User talk:Avraham/Archive 47

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
 < Archive 46    Archive 47    Archive 48>
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 -  ... (up to 100)


Name Change

Thank you very much. =] VirEximius (talk) 05:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

OTRS Ticket #2010010510023641

This guy was declared as a troll in the Hebrew Wikipedia. I was the main negotiator during the time we tried reasoning with him (hence, the negotiation tag in my he talk page) including many hours of phone calls. I have no intention to handle this ticket so I leave it up to you to decide what should be done with it. If you do decide to handle it, I wish you and the commons all the best handling with this guy. Tomer A. 22:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Help?

Perhaps you can help with the discussion here? I note that you weighed in on the same article and editor a while back, and I seem not to be able to speak effectively to the editor. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Rename

Doh... It says somewhere to recreate your old account to avoid someone else doing that. I was just testing. Oh well... --Epipelagic (talk) 05:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Responded on user talk page. -- Avi (talk) 08:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Just an update. Thought you might like to know that the 28,000 edits involved in this name change were all successfully reassigned, in fits and starts, over a period of 17 days :) --Epipelagic (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

File:U-47s.jpg

Hi, you have indicated this image MAY become available in the public domain in late 2009. It is now 2010, is there anyway to confirm the copyright status now? --Kvasir (talk) 07:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Avi, you are supposed to be human

So... why do you recharge blindlessly the older version of the article on Koestler's book The thirteenth tribe?. I stated it twice in the discussion page (Beginning and end). This is beginning to be strange. 153.109.42.97 (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Your rename request

I have replied here. Steffan (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Clarification Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A4d49f4a‎

In marking this SPI closed, you indicated there was some possible relation between two found and Bambifan101.[1] This would seem to indicate that A4d49f4a, long thought to be a separate person from Indiana, is also the Bell South Atlanta based Bambifan? Is this correct, are did I just misidentify two possible socks as A4d49f4a when they were Bambi's? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The two accounts that share the same IP and technical details as Cartooner are already tagged as socks of Bambifan. That tagging may be in error, though. -- Avi (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Agent Smith (The Matrix)

I'm not arguing with the consensus here, but I'm confused by the method of your deletion. I can't see anything on his talk page or in the discussion about being banned. Was this meant to be another CSD and you mistyped? Or is there something that I've overlooked? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 01:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, checked the block log. I think you should put up a block notice though, just to save confusion in others. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 01:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Redlinks are better in this case; if anyone has an issue, please tell them to contact me. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't like it. The MfD refers to a ban. I see no sign of a block in the logs? Where was the discussion? Is this a sock? A sock of who? If the user was banned, why is the name not at Wikipedia:List of banned users? Was he banned as a result of the MfD? In that case, G5 doesn't apply, as the page was edited before the ban. Sure, the result of discussion was clearly to delete, and with at least one clear call to block, which if not appealed may as well be a ban, but in terms of record keeping and transparency of process, this is really sloppy and ugly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a sock of a banned user, and the user was banned years ago; you may contact arbcom, the functionaries, or the checkuser list for confirmation. Per wikipedia policies, pages created by banned users in contravention of their ban are eligible for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G5; the discussion was thus rendered moot. -- Avi (talk) 05:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
No, I certainly don't seek confirmation, just saying the record confuses. When I go to the userpage (deleted as it is), and click "Logs" in the toolbox, no blocks are revealed. I can select "Block log", but no blocks are revealed. I can find the block via Special:BlockList, why can't I find it via the toolbox? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
You have to make sure that you are asking the correct question Face-smile.svg. The default is to place the username in the User: section, which shows all blocks performed by the user, and in this case there are none, b/c this user was never a sysop. You need to preface the name with "User:" and put it in the Title: box, and then you would see this. I still make that mistake and I've been a sysop since 2006 Face-blush.svg -- Avi (talk) 06:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

  • gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and
  • ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help.

תודה רבה, אברהם! בברכה

-- -- -- (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Question

Could you please tell me, how a fair use image from not a reliabale source could be removed from the articles and deleted from Wikipedia? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Those images are usually brought to WP:FFD. -- Avi (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Na Nach Nachma Nachman Meuman

Hi, I have no desire to get into an edit war with User:Na Nach Nachmu Nachmun, but it looks like one is starting. He and a new editor, User:Moshenanach, have as their sole goal the promotion of Rabbi Yisroel Ber Odesser's teachings and this famous mantra. They add information with no regard for NPOV or RS and just started flooding the talk page with diatribes on all the discussions to date. All the things I corrected this morning were reverted an hour later. Could you please help me here? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppets, to boot. -- Avi (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Uh oh, I think he's back in a new form. 93.173.178.95 just put all the POV back. Yoninah (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 Possible/ Inconclusive Same general geolocation, but that's about it. Most probably a sock/meat puppet using a different ISP. Revert as NPOV. -- Avi (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:81.170.32.152

Is requesting an unblock - I've placed it on hold for you to comment  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Certainly I will keep their points in mind—the opposition's concerns are so familiar to me by now that I'm quite sure I will never forget them. :) As promised in the nomination, I will use the admin tools in an uncontroversial manner and will not close any AfDs. Everyking (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Good close to Avraham and congratulations to Everyking! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1's talk page

you deleted it with the edit summary: (U1: User request to delete page in own userspace), however U1 clearly states: (but not user talk pages). Which links to As a matter of practice, user talk pages are generally not deleted, barring legal threats or other grievous violations that have to be removed for legal reasons; however, exceptions to this can be and are made on occasion for good reason (see WP:Right to vanish). Archives of user talk pages created by using page moves are also generally not deleted. In addition, nonpublic personal information and potentially libelous information posted to your talk page may be removed by making a request for oversight. Was that the case? Is the user exercising his right to vanish? He doesn't seem to be as his user page is still there. This seems like an inappropriate deletion to me. it certainly isn't covered by U1.--Crossmr (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

All of these rules allow exceptions when necessary, in my opinion (based on my handling of this issue behind the scenes) this is one of them, and the deletion is appropriate. -- Avi (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. I don't buy it with this: User:Mbz1. It seems very much like someone who still has an interest in wikipedia, in creating drama, and it seems like you're going out of your way to white wash this users history for someone who seems to still want to carry on. If they want to be gone, delete their user page and lock it. Someone who wants to be gone doesn't get to lock everything down and snipe at users from their user page while an admin tries to erase every trace of their disputes[[2]]. I don't see anywhere in that wall of text (maybe I missed it) where they requested their talk page be locked [3] like you stated in your edit summary. and this I might to add some more to it tomorrow. The intention of the writing to help other users, who might find themselves in a similar situation. definitely doesn't sound like someone who is finished here.--Crossmr (talk) 13:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Crossmr, this was handled by an experienced admin that corresponded with the user. This was not a RTV. Avi is not available to respond immediately on site to more fully answer you. If you want a prompt answer then you can email him. (Avi asked me to post this to you.) FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
That's fine, but Avi wasn't the only one involved in this. Alison deleted the archiving of the AN/I thread about them. If it isn't a right to vanish, I don't see why they get so much protection (and not just from Avi) yet get to sit there and use their user page as a soapbox under the guise of being "Retired". In terms of being "handled" by an experienced admin, another admin obviously disagrees[4] and Mbz1 is now claiming that they wanted their talk page deleted because of RTV, so is this or is this not a RTV? I believe that according to Right to vanish which states:, an no, taking it to e-mail isn't acceptable. There has already been enough back door shenanigans for my liking on this situation. Unless there is some kind of outing issue, there is no reason this can't be discussed where there is a record of it.--Crossmr (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Responded on ANI. I find it sad when human decency and compassion take a back seat in life. -- Avi (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I find it sad when someone can't defend what they've done without making bad faith accusations. Which you've done both here and on AN/I by claiming I was treating wikipedia as a game and here claiming I lack human deceny and compassion. What I did was question a non-transparent situation which wasn't being adequately explained. That doesn't make me a bad person, it makes me a good user.--Crossmr (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Crossmr, I think you crossed the line when you said that taking it to email was not acceptable to you and insisted on an on-wiki discussion that Avi, and several others including myself, felt would have been inappropriate for reasons of privacy. This is exactly the kind of situation that the 'Email this user' feature on Wikipedia is for. Please consider trusting the statements of the many people on this page who are trying to assure you that Avi's actions were motivated by compassion and have nothing at all to do with influencing article content or any kind of politics. Or if you must, ask for further clarification by email. Best, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I have no desire nor requirement to trust someone who says I'm trying to play games or lacks human decency. I said IF there was a privacy issue, it could be taken to e-mail. No one indicated if that was the case. It was suggested I take it to e-mail because Avi was busy, not because there was a privacy issue. Can you tell me where it says in here If you want a prompt answer then you can email him. that I should e-mail because there is a privacy issue? I specifically said Unless there is some kind of outing issue, there is no reason this can't be discussed where there is a record of it.- If this was an issue someone could have said so. they didn't. Their response was to insult me and assume bad faith. That is crossing the line and an "experienced admin" should know better.--Crossmr (talk) 06:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
No, you did not say that if there was a privacy issue it could be taken to email. Hint: "privacy issue" and "outing issue" are not the same thing. If you want us to think you're a nice person who's been misunderstood, OK sure I'll take your word for it. But from time to time even nice people come across on the Internet as if they're not acting nice, right? I don't blame Avi if he thought that you were coming across as being kind of insensitive. I can't think of anything further to say, so if you want to have the last word, it's yours. Take care, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Once again: Where did anyone tell me there was a privacy issue and that it should be discussed in e-mail because of that? Look at the replies to this thread. I was only told to e-mail Avi if I wanted a quicker response. You're the first person to mention a privacy issue in this discussion, which came after Avi insulted me in two different locations. There was Avis short response, a couple of other short responses patting Avi on the back, then Flo nights relay of the message and then Avis insult. Nowhere in any of that did anyone say that it should be discussed via e-mail because of privacy issues. Unless you can pony up a diff that shows someone told me it should go to e-mail because of privacy issues before Avi insulted me, care to retract your misrepresentation of my editing?--Crossmr (talk) 07:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
You are not in a good position to start accusing people of misrepresenting your edits. Avi did not insult you. He said that human decency and compassion were taking a back seat. That is a strong criticism of someone's behaviour, but it is not saying that you lack human decency and compassion, as you claim above - just that you were not displaying enough of them in this situation. It doesn't assume bad faith, either. Poor judgement is enough. -- Avenue (talk) 08:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Avi made it very clear on AN/I that they were talking specifically about me when they said I was treating wikipedia like a game. That is an insult, and that is an assumption of bad faith. It is amazing how many users trip over themselves demanding people make concessions for this user with no explanation and then hurl insults and misrepresent what other people have done to shut down anyone who disagrees with them. When asked about her bold red text in her statement WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A GAME AND WIKIPEDIANS ARE NOT GAME PIECES on the AN/I thread and who it was directed at Avi tried to dance around the issue of making it a personal attack by saying Actually, it was not in response to you, see my talk page When Avi has said here "I responded to you on AN/I. It was clearly directed at me. and it is clear they are implying that I'm treating wikipedia like a game and users like game pieces. Whether Avi says I'm lacking compassion or "they're taking a back seat" is quibbling semantics and boils down to the same thing. The incapability of defending their edits without attacking another person. Clayoquot came in and claimed I was pushing for on wiki communication even when I was told that several editors said it was a privacy issue. that Avi, and several others including myself, felt would have been inappropriate for reasons of privacy. I've twice asked for diffs where any of that has been said, yet they've failed to have been provided. Poor judgment comes from "experienced admins" who instead of simply saying "There is a privacy issue contact me via email if you need more info" instead attack other editors with insults. Poor judgments come from users who show up and make false claims they refuse to/can't back up with diffs.--Crossmr (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Saying someone is treating Wikipedia like a game (and other Wikipedians like game pieces) is clearly not an insult; it is a complaint about that person's behaviour. Whether it assumes bad faith is a bit less clearcut. I think it would demonstrate bad faith if it was combined with a claim that the person intended to simply treat Wikipedia as a game. If it was instead combined with a statement that the person seems to have got carried away and forgotten about the broader goals we share, I don't think it would demonstrate bad faith. Now Avi's full sentence was "Always remember: WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A GAME AND WIKIPEDIANS ARE NOT GAME PIECES." To me, that seems closer to the the latter case; i.e. it suggested you had simply forgotten about the big picture, and does not amount to assuming bad faith.
I have been following this since a few hours after the first time it hit AN/I, and while privacy issues have been a very real part of the problem, I don't recall seeing several editors saying on-wiki communication about it was inappropriate specifically because of privacy issues. I will go have a look around. -- Avenue (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I haven't found much along those specific lines. More common sentiments were that it would just escalate the situation, that people had been too aggressive and hasty in the first AN/I tread, and that it was better to let it be. Am I missing something? -- Avenue (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Having been up until three o'clock in the morning working with Alison to ensure that this person was not in serious danger of physical harm, and after having a second senior checkusers and a member of Arbcom agree with my handling, for someone to say "I don't buy it with this: User:Mbz1.…it seems like you're going out of your way to white wash this users history for someone who seems to still want to carry on." indicates to me someone, who in this situation, is more interested in rules (which themselves allow exceptions) than in the people contributing to the project. Crossmr, I would love it if your next 1000 inter-editor interactions prove me wrong, and you demonstrate concern for wiki-contributors (not vandals or trolls of course), but, in my opinion, you did not show it here. In the interests of the well-being of Mbz1, please continue any conversation you would like to have with me off-line. -- Avi (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I also have to concur with Avi's decision here - Alison 00:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the decision was fine in this particular instance. Policy says what we normally do but doesn't keep up from making exceptions when needed. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 02:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I concur as well and would like to express thanks to Avi for trying to handle this with sensitivity and compassion. ++Lar: t/c 21:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Note

Seeing your post at Assessment meanings, please can you add your opinion at Jews and WikiProject Judaism. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Just letting you know ...

that a user who you renamed got blocked and is back at CHU here. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 21:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

-- -- --

I couldn't find the successful request; otherwise I wouldn't have reblocked. Where is it archived? Daniel Case (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe there is something messed up in the archiving; please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AChanging_username&action=historysubmit&diff=337746504&oldid=337746088. -- Avi (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If I had a choice

Black and white and red all over

I haven't seen you around in a while. But I saw your fancy fonted comments on a noticeboard and wanted to come by and say hello. How is the bureaucrat busienss treating you? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


A yeshiva bochur on a first date. ;-) Jayjg (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Housekeeping, duplicated reditects?

Hi, I saw you were online and was looking for an admin who would sort a little duplication out for me, on this page AFD at the top it looks like there have been 5 previous but two are duplicates, could you get rid of the duplicated two for me, I was going to nominate them for speedy then I though I might make the wheels drop off, thanks. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sexuality_of_Robert_Baden-Powell Off2riorob (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

A bit complicated, but everything should now line up. It happens to be that this is now the fourth suggestion, not the first, so I moved the page. -- Avi (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Right thanks very much, it was bothering me a lot, my attention deficit thingie, regards to you. 21:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell links to the wrong AFD now. I'm not sure how to fix it. Can you look into that? Dream Focus 21:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Fixed, sorry, thanks for the heads up! -- Avi (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Haha, see..I was going to speedy delete the two duplicated second and third ones and I reverted myself thank goodness as that would have made the wheel drop off, thanks again Avraham. Off2riorob (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Request

In light of this edit summary, could you please re-read the source you deleted, available in full at the URL which was cited and which you deleted, and confirm, in your capacity as an administrator, that the source does indeed discuss FGC, or at least one form of FGC, depending on how you interpret it ("female circumcision") and that no "violation" required your intervention? Or do you still believe my edit adding that source was a violation? Blackworm (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The article makes no mention, and the letter to the editor indicates Schoen's opinion as to the inappropriateness of using any term containing "circumcision" to FGC. Using Schoen's letter to make a comparison remains WP:SYNTH. -- Avi (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
No, the Schoen letter specifically compares male and female circumcision by drawing an equivalence from one form of FGC to a form of male cutting that goes beyond circumcision and arguing that thus, FGC and male circumcision are not (at all) equivalent. It states, "The term 'female circumcision' can denote various procedures but, as Toubia points out, generally refers to clitoridectomy with or without removal of the labia. The equivalent procedure in males is penile amputation and removal of the scrotum. The problem with describing female genital mutilation as female circumcision is that the latter can be confused with the circumcision of newborn boys, a low-risk procedure with medical benefits."
Interestingly, his strong desire to erase the use of the term "female circumcision" seems mirrored by us, in our blocking out of all discussion of female circumcision in circumcision, in opposition to the most mainstream, prominent sources, such as dictionaries of the English language, and also in our blocking out of the term "circumcision" from the female genital cutting article in any case other than in the discussion of the controversy surrounding the use of the word "circumcision" to denote procedures done to females -- leading to us citing articles that state "female circumcision" and writing "FGC" in their article summaries. Should we be more vigilant against and/or critical of edits furthering these goals, given this sourced evidence that circumcision advocates propose the minimization of this use of the terminology in these ways, and given the contrary evidence in mainstream publications? Blackworm (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Also, my understanding of WP:SYNTH is that it requires more than one source to be used to support the synthesized article text. I claimed from the start that the letter alone supports the article text you deleted. Please address this source of confusion. Did you mean to suggest that it is original research? Blackworm (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
One more thing, the female circumcision article devotes about 3-4 times as much text in its coverage of the controversy over the use of the word "circumcision" when referring to female circumcision, than we devote to the controversy over the controversial topic of male circumcision itself, in the male circumcision article (the topic itself, not any linguistic controversy). Could this imbalance in the coverage of the controversy itself be a manifestation of a desire of male-circumcision advocates to both maximize the controversy over "female circumcision", and minimize the controversy regarding the topic of male circumcision itself? Blackworm (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Motion to dismiss or keep the Chabad editors case

Hi Avraham: A discussion has started if the Chabad editors case should be dismissed or should remain open. As someone who has been involved in the serious COI discussions leading up to this ArbCom case you should be informed of this motion and have the right to explain if you agree or disagree with this proposed motion and why. Please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence#Contemplated motion to dismiss. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

License question

Hello Avi. Could you please take a look at this (specifically the discussion on the AJ logo)? Thanks, nableezy - 08:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If the requirements for the attribution portion of the CC license require the logo, then I think it has to remain, otherwise, the licensure has been violated and it is no longer CC. -- Avi (talk) 04:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI

I have uploaded this image File:Mercaz HaRav massacre.jpg to be used in this article Mercaz HaRav massacre. I've decided that it's ok to upload the image after I've seen File:Jerusalem Terrorist Attack on 2 July 2008 1.jpg from the same source used in Jerusalem bulldozer attack. May I please ask you to tell me, if I've done something wrong with that uploading, and if I have, I will upload another smaller version of the image as a fair use. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

I have changed the password, and thus the hash, of my committed
identity. I am still in control of both this wikimedia unified
account, the e-mail address to which it is linked, and the GPG
key which connects to both, and which is signing this message on
Monday, February 8, 2010 approximately 14:14 EST (-0500). -- Avi
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32) - GPGshell v3.75
Comment: Most recent key: Click show in box @ http://is.gd/4xJrs

iF4EAREKAAYFAktwYrQACgkQDWKwGfgOKfnrMgD+OIiF8RDBF+UZAkXF1JpyL5g+
UiNfTZc5DKejrbG7MAYA+gNY9SBenHhGVi1ADuVH/QcrvyKq2ul/wDXFfHawQ1X4
=awrD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- Avi (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

References in Ten Commandments

I'm confused why you removed a reference to a religious scholar commenting on the subject and replaced it with a matter-of-fact assertion. I can see from the reference section that original research is rampant in this article and the original Rashi reference was more of a wave in that general direction, but shouldn't we take the opportunity to discourage original research and improve the references? Celestra (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What's the confusion, the Talmud is a reliable source that predates Rashi by several centuries and is an authoritative source for Jewish tradition. -- Avi (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The Talmud is a primary source and presenting facts from it is original research. Better to find a scholar commenting on what is meant by what is written in the Talmud. Celestra (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
That is incorrect here, the Talmud is explaining the oral tradition on the verse which dates back to the revelation. All Rashi, the Ramban, etc. would be doing here is bringing the Talmud. -- Avi (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Further, you seem to be under a misconception regarding primary and secondary sources. Being that the Talmud was written millenia after the Oral Law was given, it is ipso facto a secondary source regarding accepted traditional Judaic biblical exegesis. Secondly, even if it were a primary source, it may be used to what is says without interpretation (see WP:NOR#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources: "A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge."). As I am fluent in Talmudic Aramaic, I know that what I brought reflects the unadulterated text. So it is not original research on multiple levels. -- Avi (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The Talmud is a secondary source for what it describes, but a primary source about itself. If it says a thing literally, that can be quoted. The interpretation of whether what was written meant stealing things or stealing people requires a secondary source which is interpreting the Talmud. If we were to choose to treat it as a secondary source in this case, you should be able to provide a more detailed citation refering to the particular page in which the Talmud states that what is meant is kidnapping. Is that the case? Am I misunderstanding the arguments? Celestra (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Did you read my edit? I brought the source (Sanhedrin 86a). -- Avi (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't be here talking to you had I not read your edit. I also read the discussion on the talk page. If you are saying to me now that that source clearly, explicitly and without any other material or understanding says that the commandment refers to kidnapping, that would satisfy my concern. If, as it is presented on the talk page, this is known from context, then some other scholar should present the context and the conclusion. Celestra (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Open the Talmud to Sahedrin 86a where it "clearly, explicitly, and without any other material" states that the verse deals with lives and not money. -- Avi (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Your word is enough. I apologize for having taken up so much of your time. Celestra (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
No need to apologize; you did the correct thing by asking. When in doubt, it always pays to verify Face-smile.svg. -- Avi (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Susan Campbell

I apologize for leaving an edit in an unfinished state. I did some further cleanup to reduce the hype. In spite of all the nonsense, I think she is probably meets notability requirements for an author, The article will take watching, though. And if you want to work on a different field, we need articles on those two unaccredited Universities, or possibly one on akami, with links from the earlier names DGG ( talk ) 22:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Miami Beach Community Kollel

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Miami Beach Community Kollel. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miami Beach Community Kollel. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Status Template

I can't get the status template working, and the creator is not responding to queries. I cannot get the "update" links to work; they simply take me to the edit tab of the status page - not updating the status. How does one fix this?

PS

Please respond on my page, due to the high level of activity on yours. -RadicalOneContact MeChase My Tail 01:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Avraham. You have new messages at RadicalOne's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

And again. -RadicalOneContact MeChase My Tail 23:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi Avi. Hope you are doing well. I've come across an excerpt from a religious text twice now in the research I've been doing for the article Qedarite, and would appreciate your help in determining what it is exactly. In this book [5], the passage is listed under the heading Bavli Taanit 1:2 E-H. While I'm quite sure it is rabbinical exegis, I'm not sure which book it belongs to, who the author is, or what the date for it is. Do you have any information you can provide about this? I'm interested in including it in the article as an example of references to the Qedarites in Jewish tradition. Thanks in advance for considering this request. Tiamuttalk 16:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not certain how the author of that book is referencing the Talmud, but the sentence he quotes comes from Talmud Bavli tractate Taanis, folio 5b which discusses what is meant by "Kedar" in Jeremiah 2:10. When referring to the Kedarayim, it says that they worshipped water. It is a side point in the explanation of Jeremiah's rebuke in that chapter. Is there anything else that would help you? -- Avi (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much Avi. That's all the information I need to provide some context for the information as I'd like to add a mention in the article Qedarite in the "Religion" sub-section of the "Culture and society" sub-section noting that in the Ta'anit (Talmud), it is said that the Qedarites worshipped water. Thanks again. Tiamuttalk 22:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary question

I saw WP:FINGE in your edit summary on the article Criticism of Judaism. Do you know what WP:FINGE is meant to be? I would recommend a redirect for WP:FINGE to see where the real page is. Thanks. Minimac94 (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Face-blush.svg Oops, I missed the "R" -- Avi (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: native en stewards

Consider me schooled. :D Shii (tock) 19:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Saqib Qayyum → Saki

Could you please see this. --Saki talk 17:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User talk:63.64.165.55 requesting unblock

Could you give a bit more explanation of your checkuser block there, and/or help me respond intelligently to the unblock request. I have done the best I could with the information I could find, but I am unsure as to who the sockmaster is and why this specific IP is blocked? Thanks! --Jayron32 04:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. I just figgered it out. Carry on. All is well. --Jayron32 04:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

al-Bassa

Hi Avi. Several sources say that al-Bassa appeared in the Talmud as Bezet or Bazet, but they don't give a Talmudic reference or even say which Talmud it was. Do you have a way to look it up? If you find the source, is there anything else of quotable interest there? Thanks. Zerotalk 06:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Without some context or a restricted area in which to search, I don't think I could find the source; the Talmud is huge. Sorry. -- Avi (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I thought you might have an index or a machine-searchable version. I have both Gemara's on my computer but I don't see any possible hits in there. Can you please try searching at [ http://kodesh.snunit.k12.il/]? My Hebrew is not good enough to avoid missing things. Thanks. Zerotalk 02:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I just have the old-fashioned twenty-volume book version that has been used in Talmudic study for centuries :). Also, as there are no vowels in Aramaic, בצת could be many words. Lastly, searching that site doesn't work for me, either in IE8 or FF. If I knew where the word was, I could look it up directly. Sorry; if you have any other ideas let me know, and I'll keep it in the back of my mind. -- Avi (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, a friend provides this ref: Yerushalmi dmay 8b. Thanks. Zerotalk 17:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Unlike the Bavli, there is no consistent pagination of the Yerushalmi. However, I have the same pagination as your friend. The particular passage in Demai is discussing which cities on the border of Israel are considered as Israel for specific stringencies regarding Shmita, and it lists בצת as one of the cities on the border that is treated as Israel for the purpose of requiring adherence to Shmita (letting the fields go fallow, all produce is ownerless, etc.) I hope that helps. -- Avi (talk) 06:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
That's great, thanks. Zerotalk 06:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)