User talk:Abe.Froman

Welcome!

Hello, Abe.Froman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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!  Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 23:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --tomf688 (talk - email) 10:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reverts removed duplicate information contained in the article. Tom Leykis outing the accuser was listed, twice. See the diff for yourself [1]. I do not think this would fall under the 3RR rule, but I'd be happy to ask other admins to check your allegation. Abe Froman 12:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have violated the 3RR again. Please refrain from violating this rule. Mutant Zero 21:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting vandalism does not fall under 3RR. Review the article if you need pointers. Abe Froman 21:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a great misunderstanding about the definition of a U.S. Military Veteran. Would you be interested in knowing the qualifications one has to meet in order to be called a U.S. Military Veteran? I assure you, you will not find the answers in Websters dictionary. The United States Government has a list of about 50 qualifiers that you have to meet in order to be called a Veteran. Depending on when you served, you may not be eligable for Veteran status if you did not serve in combat. You may not be eligable if you received a general discharge instead of an honorable discharge. Due to a paperwork error, a buddy of mine received a general discharge instead of the honorable discharge he deserved. It took a couple years to get it straightened out, and during that time he couldn't claim any Veteran benefits, healthcare, education, etc. It is a badge of honor to be called a Veteran, and it takes much more than service to qualify. I invite you to go to your nearest VA and talk to people there about what it means to be a Veteran of this nation. I think you will be very surprised to hear just what it takes. Mutant Zero 22:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The US military does not edit the english language. A veteran, out of www.dictionary.com, is someone who has served in the armed forces. Since none of us are trying to determine Mangum's benefits in her Wikipedia article, I'll fly with the dictionary. Thanks for your concern. Abe Froman 23:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I've attempted to have a civil discussion with you, but now I'm done. The U.S. Government disagrees with Mr. Webster on this subject, and I welcome you to bring your copy of Websters into a court of law and try to correct a Judge with it. Just remember this, the next time you're spitting in the face of the men and women who served this country with honor. Men and women, my good friends, and my uncle all died to protect your freedom and your rights. And if you can't respect them, then maybe you should show a little respect for the mothers and fathers who lost their children so that you could have your freedom.

This discussion is over.

How does Mangum conflict with the english definition of 'veteran', someone who has served in the armed forces? It's proven she served. I would hope Wikipedia users would respect that service, but apparently proof of service isn't enough for some critics of our vets. Abe Froman 23:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a generic term, a "veteran" is simply someone who once served in an armed force. As a term of art, as used by the Veteran's Administration, there are about 50 different ways a person could quality, some quite surprising, and a number of ways a veteran could be excluded from the status of a "veteran" potentially eligible for the services of the VA. Fred Bauder 19:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For violating the 3 revert rule. Please do not label legitimate edits as "vandalism". Mutant has been blocked as well for the same length of time. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a new discussion, Talk:Wal-Mart#The road to featured article status that I should probably bring to your attention because I'd hate to post something like this right after you did. I have also been observing this "cowboy crusade"; some of these edits I like, but a lot of these I do not, primarily because of their lack of communication to other editors before making such major edits. The current article has serious flaws in it. The goal of my discussion is to restore consensus on the development of this article so we all know what the hell needs to be done. Before you ask, I do not work for Wal-Mart and may God forbid that I ever will. Regards, Tuxide 20:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I did not remove content from the article. I moved the 'employee and labor relations' material to the Criticism of Wal-Mart article, from its original location under 'business model'. It doesn't seem to fit there. I am not vandalising the article and do not appreciate any accusations that you and others seem to make that I am vandalising the article. I DO NOT work for Wal-Mart, nor any of its subsidiaries, and don't own stock in the company. I DO NOT appreciate accusations that I am whitewashing the article. I believe the article should be a NEUTRAL account of what Wal-Mart is, not a bunch of over-glorified PR promoting the company, nor a bunch of negative slander on everything evil that Wal-Mart has done. Dr. Cash 22:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Abe. If you're going to add references to the Perverted-Justice.com article, could I ask you to please follow the established format (using <ref> tags)? Thanks! Powers ^T 19:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cowman109^Talk 23:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You added,

The MMP may also be used as an underwater splicing chamber for tapping of undersea fiber optic cables. This role was formerly filled by the decommissioned USS Halibut.

to USS Jimmy Carter (SSN-23). But USS Halibut (SSGN-587) says that ship "was mothballed to Key Port/Bangor, WA in 1976" — rather a long time ago. Perhaps you meant to refer to USS Parche (SSN-683)?
—wwoods 00:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to call your attention to this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:Seabhcan

There is much contention about this case. I consider you to be a balanced and respectful editor whose opinions on this matter would be meaningful. Stone put to sky 17:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a very interesting development on the "Sandinista / FSLN" page; i don't know if you've been by there recently, but for my part i'd like your input.

Check the bottom of the page, where we're discussing a rather major revision of the page and how to go about it. Ciao Stone put to sky 13:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You left some comments which I replied to. I am not sure if you looked up the sources but the articles provided are titled "Possible Longboat terrorist incident" and "Two hijackers on Longboat?" which is a little more then the newspaper stating just that "middle eastern men" were in longboat. --NuclearZer0 18:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)"

Hi, I'm C.lettinga, the "cabal mediator" here to take a look at your case. If you could fill me in a bit on what's happened since your request I can see how to move forward.--C.lettinga 07:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, status quo since the last Mediation comment by the involved parties. The issue seems to have died down since the last edit concerning Mitrokhin. A mediator blessing the existing edited arrangement would finish the problem, I think. Thanks for looking into this. Abe Froman 12:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What was your rationale for determining User:XP to be a sockpuppet of User:Rootology? User:XP had a multi-month long edit history [2], and denied being User:Rootology when asked. [3] Abe Froman 18:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The identity was determined through a combination of technical and other means. Any administrators who would like to know more can contact me. The history of the user in question requires certain protections be taken, but the identity is not in doubt, and this is not a theory. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned a legitimate user with a divergent opinion [4] from the majority of admins commenting on the Request for Arbitration in question has been blocked. No rationale for why this user was determined to be a User:Rootology has yet been given. How were these two users determined to be the same? Given that User:XP was expressing opinions anathema to dozens of Admins following the Request for Arbitration [5], I hope you understand why I am concerned an Admin simply silenced him. Abe Froman 18:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concern and I support your inquiry. Indefinite blocks should not be casually used, and the integrity of Wikipedia admins must paramount. Please note that I was not involved in the discussion you mention and am a neutral party. The evidence used to make the decision, furthermore, was unambiguous. I would rather a hundred vandalsocks go unblocked than ban a single innocent user, so the quality of evidence in this had to, by definition, be neutronium (as a measure of solid). - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abe! Just wanted to let you know that Thatcher131 has completed his analysis of the evidence and posted on the WP:AN thread. If there's anything else I can do for you, let me know! Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher131 reviewed the data and I am satisfied with his review. Thanks for being open to it. Abe Froman 00:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, and thank you for keeping an eye out for fellow editors. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the full message on the ANI, I decided not to post it all there:

Abe, I trust Thatcher131, although we have different views about a lot of things, I respect his integrity and I am impressed how he has helped me several times before.

I honestly don't know all the sorid details about why rootology was desyoped, and I probably never will. All I know is that 6 people who were elected by wide margins to be arbcoms because of their history of being impartial, fair, and great editors, decided to desop him. Other things about the MONGO arbcom trouble me a little, but not this decision. rootology's behavior right before he was desoped was stupid and suicidal. It is hard to justify that. I think if Rootology wants to come back to wikipedia, he can apply to come back, because only he knows the reason why he was desyoped, better than me and you Abe. I believe in second chances, being a product of many second chances myself, but I also support the 99% of wikipedia rules, and think they are here for good solid reasons.

I have got to change my strategy in attempting to help people like rootology. Some wikiusers I have stopped from going over the brink, and they are still editing here on wikipedia, but several, like rootology, have started sockpuppet attacks, etc. This makes me look really bad for trying to help them. If you have any suggestions on how to approach this, I would welcome your advice. Travb (talk) 03:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's the article's featured person; how is it not relevant? Professor London 18:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out Levin's hairstyle in a pejorative manner has no place on Wikipedia. The picture on the comb over article may change at any time, leaving your unfortunate edit senseless as well. Abe Froman 19:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a pejorative, it's a fact! Go to the Carl Levin discussion page. Professor London 20:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration for more details and add your tuppence to the debate... — Rickyrab | Talk 18:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! can't be everywhere though! I haven't have a chance yet to read much about the controversy in the UK regarding the Commission over there, but one thing is sure, is that, beside the controversy around the archives themselves, Scaramella, Guzzanti & al. have lost all credit in Italy. Not that any reasonable person would really believe that a former President of the European Commission, and liberal-minded at that, was "the KGB's man in italy"... Tazmaniacs 23:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you sign the comment saying that there is a majority vote to exclude. Thanks Flymeoutofhere 18:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, the main source for the Controversy section is from a report published by an organization funded by the European Union. 219.77.8.133 06:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. Please cite the report in the article. The talk-radio program originally cited has WP:RS problems. Abe Froman 15:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. What do you think about the following section being put in El Al? (I've revised it a bit) Ghfj007 06:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

According to a report published by the Center Against Racism and the Arab Association for Human Rights in December 2006 - funded by the European Union - there exists a situation during El Al security checks whereby non-Jews are racially profiled. ^[1] The report goes further to claim that this is unfair and irrational.

However, others, such as the Jewish political analyst Daniel Pipes, do not consider the policy of passenger profiling to be racist. According to Pipes, "however distasteful, there must be special scrutiny of Muslims in the West for security purposes."^[2]

Sorry, but if you want to view the sources for '[1]' and '[2]', you will have to click 'Edit' for this section. Also, if you do support this section, would you possibly go to Talk:El Al and vote to include this section? Thank you very much Ghfj007 06:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The sausage king of Chicago?--Dr who1975 17:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be grateful if you could actually respond to my message to you on your user talk page about the Controversy section. Since you did not reply for a long time, I presumed that you had nothing to say about the section and that you were happy for me to add the revised Controversy section which I posted to you. Please, if you have any opinions, respond to me rather than deleting it. Thanks, Ghfj007 07:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Lets keep the discussion on the relevant discussion page. Thanks. Abe Froman 17:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abe, all quotes have to be referenced as per WP:BLP. Would you look up the references and add them please? Aschoeff 22:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC) I added the refs, but as I said in the edit, short quotes coming from a long essay are rarely NPOV, because they are easily twisted out of context. I encourage you to expand them in the interest of capturing what CK was actually trying to say in each of these columns leading up to the war. Aschoeff 23:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abe, on May 4th you edited the page for Michael Hayden from current to former director of CIA. Could you point me to something that verifies this since I can find no references to his leaving or being removed from his post as director of the CIA. Foochar 18:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Hayden is still the DCI. I mixed him up with Robert Gates, who is a former DCI. Thanks for pointing this out. Abe Froman 19:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for strengthening the refutation, I was looking at it and thinking my wording was too weak. Madeleine 21:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I see no changes to the section in question. If TDC wants to bang on about something that might have happened 40 years ago I don't really mind because it's obviously an irrelevance to the present day now that the Soviet Union is history. SmokeyTheCat 11:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it's a legitimate complaint, but the heading User:Bueller reported by User:Abe.Froman gave me a good laugh. --GentlemanGhost 18:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The user made the name to stalk my edits. Abe Froman 22:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I just wanted to stop in and say that I hope we both have the goal of a clear, complete, and reliable article on veganism. Although we seem to disagree about the NPOV-ness of the "health effects" section, I think we should be able to work together to clean up the "motivations -> health" section so that it's not full of fluff and over- and mis-reported information. Kellen^T 08:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this article? The legacy section is appalling. It seems to have been written purely by Reagan-worshippers. There are 30 lines about what a wonderful human being he was and how he's in Heaven now and one line of mild criticism. I have been trying to get a mention of all the tens of thousands that died in Central as a direct result of his policies but I am out-numbered and out edited by ignorant Reagan fans. If you could have a look at it sometime you'll see what I mean. SmokeyTheCat 15:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abe, I'm disappointed that you feel it necessary to delete so many of the valid concerns on the vegan article. I believe that you are doing a great disservice to wikipedia readers.

When I read through that article, I actually can't find a single thing which is anti-vegan. Not one place in the article gives me a reason to 'stay away from veganism'.

Your paranoia about B12 concerns is fascinating. Most people that I know already take vitamin supplements. It's been established that an ill-planned vegan diet increases the risks. Why would you want to hide or delete those concerns? The concerns are about ill planned vegan diets. They are valid concerns. Unless a vegan specifically and consciously tracks their B12 intake, they will have a serious problem to deal with. Why would you want to hide that?

Anyway, I have no desire to fight with you on the article. The fact that you find me to be POV, when I have no opinion whatsoever, and the fact that you delete valid concerns and referenced studies, tells me that you are heavily POV pro-vegan.

It's no wonder that there are wars in the world, when people can't even agree that a B12 deficiency is significant enough to report in an article.

Peace in God my friend. Be well. Lsi john 01:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for my intemperate language in this edit summary. I still stand by the point I was making, but I regret the words I used. Sincerely, CWC 02:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I am trying to assume good faith here, although I find your actions on Vegan to be both uncooperative and unproductive.

You continue to add citations improperly, and you continue to make undiscussed edits in a contested section. This forces people to revert you and is NOT a productive way to edit articles. It also does not generally last.

It is generally much more productive if you use the discussion page first, rather than force people to revert unacceptable edits.

You are also giving one small study an incredibly large amount of coverage, which will most likely be reverted out.

I'm sorry to see that you feel you must use edit warring in order to force your view into the article. It seems that your POV is showing.

As I'm at 2RR, I will have to wait until tomorrow to continue editing. Peace.Lsi john 21:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your work on Veganism and in particular for your research that showed the misleading nature of an important part of the article. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You went to the Admin board to ask others to support your position on an AfD. That's CANVASSing. Corvus cornix 23:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Corvus cornix referred to WP:CANVASS because WP:AN is not a place to seek discussion resolution. Your request is for an administrator to support your view of the guideline in the discussion, which is against the spirit of WP:CANVASS regardless of the number of places it is posted. It's also not the purpose of the noticeboard. Leebo ^T/C 23:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For his extraordinary achievement of doing away with a bullshit, out of context study on Veganism. Many lesser editors salute you.

Various users have been trying to get that fucking Lindsay Allen study removed for several years now. Thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Everyone up till you has just said fuck it, but you stuck it out. Congratulations. You deserve a barnstar. Vert et Noir^talk 03:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have enough barnstars :) so I will just add my appreciation for your recent comments at talk:veganism, thanks sbandrews (t) 19:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You inserted this in the SCHIP article: "The CBO speculates this is because the state programs offer better benefits and lower cost than the private alternatives." Where in the CBO report does it say this? I'm not saying it's not there, I'm merely asking because I didn't see it when I read the report. I didn't read it too in-depth, however, so I could have missed it. Thanks. MKil 23:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

The claim is paraphrased from the report. Here it is verbatim: "The available evidence, which is quite limited, suggests that the bulk of the reduction in private coverage occurs because parents choose to forgo private coverage and enroll their children in SCHIP (because of better benefits, lower costs, or some combination thereof ), rather than employers deciding to drop coverage for such children." [6], page 9. Abe Froman 23:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. MKil 23:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

Abe, I just want to say that your characterization of my comments on that article was simply put, a blatant personal attack. Never once did I actually say that vegans were murderers, or that that was my goal. The idea that all vegans and vegan parents could be called bad parents, much less murderers is bullshit, plain and simple. It's not true, and the sources don't say that. But the news sources did name a poorly-planned vegan diet as what killed the kid. It certainly was controversial, and it is really a lack of food altogether when you examine what they were fed. But the sources did associate a vegan diet with the cases. I thought it would be in the spirit of NPOv to add such sourced information, because as a person who has been surrounded by healthy and happy vegans my whole life, it shocked me that this occurred. I've not done anymore editing on vegan, mostly because it's a really good article. But anymore of that crap calling me a vegan-hating POV pusher will not be tolerated. VanTucky ^(talk) 04:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article you added equated being a vegan parent to murder. As we showed in the discussion, this was not supported by particpants in the court case you used as the example. I'm sorry you feel putting the whole story out there is a personal attack. But better one angry editor than a few hundred thousand slandered vegans. Abe Froman 04:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What was the problem with the Brigg stuff?--Meshulam 03:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me. My mistake. But what was the problem with the Brigg stuff?--Meshulam 20:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: your accusatory comments on my talk page. I am not the anon editor who left that "parasites" rant. We both know that is an anti semitic code word. I had nothing to do with it. Abe Froman 02:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

NB: I am as Jewish as you are, I live in Boro Park, and have been involved in many efforts to expose antisemitism. I resent your accusation of my antisemitism. I am not anti-Chabad either, and am particularly fond of their spiritual teachings (if not their many internal problems). You should not throw around accusations of antisemitism without bothering to verify.

My posts are now without a user name because I had my previous user name (Kwork) deleted in disgust over Wikipedi problems. 96.224.19.134 11:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this paper on the dialectics of Israeli Anti Semitism for why I lump use of the word "parasites" in with anti semitism. [7]. Here is a collection of Nazi Children's stories that also freely use the word [8]. The word has anti semitic connotations, and that is why I have a problem with it. Abe Froman 14:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, I am sorry the use of that word offended you, and (thinking about it now) I violated laws of speech too. Nevertheless, if I rule out the use of every word that might offend someone, I would need to stay silent....a development some of my editorial opponents would treasure. In fact I have pretty much ended my participation in Wikipedia. I do continue to try to prevent anyone adding material to the Kabbalah article that does not belong there; and I watch that no one removes the small section on Alice Bailey's antisemitism from her article. Otherwise, I am through with Wikipedia. Again, I am sorry I offended you (although I still think the word was technically correct in its context). 96.224.19.134 15:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I retrieved this from your user talk files because I want to reply:

I do not know what "contributions" you suggested, but by your tone, it sounds like you were attempting to do a hit piece. Calling Chabad a "cult grop" and "opportunistic religious fanatics" is fairly POV. If your edits betrayed that POV, then they were violative of Wikipedia policy. I read the page, and I don't see these fatal flaws that you talk about. Finally, when asking for my help on an article on an article, you should be careful before the subject of your edits "parasites." It appears as though this conversation is over.--Meshulam 01:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

My discussion with the Chabad editors came just before you tried editing the article. All you need to do is look. Below is part of what I said. I am not anti-Chabad, but actually feel very close to them, and have had a lot of discussion with some of their rabbis. But there is no denying that there are points of disagreement.

As fond as I am of the Chabad teaching, I have to tell you guys that this article reads like a promotional piece, and not like an encyclopedia article. Even the "Controversies" section manages to avoid mentioning any of the real criticism that has exists, and that has been published. If nothing is done to improve the article I will tag it for its non-neutral point of view. Kwork 21:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I took another look at this article, and really it amounts to Chabad propaganda. This is to the point where I think there are grounds to nominate it for deletion. I have tagged the article for its lack of neutrality. I understand that strong personal beliefs are involve in this article, but Wikipedia is not about promoting one's personal beliefs, or promoting one's favorite religious organization. There are plenty of Chabad web sites that do that already. Wikipedia articles here are supposed to have a neutral point of view. Kwork 12:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I had suggested that the material about the Chabad outreach and service activities be put in a separate article, leaving the emphasis in the main article on the Chabad history and the (most important) Chabad spiritual teaching. I thought, and still do think, that this would improve the article considerably because most of what gives the article its current promotional quality is associated with the pitch for that part of their work.

The Chabad editors are very dedicated, and very effective at preventing unwanted changes; and in disgust with Wikipedia (because the main fault is in Wikipedia) I had my user page deleted. However, just the other day I discovered I can still sign my user name....Kwork 18:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Chabad promotional poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,Newyorkbrad 18:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abe, I didn't notice your comment in this arbitration. I feel like I must let you know that I am a heavily involved editor in this arbitration, and one of the actual parties.

While I think I can continue moderating around Chabad and Chabad messianism, and feel entirely comfortable doing so, I would understand if you had a concern with my active participation in an arbitration you commented on. Please let me know either way, as my interest is for you and Pinchas to continue the road of moderation to hopefully happy outcome. I will stop my moderation until you comment on this matter. Hopefully I can continue serving you and Pinchas as a bridge to build communitcation. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not planning to participate in that arbitration, so I don't see any conflict. Abe Froman 04:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comment, and your continued trust in me. Thanks!--Cerejota 06:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abe, haven't heard from you in a while, so I wanted to let you now I put some questions in the mediation that I am very interested in hearing your answers to. Please let me know if you want a break or want to talk off-wiki. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll review and respond tomorrow. Abe Froman 04:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abe, you still haven't responded, as Pimchas did, to some of my inquiries. I would appreciate it if you did. Are you still interested in mediation? Thanks!--Cerejota 07:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits re PJ certainly are bordering on disruptive. Youn refuse to answetr the question of how outing Xavier in this way helps the article and ignore our BLP guidelines as if they dont apply to you. Please desist this pattern of behaviour, SqueakBox 21:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm nitpicking, but you might want to take a look at the Mitrokhin archive page and the Iran Contra page. Your input would be helpful. Let me know if you think I'm off base as well. Notmyrealname 15:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've been following this topic, please check out the Mitrokhin Archive page and talk page (especially the last edit). Let me know what you think, and please make any changes as you think necessary. Thanks, Notmyrealname 03:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem on the Salvador Allende page. Notmyrealname 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you're done with your weekend wikibreak (a fine idea, I might add), your attention on the above pages would be most appreciated. I might post a note on some of the appropriate boards to try to bring in a wider audience to all of this. Notmyrealname 02:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 17:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for help in reverting TDC's attempts to bias the article. We have come to a decision to move the section to the Letelier case article. It is stated as an accusation and I removed the nonsene about the incident being the basis for the novel The spike. However, TDC is still trying to to protray Novak and Evans claims as fact and not opinion. I wonder if in case it looks like I might violate the 3rr rule you could restore my edits if TDC reverts them. I would appreciate it.

Also TDC left a particularly rude comment toward you on the talk page for Letelier referring to some dispute you guys had on the CPUSA article. I reponded to it, but maybe you woud like to as well.

I thank you again for your help.annoynmous 12:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abe, just thought I'd bring to your attention FrederickTG's brazen attempt to remove the praise and criticism section of the PJ article almost entirely. I know you've worked a lot on that article, and you might want some say in the matter. Vagr4nt (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link to where the vote was taken on what the featured article should be? --CatholicW (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's over in the Featured Article section. [9]

It's too late to stop the Feature. Enough editors lacking common-sense voted it in. I emailed Wikimedia and hopefully an adult will use a Wikipedia Office action to take down the TFA. That is a remote possibility. It looks like Wikipedia is changing, and not for the better. This sort of Feature would have never happened a few years ago. Abe Froman (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I canceled my monthly recurring contribution to Wikimedia.org because users should make the active choice to search for controversial content, not be bombarded by it on the front page because a few editors think it's funny. That is wrong. I hope the project succeeds in the future, but it won't be with my money. Abe Froman (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The blurb should be preceded by a lead image when available; fair use images are not allowed." {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article ]

Is the image considered fair use? --CatholicW (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image is under CC BY-SA --Guerillero | My Talk 13:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should we get barnstars? --CatholicW (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should get our heads examined. I'm not even sure what a Barnstar is. Abe Froman (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL.

A barnstar is one of these things:

Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For his extraordinary achievement of doing away with a bullshit, out of context study on Veganism. Many lesser editors salute you.

And considering we kept wikipedia from being banned in multiple countries I suspect we may deserve some. --CatholicW (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Abe.Froman. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]