1

←

5

6

7

8

9

10

→

15

20

30

40

50

60

Avi, I'm sorry to hear you've withdrawn your arbcom candidacy. You would have had my support. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 18:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Mine too, but it does take time. Fred Bauder 19:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you've withdrawn. Good luck with your new job. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 22:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Same here. and Have a Great Day, Take Care, --FloNight 12:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I can see the logic of placing bookmakers as practicioners of outcomes of games of chance, as being appropriate in the context of actuaries' development as a profession. You seem to delete such references. Why? Many professions have evolved from different backgrounds, and the reference to mathematicians' involvement in chance outcomes seems to be proof that gambling practicioners preceeded the actuarial professionals. Tayana 03:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. -- Avi 14:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Your response does not refute comment in context, but introduces "statistics" . Please explain clearly why I should not revert? Tayana 00:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

--- The use of statistics is universal in most disciplines and is irrevelant to the current discussion. Here we are talking about chance outcomes; of life expectancy or winning an event. Bookmakers(directly) along with acturies(or their employers) have a finincial interest in the outcome of chance events. Accordingly the comparison is relevant. Tayana 00:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic extremist terrorism. KazakhPol 04:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm being disingenuous? Correct me if I'm wrong: It seems you're trying to insert a prominent accusation that Khalidi denies Israel's right to exist, based solely on a statement saying that one has to understand from the Palestinians' perspective that they've been under occupation since 1948. Then you're wanting to say he's an anti-Zionist, apparently based on no more information. Can you explain these accusations? I'm not being disingenuous; I don't think it's appropriate. The bias here, incidentally, is in the implication that Khalidi is entirely opposed to Israel's existance. Of course, that would turn Khalidi into an extremist. I'm no expert on Khalidi, but I don't think he is such an extremist, or that there is any justification for trying to label him as such, or even that his critics really suggest or have evidence that that's what he is. Mackan79 17:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Avi, re your comment on my page, I looked over each of the sources, and I don't see anything to support calling him an anti-zionist. Rather, he seems to pretty much avoid discussing what Israel should be altogether. Of course, he does seem to argue that the Palestinians deserve a homeland, but that is, of course a very different thing. To call him an anti-zionist, we'd simply have to equate the two, but that's not for us to do, and I don't see anyone who has argued that this is appropriate in his case.

Also, you say Wikipedia can't have original synthesis, but that overstates anything I've seen in Wikipedia guidelines. No original research, yes, but you can't write a paragraph, encyclopedia or not, without synthesis. We can mask our own synthesis, and to a degree that's probably helfpul, but a factor is always going to be whether something makes basic sense, or else we'd have an encyclopedia of well-cited giberish. Mackan79 20:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

You have put yourself as interested in helping out atWikiProject on user warnings. We are now at a stage where we are creating the new templates and are wondering if you are still interested? If so please visit the overview page and choose a warning type you wish to work on. There is a base template available here, which you can copy and use to get you started. Have a look through the redirects and see what old templates are affected and incorporate them into the the new system. Anyway, any questions please don't hesitate to give me a shout. Regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 08:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverted, yes, but it is still in the history and needs to be expunged. -- Avi 13:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Radiant got the right answer. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the consideration you gave to my RfA. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. You were one of the oppose votes, and raised concerns. I am more than willing to discuss those concerns with you if you are interested. Please let me know. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 03:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't say we are happy with each other, but my 3RR report ended up with no blocks but warnings all around from Dmcdevit, and there is talk on the talkpage and no reverting (except once by Mackan who blundered in not having followed the 3RR page and was immediately and rather harshly blocked for 3 days, but he'll be back.) Anyway, you could leave it protected for a while (it is, I believe, the right version to protect) while we talk, or you could go ahead and unprotect now. Either way. I don't think anyone is going to be fast to revert.

I am lazy now to provide diffs, but really the talk page, starting with SlimVirgin's "Reverting" subhead shows the shift to discussion. Jd2718 03:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Avraham, I see why you protected the page, but the situation had just been dealt with by Dmcdevit. I'd guess people will actually probably be quicker to return to discussion if the page isn't protected. Also, there is other work I'd like to do on the page not relating to current disputes. Would you mind unprotecting it? Best, Mackan79 04:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, did you get a chance to check it out? Best, Mackan79 21:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, can I get a response? Mackan79 18:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, should I be insulted by the lack of response or what? Mackan79 01:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your [[1]], which I've just accepted. I'd be grateful if you'd check my answers and let me know whether I've overlooked anything. If not, please would you post the nomination for discussion.

Thanks again. Jakew 16:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of MSM-07 Z'Gok. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Moreschi ^Deletion! 21:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Avi ... I finally talked to a Mohel, and sounded like he does frenectomies about as often as might be expected in a US Hospital circ. He does them for the same problem, that is the newly (post circ) tightened shaft skin now pulls on the glans via the frenulum. Quick flick of the nail. "It looks better." "The penis may not heal properly otherwise" ... that was his main concern.

Sorry, lots of inflammatory language, but what do you think about this [[2]]? Is Periah a "religous requirement"? Would Milah be sufficient? Isn't there a religous concern about doing harm?

We should cover this issue in the Topic.

We should also discuss the high rate of UTI infection that has been found post traditional ceremonies.

I assume you don't have a frenulum, because that's the only case where I could personally discount accounts of sexual harm from circ related frenectomies.

You know I think on average circs may not effect male sensation (in a net negative way). Cases of phimosis and frenulum breve and poor hygiene ... maybe 30% of uncirced guys have relatively poor sexual response. That might equal the guys that lost or suffered significant damage to their frenulums.

I think it's always bad for women.TipPt 04:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 123 Pleasant Street. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

I think that it is good that you get notice. Would it be alright if everone who participated in AfD's, DR or edited this article also got notice, or is that only appropriate for the Admin?Edivorce 17:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• I beleive strongly in notice and the opportunity to be heard. I would of course provide notice without regard to position. Too bad the wiki-bot-wanks haven't worked out a way that this magically happens upon deletion.

• I do not have access to the (deleted) article or its history. Please provide me with access or a list of Users who have edited it. Thanks. Edivorce 17:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thats not the only thing I asked for, and not the only thing you seemed to agree with. I know how to acess the AfD history. I want to also send notices to Editors of the article. Why can't I have the needed information? You put it beyond my reach. It seems likely those users might care what has happened to their work. Please provide me with the information. Edivorce 18:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not suggesting inviting disinterested persons to the debate. I want to provided notice to editors who's work has been destroyed. That is not canvassing. It is fundamental fairness. Would you please reconsider. Edivorce 18:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• I wish to further pursue this. From what I've seen Users in my position often go find an Admin that is willing to help them. That troubles me, as it's a somewhat lawless process. Is there a better way to get someone to review your refusal to help? Keep in mind that the DR is maybe a five day process. How can I get timely help? Edivorce 18:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hello again Avarham. I just wanted to get back to you on your advice concerning WP:ANI. I have carefully considered this and have decided not to pursue WP:ANI concerning notice to editors at this late stage. I am still convinced in the importance of notice and an opportunity to be heard for editors who work is threatened in deletion matters. But the current matter has gone through 2 AfD's and is in the second DR. I have been participating in DR discussion and without access to the actual article I don't see how ordinary editors could meaningfully participate. The discussion tends to shift to wankish policy backwaters that most editors, even if they care about an article, would not care to wade into. I guess I'll raise this issue earlier in the process when it again seems appropriate. In the mean time I'll slough through the DR as best as I can. Warm regards. Edivorce 04:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dino Maamria. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Robotforaday 15:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You know I'm honest, strong, and persistant. Please help me properly (cited and up front in the article) inform readers about the sexual implications of frenectomy. I won't push the UTI stuff, or mention the Bris.TipPt 00:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain what happened to this text from the discussion? See the large missing time span and deleted discussion[3] [4]. Here's the resulting discussion page with just the subject heading (that you responded to)[5].TipPt 17:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

for the "canvassing" warning.MrEguy 01:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that I accidentally reverted your addition as well, I'll be more careful next time. I also wanted to thank you for immediately assuming good faith in your correction of my mistake! // Laughing Man 05:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

How did you come to delete on this? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Based on the arguments given, I felt that the Delete votes were more convincing, and they were more numerous. If you disagree, we have procedures for requesting an undelete at WP:DRV. Thank you. -- Avi 14:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I plan on it. What was more convincing, when they said "not notable" when it was a multiple-charting single? Also, please reply here to preserve threading. I'm watching. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I also see you speedy deleted Big John Bates. A7 is for articles that fail to assert notability - this article claimed that "Big John Bates is also the first Rock and roll band to add a Burlesque group - the Voodoo Dollz - to create a live touring show...he first revivalists to take burlesque on the road, playing clubs throughout Europe and North America. Although they are a Canadian group (from Vancouver), much information on them has been featured on Europe's VH1 and America's A&E_Network. National TV shows in many countries have also featured BJB's sexy cross of music and dance." Please undelete. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There were no sources in the article that even remotely indicated its notability. Myspace and the band's own website do not fulfill WP:V and WP:RS. If you like, you may list it on WP:DRV, and if consensus agrees with you, it will be undeleted. Thank you. -- Avi 14:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources are not required to avoid an A7. Please undelete. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Since when is adding a burlesque show notable? Sources may not be required, but notability is, and I still did not see any evidence of notability. The proper procedure is to use WP:DRV and if consensus is that I erred, then I would be glad to undelete it. -- Avi 14:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Since he was the first. It also asserts that he toured nationally and internationally. My problem is that you were incorrect, and I was offering you a chance to fix the mistake instead of having to go through DRV. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, after refreshing my memory at WP:CSD you're correct, the assertation removes it from WP:CSD and requires a full-blown AfD. I'll undelete it now, thanks! -- Avi 14:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Great! Thank you so much! Have a nice weekened. --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 16:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I need the above article kept as is because the List of IHMS alumni Paring Bol-anon are ALL priests while the other one has people who ARE NOT priests, did not become priests, are lay (staff and faculty), are out of the priesthood. Please undo. Thank you again! --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 16:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh? O, okey then. I will check. Thanks okey? That was a big help, after my "wrinkles"! huhuhuhu --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 16:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I lost the list which contained alumni that are not priests but belong to the public sector and private sector. I am very sure it is the List of people of the Immaculate Heart of Mary Seminary. Can you help me find or restore it? Since it is hard to re-construct that again. I need the information from there on those who belong to the private and public sector (not priests) which is the major distinction between the above title and this other list. Thanks. --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 17:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

huhuhuhuhu!--Ate Pinay (talk•email) 17:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for the kind comment that accompanied your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 18:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Now,can you please help me make the List of people of the Immaculate Heart of Mary Seminary as the one with the the priests + the private and public sector while the List of IHMS alumni Paring Bol-anon has ONLY ALL PRIESTS with no public and private sector. Thank you. I don't know how to return the favor...--Ate Pinay (talk•email) 18:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

IT will all make sense if you look at the main article Immaculate Heart of Mary Seminary. Please trust me this time. Thank you. --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 19:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess that will work, too. Thanks a lot! --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 19:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Thank you. You gave me the idea. I really did not think about that. Thank you so much!!! Enjoy the rest of the weekend! --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 20:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you gave me a warning about vandalism to Huntley, Illinois. Please tell me what vandalism you are refering to. If it's about the Pacific Islander status, the information is true, may be off by a little bit, but I just was tired of the area being marked

when there are actually Pacific Islanders living in town. I will try to get an exact figure. The other thing was just a spelling error I fixed.

Additionally, I am a regular user with a real login, however I often forget to login. Please don't assume that I'm committed to vandalizing Wikipedia simply because I have a IP registered to NIU. I know about those people who were told by their professor to vandalize Wikipedia, but please don't assume that I am one of them. I love Wikipedia and I hate vandals and I even revert vandalism myself under this IP address. I also make great contributions to Wikipedia and I'd appreciate it if you would remove the warning status for something that is completely NOT vandalism. Thanks. 131.156.238.75 02:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Avraham, I'm simply wondering if you've seen my repeated question about the Folke Bernadotte page. I'VE ASKED YOU NOW FOUR TMES, each politely, if you'd be willing to unblock the page. An entire week has gone by, with you continuing to edit daily. I'm not really sure what you're doing, but it comes across as not entirely civil. DO YOU NOT HAVE A POLICY OF RESPONDING TO QUESTIONS? If you would please respond, I'll be happy not to ask again tomorrow. Thanks, Mackan79 16:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Where have you asked? If it is on the article page, I do not believe I have that "watched", although perhaps I should. As I wrote on the top of my user page, the best way to reach me is via e-mail, Further, it is much more likely that I will respond to my talk page, as I am doing now . Take a deep breath and assume a little good faith, and you'll find wikipedia a much easier place to handle. I'll take a look at the aforementioned page now. -- Avi 17:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

PS - Any admin can unprotect if they feel that the issues have become quiescent. That is the reason we have WP:RFPP#Current requests for unprotection. I notice that you did not use that either. No matter, I'm looking at Folk now. -- Avi 17:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I see now. I missed your edits because of some stuff I was involved in with deletions and Heart of Mary. You are correct, I apologize, I did not notice your edits. -- Avi 17:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected. Good luck. -- Avi 17:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've simply had some annoying experiences recently with people refusing to respond to simple requests. You seemed pretty reasonable in our first interaction, so I was a bit taken aback. I can see you were getting a lot of messages, though, and I did leave it up in the middle of the page... Anyway, thanks for looking into it, Mackan79 17:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. Best, Mackan79 18:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

All the BMA citations link to a blank in references. The website page is http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/malecircumcision2006?OpenDocument&Highlight=2,circumcision

Can you fix it?TipPt 17:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Avi,

As you've doubtless seen, I've withdrawn. I've received many great comments, including some really good advice. I've thought about some of the comments left my those who opposed, and I found myself in agreement with some. Some more experience in other parts of Wikipedia would not be a bad idea. So I'm going to take some time and digest it all. I think I'll try again in future.

Anyway, thanks for your nomination. It means a lot, and it's given me the opportunity to learn a great deal. Regards, Jakew 18:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Please know that I'm very careful with your references coding, and respect the amount of work completed!

Thank you for fixing the BMA again, but I think a revert made it bad again. See line 472[6]? If it was my fault, sorry, and I'll try to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Don't you think we need to put this sentence into [7] at line 232:

The original Brit milah consisted of excising the foreskin tissue extending beyond the tip of the glans penis, while current tradition (Brit periah) removes the foreskin to completely expose the glans.TipPt 18:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Logo SOA.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 15:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Markazi province.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 10:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused, has this been through AfD before? -- Steel 17:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you deleted it yesterday. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Forever+Blond and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Forever_Blond

I speedy deleted it. G4 doesn't apply to recreated speedies... -- Steel 17:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"duh" You are correct. But the CSD A7 still applies (per CSD G4). Would you prefer it be recreated and run through AfD, of should I just change the reason to CSD A7 per CSD G4? -- Avi 17:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to you. My opinion is that it would be silly to re-open the debate just so someone else can close it in a few days time with the same result, since the article was clearly heading for a deletion. -- Steel 17:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You beat me to it! ;-) I was working on it, but you saved your version before mine. I didn't think to save it as I went along. I'll go ahead and add my edits. Malik Shabazz 23:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Avi, when I checked "What links here" at the CCA page, I found a fourth link in addition to the three I had added today. User talk:Ehornick seems to indicate that there was an article about the CCA two weeks ago but it was deleted. Is there any way to verify whether there was such an article, see it, and maybe learn more about why it was deleted so quickly? Malik Shabazz 00:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Markazi province.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 23:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Lander’s, in researching neonatal circumcision without anesthesia, found that without exception, newborns in this study who did not receive an anesthetic suffered great distress during and following the circumcision, and they were exposed to unnecessary risk. Two of 11 newborns in the study who received no local anesthetic had potentially dangerous episodes within minutes of the procedure. One newborn lost muscle tone, stopped breathing several times and vomited. The other choked and stopped breathing briefly.[8]TipPt 02:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering why you removed all the redlinks on the List of summer camps page (and possible other incomplete lists)? Is this a new Wikipedia policy I am unaware of? Redlinks serve a useful function; they allow people to add names of institutions or people who need to be written up later, they capture information worth following up on by experienced Wikipedians, and they allow unsourced additions to be vetted. There are dozens of camp names that may or may not re-appear as bluelinks on that page someday. So I'm wondering under whose authority you decided to delete these additions? Thanks! Bruxism 03:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)