User talk:Avraham/Archive 37

This is an archive of past discussions with Avraham. 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.

< Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38 >

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  11 -  12 -  13 -  14 -  15 -  16 -  17 -  18 -  19 -  20 -  21 -  22 -  23 -  24 -  25 -  26 -  27 -  28 -  29 -  30 -  31 -  32 -  33 -  34 -  35 -  36 -  37 -  38 -  39 -  40 -  41 -  42 -  43 -  44 -  45 -  46 -  47 -  48 -  49 -  50 -  51 -  52 -  53 -  54 -  55 -  56 -  57 -  58 -  59 -  60 -  ... (up to 100)

This guy is seems to be following me around and reverting my edits. I don't have time for diffs now because I am going out. [1] Its pretty obvious though because he does not have many edits. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He may be editing with his IP number too. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the mitzvah that you're thinking of is "yeshivat ha'aretz" and for your information when refering to a tzadik it's more polite to write the letter "R'" before his name or at least call him on his first name--Magendavidusa (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can do me a favor please tell Malcolm schosha to contact me through my e-mail. -- Usjewishresearchfoundation (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I could have than I would have. I can't mess up my technichal cumputer system for an e-mail. So would you please tell him to contact me? -- Usjewishresearchfoundation (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the requirement of aliyah, I had added that based (in part) on the WP article which says: Aliyah is included as a commandment by some opinions on the enumeration of the 613 commandments [2]. If that is incorrect, the Aliyah article needs to be changed also. NB: a quick web search of indicates that -- at least some -- do seem to consider it an obligation, for example [3]. I have virtually no knowledge of halacha, and can go only by the judgments of others. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Avraham,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either I don't understand your answer or you didn't understand my question, the choice is yours. Sincerely,--Magendavidusa (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my account, sorry.

It's not my account, sorry. --harrypotterusa (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my account, sorry. Usjewishresearchfoundation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usjewishresearchfoundation (talk • contribs) 22:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please userfy the deleted article Egolf Tarheel Tour for me? Thank you. Refriedm (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- Avi (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Refriedm (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Avi. Has there been any movement on this RFCU? It's clogging up our almost empty outstanding requests section! [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 15:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This whole accusation of sockpuppetry has put a damper on me editing. I think I am not alone. Anyone who is suddenly accused of misconduct when none has occurred may similarily lose interest in Wikipedia.

Is it possible to start a new paradigm in Wikipedia? It doesn't have to be policy, merely collective thinking among a few people. That paradigm would be that the sole determination of misconduct would be editing quality. If you edit well and help Wikipedia, you are welcome. If you don't, this is not welcomed. Accusations of sockpuppetry and harm to the encyclopedia that false accusations bring would nearly end.

Even though one can say they are sorry, the damage is already done. One cannot kill or injure a person and simply say sorry to the family.

If we follow this paradigm, then sockpuppetry would be limited to editor A and B, both of whom edit the same article and propose the same changes. If A and B edit different articles, then they should never be accused of sockpuppetry. The person that you accused me of being (and blocked both of us) never edited the same articles. We are different people. I don't even know who the other person is.

Even if the same computer was being used, the accuser cannot usually know if a family member, colleague, or unrelated user is the other user.

I bring this up with you not to argue but because I hope you are a reasonable enough person to come up with a solution with me. The proposed solution is somehow to change the Wikipedia practice of evaluating edits as the primary means and to diminish the role of sockpuppet allegations as a means of improving Wikipedia edits. Spevw (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read your user page and so see that we share the same thoughts on articles. Could you please check that I've placed the speedy delete correctly on the article Iain Ward. I'm not for deleting information articles that may even have a scrap of information that could be useful to someone, but where the information is weak or of little standing I cannot see the point of it being on the Wiki. My main aim is to tidy up the Wiki, as I love the principles behind this project. BSTemple (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I have removed the delete comments from the Talk page as well. Still amazed that a complete page can be given for having done so little, and from what I can see, does not even play now nor achieved anything. Thank you for the quick action. If I have anymore doubts on articles etc, I might pay you a call again. The kind comments were sincerely given and proved justified. BSTemple (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi;

I am alive a well. I recently made a change to Rubik's Cube to correct a mathematical error. In fact, i tried it 3 times and the changes appeared but disappeared the next day. But there is not record of the changes being recorded or being undone.

i just made the change again, to see what will happen.,

nobody has contacted me to say that they disagree with what i have done, so i am at a loss.

jan 14, 2009 joe (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC) joe brophy[reply]

Why would you delete the redirect from

? It is generally prudent to have redirects from alternative capitalizations for several reasons. One reason is that people may link to the title that redirects. If the redirect page is deleted, the link becomes a red link, and then someone may click on it and start a new article there, oblvious to the fact that one already exists. If the redirect is there, those who click on the link will find what they're looking for.

Do you know that just 11 minutes after you deleted the redirect page, you linked to it in an edit summary? How would anyone understand your edit summary if that link doesn't work? Michael Hardy (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Avi. When you're doing investigations at SPI and you finish the CU part, can you change {{RFCU|A|B|endorse}} to {{RFCU|A|B|checked}}? The bot needs to know! Thanks, [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 16:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was replying to John Nagle, not you, hence my indentation being equal to yours, not one colon more. ThuranX (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, yes please. Let's avoid giving him fodder. ThuranX (talk) 01:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help dealing with the user Jonund that had been attempting to whitewash Solzhenitsyn for months?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Galassi (talk • contribs) 20:27, January 21, 2009

Would you please lend a hand in settling an edit war in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Solzhenitsyn#Accusations_of_Antisemitism ?-Galassi (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - At requests for unblocking, there is an IP User talk:79.73.12.167 from a large rangeblock that you placed in November. Black Kite 11:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Avraham, you might think this a strange request, but I find in my editing history there are three deletes. But I cannot find where or why. Please do not get me wrong, I don't mind someone deleting for the right reasons and I am not vain or arrogant, but I like to know so that I can learn from this, and not make the same mistakes elsewhere. All my work on the Wikipedia is for improvement. Are you able to help?--BSTemple (talk) 11:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for solving the mystery. Don't know why they did that? Still it's nice to know I have not been making any errors as such.--BSTemple (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]