This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

... 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)

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, [1] 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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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/?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/?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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Yidisheryid for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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