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. |
1 | ← | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | → | 10 | 20 | 30 | 40 | 50 | 60 |
You've just blocked this user 48h; may I be so bold as to suggest the user's contribs mandate an indef-block? RadioKirk ( u| t| c) 03:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Props on the superfluous comma in "...adhering to correct spelling, grammar, punctuation, and capitalisation." I wish more admins had a sense of humor. TRWBW 03:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
a recent comment of his. I feel it's a personal attack/incitement on a few users/adminstrators and also a lie. it has support from both camps which was the reason. [1] Amoruso 07:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I have done more work on footnotes - appreciate your comments when you get time, thanks. Dave 19:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for a reminder. I didn't realise I had crossed the lines of civility and made a personal attack :). I didn't mean anything bad by my comment that he constantly added Zionists comments. I just wanted a good justification for why I was rechaning it. I'll be more careful in the future. BTW, should I appologize to him on his talk page (since I can't take back the edit summury) or otherwise let him know that I did not mean to be negative to him. ?? Sup dudes?[[User:Kitler005]] 20:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Avi: Please provide your view at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 10#Category:Saintly person tombs in Israel. Good Mo'ed. Thank you. IZAK 04:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I have written the following to the nominator:
Meshulam: You should avoid this kind of move (the hasty nomination to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medzhibozh (Hasidic dynasty)) because it's a slippery slope and could lead to the nomination for and deletion of similar articles about smaller Hasidic dynasties - by people who are not experts and don't care - with unintended consequences. Votes to delete are open to the world and you are inviting people who have no idea what this topic is about at all to cast a vote, which is very unfair and lacking insight. It seems that you may have been better off trying to add a {{ merge to}} template or considered MERGING the material at some point perhaps and WAITED (at least a month!) to do so. You should also have first started a discussion at a number of places where people who know something about this topic could have given their intelligent input, such as at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism and Wikipedia talk:Orthodox Rabbinical Biography Collaboration of the Week. Or you could have contacted other editors who deal with topics like this to solicit their views. This action of your is extreme and I do not condone it. I urge you to withdraw this nomination. Thank you. (I am cross-posting this message on a couple of relevant places, to get people's attention.) IZAK 10:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Avi. I'd definitely appreciate it if you could take a look, as I think in particular that your abilities at narrative writing would help the article. But there's no rush. Thanks, Jakew 19:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Good edits on the article, thank you for being willing to meet me in the middle! Lordkazan 19:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.
A few features that you might find helpful:
There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 04:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Please don't say that I removed sourced information when you sourced it AFTER I removed it while it was unsourced. Plus, it doesn't even matter if it sourced or not, presenting the NYT's translation as Wikipedia's POV is a violation of the neutral point of view policy -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 04:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Hag Sameach!
Do you think it is controversial to claim that Jews call their Tanakh "the Bible?" I don't. Do you think it is controversial to claim that "the Bible" refers only to the combined "Old Testament" and "New Testament," i.e. is a term that refers to the sacred scriptures of Christians (but not Jews)? I do, but this is precisely the claim Home Computer is making on the Bible talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bible#Current_layout
Feel free to weigh in. And please watch out for Home Computer's attempts to change the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
This allegation is untrue.. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Slrubenstein Peace -- Home Computer 15:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Please review the The Seven Worlds article. What is fact and waht is fiction? Anyone know? IZAK 11:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Please don't call other people's edit vandalism, as it's against wikipedia guidelines. Thanks. -- Hossein.ir 12:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Except when it is vandalism . -- Avi 12:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
It's a tad rough going towards the end. "Confirming their Locations Diversely in their Ancient Condition" might be more like "which confirms to the diversity of locations of the time of the camps" (conditionem possibly being more akin to condo). But barring my old Latin teacher showing up with her red pen, I'd never be certain. Thankfully, it ain't exactly the Aeneid. -- Kendrick7 06:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
BS"D
CRTs and LCDs are ksiva, I asked my Rov. -- Shaul avrom 00:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
And so did I, BTW. Also, I have discussed this with Talmidim of R' Moshe ZTL. If anything it is a machlokes heintege poskim, but I would like to hear his p'shat in k'siva that has LCD's and CRT's as such. Where is the Dyo, where is the G'vill, can you have a Sefer Torah on the screen? Are you chayav Skilah on Shabbos? Please let me know his sources for that, and how he understands the mechanics. Remember, people thought telephones were fire and such at one point (check the old t'shuvos). R' Shlomo Zalman went and spoke to physicists! -- Avi 00:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey Avi, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, — Khoi khoi 04:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm curious: Is there a group named, "African Americans for self-reenslavement"? And could you name any African-American or Jewish group which the KKK is allied with? Otherwise, I fail to see your reasoning. Surely, you don't actually believe that Neturei Karta are anti-semitic as well? Robocracy 00:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Avi,
You know that longish section at the circ talk page that focuses more on the etiquettes of inter-editor dialogue than on the subject of the article? Would you consider moving that whole section to the complaining editor's talk page? Based on your post there it appears that you might agree with me about this. It is an unfortunate request because both the primary editor involved and the target of his discontent are both generally excellent contributors to that page and I hadn't been aware of any specific conflict between them. However having such a personalized dialogue on a "public" talk page is not fair to the targeted editor. I've discussed this with the affected editor by e-mail and while he would be content to just let the thing get archived away eventually, he also wouldn't mind if the thing were removed to an appropriate place. This request comes from me, not him; I discussed it with him by e-mail just to see how he would react if I contacted an admin about the situation. The only thing that comes to my mind while writing this now is that if the discussion is removed to a user talk page it may linger in plain sight much longer than it would if archived at the circ page. Anyhow, I still don't think it belongs at circ -- but I have nothing more to contribute on the point. Do what you think is best for all concerned. Thanks much. Dasondas 12:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
See my response on WP:ANI. Prodego talk 14:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
My point for removing those lines were obvious. This is journalism, and here, in wikipedia, is not allowed.
It seems that you think anyone that do not accept your opinion is a vandal: [ diff]
Anyway, read Biographies_of_living_persons, writing style section for more information. You can read parts of it here:
The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view.
The nice thing about you is that you do your personal attacks with what I call "misunderstanding voice of common with your opinion". When you want to call someone a vandal, you say that "All the wikipedians think that you're vandal". This is not different with saying "I think you're a vandal".
So, don't call me vandal again. Thanks. -- Hossein.ir 16:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't quickly find the full 1975 text, but I found this reference (in the CPS most recent statement)
"In 1971 and 1975 the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) took a stand against the routine circumcision of newborns on the basis that there are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period.2,3 In 1975 the Fetus and Newborn Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) reviewed the literature available at that time and reached the same conclusion.4 In 1983 this position was reiterated by the AAP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in their joint publication Guidelines for Perinatal Care.5 The CPS Fetus and Newborn Committee re-examined the issue in 1982, in response to an article on the benefits and risks of circumcision,6 and saw no reason to modify its 1975 statement.7
The current version does not accurately reflect their position. TipPt 22:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Here are the 1982 and 1975 statements ... [5]. The current (text in the Topic) version refers to the 1982 statement, which in turn refers to the 1975 statement. Without the 1975 information those reaffirmations are missed. TipPt 22:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Why do you refuse to see their bottom line (and refuse to let the reader see the info). Their bottom line position is that there is no medical indication for neonatal circs. That position is lost in your current version. TipPt 22:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's the CPS in their most recent statement:
"In 1971 and 1975 the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) took a stand against the routine circumcision of newborns on the basis that there are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period.2,3 In 1975 the Fetus and Newborn Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) reviewed the literature available at that time and reached the same conclusion.4 In 1983 this position was reiterated by the AAP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in their joint publication Guidelines for Perinatal Care.5 The CPS Fetus and Newborn Committee re-examined the issue in 1982, in response to an article on the benefits and risks of circumcision,6 and saw no reason to modify its 1975 statement.7"
Seems like you would insist on saying "there are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period" in the summary intro paragraph! TipPt 22:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
PS ... I find no fault with the CPS and their statements. I don't like your cherry picking parts of the most recent statement, omitting references reaffirming prior statements ... that are the heart of their statement (in the conclusion sections) TipPt 22:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Responded on your talk page to stop this back-and-forthing -- Avi 22:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I have never misquoted a source or misrepresented their meaning. your omission of facts is the same an misrepresentation. TipPt 22:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting my link in the header (and offering a link to the style guide). Had no idea that was the preferred style. IronDuke 03:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello, based on our conversation on the Administrator's noticeboard, I wasn't sure if you wanted me to try to talk to Hossein.ir or not. (Like I said, I can't mediate, because I would not be neutral due to the fact that I know you, and like you more than someone I don't know.) Anyways, just wanted to clarify. Armedblowfish ( talk| mail) 23:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I think I might have crushed your cite templates on Kosher tax... Jayjg (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Avraham,
I see looking at the WikiProject user warnings page, that you are a participant in this project. I have recently started an undertaking to harmonise all user page warnings and templates. For this I would like your assistance. I have listed a number of ideas on the project template page here as a first draft. I fully appreciate that as with most editors and admins, that you are fairly busy. Therefore I am not looking for anyone to carry out the actual work, I am willing to do that myself, with help from a number of other RC Patrollers who have come forward. But what I am looking for is your invaluable input, on the draft ideas and also to suggest other ways you believe we may improve the templates. I do however require the services of a couple of administrators to put into effect some of the new templates, as they are currently protected. Please take 5 mins to look through the new templates page, and both the project and templates talk pages and leave any ideas or suggestions that you may have. Best regards Khukri ( talk . contribs) 09:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Do not make false claims in your edit summaries such as you did here - your claims are disproven by the 1975 Statement by the Canadian Paediatric Society Lordkazan 14:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you invest in a calculator or calendar; 1975 is not "since" 2004, but 29 years prior -- Avi 14:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
You caught the latest change to John M. Walker, Jr. at the same time I did. Good job, but aren't you supposed to be studying? :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, Avi, I wasn't involved in the original edit as you can see. However, I thought those photos went particularly well with the section comment that wound up alongside them, This section is a stub. You can help by adding to it.. Dasondas 23:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
/rimshot -- Avi 23:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I can read edit summaries perfectly well. Please discuss this on the artice talk page. Thankyou. Arniep 00:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I did :LOL: You should too. ;) -- Avi 00:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello Avi,
While RC patrolling I noticed that a new contributor responded to a comment you made on his talk page there. I thought it unlikely that you'd run across it on your own, so here's a link. User talk:63.138.87.171
Regards, — Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 01:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
That was funy. IronDuke 15:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
You reverted the "citation needed" additions I added to Israel. I'm pretty sure none of what is included here is up to encyclopedia standards. And this is just what I found in one paragraph. It's a good thing I didn't waste too much time on something that was going to be summararily reverted no matter how careful the contribution. PalestineRemembered 21:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)