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 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 > |
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) |
I'm glad to see your RfB. I have registered my support and wish you the best of luck! Majoreditor ( talk) 00:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll add good wishes, as well. You might also want to know that, as you're using the word in your nom, you want "community's", not "communities." I'd change it myself, but some people might take it the wrong way or have a problem with that. IronDuke 13:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I needed that. Thanks mate, best as always Nishidani ( talk) 22:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you think I should create a separate case for the first account created in the third set of confirmed socks on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/James Tucton, or are they from one of the above sets (James Tucton or 767-249ER)? Your statement appears it could be either. Syn ergy 15:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Avi, pleased to meet you.
I viewed the answer to Q12 as tl;dr at first, but after you asked me, I read it over and moved to support. Best of luck on the remainder of your RfB, Dylan ( chat, work, ping, sign) 00:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations!!!!☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 20:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Well done, use your new tools well! Camaron | Chris (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations! Jayjg (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations! I have no doubt you will wear the bureaucratic mantle well. Risker ( talk) 22:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
You were on RFB? Woah. I should've supported you; if I knew, I would've! :) Sceptre ( talk) 02:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Avraham,
First, congratulations and welcome back, hope you had an enjoyable holiday. I have a question that I hope you can answer; is there any way to have in the en.wiki watchlist pages from commons? It is a bit of an annoyance going back and forth just to check on things. Thanks,
Nableezy (
talk)
17:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
My various attempts at resolving the issue we previously discussed keep bouncing me back to you, so I figured I'd inquire as to how things were progressing. Best regards, Xenophrenic ( talk) 21:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about this. I was trying to move it as well, but did the rename first. Apologies for cutting you off. Either way, I'm off now, so they're all yours. ;-) Best, — Anonymous Dissident Talk 15:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I want find out if I can return to my former user name, or if it will be necessary to create a new user name. It is not clear to me of this is possible to return to the old one; and if it is possible, if that can be done on WP:Changing username. Your advice will be appreciated. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 18:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Some edits just scream "revert me now". I never knew I could be bored after two sentences. Seriously, I hesitate when messing with others' talk pages. I didn't think you'd want that displayed, though. See ya 'round. Tide rolls 04:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. This little form letter is just a courtesy notice to let you know that a proposal to merge the projects Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, Wikipedia:WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration into the newly formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media has met with general support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files. Since you're on the rosters of membership in at least one of those projects, I thought you might be interested. Conversation about redirecting those projects is located here. Please participate in that discussion if you have any interest, and if you still have interest in achieving the goals of the original project, we'd love to have you join in. If you aren't interested in either the conversation or the project, please pardon the interruption. :) Thanks. Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I am AUM from cz.wiki. I would like to make unified account as AUM, but I have found this: http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=AUM. Is it possible to get (usurp) these apparently inactive accounts? What do you think about getting aum accounts too to avoid possible confusion? I have an account aum-en here on en.wiki as you can see. Can it be connected to AUM somehow? Thanks. AUM / -- Aum.en ( talk) 11:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Just to reply here, which is more appropriate. I've never thought of articles on Judaism as part of the I/P area, so my suggestion wouldn't affect them. It is true that we have huge academic sources for the I/P area, whereas, if one compares secondary academic sources on Judaism to the sheer quantity of primary sources, commentaries on the Talmud, the specialist secondary literature might not often cope adequately with the niceties and complexities of Judaic tradition. As a general rule, in the latter, however, I still think the articles on Judaism poorly done by.
'Acharonim don’t contradict rishonim.' Danon Danin,Shaʻare emunah, tr. Ravi Shachar, Feldheim Publishers, 2002 p.352
‘the Halakhah has always been inhibited by its interpreters’ veneration for their predecessors. The Amoraim deferred to the Tannaim, the Geonim (heads of the Babylonian academies= to the Amoraim, the Rishonim (earlier authorities) to the Geonim, and the Acharonim (later authorities) to the Rishonim. And the Acharonim of recent times have been the most timid of all . .In particular, they have been inclined to invoke the Mishnaic principles . . .that one court may not rescind the decision of another unless it is superior in wisdom and number ( Eduyot 1:4). As Solomon Freehof has pointed out, that rule was intended to apply to contemporary courts, but ‘Orthodoxy in recent centuries preferred, in its nervousness, to take the dictum to mean something that it was never intended to mean, namely, that no court of any generation can ever change the opinion of any other court, in whatever generation it lived, unless this modern court that wants to change the law can claim to be greater in number and wisdom than the predecessor’.’ John D.Tayner, Jewish Religious Law: a progressive perspective, Berghahn Books, 1998 p.38
‘The opinions of the Rishonim gained almost universal acceptance through the Shulkhan Aruch, and therefore, later authorities could not counter them. While the Acharonim may decide between the opinions found among the Rishonim, they do not dispute them without overwhelming proof.' Aryeh Kaplan, The Aryeh Kaplan Reader: The Gift He Left Behind: Collected Essays on Jewish Themes from the Noted Writer and Thinker, Mesorah Publications, 1983 p.213
Hi Avi,
I hope all is well with you.
I saw that you're a member of Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. I'm not sure whether you can restore an essay that was in somebody's userspace, but if you can, could you move User:Videmus Omnia/Requesting free content to my userspace? It was a very helpful essay, and I'm sorry to see it deleted. Thanks, — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 19:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
see m:User talk:Avraham. thanks, Daniel B ( talk) 18:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I am surprised at some of the comments you have been making on the West Bank Workshop, and have initiated a discussion on the talk page. John Vandenberg ( chat) 07:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Avi, regarding this. Let me preface this by saying that when you write something I am going to pay attention and try and heed any advice you pass along, because as far as I can tell you are one of the few editors on this project that commands the respect of both 'sides' in that area of contentious editing. But, as you said everybody in that thread carries some guilt, I would be interested in knowing what it is that you think I should be correcting in my behavior. It was my feeling that the user which that thread was focused on followed Tiamut just to annoy her in a pretty easily recognizable case of hounding, something for which that user had been warned for in the past. If I did something wrong in bringing this up please let me know, but I felt that was in keeping with DefendEachOther. But please do let me know if you see error in my ways and I will attempt to correct any issues. Thanks, Nableezy ( talk) 22:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I find it rather funny that you've positively concluded that
Smedpull (
talk ·
contribs) and
Chingadiculous (
talk ·
contribs) are each other's sockpuppets. Take a look at Smedpull's talk page and after that revise the sockpuppet policy. Chingadiculous serves as their new account, which is fine.
All this aside, please do not punish them for my issues. These types of "mistrials" are only damaging the Wikipedia community. If you wish to learn about my story, I'll answer any question.
87.69.57.241 (
talk)
08:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Avi, I'd welcome your views on this suggestion, if you have time. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 03:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
-- Tinu Cherian - 00:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I sincerely thank you for closing my BAG membership nomination which passed today at 8/0/0 unanimously. I will endeavor to justify the trust the WP community has placed in me....Have a nice day. :-) -- Tinu Cherian - 09:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC) |
For watching over me. Blackworm ( talk) 18:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the great news! Wow! -- Rosiestep ( talk) 21:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
It has been customary for a while (at least I think) to use account names such as User:Renamed user 2. If you start a new system, such as User:Inactive user account 001, it will only confuse people. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I know you've dealt with this user in the past, so I'll be straight - I'm a former meatpuppet of his who he recruited a few years back. The user was a bit like User:MascotGuy except he did use talk pages. I'm just being open and honest here. I've decided to make a fresh start, per [ [1]]. I'm not sure if this applies to meatpuppets though. Anyway, should point out that not every user suspected of being him is him, as he did recruit meatpuppets.
I'm really sorry for this, and for any upset that he caused you, or any Checkuser/sysop/Wikimedian. But I live and learn. -- Gulsig4 ( talk) 21:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Stuart Adamson.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 05:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Avi. On Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sui (later moved and merged with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JarlaxleArtemis/Archive), you mentioned that Suit ( talk · contribs) was unrelated, and that you had unblocked him. However, he is still blocked for email abuse. I was wondering if Suit was completely innocent of his block reason, and whether he should be unblocked, or whether he should remain blocked for the reason stated in his block log. Just for clarification. Thanks. :) PeterSymonds ( talk) 21:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Please explain how in your view, the BMA's quoted statement "contradicts the BMA." [2] It seems you may believe the BMA is contradicting itself, but you have not adequately demonstrated that, and thus your reversion seems based on (at least) original research. Also please explain the reversion of the other changes, which you did not address in your edit summary. Blackworm ( talk) 22:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Your view on circumcision seems to be rather biased. Please try to stay as neutral as possible in the debate. Why do try to suppress reliable information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.109.57 ( talk) 00:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)