User talk:Avraham

Avraham is currently:

Lost.

Check my status history for more info.

Update: On • Busy • Work/Class • Off

Kohen

I have left a message on the Kohen discussion page.

I unfortunately can no longer devote my time towards disputing what I believe to be a manipulation and fabrication of the basic truths regarding the Kohen Wiki Page. Even if I could devote my time; this would most likely prove futile as I lack authority and numbers on Wikipedia. There are two users in particular who revert everything I post. They claim that only English sources are accepted, though Rabbi Moshe Feinstein specifically forbade anyone from translating his Igerot Moshe. I have sources from the Magen Avram and Rema on the Shulchan Aruch, The Rivash on siman צד, the Igerot Moshe on Even Haezer 4 siman 39, The Yam Shel Shlomo Bava Kama perek ה siman לה and Chulin perek ח siman ד, the Chelkas Mechokek EH 2:1 Divrei Yatziv by R' Y. Halberstam E.H. 6 and "Yechaveh Da'at" by R' O. Yosef, V 61, the Gra and Yaakov Emden.

All I request is that there be some indication on a fitting part of this page that people today are treated as if they were Kohanim not because of a Torah commandment- but rather: in order not to cause arguments (darchei shalom). In addition I believe it is logical to assume that it is dishonest for one to quote the halachic opinion of the Rambam regarding Kohanim while at the same time entirely ignore his philosophical opinions about them. Lastly, the Gutnick Chumash in Devarim states that the role of the Kohen will be transfered to the Bechor when the third Beit Hamikdash is built; this too has been completely ignored simply because it comes from Chabad. There are statements that are left on the orthodox section of this page that come from Reformed, Conservative and Hebrew sources. There are statements that are left on the orthodox section of this page that are not even sourced at all. There are statements that are left on the orthodox section of this page who's sole authority come from as little as one shule or one Rabbi. Yet, my sources which consist of the most authoritative people in Jewish history are deemed as being outdated, in the wrong language or not popular enough. For instance, I was told that I cannot use the Yam Shel Shlomo (which the Magen Avram in the Shulchan Aruch quotes) or the Rivash because they were too old, the Igerot Moshe because it was in a different language, the Gutnick Chumash because this is "only used by Chabad" and is not popular enough and a YU Rabbi because he is only one Rabbi. Yet, an article about the practice of one modern Rabbi in the middle of no-where who allows women to receive alliyas by having a minyan composed of entirely Kohanim and women- was permitted to be left on and was not deemed to be independent research.

To conclude; I can only assume that there are personal motivations by a large segment of the orthodox population to maintain whatever belief serves to benefit Kohanim while remove any information that serves as a detriment to them. There is a www.hebrewbooks.org link to all the sources mentioned above and more at the website www.kohen.webs.com

Two users who delete everything I do claim that only recent, english and ("and" apposed to "or") popular sources are accepted. Yet there are many accepted pages where old Hebrew sources are accepted even though Wikipedia is "not a yeshiva" (what I was told by User "Jayjg". For example see the Wiki Kashrut page which has the following sources. It has the Igerot Moshe, Yoreh De'ah and the philisophical opinion about Kashrut from Maimonides in the Guide for the Perplexed. Yet, when I try to quote the exact same sources on the Kohen Wiki page they are removed.

^ Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 83 and 84 ^ Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 85 ^ Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 87 et seq ^ Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 1–65 ^ Shulchan Aruch Yoreh De'ah 66–78 ^ Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, 318:1 ^ Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, 431–452 ^ Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 114 ^ Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 113 ^ a b Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 115 ^ Many rely on lenient rulings by Rabbi Moshe Feinstein in Teshuvot Igrot Moshe. Yoreh De'ah 1:47 and other 20th century rabbinic authorities who rule that strict government supervision prevents the admixture of non-kosher milk, making supervision unnecessary. See also Rabbi Chaim Jachter. "Chalav Yisrael – Part I: Rav Soloveitchik's View". Retrieved 2007-12-02. ^ Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 112, Orach Chayim 603 The Torah does not state reasons for most kashrut laws. Many varied reasons have been suggested, including philosophical, practical and hygienic. The Guide for the Perplexed, by Maimonides addresses this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ventura488 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

yashar koach

..in dealing with the Kohen page in a courteous, diplomatic, and decisive manner--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

כחך מיושר. כתיבה וחתימה טובה. -- אבי -- Avi (talk) 03:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

CU request

Hello Avi, I realize that CU cannot "clear" somebody, but would you mind terribly looking at the allegations here and possibly weighing in? Thanks and no worries if you dont feel comfortable doing so. nableezy - 02:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Jiujitsuguy#Sockpuppetry claims. If he has evidence, he should bring it. If you are socking, you should know better, and preventative measures should be taken. But I do not think it is proper to make such accusation to individual editors. We have a central location for these kinds of investigations. -- Avi (talk) 03:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Good edit today

Thanks for ending the minor flurry on Messianic Judaism by adding "religious" to Jewish movements in the lead section. It reads well and states both side's position--DeknMike (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC).

Thanks :) -- Avi (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't block him; I'm not an admin.

I just posted the indef tag. He was physically threatening people. RBI and all that. HalfShadow 23:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

According to this, he's been blocked for about ten minutes now. But hey, knock yerself out. HalfShadow 23:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

S'alright. We should probably expect more, though. Might not happen, but wouldn't hurt to keep an open eye. "Piss comes in a rain"... HalfShadow 23:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Check user on this puppet (which ever he is Sock or Meat)

I have just added User:Jewdefence to EinsteinDonut's SPI case needless to say I am livid.... Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

 Unrelated I already checked. Sometimes you have to start assuming good faith 8-) -- Avi (talk) 00:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

So he is not appletree, then it has to be a meat puppet Was it at least on a proxy? Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

None of the above. People have their own minds, you know, and someone who has been reading JIDF and has the same political viewpoint may well feel that DA is getting the raw end of the stick completely on their own. The fact that this person has all the political savvy of a hippopotamus in a lace factory does not mean that DA is masterminding a plot. -- Avi (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I am being a little oversensitive here. However i do think it is a meatpuppet, coming hours after his tweet. Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand; you were a target for this guy's ire. However, I believe that there is a difference between a meatpuppet, who is enlisted, and a follower who is not. For example, we have talkpage stalkers responding all the time. I understand that David is on thin ice here, and he will have to re-earn AGF, but in this case, all indications lead me to believe that this is not meatpuppetry but a JIDF follower who does not know how to handle his or her frustration in a wiki, nay socially, acceptable way. There is no excuse for calling people nazis unless they truly are (skinheads, Goebbels, etc.) One violation, I would have given a 4im, but this guy dropped 3 unacceptable bombs, and deserves the indef until they apologize and commit never to do it again. -- Avi (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"no"

I suspect this word is missing on your recent comment on the JIDF sock page. As your comment stands, it may create some confusion. (the language skills of one account vs. the other made it clear that this was the right opinion, but i appreciate you taking the time).Bali ultimate (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up; I can be klutzy sometimes, sorry. :( -- Avi (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

yes thank you for it. I am retiring for the night since I am just getting more and more agitated the longer i stay on. Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Good move, Weapon. A few hours almost always helps things fall into perspective, at least it does in my experience 8-) -- Avi (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Appledonut

Running this past you as you proposed the change of tack. The JIDF and associated meatpuppets were just community banned (discussion, log of ban [1]). As you know "David Appletree" is currently contraving "Banned users should not create a new account to file an appeal or to post in a discussion. This would be considered sock-puppetry and the new account will usually be blocked. They should be seen to comply with their ban, which will gain a more favorable opinion." (WP:BAN). It's also difficult to see how his not using two socks at the same time over the past month or his suddenly deciding to use his pseudonym here can count in his favour.

On the community ban, the stated procedure is "Bans imposed by the community may be appealed to the community or to the Arbitration Committee" this would seem to preclude either unilaterally overturning a ban or doing so with the agreement of a handful of users. Given that the closer stated there was "near-unanimous consensus by the community" an explicit community endorsement of an overturn, via another discussion, would seem to be necessary.

As to whether the user should be trusted (and hence whether there's any point in going through the discussion again) there is of course the long-term socked/meatpuppetry etc. (Note the 1st two socks you confirmed are long-standing sleepers.) But more importantly, now that you've confirmed the individual behind at least the recent socks runs the website, what possible grounds could there be for trusting someone who e.g. accuses a broad swath of editors he disagrees with of antisemitism ([2]) and hosts hatespeech such as:

As we have mentioned, we are against the Ground Zero mosque, just as we are against ALL mosques, as they are tributes to the genocidal pedophile false prophet (idol), Mohammed, who was a murderer of Jews, and anyone else who didn't think and believe the way he did.

...

Because Islam is a hateful and violent ideology which preaches hate and violence against ALL non-Muslims (especially Jews, as it is obsessed with us, and dehumanizes us as apes and pigs), we are against ALL mosques. We are against Islam, just as we are against Nazism. Just as we don't wish to see Nazi institutions springing up everywhere, we don't need to see Islamic one's springing up everywhere, either.

...

There is just Islam.

All one has to know about it, is what we saw on 9/11, and have seen in over 15,000 deadly terrorist attacks in its name since that tragic day. ([3])

Should this individual really be given another chance simply because after being community-banned he decides to turn up with an account using his pseudonym & actually owns up to the above? Misarxist (talk) 11:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That is up to the community. I am supportive of an alternative that has the potential of being more positive to wikipedia than an outright banning. Then again, I proposed the suggestion that kept User:PalestineRemembered on wiki for an extra couple of years, and PR's position on Israel is pretty clear too. Blocks and bans are not punitive but preventative; please remember that. Otherwise there about 20 people on both sides of the I-P issue I'd have no problem indefblocking/banning from wiki for past actions and statements. Regardless of one's personal opinions, policy as I've always understood it is that with rare exceptions decided upon by ArbCom, if you toe the line, you may edit; and we prefer rehabilitation, when possible, to exile, which is a last resort. -- Avi (talk) 12:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean you will formally propose conditions for an unbanning & then let that discussion run it's course? This would seem to involve the existing ban being observed, perhaps with condition that Appletree can edit only to engage in that discussion. On that point (in my 1st two paragraphs above) I can't see any matter of "personal opinions", it's a simple matter of following an existing consensus until overturned or not as the case may be.

I assume when you refer to "personal opinions" you mean my characterisation of the user in question, which is substantiated, and can be further if needed. I brought those particular problems to your attention simply to check that you are aware of the implications, and obvious pitfalls of what you are proposing. The website run by the individual in question has been airing similar material for a year or two and has in fact toned it down. Previously it was plastered with quotes from the racist terrorist Kahane, and had the Kach logo prominently displayed. Not wishing to encourage such a person would fall well within the realm of "preventative". But if you wish to formally propose unbanning him, this can be discussed as appropriate. Misarxist (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

There has been no opposition to the suggestion that Off2 and I mentor David for now, which automatically implies that the ban on Einstein is lifted SOLELY for the David Appletree account. However, if you like, I will bring it up on ANI for more clarification. -- Avi (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Warning

If you are not careful, I will set my granddaughter on you. So don't say you haven't been warned. RolandR (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

-- Avi (talk) 17:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Unblock reviewed template

Hello Avi. I've commented at the talk page and I think that you should seek consensus for the change, or at least start a thread at AN. The changed wording certainly doesn't reflect the current practice, especially in regards to indef-blocked vandals. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Undone; let's talk there. -- Avi (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

thanks

Thank you from the barnstar Avi, from the POV of, your enemies are but friends with whom you have yet to resolve a disagreement. I will treasure this one. Off2riorob (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Um I think one got missed out along the line Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		For being willing to act as a mentor, despite the difficulty it would entail. While it is unfortunate that the mentorship was not allowed to progress, and the user in question reverted to actions that caused the blocks in the first place, your willingness to extend the offer of help and put yourself in an uncomfortable position to try and better the English Wikipedia project is a testament to your character and a asset to the project. Thank you. -- Spartaz Humbug! 16:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk page

Is there a way to lock the discussion page while I type my missive? I appreciate your comment, but it blew away the paragraph I had just finished writing.--DeknMike (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that's an WP:Edit conflict, and the answer, unfortunately is no. Sometimes hitting "Back" on your browser works. If I type something long, I have the habit of copying it into memory (or a text file in the case or REALLY long posts) JUST for that reason. Sorry. -- Avi (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved?

I understand why you marked that thread resolved, but I for one think we at least need some understanding from the admin that he understands that it was improper. I've posted that in the thread though I didn't remove your tag.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Remove it if you want to, I was just trying to make it immediately apparent that the block was removed :) -- Avi (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I've said my peace there. I do find it baffling that apparently it's excessive to think an admin would step up and say "I understand it was a bad block".--Cube lurker (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

My conscience got to me. I actually don't find it baffling. I understand the deal here. It just sounded good.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that an apology from HJ would be nice, but the entire situation is SO fraught with tension now, that the better thing may be to wait until tensions settle a bit. When people are emotional, they also become defensive; at least I do (and as a megalomaniac, if it works for me, it works for everyone!! 8-) ). I think the project is better served as a whole if the tension bleeds out than if someone has to twist HJ's arm. Just my thoughts. -- Avi (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Erlau (Hasidic dynasty)

Hi. This is the third time that I've reverted attempts by User:Yankirosenberg to change the accepted spelling of the name of this Hasidut. I put a notice on his page and he just vandalized again. Could you help here? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Note left. -- Avi (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It was a nice note. Yoninah (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

First Black actuary

I added a reference (video by International Association of Black Actuaries) on the actuary talk page, to qualify that Robert J. Randall Sr. is the first black actuary. Please respond or add the changes you removed. -- Sugarfoot1001 22:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll look at it soon, I hope, thanks for the note. -- Avi (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI

An SPI where you previously commented has been reopened. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nableezy. Sincerely, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Please check your email--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Checked. -- Avi (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

falsely accused

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was falsely accused. It is quite clear to everyone that read this section. if it is left as "accused" then it implies that it wasn't falsified, when it was. I realize that wikipedia should not be used as a source, but there are good sources to that section. You mention a "whole article" about it. what are you referring to? Eyalmc (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Some people believe that Ahmadinejad was falsely accused, not others. Actually, he was truely accused; whether the allegations themselves are true or false is still a matter discussed by politicians and historians alike, as discussed in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel#"Wiped off the map" or "Vanish from the pages of time" translation. You are entitled to your opinion, but not to force your opinion on wikipedia. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

My point is that those who believe he is rightly accused were subject to a misleading translation, that was distributed internationally, but when verified, was discovered as false. I didn't see a single source which claim otherwise. So i think that it is important to include in the article the fact that all those publications that spread like fire proved to be misleading. this is not the first time media does that and it's important to point it out INMHO Eyalmc (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That is the opinion of some. Other translators, experts, and historians believe the translation was accurate and the following media blitz is an example of post-event spin and damage control. We bring both and do not assume one is more correct than the other, as you are doing. -- Avi (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you show a single credible translator which claim he said the Zionist entity should be wiped off the map, without ignoring the context? I can easily show you the opposite: here Eyalmc (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Now you are engaging in WP:original research, not to mention that personal blogs are never considered reliable, or did you not read the "about us" section where the website you linked is described as "One person's effort to correct the distorted perceptions provided by commercial media.". So what you have brought is not acceptable on wikipedia for various reasons. On the other hand, the initial translation was performed by a professional translator, an employee of the government in Tehran, and not some person with a website and an agenda like informationclearinghouse. This has been upheld by the New York Times deputy foreign editor, again, not some not some person with a website and an agenda. So while you may disagree with the opinion, you cannot impose your opinion on either the facts or wikipedia. -- Avi (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

AN/I Discussion

Please note that I have referred to one of your comments on a post in this AN/I discussion. Thank you.[4] Blackworm (talk) 07:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

We've been through that on your talk page already, Blackworm. -- Avi (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I know. But it lingers, especially when my comments get removed and I get a stern block warning when I act the way you taught me with that comment. All the best, Avi. Blackworm (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, it could not be that there is a difference between the way you write and the way I write that people recognize 8-) -- Avi (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you have the "admin" tag. Steward even. Very recognizable, that. Blackworm (talk) 02:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That is not a difference in the way we write, Blackworm, although it is an indication that I have earned the trust and respect of hundreds of wikimedians and the vast majority of those who take the time to weigh in when volunteers stand, for whatever that is worth. -- Avi (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If only you could claim your statement on the parallels between the points of view of some editors and the "nothing new" "antisemitic techniques" of some ancient antisemites had the same wide support. Perhaps it does, but we don't seem to know, as few have the courage to comment on it. Blackworm (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Or, perhaps, others choose not to interpret it as you have. But looking at your talk page, you have accused other project members of making accusations of editor antisemitism before. -- Avi (talk) 04:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I accused them of supporting insinuations about the antisemitism of editors. It's happened three times in the five years I've been here, and in one case it was merely a poor choice of words on the editor's part and an misunderstanding on mine, so it was well resolved. In two of those cases, which were related to the same article topic, there seemed to be no misunderstanding and you (and not Jayjg, to my memory) defended both yours and Jayjg's statements and their right to state them to the very last. I just got slapped for insinuating unpleasant things about editors. Perhaps the few who read the comments did "choose not to interpret it as" I have. But it seems we shan't know, regardless of the reason for the silence. Blackworm (talk) 05:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)