As I wrote in the "Messianic Jews" Discussion page:

I've looked into this Berkley book, and it seems to me that it should be treated as entirely unreliable on the issue at hand. To begin with, the discussion of Messianic Jews is entirely tangential to the main topics of the book, and is based on no particular expertise. More important, the book itself is not a scholarly source, but an off-the-wall polemic. Here's how Publisher's Weekly described it: "Berkley, who is Jewish, a member of B'nai B'rith and author of Vienna and Its Jews, has written a freewheeling, brashly opinionated, anecdote-filled, sometimes entertaining cultural history of the Jews that is certain to irk and provoke. In his opinion, Jews tend to be assertive and prickly; they have an often desperate need for recognition and respect; a fractious people, driven by disunity, they give generously, but rarely anonymously, and have a "near-obsession with food." The typical Jewish family, he says, features a dominant mother, a relatively weak father and a high degree of solicitude for its children. These and other uneasy generalizations border on stereotypes." Similarly, the Library Journal writes: "His book suffers from several problems. On some issues, such as civil rights and homosexuality, Berkley constructs straw men that he easily demolishes. He often fails to do justice to the complex issues and gives little attention to how modern arguments relate to Jewish history and tradition." In other words, unless we would be willing to take this author as a "reliable source" for all the other bizarre things he says, we should not take him as a "reliable source" for an off-hand comment about Messianic Judaism. Again, I need to emphasize that I am not saying this as a "defender" of Messianic Judaism. Quite the contrary. But the first duty of Wikipedia should be accuracy....

I have a broader question. What makes a source "reliable"? The mere fact that it's published? The mere fact that it appears on Google Books? I'm a professor at a major American university. If I wrote a scholarly article in which my only standard for whether a source was "reliable" was whether that source was published somewhere, I'd be laughed out of the profession. P.D. 13:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Responded on article talk. -- Avi 16:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not vandalism pls use the correct language. and dont violate the civil code. and assume good faith.Do you think i have a POV, a living person with 5 related tags surrounding 1 or 2 events. further more wiki is dynamic and is not fix where the debate cannot be restarted, esp since Ann Coulter debate has caused the entire tag system to be questioned.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 20:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there was no COI. But I am left wondering; is Jayjg now authorized to dish out 'educational' blocks against perceived irredeemable violators that he has edit conflicts with? If so... alas. The Behnam 08:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand about that Moshe but I mean, should I now expect Jayjg to dish out a 24-hour block based upon that pretext? Is he now authorized? The possible abuse of power was brought up but not resolved. You closed it but the conclusion did not detail the ruling for that matter. The Behnam 08:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al

Administrators are trusted members of the Wikipedia community and are expected to show good judgment. Administrators should in particular avoid actions that are likely to be disruptive. Administrators are not to use their tools in any dispute in which they are directly involved

. As for the question of COI, the decision that there was no COI was made on the basis of refutation of strawman arguments, without me being given the opportunity to explain the reason for the COI. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 13:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

What about the question of educational blocks against editors who Jayjg is directly involved in a dispute with? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 13:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Avi,

I was just about to ask about CIRP links, when I noticed that WP:ATT does not seem to include that section. I've commented at WT:ATT#Loss of convenience links, if you're interested. Jakew 16:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually when I removed the vandalism it was Kirbytime's I was referring to Kirbytime's offensive comment in my talk page. See my response in his talk page.

I was under the impression that you could remove warning tags in your page once you've served your time. I know better now.

I posted that (slightly POV) message in Inigmatus' comment for 2 reasons: the first was so it would be clear to him, my closest associate on WP, what I thought about the matter, and the second was to remind him that he is to respect how wide the gamut of "Messianic Judaism" is and be as pluralistic as possible.

Lastly, I've posted a response to your questioning of the 5 citations in the talk page. Noogster 22:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Moishe Rosen is not a Messianic Jew according to almost anyone you ask that is a member of a Messianic congregation. This is no different from WP not classifying Messianic Judaism as a form of Judaism due to the fact that the established denominations reject it as such. Noogster 22:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Yisroel Dovid Weiss. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Specifically this extremely misleading edit.  ⇒ bsnowball  15:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, I had the ref refer to the wrong line. I fixed that now. Thanks! -- Avi 16:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

comedy. but this's just to ask you not to randomly edit other's talk pages. obviously if an attack has been left for a while the user concerned isn't bothered by it. & in case you're worried, i did put a warning template on the users t page. it's just they seem to slide off without any effect...  ⇒ bsnowball  16:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Since you appear to be lurking on Talk:Bryan Adams and seem to be smart, reflective admin (based on my readings of your various Wikipedia contributions), I'm wondering if you could comment... I'm trying hard to Assume Good Faith but I think User:Michelle1 may think she is being attacked for the content of her article changes rather than the process. Would you mind taking a quick look at my (search on "Dzubin" comments on Talk:Bryan Adams and tell me 1) if my comments make sense 2) if my comments can be read more as a complaint than being helpful. I'm trying to be nice and helpful, but I fear that Michelle1 may be taking them the wrong way and if so, I can try to change how I word things. Thanks. Thomas Dzubin _Talk 18:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your reply. I just wasn't sure if my "tone" was negative or not and I was thinking that she was picking up on a bad tone that I wasn't aware of. It's the old classic problem: always tough to communicate via email/blogs/talk pages 'cause you can't tell a person's body language or hear the subtle inflections in their voice. Thanks again. Thomas Dzubin _Talk 19:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

i thought i'd spell out what i meant, seeing as for some reason the message wasn't getting across. so you can get down from your high horse. happy to leave it for a while & hopefully the rfc will throw up something. tho i can't help thinking we're overdue for a bought of some real disruptive editing...   ⇒ bsnowball  20:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The blog quote is a reliable source from Larry's blog, the co-founder of Wikipedia. Please help. QuackGuru ^TALK 01:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you stop advising me to use a snadbox, and start discussing changes at the talk page of the article. Your edits are in clear violation of WP:BLP.Bless sins 04:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

On that contrary you should review BLP, as well as the article's talk page.Bless sins 04:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Instead of posting on my talk, why don't you respond to me on talk page of the article concerned.Bless sins 19:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for full protecting Brian McLaren. I was hoping to avoid a need for that, but User:Will3935 violated the cooling off period they agreed upon. I became involved on a request for a third opinion and tried mediating between them, encouraging calm (unsuccessfully). The atmosphere there is utterly vicious. I've [[expressed my disappointment to Will. Please be aware that there is a strong likelihood that Virgil is engaging in sockpuppet use, and I've reported why I feel that way. Thank you again for your intervention. Vassyana 06:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources: Harc a matematikával és a titkárnőkkel, Magyar Tudomany, March 2001. [1]. Let me remark, in passim, that, although this surely does not count as source, the sentences you removed, are widely known facts in Israel. Kope 12:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: attribution. It wasn't hard to find. It took me less than 2 minutes. If, however, you mean that it must be the case, that there is an easily available source ON THE GIVEN LANGUAGE (that is, on Croatian, on Charlotte Gainsbourg, say) then we are, my friend, in deep trouble. No kidding. Kope 16:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

re your latest example of ownership of weiss article: i justified the change from invective to the rational argument ha edah offered. also if you could be bothered looking any further than the negative sources you'd find that the claim about numbers is obviously false. there are one or two hundred supporters pictured demonstrating for weiss in the nk link. other people are attempting to engage in discussion, it would help if you could also do so.  ⇒ bsnowball  17:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• original synthesis does not rule out reasoning used to choose between sources
• your ownership problem consists of repeatedly refusing to discuss changes, bring up straw man arguments (ie pretending i was objecting to text in footnotes per se, rather than the content of that text) etc., & now your accusations of vandalism
• i 'bleed into the ad hominem'? yes, something about a pot & a kettle does spring to mind. if you have specific criticisms make them, rather than these vague insinuations & threatening rfc (last time i checked you needed specific complaints from 2 seperate users).  ⇒ bsnowball  18:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion works for me. It would take a huge clean up to fix. Blueboar 18:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your deletion nom on this article. I was overwhelmed trying to decide where to start straightening it out. Definitely the right call. Acdixon 19:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Most instances of 3RR (and other misconduct) I don't bother to report, and your response to Grandia01 report is a terrific example of why. I can only guess that admins are overworked and can't be bothered to read what is written. Half a year this guy has done this, warned again and again, reverted by dozens of editors. This is a joke. Do you have any idea how long it takes to get one of these reports together with background? A lot longer than it takes to revert four (or even twenty) times. Reporting sockpuppets is even more futile, but there, we can at least say that admins are maybe not always especially perceptive. With 3RR there is really no excuse particularly where edit warring has gone on since October 2006 with zero discussion. Meanwhile serious, active, good faith editors are subjected to all manner of prosecutorial measures. Since that time I've been RfCU'd twice, reported falsely for 3RR once, RfC'd (without certification) once - but with Grandia01, let our motto be, assume good faith!Proabivouac 07:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

A lot of sources have been tranfers to the talk and removed that were beneath the references. I suggest create a projectpage for editors to gather the refs for research purposes and it can also can be used as a sandbox. QuackGuru ^TALK 08:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! – Qxz 19:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Given that it is marked as "Resolved", I don't know if you are still monitoring the frivolous complaint made against me on the admin's noticeboard at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_Attacks_by_66.93.144.171

But I made a response there. I'm only alerting here to make sure it's read. Suffice it to say, the whole truth has not been told. - 66.93.144.171 20:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I see you've already had a word with him about this on his user page. Thanks Avi. SkipSmith 23:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm fully aware that polls aren't binding, but an issue that gets zero support in a poll is very obviously not going to get consensus. There have been about a dozen proposals along these lines since the Essjay drama, and discussion here indicates the community is strongly opposed to nearly all of them, including yours. Unilateralism has nothing to do with it. >Radiant< 14:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

which is part of the reason why I had already declined the nomination [2]. I had a suspicion that things might be heading in that direction. Thanks anyway for the notice. Tiamut 18:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have made repeated edits. I now have started a discussion on the article page. Please refute my comments rather than mindlessly deleting them, otherwise I will be forced ot refer yourelf to a BIAS board within Wikipedia. Robert C Prenic 17:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)]]

Refute me here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#.27wiped_off_the_map.27_quote Robert C Prenic 17:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is not consistent with our policy on attribution and verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Avi 16:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up:

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. -- Avi 17:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up to you:

Refute my arguments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#.27wiped_off_the_map.27_quote

I dare you. Robert C Prenic 17:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the censor/censure difference; I'm not a native English speaker, and sometimes my brain reverts to latin mode. Yet, despite my obvious mistake, it still made sense now that I researched the etymology and many meanings of the term.[3] One could make the case that Wikipedia editors are "public officials" and that you censured the anonymous coward by calling him a troll. But that's beyond the point at hand... I carefully reviewed the talk guidelines before reverting your deletion. The behavior is unacceptable, ok. But you don't have the right to delete it. Clearly, many people around the Ahmadinejad article expressed similar views in the past. Times and again, I was called an apologetic. That is as serious a personal attack could get, but deleting someone else's comments is just as unacceptable for me as making the attack in the first place.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire

Please check your facts. -- Avi 02:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Avi, my post was in reply to Littleman; To quote him "Anyone else not surprised this IP resolves to Iran?--Littleman_TAMU (talk) 08:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)". I just supported what Gerash77 said. I believe I indented it correctly and that it's a reply to Littleman.Lixy 18:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

One more thing. You say that the "Wiki allows censorship in certain cases". As far as I can tell, this policy don't extend to talk pages. Self-censorship is encouraged; Warnings and reminders are commonplace, but I've never seen anything support talk censorship in the guidelines. I'd be grateful if you could refer me to the specific section you drew that statement from. Thanks. Lixy 18:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. This is what I was looking for. [4] It appears that it was the subject of heated debate. But then again, what on Wikipedia isn't? Lixy 19:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Avraham,

As you've no doubt noticed, many Messianic Judaism related pages end up deleted, often for lack of good sources. I hope to help solve this problem. I have been a Wikipedia and Wikisource contributor for some time, and have contributed (somewhat irregularly) to articles that relate to Messianic Judaism. I have recently started a project on Wikisource, the Salvation of Israel Project with the aim of making available the writings of Messianic-Jews and Hebrew-Christians of ages past. This should go a long way to improve proper referencing of sources, and help prove notability. Feel free to check it out. Right now, the only text available on the project is History of the Ten Lost Tribes - Anglo-Israelism Examined by David Baron. God willing, other texts will follow.

I have an electronic copy of one of a work by Rabbi Jehiel Lichtenstein, (sometimes confused with Ignatz Lichtenstein) in Hebrew. It is his commentary on the New Testament. The Biblical text of the NT, in Hebrew, appears to come from Franz Delitzsch' translation of the NT. Though I understand more than merely that which begins with "Baruch Attah", I do not posses sufficient Hebrew skills to translate the work into English. As you are reasonably fluent in Hebrew (He-2), and a regular contributor to the WikiProject Messianic Judaism, I hope to enlist your aid, if you are kind enough to agree.

Also, have electronic copies of some of Ignatz Lichtenstein's untranslated German writings. As I speak no German, if you know someone who might be agreeable to volunteer to translate the remainder of his work into English for the project, that would be wonderful as well.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

—Wikijeff 03:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind moving said article to "Beit midrash" over the redirect? This is by far the most common spelling, much more so than the archaic "Beth" spelling. Thanks, DLand^TALK 19:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, will do.-- DLand^TALK 19:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Sorry for the blatant spam, but you have yourself down as interested at WikiProject user warnings WP:UW. There is a discussion on going here that might be of interest to you about the future of this project. There are two strawpolls on the talk pages and the second one is about the future of the WP:UW project. Now we have the end in sight we are looking at wrapping up the project and merging it with Template messages/User talk namespace WP:UTM and creating a one stop shop for all userspace template issue. As you have yourself down as interested in this project we thought you may have some input on this issue, and would like you to visit the discussion and give any thoughts you may have on the matter. Cheers ^Khukri 10:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't blank content from my talk page. Lordkazan 13:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

See WP:Canvas -- Avi 13:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for putting me back in the category. When I created this userbox, I thought it would automatically include me in the category but I guess it didn't work. Thanks again. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 05:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Assalamu alaikum and thankyou for your friendly welcome. I will try to heed your advice. Just out of Interest are you any connection to Israel, I notice your impressive Hebrew skills. --Asucena 15:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You have nominated the article for deletion, yet you are neutral about it [5]. Why nominate an article for deletion, when you don't want it to be deleted? I'll vote to keep it, but I can't make a counterargument, since there is noone making the argument to delete this in the first place.Bless sins 23:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is in a dire state but so almost all the articles on Chabad-Lubavithch topics. This man is very very notable. And hopefully I will get round to sorting out the article tomorrow. This nomination is absurd as this google news achive shows. His role as the right hand man and spokesman of Schneerson for 40 years and his stewardship of the organisation for the past 13 years makes him notable, not only the 165 newspaper articles, dozens of scholarly articles and books he is cited in. Please reconsider your nomination ans assist me in putting together the article. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 02:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)