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 68.84.56.191 (talk) at 07:44, 28 September 2006 (No, Avi, no!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I need to spend more time studing for an exam in real life and will have a reduced presence here for the time being. I will try and check messages and requests for admin actions daily, but if you specifically need to contact me, e-mail would be better. Thanks.

This is the talk page for leaving messages for User:Avraham.

Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them ==A Descriptive Header==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions.

Talk page guidelines

Please respect etiquette and assume good faith. Also be nice and remain civil.

Archive
Archives
January 2006–March 2006 April 2006–June 2006
June 2006–July 2006 July 2006–August 2006

TIME OUT!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
For your attempt to cool down the discussion at [1] :-). --Kim Bruning 20:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Hi, Avi. I noticed that you previously commented in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Robert Young, so I wanted to draw your attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (naturopath). Thanks! Medtopic 21:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page awhile ago. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  06:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My edit

This edit was just fine. I was removing duplicate wikilinks and changing 8 to eight, which is proper style. Please let me know if there is anything wrong with following style guidelines. ~ clearthought 20:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on your talk page. -- Avi 05:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C.O.M.A.

Could you please submit a more detailed reasoning to this AFD to explain why you found this subject to be non-notable? - Mgm|(talk) 09:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Reilly

I spotted the article on Saturday, and was going to delete it today, but you beat me to it. MisfitToys 22:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign relations of Israel

Why are you replacing this

According to David Albright of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "Faced with sanctions, South Africa began to organize clandestine procurement networks in Europe and the United States, and it began a long, secret collaboration with Israel." although he goes on to say "A common question is whether Israel provided South Africa with weapons design assistance, although available evidence argues against significant cooperation." [1]
  1. ^ "South Africa and the affordable bomb". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 1994-08. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

with this

According to David Albright of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "... available evidence argues against significant cooperation."

Surely the larger quote is more accurate and representative of what he actually says in the paper, rather than a misrepresentative sentence fragment? The sentence fragment is not evidence against a joint programme but only applies to "weapons design assistance".

Secondly, why did you remove the fact that Chris McGreal wrote in the Guardian? That's a relevant fact regarding the credibility of the story; he did not self-publish his article.

Thirdly, why did you restore the sentence "Israeli ambassadors spoke publicly against racism in apartheid South Africa." despite the fact there are no citations that ambassadors did do such a thing?

Fourthly, why did you replace "Israel developed a relationship with South Africa during the 1970s and 1980s." with "There are controversial claims that Israel developed a relationship with South Africa during the 1970s and 1980s."? Are you denying that Israel and South Africa did have a relationship during the 70s and 80s, against the many sources in the article? Do you have sources that claim this?

Thank you, Deuterium 01:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. I will look into the ambassador issue, and if I cannot find sources for that, I will remove it. -- Avi 01:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actuary article

Avraham: I have been reading through the Manual of Style and Citing Sources article. In the future, I will propose changes in the Talk section on high-profile, high-quality articles. Thank you for taking the time to clarify the issue for me constructively. BC Graham 02:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Extraneous sources in Targeting…

Dear Avi,

Thanks again for your help with the "Targeting ..." article. Its nice to find another wikipedian that is not anti-Israel.

In response to your comment about my referencing the blog, I agree with you that it is a WP: RS issue, but before I put the link to the blog, somebody deleted THE ENTIRE PARAGRAPH citing that he personally disliked the Herald Sun and that because the Herald Sun site did not include the pictures, he assumed that the pictures were phoney. That's the kind of reasoning that Holocaust deniers use. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a better link on the internet with the pictures than that blog. If you have any suggestions as to what to do, I'd appreciate the help. --GHcool 15:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ambulances

Hi Avi. I've given mines as well. If you don't agree, it is better for us to ask for a neutral third party opinion. Cheers -- Szvest 17:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already did. -- Szvest 17:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Foreign relations of Israel

How are you going finding sources that show Israeli Ambassadors denounced apartheid during the regime?

And you never answered my question about using the full quote of David Albright. Again, why did you replace this

According to David Albright of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "Faced with sanctions, South Africa began to organize clandestine procurement networks in Europe and the United States, and it began a long, secret collaboration with Israel." although he goes on to say "A common question is whether Israel provided South Africa with weapons design assistance, although available evidence argues against significant cooperation."

According to David Albright of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "... available evidence argues against significant cooperation."

Surely the former is more accurate and complete, and the latter is rather misleading? Deuterium 02:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the update regarding the ambassador's vote at the UN. But even if you do confirm it, it does not support the general statement that many or some Israeli ambassadors denounced apartheid, just one. A single case does not make a trend.
Secondly, the section should be organized chronoligically. Given that the claims are that Israel developed a close relationship with SA during the 70s and 80s, a 1961 UN vote does not do much to refute that claim and should probably be placed before the discussion of nuclear and arms trading. Deuterium 01:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel bilateral relations

Hi, I could use some support in opposing merging Israel-Venezuela relations into (nothingness) Foreign policy of Hugo Chávez. Anything you can add to Israel-Venezuela relations, Israel-New Zealand relations, and Israel-Japan relations would be very appreciated. Respectfully, Republitarian 17:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the oppose vote. Your support in this matter is valued. Respectfully, Republitarian 03:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Birmirching of User Talk Pages

Avi please do not birmirch my talk page with your NPOV warnings. I have clearly added a citation from Amnesty International for the aforementioned edit as well as my reasoning on the talk page. Birmirching is not good. Please assume good faith and cease and desist with this uncivil behaviour.--Oiboy77 18:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I point to your very first edit in wikipedia and should point out that WP:AGF does not mean to ignore everything. Secondly, were you to use article talk pages as they were intended, there would be much less reason to have these warnings. Thanks. -- Avi 18:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Avi are we discussiong my first edit on Wikipedia or the edit you added a warning tag on my page for? Why is there need for a NPOV warning tag when I did not violate NPOV on this edit. Bringing up old edits does not mean that I violated NPOV on this one. I have clearly posted citations from Amnesty International along with a direct quote from them on the article talk page. Should I assume this is a warning for my very first edit?? If so, it is a little bit delayed. --Oiboy77 18:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Barry

Could you please restore Image:Irish Stamp John Barry.jpg. I went to look for it today and it was gone. I want to put it back on John Barry (1745-1803) and add it to List of people on stamps of Ireland. I haven't seen the license, but I imagine it will be like Image:Stamp irl 1929oconnellset.jpg. --evrik 02:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WING

Well, there is one simple reason why I had chosen to remove it. This reason being that MoS:TM clearly states that we should Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment. I know this is a guideline for the article namespace, but I so no reason to do something different in the project namespace.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 09:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If we take a look at MoS:TM, the following will be shown:
  • Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment:
    • avoid: REALTOR®
    • instead, use: Realtor
Isn't the ®-symbol like the ™-symbol? They're both trademark-signs.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 06:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, there is a discussion taking place.

You accused me of adding incorrect information. However, that information is currently under discussion. Please refer to the discussion section of Ahmed Yassin.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aljazzera44 (talk • contribs) 13:19, August 27, 2006 (UTC)

Please, don't call people idiots (WP:NPA)

You have called User:Aljazzera44 an idiot[2]. I'm sure you can understand that this is totally unacceptable. Please read WP:NPA.

Also I sugest that we do not use Category:Terrorists on Ahmed Yassin untill we have reached an agreement. Comments are wellcome on Ahmed Yassin. --Wasell 19:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read your talk page, I pointed out how you misread the edit summary already -- Avi 19:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm an idiot too, apparently! (Sorry, sorry, sorry... You're quite right.) --Wasell 19:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

explain yourself

Why did you you use your rollback facility to revert a content dispute? --Irishpunktom\talk 14:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because as pointed out by user:okedem on user:Deuterium's talk page, that is out of scope of the article, and is being used to push an anti-Israel POV. That is not a content dispute, but closer to anti-NPOV vandalism and WP:OR on Deuterium's part. -- Avi 15:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about Human Rights, the source that is cited speaks of the same. It is a content dispute, and you should not use your Roll-Back. Do not do that again. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The material quoted does not relate to human rights in Israel; it seems to be a private legal transaction between an employer and an employee. It does NOT belong in the article until it can be shown that such transactions are governmentally mandated to discriminate, or something to that effect. Passing off out-of-scope and immateriel data in order to push a POV is vandalism and not a content dispute. Thank you. -- Avi 16:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Hi Avi, could you have a look at the history on 'circumcision'? I think TipPt has reverted different sections a total of about 5-6 times in the last 24hrs, and frankly it seems to be irritating a lot of people. What's your view? Worth reporting? Jakew 16:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe it is technically a 3RR, as there are only three reverts (chronologically contiguous edits count as one) in 24 hours, but he is close. I left a reminder on his page, but I do not believe that there is any violation. -- Avi 16:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. Jakew 16:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While you're at it ban Jakew for violating NPOV with every single edit and making personal attacks against other users by claiming he's reverting vandalism when they add good information he doesn't like that runs contrary to his pro-circ agenda! Lordkazan 15:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tip and Jake have differing POV's. Our job is to ensure that reliable and verifiably sourced material gets the proper fair representation based on the significance of the source. I don't think either has really violated NPOV on a regular basis. Personal attacks are a much worse issue in my opinion, as editors who respect each other, even if they disagree, can often come to some acceptable comprimise, whereas editors who resort to ad hominem attacks and belittling their opponent and the opponent's viewpoint are often much more difficult to reason with. I think you may benefit from a careful re-reading of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; most people seem to misunderstand it. Thank you. -- Avi 15:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll respect jakew when he stops inserting bullocks poorly-studied data to push an agenda of violating humans rights, a particular violation to which I am a victim of and the fact that other people are victimized by makes my blood boil. Lordkazan 15:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as an actuary and professional statastician, I feel that his response to your criticism of the Auvert study on talk:Circumcision is notonly very professional, but is an objectively stronger case than your criticism. -- Avi 15:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Partially becasued i missed a significant detail of Auvert, but that doesn't change my opinion of the study. I put up more information in Talk:Circ
BTW: I clear comments on my talk page once i've read them, do keep the page clear and easily readable - I put comments to you on your page, and you respond on my page, and then I respond on yours, etc. If you want to leave them up on your talk page that's your business - i like having my clear.Lordkazan 15:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New article on a complex subject

A new article on a complex subject is looking for more high quality contributors:

Israel lobby in the United States

--Ben Houston 00:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

do not engage in personal attacks against me 100x more egregious than the statement of mine you claim is a personal attack and was "disgusting" - see rest of reply on my talk page Lordkazan 19:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you might want to check this again

vandalism on palestine page

Ian_Pitchford and Zero0000 are on with their vandalisying sourced material again, this time on Palestine. Amoruso 14:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These two users have repeatedly abused wikipedia and blanked out whatever they don't like, this time blanking out a primary source and verified sources - no less than 5 differnet ones... I don't know how I can proceed with dealing them or banning this kind of behavior. Amoruso 15:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attention. I can emphasise that Zero0000 are made in bad faith and his allegations were already proven false. Yes, Shmuel Katz is a former politician and belongs to the right wing part of the map. Many others, like Yehosuah Porat who is cited in the article, are also politicans - Porath was a member of an exteme left political party. Furthermore, the quotations are based on secondary sources, fully verified and reliable and objective. Furthermore, there are also citations that have nothing to do with Katz, for example Pipes, but Zero has vandalised them as well. Lastly, the claims are not even controversial, proven by Zero's comments himself. Amoruso 01:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note WP:RS, according to Jimmy Wales "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". There is no possibility of the Irgun propaganda chief being judged a reliable source for the article on Palestine, and the material added was a copyvio of [3]. Please check carefully in future before changing a page at the behest of another editor. It's your responsibility to check the sources when you add information to an article. --Ian Pitchford 07:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the text is properly attributed and is described as a quotation or paraphrase, then it is not a copyright violation. A violation is when person A is attempting to pass off person B's work as his or her own. If full credit is given to the author, as well as the source, it does not violate the copyright to the best of my understanding.

Secondly, Shmuel Katz was quoting others, whose texts are verifiable and reliable; the text you removed contained no opinons of Katz's own, so his own political beliefs are irrelevant for that portion.

Thirdly, please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Partisan, religious and extremist websites. The fact that someone has beliefs does not exclude them from being a WP:RS, unless they are “Widely acknowledged [as an] extremist or even terrorist groups”, and then can only be used as a source about their belief. Shmuel Katz does not fit that mold, and as such is eligible, especially in light of his source being a collection of other sources. I hope this helps you understand the relevant poicies more clearly. Thank you. -- Avi 14:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wholesale copying of material (including references) from a webpage without (a) citing that page and (b) checking the sources is a copyvio, plagiarism and a violation of Wikipedia policy. We cite reliable sources so that others can go and check them. We don't hide the true source by slightly re-writing material to make it appear that we're citing the original sources ourselves. It's fundamentally a question of honesty. The works cited by Katz might well be reliable sources, but his work is certainly not a reliable source for them. BTW when was the Irgun not a terrorist group? - see Perliger, Arie and Weinberg, Leonard (2003). Jewish Self-Defence and Terrorist Groups Prior to the Establishment of the State of Israel: Roots and Traditions. Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, Volume 4, Number 3, pp. 91-118. --Ian Pitchford 15:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

You wrote: "Removing sourced material, including the source for the entire paragraph, is considered vandalism. For the record: Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. It is considered vandalism.". Sorry about removing the source link; Somehow I botched '<ref>{{cite web' and thus removed the citation. As for the sentence that I did remove; I'll stand by that removal as that claim was not sourced. (The botched source I accidentally removed was valid for the rest of the paragraph.). Have a good day and thanks for pointing out my error. Jeff Carr 02:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actuary

Thanks for reverting my edit at Actuary. I didn't know whether the listing was necessary. I hope that article used the ref tags though. —Jared Hunt September 10, 2006, 02:54 (UTC)

You had to message me specifically, because of my criticism to you being too techinical on actuary page? Thank you for the advice to register for wikipedia, but I don't want to at this stage. --195.68.200.21 07:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Annonymous person from yesterday[reply]

Mazel Tov

on Actuary going to the front page. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lehi page

Note that the page is infringing on many wikipedia policies, and the recent one is extreme WP:POV of opinions stated as facts and in the intro page ! many other issues were addresed by me but are being reverted by a few members. Please take note of this ! please. Amoruso 16:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewishness

Dear Avi,

I am not a crusader. I have not destroyed the lives of many innocent men and women while fighting for a cross.

I see that there are many good articles on Judaism and Jewish languages on wikipedia. I have read a fair few, and liked them. It would be a very fine thing if more articles of the sort were to be written; can you do your bit? (Or have you already?)

The comment on Lise Meitner was disturbing because I find this sort of tagging especially disturbing in her case. She had no wish to be Jewish. In all probability, she was not a coward; she simply could not sincerely describe herself as Jewish. What the Nazis did was an act of violence against her: they forced an identity onto her that she felt did not belong to her.

Of course, you may or may not wear outer signs that identify you as Jewish. That does not mean that you, or anybody minimally humane, would force somebody else to wear outer signs that identify them as Jewish, would you? How is this different? Wikipedia articles are often the first thing that comes up when somebody searches for a person's name.

As for "irreligious Jew": that means either (a) somebody of Jewish status who does not practice, (b) somebody (presumably of Jewish status?) who is strongly committed to Israel, say, or (c) somebody who goes around saying that he is Jewish, but may or may not be saying the truth according to criterion X or Y. "Irreligious Jew" is not something defined independently of religion. It is something that refers to a religion, and to a nation (if you wish!) defined in terms of a religion.

I, personally, find the situation especially disturbing in the case of living people. However, most of the issues are general; they apply neither to living people alone, nor to categories alone.

Judaism does not disturb me. Commitment to Judaism and to Israel does not disturb me; anybody who does something constructive seems admirable to me. Rather, it is the imposing of categories on people that disturbs me, and will, at some point, disturb you.

You may be right in stating that deleting category tags from individual people will not do the job. After all, non-inclusion from a list may imply exclusion. It is not my intention to tag, say, Lise Meitner (who was a Lutheran) or Max Newman (whose mother was not Jewish) as non-Jews. Rather, the point is that they should not be tagged as all. The only way we can avoid tagging people in one way or the other, explicitly or implicitly, is by doing away with the tag altogether. Bellbird 15:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violent agreement!

  • I would rather have a smaller set of useful, verifiable (and verified), clean articles than a large set of borderline trash.

Oh, yes. Do you see any chance of making this policy ;-) Pjacobi 15:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I work for, but verified ethnicity passes my test -- Avi 15:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionism

Should we have cross-indexes for Jewish Bankers, say, or for Black Criminals, or for White people of Great Intelligence?

There are ways of classifying information that are simply not encyclopaedic (or civilized). The fact that tags can lend themselves to that is an argument against keeping such tags, not an argument in favour of keeping them.

Do you want to be classified? Bellbird 15:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, I do not have a problem with Jewish bankers. The latter category you bring is racially charged, and has its own issues that needs to be dealt with. And I know that Jews own the media, the banks, the seats of government, the press, and every third 7-11, but I do not think Jewish bankers would suffer from that the way "Bell Curve" related material would. But you would need to create Category:Bankers by religion first and then make a subcat. ;) -- Avi 16:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the Truth is not a personal attack

the demonstrable truth, with citeable evidence, is not a personal attack. Pointing out that he engaged in personal attacks against me, and using that to justify my not paying any attention to what he says, is not a personal attack. It would be a personal attack if I said something about him, not about his actions. Lordkazan 16:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorising

Avi: you do realise that we are effectively talking about a racial category, even if it refers to a race that we agree (I hope!) does not exist? We are classifying people by bloodlines - and little else - regardless of their beliefs or actual backgrounds. It is not just that private backgrounds are being made public - it is also that actual backgrounds are being thoroughly obliterated by a binary label.

This is the case even if we just define somebody as Jewish or not (as in the case of the Perelman page). Lists and categories are more sinister. It is not just that they essentially force information to be included, regardless of whether it is relevant. It is also that lists and categories create mental categories in the mind of every reader. Shall we have lists of members of the NKVD who happened to be Jewish? Shall we have lists of Jewish slave traders? Lists of Jewish bankers in Vienna in 1930, with percentages? Do you realise that this means that individuals are being assigned an essence consisting in their supposed membership in a group that they did not choose? Lists are insidious because no statement needs to be made: there is simply a grouping, and "facts" that cannot be denied - unless the act of grouping is invalidated as such.

It is all nice and well that you categorise yourself. However - what is it like to be categorised by another? Can't you imagine it? What if you wake up a Christian? Or a Gentile? Or somebody who is supposed to be horrible or wonderful for no reason related to his actions, to his background, to his sense of self? Bellbird 16:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish mathematicians is quite the useful resource.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larger than Life (books): Question about past deletions

Hi Avraham: I was looking for an article that I had edited and have only now noticed that it was nominated for deletion by you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 12#Liozna and Larger than Life (books). The article is about two very important books that were written: Larger than Life (books) that caused quite a storm when they were published as an honest biography of the last Lubavitcher Rebbe and the history of Chabad. It is a pity that you went ahead with that action without consulting a variety of other editors familiar with Judaism (and are not working with a pro-Chabad POV only at all times - because Wikipedia is not here to censor material that goes against current Lubavitch political correctness, or any political correctness for that matter!) Did you contact the creator of the article as required? Or you could have brought it to the attention of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism after you had nominated this article. (Since that time such nominations should at least be posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism created on June 25 '06.) Please let me know how I can acquire the deleted material of both articles and have them re-instated, and then we can proceed from there. Thanks for looking into this. IZAK 07:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"vandelism"

Only for you are jewish who thinks at it is right then the Israeli gowerments doing war crimes and crimes against humanity on civilians and UN workes. Like Mel Gibson sey: it is thanks to the jews it is wars on the world. If they don't killed Jesus, it has was peace on earth. Killerman2 13:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human Rights in Israel

Hi,

Can something be done about Oiboy77's vandalism? He just keeps reverting the article to a version from a couple of weeks ago. He's been doing this for days. It can't go on - he needs to be banned.

okedem 19:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving Request

I saw that you have archived some things on Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and I was wondering if you could take care of some more sections. My suggestion is everything but the "The Mediation Attempt" section, as the other sections have not been addressed recently. We are starting off with a little more order hopefully, so the old sections are only needed for reference and not really for editing.

Thanks!

Markovich292 21:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

I felt like posting the following also to your talk page, although I suspect that's in gross violation of some Wikipedia guideline, isn't it? In the circumcision discussion, I positively stated that user:jakew MAKES ME SICK. Which is true. Then you very very quickly stepped in and called me off, citing on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:87.78.178.52 that "Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." My respond:

It seems actually impossible to ignore Jakew's inclination on the subject matter. I really believe that he is heavily abusing NPOV arguments. And what's worse, he stays so very friendly and Wikipedia-compatible at all times, because that's a viable strategy. He just knows the rules he has to comply to, but within those set boundaries he IS a POV pusher. I think that people like him are a disgrace to the community. And unlike you, I am not a long-time Wikipedian, I AM ONE OF THOSE USERS THAT FEEL DETERRED!! 87.78.178.52 16:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should recuse yourself

You should recuse yourself from moderating anything involved in Circumcision because from your history of edits in relation to it I don't feel that you can be unbiased on the subject - you've supported Jakew who has a history of abusing the rules to push his POV - which is itself a violation of the rules, he just manages to get away with it. While you see the people coming in trying to balance the article as pushing a POV, simply because they disagree with you, we are none the less simply trying to balance the article.

Please be patient with 87.78.178.52, I will attempt to calm him down. Lordkazan 18:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that your bias betrays you. I have been among the most level-headed editors, bringing sources for both sides, and trying to mollify extremism on both ends. I am afraid that your vitriolic, and I use the term properly based on your posts and edits, stance against circumcision is causing you difficulties in dealing with anyone who is not blatantly anti-circumcision. Your stance, and those of the anonymous IP, are, in my opinion, much more harmful to the encyclopedia in terms of rampant POV-pushing. I reiterate, please read WP:NPOV carefully, and follow it and other wiki policies if you wish to contibute positively. Thank you. -- Avi 18:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh seriously, how many edits have I made to the article itself? One, maybe two? I go to the talk page first, a place where discussion can get heated, but when have I EVER advocated the censorship of information that could be seen to promote circumcision? When? that's right - never. I've merely been militantly advocating NON-BIAS in the article, an article that is currently pro-biased. Your arrogance in claiming that you are one of the most level-headed editors to attempt to paint me as biased destroys your entire point. Lordkazan 18:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arrogance? . I repeat, I try and verify claims from both angles, bringing sources, and trying to ensure both sides have fair play in proportion to the evidence and reliable and verifiable sources brought. Once again, please read WP:NPOV. The operative point is that articles cannot be inherently unbiased, rather, both sides should be represented fairly by reliable and verifiable sources with none given undue weight. The article brings both points of view, and brings sources and evidence for both points of view. What it does not do is take a stand one way or the other pro- or anti-. It brings the latest discussions of world-renknown medical organizations which for he most part themselves do not take a stand, but remain neutral. Even for those that do take a stand, there are different stances for medical, ritual/religious, and truly elective circumcisions. This is what the article should be, and this is what remains. For the article to start leaning one way or the other because editors such as yourself have made a near religious objective of demonizing circumcision, is against everything wikipedia stands for. Look at all of your edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Lordkazan You do not want an unbiased circumcision page, you want an anti-circumcision page, and that is not permitted in wikipedia. Is the page as it stands now perfect? No. But it is much closer to a neutral page than what you and the anonymous IP are trying to push, in my opinion. Thank you. -- Avi 18:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


What you assert that I want, and what I actually want, are two different things. You cannot claim to tell me what I think, and if you continue to do so I will request that your adminship be revoked. The Circumcision article is biased in that it DOES NOT PRESENT ALL OF THE INFORMATION about the medical effects. Your opinion is baseless and insulting. Recuse yourself from this article. Lordkazan 18:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh.. furthermore it's funny that jakew comes running to your rescue the moment that I ask you to recuse yourself for being biased. really telling it is Lordkazan 18:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have to learn to take life a little less seriously. There is something called a watchlist, it comes in very handy. As for my opinion being baseless, I am afraid it has asmuch basis as anyone else's opinion in wikipedia, which is nothing, because wikipedia is not basedon editor's opinions. Lastly, my apologies for any insults, perceived or otherwise. I will finish with that there is absolutely no basis for my recusing myself from the article; a stronger argument could be made that you should, based on your own claims, such as User:Lordkazan#Non-voltunary non-theraputic Circumcision is a crime. -- Avi 18:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personel Attack

I take it as a personel attack that you are saying i'm a White Nationalists based upon the closeness of my user name to the name hitler. Yes it is just a one letter difference, but I did not pick this name because I like the Fuher or some other silly thing. I picked it because I really like kitlers. Don't know what one is? You'll have to search on google because user:improv doesn't think that Kitlers are encylopedic, nor does he think my kitler, domino is good enough for wikipedia. But please, please please do not defain me because of hte closeness of our two names. Next you will say that Billy the Kid must be a capitalists because his name is so close to Bill Gates!Kitler005 02:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I base my statement that you are a white nationalist on your having posted white supremacist trash on your user page -- Avi 03:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trash? That doesn't sound very Non point of view. Besides, my brother put that there as joking. I don't think it is funny, but he does ever since he saw Domino.Kitler005 04:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should be a little more precise in your terminology. In all fairness, that was not white supremacist trash; if you are going to call it anything you should call it conspiracy theory trash. Markovich292 05:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A growing number of White Americans are working to build new media not under Jewish control.…

— Kitler's user page

'nuff said. -- Avi 12:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not see how this attests to being a white nationalist. It may attest to a certain sense of humour which you apparently and for apparent reasons (which have nothing or virtually nothing to do with your being Jewish) do not share, but humour is a colorful thing and it is the least thing any white nationalist is capable of (otherwise he or she wouldn't be one, right?). Therefore your accusation adds to a personal attack, Avi. Please be more careful in your choice of words in the future and adhere to the corresponding WP guidelines. Thank you. 87.78.178.102 15:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certain things are poor choices for humor; the Jews running the world is one of them. Posting such trash is a gross violation of wiki policies, as you well know, and your attempting to defend it is in rather poor taste. You may wish to read up on WP:NPA before accusing others of personal attacks -- Avi 16:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even though there are exactly two uses of the phrase "White Americans," those do not assert any ideas of white supremecy. Add on top of that the fact that kitler did not even identify with that philosophy. I'm in full agreement that it was in bad taste (and against policy), and as you can see I agreed above that it is trash, but calling kitler a white nationalist was wrong. Markovich292 16:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you think "Jew hater" is more accurate based on the number of references to Jews contolling the media? When one posts white supremicist trash on ones user page—and gets blocked for it I might add (he was only unblocked with the promise not to engage in such activity in wikipedia any longer, what he does in his own time is his business)—and makes no effort to disavow oneself from it (also, calling Adolph Hitler “the Fuhrer” in a vacuum, as opposed to historically referencing the title) is often indicative of such leanings. May I suggest you read up a bit on White nationalism and white supremacy, or even better, please take the time to read the trash on that old page, here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Kitler005&oldid=73285648 I'll even point out some telling sentences for you to make it easier :

But to permit the Jews, with their 3,000-year history of nation-wrecking, from ancient Egypt to Russia, to hold such power over us is tantamount to race suicide. Indeed, the fact that so many White Americans today are so filled with a sense of racial guilt and self-hatred that they actively seek the death of their own race is a deliberate consequence of Jewish media control.…We must shrink from nothing in combating this evil power that has fastened its deadly grip on our people and is injecting its lethal poison into our people's minds and souls. If our race fails to destroy it, it certainly will destroy our race.…A growing number of White Americans are working to build new media not under Jewish control.…The National Alliance, parent organization of National Vanguard Books, is a membership organization of activists working for White interests and helping to build and fund our new media.…

— User:Kitler005, 16:41, September 1, 2006

If you still believe that this is not white supremecist trash, I am afraid you are either in denial due to some POV or have a different skill set than I do when it comes to reading comprehension. I daresay that 90%+ people here would agree with me, however. Thanks. -- Avi 17:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I find it quite funny. But I'm not Jewish and of course you are right, it is in gross violation of wiki policies. 87.78.178.102 16:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, our senses of humor are somewhat incompatible. As an aside, my father's family was from Germany also; although, of my grandfathers 11 or so brothers and sisters, most are ash now. -- Avi 17:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry for that. But I can counter even that: A friend of mine is Jewish, and his father once told a joke I won't ever forget, because he really was a great man with a fine sense of humour in the tradition of people like Ephraim Kishon. He asked me what the high-point of Anti-fashism would be like. Right when he saw I was actually beginning to think about an answer, he said: "That's when Jews are made out of soap!" --- I would never tell that joke if I hadn't heard from a man who had lost almost his entire family to the Holocaust, but I have. And THAT is intelligent humour. 87.78.178.102 17:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I have already caused enough trouble on here, and I'm sorry about it. It was just a joke that my brother put on there. And I'm sorry that your grandfathers are ash. Two of mine are ash too :( but, I mean if they are making fun of you it is because you are also falling into the steroetype. Someone; I call the President of Iran a cool guy because I like the way he dresses, and you look through the history of my user talk page and then post that I was a White National or whatever. And then when people argue about it you bring up the fact that some of your family are now ash, alluding that they were burnt in the Holocaust. Well there are a hell of a lot of mass murders all around the world all throughout history. I'm sure if anyone traces their linage back far enough they'll find someone being killed systematicly. Hell, why don't we talk about the Armenian Genocide? Why don't we talk about Stallin starving the Ukrane? Why don't we talk about the German POWs that died in American POW camps after the war. They froze to death. They had to dig and scratch with their nails into the very earth to try to escape the freezing weather. But enough about this. I'm sorry that you misunderstood me and I'm sorry for causing this mess on your talk page, but I think some good ideas came out and we cleared up some misunderstandingsKitler005 04:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on that; thanks -- Avi 04:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am guessing that he only says "funny" because of the absurdity of it...and if not then I really don't know what to think. One thing I find interesting about your post though, is you pointing out how he references Hitler as "the Fuhrer." I have to say, I thought the same thing as you about his "leanings." I will have to decline your suggestion to "read up" on those topics you mentioned though, because I watch the History channel :) I am not just limited to that though, so no need to worry about my knowledge base.

I can assure you, unless you are some kind of ubergenius as some like to say, my comprehension is probably on par with yours. I can also assure you that I have no POV sympathetic to that stuff that was posted. I was only saying that the wording in it does not assert any kind of supremacy of white people over others, so although objectionable, it is not really white supremicist (yes, I take accuracy on wikipedia very seriously). So as Forrest Gump says, "and thats all I really have to say about that." Markovich292 05:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone has one of those neat smile face for their signitre, how can I get one to?Kitler005 21:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[[Image:smile.png]] = ; [[Image:smile.gif]] = -- Avi 00:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rashid Khalidi

I have responded on the talk page of the Rashid Khalidi article. I see your edits as I quoted them as simply indefensible. If you continue to behave in this way, I do not see the point of my continuing to work on the article; I will instead attempt to gain the intervention of an admin. I hope, however, that you may have been mistaken in removing some of those pieces of information, in an effort to restore CAMERA editorializing removed by a previous editor. If this is the case, please correct it. Thanks, Kalkin 00:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help with cite

Hi Avi - can you help markup my latest addition in the proper reference style? I think I can do the others in that section, but I'm stuck on this. Thanks! Jakew 19:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Avi! I'm now slowly but surely getting through this section. Jakew 19:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tweak away. :) Jakew 19:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Galatasaray article

On the page of Galatasaray i saw a mistake but i cannot revert it becauce the page is under protection , in the Managerial area Yılmaz Gökdel was the manager in 1974-1975 season could you fix this?


Update

http://www.webaslan.com/kulup/antrenor.php this is the official site of Galatasaray here it says that Gokdel is coach for the 74-75 season :)

Johnny200 21 September 2006 (UTC)

A Userbox For You

Template:User_actuary

 Cdcon  19:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Template

Thanks! I tweaked it to add the user to Category:Wikipedian actuaries. Although, our life and pension bretheren may get jealois -- Avi 19:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish mathematicians

Hello. I gather you recent rolled back an editor's addition to the above page noting the guidelines for inclusion. Please familiarise yourself with the recently closed CfDs on this and several other religion-and-occupation based categories. The consensus was that inclusion in the joint cats should only be for people who are jointly notable. Some form of this should be left on the category page. Thanks for your time! Hornplease 22:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You may wish to check the diffs before posting accusations No rollback; rather a correction to an edit based on a careful reading of Wikipedia:Categorization of people. Thank you. -- Avi 02:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry if I came across as accusatory, I truly didnt intend to. I just wanted you to have a look at the closed CfDs; also, the joint categorisation guidelines in WP:BLP. I do not quarrel with your edits, but you might want to modify your expectations of the category based on the evolving consensus. Thanks! Hornplease 04:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pudding Pop

Hey dude, could you help me edit the Pudding Pop article? I like your style and think that the pudding pop article could use your helps. Thx :) Kitler005 02:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Orphaned fair use image (Image:AAA 40Year Logo.PNG)

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:AAA 40Year Logo.PNG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 15:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Jake & SPA garbage

I never claimed he was a single purpose account, don't be dishonest in claiming that i did. Furthermore he may bring in peer-reviewed stuff, but he also keeps it out when it disagrees with his pov, no matter how good the citation is. He is gaming the rules, and you are not a non-biased administrator. You'll also notice edits to Tae kwon do, katana, hamon (created by me) and other articles. Lordkazan 14:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

accepted, my apologies for being harsh in reply. Lordkazan 18:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Avi, no!

Ahmed Yassin is not a terrorist. I will revert your edit. Happy Holocaust Day!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Avraham&oldid=78265001"