Jump to content

User talk:Avaya1

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 176.26.247.147 (talk) at 12:16, 11 December 2013 (→Russian Jews pictures: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

ok. i never meant to make anything biased. that was never my intentionHappy monsoon day (talk)

Quilliam Foundation

Thanks for working on the Quilliam Foundation --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Quilliam Foundation 2

I noticed your complaint about this article at the 3RR board. If you have some time to work on the article, I might be able to help you frame any requests for admin assistance that you need. The problem (I think) is that nobody without a strong POV has had an interest in spending time on the article. Though User:Jk54 seemed to have a POV, he wrote a fairly long and thorough article. Would you yourself have the patience to try to expand the article in a neutral way? Do you think Jk54's references are OK to use? I recall that BoogaLouie used to work on the article, and he might have some ideas for what should be done. EdJohnston (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks we're actively discussing it here as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WQA#User:Jk54

Avaya1 (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of massacres

LOL. I was guessing that; my description could have been better. The original Date Sort and Location Sort both needed to be fixed, and with the multiple dates I was playing around a bit to get it to look and sort reasonably well - decided to use '94 as the starting point since that's the earliest in the article and the more complete (French language) listing used there as an external link.

While I'm here, can you glance at the changes I made to Quilliam? Mostly minor adjustments, but I changed spelling on a couple of red-linked names, and not being that familiar may have guessed wrong. (The paragraph combine at the bottom was weird - even with a break, it displayed as a single paragraph on my system; change it back if you want...) Fat&Happy (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

F-4 Phantom II revert

Hi Avaya1, just wanted to explain why your edit to the F-4 Phantom II article was reverted. The article you referenced has a typo, the aircraft in question were A-4 Skyhawks, not F-4 Phantoms. Good info, wrong place. Poliocretes (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elections

Following our disagreement at Ilan Pappé last month, you will be interested to know that I I have now located a page[1] on the Israeli Democracy Institute site (Hebrew only) which links to the complete electoral lists of all parties in all Knesset elections. This confirms that Pappé was indeed in eighth place in 1996 and seventh in 1999. This is a very useful resource, which should prevent any dispute about the facts (though not, of course, about their interpretation) in the future. RolandR (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Financial figures

I'm a bit confused that the article now uses a mixture of figures from 2008 and 2009. Looking at the box at the top of the article the GDP (PPP) numbers are described as estimates for 2008 but seems to be the actual figures from http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2009/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2006&ey=2009&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=436&s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC%2CLP&grp=0&a=&pr.x=46&pr.y=11. Meanwhile the GDP (nominal) figures seem to be the estimates for 2009 from the same page. The economy section uses the 2008 figures but is rounded in a different way so that the numbers are slightly different and referes to Israel being "31nd" in one of the rankings. Then the lead quotes the nominal GDP for 2008. Because I edited this last yesterday I know that this last referenes another IMF document which lists all countries in numbered order of size of exonomy and therefore the source of the rankings at that point are clear. The source of the other rankings are unclear.

I'm going to notify User:Okedem of this post. He will be able to inform you that the article is at WP:FAR and that I am being quite picky about getting this sort of thing straight. So please agree with him on one year to use for all the figures, make it clear whether estimates or real figures are used, pick a consistent method of rounding (I suggest to nearest number rather than down and using a consistent number of significant figures throughout) and ensure that all the numbers inclcuding rankings are referenced. And if the nominal numbers are appropriate for the lead, then make sure they are mentioned in the finace section, otherwise change to the PPP in the lead.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
The problem is that the rankings in the infobox lead to the wiki articles about them, and the data in those articles doesn't always match the data from other articles. Even worse, the articles for PPP use 2009, whereas the articles for nominal GDP use 2008. This is a mess. To solve this, I chose to cite 2008 data for both; the source we have there lists the 2009 data as mere estimates (which makes sense - I doubt anyone has real data - the yearly 2009 reports of public companies are just coming out, or haven't come out yet). It's better to use real data than estimates, especially considering how crazy 2009 has been financially, which means estimates are probably way off. So, what do we do? Base the rating on the one in the wiki articles? Use another source, and have links that don't match those articles? Drop the links altogether? In fact, we now have this problem in the lead - it says Israel's economy is the "41st-largest", but the link to List of countries by GDP (nominal) says it's either the 42nd (according to the IMF) or the 40th (according to the world bank, the source of the data cited there).
I suggest we round to hundreds of millions ("202.5 billion").
Peter - do you know of a clear source for an IMF ranking? I only saw the one you added, which was for just one of the four figures we need. The rest come from the tables in the wiki articles about the rankings. Oh, and it seems that the "estimate" comes from the infobox template - I don't think I can control it. okedem (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The source for List of countries by GDP (nominal) used a three-month older version of the World Bank data than the Israel article does, but the link arrives at the same version of the data as we have. I hadn't previously noted that we used both World Bank and IMF figures in the article. I'd suggest that as another area where it is better to be consistent and pick just one. I have no reason to believe one is more relaible than the other but would tend to pick either of those as international bodies ahead of the CIA which is a nationally-produced table. The World Bank data, unlike the IMF's, conveniently include the ranking for each country rather than you having to work it out yourself. I would suggest therefore that you use the latest World Bank figures and rankings from the current (October 2009) tables for 2008 in all places, following the links from the ranking tables to find those tables. It's unfortunate that this will leave the Israel article out of line with the ranking articles on Wikipedia but it is not WP:Israel's fault if another project uses out-of-date material. Your task is to produce featured content by using the latest figures from a reliable external source. I dont think that the FAC process can fault you for using 2009 figures of the World Bank dont give any and the IMF guess theirs.
On the "estimate", Ive raised this on the template talk page and referred to it from the FAR talk page, as this affects every country article.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the World Bank doesn't seem to provide per capita figures. The "per capita" wiki articles say they got the numbers by dividing the GDP by the population - thus, I can't provide a world bank source for the per capita figures in the infobox. okedem (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see what you mean. No I can't help there. I think the first time I visited the WB site was when editing the Israel article the other day. I'm tempted to suggest leaving it out (especially the ranking) as an inherently unsatisfactory figure as the population of a country can change quite a lot over a year which makes comparisons pretty odd. However, the three other featured articles about countries I looked at all include this statistic. And unfortunately the lack of a ranked source makes ranking a nuisance to produce. A bit of a mess. Maybe the people who maintain the GDP List articles can be encouraged to update them?--Peter cohen (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Sullivan

With respect, in the sentence "He identifies as a political conservative", 'he' is the object. Adding the word "himself" makes the sentence look foolish and changes its meaning in an unfortunate way. I've pointed this out on the talk page; please respond there. UserVOBO (talk) 05:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Lebanon War

Much better now. ;-) ~dee(talk?) 16:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Bonjour,

Merci pour vos contributions. J'ai replacé les études que vous avez ajoutées au bon endroit (le paragraphe existait déjà). J'ai supprimé deux études qui avaient déjà été reportées.

Cordialement,

--Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Physical attractiveness article -- good work

I didn't look over all your edits to this article yet (too many for me to consider looking through right now, if ever), but from what I saw, you did good work. My only complaint would be that you provide edit summaries more often...and mark the minor edits as minor more often (for example, the edits I looked at from you were all minor, to me anyway). But again, good work. Flyer22 (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DRV edit reverted

Concerning your edit here, note that the discussion has already closed, and remains as an archive. The instructions also ask editors: "Please do not modify it", and I have therefore reverted the edit you made to the archive.

There are however two points about the text you wrote which I would like to respond to:

  • It appears obvious that you disagree with how I closed this DRV, and I suspect that about half of the participants on the DRV do so as well (while the other half agree). It was not possible to satisfy everyone here. I had to make a decision based on how I read the DRV debate, and how it related to the original AFD. After reviewing the arguments presented, and the level of support behind them, "overturn to no consensus" appeared to be the appropriate decision. Note that a "no consensus" result does not preclude relisting the article at AFD at a later date, but it is probably better to try discussing this on the article's talkpage first since a speedy renomination is rather annoying unless weighty new arguments are presented.
  • I am unsure why you said the decision had been "closed prematurely". The DRV discussion had been open for more than eight days when I closed it, and such debates are usually closed after seven days.

Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding that edit, Avaya1, you may want to keep track of AfD and DR a little closer. These discussions pop up all the time (there's probably going to be another one coming soon) but there's a time limit on them... and your opinion would have been very much appreciated (and rather helpful) if you had given it a little earlier. Just keep your eyes peeled. Bulldog123 15:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just letting you know that I've reverted your re-insertion of the gallery in the Japan article. It was removed by another editor per the ongoing FAR. I would encourage you to discuss there if you believe it should be included. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2011

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. --Matt Downey (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove any content from the page. I reverted the repeated removal of sourced content by you. Avaya1 (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a note for Matt here. --NeilN talk to me 13:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  1. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.--Matt Downey (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you not undo Matt's latest revert and wait for this discussion to play out and let other editors give their opinions. --NeilN talk to me 10:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. bodnotbod (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rokhlin

Hello,

could you please add a citation about R's father? The Russian page says (also without ref.) that he was executed in 1940, I wonder what is correct.

Thanks, Sasha (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

great, thanks! Sasha (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asma al-Assad

We seem to be at cross purposes here, and I haven't changed what you restored because it's not worth battling about. All people who are born in one of the countries of the UK are UK/British citizens with British passports. However, that doesn't mean we have to classify them that way. To say someone is "British-born" is less specific than to say they are English-born (or better "born in England" or "English"). Most editors prefer to use the specific country because it's conveys more information. Thus, for example, for actors and actresses, the lead will say English actor, not British actor. A few examples: James McAvoy (Scottish); Benedict Cumberbatch (English); Kate Winslet (English). That isn't to say there aren't articles that say British in the lead, but many editors, when they notice and care, will change them to the more specific country within the UK. It's not that you're "wrong" - it's just better to state the actual country within the UK. Anyway, I'll leave it up to you. If you want to keep it British-born, I'll leave it and you alone. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flavio Briatore

I can't find any English language news reports to confirm he is a convicted fraudster - please err on the side of caution here. Mtking (edits) 05:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In Joseph Böhm, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Vienna Conservatory (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flavio Briatore and template

You are the only editor that thinks this is a significant part of his notability, it is not. WP:BLP applies so get consensus at the talk pages for your changes BEFORE you make them. Mtking (edits) 23:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have just added a link with this series of edit that is broken, please fix it or remove it. Mtking (edits) 02:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flavio Briatore revert war

Please see a discussion at User talk:EdJohnston#Flavio Briatore. You and Mtking should stop editing the article until agreement is reached, by joining in a discussion that incudes some other editors. More details on my talk page. I'm requesting that you voluntarily revert the article back to the 23:14 version of 8 December, which does not mention the old crimes in the lead. At that point you should stop editing, but you can join in dicussions. This might help lead to a resolution. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you have resumed adding a lot of crimes to the lead in this edit. Can you point to anywhere that you got consensus for this change? My own edit to the article was made as an admin, attempting to place the article in an innocuous state (free of any BLP concerns) pending a discussion. Where is the discussion? If you have no adequate reply, I am tempted to block you for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted that edit to restore the contemporary (as requested in talk) sources I had been adding - prior to finding the later notes that had been added to your talkpage. The reversions removed a number of sources. That edit has to be reverted to restore those sources. The reason for my reversion was to restore the sources that I had been adding to the lead, and the body of the article - which is not the subject of the edit war. If you look at the subsequent edits, I then tried to modify the content of the lead as an intermediary compromise (while waiting for answers on the talkpage). We can delete those modified sentences in the lead pending discussion. But the main issue is just when we make that edit, we first move the sources down into the body of the article, so they get preserved, and then delete the relevant sentences in the lead. Best Avaya1 (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't point to a consensus for your change to the lead, you should revert it to avoid sanctions. You know this is a disputed matter, and the dispute is not over. EdJohnston (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just did. Not a revert, but I deleted of the contentious sentence and moved the sources down into the body. Avaya1 (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend that you restore the lead to exactly what it was before the whole revert war started. Leave it that way until you can get Mtking to agree, or get a consensus involving some outside editors. An WP:RFC is one option. EdJohnston (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Ludwig Wittgenstein (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to British and Austrian
Cateye (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Japanese

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Rothschild family, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Königstein (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Friedrich Pein (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Austrian
Matthäus Hetzenauer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Austrian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New York City article and Mayor Bloomberg picture

Please see the talk page about why I reverted your edit. NYCRuss ☎ 18:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historicity and WP:RS

I did not revert you now, but go to the Tomb of Mary article, and add WP:RS sources that say it is "historically accepted by scholars" then come back in 2 weeks, else will revert you then. By the way, all these 3RR notices on this page are not encouraging. Please try to follow policy and add WP:RS sources. Your edit to the house of Mary was also unsourced... History2007 (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think you're missing the point. The Tomb of Mary is almost certainly not historical and I think we make that clear in the writing underneath it. But it is purportedly historical - it is a site in the general area where the historical figure lived, and I think that's how most people see it. It's a purported historical site, rather than a literal one. It belongs in the biography section, as long as we make it clear it is only a 'purported' site. Whereas, for the Ephesus site, no historical scholars would accept that the historical figure ever went anywhere near Ephesus. That tradition was only first mentioned, partly for political reasons (to strengthen Ephesus's claim as the centre of Early Christianity etc), by Epiphanius in the 4th century AD, so it would be very misleading to people to place it in the biographical section. I hope you understand my point. Best Avaya1 (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not miss the point. I wanted to be sure we were clear on it. The equaion "purportedly historical = zero value" applies here. So purported does not make a case for historicity. And any and all arguments thereafter are WP:OR. So it does not belong in any historical discussion. Period. History2007 (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not miss the point. I wanted to be sure we were clear on it. The equaion "purportedly historical = zero value" applies here. So purported does not make a case for historicity. And any and all arguments thereafter are WP:OR. So it does not belong in any historical discussion. Period. History2007 (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're still missing the point. We are only arguing about where to place the images in the article. Nobody is claiming that either site is historical (they are not). But for the historical section of an encyclopedia biography, it is more suitable to have a photo from Jerusalem, whereas a photo from Ephesus will be suitable for illustrating the part of the article concerned with later church history, since Ephesus is related to the later traditions, rather than the biblical sources (which never mention her in relation to that area). Avaya1 (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Mary (mother of Jesus), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint Modest (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Israel foreign relations

Could you expand this paragraph to include ties with Greece and Cyprus. Otherwise, I'll do it some time or other
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 13:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of massacres in Algeria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Saïda and Batna
Gottex (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Luxury

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ichthus: January 2012


ICHTHUS

January 2012

Hi. When you recently edited Israel Shamir, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Swedish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Juhuri language (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Tat language
Mountain Jews (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Tat language

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trying to edit-war BLP violations into If Americans Knew

I asked you, in my edit summary, to read the paragraph immediately above, which already deals with Newman's Guardian article. There is absolutely no point in adding text which handles, very badly, exactly the same material.

Apart from the BLP violations, your edit also has the following faults:

  1. You didn't even bother to include a link to the Guardian article
  2. You failed to notice that it is already dealy with immediately above your entry
  3. echoing Andy Newman's criticisms - this is nonsensical, since the material you are adding is AN's criticisms
  4. The Guardian didn't describe AW's wrtiting as "antisemitic", Newman critcised her in a blog on the Guardian's CIF site
  5. NPOV requires that we include Weir's response, which demonstrates just how inaccurate AN's criticisms are

There is no need for your additions, since the article already deals with the matter (it could probably be improved, but it's much better than your effort).

Regards,

--NSH001 (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Your addition is libellous, inaccurate and misleading - it says nothing not already in the paragraph above". A bizarre self-contradictory edit summary.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that was condensed in a hurry to fit in an edit summary - it should have read something like "adds nothing useful to what is already in the paragraph above". --NSH001 (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok both articles are by the same guy . My mistake. I'll look at it again. Avaya1 (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
NSH is right, it appears to be an op-ed published in the Guardian so it needs to be attributed to the author. You can say "Writing in The Guardian, Andy Newman said..." but you can't say "The Guardian said..."GabrielF (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I just saw that and did that. I'm just going to add her response to the charge now. Avaya1 (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Can someone put a lock on this article..."

That must be the most optimistic edit summary I've seen for a long time [2] ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

believes very

Hi,

probably none of my business, but do you really believe very?

Sasha (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michel de Montaigne

According to JInfo: "According to both Donald Frame in Montaigne, a biography (Hamilton, London, 1965, pp. 16-28) and Cecil Roth in "The Jewish Ancestry of Michel de Montaigne" [Chapter 14 of Personalities and Events in Jewish History (Jewish Publication Society of America, Philadelphia, 1953, pp. 212-225)], Montaigne's maternal grandfather was a Jewish converso; however, Montaigne's maternal grandmother came from an "Old Christian" (i.e., non-converso) family, as did his father." Is there any evidence that this is wrong? Something that specifically discusses the grandmother? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This genealogical site lists the maternal grandmother as Honorette DUPUY, daughter of Arnaud DUPUY - here. The book Inquisition: the reign of fear, by Toby Green (2009), says "While his mother's father came from Zaragoza, his mother's mother Honorette Dupuy was from an old Gascon Catholic 8 9 family, and Antoinette was brought up as a Protestant". So there you go. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave research into the father's genealogy up to you. I'm not that interested. :-) All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you were just going through the people listed on that website. It does seem to have good footnotes. :)Avaya1 (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nescio vos

Regarding this comment, WP:UNDUE is a motif I've discerned in his edits as well, but the more troubling aspect of his contributions in my opinion is their WP:RECENTISM and WP:OFFTOPIC. In any event, if he doesn't reply to you or you're not satisfied with his response, it would perhaps be prudent to consider initiating a WP:RFC/U.—Biosketch (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

in Israel could you please add the photo which i putted in the it's talk page? thanks. 109.64.173.10 (talk) 10:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Leo Strauss, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages German and American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Louis-Dreyfus

This is an interesting one, sort of. Aside from just moving her parents' names to the top, as is usually customary, I changed the text slightly to read that her grandfather was part of the Jewish family, rather than her father. While her grandfather was definitely Jewish (the son of Germaine Sarah Hement and Charles Louis-Dreyfus). I am pretty sure that her paternal grandmother was not Jewish - at least by birth. Her name was Dolores Neubauer, and she was the daughter of Henry Neubauer, a South American-born man who appears to have been of German descent, and Mancueala (Manuela Velez Escalante, daughter of Dolores and Vincente Velez Escalante), a Mexican woman (this makes Julia Louis-Dreyfus a little under 12.5% Mexican - it looks like her great-grandmother had some non-Mexican ancestry - some people named "Washington" on that line). Her mother, born Judith LaFever, is not Jewish (her ancestry is here - here). Her paternal grandmother's ancestry is here. If you know anything more about her family - i.e. whether her paternal grandmother converted to Judaism - feel free to share! Louis-Dreyfus has been an interesting mystery to me for a while (although she described herself as "not Jewish" in a public service announcement in 2010, so she definitely swings that way). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of richest American politicians for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of richest American politicians is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of richest American politicians until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dezastru (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marlène Jobert

I'm curious, you first changed her article to state that she is Jewish, and then changed it to read that she is of "Jewish descent". Do you know much more about her background? My understanding is that both of her parents were Jewish? Her mother is described in reference books as Andrée Azoulay. However, here, she is named as Éliane Azoulay (the girl in the bottom row in the middle is Eva Green's maternal grandmother in 1925... how cool is that? She looks just like her). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 05:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just thought it was undue/unfair to list the mother's first name, but not the father's, and that it reads better this way. As for writing "Jewish descent" - maybe you're right and "is Jewish" represents what the sources say, but they don't indicate religious practise so that's why I wrote descent. But feel free to revert. The grandmother does look similar. Avaya1 (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sayan (Mossad)

Template:Halt Thank you. Obotlig ☣ interrogate

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

DLDD

No offence to you but the fact is that I have never been banned for POV so withdraw your remark.Dalai lama ding dong (talk)

Ok I withdraw my remark. No offense intended. :) But certainly there's not consensus for the edits yet. Avaya1 (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Georg Cantor

Hi Avaya,

Since most wikipedia.org users presumably can't read German, it seems useful to keep the translation.

There are a few further differences in wording between the version you reverted and the one I edited. My main concern here is to avoid statements that are overly strong or non sequiturs. It's clear that some sources have different agendas - we should try to keep neutral. I see your work on the Cantor page has been referred to by another user above.

There was a further issue with a statement that was clearly original research (Cantor's family being allegedly given dispensation to live in a particular area (implying that they needed such dispensation), with no sources being cited), but perhaps we agree on that.

Feketekave (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Avaya,

This is a delicate issue. Let me just comment on the most recent revert:

(a) Either wording on Cantor's beliefs about his ancestry seems acceptable to me. The point would be - is Cantor a Cantor scholar? He may himself have had very limited sources on his ancestry. His belief about his paternal ancestors is relevant as a belief, but it is not necessarily a proof of something about them; as far as I know, he was never in Denmark and may not have known his grandparents' milieu.

(b) The citation on Josef Boehm is in a book by a reputable press. At the same time - I have taken a look at the source - Boehm seems to appear only once in the book, in a secondary clause ("..., while Joachim had been the pupil both of Ferdinand David and of another eminent Jewish violinist, Joseph Boehm"). In the absence of further remarks on Boehm, we do not know what Ezra Mendelssohn means by the label, or how he defines it. I may add that parts of the book read almost like lists of famous people on whom the label "Jew" is systematically attached.

There's a further citation I can't read, since I don't know Hungarian.

Feketekave (talk) 10:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Avaya,

I think we can agree on (b) and phrase (a) as you do, then. Feel free to make the edit yourself. Feketekave (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hafez al-Assad

Can you cite me those sources? I don't have an access to them so I can't check them. Anyways, where is the problem with the lead I made? My source for the lead is way more reliable and realistic then the newspaper article of the BBC. --Wustenfuchs 01:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN. It would be good if you would cite me those sources. And where is this consensus you're talking about whole the time? --Wüstenfuchs 19:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve days ago I sent you a message in order to resolve the problem, and because of some reason, you refused to do so. Please, see a talk page of the article. There was a discussion about the lead being POV, and was resolved. Also, other users, except you, don't see a problem in the lead. It's not POV, it's not analysis and it's not WP:SYNTH. And what "famous biographical facts" did I erased? You know, I greatly expanded the article. --Wüstenfuchs 21:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source I used for the lead was Encyclopaedia Britannica, how it can be my own POV? Please discuss and stop edit warring. --Wüstenfuchs 21:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've added a huge amount of POV - the fact that the POV is sourced doesn't mean that it's not an opinion - it#s merely a sourced opinion. The lede should summarise the main facts about the figure, not contain POV analysis. Why did you delete all the facts in the prior version? The lede should also be short and concise.
The only infos I erased are those unsourced or those for which I was unable to find a source. And please, tell me, what POV, which sentences? I believe we can fix them. Also, I think that the most important facts are already mentioned in the leade. --Wüstenfuchs 21:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hummus

Hi Avaya1. You may not realize it, but Hummus is subject to the 1RR restrictions of WP:ARBPIA. Please undo (self-revert) your latest edits or you may be blocked for violating the one revert rule. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Romney

Hi, I don't know if you're aware of it, but the "Political positions" section is now part of the section on the 2012 campaign. Earlier stuff on that subject is already covered in previous sections of the article, and so it would be nice if we could keep repetition (and pre-2012 things) out of the "Political positions" subsection. Would that be okay? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Avaya1. I would like to clarify my previous comment above. There is not necessarily anything wrong with the Mitt Romney article repeating stuff that's in the Political positions article. The problem is when stuff that's already in the Mitt Romney article is repeated in the Mitt Romney article. If there is an issue you're concerned about, please do a word search in the Mitt Romney article to see if it's already covered. Positions prior to 2012 are covered in sections before the 2012 section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avaya1, please join in the discussion in the "Abortion" section of the Talk page for the Mitt Romney article. I have posted several questions there dealing with Romney's political positions. (While on the Talk page, please also see the discussion concerning "Echo chamber.") Thanks. Dezastru (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ashkenazi Jews

Danton's Jacobin (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Please join discussion regarding Ashkenazi Jews infobox. Thank you![reply]

Template:Infobox Jews

I told you to take it to the talkpage. If you make such a serious accusation that an editor would be a sockpuppet, please provide proof. Debresser (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March-April 2013

I see you reverted to your way of edit warring without establishing consensus. Please stop this, or I will have to report you. Debresser (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nathalie Cardone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inspire (magazine)

Avaya1, in case you haven't been notified, there is a discussion going on at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Inspire_.28magazine.29 --Nbauman (talk) 03:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Ashkenazi Jews". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 07:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow (Israeli missile)

Hi, your recent edit suggests the Arrow system was exclusively designed and optimized to intercept medium- and long-range ballistic missiles with ranges above 200 km (120 mi). However Arrow was never tested, not even simulated against long-range ballistic missiles such as intercontinental ballistic missiles. On the contrary, it was tested and simulated against short-to-medium range "Scuds" and dervatives of "Scuds". I suggegt you revert the sence to its origina lstate - the Arrow system was exclusively designed and optimized to intercept medium- and short-range ballistic missiles with ranges above 200 km (120 mi). Short range for ballistic missiles is up to 1000 km. Flayer (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just trust me - start a discussion

"Should Gershvin and Von Neumann be in the selection, and instead of who?"

Just open that discussion on the talk page, and see the turnout. In a week or less you'll have a result you can be sure of that!

I have to say though, there is a reason why no one said they want Von Neumann - the guy is controversy. Putting him in a collage, and I'm most saying it's the same, but for many it's like putting Hitler in the Germans collage. I'm not saying he's Hitler, but I'm just trying to explain why no one said they want him while few said they don't. He literally was promoting nuclear weapon as a legitimate tactic. Do you see the point? 90.196.60.197 (talk) 08:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ashkenazi Jews

Hello Avaya1. I've seen that you have been reverting 90.196.60.197 (talk) on the Ashkenazi Jews article. To my mind, this looks like edit warring, and I don't see that it falls under any of the exemptions at WP:3RRNO. So, maybe this sounds like a stupid question, but why does it matter whose pictures are included in the article for the remaining two weeks of the discussion? As long as they're not totally inappropriate it might be best to leave them be and concentrate on finding a consensus. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Lebanon War

I see you have been previously blocked for edit warring articles in the Israel Palestine conflict subject to 1rr restrictions under WP:ARBPIA.

2006 Lebanon War is related and subject to 1rr restrictions. I advise you to undo (self-revert) your latest edits or you may be blocked for violating the one revert rule. Dlv999 (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1RR

You have violated the 1RR at Cave of the Patriarchs massacre. Please self-revert and seek a consensus for your change on the article talk page. nableezy - 04:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Benjamin Netanyahu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Yorker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deputy leaders of the thirty-third Israeli government

Could you help me with this? I don't know who are the current Head of the Government Deputies.--Michael Zeev (talk) 03:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BRD

Please leave a comment here. Thanks. --bender235 (talk) 08:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hassan Rouhani may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • calls-for-peace?lite EXCLUSIVE: Iran president blames Israel for 'instability,' calls for peace]By F. Brinley Bruton, Staff Writer, NBC News</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jewish News One, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ukrainian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hassan Rouhani may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • calls-for-peace?lite EXCLUSIVE: Iran president blames Israel for 'instability,' calls for peace]By F. Brinley Bruton, Staff Writer, NBC News</ref> In an interview with CNN, it was claimed by the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Arieh Warshel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Israeli
Michael Levitt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Israeli

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Infobox Jews. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Iran–Israel relations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Islamic Jihad (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Haaretz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Tower (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An inncorrect revert on American Jews

Hi and thanks for your contributions. I noticed you changed the demographic number here and then here, regardless of the fact that, unlike what you said, "the most comprehensive and academic recent estimate[s]" simply show a different number. These well documented and up-to-date researches all say that the number of American Jews is 6.7 million [3] [4] [5] [6]. I'll fix it now. Yambaram (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only reliable source you list that supports the larger figure is the Brandeis one, which is using heavily enlarged criteria (e.g. counting all children in households with a Jewish member). Pew doesn't support the enlarged estimate unless we explicitly mention that it is an enlarged estimate (not describing people who identify as Jewish). On wikipedia, we generally use self-identification. In the demographic discussion section of the article, the enlarged estimate is mentioned. However, for the main estimate, we should follow latest the advice of Sergio DellaPergola to count people who identify as Jewish - DellaPergola is by far the most famous demographer for this subject, and who includes an academic discussion with criticisms of the larger estimates in the source.Avaya1 (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Pew Research Center source is too as reliable as a Wikipedia source can be (by the way I can find other good places that say the number is higher then what you put). If you agree that the Bradeis source is acceptable, then please look at page 7 there under "Key Findings" - this 6.8 million isn't based on an enlarged criteria at all. If the issue here, as you said, is that we should be using the core Jewish population instead of the enlarged estimate, then I think we need to take into consideration what the article Who is a Jew says. In conclusion, if we decide to still include that 5.4 million figure, we must also put a " - " sign next to it and write the higher estimate of 6.8M. Yambaram (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We can use both estimates, but only if we clearly explain the different estimates and criteria that are being used for them. I recommend you read the DellaPergola source before editing, because he explains this, and of course his estimate is the one which follows general wikipedia criteria for self-identifying. Avaya1 (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tilikum (orca), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Avulsion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Eyal Golan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Yemenite and Moroccan
Château Mouton Rothschild (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Miro

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Syria infobox

Please discuss the issue before starting an edit war. I am not understanding what you problem is. I did not put the word estimate anywhere in the infobox. I put the word documented just like you and I also note just like you that the number is given by the opposition. The only difference between your version and mine is that I note the number is overall, meaning the number includes both combatants and civilians from all sides in the conflict. EkoGraf (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well let's add the word 'overall' to it. The point is to make clear it is their alleged list of individual deaths that they have names for (it's not their estimate of deaths from the war - which SOHR have separate ones for).Avaya1 (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's clearer to say "deaths (including combatants and civilians)". Avaya1 (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By saying documented instead of estimate we note the number is only for documented deaths. For the UN figure we said estimate because they were only guessing. For the French figure we said estimate because they too were only guessing. For the SOHR/VDC figure we put documented, meaning those are only the deaths that have been accounted for by name. We already made the distinction from the UN and French figure. As for including combatants and civilians, its redundant when we already say the number is overall, plus, if you didn't notice, we put an asterix noting the number includes foreign fighters from both sides, as well as foreign civilians. Also, you could say its a standard template to use the word overall because many Wikipedia battle/conflict infoboxes use the word overall when talking both about civilians and combatants. EkoGraf (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your phrasing is misleading. SOHR say that 160,000 have died, but that they have documented 120,000 deaths (and it is the same with the other group - it is an alleged name count). The point of this number is list the number of deaths which have been allegedly documented (it's not the number of people killed overall as you write). Your phrasing implies an number for the total deaths, which neither of these are supposed to be. Avaya1 (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is misleading, we point out that its the documented overall number, not the estimated overall number. There is a difference between a documented overall number and an estimated overall number. The documented one is confirmed by name. The estimated overall number is just a guess not corroborated by information. EkoGraf (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Iran–Israel relations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Islamic Jihad (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bureau of Labor Statistics graph

You're going to need to discuss your WP:BOLD edit removing a Bureau of Labor Statistics-sourced graphic from a highly-trafficked article. There is no obvious definition of original research which prohibits the inclusion of official governmental economic statistics as "original research." I have replaced the graphic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's an ongoing discussion about this very same matter at:
Long story short: our policies and guidelines are not enough. Some people say it is WP:OR, others don't. Some people say it is WP:SYNTHESIS, other don't. Some people say WP:PRIMARYSOURCES should not be used on WP:BLPs, others say it is fine. I welcome you both to join us on these other discussions as well since this seems to be something problematic thats needs a community wide consensus through a policy or a guideline (hence the proposed guideline).
—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


It is a clear example of WP:OR, in the form of WP:SYNTH. In an article on the subject, then it would be a simple use of primary sources. However, placing the graph as an illustration of the economic policies of a particular politician implies a causal relationship, which is a very clear act of original research, in which the editor is trying to push a POV about those policies and the causal effects he/she perceives them to have been implicated in. Avaya1 (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: Edit warring

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ovadia Yosef

Avaya1,

Your multiple reverts on Ovadia Yosef bear discussion. I started a talk page section for this, but rather than engage, you reverted again without discussion. Please weigh in on the talk page before making further changes. FYI, you violated WP:1RR in effect on this article. It would be in your own interest to have self-restraint when editing this article. Dovid (talk) 05:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Warning regarding your edits to Ovadia Yosef

Pursuant to the discretionary sanctions authorised for pages relating to Palestine-Israel articles I am warning you regarding the edits you have made to Ovadia Yosef. As you are aware, in addition to the discretionary sanctions, a one revert rule was also authorised. You violated the 1RR with these edits [7] & [8]. In the future please discuss edits you don't agree with, especially to articles in these areas, before reverting. This is explicitly not a sanction, just a warning to avoid reverting without discussion in the future. Thank you, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gal Gadot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cosmopolitan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Jews pictures

Please don't make any changes without discussing it first on the talk page. I actually like your proposals, but there are certain things which need to be discussed before such a change (I will not go into those stuff here due to the fact it's not a private discussion). 176.26.247.147 (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Avaya1&oldid=585583759"