User talk:Avraham/Archive 23

< Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24 >

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 -  57 -  58 -  59 -  60 -  ... (up to 100)

What an honour!

[1] Thanks, that made me laugh! I saw earlier that you'd struck through your convo on the AfD, sorry I didn't have a chance to do it then (the joys of editing from work), but am heading over there now. I hope our paths cross again soon. Risker (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Renaming of account on fr.wp

Hi, I've renamed Avraham on fr.wp so that you can get the name, but I can't rename you there because of bug 13507. Since you have only a few contribs there, you can choose to drop that account. Anyway, Avraham is now reserved for you. Regards, Blinking Spirit (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome ^^ No problems to you redirecting Avraham-en to Avraham. Regards, Blinking Spirit (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Paul Draper by Alan Bree at Gang of Pour.JPG

Hi. Could you look into this image. The uploader says that a permission has been forwarded to OTRS. You removed the copright-tag in december with the edit summary Unacceptable tag, but OTRS discussion is pending. Has anything happened? Can you verify the {{attribution}}-template the uploader has tagged the image with now. Cheers. Rettetast (talk) 12:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC

I've started drafting a user conduct RfC that you might be interested in here. There's a lot of evidence to locate, sift through and present, so I think it will take awhile to get it put together. If you'd like to participate, please feel free to do so. Cla68 (talk) 06:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Jewish Buddhists

Hello, you recently deleted Category:Jewish Buddhists, citing the fact that it was the "recreation of deleted material"; could you please point me to where the original discussion was where consensus was reached to delete this category? I've been looking for it but cannot find it and the log for that page only lists one deletion (yours). You also said "equivalent reasoning given to Jewish Christians et. al.", but I can find a discussion for the Jewish Christians category but can't find this one. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Jewish Christians was deleted by sockpuppetry and restored by this drv as it happens. Occuli (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure?

Are you sure we should do this? Obviously both projects have articles that are related in someway, but there should be a limit. These figure are historical but not so much for Israel, but Palestine. Maybe Amin al-Husayni could be related to Israel, but adding tags to Arafat and Yassin is ridiculous. They are not Israelis, they don't live in Israel, they just fought against it. Its like putting a WikiProject America tag on Russia or vice versa. Where is the line? I also saw you added a tag to Bethlehem. Why? Rachel's tomb is in Israeli control, so put that article under WikiProject Israel, not the whole city. Thank you for allowing me to put project tags on the articles of Israeli figures, but like I said, the scope just gets too big. Thats why there's two separate projects. I really hope you understand. I will remove the tag from Bethlehem and add it to Rachel's tomb and same with Yasser Arafat. These are not "political statements", just common sense. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying about the NPOV factor, however, the article on Yasser Arafat is very NPOV (did most of the editing there myself) since it passed the FA review, as is Bethlehem which passed the GA review. I put a tag for Ashdod (once was an Arab city in Palestine named Isdud) and Mamilla, which was built with a mixed population while the area was Palestine. I'm still a wary of this tagging business, and I'll ask for the opinions of members on both projects in their talk pages. If there is a consensus then the tags will be untouched, if not, everything will be normal again ;). Cheers! --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Al Ameer son (talk • contribs) 14:16, March 31, 2008

I'm going to start it on WikiProject Israel, seeing that people actually respond to comments there. So I will state my argument for removing the tags and you will state your argument, correct? --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

I can has mop?

Hi Avraham/Archive 23! Thank you for your support in my RfA (87/3/3). I truely appreciate the many votes of confidence, and I will exert myself to live up to those expectations. Thanks again! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding "Speculations on Hindu connections" section ?

Hi. Why is my contribution to Sarah discussion page being repeatedly deleted? It is only a talk page, and my point seem logical. It may be worth thinking about it, so it should at least stay there, as a reminder. Regards, Miodrag.79.101.135.113 (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not to be used as a forum for speculation or synthesis. -- Avi (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Alas... Do we at least understand each other :-)

You said "Because Wikipedia is not to be used as a forum for speculation or synthesis..." That was not my intention at all. I do not want to discuss Sarah/Saraswati issue, here or anywhere else. I was pointing to a homework for Wikipedia editors. A job not well done.

First, about your speculation remark, take a look at here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Abraham#Speculations_on_Hindu_connections

where the very word speculation is being used.

Second, looking at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Abraham#Notes Notes section, you will find links, some of them opening pages like http://www.viewzone.com/abraham2.html where Saraswati was mentioned at the very top. But better link for Saraswati would be previous page, http://www.viewzone.com/abraham.html where Saraswati is mentioned at the very bottom. That is link #20 on Abraham page.

And link #19 opens http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/prophhs.html#brahma1 and the table with Brahma/Abraham and Saraswati/Sarah concept side by side. It is so obvious. So you can imagine my surprise when something so simple and benign was not only ignored, but even deleted, even on discussion page. In fact, first I wondered if that behavior was in good standing with Wikipedia policy, or was it maybe tenacious? The issue is so simple and comes down just to balancing the articles. If you want to stick with your policy, then remove the Abraham article section too. If Abraham speculation stays, Sarah should follow the suit. The parallel is so obvious that sooner or later it will come under the scope of public. My opinion is that you should ask some editor to add a missing section to Sarah article. My part here was only to point at the issue on the discussion page, but even that was removed? Regards, Miodrag. 79.101.135.113 (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You might want to check if this chap is related to the indefblocked "Mahamad" editor, User:DWhiskaZ. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I loved it!

Great April Fool's Day comments at RfA/RfB -- made me laugh! Majoreditor (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

Avi: You recently took Abbey Mills Mosque to GA, and congratulations! Just a question: the lead says the controversy was about the TJ's alleged connections to terrorism, and references a Daily Telegraph article. The article itself, however, dances around the issue carefully by quoting the French services on fundamentalism, and mentioning that the 7/7 bombers attended one of the TJ's mosques. Given that the DT thought that it should be phrased like that, are you open to rewording the link to bring it more in line with the source? Prioritising fundamentalism, I mean, which appears to be the mainstream concern. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what I said; I will follow up in a bit, no rush. (Sometimes I think that people should almost always delay getting into an online discussion by a couple of days.)

Oh, by the way, thanks for rollback. Gave me quite a turn when I saw it the first time and didn't know where it came from :) --Relata refero (disp.) 20:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Advice

Hello Avi. A user has placed the {{POV check}} template on two articles that I've worked on (Bahrain and History of Bahrain). Apparently, this tag "nominates" an article for a review of its neutrality by a third party. Is there a process that makes sure someone reviews the page and gets the issue over with? What if no one shows up to review it? Does the tag then just stay there forever? I'm just at a loss as to how to resolve this issue and where to post about it, especially when the only reason stated by the person who placed the tag was that the articles "contain many half-truths and fringe theories," without the slightest explanation of what these objectionable half-truths and fringe theories are. Even if he later on gives more specific reasons, how do we decide once and for all that something stated in the article is or is not a "fringe theory." Thank you. -- Slacker (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A proposal

Hi Avi,

Could you please take a look at my proposal here [2].

I think this is important. You know how much Bible has come under criticism... I think this is important given the current waves of secular attacks on all religions. Thanks in advance.--Be happy!! (talk) 07:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Jewish terrorism

I have responded to your allegations of Original Research on Talk:Religious_terrorism. The content that I added was attributed and cited to a reliable source. Maybe you would like to read WP:OR and if you still think this is original research, then explain why. 129.215.37.141 (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Smackbot adding reflist marker to articles using another accepted reference method

See here. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The article uses both styles. If you could cenvert the <ref> tag, then you could remove the <references />. Rich Farmbrough, 19:24 6 April 2008 (GMT).

Rashid Khalidi

I hope you'll come back and look at the small discussion now underway.Whig historian (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Whig historian

We've clashed in the past, but I appreciate your self-revert. The LAT article does complicate the discussion of whether Massad was in the PLO - though I'm still very doubtful - but the quotes from the party are quite simply irrelevant. Your comments on the talk page would be appreciated. Kalkin (talk) 03:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Grin

I like how you've started wikilinking the essay now, to avoid stupid questions! --Relata refero (disp.) 15:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course! That's why I knew I'd read it before..... I couldn't remember how even when you mentioned it before. --Relata refero (disp.) 16:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

My RFA has closed

My RFA that you weighed in on earlier has closed as no consensus to promote, at a final tally of 120/47/13. I thank you for your feedback and comments there, and I'm going to be considering all the various advice and comments presented. I might end up at RFA again some day, or not. If you see me there again in the future, perhaps you might consider a Support !vote. If not, not, and no hard feelings. The pen is still mightier than the mop! See you around, and thanks again. Lawrence § t/e 18:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)