User talk:Avraham
| This is Avraham's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
| Archives: 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 |
Checkuser followup
Hiya. A few weeks ago, you wrapped up Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/98.180.202.52/Archive as inconclusive. Might knowing that the editor's expanded to another IP address -- User:98.180.196.203 -- be useful in winnowing in on whether he's operating under other registered accounts? --EEMIV (talk) 05:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Socks
Hello Avraham,
As you requested me I notify you that I suspect of two new accounts being socks of Arcangel21 (talk · contribs). The first one, Locombio (talk · contribs) wich has been blocked on es-wiki as a 
Confirmed sock, and the seccond one, Telesforo06 (talk · contribs) wich have the same behaviour as the others. Best regards. --Dferg (w:en: - w:es:) 11:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Obama FAR
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Tvoz/talk 21:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I'm going to steal this section because I'm here to discuss that very FAR - Avi, the day the article gets hit by a bunch of WND kooks is hardly the time to start an FAR. Even if otherwise it is needed, no one will be able to tell what is an issue with the article and what is a temporary POV slant due to the WND crew. You are usually quite sensible; surely you can see that when you have 400 sewer rats running through a restaurant it isn't time to do an inspection, but rather wait until the rats are trapped or caged or whatever, and then inspect under more normal conditions. I urge you to withdraw this for a week or two, then list it again once the furor dies down. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- In fact the reason the article is being highlighted by these outside sources is because it's so grotesquely biased. It's embarassing and all good faith editors should want the article to be shaped up so Wikipedia shows it's not censored and biased to a particular point of view. Unfortunately, that hasn't been the response. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Many editors would disagree with you, CoM,about bias. But the environment created by the descending outside hoards, if prior experience serves, will not be conducive to constructive discussion. That's why so many have said that this is the wrong time for FAR. Moot, as it has been closed for now, but the above is a point that you're missing. Tvoz/talk 06:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Tvoz/talk 06:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
"dating schema"
Sir,
You advised me not to use "Christian-specific dating schema in articles that are important to religions other than Christianity" re AD vs. CE. AD and CE actually refer to the same dating schema, that is, one which numbers the years beginning from the year Christ was born (as "year 1"). For reasons I won't try to encapsulate, this calendar has been adapted as the default of the Western world. I used "AD" over "CE" for three reasons: It is more common and more widely recognized. It is more descriptive; "Anno Domini" defines itself, "Common Era" is vague, and could easily be interpreted by someone who didn't know otherwise as referring to something other than the Christian calendar. "Common Era" is a much more modern phrase, and I suspect its usage to be a scholarly "fad."
98.110.153.45 (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
CU
Hello Avi. User:AFI-PUNK has changed ip addresses and before I make a new range block, I was wondering if you could check the range to see if that would affect any good faith editors. I've documented a few ip addresses here. Seraphim♥ 18:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)