User talk:Gilabrand/Archive 5

Thanks for the fixes to the new Rehavia-I wasn't sure about all those names. I was pretty much translating straight out of the Hebrew article, but I stopped when I came to the list of prominent buildings. Do you think that should be included also? Thanks, Keyed In (talk) 11:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you did some pretty thorough editing to the Rehavia entry. Your changes seem like a good simplification of an article that was becoming extremely detailed for its rather small size -- not to mention that the detail provided would have been foreign to many readers not already familiar with Jerusalem. I hope that my comments in the Discussion were helpful, or at least not bothersome. Poldy Bloom (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the points you made were good - which spurred me into making the changes. Of course, there is much more to be done. I just need time...--Gilabrand (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've had this discussion already. The name seems to be Berl Repetur. The Knesset website is wrong. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Tel Aviv is currently undergoing a copyedit in preparation for another FAC. The copyeditor has placed a tag next to this statement: "After the Crusaders left Palestine, life in Jaffa lay dormant for centuries." and I was wondering if it could be cited with the Jaffa: A City in Evolution book? If you could let me know, that'd be fantastic. Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 08:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - it is a statement taken from that book. I thought the reference I added covered it, but you can always add it a second time.--Gilabrand (talk) 08:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see the problem myself to be honest, but it might as well go there if we have it. Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you please explain your edits to the article Shevah Mofet? While some are clearly good edits (especially the spelling/grammar/style corrections), there are others which are strange at best and harmful at worst. For example, who said that lists were discouraged on Wikipedia? On the contrary, they are encouraged for certain things that require lists. For example, the recent FAC Tel Aviv, which we both edited, includes a list of mayors. It is only fitting that a notable school include a list of principals. Also some of your removals were completely unexplained. My guess is that you thought they could be classified as 'unsourced accusations', however, in such a case I'm wondering why you didn't talk about it first. For example, we've had a discussion in the past (with a user who no longer edits) about the cafeteria part and it was decided not to remove it. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A list of principals with a bunch of question marks in the middle and no information about their contributions and no sources seemed useless to me, but if you think it belongs, you can restore it. Same goes for unsourced allegations about spoiled food which is really a non-notable event and would never be included in any encylopedia worthy of the name. To me it sounds like someone in the school trying to ruin its reputation. I didn't think the changes I made needed any special discussion. If material is unsourced and libelous, it is perfectly fine to remove it, and I don't need permission.--Gilabrand (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, For all your copyedits and improvements to Tel Aviv Flymeoutofhere (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC), award you this Bagel of Zion for improving the coverage of ציון. Remember not to edit on empty stomach.[reply]

Gilabrand there is a discussion at Talk:Tel Aviv#History section regarding the earliest remains found in the city. There is a contradiciton between the Tel Aviv University website and the book source you added. Perhaps you could shed some light. Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book on Jaffa by Ruth Kark (1990) states that permanent settlement existed "in the area" some 7,500 years before the Christian era, whereas archeological artifacts discovered in the town itself date to the end of the 2nd century BCE.--Gilabrand (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought up the move issue on User talk:Valerius Tygart#Melekeh versus Jerusalem stone. Mangoe (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice addition to the article - but why did you upload such a low resolution version? Is it possible for you to start uploading resolutions of at least 1MB? --David Shankbone 13:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I started adding photos here, I was advised to use low resolution so as not to clog up WP or something. Maybe things have changed. What is the policy on this? --Gilabrand (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever told you that was grossly uninformed. We want you to upload to the Commons, and the only current limit, which may be revised upwards, is 20MB. Photos of such low resolution, but of high quality photographically such as your Child photo, are less useful to people off Wikipedia. Upload the highest quality possible, and please create an account at Commons so other projects can use your photography. Nice shot. --David Shankbone 15:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a discussion on Commons about the issue that started yesterday. --David Shankbone 16:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gila, Could you add to the discussion on the proper name for this article on the talk page? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason for which you think that Tzofit is the correct spelling? The name is generally quite certainly spelled Tzufit, and not Tzofit. There may be an exception in Grant's case per WP:COMMONNAME (i.e. if the media or most other sources use Tzofit, which is possible), in which case the proper spelling should be noted in the article itself. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name appears this way in every newspaper article about her in the last several months,in Israel and abroad (including the references brought for this page). I would imagine this has been checked by the journalists. --Gilabrand (talk) 03:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I am unaware of your notability or experience in the literature of the Sages or activities of Bikur Cholim in Los Angeles. Prior to making arbitrary changes, I would recommend you exercise due diligence and common courtesy. While you may disagree in form rest assured the content is accurate. Should you have a POV, then as a member of the wikepedia community, please share it responsibly. History is a POV and should be recorded accordingly. It appears that you have taken an interest to many areas. I would hope that you would expect that same courtesy from others with regard to those pages which you have contributed to.Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bikurcholim (talk • contribs) 06:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a clue what kind of disagreement you are referring to. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a Jewish text, and therefore I removed "zaztal." Apart from that, the Bikur Cholim page is actually about the mitzvah of visiting the sick - not charitable organizations with that name. I would suggest you move that information to a new page (which should also be done for the hospital, if someone adds material). If you think a certain rabbi deserves a page, that is fine, but you will have to bring references for his notability, even if he is your mentor and rabbi. Your tone is rather snippety, by the way, which is not appreciated. --Gilabrand (talk) 06:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would somehow agree with the gentleman who wrote above. Before introducing changes, make a pause and think for a while... (1) You may believe that places of birth and death are not needed on the first line. This is a standard practice (and useful information) in all the encyclopaedias I know, including the Wikipedias (fr; it; de) with which I am more familiar; not forgetting printed encyclopaedias such as the 'Encyclopaedia Brittanica'. Wikipedia:en may be an exception. But is it an iron rule? (2) Doing missionary work and mission work is not the same. You may not be fully aware of that. Missionary work would mean working among non-Christians, while mission work usually refers to large-scale organized preaching campaign in order to revive faith life and practice in villages, towns or other social groups. (3) That Marie-Alphonse Ratisbonne left the Society of Jesus With the authorization of the Superior General and the blessing of the Pope should be mentioned. To leave the Society of Jesus is no light matter (it created much misunderstanding and suffering); the reasons why he did so should be mentioned. (4) In my view, mentioning the name of his parents is not relevant, but... relax... I do not belong to the group of those who remove things easily from Wikipedia!

All this being said, let me add that I appreciate much your contributions on Judaism.

Zerged (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are wrong about the difference between mission and missionary work, which I don't think is true for English. Yes, the name of his parents does rate a mention, in the same way that it is mentioned on most biographical pages on Wikipedia. All information introduced by me comes from a source, which does not seem to be the case for your additions. If you can bring sourced information (not from a Catholic encyclopedia or missionary website) for why Ratisbonne did what he did, that would certainly add to the article. Finally, my edits are not hasty. The problem is that people are in love with what they write and are often blind to such things as unencyclopedic tone and poor grammar. This particular article was a religious hagiography before I edited it, and in my opinion, is now much improved.--Gilabrand (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Truly amazing the statements you can make, apparently with a good conscience: 'I am right; you are wrong!' (Twice you are telling me so here above...). (1) First: surprised by your the names of the parents are mentioned on most biographical pages of Wikipedia I made a little check, using the 'Navigation:Random article' of Wikipedia opening page. Well, I suggest you do the same, and you will tell me whether what you write is true or not! (2) In the Ratisbonne article you quote several times from the Encyclopedia judaica. In the message above you invite me to bring sourced information, but not from a Catholic encyclopedia. Do you mean exactly what you are implying? In other words: that the Encyclopedia Judaica is neutral and the Catholic Encyclopedia is not? This would be arbitrary and unacceptable of course. In the addition I made I quoted Claude Mondésert, which seems to be sufficient authority. As far as I know he is the best authority on Ratisbonne (remember that Ratisbonne was French, and there is much more in French than in English on the Ratisbonne brothers). In fact, I won't be surprised to learn that the Encyclopedia Judaica has used the same source. I rely on you to let me know... Zerged (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very much agreed that it's a really roughly written article. It does look like someone went in and rewrote it into a mess perhaps. I noticed that I stuck a few typose (typos, I mean), in there too. Thanks for getting right on it and cleaning them up. You were quite quick to delete the Wadi Salib history to begin with and it looked like maybe a little crab-wrestling match would ensue but when I went back in and put the info back and tried to make that section more solid, you tidied it up nicely. Thank you for just tidying it up and not deleting it again as people often do!LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 07:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with Wadi Salib. It's just that it was garbled and hard to understand in the earlier version. Your re-write has definitely made things clearer. No wrestling match intended. My goal is to make articles on Wikipedia more truthful (i.e., backed up with solid sources and clear of political and personal grudges) and also more readable...Thanks for helping to weed out the nonsense. Haifa deserves it!--Gilabrand (talk) 09:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we should move Mandate Palestine to under British Empire and Commonwealth? If you do go ahead, otherwise just leave it. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the neutral point of view policy applies to the inclusion of categories as well as content. Using a category to tag an article to express one side's point of view is a violation of NPOV. Your addition of Category:Propaganda to Muhammad al-Durrah has therefore been reverted. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of a legitimate category (backed up by a court decision) is a clear expression of POV. The category that doesn't fit is "photographs of people." What a joke. --Gilabrand (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that some bloggers have claimed that the court backed Karsenty's views. There's nothing in the reportage to support this. According to AFP, which apparently has a copy of the verdict, the court merely stated that "«l’examen des rushes ne permet plus d’écarter les avis des professionnels entendus au cours de la procédure» et qui avaient mis en doute l’authenticité du reportage." [1] In other words, the judge said there was room for legitimate doubt, not that the supposed "staging" had been proved. I would remind you that Wikipedia:Verifiability, one of Wikipedia's core policies, requires that "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article". -- ChrisO (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you care to comment on the AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caravanim? Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gila. I see you reverted my recent edit to Yom Yerushalayim. While it may be true that Anti-Zionists have a second reason not to celebrate it, the main reason Chareidi Jews do not celebrate that or any other Israeli holiday is due to conservatism and reluctance to change from the traditionally practiced way of our fathers. Indeed, Chareidim are unequivocally considered among the most conservative form of Judaism, and conservatism by definition means adherence to original ways of doing things and reluctance to change. Though this may be original research (your edit summary indicates that you feel that way), the line as it exists is no better. Also see the infobox, where it is described as "Secular (observed religiously in some Zionist communities)." Clearly secular, and thus considered to have no place among a community in which religion is paramount.

I do appreciate that you later rephrased the sentence to clarify that not all Chareidim are Anti-Zionists. I still think that some mention should also be made of the secular nature of the holiday. Not wanting to engage in edit warring, I would be delighted to hear your opinion. Regards. Keyed In (talk) 09:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the reference I added regarding the recitation of Hallel, you will see it discusses this matter of "conservatism" at length, as well as the halakhic rulings for and against the celebration of Yom Yerushalayim. As a great many synagogues (in Israel and abroad, including Orthodox congregrations) do hold special tefilot, your claim about the holiday being a secular one does indeed amount to OR. If you can bring references, you are welcome to add a section to the article on the Haredi view, which will certainly improve the article and give it more depth.--Gilabrand (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the matter has received much halachic analysis, and I am not here to argue whether one position is correct. It is just that in the Chareidi community the opinion is that it is secular, and to attribute their non-observance to anti-Zionism is simply wrong and may have a hint (just a hint!) of anti-Chareidi POV (besides being OR as well). If we need references to mention this, then the entire sentence should be deleted until someone finds a reference to anti-Zionism as a cause for non-observance. Thanks. Keyed In (talk) 09:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you say this is the stance of the Chareidi community doesn't make it so. This is an encyclopedia, and statements must be backed up by references. In the same way that I have gone to the trouble to find references, so can you. Find a source for a Haredi leader who says Yom Yerushalayim is banned because it is secular, and add it. The problem is not that the holiday is secular, but that the State of Israel declared it, and certain Haredi rabbis (a small minority) don't acknowledge the State of Israel (although they happily live in Israel and avail themselves of all its services). In Israel, loads of yeshiva students of every stripe are dancing today. Regarding the argument that new holidays can't be added, then how come Haredim celebrate Purim and Hanukkah?--Gilabrand (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Granted that if I say so doesn't make it so, you still didn't answer why you saying that it's because of anti-Zionism does make it so.
2. Yom Yerushalayim isn't "banned" by Chareidim, it never achieved recognition in the first place. The burden of proof for a change in religion is (according to chareidi views--I'm not saying I agree) upon the party who wants to institute said change.
3. Implicit in the current revision is that a Chareidi Jew who is not anti-Zionist has no reason not to celebrate Yom Yerushalayim. This is far from reality; most Chareidi Jews are not even aware that today is Yom Yerushalayim. I wasn't until I saw WP, though I am American so I may be excused :-).
4. Your statement that "certain Haredi rabbis (a small minority) don't acknowledge the State of Israel (although they happily live in Israel and avail themselves of all its services)," though true, positively reeks of a bitterness that seriously calls into question your ability to remain emotionally detached from this issue. (Please don't get me wrong. I admire you as an editor and as a Jew. Many times our feelings about certain charged issues cause an emotional attachment that precludes reason. I agree with your sentiments, and acknowledge your sense of justice. Indeed, injustice can often be a catalyst for the most serious of emotions.)
5. Regarding your statement that "loads of yeshiva students of every stripe are dancing today," unless we somehow disagree what makes a "Chareidi Jew," you would be hard-pressed to find a single Chareidi yeshiva student dancing. This is not done out of spite, nor out of adherence to any "ban," but simply because the holiday never achieved recognition because of its newness (secular is admittedly the wrong term).
6. Although I already pointed out that I am not here to argue any one side but simply to state the facts, I will still answer, for the record, your question about Purim and Chanukkah. (I must admit that I am kind of surprised you brought this up.) As you are well aware, Purim has sources in biblical times where the book of Esther specifically refers to the yearly celebrations. Chanukkah, though not biblical, is referenced extensively in the Talmud. It's hard to understand the comparison to a holiday with no religious sources whatsoever. I agree that the Six Day War was a divine miracle of epic proportions, and the liberation of Yerushalayim was an extremely happy event. But that does not make it a religious holiday, and for a group of people who (attempt to) exclusively live according to their religious views, such an event has no place.

I hope I haven't been too harsh, I just think you may be unaware of the facts. :-) Keyed In (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aware of the facts? Funny...Sounds like you are the one who isn't, if your knowledge of Yom Yerushalayim comes from Wikipedia. LOL But then again, perhaps that provides an incentive to continue editing Wikipedia, as now we know it does provide information that widens someone's horizons. Please note the section on the Haredi view, which makes YOUR point and brings a reference for it. --Gilabrand (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC) P.S. Hanukkah was not a religious holiday either. It was the celebration of a military victory.[reply]

LOL but obviously I know what Yom Yerushalayim is, I just forgot it was today. "To separate themselves from a secular and ungodly system" as stated in the Hareidi view section is not exactly MY point but will have to do because whatever I change will be reverted anyway... and Chanukkah is a holiday with religious sources which is all I said Chareidim require. I don't know what you mean by a religious holiday. Besides, it was also a celebration of the miracle of the oil. To assume the position of some in a debate whether that part was added later is further POV, and besides, Chareidim take the Talmud to be most authoritative. Cheers and Happy Yom Yerushalayim (tho it's over by now in Israel)! Keyed In (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image is aparently flipped, showing the religious books on the opposite way (left to right). Please fix it by flipping in any imaging program. Shoteh (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't understand what the problem is.--Gilabrand (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image isn't flipped because the letters are correct. But the Sefarim in the picture are upside down (back cover on top). Keyed In (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were arranged that way so the titles would be readable.--Gilabrand (talk) 03:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good way to provide misleading information, and to show analphabethy. --HagiMalachi (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean I won't meet you in Gan Eden?--Gilabrand (talk) 05:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that your political agenda is about removal of information and not adding to the sum of human knowledge. Why don't you start a page called the Katz controversy as that is all you seem to think that the Tantura massacre is about?

Was the village cleansed of Palestinians or are they still living in Tantura?Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article states (based on Palestine Remembered) that the residents fled and settled elsewhere. Your use of the word "cleansed" clearly shows where you stand. There is a big difference between that and a "massacre" - which clearly didn't happen.--Gilabrand (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest you read some of the Benny Morris foot notes. In particular Benny Morris (2004)p. 299 to 301. As Brechor Shitrit asked Ben-Gurion for permission to move the Tantura refugees from Fureidis it is quite apparent that the refugees went to Fureidis. Also Meron Benvenisti says that the refugees went to Fureidis, thirdly when you tried to make the article a Katz controversy article you removed all the information on the village but left the town statistics from Palestine Remembered, so if you have a problem with Palestine Remembered why did you leave it in the Katz Controversy section? Further the interpretation of the words used in the order was "cleanse or subdue". Clearly as the inhabitants of Tantura are no longer there, subdue would be the incorrect term. Or it could be put as "subdued and then cleansed". But it is correct to use the term cleanse as that was part of the order given. Obviously you do not like the term but as it was used in the original Military order it would be correct in using it now. It seems from your mail that you have a political agenda of removing any portion of any article that does not agree with your political views. I on the other hand realise that there are two views. This is why when I made the article I included the Katz controversy and also included the quoted order. If you feel that the order given was inappropriate then get a time machine and go back and have the order changed. Because in this universe at this point in time the "order to cleanse or Subdue" is in existence. Trying to change or deny a historical event by removing it from wiki is ridiculous.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the orders were given in Hebrew, the word used was not cleansed. That is not a Hebrew expression and it is not a translation of anything that would be said in Hebrew. Maybe you should get into your time capsule and go learn some history instead of making it up.--Gilabrand (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I've spent a while thinking about this issue, going through the talk page discussions and reading through the different revisions. The truth is that I'm not familiar with the issues, so I'd rather not get involved in the discussion beyond reminding people to keep cool heads. This is in now way saying "I'm taking the easy way out", because at the end of the discussion I'm going to make a decision to unprotect the article or take it to dispute resolution. I also suggest getting someone more familiar with the article's issues for a third opinion. Sorry this doesn't really help, but I've seen a lot of editors (and admins) plunge head-first into disputes they have no idea about, and it just exacerbates and prolongs the discussion. I'm watching the page, and I will intervene if things get out of hand. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pay close attention to the edits on Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem. All mainstream, reputable news agencies refer to them as just that. Associated Press, Reuters, CNN, FOX News, New York Times, Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle, among others call it that. One editor claims Reuters calls it a "settlement" but I have only found the opposite of that claim. --Shamir1 (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Work on the Katz controversy let other editors work on the expulsion. Try not to get the 2 events confused.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, but the two are directly related. It is you who are confused (and apparently bent on confusing others).--Gilabrand (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are directly related one is a historical documented fact with no controversy and the other is the Katz controversy. So work on the Katz controversy, I have absolutely no problem with leaving your work alone. But please add to not remove because of your political bias. I had included a section on the Katz controversy in the first article where upon you deleted half the expulsion work as though the expulsion was not documented. The expulsion is documented and has good provenance. The Katz controversy is only about the extent of the incident, as to whether is should be titled a massacre or not. That is immaterial to the historiography of the expulsion, it is over that point that you appear to have some confusion.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gila,

Just for your information : [2]. :Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't follow everything.

But could you come and list all the points you think should be modified ?

Thank you. Ceedjee (talk) 07:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley has deleted everything from her talk page so there is no longer any record of her debate with me and uncivil responses to my overtures to work together. I see she did delete the other two "clone" pages on Tantura. Maybe she was advised to do so by an administrator

whose messages she also took the trouble to delete. I have not followed the changes since then, and I'm not sure I want to.--Gilabrand (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you didn't seem to want to work to improve I combined everything under al-Tantura not under advice. A place where they should have been in the first place had you not tried to remove anything that was against your Political POV....Try and keep your personal slurs downAshley kennedy3 (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this not special? To how many people have you given prizes? It takes someone important and notable to present a prize -- and the Raoul Wallenberg Award is hardly a door prize at a high school prom. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he got the prize himself, I would consider that worthy of inclusion. I don't think handing someone a prize is notable on an encyclopedic scale. No, I haven't presented a prize, but I don't think anyone would consider me worthy of an article if I had. Altogether, these rabbis you have written about are doing nice work, but I don't believe they merit an article - not yet, at any rate. Rather than vote for their deletion (they were brought to my attention by another editor), I tried to improve them by removing excessive advertising and trivialities.--Gilabrand (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind word, now I'm blushing :). You're not so bad yourself ! Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to Israel, Palestine, and related conflicts. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here.

PhilKnight (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image Image:Jaffa Oranges.jpg is a copyrighted, non free image. As such, the information discussed at WP:RAT and WP:NFCC apply to this image. According to WP:NFCC, when a non free image is used multiple times on Wikipedia it needs multiple rationales (WP:RAT). The image Image:Jaffa Oranges.jpg currently only has one rationale listed on it's page, which I removed it from the article Templers (religious believers). If you would like to use the image in that article, please add a corresponding rationale.--Rockfang (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I moved the Beit Jalla reprisal raid article to Beit Jala reprisal raid. Hope it doesn't create problems from the AfD (as far as I can tell, you haven't created the AfD sub-page yet). Please let me know if something goes wrong. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gilabrand, what the hell was that supposed to be about? Are you seriously claiming that this incident never happened? It's discussed by Hutchinson, Benny Morris in Border Wars, and at least one peer-reviewed article that took me five seconds to turn up on Google. ([3]) I'm reverting your absurd AfD notice, because negationism has no place on WP. <eleland/talkedits> 17:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page rationale before you make statements about absurdity. This article is something lifted verbatim from a book. It is controversial and is unencyclopedic. There is already information about it on the Beit Jala page. It doesn't deserve a page - it is a murder mystery with a political agenda behind it, by an editor who is abusing Wikipedia while pretending "innocence." She has already been warned by an administrator this week for her disruptive edits. --Gilabrand (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. This "murder mystery" nonsense is a lame ad hoc rationalization. Who could have crossed over the border from Israel, blown up Arab houses with demolition charges that had Hebrew letters on them, and left a note stating that the attack was in retaliation for an attack on Israelis? Maybe it was... the Swiss! Yeah, those chocolate-eating, watch-making master manipulators SET THE JEWS UP! Alert Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and the Anti-Defamation League, for fifty-six years these Swiss-inspired blood libels have been allowed to stand unchallenged!!!1 WE MUST DEFEND ERETZ ISRAEL FROM THESE LIES!!!! <eleland/talkedits> 18:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gilabrand, your description of other editors here as "pathetic" was uncivil. That said, Eleland, you're not exactly helping here. PhilKnight (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gilabrand! It appears that you aren't going to proceed with the AfD, so perhaps you'd like to help me improve the article :) for starters, it needs serious copyediting and formatting, which you seem to be proficient at, and after that the content needs to be re-written, with an emphasis on replacing the primary source (Hutchison) with secondary sources as much as possible. Let's convert this from a lame unreadable POV fork for a decent balanced article! I'm awaiting your reply/contributions, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) There has been some serious propaganda pushing going on in those articles lately. Nevertheless, as you surely know, you should not disrupt Wikipedia just to make a point, as you did here, even if it's a good point. -- Nudve (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since you seem to know your stuff, do you think you could do Wikipedia a huge favor by creating an article about the "border wars" or "reprisal acts", parallel (but preferably better) to this one? It's just that it seems like without a main article about the nature of this conflict, such articles are bias-prone due to lack of context. -- Nudve (talk) 05:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term "racist allegations" makes racist into an adjective of the noun allegations. At best you've given the title a double meaning. Strongbrow (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't mean that at all. Only someone who is not a native speaker would say that. It doesn't have a double meaning. Actually, the whole article should be deleted. I don't know why anyone voted to keep it. But if it exists, my goal is to make it better. --Gilabrand (talk) 14:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your other edits to the article also make it clear you're trying to insert the POV that the allegations against Israel are racist. Strongbrow (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was not my intention. I was rewriting a lead that made no sense and did not explain the subject of the article. If you have an idea about how to reword it, fine. But what I object to is the blanket reversion of all my work. About the title, maybe it shouldn't include the word "racist" at all. "Criticism of Zionism" is probably a better title.--Gilabrand (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a meaningless title since it could be about anything from religious objections that Zionism takes the place of the messiah on. I take it from your constant suggestions that I am unfamiliar with English that English is, in fact, your second language and you're insecure about that. Otherwise, you're just being rude and insulting so stop it. Strongbrow (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to note this disagreement has been taken to ANI by Strongbrow, just letting you know. ~ mazca ^talk 15:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

one should put in who said what. I'm trying to get you to put that in. You don't seem to have got the hang of accreditation. That is what the fact date tag was about...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand, you are the arbitrator sent after Amoruso's request .

In addtion to your edid, the usage of "terror" by U.N and British Government should be moved to the body of the article, that is to say, to attach them to the event (that the article tells about) - and say that after this event this and that called them so.

If this remain at the first or second paragraph, it gives the impression as though this is the "definition" of the group, rather them lay out the facts in the relevent portion of the article.

I'd appreciate if you will move this to the relevent portion as well.

second, i'm trying to get some admin/arbitrator for my complaint - and here is what I wrote:

"how are you ?

I've found out that in addition to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir being categorized as "Terrorist", the article referring to his organization (Lehi (group))has been categorized under "Category: Jewish terrorism" and "Category:Defunct organizations designated as terrorist", as well as the Disambiguation page of Lehi says:

• Lehi (group), a Jewish/Zionist terrorist group that operated in the British Mandate of Palestine (Also known as the Stern Gang)

I had edited both pages, including other issues, that meanwhile were resolved (on the talk page), but Meanwhile the disputed categories have also been reverted (in both pages by the same person, who categories such disputations on other articles as well) without further explanations.

I moved the discussion to the article's talk page as needed, and just by looking at the talk page of this article, you can see at list 2 discussions (prior to mine), that discussed the issue of categorizing the article under some form of "Terror" – all ending with no one getting to agree on this matter – it remained a disputed issue.

Further, I have opened another disscution on the matter, so I could find out why somebody placed a disputed category of "Terror" despite the fact that no one agrees upon it and no consensus was reached !? (See talk page of the article)

I couldn't get a reasonable explanation and No consensus was reached yet again.

This unilateral step was done (Initially) on:

12:35, 20 May 2008 MeteorMaker ("Organizations designated as terrorist" and "Jewish terrorism" added.)

I'd like to ask you to remove those categories in dispute, until a broader discussion that can produce a consensus will be held."

--Shevashalosh (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an arbitrator, just an ordinary editor. I have copyedited the lead on the Lehi article for more neutral wording, but there is an editor who has challenged the wording as not strong enough. Have a look at the page and leave a comment on the talk page if you think my version is acceptable. At the moment, it is being disputed.--Gilabrand (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your edits to this article. I appreciate it. Happy138 (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear that. I'm used to getting jumped on every time I change something--Gilabrand (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, someone actually did change a few things after your edits. What do you think? Happy138 (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise you to consult the interpretation of the said law by Moshe Neghi. I don't make these comments without a specific source in mind.Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. <eleland/talkedits> 21:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since Nishidani claims he is conferrable with your edits as well?

Someone has vandalized the article with misleading statement that did not exist a month ago (timing from Amoruso), adding the "t" word all over the place.

They were never declared as such, nor have they adopted this word/goal.

Amoruso, has only noticed it, finally yesterday.

But the main point is that it was done against what people's view of this subject, hence, one's person decision against the all other peoples view.

Nobody seriously thinks they were terrorists (as can be seen on the discussions on talk page, even in the articles' current misleading condition), and when you read: paragraph 2 in the opening statement: "terrorists" or "Jews were sometimes killed in these attacks, and occasionally targeted for assassination"

or in the body of the article:

"Stern believed that ..And hat terrorist methods were an effective means for achieving those goals"

They don't think this is a serious site.

The urgency, is first to delete the second paragraph of the opening statement. Don't determine a narrative, let people read the facts.

Second, (as to the body of the article) this whole "terror" typos/grammar doesn't sound serious (as reflected in previous discussions) and therefore does not serve wiki's neutral policy's face.

if you insist, ad some where deeper in the article that "Ralph Bunche claimed they were terrorists" (but not the U.N or else), though it sound a poorly argument and as if you are including some minority's claim.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Well, the page is blocked at the moment. Maybe I'll have a look in a few days. But I wasn't very successful in my editing. Everything I wrote was reverted...--Gilabrand (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i'll put a copy at the talk page

--Shevashalosh (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete my comments : [4]. Ceedjee (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me? Maybe I did it by mistake when I was adding my comment. I'm sorry! Please put it back.--Gilabrand (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. I added it back.

I think you was right about her. Sorry not to have been faster to understand. Ceedjee (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out that the "she" is a "he."--Gilabrand (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And he edits from Israel as his IP proves. Ceedjee (talk) 08:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't sound likely to me. I remember him writing something about "here in London" and someone wrote back that whatever he was saying was nonsense, because he was "also in London." --Gilabrand (talk) 08:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look here : [5].

It is indeed from the UK : [6]

I had in mind I had found (s)he edited from Israel...

Ceedjee (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, GB. If, as you wrote in a Jerusalem edit summary, "Tel Aviv was not ever Israel's capital", the Tel Aviv article will need copyediting in section 2.4. You would know better than I how to reword those lines accurately. Could you have a look? Thanks and cheers, Hertz1888 (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out I am wrong. Tel Aviv was the temporary seat of government in 1948-1949. The administrative headquarters of the goverment were set up in Sarona, on the outskirts of Tel Aviv, in the empty houses of the German Templer colony (the British Mandatory authorities had deported them for being Nazi supporters).--Gilabrand (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]