User talk:Gilabrand

Archives This editor is a Senior Editor and is entitled to display this Rhodium Editor Star.
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

*User:Gilabrand/Awards and barnstars

I, Shuki, hereby award you the Israeli Barnstar of National Merit for your extraordinary contribution to Israel-related articles on WP. Thank you --Shuki (talk) 08:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For working on an article that you felt shouldn't even exist and helping to bring it up, even if temporarily, to encyclopedic standards. Nableezy (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

		The Jewish Barnstar
		For editing the page Jerusalem stone.Elan26 (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		I hereby award you The Photographer's Barnstar for the beautiful photos of Israel and Jewish stuff you have taken and graced Wikipedia with! I had noticed your contrbution way back in July 2007! The one of the Dome of the Rock viewed through the Cotton Merchants Gate (right) is my favourite! Happy snapping! Chesdovi (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For your work on Hat, I hereby award you this barnstar. →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		This award is given to User:Gilabrand in recognition of all your imaginative and original photographs related to topics about Israel and Judaism, as can be seen on your user page. In particular, I was impressed by how many of these photographs enhance so many articles about people, places and things in Israel. Mazal Tov and may you be blessed to continue contributing to Wikipedia in this productive fashion for a long time to come. See Wikipedia:Barnstars: "The da Vinci Barnstar may be awarded to anyone who has enhanced Wikipedia through their technical work..." and you most certainly deserve it. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		I was going to give you the copyeditor's barnstar, but I then realized that would be shortchanging your many other valuable contributions to and helping out with Israel and Judaism related articles. Much appreciated! nadav (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For all your quality contributions to Israel-related articles, you fully deserve this. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

		The Exceptional Newcomer Award
		i frummer give you this award for all the great work you've put into many judaism, jewish and israel relates articles, all the while steering clear of controversy! ..thnx Gila!

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For the excellent editting and formatting that helped lead to Israel's promotion to featured article status. --Jdcaust 16:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

		The Jewish Barnstar
		I award you with this Jewish Barnstar Award for your helping keep the Judaism article up to standards. Keep up Your Good Work! Nimrauko 23:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For defending Wikipedia from all lies-on-the-ground :).--Mbz1 (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you so much for the edits in Jewish wedding. I thought it would take years to make it a decent article, and you made it in a few minutes. Definitely this is a case where being WP:BOLD is the one and only solution ! --Licory (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

re Child

Thaks for this. I have this article on my watchlist and it seems to be a target for vandalism etc., so it's nice to see your good and useful contribution. Keep up the good work! Herostratus (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Mount of Olives

Hi, nice editing and picture-adding on this article. What are your thoughts on breaking off the cemetery into a separate article, such as Mount of Olives (Jewish cemetery), which would help us expand on the history of burials here? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 08:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. The lists on this page are really getting out of hand...I wouldn't write "Jewish cemetery" in parentheses, though. I think I would call the article "Mount of Olives Cemetery" and link it to this one.--Geewhiz (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Enforcement: [1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

— Supreme Deliciousness (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

June 2010

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked for a period of 3 months from editing . Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read our guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. T. Canens (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

See AE thread. Your 6-month topic ban is reset to begin anew upon the expiration or lifting of the block. As it appears that you have difficulty distinguishing between edits that violate your topic ban and edits that do not, I recommend that you voluntarily avoid all content and discussions related to Israel for the duration of your topic ban, to reduce the likelihood of further violations. T. Canens (talk) 19:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This is to confirm that I have received the four emails you sent to me. The reason for the delay is because, upon a preliminary examination of the emails, it was apparent that they stated no claims upon which an unblock may be granted, and were consequently of very low priority. Your claim that the edits do not violate the topic ban was rejected when I blocked you, and I see no reason to reconsider that determination. You have been warned multiple times that the topic ban will be construed broadly; you have been blocked multiple times for similar edits, but you have still persisted. To the extent you challenge the severity of the sanctions, it was apparent that less severe sanctions, such as the most recent one-month block, have failed to alleviate the problem. Insofar as allegations of misconduct by other editors are concerned, they are irrelevant to your actions, which are the only matter I am concerned with. Similarly, your previous good work supplies no reason to violate your topic ban. T. Canens (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

National parks of Israel template

Please share your opinion here. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Harel Skaat

Hello, I have been working on the article for Harel Skaat and if you get a chance could you please check over it and give me some feedback on it? Thanks. Hjquazimoto (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked

Re: Human

Years ago? See the talkpage; try 3-6 months ago (for the most recent related discussion); the RFC was less than a year ago. Further, while I appreciate the virtue of WP:BOLDness, content choices that are the results of long prior discussions in which much thought was expended and which are clearly marked as such are not the best places to apply boldness; discussion is warranted. And aside from yourself, I am unable to recall (although admittedly the archives are large) anyone else voicing concerns that the image is "condescending" to those depicted therein (not that other concerns weren't brought up); you are almost certainly the first to suggest that some sort of comparison between the couple and A. afarensis is intended by the article. (You are reading in and jumping to the conclusion of bias where there isn't any.) --Cybercobra (talk) 08:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the same photo appears in "primates" I doubt that any of this is the figment of my imagination.--Geewhiz (talk) 08:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Child article

Hello, Gilabrand. I reverted one of your edits because of what I stated in this edit summary. This is being discussed on the talk page. While I agreed to leave the biological definition first, I also feel that it is better to acknowledge that we are initially speaking of the biological definition. Some people are taking offense to the lead defining a child simply as someone who has not hit puberty. Making clear that we are speaking of the biological definition first, then the legal definition, is better I feel.

And thank you for your addition of how a child came to be seen as so different from an adult. I tweaked this section by moving it higher, and as a subsection of the section on definitions of a child. Flyer22 (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope that you will take a look at the wikibias website.RockvilleMD (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

Safed

Can you take a look at edits made by User:Basjor/User:194.176.105.41 - I only came accross him because he added spurious conent to another article. I have previously reverted his edits but don't want to get into an edit war about a subject I know nothing about, but (for example) the paragraph "In the 12th century, Safed was given away to the crusader by الصالح إسماعيل صاحب دمشق، the king of demuscus as a gift to show the crusaders his loyality to them, a fortified city in the crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem known as Saphet." doesn't make sense, apart from having spelling errors and Arabic text. Your help and advice would be appreciated. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

File:HapoelscarfS.jpg

Hi Gilabrand, I saw that you uploaded a picture of a hapoel katamon jerusalem scarf in the englisch wikipedia, could you pleas upload it as well on commons, 'cause i'd like to include it into the german version of the article. greetings --Cartinal (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to do it, but feel free to ask someone else for help.--Geewhiz (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

ok, I will have a look how to upload it there, perhaps i can do it myself. cheers --Cartinal (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Camp Ramah article

Please do not remove AfD notices. You need to let the discussion run for seven days, where a consensus will be reached. You can comment on the discussion here. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yael Arad

I am not reverting your edits "robotically", nor am I vandalising the article. I am merely ensuring that Wikipedia doesn't break the law. Removing copyrighted material is a specific exemption from WP:3RR, whereas inserting it is a blockable offence. If you carry on inserting this material into the article you are going to end up blocked. Hut 8.5 13:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Which material are you referring to? I have rewritten most of the article. There is nothing here that is remotely close to "breaking the law." Your threats are not appreciated. You are deleting solidly referenced texts based on numerous sources that in no way constitute plagiarism, are not contested by anyone and do not constitute libel.--Geewhiz (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

See my reply on the article's talk page. There are legal issues here; the copyright holder could (in theory) sue Wikipedia for hosting the material, and that is why Wikipedia policy is so clear about removing copyrighted material. There are no issues with libel, factual accuracy or referencing here and I don't know why you are bringing them up. Hut 8.5 13:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rami Kleinstein

The article Rami Kleinstein has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 20:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries

You are aware that when reverting an edit that is not vandalism you should give a reason in the edit summary, correct? If you did not know that, this should serve to inform you of that. nableezy - 06:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I restored the previous version because you deleted sourced information. I thought that was obvious, but if it wasn't then please forgive me. It was an oversight. --Geewhiz (talk) 06:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

And you did it again. And this time you violated naming conventions that were created following an arbitration case and also did not say one word on the talk page. nableezy - 14:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Did what again? Your POV (West Bank) is still there. Shomron is a perfectly fine term and has it's own Wikipedia article. Who says it can't be used??-Geewhiz (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You again reverted an edit without saying one word in the edit summary or the talk page. And who says? Wikipedia says: The terms "Samaria" or "Judea" cannot be used without qualification in the NPOV neutral voice; for example, it cannot be asserted without qualification that a place is "in Samaria". If you bothered to read the links in my edit summary or the talk page comment I made you would have known that. Those naming conventions were created after a number of users were indefinitely banned by the Arbitration Committee. Those naming conventions have a consensus and were created under the supervision of the Arbitration Committee. nableezy - 14:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said, West Bank still appears. That "qualifies" the term. So I don't know what you are so upset about. If your feelings are hurt, again I apologize.--Geewhiz (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I know what you said, repeating it does not change the fact that you are clearly missing the point. The naming conventions stipulate exactly when you can say "Samaria". It explicitly says that the use that you reinserted is not acceptable. You wrote that a place is "in Shomron". I am sorry too, but only because I may have to ask that your topic-ban to be reinstated for tendentious editing. These naming conventions reflect a consensus and refusing to abide by them is not acceptable. We should not have to deal with this same nonsense every time some nationalist user feels like starting the fight again. nableezy - 14:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The qualification that you think is met is not a "qualification". "West Bank" is not qualifying "Shomron". The rest the naming conventions stipulate when you can use the terms:

• Any uses of the terms must be in one of the situations described below:
  • 6A) The terms are used inside verbatim quotations from sources, or
  • 6B) When discussing physical geography using the terminology that appears in international expert journals, for example as part of a proper name ("the Judea Group aquifer"), or as an adjective qualifying a term ("The Samarian hills"), or
  • 6C) The term is being mentioned rather than used, as in "Samaria is a term used for ...", or
  • 6D) The term is being used within the article about itself, where its meaning and usage has already been explained to the reader; although additional qualifications may be needed for some uses even there.

The use you reinserted clearly violates those naming conventions. I really do not want to have to go through any administrative channels dealing with this. I know you may not believe this, but I actually dont dislike you. But if you refuse to abide by consensus and make me have to go through the same arguments over and over then I will. Bye, nableezy - 15:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

So revert it, Nableezy. If that's how you get your kicks, be my guest. To me it seems that my edit is perfectly fine, but if you disagree, tfadal. --Geewhiz (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I should not have to, and I do not want to as I dont want to give further ammunition to those friends of yours wishing to see me banned. If I provide clear evidence that your edit is against established guidelines you should revert it. nableezy - 15:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not aware of any friends of mine wishing you anything.--Geewhiz (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

All right, let's call them friends of mine and recognize the point stands. nableezy - 15:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Nahal Kziv

Although I tend to agree that "Kziv stream" sounds a little lame, I was trying to keep it uniform with a bunch of other "nehalim" that can be seen in Category:Rivers of Israel. I once changed the name of the "taninim stream" and had it changed back for the same reason. So I would say that you should either adhere to the convention, or go ahead and change all the names. --Sreifa (talk) 12:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but all the sources quoted in the article use "Nahal Kziv." In fact, "stream" is not necessarily the correct translation. Not all nehalim are streams. Many are dry riverbeds, or were in the past, and the riverbed is no longer visible. In some cases, they are rivers. There are many articles that have not been switched over, among them Nahal Sorek, Nahal Snir, Nahal Iron and Nahal Tut. I agree that consistency is good, but think that in this case, the Hebrew term ought be left untranslated, with a translation in parentheses in the lead.--Geewhiz (talk) 12:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Check out Stream.
In any case, we need an English term. Or we can just go and change mts. Arbel and Meron to "har".... --Sreifa (talk) 14:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Some Hebrew terms cannot be properly translated and should remain as is. "Wadi" and "tel" are good examples. Looking at the Wikipedia article for stream just goes to show how imprecise the word is, and the extent to which it is not a translation equivalent for "nahal." Regarding "har" - I am not saying it shouldn't be "mount XXX," but the truth of the matter is that most mountains in Israel are not mountains at all, but hills. So across-the-board translations don't really work here. On top of that, Wikipedia is based on published sources, and most of the English sources use the term "nahal" as part of the name - which doesn't mean that it cannot be described as a stream/river/brook/dry riverbed in the article iself. -Geewhiz (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think stream is fine, if anything the stream article should be expanded with the Israeli info as well here Stream#Intermittent and ephemeral streams. There are many uses of Hebrew words turned into colloquialisms thrown around in our everyday vocabulary that I think should not used. For instance, I had supported the use of 'yishuv' in many instances, but quickly understood that we should avoid it. At this time I would not support the use of nahal in the article title. I would hope that the community could agree on a convention or point us to where this might have already been discussed. --Shuki (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree about "Yishuv" (with a capital "Y") when used in the context of the pre-state Jewish community in Palestine, which is the name for it in all academic literature. In the case of "nahal," I think it should be retained when it is part of a place name. Think about "mitzpe," in the context of the Galilee mitzpim. The name of Gilad Shalit's village is Mitzpe Hila. Are you saying Wikipedia should rename it Hila Lookout?--Geewhiz (talk) 06:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you on the Yishuv thing, that is what I was referring to and it was agreed to no use it in place of the word community in post48 populated places as well as Mitzpe X and Maale Y. But a water is not the same. --Shuki (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Shuki that Stream should be used, and in general we should be using English-language terms. Two analogies provided by Gilabrand are incorrect; Mitzpe X should not be translated because it's part of the name of a locality, while Nahal is not (see for example how encyclopedias such as the Hebrew Encyclopedia and Ariel Encyclopedia list articles about these things). The comparison to Wadi is also incorrect because Wadi is an English word that appears in English dictionaries. Nahal is not (although dictionary.com describes it as "a military youth organization" or "an agricultural settlement, esp in a border area, set up or manned by Nahal members"). Not to mention, the term Wadi has a Wikipedia article while Nahal has one about the "military youth organization".

In short, there is absolutely no reason here to use the Hebrew term. Keep in mind that this is the English-language Wikipedia, and should be first and foremost accessible to English-speakers (most of whom come from countries other than Israel and do not know what Nahal is).

Finally, if no consensus is achieved here, we must take this discussion to a broader forum because discussions that affect dozens of articles should not take place on user talk. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you please posta link to the said conventions?--Sreifa (talk) 07:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if you're asking me, but much of my argument was based on WP:NC and WP:ENGLISH. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Editing advice

Please carefully review the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank) page, which outlines the consensus on this subject. Changing articles without discussion against this consensus is disruptive, and could result in sanctions being applied against you. PhilKnight (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Tel Aviv

You have made a fantastic tel aviv page look like crap with old photos, all lying to the right! I've uploaded many updated shots and edited the information in a very accurate way and you've destroyed it! You're not a Wikipedia contributor, but a destroyer!

A fantastic page??? It was downgraded from featured article status because it has slowly been turned into a badly written piece of hype stuffed to the gills with substandard photos. --Geewhiz (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Deanb, please stop your personal attacks against other editors. Gilabrand's edits were justified and it is your edits that were not. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Message at Kinneret, Israel

Please see: Talk:Kinneret, Israel#Moshava. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

He's right, it's a moshava. See he.wiki, among others. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

for the interesting etymological article you linked to in Emek Refaim. I have learnt something, for which I am grateful. RolandR (talk) 11:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Streets in Jerusalem

Hi, I noticed you made some adjustments to the template. A while back, a different user started adding streets, making lots of red links. I decided to try to write articles about some of them, and found it very rough going (it's far easier to find information about neighborhoods than streets). I'm just wondering if all these streets really qualify as "major" streets in West Jerusalem. Is Burla really a "major" street? I've never heard of it. Kol tuv, Yoninah (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, after I started messing with it, I'm not sure such a template is a good idea. There are dozens of main streets in Jerusalem these days, and many of those currently mentioned link to the wrong articles. Also I think writing full articles about some of these streets will be pretty much impossible. Maybe we should delete it altogether...FYI, Burla is a major street running from the Knesset to the Israel Museum, the Science Museum, the Rabin Guesthouse and the Hebrew University. --Geewhiz (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. If you decide to delete the template, I support you. Yoninah (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for this edit. I was going to do something similar last night, but was too tired when I got home, and had to go to bed. --NSH001 (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reassessing Ayoob Kara. :) --Metallurgist (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, do you have any recommendations for how to improve it further?

Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs

I see that you have resolved the ongoing, long term conflict of interest issue by simply removing the tag. Brilliant. Let that be a lesson to the JCPA editors. I'm not going to pretend to care. More seriously, I think the best way to solve the issue in the long term is to simply make the article better so any help with that is appreciated. Unattributed propaganda like "...in the wake of the NGO-led campaign to demonize Israel." is not appreciated at all however. Anyway, baby steps. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed the tags because all the material taken from the center's website or added by persons that appear to be from the center has been removed. The sentence you quote is solidly sourced, even you consider it propaganda. May I remind you that your personal views are irrelevant. I have removed the COI and added historical data from external sources. The article certainly needs expansion, but I think it is much improved. --Geewhiz (talk) 12:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough on the tags. To clarify, my view was that you using Wikipedia's neutral narrative voice to speak Gold's non-neutral unattributed words on his behalf was propaganda rather than that Gold's words were propaganda. Basically I'm calling you a propagandist but I assume it was unintentional on your part. I'll try to add something about their various programs, ICA etc when I get a chance but if you stumble across some secondary sources it would be quite handy. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ghajar

Are you aware that there is an ongoing discussion about the topic you reverted on? And I have already told you that Wikipedia policy says that if you revert an edit that is not vandalism you are required to give a reason in the edit summary. You have inserted a map that says a place nowhere near Israel is in Israel without saying one word on the talk page or the edit summary. nableezy - 17:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere near Israel? Are you sure? I edited the article a long time ago. Maybe something happened in the meantime. Sorry if I got it wrong. --Geewhiz (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Im sorry, I didnt realize I was dealing with somebody who didnt know the basic facts. Ghajar straddles the border between Lebanon and Syria. The Syrian territory it is in is occupied by Israel. It is not however in Israel or anywhere near Israel for that matter. nableezy - 18:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Honorifics

Thanks for your corrections to the Jewish Theological Seminary of America page. I saw that you removed most uses of the title "Rabbi" from the article, but I see that many other Wikipedia articles use this sort of title. Is there a Wikipedia policy or set of guidelines on how to use such titles? Thanks! Hznhr (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You can have a look at WP: Honorifics for help. I don't think there is a hard and fast rule, but honorifics are generally discouraged on Wikipedia. Describing someone as a rabbi is fine, but in this particular article, where nearly everyone mentioned is a rabbi and/or doctor, the repetition of "Rabbi Dr." seemed excessive to me. Anyone who goes to the linked pages will find out that the person in question is a rabbi or a Ph.D.--Geewhiz (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV: Settlements are illegal Re: Gush Etzion

Please refrain from removing ICJ references from the Gush Etzion article, discuss on Talk:Gush_Etzion#NPOV:_Settlement_is_illegal before removing NPOV terms.User:Waqas.usman (Talk) 17:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Take your agenda somewhere else. This stuff has been discussed ad nauseum. If you are trying to push forward your personal agenda, you should join a political party. An encyclopedia is not the place for it. --Geewhiz (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent edit

In regard to this edit I suggest you reconsider your approach. Firstly, your tone is condescending, and secondly there is a good faith content dispute, which you appear to be disingenuously ignoring. Regarding the tags, I appreciate that I'm here as an admin, not a mediator, but I fail to see why you can't compromise and have a single tag. Anyway, I'd much prefer if you could look again at your edits, so I could close the report at WP:AE without taking action. PhilKnight (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You've been reported at WP:Arbitration enforcement

Hello GIlabrand. You are invited to respond at WP:AE#Gilabrand. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

response

I dont know what it is that I did to you to bring about your scorn, but please allow me to explain myself. I think that you are, for the most part, a decent editor. You certainly have faults, and you have one incident in your history that is difficult to set aside when dealing with you, but you are by no means a bad editor in my eyes. The only problem that you and I have had, as far as I know, has been your blanket reverts of edits that I make that are discussed on the talk page without you making so much as a "me too" appearance on the talk page. How am I supposed discuss a dispute with you if you never discuss when we have a dispute? I grant you, 3 tags was overboard. But I opened a section on the tags in the talk page on 16:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC). Nobody responded and I restored the tags a day later. Within minutes that edit is reverted. If you were able to revert the edit in minutes why were you not able to respond on the talk page in the 22 hours since I had opened a section about the tags? Tell me, what exactly should I do to try to solve what I see as major issue with the neutrality and accuracy of the article? When I add material it is removed. When I modify material it is reverted. When I add tags just saying that there is a dispute, even that is removed. What would you have me do? How should I react when editors not only remove material that I feel resolves the dispute but actually deny that a dispute even exists?

Gilabrand, I say this with complete sincerity; it is not my intention to cause you any distress, and if I have done something in the past that did so I apologize. The only thing I want from you is to explain why you revert an edit when you do so. Thats it. I dont think that is an unreasonable request. If you do not want me to leave messages here I understand and I wont. nableezy - 07:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Unlike you, I have a life. I do not spend 24 hours a day on Wikipedia looking for fights. You have earned my scorn because you bring nothing to this project apart from disputes. No content, no editing of substance. Just reverts and squabbling over individual words. I do not read talk pages that you have filled up with circular arguments and trashing of anyone who tries to help. I have more constructive things to do. I may not agree with you, but I have not reported you for anything, or complained about the crude and harassing remarks you have made to me. You, on the other hand, think that reporting me to administrators and having them block me after I spend endless amounts of time copyediting articles and improving them, is the way to go. You do have fine lawyering skills and do not appear to be unintelligent. What a pity that you don't use these talents for good.--Geewhiz (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Im sorry you feel that way, I really am, but what you write isnt true. My problem isnt with your copyediting, my problem is with the other edits you make and refuse to explain. For example, at Ghajar, there was an ongoing discussion about why the Israel pushpin map should not be used. You reverted to use the Israel pushpin map, completely ignoring the discussion and not commenting in it even after I come here with my complaint. At Psagot, there has been a huge amount of discussion about how to include illegality under international law. You come in, and without saying one word in the discussion, completely remove any mention of that illegality. You say it was SYNTH but you removed a source that explicitly says that Psagot is illegal under international law. Please tell me how you expect me to react to such editing. nableezy - 13:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Renanak

You contacted him on his user page, not his talk page. s/he will not get an orange message bar. best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

1RR and discussion restriction

Under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, and per this AE thread, you are limited to one revert per rolling 24-hour period per article on all articles within the area of conflict, as defined in WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict, until 00:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC). Furthermore, you are required to discuss any reverts you do make on the talk page, in English, within 30 minutes of the revert, excepting reverts of obvious (as in, obvious to someone who has no knowledge of the subject) vandalism, as defined in WP:VAND. T. Canens (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you discuss your reverts for Ajami, Jaffa at Talk:Ajami, Jaffa...the page is part of an academic assignment under USPP and the editor is a bit confused as to why you reverted. Smallman12q (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)