User talk:Yidisheryid

Welcome 1

Welcome!

Hello, Yidisheryid, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WELCOME #2

Welcome, Reb Yid. Stop by and join WP:JEW. See you around. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 03:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I believe you intended well, but please note that any form of attention exacerbates the matter. (see: Wikipedia:don't feed the trolls. Thanks. --woggly 07:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Since you've popped up on my watchlist, you're obviously the right guy to confirm, or not, my point here - "no ethnic slur" section Johnbod 14:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor of Philosophy

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --Orange Mike 17:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that might be what happened. Sholem aleichem. --Orange Mike 17:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Input needed about Hasidic dispute

Hi Yidisheryid, Vus Macht Ihr?: Please take a look at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-29 Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty). If you are able to help in any way with the issues it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. A Groysen Yasher Koach! IZAK 20:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

will have time will definitely give a look at length and voice my opinion thanks for caring.--yidi 12:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yiddish interwiki

Thank you for adding Yiddish interwiki link. Please take a moment to review meta:Interwiki sorting order. It states that on the English Wikipedia, interwiki links are sorted by the alphabet, based on local language. Therefore, yi: is between uk: and zh:. Thank you. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this so important since the intwerwikis gets sorted out by the bots anyways and Hebrew to English fonts is really hard to play around but i will try thanks for the comment.--זלמן לייב 10:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your input would be helpful

As you have contributed to the page for Category:Antisemitism, would you please look at Talk:Jerry Klein’s 2006 Radio Experiment. I have been debating another editor on whether its mention of the Holocaust renders it worthy of inclusion in the Category:Antisemitism. Your comments would be appreciated, either it does not qualify as I suggest or I have misunderstand the category. Either way your opinion would be helpful.--Wowaconia 18:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field - please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! -- Doctormatt 18:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Amah.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Amah.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 15:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The book covers help illustrate the subject, make the article more readable, and are about publications that are very important in relation to the article. Please don't remove them without discussing it first.--יודל 16:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to add a fair-use rationale to the image, or they will remove it. See WP:NFCC. Reinis^talk 17:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Creationism

Please see the discussion about the lead on the article talk page. [1] I'm not the authority on what the lead must look like, so you should bring the question to all the editors there and reach a consensus. And frankly, I'm having a hard time understanding what you are trying to say. Reinis^talk 17:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All i am trying to say is that this belief is the traditional and mostly religious view on life. Thanks for the link i will read it over to see if it has something against my edit.--יודל 17:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creationism, by its definition, is always religious. [2] Reinis^talk 17:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is the popular stance, but if you will ask some leading creationists, they will deny this and proclaim that it is pure science.--יודל 17:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are an extremely small minority. See WP:UNDUE. Reinis^talk 17:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minority indeed but they are the leading brains underneath this whole movement. This vocation is in some eyes for instance Richard Dawkins very controversial since he sees them very misleading. Nevertheless those are the leading voices in the movement. What point are you trying to make with WP:UNDO?--יודל 17:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's WP:UNDUE, not WP:UNDO, and I didn't say that "creationists and religious belief people are one in the same." Anyway, please do as I said and go argue about your changes on the article talk page, not with me privately. Reinis^talk 17:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be clear and say what do u want from me? U say clearly that u dont have a clue what i am talking about so please be open why you have decided to revert my edits without due process and trying to force me to talk to others while u don't give me any issue u found flawed with my edits?--יודל 17:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to stop adding bad edits to articles. Reinis^talk 18:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't call it bad, try to explain what's so bad and i will understand what bothers u. Thanks so much for erasing my bad edits, better half edits then non at all.--יודל 18:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is true they are "leading" brains behind the movement, but constitute much less than 1% and even 0.1% of the relevant scientists (see level of support for evolution). They are closer to "crackpots" than real scientists.--Filll 17:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately (maybe only for u, or of them) those scientists you call crackpots are the leading figures in the creationist movement. Like it or not, it is part of the knowledge called fact.--יודל 18:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

warning and question

We don't do facts here, we do attributable reliable sources with the views expressed dealt with in a neutral balanced way, without reverting three times so I'll leave this reminder: You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors.

It's not clear to me just who the "scientists you call crackpots are the leading figures in the creationist movement" refers to. If it's the IDists, they claim not to be creationists at the same time as they claim that their thesis is science. See the article talk page. .. dave souza, talk 19:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello please read before commenting, it was another user who called them crackpots. what do u want from me?--יודל 19:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was citing you, I didn't say you'd called them crackpots. As long as you know who they are, and provide reliable sources expressing the same opinion, them we can consider your claims. Rather than edit warring to make changes which, quite frankly, look incoherent, please set out your proposals on the article talk page. With sources. .. dave souza, talk 21:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

listen my edit was clear enough, all you do is talk about my words in the reasining behind that edit. say clearly what is your problem with the edit and i will fix it don't argue here becouse i don't see one single think we disagree here. is it a problem to write that the belief in a creator is traditinal? i don't think so. is the wording proper i believe yes. u believe not tell me why? and we will go on to the next subject--יודל 21:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creationism is not traditional, only their basic Belief

If you find yourself with excess energy and want to edit such topics, might I suggest you consider:

Many of these are in sad shape and need assistance.

Creationism (as distinguished from creatianism) is a specialized sort of movement. And it is not always "traditional" by any means, since some variants of creationism rely on biblical literalism, and/or biblical inerrancy, which many scholars rejected well over 1000 years ago. It relies on a particular interpretation of one set of religious texts or another, and as such it is usually at its root a hermeneutic dispute, and one that often rejects scientific knowledge.--Filll 17:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Fill on every word but still those crackpots belong in this broader group of people with this very ancient traditionalist world view that life is created. And this is a broad general basic very traditional outlook on life on which the movement in whole is based on. Thanks very much for commenting. I am not saying the movement in itself is traditional, indeed they themselves deny this. All i am saying is that the general point of their belief system is based and driven in most part by tradition which some of their leading figures claim is strict and pure science--יודל 17:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User yi-0

Shalom! Can you please help me to copy the sentence from the userbox in Yiddish Wikipedia, and then put into that box? Thanks a lot! --Edmund the King of the Woods! 18:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User does not speak, and doesn't understand Yiddish--יודל 18:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Zionism

Yidisheryid, please stop your vandalism. I have reverted your edits and will be closely monitoring your future edits. --Eidah 14:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make a fool out of yourself editing out articles that are not anti Zionists is not vandalism although we may disagree on this edits, please talk why those articles are defined by a belief that Zionism is not true judaism but that doesn't mean they are defined by being anti it. all Jewish groups don't believe in Zionism as a true ideology that does not make them all anti Zionists--יודל 14:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC) --יודל 14:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself, as you did with Yeshayah Rosenberger. If you do not believe the article should be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. You can't just remove the template with the "I don't have time, but he is notable." line. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not create myself that article--יודל 21:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

INSTEAD OF REVERTING, WHY DON'T YOU VISIT THE TALK PAGE!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yossiea (talk • contribs) 13:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

because i don't see what is the issue, u just revert by shouting vandalism i don't see where u found vandalism, and i do not just revert like this i explain every detail. . thanks--יודל 13:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. LessHeard vanU 14:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This block is for 1 hour only. Persistent reverting without discussion is considered vandalism. Once the block has expired it is recommended that you participate in a discussion on the article talkpage so you may make the argument for your preferred changes. Please remember that Wikipedia promotes and works best by WP:Consensus. LessHeard vanU 14:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Yidisheryid (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i did not abuse my privilige i spoke and explained every edit, i don't believe i broke the 3rr rule here please unblock me--יודל 14:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It's only and hour, and you have been edit warring a great deal. You can sit the rest of the hour out, and as the article has now been protected for 3 days, you can use the talk page of the article (Talk:Haredim and Zionism) to discuss changes, like everybody else. All your current editing manner will result in is your being blocked; we want editors who are willing to discuss changes. People reverting your changes is a clear sign that they are not agreeing with your edits; please in future discuss things on article talk pages when this is the case. — Neil ム 14:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

YY, there is a talk page on the article for a reason. There has been a consensus on the article for quite some time. Your edits are going against those consensuses that we worked hard to get. You also never post on the talk page even when asked. If you feel that you have something to add to the page that is controversial, you should post on the talk page and get a consensus. That is how it is done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yossiea (talk • contribs) 14:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not one of my edits are controverscial and nobody ever claimed it is, i just deleted redundant sections and fixed some minor sections to merge them in their respective larger groups which eidah has agreed on, and reverted your revert on the word MO that eida also has agreed on, i don't see any claim here that my edits were counter to long standing consensus. i will never ever change a think like this only one part which was indeed explained by me on the talk page that some Hasidim are supportive of Zionists that is false and slander and indeed if consensus wants it inside the artice they must bring sources as i ask them on the talk page.--יודל 14:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any of your postings on the talk page. That is the place to discuss major changes. Yossiea ^(talk) 14:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look better my friend and u will see everything i wrote on the tak page about this slanderers POV, if u choose to see only what u want don't cry vandalsim--יודל 14:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yidisheryid, I appreciate you are trying to improve the article, as is everyone else. They are asking you to use the talk page for a very good reason - the talk page is the place to discuss controversial edits. If someone else is not happy with an edit you make, then the edit is controversial, and it should not be made again without discussing it, either on the talk page of the article, or on the talk page of the user who disagrees with you. Let me know if you have any questions (once your block has run out). Neil ム 14:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Neil, Pease dont be part of their game here, this is 2 users who are evidently sockpupets and if they are not they are very clealy cold and calculated meat pupets; u dont know whats going on here and u slander me i was using the tak page very clearly here. they were silent on the talk page and on reverts by just saying i am a vandal and posting all around wiki that am a vandal please read my talk page and see for yourself how i beg them to explain what vandalism this was? with no answer just redoing this sin of calling me a vandal. i beg u to unblock me because this is a black shameful history on my record that i was blocked for something unruly or against policy. i beg u to reconsider this move, especially now that the page is blocked.--יודל 14:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YY, that is one edit on the page. That is not enough for your 30+ edits of the main page. Also, if you think Eidah and I are sockpuppets, you have another thing coming. Yossiea ^(talk) 14:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

only one of my edits to the page are controversial thats why i used it only once. and i am now ready for u as u can see i was blocked for one hour due to a complain which i did not see and notice at the time to answer so the sysops got fooled by seeing only one part of the story, this experience clearly learns me how to deal with u, i am looking forward my friend to this exciting experience, and let their be a more perfect encyclopedia throug our edits of each other.--יודל 14:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)I see that you are contributing, so the block has expired. Happy editing. LessHeard vanU 18:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preview button

I have asked you before and I ask you again. Please LEARN TO USE THE PREVIEW BUTTON. --Eidah 14:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I now see the importance in it i will use it.--יודל 14:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Messianic Jewish organizations

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Messianic Jewish organizations it is very strange and hypocritical indeed that someone who calls themselves "Yidisheryid" ("Jewish Jew") should solicit the votes from some of the most pro-Christian and missionary POV editors, such as User talk:Inigmatus#Should we delete this list, User talk:Elaragirl#Should we delete this list, User talk:Badbilltucker#Should we delete this list, User talk:Wikijeff#Should we delete this list, User talk:Warlordjohncarter#Should we delete this list and on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Messianic Judaism#Should we delete this list itself! How can anyone call themslves a "Jewish Jew" and at the same time work for a pro-Christian POV as you do in the above vote? Maybe it's time to change the user name to something else like User:Christianjew or User:Goyisheryid? IZAK 02:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for recognizing my contribution, i have stated my view on that voting page very clearly it has nothing to do with a POV, please stop harassing me as if i am pushing a POV here all i did was stopping a deletion from some very openly biased users. wikipedia isn't a Yeshiva if u don't like to read who r the leading Messianic groups don't come with censorship close your eyes and listen to your rabbis: sell your computer. In the end i am glad you see that your shenanigans will stop. All the best--יודל 03:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm are they not "your" rabbis? You don't like rabbis it seems. Any reason? Do you like "rabbi" Jesus? This is very confusing indeed. You don't like Jewish rabbis but you do like Christian missionaries? Isn't that a contradiction for someone who calls themselves a "Jewish Jew"? Also, you obviously don't realize that rabbis say it's ok to own computers because it is the Satmar Hasidim who are selling millions of computers as in B&H Photo Video. Right now it looks like you have the monopoly on confusing Jewish/Christian missionary shenanigans. IZAK 03:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do indeed like Rabbis, and B&H doesn't sell computers they sell cameras. Dear brother all i can tell you is i feel your pain my holy brother, i wish you get well soon. Its very painful to see your whole wiki carear go down the dumps over night. And for your personal harassments, insults and accusations, i will pass in silence and not answer any of them back, after all we are here to write an encyclopedia, not make wars, i have made my point regarding this deletion very clear, lets leave personal attacks and insults for other venues u have my email and i yours, so u know i listen and you are welcome to vent your darkestest fantasys at me i will hurl them back as best as i can, but this isn't the place i will answer u. Keep it clean.--יודל 10:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your sympathy is misguided and uncalled for. Indeed I always strive to keep things clean. IZAK 14:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment i appreciate it, i see where u r on this, and i clearly disagree. Please note that i respect you and love you despite our difference in opinion on this issue. Have a beautiful day.--יודל 14:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK, your bias is evident when you view the work of any/all Jewish editors through the lens of "is it 'pro-Judaism' or 'anti-Judaism'". What is hypocritical about keeping a NPOV and judging articles on their merit? I'm a Christian and freely admit it, yet if I found an article that had been turned into a propoganda piece for Jesus, or others that were anti-Semitic/Islamic/Wiccan libel, I would work to correct them. Why would anyone expect any different? Maybe you need to examine yourself rather than judging others. ⇔ ChristTrekker 20:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haredim and Zionism

Please note that you must discuss changes on the talk page before editing. Yossiea ^(talk) 13:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks i do discus everything--יודל 14:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've used the talk page. Visit it and you'll see. Stop your POV pushing and try to make Wiki a better place. Yossiea ^(talk) 14:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that was after u reverted 2 times in silence and after u acused me of vandalism--יודל 14:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never reverted in silence. I've either used the edit summary or the talk page. You should use the talk page and see that we have been through all this before. Yossiea ^(talk) 14:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

when u revert something that i have addressed in the talk page and user pincus and user eidah have all agreed and don't those edits just be calling it vandalism it is indeed silence. but i am glad u talk now.--יודל 14:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enough already! Your continuing to claim that you address the issues does not make it so. Yossiea ^(talk) 14:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANVASS ...

... is an important guidelines for you to read. "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to influence a community discussion.[1] Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive." etc etc. Anyway, I'm busy and already have access to this info. HG | Talk 16:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention i only left u that note because i see that u have some history in this issue, with the same person user IZAK about his other attempt to delete a similer page, [3] please do express your opinion regarding the issue i alerted u its our shared interest, or i may be mistaken, then be so kind and disregard the message. Have a good day--יודל 17:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your prompt reply is responsive, provided you stop canvassing. Did you stop? HG | Talk 17:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes. i found that i was guilty of the paragraph votesocking i did not know it sorry i will op it thanks for alerting me on this.--יודל 17:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

anti-creationism CfD

Ok, thanks. I didn't mean you especially, btw. I was trying to refocus for all. Johnbod 18:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the middle of trying to understand the reasoning of the deleters they sound very uneutrel in their Point Of View, it turns me down and maybe i will not even surrender one each but i havnt yet formed a clear yes or no on your proposal.--יודל 18:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean - it is a strange one! Johnbod 18:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Hi Yidisheryid. I am sorry to see you don't think I can be impartial. You said it was me who blocked you - look at your block log, which can be seen here: Special:Blockip/Yidisheryid. You were blocked by User:LessHeard vanU, not me. I got your emails, didn't you noticed I replied on your talk page? You complained you couldn't edit and I pointed out it was because nobody could edit Haredim and Zionism as it was protected. However, as you are not happy that I can be fair, I will not get involved. I will make the same offer to you as I did to Yossiea, though - if you need any advice, please do let me know. Neil ム 18:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and i will pass to further argue about this i consider u gone re this issue, so there is no point in prolonging my statements regarding this. But i do appreciate your coming out straight and offering me hep on further issues. Good Day--יודל 18:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming talk pages

Hey, got your note. I'm not sure, but I think it's considered bad form to leave the same message on tons of strangers' talk pages. People might think you're trying to unfairly sway the outcome of the AFD. I think you're likely to attract more 'Deletes' thank 'Keeps' that way. Just my $.02. Peace, delldot talk 19:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i was wrong. This was brought to my attention and i stopped doing it. Sorry.--יודל 19:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the above user note, please refrain from trying to spam for votes. It's disruptive. (And unless I'm misinterpreting timestamps, you've continued to do so after being warned.) Thanks, --Bfigura ^(talk) 12:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its the same message u got from a selective 5 users who i put in my category as users who understand messianic articles, that's why the time stamp is the same. i don't think sending a message to 5 users i identified as of this interest is spamming or i may be mistaken please clarify for me this point, i clearly was not selecting u from a yes or no vote, so its not votesocking section of canvassing which section on the canvasing policy is this excluded as something not good to do? I do agree that its disruptive but while i see that deletion gaining unbalanced support because it was posted to one group and not to another i feel that the disruption is balanced here, therefore not called disruption anymore, i could be mistaken but i am hoping u clarify it to me.--יודל 13:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If your goal is to change the outcome of an AfD, by WP:CANVAS, it is canvassing for votes. Since you ONLY messaged people with Keep votes in this AfD, which happens to be your position in the current debate, it certainly looks like votestacking. Please stop immediately. --Bfigura ^(talk) 13:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all i sent it to only 5 people out of a list of 12 Keeps so its not the case u r arguing. If i would be votesocking i would have sent this plea to the entire keep list. So i am not guilty of this paragraph of canvasing, i do understand that maybe it is spamming with intent and therefore disruptive, but please consider my motives of influencing some particular vote not just as wining the vote, i have taken interest in all the messianic articles and i have comprised a list of 5 users who are familiar to them, did i comprise that list from a keep vote? yes but it was only one factor in my collecting the users intrest, this doesnt narrow my motives to influence votes it just says that i would like to hear the opinion of people who r close to those issues. Evidently i have mistaken u as somebody who is interested in this issue, so i apologize and i will not contect u in the future. Thanks for clarifying and pease answer if u understand my motive and why its still disruptive in your eyes?--יודל 13:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it blatant votestacking? No, not really. But it does smell kind of COI-y (what selecting Keep-ers and all). I'll assume that you meant to do the right thing, but next time, when you invite people, try to do so more evenly. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 14:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me i tried my best, i have stoped doing it all together it was initaly done, and i think i have now 4 users who i identified as balanced and thinking the same way i do, and you can already see that they voted mostly against me. so this was a think that i will not do anymore.--יודל 14:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no one's perfect. Don't take it too hard. --Bfigura ^(talk) 15:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we delete this list

I do not contribute to Wikipedia to "better society." My policy is to push my agenda within Wikipedia using Wikipedia's rules. Therefore, if a list exists that does not further my agenda and might violate WP's rules I will vote to delete it. And if there is a list that furthers my agenda but might violate WP's rules I ignore it or I vote to Keep and construct an argument as to why the list does not fail WP standards.--Miamite 16:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do share this beleafe and thats why i connected u because i was mistakenly impressed that this interest is one of your agenda sorry for bothering it was a mistake and also against wikipedia policy so rest assured this mistake wont happen again. good day--יודל 17:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HEY WACKJOB! DONT EDIT MY TALK PAGE. IF YOUR GOING TO WRITE ILLEGIBLE DRIBBLE ON MY PAGE ITS GOING TO HAVE TO STAY THERE. NEXT TIME BEFORE YOU WRITE SOMETHING (OR INVOLVE YOURSELF IN AN AFD)THINK ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES.--Miamite 03:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Besides being sheker V'chazav, your statements on both my and Neil's talk pages can be construed as personal attacks. To wit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANeil&diff=155869124&oldid=155865672
- So now Avi has evidently achieved his goal to confuse other gentile sysops from understanding the issue at hand…
- Avi blocked it without any edit war in process, and subsequently we see clearly what was his motive in bloking this article, now he became the invested of that article by not letting others delete this line…
- Niel if u don't want to help don't give him encouragement on his abuse of power, when u clearly say that u don't understand the issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAvraham&diff=155865413&oldid=155859919
- …Avi evidently dodges the point…

Yudel, accusing other editors of lying, misleading, and purposeful obfuscation without any evidennce is inappropriate and improper. If you have a problem with a specific editor, we have dispute resolution processes. Otherwise, you need to restrict your comments to content and not editors.

Further, I believe your constant reprisal of the same argument belies either your ignorance of wikipedia policy or, even worse, your ignoring of said policy. You need to develop both patience and tolerance to prevent you from spiraling into a sequence of personal conflicts which is bound to interfere with your ability to edit the encyclopedia. You made your points on the talk page, Yossi responded, and now the decision has been made to allow a week to find sources. You need to exhibit some savlanus (patience for non-Hebrew speakers), otherwise, I am afraid you are bound to find yourself in so many disputes that you will develop a sani shmua (poor reputation is a half-decent translation) and others will have difficulty being dan you L'kaf zechus (assuming good faith).

Think about what your goals are here in wikipedia. Is it to make the encyclopedia better? Than you have to learn to get along with others and follow the rules. Anything else will land you, or anyone, in difficulties. Good Luck. -- Avi 17:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If my languge was being translated by u as personal attacks it is your problem i have give clear reasoning on all my statements and i am ready to back it up that's all i can comment now, i urge u to calm down and not learn into my words, u have indeed abused your power and its up for everybody to see, i will not initiate a vote now to desysop because everybody can make mistakes and break policies, but i think i am still warning u please delete that unsourced line about some group being supportive of zionism and this will Al be forgotten, I see this ong note here as an attempt to divert the issue on me rather on the problem, u have blocked a page without any edit war and u don't et others correct it according to policy, i assume good faith and i ask u to delete theatine or open the page. I have alerted other sysops on your disorderly conduct i am waiting for their opinion, and meanwhile do not say that a persanaly attacked u because it is a lie, u have constetnly harased me and accused me of thinks i did not do i just notified another sysop on your conduct that does not meen i harass u i am entitled and obligated to complain top other sysops if i see some grave breaking of policy and stop haresing me for doing this--יודל 18:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. Emes MayAretz Titzmach. We shall see; I await impartial comment on the situation -- Avi 18:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MJ

Thank you for your vigilance. I noticed you are a member of WP:OJ—this is the first I'd heard of it. I would be interested in learning how it deals with the obvious topical overlap with WP:JEW. WP:MESSIANIC has many of the same issues (plus more potential for bias). Also, you may be interested in this MoU. ⇔ ChristTrekker 20:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all thanks very much for your helpful links i am going to put them in my whach list, Regarding your points that we have some conflicting interest u bet we do, but i am looking at wikipedia as a huge field were all the religious communities are outnumbered by those anti-religies writers and so called intellectuals, instead of crying about it, i decided to act and get involved. Yes we as Jews are completely opposed and violently sensitive from all those messianic outreach, they do put their emphasis on Jews they r very open about it, and therefore understandable, because nobody wants to see his peaple and religien diminished or changed by others. But since i am a believer in G-d, it may be the Jewish G-d, i must join this overall community, Messianistic, Muslim, and all of my fellow users who believe in G-d. Therefore i would like to clarify that i am not helping nobody to hurt my religion and nation, I will use this litle tak to protest and beg u to stop targeting Jewish neighborhoods were the people already practice the basic 7 Noahide principles. In general most Jews are very fond of all kinds of people who spread the 7 Noahide laws, and for that i thank u from the bottom of my heart. And in this mission consider me a brother.--יודל 20:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was trying to approach the issue strictly from the angle of a WP editor, but since you brought it up...

Y'shua did teach that He is the only way for man to come into true communion with G-d. Some see this "exclusivism" as insulting to their faith tradition. Try to view it from a Christian's POV for a moment: if you knew you had the secret to attaining that thing that we were all designed for (life with the One who designed you), could you in good conscience not share it with everyone you knew? Would it be an act of love to withhold this critical information? "I love and respect you, so I choose not to tell you this information that can save your life." Sounds more like spiteful hate to me.

What if practicing certain principles is not enough? What if the separation between G-d and man cannot be healed by any act of man but only an act of G-d? I think every person should seriously reevaluate their beliefs periodically—"am I absolutely certain that my way is the best/right way?" There's no harm in being honest with oneself, and investigating other claims. No matter what you decide, you will learn something important and come away stronger (either being more sure of the current belief, or finding something better). The person who evades the question only cheats himself. The person who tries to prevent anyone from asking the question cheats everyone.

Regarding outreach to Jews, it is only natural for people to try to reach out to others for which they have an affinity. If I had GoodNews™ and a special insight to how Minnesotans think, I'd try to tell Minnesotans about it. It may be something they really don't want to hear (maybe GoodNews = "Iowans ROCK!") but if it's the Most Important Truth In The Universe, they need to hear it regardless even if their feelings get hurt. ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand u and i respect u for your good work, and i am happy to see that u also understand why Jews are so hurt by your actions. Keep up the good work.--יודל 21:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He should "keep up the 'good' work" and you "understand why Jews are so hurt by your [missionary] actions" --- now how much sense does that make? If you really cared that Jews are "so hurt" (your own words) by Christian missionary work then you would not be so cheerfully telling him that you "respect" his good work and that he should "keep [it] up." Do you remember what Elijah told the false prophets of Baal?: " “How long will you go limping with two different opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal then follow him” (1st Kings 18:21)." IZAK 09:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg u IZAK please refrain from attacking me personal, if u have something against my edits i am more then willing and ready to deal with them respectfully, but first and foremost we must talk civilly and not about us as people but only and strictly to our edits. To all community members i would like to make it clear User IZZAK is a declared trouble maker who was already blocked by our administrators for pushing his disgusting POV on others very uncivilly and very childish against all principles of our wiki community, i am dealing with him as if he would have been a normal member and answering his ad-hock personal attacks on me, because as a Jew before being a wikipedian, we are obligated to love our fellow brothers even if they committed the worst sin, but the sin itself must be hated with passion so i do hate his words and actions with all of my heart and i will do everything to make him repent, i have spend the last week writing him tens of lengthy e-mails on this subject and i will continue to believe and assume good faith until in the end he will publicly apologize for his own sins and for the sins he made others do here on this medium, so my call is to all of u: Please execute great patience with him and don't block him again.--יודל 14:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took it to mean "the good work (on Wikipedia)", IZAK. ⇔ ChristTrekker 16:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and what do you mean by "But since i am a believer in G-d, it may be the Jewish G-d"??? It "may be" the Jewish God? Since you so publicly raise your belief in "G-d" why not come clean and not leave it as an ambiguous question if you "may believe" in the Jewish God? Which God do you belive in in any case? Is it any god? The mystery deepens... (By the way, as you know, Wikipedia does not care which god anyone believes in, as long as they can follow Wikipedia's rules etc.)IZAK 09:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Messianic Jews do some very great work that i would like them to continue doing, and they do some relative minuscule harm that i beg them to seize, over all my evolution is that they do better good then bad, like most humans on earth. And i do believe only in the Jewish g-d like most Messianic Jews , although we differ on Yoshkas status they believe he was the true Messiah i believe he was a false one. That word you dwell on was clearly misunderstood out of context. I hope everything is cleared up, if not do feel free to ask more. Good Shabbos.--יודל 14:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing through excessive cross-posting

Your contributions history shows that you have been aggressively cross-posting, in order to influence Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rabbi Dr. Stuart Dauermann‎. Although the Arbitration Committee has ruled that "The occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice."¹, such cross-posting should adhere to specific guidelines. In the past, aggressively worded cross-posting has contributed towards an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that has resulted in blocks being issued. It is best not to game the system, and instead respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building, by ceasing to further crosspost, and instead allowing the process to reflect the opinions of editors that were already actively involved in the matter at hand. -- Avi 22:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If u call my 4 friendly notes to 4 users about this subject to help me edit an article canvasing for votes which i haven't mentioned u r extremely twisting and stretching my words and the wikipedia policy on this matter. And i respectfully beg to differ with your false interpretation these 2 thinks; on those notes i left on the 4 talk pages i very clearly stated that i do see where the article has its flaws and i beg them to correct it since they are familiar with the subject more then me. And on your new policy of what is considered excessive cross posting Please read and see that their is times when it is explicitly allowed and encouraged, and i believe i have met those factors by it being a friendly note and exclusive to those users who have great interest on this--יודל 22:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a note was left for me, and very appropriately so, for I have often commented on such articles. I doubt my response at the AfD was what was hoped for, but that's the result when one notifies people impartially. This is not in my opinion improper canvassing. From what I see, others responded similarly--they gave their own independent views. These articles tend to arouse strong feelings, and I think any effort to escalate a discussion over an article into a discussion over behavior is not helpful. DGG (talk) 02:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the article was within the purview of WP:MESSIANIC which does not (at this time) have a deletion sorting subpage, and further given that it was therefore placed in Del Sort Judaism and thus brought to the attention of some suspected of bandwagoning anti-MJ edits before, I don't think this "canvassing" is out of line. (The posting of MJ articles to Del Sort Judaism could be considered canvassing of a sort.) As DGG said, the "canvassed votes" have not been entirely positive but rather independent and objective. Probably the best result of this discussion is the creation of Del Sort MJ but that was not realistic in the timeframe that יודל had for action on this article (and two others). ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I would like to state that for יודל, a self-described Orthodox Jew, to take such a firmly objective stance to articles that many of that religion would find offensive speaks highly of his character and editorial ethics. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Yid

I appreciate that you have asked me to take a look at these articles. I hope I have disappointed or frustrated you. I am trying to be as objective as possible. But I understand how frustrating it can be to put a lot of time and effort into an article and then a bunch of people rip it to shreads and then it gets deleted. However, I am impressed that you are showing interest in Messianic Jewish articles. From what I read of you I assume you are not a talmid of Yeshua, so to see an orthodox Jew take such an objective and fair look at something that is considered downright offensive to many Jews impressed me very much about your character and integrity. In fact, I might see if I can find the right Barn Star to award you with. Jamie Guinn 00:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words.--יודל 00:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to [[Template:Highssp]] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.Template:Do not delete Yossiea ^(talk) 15:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I declare that i am not a sockpupet. And i ask all my fellow wikipedians to help me clean my name, i do know why he is accusing me of this, and i understand his approach, but since smoke is a sign of fire, i beg u all who read this please help set my record straight. Thanks--יודל 16:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Request

I'm not sure I follow what you mean by 'heave investment', but I'll do my best to take a look at the discussion, and see if I can stick in a neutral work. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i meant "heavy" it was a typo mistake, thanks--יודל 22:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, thought as much (although I was a little confused by the context.) Anyway, I'm not sure if my opinion was what you were looking for, but as you said, I do try and look out for wikipedia's best interest. --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your behavior

You were busy apologizing earlier for Wikipedia:Canvassing but you seem to be doing it again in regard to Shraga Hager. In addition, you seem to have a strong specific intrest in my edits, violating WP:STALK. Why can't you just behave? Considering your Sockpuppetry problems, your this much away from baing banned from WP. Oh and by the way, your IP adress can be banned so that you can't just start another username and continue with your shtick. Just start behaving, I don't want to be the one to nominate you for banishment.--Yeshivish 17:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a orthodox Jew and i take interest in not deleting any articles about Jews and Judaism, please look at my contribution list and see how many more articles i try to save by alerting the users that are Jewish or may be interested in such articles. sorry for your inconvenience today but i have nothing to do with u only that i may alert u in the future about articles i see u were interested. have a good day--יודל 17:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Cover mishpatei k.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Cover mishpatei k.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image in question is not a stamp, and you must show that you have proper copyright to use an image on Wikipedia. Thanks. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks i have fixed it.--יודל 15:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motza Sifasecha Tishmor V'Asisa

I will remove it; however, I would suggest that you take extreme care with allegations of abuse. Improper allegations, even intimated, are unacceptable. If you have an issue with the behavior of a particular sysop, you may bring it to WP:ANI; but frivolous and unsubstantiated claims are often perceived as trolling and treated as such. History has shown over the years here in wiki that someone who is quick to throw around abuse allegations often does not have the best interests of the project at heart--more likely a personal POV to push--and such people are usually net detriments. Just a word to the wise. -- Avi 15:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--יודל 16:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not restore unsourced information. I will be starting with information for which seven months have passed without substantiation. As time goes on and sources are not added, I will continue to prune the article. Sourcing requirements need to be applied evenly and equitably to an entire article. Thank you. I will leave in the fact that Ger and Belz vote; please find a source for it--even though we both know it it does not matter, as it is not common knowledge. -- Avi 16:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not write that part other users through excessive collaboration of hard work for months did that, u cannot come and block an article and declare yourself the boss of text that has no edit conflict on it, i will put links and sources for everything that i can and u r invited to do that as well but u r not going to form the article as u wish wikipedia is called a public and open encyclopedia and urge not to abuse your power again in re-blocking the article thanks--יודל 16:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of my responsibilities as a sysop here in wikipedia is to ensure that wikipedia policy is followed. Please review the wikipedia sourcing requirements as described on the pages Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Attribution for starters. Willfully ignoring wikipedia policy is considered a form of vandalism, and measures may be taken to protect the integrity of the wikipedia project in cases where policy is being willfully ignored. Please see Wikipedia:Protection policy and Wikipedia:Blocking policy for more information. Thank you. -- Avi 16:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And part of my responsibility is to watch that administrators like u should not abuse their power, i have shown how u blocked an article when there was no real edit war on anything and then u deleted to a version saying that it was problematic showing on an un-existing talk about this, now u try to influence the article in your biased version against community consensus, with a bogus answer that this is your job, Please do not do it in your role as an admin but in your role as a normal wikipedia user, because if u use your sysop tools here u not only can be un-admined but blocked forever. Thanks--יודל 16:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with me, you may bring it to WP:ANI. Of course, once a lot of people are looking at the edit histories, your own reactions, accusations, and edits will be brought to light as well. If you have nothing to fear, then fine. But unfounded accusations, such as you are making, are only contributing to the body of work that may eventually result in a WP:RFC. -- Avi 16:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Until u are working obviously and openly like this, there is no point to complain i can deal with u very good, from my point of view u can go ahead and block that article for a year, u will accomplish nothing as long as in the end it will be opened. When i will see that your abuse is reaching a point that innocent users get turned away and the quality of our project will suffer then i will report everything meanwhile watch your step and stop telling Yosie that i agreed with u on your edits.--יודל 16:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)Perhaps English is not your native tongue, as all I said was you challenged Yossi's claim that it was well known that Ger and Belz's joining the gov't means that they support it. Just to ensure, I brought a few edits where you said that yourself, so I guess you must have challenged that. Perhaps you do not remember. Regardless, making accusations based on misunderstandings will only result in problems. Another word to the wise; make sure that you know WHAT was said before you respond antagonistically. -- Avi 16:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg u stop using my name, its all i ask.--יודל 16:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kol HaMavi Davar B'shem Omro, Mayvi Geulah Leolam. Are you asking me to go against the 12th of the Yud-Gimel Ikarim?

-- Avi 16:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Stop quoiting me as if i said what u said, its wrong unethical and very childish please stop--יודל 16:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sould suggest you re-read the conversation. You seem to be suffering from a distinct misunderstanding. -- Avi 17:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't tell me that i suffer i ca this personal attacks not that i care about your attacks on me but don't tell me that i did not warn u to stop.--יודל 17:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

With this edit you have started to cross the line into personal attacks. For the record:

With regard to your comments on Talk:Haredim and Zionism: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

-- Avi 17:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made clear my words there thanks for the note--יודל 17:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Haredim and Zionism

Hi Yidsheryid. Two little things I hope you will take notice of - firstly, Avi is a very good and fair person and admin, and he is trying his best to help resolve any problems you and Yossiea have, in a neutral manner. Accusing him of abuse is unkind, and I would appreciate it very much if you didn't do that any more, instead ask him to explain anything you disagree with. Avi has done nothing wrong. Secondly, articles in Wikipedia need to be verifiable. This means articles need references. Look at some of Wikipedia's best articles to see how they are referenced. If Avi is removing text you added to an article, it will be because it is not referenced - it doesn;t matter whether you know it is true or not, we have to have a verifiable, referenced source for the text. I would like to thank you for doing your best to try and help make the article better, and I am glad you are trying to work with the other editors. I hope you can continue to do that. Best, Neil ム 18:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem and no argument anymore with yosia, evidently u don't follow this so please stop saying that i have done something wrong, all i asked is deleting one line and u ignored it, and use Yosia fixed it, i thanked him and in came user avi deleting whole chunks, i see your point but i ask u to back off this issue u did not want to act ast week to delete one line now all of a sudden u r here i appreciate your help, but please don't talk in issues u have no clue about, the article is opened and no edit problems in process, if avi will close it again we will bring u in for now your comment was uncalled for. thanks and have a beautiful day.--יודל 18:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avi asked me to look into your accusations of abuse, precisely because I have no clue about the article's content so am neutral. I did not find any evidence of any abuse. All I asked was for you to stop making such accusations (which you did, previously) - as long as you do so, I agree that there's nothing else to discuss. Thanks. Neil ム 09:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why r u now waking up when this is long over? when i asked u last week to look into allegations about me from that other user u were silent? when i asked u to deal with my complains against avi's actions that i explained in detail u were silent! why did u call me constantly edit waring when i was not? why do u suddenly saying that u looked into the article when u admit u don't have a clue on its contents? how can i explain to u words that i have already given proof and substantiates on your talk page, and u don't even bother to address them? and u even dare to say that u don't want nothing else to discuss, while all this is the proof and the background of the chronicle of avi's actions? i believe that avi's actions speak for itself, and i am not going to be dragged into this again, since the artice is re-opened already and this whole think is history, Please do not bring up my old words against avi out of context that u say u want to ignore and u ignored at the time, and as u r also ignoring his words against me that my talk page is full of. Unless u r a personal friend of avi's and u only want to act when he calls u to defend him, then lets be clear i will apologize for every statement, i consider avi a great dedicated user and not and definitely not an abuser of power, some action i had issue with was taken out of proportion by me and will apologize for my over reaction. i have nothing against him, only the utmost respect and love for his contributions for wikipedia, as i already declared tens of times to himself, i would urge him to consider my complains for the good of wikipedia and i am ready to erase everything of the record.--יודל 11:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

News talk radio 77

I am not a fan of Bob Grant, as I have never heard of him up until 2 weeks ago. When and if the time comes that I appreciate his passionate opinions and stimulating talk, I will indeed add him to my 770 userbox. If you care to, please copy my user box into a user box of your own, add Bob Grant and save it under your own name.

In reference to your "notable YU alumnus", it is my opinion that he is not notable enough; as such, I cannot help you. ("alumni" is plural.)

I will refrain from providing unsolicited advice on your general approach and/or history of edits to Wikipedia as they appear from a cursory review of your talk page, but should you wish to talk, we can. I believe you can accomplish much if you would only modify your approach.

K'siva v'chasima tova. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am ready open and wiling to listen and hear all kinds of constructive criticism, i did indeed solicited your opinion on this so go ahead and talk to me. Thanks--יודל 15:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Weinberger

Thanks for contacting me concerning your proposed article on Moshe Weinberger. While I do currently attend Yeshiva University, it is actually at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law of Yeshiva University. I am not Jewish (I actually don't align with a religion), and I do not believe I could meaningfully contribute to this kind of article (although after briefly looking at it, it seems you're off to a very promising start). Good luck with your project. Chengwes 22:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Jewish0utreachBookCover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Jewish0utreachBookCover.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. BetacommandBot 06:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your "accent" seems to be going

Hiya Yidisheryid: I couldn't help but notice that your last comment here [4] at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shraga Hager that revealed that you really are capable of writing well in English, especially if the goal seems to be to criticize me and to promote a pro-Christian POV editorial policy regarding contrived missionary articles. At any rate, it was nice to read clear English sentences for a change without any seemingly fake-sounding mis-spellings. IZAK 07:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although i have never spoken to you by phone or by person you should detect any accent from my part, you evidently took the pain and time and read my user page declaring Yiddish as my mother language and Judaism as my identity. Let me assure you that indeed i am a proud Jew first, but at that same token i am indeed an American citizen which has no other country to pledge my allegiance, i am a Satmar anti Zionist Jew, so i have no duel loyalty here, but only one homeland called the united states of America the land of the free. Yes i was born and raised in Brooklyn NY, so if you consider yourself a southern professional English talker i am happy for you, and i thank you for your compliment that my English is not that bad. Regarding your constant personal attacks on me that my guarding the neutrality in deleting wikipedia stuff shows you that i am a pro Christian biased user, i will tell you that i take it for a real flattering blushing recognition of my hard work here, since i asked u a simple question, i think i am very dignified and i am very proud of you for addressing and dealing with it the best you can, i appreciate your honesty and openness about my question and thank you for your answer. Keep up the good work, and lets both work harder in our differing agendas of how to better this encyclopedia.--יודל 13:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, seems that rather than discuss the issues it is you that is doing the personal attacks against me, see this latest one [5] Stick to the points you wish to promote or reject in articles, talk pages and votes, but don't keep on mixing in names of other users into the discussions in such a way that may get you blocked. IZAK 06:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you i should not have mentioned any names, but the points there is still valid and i hope this is the answer to it... Thanks for reminding all of us, that our arguments should never be to the users but only to and about the issues. I will know better--יודל 11:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listen Up

Quit with the harassing bit. How is it harassing to add a notice to your talk page that I put an AFD on an article you created? How is it harassing to issue you a warning because you removed an AFD template from a page? Those are established Wiki policies. Enough with the personal attacks. We are here for a job so let's do it. Yossiea ^(talk) 19:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did that once and u put back that warning on my talk 4 times, if this isn't harassing, then what do u call loving?--יודל 19:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put the warning up once after you reverted. You are not supposed to remove warnings from your page. It's not considered proper. You must be thinking of other warnings you have received. Yossiea ^(talk) 20:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Until our issue isn't resolved i will not let u warn me on my talk without proper sources and links. Because it is all allegations and fights. In the future once our issue is resolved we can deal with you as a normal user.--יודל 20:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your problem is. I put a notice that a page you created is up for AFD. That is something that is a nice thing to do. I didn't have to do it. I then issued you a warning because you removed the AFD template from the page. That goes against WP policies. I don't need your permission to warn you when you violate those policies. Yossiea ^(talk) 20:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U don't need my permission, and i don't need yours.--יודל 20:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looked like I did need your permission. You wrote that "i will not let u warn me..." [sic]Yossiea ^(talk) 20:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i did not ask u permission. I will try next time to ask you nicely.--יודל 20:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YDS - Occupation

Please see Talk:Yisroel Dovid Weiss#Occupation for an explanation why filling the "occupation" tag is improper at this point, even though he may be called Rabbi. Gmar Chasimah Tova -- Avi 14:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AJOP

I closed the AFD because 1) consensus was leading to keep, and 2) the article no longer warranted an AFD according to my nomination. I have no idea why you want to rollback and keep it open. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) There is no consensus leading to keep. 2) you are not the only one who nominated it for deletion.--יודל 15:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) Take a count. 2) I am the only one who nominated it. Only one person can nominate it. I now withdraw my nomination. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) i take full account. 2) You arn't the only one who nominated this deletion process look in its edit history. 2) more then one person can nominate it. 3) you can only withdrew your nomination not a page that others have also nominated it before you changed your mind.--יודל 16:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Orthodox Jewish outreach

Orthodox Jewish outreach, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Orthodox Jewish outreach satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orthodox Jewish outreach and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Orthodox Jewish outreach during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Yossiea ^(talk) 18:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with it but i am working on resources.--יודל 18:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 24 hours, because evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Yidisheryid shows that you have abused multiple accounts. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): I'll take the apology that you will not do it again. Request handled by: Navou ^banter 18:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apoligies I was guilty of vote sacking and i immediately stopd after being warned. Therefore the appearance of meat puppetry was shoeing mistakenly on one vote, i ask forgiveness from the community for that sin.
False allegations to win consensus This issue is now being used by users to erase articles that i have put in tremendous work[6].
I am being labeled as a sock-puppet unheard of by other declared and accused and blocked sockpupetiers[7].
Consensus was never reached, especially when an other Admin has told me that i have made my case enough clear and i should stop defending myself, and here he comes and just says in silence that i am a clear sock puppet! In silence!!! not mentioning and not addressing one comment, while other 4 users have expressed doubt in this allegation against only 3 (who all of those three users were clearly shown their desire to block me in non-related issues) who have expressed support for it.
Conflict of interest This Admin who judged me as a sock puppet, without any consensus, and blocked me, has broken the rules and has blocked other users declaring them also as sockputes without leaving them a notice on their talk pagers that they are even blocked, and the reason of why they were blocked, paired with his hastened blocking of hundred's of other users i ask for third party opinion if his blockage of me wasn't part of a bigger agenda here of blocking users.--יודל 18:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing discussions

Since you are not an admin, you cannot close any discussions, unless they are long enough and unanimous. `'Míkka 15:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An other admin has closed it not i myself.--יודל 15:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Jewish Orthodox anti-Zionists

I have nominated Category:Jewish Orthodox anti-Zionists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying--יודל 15:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your last comment may leave people confused. If you're trying to say that you support keeping and renaming the category, you should cross through the word "delete", which seems to indicate that you now want to see it deleted, rather than kept. Hope that's clear! Cgingold 06:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating

I never thought I would see the day that a "Satmar Chasid" would equate Rabbanus with Artistry. It is inconceivable to me that you could have such a fundemental misunderstanding of Limud Torah, Harbotzas HaTorah, and what the term "Rabbi" means in Haredi Orthodoxy if you were brought up in either Williamsburg, Monsey, or Eretz Yisrael. I guess ayn Kol Chadash Tachas HaShemesh can have temporary dispensations . Piska Tava -- Avi 16:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not everybody brought up in Williamsburg Borough Park or Monsey are rabbis. Most are not. Monsey and Lakewood do have a bigger percentage of Rabbis--יודל 16:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a personal attack; I am just simply fascinated. I'm learning something new about Satmar Chasidim that I have never knew before. It is just that I know many of them, and your approach is just so radically different. Maybe it is my upbringing that is the issue, that all the Satmar Chasidim I know may only represent a small portion of the total. I doubt that, but it is possible.

Also, calling something a personal attack, when it is not, is ipso facto a personal attack. Please do not do that in the future. It only reduces your own credibility in the event that you do become a victim of a personal attack. -- Avi 16:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is still a Personal attack, You may have good intentions which your record speaks for itself, but my personal life does not ever ever come into play here. especially when you say that you know my friends and they arent like me.

i am not afraid of calling a personal attack a personal attack, don't worry i wont block u for it, your record must be documented since u call very often users to be blocked for such sins. And you have already said that u will block me if you weren't involved with me in the Zionism issue, so in essence don't worry so much about my credibility when you have already exposed yourself as somebody who would not pass a chance to ruin it, i call on you to stop harassing me on my talk page once and for all stop for our mutual interest, because if our discussions get out of hand we will both be blocked from editing further this encyclopedia and i assume good faith in you that you don't mean to harass me just to express your friendly fascination about me, because i am not here about us.--יודל 16:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, if it makes you happy to call this a personal attack, go ahead. I am certain impartial readers can make up their own minds

. As for harassment, I am uncertain as to what you mean. When it comes to YDW, you seem to have some fundamental misunderstandings as to th definitions of various words, and their uses in wikipedia infoboxes. If you are truly interested building the project, you should appreciate correction where you are wrong. However, in my experience in wiki, I have found that it is usually the people who are less interested in building an encyclopedia and more interested in pushing a particular point of view who do not take well to discourse. Ask yourself, as each and every one of us has to ask ourselves, what is your purpose here. And remember, edit histories are available for all to see. Ayin Roeh, V'Ozen Shoma'as, V'Chol Ma'asechah BaSefer Nichtavim.--L'havdil Elef Alfei Havdalos -- Avi 16:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for further harassing me that i am a single issue user and that i am not aware of things you are aware. i don't want u blocked but i do want you to know how clowny it is while you cry to others should block me for this. I don't laugh on your expense i just try to expose your smile while doing everything to label me and get me blocked, keep on trying and i do not mind as long as u r enjoying yourself--יודל 16:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yidisheryid: FYI, It's "things" not "thinks". IZAK 08:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Izak, thanks i stand corrected.--יודל 12:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oy Vey

How is "Oy Vey" an attack? do you speak Yiddish? -- Avi 18:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every dictionary in English has it it is no more solely a Yiddish word.--יודל 18:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what is the intended thought or point you wished to make with the above sentence? -- Avi 18:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is very clear your question so my answer is of no use.--יודל 18:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nuch a mul...

See: [8] IZAK 08:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answered there--יודל 12:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big chunk deletion on Baal teshuva

The header was changed by me--יודל 16:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain this mass deletion? Thank you. -- Avi 14:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next time before bothering me on my talk page please look at the edit summery history and not only on one edit as a long time editor who does not seize to jump on me, see your picking and choosing of my edits something really repulsive. stop because everybody see that both i and Izak agree that that chunk has a separate article and does not belong there, our only disagreement is that one article may be deleted which i said to him it does not seem headed for deletion.--יודל 14:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there are others who disagreed with your forking of content from Baal teshuva to Orthodox Jewish outreach. I will begin a discussion on talk:Baal teshuva. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. -- Avi 14:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That discusion was started by me long before you posted this message as if i did not talk.--יודל 15:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see and join in at: talk:Baal teshuva#Should some of this article be split into Orthodox Jewish outreach? -- Avi 14:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that talk is not in place see my answer there.--יודל 15:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing deletion notice from prankster

The header was changed by me--יודל 16:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing deletion notices from articles undergoing WP:AFD, such as you have done here, is considered a form of disruptive editing. Please make your opinion known on the AfD subpage without violating wikipedia editing policies. Thank you. -- Avi 14:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nobody has asked to delete it you are personally attacking me here, show me one delete vote.--יודל 14:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being that it was nominated, it needs to follow the process. If all delete votes have been removed, including the nominators, then perhaps I can close it as a speedy. However, non-admins, in general, may not close AfD's that have had any controversy around them. -- Avi 14:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are evidently wrong on this maneuver, everybody has agreed that the nominations from that user isn't a normal nomination, and if no delete has been expressed it is not a nomination for deletion. and i don't have to an admin to dismiss it as garbage. i am with clear consensus on this u r not even with Yosia on this, he alone does not think like you. but evidently you ignore every context in this issue in order to get me blocked, keep on trying--יודל 14:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re ydw

on second thoughts i'd prefer to leave it, he's way too stubborn & it's trivial. i'll waste my time elsewhere ;) good luck if you stick at it. ben ⇒ bsnowball 14:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree since he has this soposedly other user Yosia with him. But please watch him on other details since he has declared his intentions clear that he want to delete that whole article from wikipedia. Thanks--יודל 14:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of some template

The header was changed by me--יודל 16:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates when discussions are in progress, as you have done here. Rather, make your opinion known on the talk page, take part in the discussion, and once a consensus has been reached, action will be taken. Thank you. -- Avi 15:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is something else put an other template.--יודל 15:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avi's Etiquette

the preceding notice was put before to mar my etiquette--יודל 16:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is considered poor form to change someone else's edits, even on your page, as it makes it appear as if someone ELSE wrote something that you actually did, which is tantamount to forgery. People have been banned for making their edits appear as someone else's edits, so I would counsel you to comment if you disagree, or just archive the entire section if you wish, but not change someone else's text. Thank you. -- Avi 15:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never had i changed someone elses edits. if you can find such a link i would be happy to explain, or apologize. While i do balance the negative slanderers headers of my talk page, I beleave i am alowed to do that because i give the chance to others to come back and make it more balanced, I believe headers on my talk page should not read so disruptive while the text i can delete it a header i cannot delete.--יודל 15:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YY, what you are doing is wrong. You are putting words into Avi's mouth. You are threading on very thin ice. If you continue in your ways, you are bound to be blocked or even banned. I suggest you heed people's well meaning warnings that you follow proper Wiki procedure. While it is your talk page, you should not change OTHER people's comments. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yoisia thanks for the note, i fixed your concern, i have put my words underneath the header so it is no more Avis words it is mine, i appreciate your clear intentions about my being blocked--יודל 16:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice

WP:ANI#User:Yidisheryid -- Avi 15:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know.--יודל 16:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours for disruption and incivility. When you are able to edit again, please be sure to adhere to the following:

Do not edit other editors' comments; this includes the headings editors choose. Doing so misrepresents what the other editors have said.
Do not remove maintenance notices (AFD notices, proposed splits or merges, etc.) until the issue is resolved. Discuss issues on the talk page.
Please refrain from making baseless accusations. Avraham was not blocking you to gain the upper hand in a content dispute; he was bringing your disruption and incivility to the attention of uninvolved admins. Characterizing his actions as "vicious" is a clear violation of our civility policies. Claiming that other administrators will block you solely on the allegations of another user is preposterous. Your edit history speaks for itself.

I'll leave your talk page unlocked during your block if you wish to discuss this matter with me. I do think that you need to learn to edit Wikipedia in a civil and courteous manner, or the community will decide you're not an asset to the project. -- Merope 18:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

i did not edit other comments only the headers and i apologized for that right away.
i did not remove maintenance notices until the issue wasn't resolved.
never did i make one baseless accusation shoe me the proof before blocking. I know i was dumb to use the word vicious and i understand the loophole here were i fell into getting blocked, and i do regret for now watching more my language, but that was quite subsequent and i am still in the middle of making my case so it should not be baseless.

i want to be unblocked, because i wasn't guilty of anything any policy or wiki rule, please show me one rule i did break?n i feel that you haven't asked me my POV in this ongoing edit conflict with Avi, and it sounds like u r ganging up with another admin, i am not an admin but i still believe i haven't broken one rule of the community therefore your blocking me is uncalled for please talk to me before blocking--יודל 18:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:POINT and WP:CIVIL. As for your POV, it doesn't really matter--the manner in which you carried out your edits is the issue, not the opinion you have. I am not "ganging up" with Avi; I reviewed your contributions, reviewed his contributions, and found that you have a habit of behaving in a disruptive manner. Changing others' comments is a form of disruption. Removing maintenance notices is a form of disruption. Refusing to discuss things on article pages is disruptive. Lying about your actions is disruptive and incivil. Accusing another editor of ulterior motives, viciousness, and lying is disruptive and incivil. It's pretty clear that you don't have a very good idea of how the Wikipedia community functions. You should take the time to read the linked policies. You are free to request to be unblocked, but I'm not inclined to reverse my decision. -- Merope 18:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again u r accusing me of thinks that u don't bother to show me aq link, i argue and i see i have never changed anybody others language, only its headers which i have apologized. of calling other names which is clearly taken out of context bu you it was being sourced and sourced until you came along and blocked me so hundreds of more sources cannot be put in there. i have read and reread all policies you haven't given one argument substantiated with a link of what action of mine was against wikipedia policy. Please feel free to do so. i beg you don't just block me with unsubstantiated accusations, because u r just helping avi here like you said that u did not want to see avi go through this, i thank you for being his friend but if this due process don't just block me i should not be able to defend myself.--יודל 18:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong, but I don't think I've had any interaction with Avi prior to this. Avi laid out your edit history in a very neutral and calm way. Your edits speak for themselves: accusing Avi of lying, removing maintenance notices, altering others' text, and so on. Your actions are why you are blocked; Avi just alerted me to your presence. I came to this decision on my own after a careful review of your (and Avi's) edits. -- Merope 18:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A list of your edits that fall under disruption or incivility can be found here. -- Merope 18:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now u r shoeing your true colors, why hav'nt you given me that list to defend myself before i was blocked?!--יודל 18:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Avi's collection to proof that i am disruptive

Again i will show how those edits are clearly taken out of context to block me. look for that in the next section.

Changing other users' text?

This was negative headers which was put by some editor who wanted me blocked, i haven't ever change4d his text, i only cleaned up my headers from my talk page it should be clear the section underneath, i have put a disclaimer that all those headers aware changed and i am inviting everybody to correct it further.--יודל 18:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the headers is changing the text. You don't have the right to alter other people's additions -- it makes it look like Avi wrote those things when he didn't. Even saying "I changed the header" isn't really sufficient. Just don't do it. -- Merope 19:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that this should not be done but i felt that avi is targeting me as a few minutes latter he requested again to block me, he has put contently for the last few weeks very negative headers an my talk page, while i saw how he begs over and over to get me blocked, and until a unsuspecting sysop did not block me on the passive look at the headers i did not fix it, since then i must fix it and i have told avi, to also fix it it should not be against him.--יודל 19:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merciful Zeus. Those headers were not negative; they were a neutral statement of fact. Your changes actually made them worse. "Mass deletion" is the proper terminology to describe this edit. Calling Avi a prankster is incivil. He was issuing a warning for your behavior, a warning which you chose to ignore. Your "defense" on this point is, to be blunt, completely ridiculous. -- Merope 19:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

again you are helping Avi spread a lie that i called him a prankster this isn't true and stop saying it without any proof. I don't know if my headers were more negative then avi's but i asked him nicely please feel free to change my edit on the header, it is my talk page and i am allowed to change thinks that are written to hurt me, i was not at any time changing his words since i put my text underneath his headers so the headers aren't his anymore, those headers are mine and only mine.--יודל 19:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is what I'm referring to. I see that you might mean that the person who posted the AFD notice is a prankster. However, changing the text makes it look like Avi said that about another editor, which is completely untrue. -- Merope 19:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have long apologized to avi for this and i put a disclaimer that i have written that header how in the world will somebody else think avi has written it?!--יודל 19:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing discussion-specific templates (such as AfD) when discussions are ongoing?

Discussion isn't ongoing check your links and see that it was long over the discussions--יודל 18:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're on about. Avi proposed the article be split, added the template, and then brought it up on the talk page. You claimed that no one made the suggestion to split it (when Avi clearly did) and reverted the template. As for the AFD notice, the AFD is still active. It doesn't matter that current consensus appears to be to keep the article -- the notice has to stay on there as long as the discussion is open. Your defenses are not helping your case in the least. -- Merope 19:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know how to respond to this check the edit history involved and everything would be crystal clear. that article was a small article avi vent ahead and added some text from an other article, and proposed to divide it, i answered him on the talk page and in the countless edit summaries there is no need for that template because the text isn't there, right now it is reverted my edits so you can say its still there, this is shoeing how he wan the discussion without consensus only for 24 hours.--יודל 19:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know how to check edit histories, thank you. You alone cannot determine consensus. You cannot allege that everyone agreed on a decision when there was a clear dissenting voice. The reason I can't respond to this is because it is an unintelligible argument that clearly contradicts the evidence. -- Merope 19:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And neither can avi say what is consensus we can only use our brains and it was clear consensus on my side. if you disbelieving me don't just block me on Avi's word because he has tried to silence me alott of times before he is driven against me, and i have the proof for it.--יודל 19:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One for and one against does not mean "clear consensus". Please read WP:CON to understand what consensus is. -- Merope 19:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And avi was one against many. so there is clear consensus for my edits.--יודל 19:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reindent)Where are the "many"? Point to specific diffs. -- Merope 19:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of Avi's overall edits against me, i don't feel its important now to gather proof for Avi's fights that i am against consensus, all i can aure you right now is that i am with consensus and avi is against it, if you feel that you believe Avi more then me i am really in bad shape but i will bring this to the community if my block isn't undone.--יודל 19:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great muppety Odin. The reason I "believe" Avi is because he presented evidence. The reason I don't "believe" you is because I have looked at the evidence (what Avi has presented and by combing through both of your edit histories) and I have seen absolutely nothing to show me that you have any idea what you're talking about. -- Merope 19:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I except that your block was already saying that you believe avi not me because avi has not given you those links you are taking about now so please cut it that i am somehow less believeble the avi.--יודל 20:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unilateral edits and moves without consensus?

They weren't against consensus, and they were agreed upon everybody.--יודל 18:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how to respond to this. You moved a page without discussing it, and it was moved back. How do you think that equates to "agreed upon everybody"? You moved large sections of text without discussing it, same deal. No one objecting is not the same as everyone agreeing, and that is particularly true when the changes are not even proposed. -- Merope 19:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

agsin you talk before visiting the talk pages i have exclusively talked before moving what are you talking about, my move was a clear consensus decision.--יודל 19:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am trying my best to understand you. You moved a page without discussing it. A user asked why the page was moved, and you explained why you had done it. It clearly wasn't with consensus because editors objected to it. Saying, "I will now move the page" is not proposing the change. -- Merope 19:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again u r selectively quoting from that talk page ignoring the whole issue, the page was being considered problematic and i just renamed it with a better name according to consensus, a concern was brought up that this new name isn't better i agreed. why r u twisting the chronicle of events?--יודל 19:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I am telling you as clearly as I know how that it was not with consensus. I don't think you understand what this term means. Please read the policy page on consensus. -- Merope 19:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

u r right the move itself wasn't a "move in consensus" how can it be that i myself have been against it? But it was defenently a "consensus move" since it was done to reach consensus please stop labeling that it was against consensus.--יודל 19:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reindent) You clearly have no idea what consensus means. Until you do, this conversation is pointless. -- Merope 19:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg you not to belittle me and explain to me where it is that i am mistaken in the word consensus? your personal attacks that i do not understand issues therefore i must be blocked is uncalled for lets debate the issues it could be i am wrong, in my view a consensus works that a disagreement arises on a talk page, arguing goes on for whatever time the participants feel impotent and a middle of the road decision gets done nobody will be pleased by it and nobody will be over joyed by it. that was my edit. If this was wrong tell me and i will know what i did wrong?--יודל 19:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now we're done. My patience vanishes quickly after my motivations are impugned. Read the policy. Quit whining. -- Merope 19:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If your patience vanishes i am sorry but you don't have to let everybody know about it, all ask is stop being so defensive i may have done wrong but please tell me where and what isn't this my obligation to see that my block should not be wrong? Please answer me what i lack understanding on the consensus issue and i did wrong in that regards to warrant a block?--יודל 20:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incivil edits and edit summaries?

Please say what is uncivil here and i will defend it as false it is very civil.--יודל 19:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You honestly don't see how accusing someone of lying or making bad faith edits is incivil? If that is the case, I'm afraid that you won't be able to participate here. -- Merope 19:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK now i see that i called Avi a lier and i except the 24 hour block for this although everybody with eyes see that i did not meant to call him names but it was referring to his accusation on me that i did not do something that i cleasrly did, [9] look at the revert history about this, i apologize for this slip please unblock me.--יודל 19:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"nobdy has voted for deet only your freind Yosia talk to him like in all his other AFD's and it will be good" is not an explanation for deleting text. To be quite blunt, it's nearly incomprehensible. -- Merope 19:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

incomprehensible edit summaries are not good and i will stop doing it but it's a far cry of being blocked for it.--יודל 19:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reindent)You are not blocked for that one thing but for a whole pattern of incivility and disruption. The fact that you cannot recognize how anything you have done is wrong means that you'll likely be blocked again in the future. Please take a moment, review your actions, review the policies I've linked you to, and reflect upon what that means. I assure you that I have no axe to grind in this matter; I have no opinion regarding the articles under dispute. I am just attempting to mediate a situation with a contentious editor. -- Merope 19:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i Have addressed all your concerns and i believe i have taken responsibility for my actions i was wrong in calling an other user a lier and i will not do it again, please unblock me.--יודל 19:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. I'm not unblocking you. You can request an unblock from another admin, however: instructions are here. -- Merope 19:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure yet if my sin of calling Avi A lier should not go unpunished but i do feel that i was being targeted unfairly here and i will except that wikipedda like all other systems has its loopholes. i was wrong and i will learn from it.--יודל 19:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Yidisheryid (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

consensus not reached about my breaking policy that block admin has suggested--יודל 22:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=consensus not reached about my breaking policy that block admin has suggested--[[User:Yidisheryid|יודל]] 22:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=consensus not reached about my breaking policy that block admin has suggested--[[User:Yidisheryid|יודל]] 22:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=consensus not reached about my breaking policy that block admin has suggested--[[User:Yidisheryid|יודל]] 22:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}