User talk:Avraham/Archive 43

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
 < Archive 42    Archive 43    Archive 44>
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)

Thanks for the refinements

I appreciate your edits at Tawfiq Canaan. I hope it passes. Fascinating man that one! Anyway, I hope Coggins passes too. Thanks again. Tiamuttalk 14:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Strange one, perplexed

Since you originally blocked User:Phuntsok2000, I thought I'd run this fellow past you: User:Tsepel Cory. There's some mighty strange behavior. I'd say there's definitely quacking; perhaps you have a better idea of whom? (I found him at WP:SCV.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections/August 2009/Oversight/Avraham

Just wanted to make sure you were aware of the above page. :-) Tiptoety talk 02:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

User Soulwaheed

I created the user account Soulwaheed. I checked the logs and the edits from the IP - some of the edits were vandalism, but several are non-vandalism. There is a rangeblock, and on ACC, OverlordQ suggested I contact a CheckUser. Could you look into this?

I am a new ACC user, and I have read the docs, and with hindsight, I should have just deferred it to another user to create or not! In future (until I am 100% sure of how to handle such cases), I will only create an account if there are no issues!

Thanks PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The Thirteenth Tribe

Hello, I do not understand your revert. Did you read the reference (that I do not brough, buit someone else)? They don't speak about Kostler's thesis. Hence I think that the violation of wiki:policy is the version that you impose, which claim that this paper disprove the Kostler's thesis. Isn't it? Look carefully at my changes (which are maybe obfuscated by my bad english skill): I state that this is not an "evidence" (since the authors do not claim it at all, and if you carefully read tha paper you will see that turkish people -- which are the origin of Khazars and then AShkhenazy according to Koestler, are as close as other middle-east people from Ashkenazy). Hence -- and to justify the presence of this reference (that I think interesting, although I'm personly not very convinced) -- I mention that it is "hard to disprove Koestler thesis on the basis of this study". Anyway, disproving or proving Koestler thesis with this study will be WIKI:SYNTH, since the paper does not mention Koestler. Thus, I think the best mannet to link Koestler and this paper is just to make a vague statement as the one I propose (hard to disprove...or hard to prove if you prefer). Is my attempt more clear? Did you still disagree? best regards (talk) 09:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

no reply means that you agree? (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
No, I tend to reply on the talk page of the user who asked the question. Please see User talk: -- Avi (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Both IP are the same user (I've now an account). Unfortunately, blocking my first IP adress prevented to explain why you're wrong : the article did'nt speak at all about Koestler thesis, hence the violation of wikipedia policy is to argue that this article disprove Koestler thesis. Please read the article before reverting once again. Levochik (talk) 07:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

RFC tag

Well, something's gone horribly wrong, but I'm not certain what. It looks as though the bot is mistakenly parsing nowiki text, and I'm not sure how to fix it. Can one of us go in and fix the RfC page manually, or will that upset the bot? Jakew (talk) 08:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy first edit day!


Wishing Avraham/Archive 43 a very Happy First Edit Day!

Have a fantastic day!

From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee

--I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 14:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

Could you tell me why you changed the request for comment statement? The question you are now asking is not the one I was asking. So it is kind of pointless now. I will change it back to the question I was asking if you don't mind. Tremello22 (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Would be grateful for your comments

Hi Avi, I wonder if you'd mind commenting here? Thanks. Jakew (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

User: aphzidos

Hello. I changed my username to aphzidos to meet the Wikipedia guidelines on names. That appears to have gone through, with you signing off on this as done. (Name change log entry) However, my name still appears as "AAAS employee" instead of "aphzidos" and I don't believe it's due to a Signature or other setting. Could you help, please, or redirect me to the appropriate person/page? Thanks. AAAS employee (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC) ...Forgive me; I'd failed to update my password keeper to give the new username. All is cool, unless my being able to log in with the old username was an error. thanks! Aphzidos (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


Thought you might like to add File:Littledevil512.png to your stash of faces. MBisanz talk 02:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


Many thanks to you, friend! --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Abuse filter

Avi, do you happen to know anything about the abuse filter? It occurs to me that an awful lot of time is wasted in reverting a very specific and easily identified form of blatant POV pushing (although I haven't updated it since last June, this demonstrates the scale of the problem), and it ought to be possible to construct a rule to prevent this. I'm willing to roll up my sleeves and learn how to create such a rule if need be, but I just wondered what you thought & whether you were familiar with the tech. Thanks, Jakew (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I have created a filter for this purpose (#216), and will let it run for a few days, but if you're willing to learn the syntax, I do not see any reason why you should not be allowed. -- Avi (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
You should now be able to see, and adjust, the filter. -- Avi (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Excellent. Thanks, Avi! Jakew (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Good idea! Avi, I would appreciate it if you would consider granting me the right also. You can assess my level of qualification and need by looking at this thread. I realize it's important to be careful. Coppertwig (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I do not think that giving out AbuseFilter rights like that is a good idea. If you have a specific idea for a somewhat complicated filter in mind, that is one thing, but if you just want it to randomly tweak, I don't think it is necessary to give you the right for that. J.delanoygabsadds 22:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
We have a specific filter in mind (#216). -- Avi (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, sorry, I misunderstood. J.delanoygabsadds 22:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Avi. Coppertwig (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the rights from both of them. You may not just hand out the abuse filter edit right without discussion. Prodego talk 05:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Where would you prefer to discuss the matter, Prodego? Jakew (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I would be happy to. This is how the only* non-admin with edit filter rights got it. You could try starting a similar discussion about yourself at Wikipedia talk:Edit filter. *There is one other non-admin with the abuse filter right, but that was granted by Werdna, a sysadmin and developer of the AbuseFilter. Prodego talk 14:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Unlike the other two rights, there is no process to grant the abusefilter right to non-admins (note that it is missing from WP:PERM). Since there is no system to grant it, consensus has to be formed on a per-person basis. Creating a process for it was discussed on AN (or perhaps ANI, I don't really recall), but ultimately that didn't go anywhere. Prodego talk 02:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I think we came to a sort of 'informal agreement' (among those who watch WT:EF) to vet candidates at that venue for a week (or less, if it's snowing) and grant to non-admins based on their support level. Obviously it's a very complicated and powerful tool that has the ability to perform admin-like actions. It's not something we want to be giving out on a wide scale. –xenotalk 02:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

(<-)Fair enough. Thanks for the explanations. -- Avi (talk) 02:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added a footnote to the guideline to document this informal process. No doubt the wording can be improved, but hopefully this will help to avoid confusion in future. Jakew (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


Hi, Avraham, I keep getting emails from this editor because he is caught in this rangeblock of yours :

Editing from (your account, IP address, or IP address range) has been disabled by Avraham for the following reason(s)

. I've already given him IP block exemption but he is still caught. I've refreshed the exemption. Any ideas how to avoid this? Cheers. Rodhullandemu 17:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

S/he has not edited since May 15, from an IP which is not blocked. Please have him/her log into wikipedia and use special e-mail to e-mail me so that I can see the specific IP caught in the range. Regardless, with IPBE, he should be able to edit through the range block as long as s/he is logged in. -- Avi (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, if he gets back to me I'll ask him to do that. Rodhullandemu 17:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

*Just had another email, he's still blocked, and I've asked him to log in & email you. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 18:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Sorted - he forgot to log in. Rodhullandemu 19:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom filter

I had already created it (see filter 1). Prodego talk 03:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, (I had already disabled it, but I undisabled it). Note that your filter does miss the Wikipedia namespace. Prodego talk 03:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, one thing, I did unmark it private (so its public now) - there really is no need for it to be private. Prodego talk 03:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

for granting rollback. It should make fighting certain types of vandalism much easier :) Garycompugeek (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

state of Palestine

you really think there is a problem with adding the country infobox to that article? Besides it being a "country" infobox, is there anything in the actual content that would be an issue? The only thing I can think of is the part on the government as that is just the government of the PNA, complete with the disputes, and not of the state. I changed that stuff so it is more consistent with the difference between the PNA and the state. But anything else you see that is a problem? nableezy - 14:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

no need for apologies, as I said before when you write something I try to keep my eyes open. Perhaps an asterisk with a note saying "Designated" next to Al-Quds (which oddly redirects to E. Jerusalem, not Jerusalem) nableezy - 14:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


Hi. You've confused me here: [1] why is fall from power wrong and rise from power correct? And why is this subtle vandalism? In popular culture it was the newsreel from liberating the death camps which made AS non-U whereas Hitler rose to power in the early 1930s without any popular change in perception on AS? Apart from within the Jewish community (which presumably already viewed AS as a bad idea) few people were aware about what was really happening in Germany in the 1930s, when AH rose to power. --BozMo talk 18:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais

you might want to consider page protection for that one Seb az86556 (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Your post at AN3

I hope you don't mind: I modified your 3RR report, striking out your list of reverts and supplying a new list. Your list was page versions; I believe you're supposed to supply diffs, not page versions (if the rules haven't changed). Coppertwig (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(And then MishMich posted material between your part of the report and mine, and then I unstruck your part, and then MishMich self-reverted, etc. etc.) Coppertwig (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on Circumcision

And why haven't you deigned to paste this nonsense on Blackworm's profile, I wonder? After all, Blackworm's the one making baseless edits; Blackworm is woefully ignorant. --ActuallyRationalThinker (talk) 03:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
That's rich. Your pal Blackworm... You sure had me fooled Avi :) Garycompugeek (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki-11233

You have marked this case for closure, but the individual IP was never blocked. The checkuser simply said that a range block was impossible, not that the individual IP shouldn't be blocked. See for confirmation.—Kww(talk) 07:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

 IP blocked -- Avi (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


I don't want to go off topic on Coppertwig's talkpage because that was not primarily about our ongoing disputes. What do you feel similarly about? I am always prepared to listen to your arguments Avi. I just feel that you have a conflict of interest and that would prevent you from admitting I am right even if you knew I was. Tremello22 (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The Israel Project lede

Let's discuss this on Talk:Israel Project. I agree that the criticism in the lede isn't very good. --John Nagle (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


Ha, sorry about that. :) I have no idea why I put Anonymous Dissident instead of you, just one of those slip-ups I guess. I'll be more careful in the future. :) →javért chat 14:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Please send me my deleted article

I just had an article deleted that was titled Aaron Cush Solberg. If you could send that to me, I would be most thankful.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Laser358 (talkcontribs) 16:34, August 13, 2009

THANKS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laser358 (talkcontribs) 22:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Marc H. Rudov Article

So what's going to happen to TheNononsenseMan? Will an admin block him? Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 11:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for uploading this, was about to go looking for one myself. nableezy - 19:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Said image rationale

I beefed up your non-free fair-use/non-free use rationale for the Said image. In my experience the format I used -- which was just a slight modification of the one you used -- works. Also I echo the above comment; the article was lacking an image. Tell me if you think the rationale works. Grunge6910 (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations :-)

On your oversight election. Well deserved. :-) Best, →javért chat 06:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Seconded, NSH001 (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Congratulations. (And thanks again for the help you gave me when my account name was stolen.) Rigaudon (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Congratulations from me too. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Jack Coggins

The review is now complete. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Revision hiding test section

  1. Testing -- Avi (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  2. Testing -- Avi (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Commons entry creation

Hi Avi,

could you create a wikimedia commons entry for

"Hugh Everett III"

Mysteriously, "everett" seems to be in some sort of blacklist.


--Michael C. Price talk 12:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't attachments via wikiemail. Wouldn't it be easier to just create an empty commons entry (or do you need a file to do that?)--Michael C. Price talk 09:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Michael C. Price talk 15:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible Future Vandalism

שלום עליכם, אברהם
I've noticed that the "Mozart" page is locked. I have a feeling "" needs to be locked too, due to recent news. I'd do it myself, but I don't know how. I can edit locked pages, but I can't lock them. Thanks. --MosheA (talk) 11:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
(PS How do I lock pages?)


Someone falsely attributed something leading to a mistaken accusation. Now you want to mention it in a way that hints that maybe the accusation was true. You can't do that, the whole incident was trivial nonsense. Zerotalk 02:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a BLP vio., it's an accusation that is or isn't true. And this conversation should go on the talk page, so everyone can comment. IronDuke 02:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Your edit summary

I believe that your edit summary here indicates that you are allowing your personal point-of-view to interfere with your editing here. Firstly, the additional edits that relate only to Dershowitz and not Khalidi in this article suffer from the the the logical fallacy, and forbidden editing technique, of Poisoning the well. Secondly, regardless of what your opinion is as to the appropriateness of Dershowitz in the article, you need to maintain a respect and civility for your fellow editors at all times. Sometimes editors get so involved with an article or set of articles that they lose sight of wikipedia policies and guidelines; it happens to all of us. When that happens, it may be a good time to take a brief respite from that article or class of articles. Lastly, please remember that the Khalidi article is subject to general ArbCom restrictions on Israeli/Palestinian articles. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 02:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you thought about your condescending attitude that other editors find insulting?

It is a cheap tactic to accuse a scholar of plagiarism, then fail to put it into context or to state who is the accuser. That is an example of Poisoning the well. A thin unsupported crack like that does not belong in an encyclopedia and you know it but insist that it stay to slap mud on the article subject. Your edits suggest extreme emotional involvement with these topics. Perhaps you would like to take a break? Skywriter (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Responded on user's talk page. -- Avi (talk) 03:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I apologise if I misinterpretted your motives. But you are wrong about the BLP issue. Zerotalk 04:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup question

Your "(username or IP removed)" action for this diff was very right; unfortunately, I used rollback when I reverted and don't know how to remove the same from that in the page history. I considered deleting the page and restoring all but my revert, but you seem to have a better way to deal with this. Could your method be applied to my edit though the username is in a different part of the summary field? — Athaenara 16:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done -- Avi (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! — Athaenara 17:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Some details please

In a recent SPI about me, you made a CheckUser determination that my account was "unrelated". [2] Could you please elaborate for me here what that means exactly? Which accounts/IPs were found to be unrelated to me? And what is the implication - if any - of a result of "unrelated"? Thank you. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 23:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It means that at the time, in my best judgment, the technical information available at the time for the other named accounts was unrelated to the technical information gleaned from a checkuser run on your account. -- Avi (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppet tags

Why haven't you placed any sock puppet tags on the accounts of the user for this case? Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 23:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Why ask me, ask the clerk taking care of the account. -- Avi (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


Hi Avi,

I'm a little concerned by the relisting of the RM at Talk:Circumcision. The fact that there's a completely new section at the other end of the talk page will make it difficult for everyone to see the opinions that are being expressed. I don't want to !vote twice, and I don't think anybody else should have to. I just wondered whether you can think of a better way of relisting that avoids the need for a new section? Thanks, Jakew (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually no, I cannot. I suggest wikilinking to the previous section. -- Avi (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh well. Thanks anyway! Jakew (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


Re [3]: It's a discussion, not a poll. If consensus has not developed, relisting allows additional time for discussion, with the hope that a consensus will develop during that time. Coppertwig (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

My talk

Thanks for the protection. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 00:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)