User talk:Avraham/Archive 2

1

2

3

4

5

→

10

20

30

40

50

60

Guidelines for Wikipedia lists of ethnic groups

Please may I draw your attention to

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Guidelines_for_Wikipedia_lists_of_ethnic_groups

Your contributions would be very welcome.

Brownlee 11:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Passover Greeting

Wishing you and your family a Happy Passover. !חג כשר ושמח -Reuvenk[T][C]

Please follow wiki protocol

We know you don't want to confront the evil history of the board, but the principles of wikipedia are to Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views on a subject, factually and objectively, in an order which is agreeable to a common consensus.

Respect other contributors. Wikipedia contributors come from many different countries and cultures, and have widely different views. Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an encyclopedia.

I do not feel that you respect an alternate point of view which details the nepharious activity of the AO. I guess as long as it didn't affect your clique then it didn't happen.

The history of the CAS board has repeated itself.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA (talk • contribs) 2006-05-18.

Response

Firstly, it pays to sign your messages. Secondly, your point of view is the biased one here, you are placing personal vendettas above facts. I am reciting facts; you are adding opinions. Who is in violation? -- Avi 17:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Actuarial Outpost

Blisterino submitted a 3RR report [1]. Quite why you got listed I don't know. If *you* know whats going on on that page, please reply here... William M. Connolley 20:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Responded to, thanks! -- Avi 21:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I mispelled. I get sloppy. John wesley 21:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I called up the US schools to get the names of the proper people. John wesley 21:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

That is impressive, well done! -- Avi 21:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Avraham, TheActuary

Hello. Regarding the Actuarial Outpost issue, Avi has made false accusations. There is no vendetta against the former site and its administrators. The only vendetta that exists is their not wanting a factual reference to a spin off site that promotes more freedom than their site allows. The actuarial outpost was formerly known as the Rebel Outpost. It was, in fact, a spin off from the CAS web site for precisely the same reason that the RebelActuary site had to spin off from the Rebel Outpost - which changed it's name to the Actuarial Outpost as it became a more commercial venture and less interested in the free expression of ideas.

I only thought wikipedia would be better served to have a true historical perspective rather than be tainted by Avraham's revisionist history which denies that a spin off did in fact take place for exactly the same reasons that created it in the first place.

Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA

Shall we invite the protagonists, Glenn, Traci, Claude, and Tom to comment? There was a reason your membership in that community was revoked, after *many* warnings. -- Avi 22:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't particularly care, but would you kindly take your dispute off my talk page and into Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? Thank you. Stifle (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. -- Avi 23:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edit to WP:AIV

WP:AIV is for clear cut vandalism, the editor you reported should be reported to WP:ANI whcih deals with more complicated things like that. JoshuaZ 21:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks -- Avi 22:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

I have initiated further steps of dispute resolution. I have submitted a request to the Mediation Cabal in an effort to get another view on this matter. ^demon^{[yell at me]} /00:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts. -- Avi 00:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Actuarial Outpost

I don't need to see the site. What's important here are the standards set in WP:WEB, which I don't see met anywhere. --InShaneee 05:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Responded to on your talk page. -- Avi 05:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Avraham

Yes, I noticed that. I actually tried to register Avraham but it looks like I got there too late ;-). I think there shouldn't be too much confusion, at least, hasn't been so far. Kol tuv, Avraham 00:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

All that stuff about NYU, Penn is hard to write, excising so that only formal programs are linked is better. Did you see that an IVY, Columbia University is adding a masters? John wesley 21:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Harry Frankfurt.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Harry Frankfurt.gif. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Orthodox Rabbinical Biography Collaboration of the Week

In case you have not been made aware yet, come help out at Wikipedia:Orthodox Rabbinical Biography Collaboration of the Week. Yasher koach! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 03:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

HaRav Schachter

Hi Avi, I'm sorry if I've upset you in any way. Your hard work on Rabbi Schachter is definately much appreciated. The reason I reverted your edits and took away the "proper wiki citation for a website" is because I didn't see the need to tell the world the date on which the URL was accessed. Why is that necessary? And again, as with the biography infobox that you eventually took off - why don't other articles have this feature? Please explain. Many thanks, Nesher 13:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

PS: Why did you add an infobox for Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik?...

AfD vote

You need to move your vote up to the correct section... Jayjg ^(talk) 17:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you Phi Beta Kappa?

A member? or just ameoba? ;) John wesley 17:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sigma of NY -- 1996. Forgive me for not posting my KeyID online ;) (I'm PME and Golden Key too, FWIW). Further, wiki protocol is to put new edits at the bottom :) Now, what about you? -- Avi 17:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I suspected as much. There are reports that today's kids are turning it down because they don't know how prestigious it is. John wesley 17:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

A crying shame -- Avi 17:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal information

Is it truly personal information? If so, it's a blocking offense. If it's just a username on a board, I'm not so sure. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If it happens again, and it's truly personal information, let me know, and I'll either severely warn or block, depending on the situation. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Carol Harris-Shapiro cite on Messianic Judaism

Hey Avi, you've left the page numbers off that citation (p. 88, p.102), and I don't know how to add them to that template. Could you please put them in? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it's there

1. ^ Harris-Shapiro, Carol (July 1999). Messianic Judaism: a rabbi’s journey through religious change in America, 88, 102, Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon Press. ISBN 0807010405 LCCN 98-54864.

But I'll make it clearer. Thanks, -- Avi 23:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, my mistake. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Jason Aronson

sorry I did not know that I was supposed to let you know.

you can delete it if you dont think its notable, or flesh it out as you wish...

gevaldik! 06:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The Rav

Avi, Yasher koach on adding such a Choshuv reference for the Rav's CV. Many thanks, Nesher 21:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I did not add it; rather, I properly referenced the link that was there. -- Avi 21:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I know, I added the link, but you made it more geshmak! Nesher 15:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:GAnominee

Your edits ended up breaking every talk page the template was used on. I'm not exactly sure what the cause was, but it made things a big mess. I have reverted the changed.--SeizureDog 05:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you know how that could have happened? -- Avi 05:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a screenshot for you when you change it.--SeizureDog 05:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No problems this time. And FYI, before what was happening is that orange boxes started surrounding everything. --SeizureDog 05:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I messed up the <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags. -- Avi

Believers

Thankie. Be sure to check the talk page for my comments, as it may come across as incomplete at first but is, in fact, as complete as I can make it. Anyways, night.--SeizureDog 06:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Please see Talk:Believers. You seemed to be suggesting that I should include some things that were actually included from the beginning. Also, references section and such as been tweaked a little to perhaps be more to your liking.--SeizureDog 17:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• After a tough battle with some translators, I was able to make a short "critical responce" section. Having every source you use be a foreign language is no fun -_-. Anyways, the number of references has doubled do to my moving things around and I would like you to take another look at it. --SeizureDog 18:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Why rename it?

The only other articles that resemble it are Believer (an unknown band) and Believers (Babylon 5) (a TV episode). Neither are worth going out of the way to direct to. Unless some article comes up that causes confusion, then I say leave it be. --SeizureDog 01:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Talk:Messianic Judaism

You wrote: However, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history.

I guess I have that bad habit from editing web sites on MS FrontPage. I'll watch myself to proofread and even leave the edit window open till my brains catch up to make any last changes, corrections, or additions.

Regards, CowboyWisdom 03:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding My Talk

I reverted to the wrong revision, since someone had just reverted before me, but didn't label their changes. I then reverted it to the proper revision, and all was well. (I think this clarifies your remarks) -- Porqin 02:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, Thanks for clarifying. -- Avi 02:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:

You've got mail. —Encephalon 12:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Quotes

Please use straight (' ") quotes instead of curlies (”). Ther curlies screw with my browser.

This is often a function of the various citation templates; further it is more professional and in my opinion should be a plus, not a minus. - Avi

Professional or not, they end up creating an automatic space behind them for me. Curly might be more professional, but straight is more accessable. In the end, it's personal preference (unless I'm missing a style guide on the issue), but straight does seem to be the norm. --SeizureDog 14:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wp:mos#Look_of_quotation_marks_and_apostrophes where it states either is acceptable, and while straight was used more in the past (most likely due to the keyboard layout - straight quotes are on the QWERTY keyboard, typographical quotes are not), the only difference is that if typographic-style qu an article's title there should be a straight redirect. -- Avi 14:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Mk. Just saying that typographical quotes aren't as user friendly, but it's your article. --SeizureDog 15:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Liozna

I voted against deletion for Liozna. I'd appreciate if you read my reason why I oppose deletion, just maybe you will change your mind.

JJ211219 17:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Response on Afd page. -- Avi 18:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

BOYARIN

I appreciate the spirit of your comment. But, part of Boyarin's argument -- which I explained on the talk page -- is that the distinction between Jew and Judaism is itself anachronistic, a modern distinction that does not fit well with the totality of jewish history. This is a valid view and should be included in the article. At Wikipedia we do not delete views we disagree with. If we know other views are missing, we add them. Find a scholar who argues that the distinction between religion and ethnic group (or race or nation) is a distinction that has long been meaningful in judaism, and that is useful to help underestand Judaism, and add that to the article as an alternative to Boyarin's view. But do not delete valid content. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not even argue with that point, but it is the term Jew that has changed, not Judaism. The definition of Jewery by religion is difficult according to Boyarin, but not the definition of the religion by Jewery. Which is why, this is an excellent, nay, required addition to the page Jew, but not Judaism, in my opinion. It is not that the view is "present" or "absent", it is that this is drectly referring to Jewery, not Judaism, and so I feel it is misplaced in the Judaism article. -- Avi 01:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid you are misreading Boyarin. I read the entire work from which the quote is taken. He is making an argument about distinctions like religion, ethnicity, culture, race, and nation as well as the entities that go along with these distinctions e.g. Judaism, Jews, Jewishness. His claim has to do with the impossibility of identifying "Judaism," which the article is about, as a religion. As I have said, not all people share these views, but that is no reason to remove it from the article. If you want to claim that Judaism is a religion, find valid sources that say so and add them. But do not delete a valid source that challenges the view that judaism is a religion. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have recently made some edits to the article itself, specifically the paragraph in question. My only intention was to express more accurately Boyarin's views. These edits may not respond to your concerns, but I would welcome knowing what you think, or if you want to discuss this further, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

CrazyRussian's RfA

File:Motherussia.jpg

Hello Avraham, and thank you for your support at my request for adminship, which ended with an awe-inspiring 86/1/2 result. I plan to do much with my shiny new tools - but I'll start slow and learn the ropes at first. Please deluge me with assignments and requests - I enjoy helping out. For Mother Russia!! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Avraham/Archive 2, thank you for voting in my RFA which failed eventually at a result of (91/51/8). I do not plan to run for adminship until a later date. Once again, I would like to thank you for voting. --Terence Ong _{(talk | contribs)} 15:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Request for mediation

I have submitted a dispute case both at : Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-13 Messianic Judaism and Requests_for_mediation#Messianic_Judaism

CowboyWisdom 16:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You do know that is is usual to bring things to the cabal first, and if that doesn;t work, you ask for informal intervention, and if that doesn't work you go to the mediatiion committe, and if all else fails, you go for arbitration. Thus, in our case, I suggest we start with the cabal, and not jump to the committee.

Secondly, you submitted the cabal request completely incorrectly. As a matter of WP:AGF, I redid the entire request to conform with Wiki policy. Please check it. -- Avi 16:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

I appreciate the help! I tend to forge ahead into unknown territory without a map! 8-) --CTSWyneken 19:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Apologies

Sorry, when I looked at first at the diff it looked like there were massive changes to the text. Jakew 12:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

R' Hirsch

C.Wr. Vol. XI page 114—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shykee (talk • contribs) 11:15, June 16, 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Avi 16:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't sign my comment. Slight rush... Good Shabbos. Shykee 18:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)shykee

My mistake, Volume VI. Shykee 18:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)shykee

Actuary

I am not going to pass or fail this GA nominations, but please see WP:CITE and use only one form of citation, it gets hard to see what is referencfed and what isn't. It would be prefered if you used the HTML embedded text format on as explained of WP:Cite. Thanks False Prophet 03:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If you look, you will see that the embeddes option is not used for citations, but for a footnote. All citations are in-line format, which is preferred according to WP:GA and WP:FA. -- Avi 04:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Actuary

The inline external links are in this same section, Academic actuarial programs that I am wishing you would turn into brilliant prose or remove altogether since it isn't encyclopedic as it now stands for advertisement. All else in the article is fine. Lincher 06:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Secondly, please rework the lead section to remove the list. And also remove the lists throughout the text as it is not encyclopedic inside a text in prose and doesn't look nice on every browsers (especially the text-only browsers ... the indentations of each lines are messy). Lincher 06:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, done. Do I need to re-list? -- Avi 07:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need for lists in encyclopedic articles. So every listed items should be turned into brilliant prose. If lists are to stay, they should meet the list criteria and be dumped onto another page. Lincher 13:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I meant re-list on WP:GAN 8-) -- Avi 15:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

For sure, go through the few missing things and pop back to GAN when you think it should pass. Lincher 17:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Your userpage

Cydebot broke it, I think. I'll look into Actuary later. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

Thanks for voting! Hello Avraham/Archive 2, and thank you so much for voting in my recent RfA. I am pleased to inform you that it passed with a final tally of (119/1/3), into the WP:100, so I have now been cleared for adminship and will soon be soaring above the clouds. I was overjoyed, shocked, and humbled by the tally, and, most importantly, all the support. Thank you. If there is ever anything you need, you know where you can find me. Take care.

--Pilot|guy 22:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Society of Actuaries

i noticed your editing out references to other actuarial organizatons. ok with me. However, the SoA is a driving force in North America as well as internationally in getting all the the actuarial organizations working together and working with higher standards. i need to get the scope of this effort properly reflected in the article. a large number of new entrants into the society were born outside the usa. it is important for them to understand the scope of these efforts because it creates future job opportunities for them and other future inquiries into wikipedia. one way to accomplish this is to link to websites, but i would prefer not to do that. joebrophy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Josephbrophy (talk • contribs) 23:04, June 20, 2006 (UTC)

avi; thanx for your thoughts and recommendations. it is important to give priorty to spouse and study time. i will continue to study the wiki protocols. I will continue to add material to the SoA site with the knowledge you will continue to make suggestions. joe 15:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

avi: here is a dilemma. the Society of Actuaries will give be permission to copy any material from any publication or website that they have created. however if the material is edited by me or any one else, then all bets are off. is there any way around this dilemma? they told me i can write about anything from them, if i put everythign in my own words. of course, this is not a problem for me. but it does raise a question. If i use a quote from some celebrity and someone else in wiki modifies the quote - than what happens? what are the protocols with repsect to "permission to use pictures or exact wording.?" joe 00:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC) joebrophy

Avi: thank you, that is the answer i wanted to hear. i hope i am properly signing these exhanges. joebrophy joe 03:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Avi: i don't bruise easily so do what you need to do to make everything fit better. i have a lot of info that i need to put someplace. so rather than driving you crazy with questions, i will insert info where i think they make sense. knowing of course that you will find the right home for them'

i noticed that the wiki listing on mathematics, mathematical finance, and probabily theory did not make any reference to actuary. so i added the word actuary to the text of probability theory to see what happens. i will also add some content to mathemtics and mathematical finance. i noticed that there was not listing for "branches of mathematics". the listing for mathematics trys to cover the subject but their writeup is boring and just one lost paragrahp. although there are some neat sections to the listing. i would like to insert some examples of actuarial notation in the listing on mathematics. i never know whose turf i am stepping on.

i am reading the reference material in wiki to fully grasp its concepts and editing rules and protocols. joe 14:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

messianic

Thank you for that award! That was nice jbolden1517^Talk 14:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Actuary

I agree fully. I think the article is improving well. Lincher 17:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's fairly good, but from long experience on FAC, I can tell you it won't pass without some substantial changes. I'd recommend replacing it on PR and soliciting some wider opinion. Specifically it has POV problems in claiming actuaries are the most important, qualified, etc. It also doesn't even mention risk management which actuaries could be said to be an important part of, with risk management as the broad umbrella area of knowledge. Also there's the perception that actuaries are typically the number crunchers only, and others actually make the decisions, whereas this article paints it as actuaries running the show. Finally actuarial science is something that has a wealth of books and other reliable sources published on it, but the article currently doesn't cite many/enough. I could look for more if you'd like more suggestions of things to polish up, but I wanted to let you know there were issues to fix before FAC was a good idea. - Taxman ^Talk 21:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for you input. I'll comb through the article again for those waesel word issues; I guess I missed a bunch. Also, it does mention risk management, bith in the lead and in "non-traditional" My fear is that going into to much detail threatens to overwhelm the article. Also, most books are about Actuarial science, not the Actuary themselves. There are plenty of books on lifecon/cas prob/freq sev issues etc. Gosh knows I had to read a bunch getting my letters, but that deals with the WORK, which is properly contained in Actuarial science, IMO, and not Actuary. However, I do defer to your expertise, and will try to get some more sources in. Do you really think is best to put it back on PR? -- Avi 21:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

REINSURANCE AND SOCIAL INSURANCE

Avi:

i cant find your recent reply to me re the above captioned subjects.

the underlying risks are similar but the actuarial skill sets are quite different. for example, all the "old" guys like jack moorhead and bob meyers get involved in social insurance. the size of the risks are enormous, and the quantification is vague because of politics. look at the 9/11 WTC

years ago there was very little difference between an insurance company and a reinsurance company. but that has changed. look at the 911 WTC loss. forgot about what the contract says; judges and politicians can reinterpret them any way that is convenient for them. in my judgement, the actuarial skill set for senior actuaries in reinsurance is much more challenging than regular insurance.

since we are focusing on 'actuary' i believe it is important to show or hint at the tremendous breadth of business and societal risks that our profession has to cope with.

this seems to me also to require a new page about types of risk, and also about the tools we use that go far beyond life and other contgencies. not to mention chaos and complexity theory.

i will get back to this later in the afternoon. i am trying to fix one of my disfunctional computers.

joe 16:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Actuary review

Hi Avi, just to let you know, that I have been getting your messages; I've been a bit busy but will give the article my full attention for a review by the end of this week. Thanks. --Zoso Jade 12:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)