User talk:Avraham

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3	Archive 4	Archive 5
Archive 6	Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9	Archive 10
Archive 11	Archive 12	Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 18	Archive 19	Archive 20
Archive 21	Archive 22	Archive 23	Archive 24	Archive 25
Archive 26	Archive 27	Archive 28	Archive 29	Archive 30

RfB

Hey, I hate to be the one to inform you, but, I'm afraid it appears that your RfB has been closed as no consensus [1]. I thought you would have made a great 'crat, and, hopefully you'll review the opposition's comments, and work on those areas, then try again in a while. SQL^{Query me!} 15:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on your RfB

Hi Avi. First I wanted to say, sorry that you didn't pass your RfB, but congrats that the process is over. I had some thoughts on the RfB that I wanted to share with you. This weekend I was considering voting, putting in a support. I didn't, and finally, this morning, I thought and didn't again. The reason? There was already an established sizeable opposition. The weight of the various oppose reasons could be argued, but none-the-less, they were for the most part valid. In regards to becoming a bureaucrat, I'm a strong believer that there should only be a promotion when there is virtually no legit opposition. I didn't add my support, because while I think you are qualified and would make a good 'crat, I think it is more important to respect the opposition's current concerns. Bottom line: I didn't want you to pass because enough community members raised their own personal concerns. This leads to a serious concern: because of accepted rules of promotion, we might be doing the wrong thing, not promoting someone who will likely help where we need it... a clear "net-positive", if you will. In all likelihood, if the crats promoted you, you would go on to do good for the project and would no doubt benefit others. However, there would always be that nagging thing, 20 or so good contributors who felt you weren't ready. Finally, my point: The strength of Wikipedia is not in its ability to always do what's for the best, but rather, to hold consensus above virtually everything. The whole project seems to be based on the theory that consensus is more important than anything, and who knows, that might be right. So, the Catch 22 is that I think it would be the best for everyone and everything if you had become a crat this time around, but it would have undermined the concept of clear consensus, which in these parts, is everything. So, maybe we suffer a little now without a good crat, but the stubborn project lives on. Hopefully it lives on to see RfB Avraham 3, where all opposition concerns have been properly addressed and we can have you in an appropriate rank. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message Avi. I am little disappointed myself that your RFB did not pass, I still think you would make a good bureaucrat and I have done my research to come to that assessment. My suggestion now is simply to try and address the oppositions concerns, continue to contribute to to the RFA process, and try again in the future. Good luck! Camaron | Chris (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the unfortunate turn of events. If it is any consolation, your support section was indeed lengthy and massive. That should buoy your spirits. I think you'd make a fine bureaucrat despite the so call "lack of WP:U participation". Anyway, good luck to you in the future if you decide to run again. I'll be there with my sign of endorsement aloft. : ) Cheers dude. Look forward to your comments at RfA. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Second'd. Ironically, the fact that the result was No Consensus as opposed to Did Not Succeed should be encouraging, as well. Thanks also for the kind note - and I'll be happy to support you if and when you take another shot. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

And indeed thirded. I spent a fair while looking through all the arguments as I hadn't really run into you before - and after I had, I really felt you'd make a great bureaucrat. Good luck if you do choose to go for it again in the future, I hope you do! ~ mazca ^talk 16:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the above. IMO, the opposes weren't that convincing, but oh well, you can always try again. Good luck if you do. (and let me know ifwhen you do, I'll support then too unless you delete the Main Page between now and then. ¬_¬ ;) ) Thingg^⊕⊗ 17:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I was very disappointed at the decision — I felt with a tally of 82% supporting your nomination, it should definitely have been closed with consensus to promote. I think the point that was made by the bureaucrats that there were a fair few people opposing per people who were then satisfied by discussion was very valid. To be honest, I'm not all that sure how the decision was arrived at based on the discussion that they had. If you go again some time in the future, count on my support — we need more crats, especially ones who are enthusiastic about it... —Alex.Muller 18:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

A pity. The close was alright but the sentiment of the debate wasn't so good. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I was sorry to hear your RfB failed. I hope you'll come back later and become a bureaucrat. Cheers! - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 17:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Me too . Please do come back again. I was closing watching the election and never thought it would fail inspite of such huge support :( . Best of luck for the future :D -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 17:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about it too. Good luck next time! :) Sceptre ^(talk) 17:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I supported your RFB and I would support again in the future. Since you offered to help, please read the discussion immediately above your recent comment on my talk page, especially the last paragraph, and tell me what you think. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, so near and yet so far. I'm sorry it didn't work out this time, Avi, and I hope you'll try again when you feel the time is right. In the meantime, you might wish to consider some easy alternatives. Regards, Jakew (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL!! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As I see you are starting the daunting task of sending around little RfB thank you spams, I thought I would save you the trouble of stopping by my talk page. While I can understand that it is disappointing to come so close only to hear that you did not make it, but I trust that you will improve in areas that have been discussed in the oppose section and will come back in four months or so stronger than ever saying "I told you so!". Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 18:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Dude. Not cool! So sorry to hear it didn't pass. However, it's no big deal. Think of it as not getting that promotion at work that will move you one more floor up (with no elevator) and add an extra five hours to your work week with no extra pay. You should actually be celebrating no extra work for even less thanks. Srs. Everything looks better through my rose-colored shades. :) Lara❤Love 19:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everyone above =P Nice "translation" of my username! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

RfBs are among the most frustrating things a user may experience on Wikipedia, but please don't be frustrated. Focus on all the support/compliments you've received, as well as on valued advices the opposition may have provided, and keep up your outstanding work. And please try again, and again, and again. :-) Best regards, Húsönd 19:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm somewhat disappointed by the closing, but if you do not oppose it, then I will not oppose it. Just remember to take all constructive criticism and supports and compliments to heart. I feel it is inevitable that you will be a crat, just keep trying. bibliomaniac15 20:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Support Requests for bureaucratship are, at their heart, a project-wide referendum on the judgment of the candidate, and whether or not that judgment would be properly used, in accordance with wikipedia policy and guideline, to determine consensus in requests for administratorship, flagging bots, and changing usernames. To serve as a bureaucrat requires a demonstrated understanding of policies and guidelines, especially vis-a-vis sysops, current familiarity with the RfA process, and a demonstrated understanding of consensus. A bureaucrat must be open, willing to discuss difficult issues, and willing to admit to errors in the rare event they occur. Lastly, a bureaucrat must be cordial and civil, as failed RfA's hurt, whether or not adminship is a "big deal". In my opinion, Rudget Avraham fills all of these requirements. I have collaborated with him on a successful RfA, and hopefully another one in the wings, and I can assert he is cognizant, current, and competent when it comes to understanding the RfA process. He is always polite and friendly. My response to this is that as the primary function of a bureaucrat is to determine consensus on requests for administratorship, his experience and input at this venue, both prior to and after his RfA indicates that he can judge community consensus properly and understands the process. Good Luck!

   Well ja. Rudget (Help?) 20:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

2. Support. What can I say? Noting the opposition last time I said to participate more in RfAs, which you did, and looking good at it imho. Looking at the main points of the opposition now, I'd have to speak rubbish: participate less in RfAs and wait considerably longer (half a year?) so as to avoid the impression of neediness for the tools. But it's rubbish, because I'd have to follow it up with the suggestion to carefully avoid giving the impression to be carefully avoiding giving the impression of neediness; etcpp. So all I say is good luck next time, should you try again, that is. dorftrottel (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Support It was borderline, but I thought you'd pass. I was really disappointed when I saw your message that you didn't. Third time's the charm, I suppose. Enigma ^message 21:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Dang. Honestly, you're better than most of 'em in there right now. Thanks for the message and I wish you best of luck the next time 'round. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 21:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Avi, see my response to your comments here here. Best regards, gidonb (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(cheers for using my real name in your message :p) Hello Avi. My condolences for not passing your RfB, but I'm sure you'll pass if you try a third time in the coming future and you would make an excellent 'crat. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Good luck post-RfB, Avi! I think you will be a great future bureaucrat (no doubt about it!). You really know my (and many others') concern about gettins some experience with the various username-related activities of bureaucrats, so I wish you the best on that. One suggestion I might have, not that it may make a lot of sense, is not to try too hard? Which seems sort of contradictory, because in order to get the Username experience, you have to make a point to work on it. So, perhaps that's not really useful advice. Oh well! :) Seriously, though, I'm looking forward to supporting whenever you come back up for it. -- Natalya 11:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, sorry to hear you didn't get the 'crat bit. That was a damn close run thing though, I really thought you were going to make it. Anyway I hope you continue to be involved at RfA, your comments are always thoughtful and interesting. the wub "?!" 12:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the message. I'm sorry to see it was unsuccessful. Such is wiki. Don't let it put you off trying again in the future though. Best of luck, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe it. I still don't see what the reason is - the debate seemed to say that several of the "opposes" were questionable. Sigh... I guess I'll never understand the expectations for admin or bureacrat. Do try again! Love teh latin name - should have thought of that myself! Thanks! King Pickle (talk) 01:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for your message. I found your RfB difficult and I very nearly switched to support. My stated reason was the prime motivation and, as you could tell, I struggled with it. I think it'd be fairly easy to deal with that and return in a few months. Heck, I'd be happy to nominate you - I have a 100% record with RfB noms. I think you've impressed plenty of people with the way you've handled yourself during the stress of the process, even, I would suggest, opposers. Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ain't no thang

Come to think of it, we disagree on everything! What the heck was I thinking?! Hah, hah, but really, I know we've tangled, but I feel like I've seen you grow as a wikipedian, and I guess hope somehow that my attitude has rubbed off on you a little. I stumbled in there accidently from Eleland's talk page, and read everything, and knew I had to say something, and in my gut just felt you were up to the task. Perhaps it was what we call in poker a "crying call" but even still I believe it was the right one. Too bad I'll not get to find out, since you didn't pass thru this time -- I'm sorry my vote couldn't put you over the top. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note Avi. Sorry you didn't pass. You should rest assured knowing that many people like me feel pleased (and well served) by your diligent work in Wikipedia and I'm sure you'll find many other opportunities for your leadership. HG | Talk 04:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

RE:Your message

Hey Avi, thanks for your message. I too was disappointed to see your opposition, as I feel you would make a great 'crat. And don't worry about the name mix-up, it made me chuckle :) Good luck with your endeavors in the future, if you ever need anything, feel free to drop by. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 06:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

RfB fail = teh suck

Make kitteh sad... kitteh not even sure anymoar wot pplz look 4 in bearcatz?! Totalee lame! Hope fyoochur RfB iz not fail again, WP miss out. ~ Riana ⁂ 16:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your RfB

Sorry, Avraham, no T-shirts this time. Here's a Barnstar instead. :) Acalamari 20:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For your great answers and communication with other users throughout the RfB. Acalamari 20:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Your RfB

I just became aware of your (regrettably unsuccessful) recent try at RfB. Had I known about it I would have wholeheartedly supported you. I recently put one of those automatic who's-going-for-RfA-and-RfB thingies on my talk page, so if you give it another shot I'll notice more readily and be able to put in my two cents. In a way it's a shame that we have such strict rules about canvassing because it would be better if more people knew about these things. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

RFB

Hello, Avraham. You have new messages at Balloonman's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Incidentally, I didn’t !vote in your recent RfB because every time I vote for someone there they seem not to be successful, and I didn’t want to be a jinx and affect the outcome. (I know, silly to be superstitious about these things, but…) If it helps, you were in my thoughts throughout the process. Best, Risker (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

al-Husayni

I've left off editing Wiki because I find far too much time is wasted in exhausting non-issues that serious neutral editors would never squabble over, on whatever side they might be. But I keep an eye on pages. I noted your reversal of the prior editor's 'few' (actually 'a few' would have been more correct), to 'no Palestinians' supported Zionism. You are quite right to query this and ask for sources, but the previous editor was correct. There is an excellent source for precisely this issue of Palestinian support for Zionism, namely Hillel Cohen's Tseva ha-tselalim, now available as Hillel Cohen, Army of Shadows: Palestinian Collaboration with Zionism, 1917-1948, trans.Haim Watzman, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles 2008. In chapter 3 (pp.66ff) the author provides a classification of 4 types of Palestinian collaboration. 'Collaboration' of course is not 'support' but Cohen does, in categories 3 and 4 designate ideological supporters and supporters motivated by humanitarian sympathies for Jewish neighbours, which therefore fits perfectly with what you request. I appreciate your keeping an eye on that page, which I worked hard on until I threw in the towel out of general exasperation, and hope you can edit in this source on the point under consideration. Regards Nishidani (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 4 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ronald Ribman, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note

I've no problem with that, Avi, and thank you for the note. The only reason I intervened, (against a very strong desire not to return to wiki) was that, while wholly understanding Ryan's frustration, I could see absolutely no evidence on the ANI page for the serious proposal being vetted. I've have myself often remonstrated with PR, not least recently. But PR's attitude is no more problematical than that of many other editors who hang about, unchallenged (on principle, I never made complaints to admin because I preferred to simply try and sort out the problems on talk pages, irrespective of the rules). If you do indeed have strong evidence for Ryan's proposal by all means go ahead. I'm sure G-Dett will pitch in. My defense was not a personal thing with PR, but a matter of instincts. I have something in my bones that gets combative whenever I happen to observe anyone, anywhere, cornered, irrespective of like or dislikes. And, as I say, far too many editors with a record (not on ANI) for atrocious editing still manage to breezily do damage and waste serious editors' time, by slinging words around like 'antisemite' without any administrative action. It was in protest at this, on a specific page, that I decided to pull my own plug. I trust you will use your experience, along the lines you suggested to me in your last note on the ANI page to me, to assist others higher up in making I/P articles more comfortable for serious editors. That will not eliminate strong difficulties, but a huge amount of futile bartering might be avoided. Regards Nishidani (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sensible. I myself have suggested to PR that a break may be due. Some time back, I place a I month sanction on myself (it may have looked theatrical, but I was serious) for violating WP:CIVIL, since something had to be said to break an impasse, but to say it would be improper within the rules. I broke the rules and saved arbitration the trouble. In mentioning the other problemm I did not, adonai forbid, think of bartering. I was disappointed that, in being accused of antisemitism by someone I regard as a chronically bad poster who once rigged (and I didn't complain) a tagteam trap against me which earned me a badge of demerit, and who seems to enter and exist when he's done a job on someone, nothing was said administratively. But that's water under the bridge.

I think PR should indeed be asked to take a break. Mind you, I am in considerable sympathy with Ryan on this, but I disliked the way both GHcool and Jayjg went about their 'support' motions. Editors of their experience should never try to fudge serious issues with brittle bits and pieces. Whatever, I would (perhaps you could sound G-Dett out on this) suggest a fairly neutral request ('While on the evidence here so far, nothing substantive to warrant a community ban has been forthcoming, it is nonetheless true that Ryan, your mentor, has expressed some fatigue in the task of monitoring your contributions to Wikipedia. While you, PR, have said here and in the past that your various mentors have been harassed for taking on this task, now four administrators have, for various reasons, thrown in the towel. This alone should be grounds for serious self-reflection, and, we the undersigned suggest, a period of self-imposed abstention from editing this encyclopedia, certainly on I/P articles. We are not calling for a community ban, or any sanction by peers. We are asking you to make a gesture, by withdrawing to reflect for some months on the purposes of this encyclopedia and the role you desire to play in collaborating on the construction of its articles. You may decline without further sanction. But the undersigned would certainly view your compliance with this suggestion as a mark in the record book of both your bona fides and respect for the community.

Nishidani...

? G-Dett may be appalled. I dunno. Pass it by her (?), if you think (alter it as you will if you think there is merit to it) it worth mulling. If we have some agreement on this sort of (creative proposal), then some version could be posted 8for editing or assent) on the page. I hope it works. I really must hold to my desire to withdraw from this beautiful, and yet troubling experiment that is wikipedia. Regards Nishidani (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I just caught PR's final remark, and went ahead to make a preliminary point to what I suggested. Nishidani (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should all be forthright and speak frankly, which you have done. I don't think what you say is extreme. There is however one technical matter that you do not address. The evidence given, on which many commented, was virtually zero-grade. True, in your experience, PR has been defended and yet has not learnt to sidestep the kind of alacrity for controversy on talk pages especially, which has lead to sanctions. The paradox is rather patent. Technically (I suppose a much fuller case might discover evidence of recent questionable material), as constituted, this suit should not have been pressed by Jayjg and (I presume from fatigue) Ryan. For, having been sanctioned and having paid the penalty, PR returned, and one expected any further sanctions to reflect PR's behaviour as evinced by edits in the interim, yet nothing was forthcoming. At precisely the point where it seemed nothing was forthcoming, PR stepped up to the batter's block and, to mix metaphors, made a self-goal. The content of that last remark therefore supplies the kind of evidence that was lacking originally. In the minor provinces of thought, it has all the colour of a soap-opera with a surprise reversal in the last (apparently) act. A critic would, however, say: had the suit never been made, had the long provocation on flimsy grounds been dismissed, as it deserved to be, then PR would not have perhaps made the remark that now affords grounds for the suspension originally broached on false pretenses. In law, this looks very bad indeed. Ryan has said little, and yet I think the gravamen of the evidence is not in the flaky diffs variously supplied: they are wholly innocuous. The gravamen lies in Ryan's fatigue with mentoring PR, which happens to be the fourth time round. As you say Jaakobou has improved under mentorship (he has had though mentors who have fought for him, and notoriously the valiant Durova never sleeps, whereas Ryan has exams to face), PR by contrast tends to persist in unproductive attitudinizing. I do not want scalp-taking. Tiamut, Eleland, myself and a few others, who whatever our faults, have worked towards the ideals of encyclopedicity, have found no option, as we variously perceive things, than to withdraw out of sheer frustration, in full awareness that this will be read by some as the establishment of a decent salient in enemy territory (I personally believe the user who engaged with me over the Lehi issue was doing that, provoking a scalp-taking gambit. But that is my purely speculative private reading). PR, precisely in this context, is dragged into ANI. Now, Avi, let's be frank. The timing may well be casual (I think it neither here nor there), but it looks extremely bad. Ryan, whom Dett I believe said received complaints from Jayjg on his talkpage, should have merely announced he felt he was not successful with his mentoring, and requested comment. Justice, the dictum runs, should not only be made, but seen to be made. Paricularly before a community and before even PR, one should avoid even the soupcon of impropriety. We have here a non-case, going towards dismissal, suddenly, by a (characteristic) outburst by the accused, turning up evidence not material to the original complaint, perhaps proviked by its unfairness, which looks however like it justifies Ryan's original complaint.

I still think PR should be requested to self-suspend, preferably for the period of 3 months, as PhilKnight, an admin for whom I have high regard, suggested. I believe also that a request to that effect should make it clear that the community is not asking for this on the strength of the edits provided, but as proof of bona fides. But others will no doubt comment: I have had two days of reading Tolstoy lost, and will see how things sort out as others comment. Probably G-Dett has more intelligent things to say than anything I might come up with. I will defer to G-Dett, since, basically, I am no longer editing I/P articles while they are. Regards Nishidani (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but an apology was due, from someone. While expressing a provisory willingness to consider PR's proposal I mentor, I am convinced, apart from my reluctance to return to wiki as an unproductive use of time which, at my age, is not abundant, that it is not a good idea. I have never read the wiki rulebook, gaze on with a codger's befuddled astonishment at the extraordinary genius and formal technical brio of disputes like that between ChrisO and Elonka which reminds me I was raised in a different world, and cannot participate actively in it because I will never adjust to that kind of refinement. If it were a matter of my judging a debate over the construal of Heidegger's Sein und Zeit, or the more obscure debates in scholarship over Plato's Theaitetos, I mightn't feel out of my native waters, but here I am, since there is a stratospheric complexity of formalism, and I was raised on substance (well, actually, my forebears, as Irishmen used to tell us we were like mushrooms, nurtured on bullshit and raised in darkness!), assuming a role, that of mentorship, which requires an insider's youthful knowledge of rules, esp.for an anarchical codger like myself, would probably spell doom for our PR. What I could do, is just something like look at a page a day, at most two, where (s)he wishes to edit, and make a few suggestions for what (s)he proposes. But properly speaking, I think a spell of reflection for a few months is what is needed,then an act of trust in someone on your side, preferably yourself, and someone on PR's side who is young, active and knowledgeable, if not engaged, on I/P, and then parsimonious editing. Parsimonious because this is a testing ground for change and mentoring must be burdensome, and its weight on mentors appreciated. If this works, for a few months, let PR go forth, on one last proviso. PR's record as discussed shows a problem. We have focused on it. That PR is now seen as easy game, even by editors with enough experience to know one could simply hold back and ignore the temptation to be contrary over trivia, is not wholly untrue. It should be understood somewhere, that barratry is no longer on the cards, and that while PR is held to the rules, niggling at PR over minutia, as opposed to serious issues, will not be viewed favourably. That sort of thing can be done discretely with emails. Well, I hope PR does take a break. I too must stick to promises and retire, but not before thanking you for the contextual intelligence, effort and generosity of spirit you have shown here. Best regards Nishidani (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Avi. Thanks for commenting on my WP:AN suggestion about PR. But I wasn't quite sure what you meant. You said, "That is part of the basis...." To what does that refer? It sounds like you're opposed to my suggestion, but it's not quite clear why. Thanks very much. Take care, HG | Talk 18:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Avi, no problem, I respect your opinion(s). HG | Talk 09:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Your advice to ShevaShalosh

I thought your comments were absolutely delightful: gentle, charming, cogent, and yet incisive and to the point.

I haven't seen you around a lot. Hope to see more of you. --Ravpapa (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Survey request

Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, Sam4bc (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Blood Libel at Deir Yassin

Milstein isn't fringe per se, but the views expressed in this particular book are. If you read the article and its Talk page (it's a mess, I know), you'll see that the book was ignored by the mainstream Israeli media and academia, and it may be self-published.

Even in Deir Yassin massacre, Milstein's viewpoint is given only two paragraphs at the end of a long article. Since his viewpoint is "outside the consensus" of historians, I think giving him a full paragraph in the lede gives his view more attention than it deserves. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 17:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that.

I didn't notice until after I had posted my opinion that the discussion was closed. I tried to self-revert but you beat me to the punch. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Avi, you're a hypocrite - Re: Aron Tendler

Avi, I don't know if you're a relative or a student of Mordechai Tendler, but you're arrogant hypocritical schmuck selling your own POV as gospel.

"Tendler helped prepare and edited Feinstein's responsa for publication in the Igrot Moshe series."

Including the responsa in the early volumes published in 1959, 1960, and 1961 before Mordechai was even bar mitzvahed? Somehow I have a problem with that. I just can't picture Reb Moshe handing his tshuvas to a ten year old kid to edit and prepare for publication. But perhaps you know better. Maybe Mordechai told you himself.

"Despite his denial of wrongdoing and claim to his right to have his day in court, Tendler has never appeared to testify any of the lawsuis or actions in court or bais din, including those that he initiated."

Fact- Mordechai Tendler has not come to bais din with the RCA even though they agreed to Zabla years ago. Tendler did not go to court against AM and call her a liar to face and deny her allegations under oath, rather he fought tooth and nail for 2 years to have the case dismissed on technical grounds. That BTW is no victory. The court ruled that even if everything AM said was true, the action for which she is suing does not exist at law. He withdrew his action in Santa Clara County Supreme court against the bloggers when it was clear that he had no action to sue for. Outside his general allegation of libel, he did not specify one single statement made by a blogger (that wasn't already said in newspaper and TV) or demonstrate how he was damaged by it. In his action action his former shul for breach of contract that he filed in Rockland County supreme court WITHOUT a heter arkaos, he did not personally testify where he could be cross examined under oath. In the action that he had his 12 remaining supporters file against the shul (also without a heter arkaos) he also did not testify. (4 of them immediately withdrew seemingly unaware that they were parties to the suit.) His silence speaks volumes. I'm sorry the facts bother you. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd be happy to see it.

"His brother,former senior rabbi of Congregation Shaarey Zededk in North Hollywood California,Los Angeles rabbi Rabbi Aron Boruch Tendler, resigned from his 22 year post in 2006,"

So I'm wrong? He didn't resign? He still the senior rabbi? He's still teaching in Yula? He's still in LA and not in Baltimore? You should contact Shaarey Zedek. They seem to be under the misconception (according to you) that Aron Tendler is no longer there and a dude by the name of Jonathon Rosenberg is the Rabbi.

Stating of fact is not poisoning the well. It spreads knowledge and increases discussion. Your deletion of facts that you don't like is called POV censorship. Don't be a hypocrite. If I erred in any of the above I'd be glad to hear about it. Be sure to fill Shaarey Zedek in on their error as well. pikipiki (talk) 08:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Mirrored on my talk page

Avi

1) Half truths are completely correct and designed to mislead. If I say you haven't visited a prosititute in the last two years, it's probably 100% correct, but it gives the impression of something else. The man resigned after 22 years as the pulpit Rabbi of Shaarey Zedek, that's a fact. The man is no longer in Shaarey Zedek or YULA, That's a fact. The man resigned amidst allegations of sexual impropriety, that's a fact. I do not address the particulars of the allegations nor whether they are true or not. That's why they're called allegations. Repeat: The man resigned from Shaary Zedek after 22 years as Senior Rabbi amid allegations of impropriety. That's all fact without personal analysis.

2) Yes Mordechai Tendler did help with SOME of the later volumes, which is why I Inserted the word "some" That you removed. He was not the general editor of Igros Moshe he did not edit all or most of Igros he edited "some of Igros moshe which is why I changed "Tendler helped prepare and edited Feinstein's responsa for publication in the 'Igrot series" to Tendler helped prepare and edit some of Feinstein's responsa for publication in the Igrot Moshe series." That you so graciously reverted.

3) My edits were not unsourced. In your supreme wisdom, you alone determined that the two sources I cited, stating allegations from numerous sources were unreliable.

4) Allegations were made, that's all I said. How do you define verifiable? there's a documentary on you tube? Pick up the phone and call anyone in Shaarey Zedek. Or would that be original reasearch? If there is no record of Mordechai Tendler testifying in any court proceedings is that "verifiable" because it says so in the court record, or is that original research because I cared to look and you didn't?

And by all means please protect the article. It may stop you from editing out facts. It might bring needed attention to your over zealous attempt to maintain "neutrality" in favor of Tendler. ala George Orwell "All animals were created equal, but some animals are more equal than others." -Animal Farm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pikipiki (talk • contribs) 07:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

To Pikipiki, re the first sentence of this thread: please comment on content, not on the contributor. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Land Day

Just wanted to let you know that user PR brought up concerns about Jaakobou's editing of Land Day and asked me whether he should bring up his concerns with J's mentors. Rightly or wrongly, I advised him against bothering you. Still, it seems only fair that I let you know about this. You can see the recent conversation at User talk:HG. Hope this finds you well, HG | Talk 19:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Emil Gilels

Hi Avi - I'm looking at a bit of an edit war involving some information you added to this article, complete with OTRS ticket number, specifically that the subject of the article is Jewish. Another editor who says she is the niece of the subject, has been changing the adjective "Jewish" to "musical". Can you help me out in trying to determine how significant the subject's religion/culture is to this article, and why it would need to remain if other family members are objecting? It would be helpful in figuring out how best to deal with this issue, particularly as User:Bomsalam has been blocked for edit-warring in relation to this. Thanks. Risker (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC) (addendum to give you the link to the ANI discussion[2]) Risker (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

OTRS isnt a reliable source. This isnt a good way to achieve quality, and has probably led User:Bomsalam to believe that her word is authoritative on this matter, and being blocked for defending her preferred version. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

disruptive?

Archives serve to prove my point about the troll gang. Several admin editors warned me that "circumcision will always be a mess" specifically because of certain editors (you and jakew). You bring spurious arguments (like the sources you cited in discussion that DO NOT address your point) to waste time.TipPt (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Your unscholarly behavior (citing a source that does not support your claim) and writing (misleading, non factual) is disruptive and misleading. You are responsible for physical great pain [3] and sexual harm http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1036&context=hss_pubs] without religious purpose.TipPt (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)