This is an archive of past discussions with Avraham. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Six hour anon-block on 91.109.192.0/18. There will be some minor collateral damage, but the predominant user is the one you have blocked. -- Avi (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Avi, if you have the time, could you have a look at the Johnreve SPI case? It involves some deleted Commons images, and since Alison isn't particularly active at the moment I think you are the only CU who's also a Commons admin. Don't know whether any checks are required, I didn't look into it at all, but it's been sitting there for over a week now. Thanks, Amalthea16:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I wrote an article Jacob Barnet affair, but I am not sure what the articles to link to it from? I added it to "see also" sections of few articles. Is it enough that the article will not be called an orphan, or it should be linked to from the text? Could you please give me an advise? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is, apparently, an incarnation of a particularly disruptive user previously blocked on Wikinews.
I seriously doubt the legitimacy of claims made with userpage templates. All recent #wikinews IRC channel activity has originated from Pakistan; the initially disruptive username on WN has some contributions on enWP in 2005 in-relation to crypto/security subjects. When he much, much later appeared on Wikinews; blocks on substantial portions of Pakistan's IP allocation were applied, and evaded.
I am absolutely seething about the attitude and behaviour of anothor WN 'crat over this. Particularly considering his fulfilment of this users request to be renamed - allegedly for SUL purposes - without leaving a redirect behind; and acceding to requests for various of the socks I can dredge out of my memory to "vanish". The, what I consider, pathetic response is to claim he thought this person was trying to help the project when, in all probability, he has published a hoax or purloined and translated interview.
I would like to change my username due to privacy concerns, and I have read that only bureaucrats can do that, which is why i am contacting you. What is the process, and what do i have to do on my end? Thank you very much!
Thanks for uploading File:Canadian Forces emblem.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Hi, quick query before the admin promotion is announced in The Signpost: is it a permanent promotion to admin status, or is there a time-limit on it? Or was it left open? I ask just to forestall any queries from readers. (If the last, I probably won't even mention timing.) Tony(talk)09:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done For futire reference, I beleve any autoconfirmed registered editor can move pages, I believe, not just admins, but an admin is needed for the deletion portion to combine histories when fixing cut-and-paste moves :) . -- Avi (talk) 23:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Former IP: You are wrong. Firstly, there most definitely was a very lengthy discussion reaching consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Building and destroying the Beit Hamikdash since 14 July 2010. Secondly, this page like all the others effected were notified about the proposed redirect, also on 14 July 2010 [1] on their talk pages but now with the "corrected" redirects it's not showing up for some odd reason. So please do not complain now because all users who have this page on their watch lists had more than two weeks to partake, share their their views and make comments and suggestions. Those editors who did were mostly reliable Judaic editors who are trustworthy and responsible. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the old history need to be restored? If the player is notable now, let the article be started anew. -- Avi (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've run into a pretty inexperienced editor who is making edits to the Kohen article that I'm concerned about. Give your knowledge, would you be able to take a look? I've opened up a section on the Talk:Kohen page for at least one of the problems, though he's still making many edits, so there may be more by the next time I look. :-) Jayjg (talk)04:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Avi. Hope you don't mind, but I removed the words "pleas comment on all three" from the top of the RfCs, since I thought it read a bit like a requirement (eg if someone genuinely had opinions about only two of them their comments might be disregarded or something). Sure this wasn't the intention and let me know if I'm misunderstanding something. Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will restore it, because 1) it is worded as a polite request, not a demand, and we expect a basic knowledge of English comprehension on the English Wikipedia and 2) we want people to comment on as many as possible and not to feel restricted. I fail to see how a request for more comments could be interpreted as a statement that we will ignore someone who doesn't comment. -- Avi (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Avraham: In the present ANI discussions about the correct names for the three Jewish Temples at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#All talk pages, and more, were notified about the discussions and proposed moves an admin (Fram) involved in the ANI discussions but not familiar with the history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism has raised some questions about how the Judaism WikiProject functions, such as "Whether that is standard practive [sic] at the Project, or only your standard practice, I don't know, but it has to change in either case. Subjects related to Jews or Judaism will not be named or treated in accordance with the Torah, but in acordance [sic] with reliable independent sources (and for the naming in accordance with English language reliable independent sources)." I have suggested that experienced admins familiar with the WikiProject be called in to answer those allegations. As an admin and participant in the project over a number of years your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have unblocked the user, as the blocking admin has noted on their userpage that they may be inactive till Jan 2011, thus with no evidence and an inconclusive SPI I felt that the block should be lifted. I also left a comment here with my full rationale: User_talk:X!#User_requesting_unblock.. Regards, --Taelus (Talk) 22:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Avi. If a building is 1000+ years old, is the floorplan of that building in the public domain? Or is it copyrighted by whatever author (or publisher) put the floorplan together 50 years ago? nableezy - 04:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain; my hunch is that there may be some element of added creativity to that floorplan, and so it would be copyrightable, but I', mot sure. Try asking User:Moonriddengirl, she knows a lot about copyrights. Sorry I could not be of more help; if I find anything, I will let you know. What country is the building in? -- Avi (talk) 05:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw you also had problems with a sockpuppet vandal on en-wiki that was active with us as well. Also on nl-wiki a checkuser has been done and the results are here. Kind regards, Trijnstel (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC) admin on nl-wiki[reply]
Although I may not currently have sources. The black velvet kippah is thought of as the universal badge of the Haredi movement. I said that it is "Typically Black Velvet" So dont say that it is untrue or irrelevent...— Preceding unsigned comment added by XavierAJones (talk • contribs) 16:11, August 3, 2010
Avraham, I was wondering if you'd comment on my request to join the Edit filter manager group! If you're interested, here it is. I really need more people to comment, and I'd be so happy if you did! Thanks! Endofskull (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have much, if any, experience with you as an editor, therefore I do not feel comfortable making a statement out of ignorance. If I have time to review your editing history and can make an informed comment, I will. Sorry. -- Avi (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A request.
I have a request, can you please delete File:The Proposal.jpg. I am Corey.7.11.1992. I admit that I was doing rubbish there. You can see that in view history, and if you can delete I'll be very grateful, and I will upload a new file. I asked another administrator to delete, and he replied that there was no problems and that there is no need to be deleted. I know that there is no need, but I really can't watch that. Please delete, how much that can be difficult. Thanks in advance. Corey.7.11.1992 3:36, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that it is already in use, and its fair use is appropariate under wiki policy. Why do you want it deleted? -- Avi (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And if you can please delete all what I have in the view history, and there's quite a lot things. I'm very sorry for that and I do not want that to be there. If you could just delete it or completely erase the view history, I would be very grateful to you. Thank you. Corey.7.11.1992 10:10, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
what?
re this: what are you talking about? I'd be ok with it if you think the dablink is a bad idea in itself, but this is just pure specious reasoning. I'm going to go ask to have the page locked now, because I'm tired of this stupidity; in the meantime, can you please give me a real (e.g. non-stupid) reason why you oppose a disambiguation? thanks. --Ludwigs202:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue was the a combination of the wording of the dab (see Wikifan's comments therof) and the assumption of a fait accompli mandate from MedCab. I'm sure a better-worded dab can be crafted, if a dab is actually necessary in the first place. -- Avi (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Avi, I realize that CU cannot "clear" somebody, but would you mind terribly looking at the allegations here and possibly weighing in? Thanks and no worries if you dont feel comfortable doing so. nableezy - 02:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see User talk:Jiujitsuguy#Sockpuppetry claims. If he has evidence, he should bring it. If you are socking, you should know better, and preventative measures should be taken. But I do not think it is proper to make such accusation to individual editors. We have a central location for these kinds of investigations. -- Avi (talk) 03:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good edit today
Thanks for ending the minor flurry on Messianic Judaism by adding "religious" to Jewish movements in the lead section. It reads well and states both side's position--DeknMike (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
S'alright. We should probably expect more, though. Might not happen, but wouldn't hurt to keep an open eye. "Piss comes in a rain"... HalfShadow23:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check user on this puppet (which ever he is Sock or Meat)
None of the above. People have their own minds, you know, and someone who has been reading JIDF and has the same political viewpoint may well feel that DA is getting the raw end of the stick completely on their own. The fact that this person has all the political savvy of a hippopotamus in a lace factory does not mean that DA is masterminding a plot. -- Avi (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand; you were a target for this guy's ire. However, I believe that there is a difference between a meatpuppet, who is enlisted, and a follower who is not. For example, we have talkpage stalkers responding all the time. I understand that David is on thin ice here, and he will have to re-earn AGF, but in this case, all indications lead me to believe that this is not meatpuppetry but a JIDF follower who does not know how to handle his or her frustration in a wiki, nay socially, acceptable way. There is no excuse for calling people nazis unless they truly are (skinheads, Goebbels, etc.) One violation, I would have given a 4im, but this guy dropped 3 unacceptable bombs, and deserves the indef until they apologize and commit never to do it again. -- Avi (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"no"
I suspect this word is missing on your recent comment on the JIDF sock page. As your comment stands, it may create some confusion. (the language skills of one account vs. the other made it clear that this was the right opinion, but i appreciate you taking the time).Bali ultimate (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good move, Weapon. A few hours almost always helps things fall into perspective, at least it does in my experience 8-) -- Avi (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Appledonut
Running this past you as you proposed the change of tack. The JIDF and associated meatpuppets were just community banned (discussion, log of ban [2]). As you know "David Appletree" is currently contraving "Banned users should not create a new account to file an appeal or to post in a discussion. This would be considered sock-puppetry and the new account will usually be blocked. They should be seen to comply with their ban, which will gain a more favorable opinion." (WP:BAN). It's also difficult to see how his not using two socks at the same time over the past month or his suddenly deciding to use his pseudonym here can count in his favour.
On the community ban, the stated procedure is "Bans imposed by the community may be appealed to the community or to the Arbitration Committee" this would seem to preclude either unilaterally overturning a ban or doing so with the agreement of a handful of users. Given that the closer stated there was "near-unanimous consensus by the community" an explicit community endorsement of an overturn, via another discussion, would seem to be necessary.
As to whether the user should be trusted (and hence whether there's any point in going through the discussion again) there is of course the long-term socked/meatpuppetry etc. (Note the 1st two socks you confirmed are long-standing sleepers.) But more importantly, now that you've confirmed the individual behind at least the recent socks runs the website, what possible grounds could there be for trusting someone who e.g. accuses a broad swath of editors he disagrees with of antisemitism ([3]) and hosts hatespeech such as:
As we have mentioned, we are against the Ground Zero mosque, just as we are against ALL mosques, as they are tributes to the genocidal pedophile false prophet (idol), Mohammed, who was a murderer of Jews, and anyone else who didn't think and believe the way he did.
...
Because Islam is a hateful and violent ideology which preaches hate and violence against ALL non-Muslims (especially Jews, as it is obsessed with us, and dehumanizes us as apes and pigs), we are against ALL mosques. We are against Islam, just as we are against Nazism. Just as we don't wish to see Nazi institutions springing up everywhere, we don't need to see Islamic one's springing up everywhere, either.
...
There is just Islam.
All one has to know about it, is what we saw on 9/11, and have seen in over 15,000 deadly terrorist attacks in its name since that tragic day. ([4])
Should this individual really be given another chance simply because after being community-banned he decides to turn up with an account using his pseudonym & actually owns up to the above? Misarxist (talk) 11:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is up to the community. I am supportive of an alternative that has the potential of being more positive to wikipedia than an outright banning. Then again, I proposed the suggestion that kept User:PalestineRemembered on wiki for an extra couple of years, and PR's position on Israel is pretty clear too. Blocks and bans are not punitive but preventative; please remember that. Otherwise there about 20 people on both sides of the I-P issue I'd have no problem indefblocking/banning from wiki for past actions and statements. Regardless of one's personal opinions, policy as I've always understood it is that with rare exceptions decided upon by ArbCom, if you toe the line, you may edit; and we prefer rehabilitation, when possible, to exile, which is a last resort. -- Avi (talk) 12:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean you will formally propose conditions for an unbanning & then let that discussion run it's course? This would seem to involve the existing ban being observed, perhaps with condition that Appletree can edit only to engage in that discussion. On that point (in my 1st two paragraphs above) I can't see any matter of "personal opinions", it's a simple matter of following an existing consensus until overturned or not as the case may be.
I assume when you refer to "personal opinions" you mean my characterisation of the user in question, which is substantiated, and can be further if needed. I brought those particular problems to your attention simply to check that you are aware of the implications, and obvious pitfalls of what you are proposing. The website run by the individual in question has been airing similar material for a year or two and has in fact toned it down. Previously it was plastered with quotes from the racist terrorist Kahane, and had the Kach logo prominently displayed. Not wishing to encourage such a person would fall well within the realm of "preventative". But if you wish to formally propose unbanning him, this can be discussed as appropriate. Misarxist (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no opposition to the suggestion that Off2 and I mentor David for now, which automatically implies that the ban on Einstein is lifted SOLELY for the David Appletree account. However, if you like, I will bring it up on ANI for more clarification. -- Avi (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Avi. I've commented at the talk page and I think that you should seek consensus for the change, or at least start a thread at AN. The changed wording certainly doesn't reflect the current practice, especially in regards to indef-blocked vandals. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you from the barnstar Avi, from the POV of, your enemies are but friends with whom you have yet to resolve a disagreement. I will treasure this one. Off2riorob (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For being willing to act as a mentor, despite the difficulty it would entail. While it is unfortunate that the mentorship was not allowed to progress, and the user in question reverted to actions that caused the blocks in the first place, your willingness to extend the offer of help and put yourself in an uncomfortable position to try and better the English Wikipedia project is a testament to your character and a asset to the project. Thank you. -- SpartazHumbug!16:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page
Is there a way to lock the discussion page while I type my missive? I appreciate your comment, but it blew away the paragraph I had just finished writing.--DeknMike (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's an WP:Edit conflict, and the answer, unfortunately is no. Sometimes hitting "Back" on your browser works. If I type something long, I have the habit of copying it into memory (or a text file in the case or REALLY long posts) JUST for that reason. Sorry. -- Avi (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved?
I understand why you marked that thread resolved, but I for one think we at least need some understanding from the admin that he understands that it was improper. I've posted that in the thread though I didn't remove your tag.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've said my peace there. I do find it baffling that apparently it's excessive to think an admin would step up and say "I understand it was a bad block".--Cube lurker (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that an apology from HJ would be nice, but the entire situation is SO fraught with tension now, that the better thing may be to wait until tensions settle a bit. When people are emotional, they also become defensive; at least I do (and as a megalomaniac, if it works for me, it works for everyone!! 8-) ). I think the project is better served as a whole if the tension bleeds out than if someone has to twist HJ's arm. Just my thoughts. -- Avi (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. This is the third time that I've reverted attempts by User:Yankirosenberg to change the accepted spelling of the name of this Hasidut. I put a notice on his page and he just vandalized again. Could you help here? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a reference (video by International Association of Black Actuaries) on the actuary talk page, to qualify that Robert J. Randall Sr. is the first black actuary. Please respond or add the changes you removed. -- Sugarfoot1001 22:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was falsely accused. It is quite clear to everyone that read this section. if it is left as "accused" then it implies that it wasn't falsified, when it was. I realize that wikipedia should not be used as a source, but there are good sources to that section. You mention a "whole article" about it. what are you referring to? Eyalmc (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that those who believe he is rightly accused were subject to a misleading translation, that was distributed internationally, but when verified, was discovered as false. I didn't see a single source which claim otherwise. So i think that it is important to include in the article the fact that all those publications that spread like fire proved to be misleading. this is not the first time media does that and it's important to point it out INMHO Eyalmc (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is the opinion of some. Other translators, experts, and historians believe the translation was accurate and the following media blitz is an example of post-event spin and damage control. We bring both and do not assume one is more correct than the other, as you are doing. -- Avi (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show a single credible translator which claim he said the Zionist entity should be wiped off the map, without ignoring the context? I can easily show you the opposite: hereEyalmc (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are engaging in WP:original research, not to mention that personal blogs are never considered reliable, or did you not read the "about us" section where the website you linked is described as "One person's effort to correct the distorted perceptions provided by commercial media.". So what you have brought is not acceptable on wikipedia for various reasons. On the other hand, the initial translation was performed by a professional translator, an employee of the government in Tehran, and not some person with a website and an agenda like informationclearinghouse. This has been upheld by the New York Times deputy foreign editor, again, not some not some person with a website and an agenda. So while you may disagree with the opinion, you cannot impose your opinion on either the facts or wikipedia. -- Avi (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done -- Avi (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Unrelated I already checked. Sometimes you have to start assuming good faith 8-) -- Avi (talk) 00:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
