User talk:Avraham/Archive 33

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
 < Archive 32    Archive 33    Archive 34 >
All Pages:  1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  11 -  12 -  13 -  14 -  15 -  16 -  17 -  18 -  19 -  20 -  21 -  22 -  23 -  24 -  25 -  26 -  27 -  28 -  29 -  30 -  31 -  32 -  33 -  34 -  35 -  36 -  37 -  38 -  39 -  40 -  41 -  42 -  43 -  44 -  45 -  46 -  47 -  48 -  49 -  50 -  51 -  52 -  53 -  54 -  55 -  56 -  ... (up to 100)

Recent AfD on Christianity and Judaism

Hi! I see that you were one of the participants in the recent AfD on the article Christianity and Judaism. That AfD recommended (in a snowball result) that the article be merged into Judeo-Christian. However, since the AfD concerns have been raised, most notably

  • Per WP:ADJECTIVE and WP:MOSNAME, we use nouns and noun-phrases for article titles, not adjectives. So a general survey on the relationships between Christianity and Judaism (a topic this encyclopedia should certainly cover) should be called Christianity and Judaism, as per the articles Christianity and Islam, Islam and Judaism.
  • The reason the article Judeo-Christian exists, as its own hatnote declares, is specifically to survey the history and use of that word-phrase -- which has its own controversy, and its own tale to tell. (See here where I've set things out in a bit more detail.) That story is a good fit for its own article, and will get completely lost if the contents of Christianity and Judaism get inappropriately dumped on top of it.

Having contacted the closing admin, his advice was to open a new discussion at Talk:Christianity and Judaism, advertise the discussion widely, and if a new consensus can be reached in that discussion [his emphasis], then per WP:CCC the new consensus should be followed, rather than the AfD decision, without the need for a DRV or a new AfD.

Concerns about the proposed merge have also been expressed by Slrubenstein (talk · contribs), LisaLiel (talk · contribs) and SkyWriter (talk · contribs).

This post is therefore to let you know that that discussion is underway, at Talk:Christianity and Judaism#Overly speedy deletion, with a view to perhaps setting aside the AfD decision.

Of course, some significant issues were raised in the AfD about the article in its present form, so the best way forward is a question that needs some thought. Please feel welcome to come and participate! Jheald (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

ISP template posted to my Talk page

Hi, you apparently just posted the {{ISP}} template to my Talk page.
Is this a warning of any sort? Is there anything that I should do in response to this? Or is it simply intended as notification for other Wikipedians? Thanks. -- (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Sounds good to me. -- (talk) 16:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

User:EmRitter: Advertising for "Lifestyle Communities"

Since you're an admin, maybe you'd care to take a look at this --
(Originally posted to Talk page of admin User:Accounting4Taste on 28 Sept, but he/she has been on Wikibreak and may not have seen it.)

User:EmRitter posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business#Lifestyle_Communities:

"I am a Marketing Project Manager at "Lifestyle Communities". I have tried posting an article for Lifestyle Communities, but it has been deleted due to 'blatant advertising' and I believe conflict of interest."

EmRitter now has the content of deleted Lifestyle Communities in his/her user space at User:EmRitter/LC.
User:EmRitter apparently is not familiar with Wikipedia policies on advertising and proper use of user pages -- Per WP:UP#NOT: "What may I not have on my user page? ... Advertising or promotion of a business or organization unrelated to Wikipedia (such as purely commercial sites or referral links)" -- or is aware of them and disregarding them.

IMHO, obviously an "admin thing", if this is of any interest to you.
Thanks. -- (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

L'shanah tovah tikatevu ...

... and g'mar chatimah tovah. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


Congratulations!! - you made it :) I'm delighted to have you on the team. We sure need the help :) - Alison 03:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Congrats. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Congrats! RlevseTalk 06:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Congrats, I look forward to working with you! Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Congrats from me too! Now get to work! :D Tiptoety talk 21:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(A belated) congrats on your CU promotion! ColdmachineTalk 15:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Another request

May I trouble you to double-check Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ace2690 please? -- Avi (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks fine but I am wondering if you forgot to list out Andre Jackson (talk · contribs). YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh and might I nag you with my supermodel poll :) YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

re: User:JL-Bot and {{Inprogress}}

No problem. I'll update the bot to ignore that template. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

rfcu - MarthaFiles


you've just marked an rfcu as completed, Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/MarthaFiles. In a series of reqs for cu over the last month, for editors making identical edits, the findings have consistently been positive for Fatim1, and inconclusive for MarthaFiles. But I and others have continued to post them under MarthaFiles, to keep them together.

Today you concluded a checkuser with a finding that the user was not MarthaFiles, but you missed Fatim1. I left a note on the page (linked above). Could you have a look and complete the request? Thank you, Jd2718 (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Responded on CU page; thanks. -- Avi (talk) 02:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for looking. I'm surprised, but that's why we ask checkusers. Jd2718 (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Socks Blocks

Hi! I saw that you blocked User:Movie and Video Game Rating Board as a sockpuppet.

I had this account watchlisted since I saw it on new account patrol. FYI, that account also created the account User:Movie and Video Game Rating Classification shortly after it was made, so you probably should apply that account to the puppetmaster's category as well. Thanks! ArakunemTalk 21:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Socks of Phuntsok2000

Hah, holy crap, I had no clue there were so many. Glad we can finally stop this guy. :) Thanks for your work! --Golbez (talk) 23:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a question

Hi Avraham, I would like to ask you a question. Is there any possibility to review an article of biography before publishing? thanks for your attention.Writer28 (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are "misremembering"

This edit is unacceptable, as there is no consensus for defining male circumcision as surgery in the lead sentence of the article. Please refer to this discussion, noting opposing comments from Revasser, Garycompugeek, Luna Santin, Tremello22, Gimmethoseshoes, and (to a lesser or unclear extent) Coppertwig, a majority of editors in that discussion. Also refer to this discussion, in which no consensus to add "surgical" was found.

Note that you also reverted another edit without stating a reason. Blackworm (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied on BW's talk page. -- Avi (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Re: your reply, your facts are wildly inaccurate, beginning with the labelling of the edit as a "removal" rather than an "addition." Standing consensus for 7 months did not have the word "surgery," and as I point out above, your position was clearly in a minority. I am confident in my opposition of your recent bid for Bureaucratship, as this latest edit and faulty assessment of editors' positions is another egregious example of poor judgment of consensus on your part. Finally, please address my last sentence above.
Luna Santin: "It may be worth mentioning that it is often a surgical procedure (as I believe the article already does, or at least alludes to), but Blackworm's convinced me it's not necessarily intrinsic to the definition."
Revasser: "The fact of the matter is that for some places, male circumcision is surgery - and in other places, it is not. With a heterogeneous prevalence of the procedure, it is best to leave out the word "surgery" - because it clearly is not surgery for everybody."
Gimmethoseshoes: "Circumcision is not always surgical, but surgical removal of the prepuce is always circumcision."
Coppertwig: "It seems to me to have remained stable with this wording [without "surgical" -BW], suggesting a wiki-consensus, for about 7.5 months until RasterB's contribution on June 27, 2008." Blackworm (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Need advice about "Speedy Deletion"

Dear Avraham, I am writing to you for your valuable suggestions regarding a "speedy deletion" of an article I've been trying to post. The article is about my company: "ODLINX". It is a Semiconductor consulting firm, and the article is meant to be a focal point for interested people to learn about the company history and milestones. I will not hide the fact that I will also be benefiting from the presence of such article for better web visibility for my company - but that would not be the main motivation for the article.

In all intellectual honesty, I do not feel it is fair that hundreds of other articles are posted to provide knowledge about similar companies, big and small. I was wondering if you could help me understand how I can meet Wikipedia's criterion such that an article about my company can be posted.

Thanks and Regards, Elik Cohen—Preceding unsigned comment added by Elikcohen (talkcontribs) 14:23, October 24, 2008

Issues now listed on Gilad Atzmon talk

Per our discussion on my talk page I have listed issues on Talk:Gilad_Atzmon#Bad_Recent_Edits_.28cooperative_editing.29. Carol Moore 17:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc


Why did you add petitions . pm . gov . uk to the whitelist? It was recently blacklisted due to large-scale inappropriate use per discussion on the admin noticeboard, and I don't see any discussion of a whitelist entry for any entry let alone the entire site. We certainly should not be linking direct to these petitions, we should link instead to independent coverage of them. Most of the numerous now removed "references" were added by advocates of the petition outcomes, and often at about the time the petition went online. If a petition is significant then we can link to the response on the No. 10 website, and to indpeendent coverage of the petition, but the petitions themselves are distinctly problematic as references. I have re-sourced the number of signatories from BBC News, which incidentally also gives significant additional context. Guy (Help!) 09:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I found your comment here: [1]. Yes, it is a petition mill. Anyone can set up a petition (just click "Create a new petition" on the homepage). Examples of abuse include: this gem:
"On May 31st 2008, a petition was created asking the producers, Kevin Wallace Limited, to release the show on DVD for those who wanted to enjoy the show again or for those who could not afford to see it.[1] It is yet to be confirmed from the Producers whether or not the petition will pass through."
Not a surprise that it was "yet to be confirmed" since the text was added on May 31 2008, the same day the petition was started. And probably by the person who started it...
See [2] and the blacklist talk page for discussion. Guy (Help!) 11:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Rashid Khalidi

Some of the stuff that was adding in before you protected is a definite violation of WP:BLP, which goes beyond what I'd call a content dispute (i.e. the use of a primary source to tie him into the PLO, the sentence "Obama and Bill Ayers dispersed monies to Islamic groups controlled by the Khalidis acting as board members", etc. The latter isn't even mentioned at at all in the source, such a baseless allegation needs to be removed immediately. I don't want to get into a wheel war, but do you mind if I remove these two claims for the sake of BLP? Khoikhoi 19:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. Please do. -- Avi (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Khoikhoi 19:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


Thanks, mate. You're a champion.Nishidani (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I add my thanks to that....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


Hi Avraham, please check out the current discussion on the talk page if you don't mind, as I think this should probably be resolved. Thanks also for protecting the page even in what you may consider the wrong version; nice move, and appreciated. Mackan79 (talk) 08:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Gavia immer

Gavia immer is caught in a hardblock of their IP address. His/her contribs are fine, but I wanted to double check before granting IP block exemption. What do you think? J.delanoygabsadds 22:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I asked the blocking admin. J.delanoygabsadds 23:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


Hi Avi! Thank you very much for your support in my RfA, which passed yesterday. I hope not to let you and the others down, and use the tools for the benefit of the project. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 22:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


Forget you were working on something? [3]. Toodles... 20:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Crap. I forgot to update my email link. The account I have here is out of date. Hold on a bit, and I'll fix it... 20:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Just confirmed my new email address. Could you please resend? Sorry about that! 20:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I read the email. Understood... Sorry if I made this a complicated case; it looked straightforward when I posted it! 21:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


That wasn't me, I don't edit on other wikis but this one. I haven't merged all my accounts, so I don't think that could be me.--SRX 03:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

As do you.--SRX 03:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Eh, I'm sorry, it was him, as I was not on the computer until later this afternoon and he used it miday. I should look into merging my accounts and logging off.--SRX 04:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Whoa, I didn't know he did that. I'm sorry for the inconvenience, this will never happen again.--SRX 04:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Merging Gath of the Philistines

I am writing to you because you appear to understand how wikipedia works. Gath is the biblical name. The archaeological site was discoved to be Tel es-Safi. Both have pages. This was probably reasonable once because when Aren Maeir first started digging at Es Safi it was not known what the ancient name of the site was. since Aren thought it was ancient Gath and others, naturally, wanted proof,, there was a bit of back and forth for a few years, but for several years now the issue has not been in doubt. Sufficient epigraphic and other evidence has turned up that there is now no quesiton that this is ancient Gath. Neither page appears to have any running controversy. Neither is very long. It has been suggested on the Tell Es Safi talk page that the two pages be merged. I just moved all the text form Tell Es Safi to the Gath page, editing to remove redundency. Now how do I eliminate the Tell Es Safi page? Many other articles now link to it.Historicist (talk) 03:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Thank you.Historicist (talk) 12:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)historicist

Any progress on the Mr. Zabriskie problem?

Just curious if things had gotten any clearer on that. Its been two days and all; no rush, just looking for an update. Respond on wiki or by email if you feel better about that. Toodles! 18:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Master of Nierva the Puppet


Moreschi was the one who hunted down the Jacob Peters puppet theatre, and understands both his editing behaviour and his usual range of IPs. Would you consider discussing your findings in the recent RJ CG checkuser case with him, so as to determine which one of these two is behind Nierva?

According to Moreschi, most of Jacob Peters' addresses were related to California's university network. RJ CG has publically said he resides in Canada, and he has used several Canadian IP address for anonymous editing -- most notably, of the Toronto Transit Commission. Unless one of them has resorted to using remote zombie computers or perhaps taken a long trip, it should be relatively easy to tell these two apart.

It's not of high priority -- either way, the disruption is contained --, but accurate demarcation of various puppeteers' acts may aid in developing better understanding of sock puppetry on Wikipedia, and lead to more precise pre-checkuser detection techniques. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 16:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


Can you analyze if this webiste should be blocked or not. Please.

It has arrived here because I put in lot's of wikipedias, and ishouldn't do it. But I only want to undo my error, so you could see the page Park Güell and the website:

The bot page is:

Bye--RobCatalà (talk) 12:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Don Luca Brazzi

Why so fast ?

I am waiting checkusers user:Thatcher or user:Lar which are having data about stale accounts of banned user which is using multiple proxy servers--Rjecina (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks--Rjecina (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
note for Thatcher.
If I do ask too much can you please tell me something more about result for J.A.Comment. We are having earlier check which is saying that he is from Washington area [4] like other users in question ? Situation has changed ?--Rjecina (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Test those new tools!

So I've discovered that there are a number of indef IP blocks "per checkuser" and was wondering if you'd like to test your new buttons on them to see if the blocks can be reduced to some finite period of time. The list is at User:Nixeagle/Sandbox/6. Thanks in advance. MBisanz talk 15:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

re:Caught in hard rangeblock

Thank you w_tanoto (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Petition: