous warnings. You are warned 67.81.157.233 (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Avraham&oldid=188016650"