Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Wish to back up your accusations with explanations of how I'm violating either? Bulldog123 16:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not my own opinion but also the opinion of the canvasser, who apparently did a very fine job of picking out people who had a history of keep voting. If you somehow believe your opinion and the opinions of all the others are generally representative of wikipedia, then you're suggesting the canvasser selected you all randomly. Is this what you are implying? If not, then others are quite literally obligated to point out when votes come from a non-neutral sect. Nobody is saying your opinion isn't worthy of being heard, but it shouldn't be confused with the opinion of the majority of wikipedians. All that I have said it copied straight from the note_a_vote template. And for some reason you choose to admonish me instead of those campaigning to get a category kept on wikipedia just for their own kicks. Bulldog123 20:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm here to apologize. I think I mistakenly confused you as one of those being canvassed. I can't seem to find a link to Epeefleche canvassing you and I could have sworn there was one, but if there wasn't I'm really sorry. That wasn't my intent at all. Now I understand why you pointed out WP:AGF and WP:NPA to me. Sorry again. Bulldog123 17:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. 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.--Gerash77 16:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Though I passed enough SOA exams to become an ASA. But I've never practiced on the life side. Thanks again for using the archive tags on the footnote. I didn't even notice them. Casey Abell 17:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for a response following your allegations of "vandalism" [1]. Can you show how the article documented Yassin's "antisemitism" before I removed the category.

Alternatively you can admit that you were mistaken, and we can move on.Bless sins 18:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just make a straightforward response by pointing out the exact sentence involving yassin in antisemitism that existed prior to this edit? It seems that you didn't have any reason for calling me a vandal.Bless sins 19:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

In the future I suggest you refrain from calling others WP:Vandals for legitimate edits. It's really offensive.Bless sins 19:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

While I thank for withdrawing you comment accusing me of being a vandal, I still think that your comments are offensive. I did not "make any non-neutral point-of-view deletions to the content or categories of Wikipedia articles". The category I deleted was unsourced (i.e. there were no sources in the article justifying the use of that category). Thus I did not do anyhting wrong. Tell me: is it wrong to delete unsourced content?Bless sins 20:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.--Pejman47 19:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Avi. I'm not quite sure why you archived the DNA debate section on the Palestinian people page [2], particularly when the current debate discusses the DNA evidence and other issues surrounding Palestinian ethnic and genetic heritage. That section might have been useful to have on view for others who want to participate in the debate and not retread the same old ground, no? How can we rectify the situation? Any suggestions? Tiamut 19:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

My deletion on the "Human Rights in Israel" page were not vandalism, as you rudely implied. If you had bothered to read my comment in the deletion, you would have noticed what I correctly pointed out: the deleted text appears verbatim in the "main article" page that was linked from right under the header of this section. The duplicate text is redundant. If you disagree, simply let me know so we can have a discourse on the matter, rather than accusing me of vandalism. Anyhow, you're clearly not one to talk about edit-etiquitte, seeing as how you seem to be engaged in edit wars yourself (as I see on other users's comments on your talk page). I don't do such things. My deletion was absolutely called for. Next time, read the comment on the "history" page, and if you have an issue with it we can have a civilized discussion rather than proceeding in revert wars back and forth. I don't totally mind whether or not the text stays (though I maintain that I had reason to delete it due to verbatim between the two pages, which are already linked). So I will leave it be in its reverted state. If you have any questions, feel free to let me know.

By the way, given your headstrong actions and also what I've read on your page about your edit wars, you seem to be a rather volatile wiki editor. As such, I will be keeping an eye on your editing actions in the future.

Also, I just saw that you deleted an entire paragraph of constructive discussion of mine from the Amnesty International talk page, with no explanation. It's the talk page! I was trying to help! I am going to report you to an administrator if your childish behavior persists. Anyhow, your total deletion of my comment on the discussion page is clearly much closer to "vandalism" than any edits I've ever done. As such, your actions indicate hypocrisy of the highest order. 70.107.12.147 12:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Avi, can you please explain your edits at the Israel page in the talk where you deleted a reliably sourced entry that explained that Israel's borders are undefined? I did solicit responses on why that was being deleted. It would be nice if you would participate rather than just jump in to delete without explanation. And no, an edit summary is not a sufficient explanation. Tiamut 07:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I had a similar problem with Avi, who deleted a whole bunch of text I put on a discussion page with no explanation. If you check the recent history of my edits and his, you will see that my comment on the discussion page was perfectly constructive and intended to help the page by eliminating bias; you will also see that he provided no explanation for the deletion. Watch out for this guy. I'll be monitoring him in the future myself. If you browse through his archives it's clear that he has an extensive history of this sort of behavior. Check his edit records: needless to say, he is ideologically motivated to the point of hard-liner obstinacy and thus needs to be kept in check. 70.107.12.147 12:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

OK and thanks for your note, really I didn't know that. anyway using {{Wikibreak}} can serve the point in this cases. by the way they seem delicious!, I hope I will find the opportunity to taste them one day!:)take care---Pejman47 16:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I did look at WP:EL before removing this link from several articles. Did you look at the discussion on User talk:Careercornerstone that I mentioned in my edit summary? The user convinced me it is legit: non-profit, no ads, useful info, supported by most major professional societies, including [3], and has info directly applicable to article that is not in the article. This isn't my site, but please reconsider. --barneca (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss this a little more before deleting everything; I did that myself. It can't hurt to wait a few minutes to discuss before deleting. --barneca (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I re-read it. I agree that per that paragraph, User:Careercornerstone should not have added the link themselves. However, in the course of my discussion with them, I was convinced it is appropriate, for reasons listed above. Can I not be considered a "neutral and independent Wikipedia editor", as also mentioned in that same section? Seems a shame to add, delete, add, and now delete again. --barneca (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Avi, one more comment and then I will stop bugging you. I felt exactly the same way, and deleted all the links a few hours ago myself. The user complained, and I looked again. This is not some trick. I looked at this About page, and see it is supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. It has contributions from numerous professional societies, which I won't reproduce here, but which are listed on the About link above.

This may be moot, since another editor has gone and finished what you were doing. But assuming you look into this AND agree with me AND care, what would you suggest that I suggest to the original user? I feel slightly responsible for the mass removal of their link, as I was the first person to call it "mass spamming" in my edit summary, based on my own smell test. All I can come up with is they bring it up on every single talk page, and see if they can get someone uninvolved to add the link. --barneca (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You nominated five templates to be deleted here. I have closed the debate as delete, and I'm going to delete the four templates which have already had their transclusions removed. You mention in the nomination that the fifth template has many more transclusions and it will take a while to remove them all. I really appreciate the time it takes you to remove the transclusions. When the fifth is untranscluded, could you just drop me a note on my talk page so I can delete the last? Thanks. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

I'm sorry about the revert on Palestine police I've seen alot of vandalism on Middle East articles and I believed that this is what that was.--William Henry Harrison 03:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like for you delete what you put on my talk page and refrain from using uncivility--William Henry Harrison 03:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I tell you I'm sorry and then I get the message I saw on my talk page. You should use better edit summaries than, " (Unfortunately, Abnn seems to be correct. Website is taken from a book according to the bottom of site)" I am patrolling recent changes and when I see that much of a change on that article I am suspect to see foul play. I saw the tag you put and I believed that it was vandalism. Please remove the now 2 uncivil comments that you put on my talk page.--William Henry Harrison 03:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"blindly reverting", "I'm sorry that polite requests make you uncomfortable; please suggest how you would have worded it", " I cannot seem to be finding it." I see these as uncivil. Now lets get back to work so that we can do something constructive. It was pretty obvious that what I did was an accident, Now drop it, remove the uncivility from my talk page and lets get back to work.--William Henry Harrison 03:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I do thank you for handling that copyright issue properly and I apologize that you had to go through a backlash to do it. I had actually reverted the above user but it seemed that we did it as the same time because it didn't show up in the history, just your revert. --Abnn 05:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What attack site policy? -- Kendrick7^talk 16:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, OK my bad. PR's paranoid enough without strange edits to his talk page without explanation, though. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Avi. It's turning into rather an interesting project! --Ian Pitchford 17:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. You are very generous Avi! --Ian Pitchford 06:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing controversial about the fact the above-referenced individual did not publish a singe work of scholarship. It is a known fact to all. 67.81.154.219 14:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it is HIGHLY relevant information that goes to his credibility in calling himself a Rabbi. It does not serve to disparage the subject as much as it serves to establish facts--facts which is known to everyone. It can harldy be called original research.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.154.219 (talk • contribs) 11:51, May 30, 2007

I am not sure of the correct place to report this, however I saw that you were dealing with 67.81.154.219 so I thought that you can help me out with this. This anonymous user has referred to me as a "messianic lunatic" in an edit summary of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elazar_Shach&diff=134561204&oldid=134560931 because I reverted his removal of sourced information and his addition of unsourced pov information. From what I can see from his history of contributions, he has a history of disruptive editing. Please take a look and let me know what to do. Thanks. Chocolatepizza 15:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I also think that this may be User:DavidCharlesII based on their reciprocal blankings of each others warnings. Chocolatepizza 15:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It was not an atack. I merely edited words like "disgusting" and "egotistical" from the page, along with other items that have nothing to do with the subject. If you have messianic problems, I am sorry you take offense to it. The point is, it is clear from your edits that npov matters is not your issue, as you would allow the abovementioned words to be used in your proposed edit. All my information is sourced and covered EXTENSIVELY in Wikipedia itself--including its article on Messianiac Lubavitch. Unless, of course, you try to edit that, too. Finally, I have no idea who Rabbi David Charles (that what he was called on the Yisroel Dovid Wiess article) is, but I imagine that he cleared certain incorrection impressionas about me; incorrect impressions that you--someone who called words like "disgusing" sourced and pov--are disingenuously attempting to bring up because of your unbalanced theological and political positions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.154.219 (talk • contribs) 11:51, May 30, 2007

Please reply with the parts of my edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elazar_Shach&diff=prev&oldid=134580766 that you felt was not correct. Obviously adding in the chabad response to the shabtzi tzvi claim, is sourced and is not a problem. And the removal of the anon's unsourced pov language, I do not believe is a problem either. There is the part about why Elazar Shach did not like Chabad, however I did not add this, this was added by someone else. I was just reverting his edits as a whole. Are you alright with the old version without this paragraph? Chocolatepizza 15:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC) This is something you should discuss with me on the discussion page. I would be glad to work this out with you and explain my reservations concerning your edits. I am impressed that you at least acknowledged that the "sourced" information about Rav Shach being egotistical and the like was inappropriate. You had no right to let that in if your concerns were rooted in npov.

for the roecrd, and as a courtesy to you, even though you have been thoroughly discourteous to me, I would add that the what Chabad apologists have to say in response to Rav Sahc (and everyone else's) problems with the deification and the so called messianiship of the Rebbe is discussed in exhaustive detail on the subject of . . . Messianic Lubavitchism. This is not only reduntant, but it also takes away the focus from the subject and his views. 67.81.154.219 16:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that your checkuser request appears to be non-compliant because there is no evidence that DavidCharlesII is community banned (just previously blocked for 48 hours in March). If so, code F is incorrect. Maybe a G code? VK35 16:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

this is an enormous chutpzah. This has nothing to do with David Charles. I don't understand why there is so much muddling here. YOu are responsible, as someone portending to be an editor who is eliminating my perfectly sources and pov observations (as i it is all in Wikipedia) to delete the obviously obnoxious wording. You did not. That says a lot. That's the only issue. 67.81.154.219 16:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to VK35, ChocolatePizza, or myself? Regardless, I ave requested the Checkuser be delisted as DC2 has not been permabanned, and even if the two of you are the same (which it appears from your contributions) it would not matter, as there has been no 3RR violation.

Note-When I say the "two of you are the same", I do not mean that you are DC2, but the DC2 edits from the IP 67.81.154.219 and others in that range. So, while YOU may not be DC2, the IP may be used by DC2, and in Wikipedia policy's eyes, that has to be considered in terms of 3RR and block evasions. You may wish to register your own account to prevent being caught in a block should DC2 use the IP to evade certain rules. -- Avi 16:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

But DC2 did not do anything here. Its COMPLETELY irrelevant. Why should he be blocked, he obviously did nothing wrong now. This whole "investigation" makes no practical sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.154.219 (talk • contribs) 12:17, May 30, 2007

If the IP is used by DC2, that needs to be known as DC2 has a history of using sockpuppets on articles. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of DavidCharlesII -- Avi 16:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, as I have written I had not added this, I was reverting his entire changes, as he had been removing sourced info and adding much unsourced and pov info. I will be more careful in the future. Chocolatepizza 16:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you reverted his changes, as they certainly should not stay, minus that paragraph. Chocolatepizza 16:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking to me?67.81.154.219 16:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I am talking to Avraham, however this applies to you as well. Chocolatepizza 16:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

this is news to me, as you did not explain which of my points were unsourced. When was the last time you read the article on Lubavitch Messianiasm? My langauge is not only neutral, unlike the language you let it, its also sourced there. You had not business reverting it, allowing that completley off the wall language in there.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.154.219 (talk • contribs) 12:16, May 30, 2007

I have adjusted some of the contentious language in the article. Both of you please look at it. -- Avi 16:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts, The chabad response should be in full just like the attack is, the God part came later, not in the yated articles, and most leaders did not voice the same concerns. Chocolatepizza 16:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elazar_Shach&oldid=133366070 without the reason for disagreements http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elazar_Shach&diff=132710672&oldid=130437073 would be the long standing consensus. Chocolatepizza 16:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe the apologies are needed. Chabad's claims are addressed in Chabad. I do voice my objection to the deletion of R' ahron and other gedolim--as this was not the sole opinion of Rav Shach. Many gedolim objected to some parts of Lubavtich practices, even R' Yoel.

I think it is valuable to add WHY Rav Shach thought of Lubavitch the way he did--just like R' Yaakov and others--by explinaing the messianic overtones. Merely writing that he once called Lubavitch the closest to Judaism makes him look like a bully, and probably was written with that intention.

But I am glad that you consented to the balance of my concerns.

• I took out R' Hutner and R'Aaron, et al., as that properly belongs in the article on Chabad controversies, and not the article on R' Shach. If you can bring quotes about R' Shach HIMSELF why he felt what he felt, then fine. But bringing other people's opinion and making the connection to R' Shach is original synthesis.
• For a similar reason I did not bring all the details about the Chabad rejoinder, that too properly belongs in the Chabad controversy article.
• About the deification, I'm somewhat uncertain of that. I know R' Shach was even more aganist that than the Moshiach aspects (according to his philosophy, the latter is misguided, the former is avoda zara, violations of Ain Lo Dmus HaGuf, V'aino Guf to quote Yigdal which is a paraphrase of the Rambam's Yud-Gimel Ikarim), but I don't see that we have sources for that, so a fact tag is warranted at the very least.

-- Avi 16:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"THE definition of Zionism" implies one true definition. But Zionism is defined different ways by different people. I personally would define it in terms of the Disapropriation and Exile of the Palestinian people. On an article on Anti-Zionism we should either provide a definition acceptable to Anti-Zionists, or perhaps just link to the Zionism article itself. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think Zionism is defined in different ways by different people? I'm assuming you're talking about the ways Zionists define Zionism, of course; anti-Zionists don't get to define Zionism, just as those opposed to Islam don't get to define it. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Shalom Jayjg,

Funny finding you here. It is very kind of you to answer my message to Avraham on his behalf. (I hope he doen't mind). Yes, I noticed that Zionists get to define Zionism and everything else in Wikipedia. But seriously if Zionists get the exclusive right to define Zionism, do anti-semites get to define Antisemitism, neo-nazis get to define neo-nazism etc. Or would it not be better (and more in line with WP policies) for WP to reflect the range of opinions present in reliable sources. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 09:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Abu Ali, you are treading on the line of argumentum ad hominem. Wikipedia editors are the oneswho are engaged in creating the encyclopedia, not "Zioninsts", "Anti-Zionists", "Neo-Nazis", etc. Please refrain from judgementally assigning people to categories and then arbitrarily judging/denouncing them due to any pre- or mis-conceptions you may have. Please conebtrate on building the encylopedia collegially with your fellow editors. Thank you. -- Avi 12:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Avraham,

If you re-read the above dialogue, you will see that I was answering Jayjg's comment "anti-Zionists don't get to define Zionism, just as those opposed to Islam don't get to define it", and not engaging personal attack. Take it easy... ابو علي (Abu Ali) 13:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. I thought I had reverted the insertion of that pic, but I didn't revert far back enough. Very inappropriate picture. nadav (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

When you edited IP 67's talk page on R' Soloveitchik and said to review the soapbox thing, were you referring to me or him? --Yodamace1 14:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Nm, just read your "both of y'all" comment. K, I hear where you're coming from. B'seder, I'll keep my tone calm. However, he was violating Wiki policy by deleting the name and I will make sure that is clear. Kol Tov. --Yodamace1 14:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Avi,

I would like to invite you to the First Annual New York Wikipedian Central Park Picnic. This one is not on Shabbos. R.S.V.P. @ Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC -- Y not? 15:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Avi. An editor who is subject to a community block requested arbitration in the matter. I was called as an party to the arbitration, even though I didn't have anything to do with his block. Within the arbitration, the individual has brought up something you wrote on an AN/I I posted about the User:Rbj. Your comment is being used by the editor to make a point that he wasn't anti-semitic, which really is not relevant to his block or to his arbitration. I actually didn't know you made a comment to the AN/I. I do agree with whether the name should be written like that, especially on an electronic screen. And writing the name without the dash is not cause for claiming anything, other than a matter of personal preference. Where I disagree with you is on the action itself in that context. I have been editing and posting to Creationist and Evolution category articles for months. I ALWAYS write G_d in this manner. It actually was discussed why I did so. The editors change of my words was, in effect, anti-semitic, because the edits had only one purpose, to intentionally change what I had written (which in itself is against policy of Wikipedia). Moreover, being Orthodox, Conservative or Reform does not give one editor or another special rights to determine what may or may not be offensive. In most contexts, I might agree with you. In the context of the edits in the Intelligent Design article is was offensive to me. However, the editor is using your commentary as being the definitive thought on the matter. You may or may not have more religious education or training than I do, you may or may not have a family background that gives you less sensitivity than it does me. But it is wrong for you to make a statement that just because you are an Orthodox Jew, you have a better say on the matter than I might. That violates the culture of Wikipedia, but it also demeans what I may or may not believe. I am no less a Jew than you, but your edits seem to indicate otherwise. And now your one-person POV is being used to dismiss a whole set of inappropriate, disruptive and, yes, anti-semitic edits. And several people, Jews, atheists, Christians, whatever jumped on User:Rbj at the same time. Anyways, I'm not here to fight you on this matter, I just think there are other POV's on the whole matter. Orangemarlin 19:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Your reply: My stating my religious upbringing was solely for context; it does not give me any special "rights" in wikipedia, but would indicate that I may have a specialized knowledge of normative halakha that other editors may not have. I am sorry that you seem to have taken it out of context, and that has caused you some manner of upsetness. -- Avi 19:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I do understand that you have an upbringing that might be quite different than mine. In fact, I can guarantee it given that I was the son of military officer, and lived in places where I actually didn't know anyone else who was Jewish, and kosher food was something I read in a book. My point here was two-fold. One, anti-semitism is not based on religious law or doctrine--the point was not whether I choose to spell G_d in any particular way; the point was that RBJ changed my spelling as a matter of spite and, frankly, anti-semitic behavior. However, that could be a matter of interpretation, although a review of his edits would indicate at the minimum he's uncivil. My second point, and probably more important one, your comment is now being used to state that I am wrong that it could be interpreted as anti-semitism. I think that's a matter of debate. Otherwise, I am most certainly not upset by what you wrote, just how it is being used. You interpreted the action differently than I did, and now he is using your commentary as a whole defense to his behavior. Orangemarlin 20:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Indefinite block of User:Rbj for information about the arbitration.Orangemarlin 20:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you at all be able to provide some good sources for the unsourced section of Zionist Entity? It may need a rewrite. Thanks for any help. The Behnam 21:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that an article that you commented upon recently asking if it should go up for Good Article Review is currently under GAR. I don't know what your position is, but thought you might want to know.Balloonman 22:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Avraham,

In Islam and antisemitism, you archived all the discussion that was under way! Can you please put it back. Nobody wants to start the discussion all over again. Please put back everything below (and including) the "Trends" section. ThanksBless sins 02:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't. If Bless sins wants to change something in the article, he should propose it briefly on the Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins (and others)already proposed (and discussed in detail) what they want to change in the article in the discussion page before it was archived. Dear Avraham, I hope you note that you protected the article as it was edited by Jayjg. I think this is not a good choice since all the points disputed by Jayjg are absent now (including the Trends section), while all the points disputed by Bless sins (and the others) are protected within the article!!! --Wisamzaqoot 20:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

m:The wrong version -- Avi 21:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Avi, can you add the {{Antisemitism topics|state=collapsed}} template to the bottom of the page?--sefringle^Talk 03:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--sefringle^Talk 03:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

When you archive you need to move the article rather than copying and pasting which may violate the GFDL. Help:Archiving a talk page gren グレン 04:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

First option given is the cut and paste -- Avi 13:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Geez, I should read before I post. I could have sworn it used to be that you couldn't do that since you need page history to satisfy GFDL. I am either really out of touch or never in touch in the first place. Carry on and pardon me. :) --gren グレン 17:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you help this problem? (from Template_talk:trans11). Thanks in advance --Nopetro 19:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Appeared a problem. See it at http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Trans11 . When you give less than 11 parameters, appears blank headers and there is no space between trans-bottom and the next trans-top. --Mac 07:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Avraham. You protected the page Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley on June 6 for two weeks and that protection has expited. An editor recently posting at BLPN - Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley expressed concern about this protection expiring. Would you please review the situation and consider whether you would like to extend protection of the page? Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing. 196.2.124.251 (an account, IP address or range of addresses) was blocked by Avraham for the following reason (see our blocking policy): IP vandalism Your IP address is 196.2.124.251, and your block has been set to expire: 20:21, 29 September 2007. The above is what I get if I leave my keyboard for more than 10 minutes. If you are the person responsible for this state of affairs, then I really think that you should look more closely at the negative consequences of your system. It is driving me demented!! Paul venter 15:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)