User talk:Avraham/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, Avraham/Archive 1, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

I would like to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, it is recommended that you use the

Thanks for the advice Avi 21:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Protection requests are put at

And no, putting the tag up doesn't trigger a request. Doesn't work quite that way. Tag is put up to show that the page is protected. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The template is not restricted to admins...why I'm not sure since only admins can protect pages. Anyway, the tag is only used to signify that a page has been protected. Shouldn't be used for any other reason. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Avi: Welcome to Wikipedia. Came across the talk page at Talk:Posek. Please follow Wikipedia protocols: Latest comments are placed at the bottom of the talk page, so there is at least some sort of order and chronological continuity (a "descending order"). This can be automatically and easily done if you click on the "+" sign at the top of each talk page, if and when you want to add new comments. Thank you. Feel free to contact me if you have questions. IZAK 16:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The best thing for you to do is click here. That you take you to the bottom of the page (if not, scroll down). Click on the "godmode' link. That is what I use, it is very helpful. Also at the top of the same page you will notice a link labeled wikipedia-en-vandalism', if you click there it will take you to an IRC chat which has a bot that flags likely vandalistic edits. Hope that helps! --Winter 01:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Remove what you have in your monobook.js file and copy this instead

document.write('<SCRIPT SRC="http://sam.zoy.org/wikipedia/godmode-light.js"><\/SCRIPT>');

--Winter 02:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

YOu might want to enter that wikipedia-en-vandalism room and see if someone can help you. --Winter 14:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for the three types of semicha you added?[1] JFW | T@lk 13:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome aboard... you know, the best way to get involved in editing wikipedia is to search for a topic that you know a lot about and just start making improvements to those articles. Another way is to just repeatedly click on the random article button until something catches your eye. Shalom. MPS 21:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Aleichem sholom. Yes, I had noticed before that the userboxes would change positions from time to time and cause confusing re-editing. Thanks, and see you around. Yid613 06:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think my recent revert at this article (that you then reverted) was a mistake revert on my part. I mistook the material for vandalism and should have read closer; a lesson for me. Thanks for being astute enough to catch me when I make such blunders. --DanielCD 22:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed

If you took the time to place the advert tag, why don't you vote in AfD? It is the direct text from their website! I originally put a copyvio, but the publisher's PR person said that they authorized it; but it's nothing more than blatant advertising, and further, it isn't really notable. So, one way or another, let your opinion be heard here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gibbs Smith, Publisher -- Avi 01:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought I had voted but the edit must not have gone through. I've done so now. Thanks. Stifle 08:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted your addition of a speedy deletion tag to

Please note that I am not criticizing all your speedy tagging, the toddler Sarah Chou is obviously not somebody who needs an encyclopedia article. :-) But it is better to give some things the benefit of the doubt, check page history, make a Google search etc., or just put it on the watchlist and wait for a while to see what happens to the page. up+land 23:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I responded on your page, and I thank you again :-) Avi 23:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, I noticed that you voted to speedy delete Funeral Folk, which is a correct vote. However, if you vote for a speedy deletion, please add the relevant tag to the page, e.g. {{db-band}} in this case. This way, administrators will see it faster and it will not be clogging up AFD. I have tagged this page for now.

Thanks for your AFD contributions! Stifle 11:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Geez, man, just give me some time before you add the tag, ok? It's kind of frustrating to add the references only to see an edit conflict... Halibutt 13:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I know newbies tend to exhibit some kindof enthusiasm which is good, but you might want to hold your horse when tagging

Response here: [2]

If the fact that supposedly only one (we have yet to prove this) country uses the rank in question is the main reason for you calling for its deletion, then mind commenting on

Deputy Chief Constable, Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, New York City Police Commissioner, Police Commissioner of Mumbai, etc, all of which would also have qualified for deletion based on your self-imposed criterion?--Huaiwei

16:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the dialogue, Huaiwei. My response is here [3] Avi 16:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

As I said earlier, you tagged an article which was 6 minutes old. Wikipedia grows best with community contributions, and this does not always happen in 6 minutes. Of coz when I created the article, I have no intention to keep it as a one-liner entry (else I wont have bothered added a stub notice). That said, you appear to have this impression that even if the article becomes 3000 words long, you are still going to flag it for deletion by calling it a "definition". Where do you draw the line between a "definition" and an encyclopedia article? Also, can wikipedia article not start off as one-liner stubs before they see glorier days? I seek your comments on these.--Huaiwei 16:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Response here: [4]

Sorry, not sure I understand? Thanks for taking the time to contact me but I'm not sure I get it. Nach0king 20:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oh.

Oops!

Well, thank you for bringing it to my attention, I'll be more careful in future. Nach0king 21:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

When using prod don't subst the template in (it confuses the bot). I made the same mistake. BrokenSegue 03:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Those links can be deleted. Please reconsider your vote for an article with the external links removed. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I saw you nominated the article on this site as non-notable. Since non-notable is a poorly defined term, I would very much appreciate it if you expanded your nomination with an explaination on why you believe this site to be non-notable. Please note that the Alexa rank indicates, it's a highly visited site, which makes it quite notable in the eyes of a lot of other wikipedians. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• THanks for the quick response. Please be extensive in explaining your reasoning on an AFD nomination next time. Rank and which pages link to a site are essential things to check when nominating an article. Make a point of looking it up and mentioning it in your nomination. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I had created {{

Pls visit again AfD Cyberservices, and see an article created by the same "user" - AfD Philippine Cyberservices Corridor. Pls encourage more well known users to make a vote. I have a suspicion that there will be a flood of posts from anons, and new users in those two AfDs. Thanks. --Noypi380 11:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Cesar. Can you please discuss your objection to

I already did. In fact, I had done it before doing the revert; unfortunately, I had forgotten to save (but even then, I repeated my arguments in the edit summary).

I strongly believe that {{

test1}} should be identical; I think most admins are expecting it, and will be confused if they are different. That's why I reverted back to the redirect. The other objections apply to the proposed change, but that should be discussed on the talk page. --cesarb

17:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. The multitude of test templates need to be pruned down. What do you suggest then? Also, I would like to poll for more of a consensus on using {{

Template:welcome3}} template; which I use regulalry with subst: I presume you fell strongly against that as well? -- Avi

17:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The thing I feel strongly about is that {{

test1}} should be identical; the {{qif}} issue I do not feel nearly as strong, I just have a (normal) opinion that it is a bad idea (but can be convinced otherwise, and will not be annoyed if it ends up being implemented). --cesarb

17:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, You have commented on Student Linguistics in IIT Kharagpur and suggested that the material be moved to the user's sub-page. Can you explain how to create sub-pages at user levels. I think this would be a good idea as it will close the debate once and for all. Thanks,

Why did you change the Harvard/MLA in-line citation format to that of a number [5]? -- Avi 15:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Because, as far as I have seen, this is the standard used in Wikipedia. --Loremaster 15:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

After your changes to this template, when I enter "{{subst:test2a-n|article}} ~~~~", the signature ends up on a separate line with a space preceding it, causing it to be indented in a box -- very ugly. The template must be able to be entered on a single line like that, and it must render in the user's talk page with no embedded newlines. The latter requirement is so that the notices to repeat offenders can be numbered. E.g.:

#{{subst:test1}} ~~~~
#{{subst:test2}} ~~~~
#{{subst:test3}} ~~~~

so that they render as:

1. Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use
   welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --Kbh3^rdtalk
   15:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you. --Kbh3^rdtalk 15:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Kbh3^rdtalk 15:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Spurious line breaks will interrupt the numbering. Could you please revisit this template and see if you can make it behave properly? Thanks. --Kbh3^rdtalk 15:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Please try it now. -- Avi 15:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks like it all works properly. Thanks! (Of course, when I say "must", what I really mean is, "it sure would be nice if ..." ;-) --Kbh3^rdtalk 04:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for letting me know. I've voted Keep at

Good day. Rob Church (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, my earlier response was a touch abrupt, so I apologise for that. But I'm not an admin. Famously not one. Anyway, thanks. Rob Church (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to have to bring this up, but my friend (

As you'll note, he just removed the copyedit flag from the article—again. —

Larry V

06:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes. The three-revert rule. =) —

Larry V

06:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, he's calmed down. Good thing, too. He created a

Larry V

06:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The Israel deletion I made was a broken link! Please remove your warning from my discussion page. -- 87.80.10.133

No problem, but this is wht

edit summaries are very useful. -- Avi

07:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

This concerns Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Daisey, where you recently voiced an opinion. User:Calton has raised some significant objections, and I would like to ask if you wouldn't mind considering the ensuing discussion and changing or confirming your choice with respect to the article Mike Daisey. Sincerely ENCEPHALON 07:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It was very kind of you to say that, Avi, thank you. I'm glad you found the discussion helpful. I've been known in the past to blabber extensively about these things; it sometimes surprises me that I apparently don't compel my fellow WPns to run screaming for the hills every time I open my big mouth.;-) I noticed your WP Philosophy on the front page—it's admirably honest and to the point. I agree with you that WP's biggest issues right now are verifiability, accuracy, and—very simply—good writing. At 1 million articles, no other compendium comes close to us in terms of quantity (the Britannica still has only 120,000 odd articles in some 55 million words, compared with our 1 million articles in some 350 million words). Nevertheless, the quality of the vast majority of our 1 million articles is, if we're honest about it, appaling. There are pages and pages of unverified tales, juvenile brain farts, adolescent rumblings, unadulterated nonsense; of the half-way decent articles, most lack the most elementary sourcing. An infinitesimal number of our articles have been granted "featured status"—they're supposed to be the stuff we're proud of and represent the "good" articles on WP. We have 900 of them—out of 1 million. Can you imagine the folks at Britannica saying "Our encyclopedia is the best in the world. Fully 0.09% of our articles have met our editorial policies; we're prepared to stand by their verifiability, factual accuracy, and neutrality. The other 99.91% are kind of touch-and-go, but hey—those are just numbers, right?" ;-0 Somehow, the concept that the presence of bad stuff in an encyclopedia actively hurts it, certainly as much and usually more than the absence of good stuff, seems alien to a lot of us. Indeed, editors termed "deletionist" (and even "mergist", which is what I think most closely describes my own position) are often actually derided for trying to enhance the quality of the encyclopedia (while being told in no uncertain term that "we're here to write an encyclopedia, people!" :)) I don't quite understand the thought process, and for the most part all of us agree on most things and get along very well, but there you go. Anyway, I just dropped by to say thanks, but seem to have inflicted a rant on you! Apologies.;-) ENCEPHALON 05:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You may be intesrted to look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq/Proposed_decision

It resulted from very low particiopation in articles about the Middle east by pro-israeli editors which left it open for palestinian propeganda.

Zeq 07:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

What exactly are you doing to the Calvin and Hobbes article?--FelineFanatic13 22:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry, I should have payed more attention to the "discussion" page.--FelineFanatic13 23:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem with SP here is that it's a registered user causing some of the trouble, it looks like. And he's been registered for more than a few days. So if we semi protect, then he can get around that. I think we'll use vprotect instead and hope he goes away. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Avi, thanks again for your support in my RFA. If I can ever improve or help in any way, please let me know! :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-16 12:19Z

We're actually not supposed to revert or edit a page once the page is protected unless it's for vandalism and I don't think that can be considered vandalism given that Oscar isn't a vandal as far as I can see. Like we say when we protect...we are not taking sides.

Well see you are supposed to tell me that. Jeez! :) OK I did the reversion with the note that it was just a mistake by Oscar that we needed to revert. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 15:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

In addition to having withdrawn that objection, I also didn't place it on artices that had either harvard or inlines. It's only vanilla ref-notes that REALLY REALLY want to use the new format - all of the features, but it also autonumbers and allows multiple refrences easily. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Re your message, my vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vikas Khanna2 is for abstain as I have no idea who he is and have no opinion on it.

It had originally been listed for Afd by User:Batman2005 and was deleted a few hours later by User:Zoe for copyvio. When someone recreated it User:Stifle put a speedy tag on it. Since this version didn't look like a copyvio, and since the original reason for the Afd was non-notability, I moved it from speedy to Afd once again. Since it has been there for almost five days now, I guess it makes no difference whether it is withdrawn or not. Tintin (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorrry about that, I was thinking localizing it to Google might bring some issues from other search engines regarding their service in comparision to Google. I'm leaving it alone now. Sorry about that. Tawker 04:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Avi,

That was incredibly gracious of you (and the beautifully irrepressible Sandy!); thank you very much. Yes, I've considered going up for it. However, seeing as I've only just returned from a wikibreak, I think applying in a few weeks' time might be best. A not infrequent suggestion in RFAs of candidates who've returned from break is to wait for a bit, and I don't think that's an unfair request. Would you like me to ping you in March/April if I decide to go up for it? Thanks so much once more! ENCEPHALON 17:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting me in my successful

With apologies for the impersonal AWB-ness of the message... Thanks for your support on my recent request for adminship. It passed at 91/1/0, and I hope I can continue to deserve the community's trust. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help you, and if I make a mistake be sure to tell me. My talk page is always open. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed you prodded Adora. It had actually already been prodded once, but the deletion was objected to. I wanted to make sure you knew that prod is only for uncontroversial deletions, so you can't reprod something. I figure there's a good chance you just didn't check the page history. Not a big deal. I've deprodded it, but if you would still like to see it deleted, you'll just want to send it to AfD. NickelShoe 03:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you -- Avi 20:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've removed the prod from

That's good enough for me; thank you. -- Avi 20:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted your changes to various categories including Category:Moab, Category:Midian, Category:Edom, and others. The category "Torah people" includes both individual people and "peoples" in the sense of ethnic or national groups. Thus it is appropriate to include these various Biblical peoples' categories as subcats even if not every individual item within the subcat is mentioned explicitly in the Torah. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

In that case, the article Midian or the article Edom should be tagged; but not the category. While "Midian" proper may be considered part of Torah people, the entire category should not. -- Avi 02:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Midian is a "Torah people", thus the category should be included. It's not necessary for 100% of the individual items within the category to be expressly mentioned in the Torah. By the same token, Category:Turkic peoples is included in Category:Eurasian nomads, because historically and generally speaking, Turkic people were nomadic and lived in Eurasia. Not every single Turkic nation is currently nomadic.

That said, if you wish to poll other members and see what they think, I am not opposed to that course of action. But it should be carried out on as broad a basis as possible (for example, by posting to the Judaism Wikiproject and/or a Bible-studies-related Wikiproject, not just by polling a tiny select group.) Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I have responded on the category talk page of Midian. Thank you. -- Avi 19:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested to know how 1948 A.M. is arrived at for Abraham's birth. Because the book I have that adds up all the ages found in the different versions says 1946, and it's using the same figures from the MT to get that number. I'm just wondering what might be causing that 2-year discrepancy. I can reproduce the whole calculation adding up to 1946 if you like.

Response here [6] -- Avi 22:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, that still leaves me curious as to how the 2 year discrepancy came about, so let's see if we can figure this out. Here is the calculation in my book (The Interpreter's Bible, old Edition, Vol. I, p.143):

(Numbers refer to the "age at giving birth" given in the Masoretic Text, of course the older versions have different figures, as I mentioned):

Adam - 130

Seth - 105

Enosh - 90

Kenan - 70

Mahalalel - 65

Jared - 162

Enoch - 65

Methuselah - 187

Lamech - 182

Noah - 500

Shem - 100

(Flood is AM 1656 according to this calculation)

Arpachshad - 35

Shelah - 30

Eber - 34

Peleg - 30

Reu - 32

Serug - 30

Nahor - 29

Terah - 70

All these figures added together=1,946 AM when Terah gave birth to Abraham. Where are your figures different? Regards,

Here is the discrepancy, Genesis 11:10, Arpachshad was born two years AFTER the flood. -- Avi 00:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Hi Avraham/Archive 1, thank you for your support in my Rfa! It passed with a final tally of 86/0/0. If you need help or just want to talk let me know! Again, thank you! – Dakota ~ ° 23:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

On the 24th February I made some changes in the

Response here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jan.Kamenicek#List_of_Slovaks -- Avi 02:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for explanation. Jan.Kamenicek 20:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you tried to make a RFA for Encephalon, I moved your version to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Encephalon 2 as there was a previous attempt of a RFA with him, thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You've stated that The big E has thousands of votes? -

brenneman^{T}{L}

01:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, that's absolutely untrue, Avi! You do know that, right? I really did intend to go up no sooner than about mid April, but it was Seeker's confounded Trekkie ships that forced my hand... He threatened to set them loose on my page, and there I was—undone. Lol. Seriously though, I guess I buckled under the combined onslaught that occured on my page. :-) But thank you for your support, Avi. Set me a penance that I may atone for my sins, for thou art no chopped liver—well, perhaps ground, but still. ;-) —Encephalon 23:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support in my RFA. The final vote count was (66/2/3), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you need help, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an admin. Have a nice day! Stifle 17:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

A new editor is making rather bold claims about Judaism's view of Jesus, and also insisting he knows Jesus' Hebrew name. Could you possibly take a look at

• sholem-aleykhem Avraham! Beside ‎"‎װיקיפּעדיע‎"‎ ‎"‎װיקיביבליאָטעק‎‎"‎ stared today. I would be happy if you could help building the projects in Yiddish. a gut wokh Gangleri · Th · T 18:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

--~~~~Insert non-formatted text here--~~~~--~~~~--~~~~--~~~~#REDIRECT [[#REDIRECT [[Insert text]]#REDIRECT [[#REDIRECT [[Insert text]]#REDIRECT [[#REDIRECT [[Insert text]]#REDIRECT [[<s>Insert text</s><s><s>Strike-through text</s><s><s>Strike-through text</s><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />^{^{Superscript text}_{<small>Subscript text</small><small><!-- Small Text --> <gallery> <blockquote> Image:Example.jpg|Caption1 Image:Example.jpg|Caption2 </blockquote>{| class="wikitable" border="1" |<ref>- ! header 1 ! header 2 ! header 3 |- | row 1, cell 1 | row 1, cell 2 | row 1, cell 3 |- | row 2, cell 1 | row 2, cell 2 | row 2, cell 3</ref>[[''Link title''[ == http://www.example.com link title == [[Image:[[Media:Example.jpg]]]]]]] |} </gallery></small>}}</s></s>]]]]]]]]