User talk:Gilabrand/Archive 9

Shebaa

You really want the lead that short? That is a decent sized article, think it should give a better summary than just saying it is a disputed piece of land. nableezy - 15:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want a longer lead, then someone needs to sum up the major points. All those numbers create an unreadable jumble, and the map was way too big and intrusive. Best, Gila--Gilabrand (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Gilabrand. You have new messages at Debresser's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Content question

Why did you call this "nonsens". It is the Halakha. I do agree it was very awkwardly phrased. Perhaps you would care to propose a rewrite of it? Debresser (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That statement is not appropriate for the lead and is not reliably sourced. Primary sources are not sufficient on Wikipedia. To have that as the opening line casts Judaism and its customs in a very bad light. Even if there are some people who think that way, they are clearly in the minority. If you claim otherwise, bring a reference for it (and move it down to an appropriately titled subsection).--Gilabrand (talk) 12:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

1. I agree with you that this is not appropriate for the lede.
2. We had this discussion before somewhere (perhaps WP:RS/N) about primary sources, and consensus was that in view of the nature of the subject, halakha, such sources are definitely acceptable.
3. Please be informed that it is the halakha as it is ruled by all rabbical courts the world over, and not - as you claim - by some minority. Debresser (talk) 12:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I gave it a try. Please have a look. Debresser (talk) 12:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is better. It would be better still if you brought a secondary source for it.--Gilabrand (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done Debresser (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

And I replaced the two Jewish sources by another, more authorative one. Debresser (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope this is the beginning of a productive collaboration. Debresser (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

On a closer look at Luke's edits, I can see what the problem is. Still, I don't think blanket reversion is the way to go about it. He has a few sections that are worth developing.--Gilabrand (talk) 13:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

With him it is hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. And he has this history of making such edits. But I did leave them in place in another article (apart from the lede section), as I mentioned on WikiProject Judaism. Debresser (talk) 13:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Virtualtourist

Hi, Gila! I didn't realize that you were editing the VT article at the same time I was yesterday or the day before ;-). I see that you converted the lists of Top Ten Lists into prose, with the comment that "lists are discouraged on Wikipedia". Hmmmn, I checked a number of places like

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Laundromat
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lists
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style

and nowhere did I see that lists were discouraged, only excessive lists. From my own point of view, it's harder to read the items as prose in this case...and doesn't it seem ironic that a list of lists shouldn't be a list? ;-)
So, I would change it back to a list, as it's easier to read, but I thought I'd talk to you first...
William J. 'Bill' McCalpin (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bill! If you read the Laundromat article, you will see this: "As a rule of thumb, if more than about 30% of a non-list article consists of a list, it may be a problem." I see you have been adding material, but the truth is, the article is quite flimsy at the moment, and it was being taken over by two long lists that basically do nothing except link to other articles. I don't see lists of ugly buildings as being a key feature of VT. Right now there is a lot of "fluff" and self-glorification. More information needs to be brought into the article from the newspapers and magazines that have written about VT. These are "reliable sources" (whereas references to tips on VT are not).--Gilabrand (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I saw the rule of thumb, but the VT article didn't seem that overweighted towards lists to me. It's clear from the style manual that they want to avoid long lists of trivia, not outlaw lists in every case, but, of course, this is a judgment call, and different people will feel differently about it.

As for the fluff and self-glorification, I have been avoiding that as much as I could, while not being adverse to repeating things nice about VT. As you saw, I added the "User Considerations" section, which I think of 'things that someone might want to know before joining VT'. Oddly, another contributor deleted half of it, calling it "trivia"...what? It's trivia to know that when you upload your own photos to VT that you are giving VT a non-exclusive copyright to your works? In fact, I wasn't even sure that the management of VT would be very happy that I listed these things, but no complaints so far. (Note: I am not asking for or getting clearance from VT to post this stuff...)

In any case, yes, I have been asking VT staff for the citations that are unreferenced (they have them on paper in the office - I can't find them online), and I decided to add "Other Reviews" (so far, one in Italian and one in English) to do exactly what you suggest - bring in more info from 3rd party sources...on the whole, while the article is positive, it does not read like a press release (OK, it might in parts, but then so does every article on a business, because so many of the sources are press release), so I think we are accomplishing our mission of writing a good article for Wikipedia...

William J. 'Bill' McCalpin (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you can find solid sources for these statements, nobody can claim they are trivia. VT certainly deserves a good article and it has come a long way since you started working on it. --Gilabrand (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

William J. 'Bill' McCalpin (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Image gallery of the Jewish ethnic divisions in Israel

The whole gallery section has become too big and something needs to be done (maybe even remove it all). Please express your opinion in the discussion page of the article. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Falafel

Instead of reverting to counter-act Tiamut's edit warring (in effect joining the war yourself), just make it clear that the edit goes against WP:UNDDUE - simple as that! Breein1007 (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yehuda Amichai RfC

Hi. There is an RfC currently in progress on the Yehuda Amichai Talk page, concerning an ongoing content dispute. As an editor who has previously been involved, you might wish to comment. -- Boing! said Zebedee 04:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting - though I had hoped you might offer an opinion on the inclusion/removal of the material under discussion (the Gold biog, the religious imagery in his poetry), as that is the topic of the RfC -- Boing! said Zebedee 05:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Josef Tal

Thanks! Etan J. Tal 09:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etan J. Tal (talk • contribs)

He was clearly an important figure and deserves a good article. If I get a chance I will work on it some more, and then maybe someone can submit it again for a GA review.--Gilabrand (talk) 10:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

That is very kind of you. Please let me know if you need any information or clarification - being his son I probably have some sources unavailable to others which might contribute to the article, so do not hesitate to ask. Etan J. Tal 11:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etan J. Tal (talk • contribs)

Your blanket reversions on Israel

Several people have written to thank me for my improvements of the Israel article, which had a collection of boring, colorless photos that were not representative of Israel with a clear focus on POV maps. I cannot understand your objections. The photos I have chosen show more of the diversity of the country and are better quality photos than the ones that were there before. --Gilabrand (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Several people have written to thank me for my improvements of the Israel. I don't believe that for a second. The images I removed were:

• An image of Hussein and Rabin signing a peace treaty: This is nearly identical in composition to the one showing Yasser Arafat and Rabin, and so it adds nothing to the article. We don't need every single peace treaty depicted in the article (with that image, that would be Number 3 in that section).
• An image of the Sea of Galilee: Three photos illustrating four paragraphs. Enough said.
• An image of Mevasseret Zion: Unclear what this is depicting. Fine for the Mevasseret Zion article, unclear for its relevance here. I also don't understand how you believe this adds diversity and quality over this one (which you removed on February 11).
• An image showing districts: From the thumbnail, it is impossible to read the names of the districts. It's more useful to show a numbered map with a legend, as is there now, and as was there previously.
• An image of the Bahai Gardens: The "tourism" section is far too short to be illustrated. I also said it didn't make much sense to illustrate Tourism using the sixth- or seventh-most popular site in a country as small as Israel, but that's another matter.
• An image of a 1992 Egged bus: Picture is 18 years old and doesn't depict what a standard Egged bus looks like now. Also, the section is very short; questionable whether two images would fit, even opposite each other.
• An image of a sculpture with Haredim: Haredim are not mentioned in the associated section. Also, the picture is a poor depiction of Haredim as they are secondary and small in comparison to the sculpture which the image is primarily depicting. Compare to illustrating the Empire State Building with a picture of Manhattan's entire skyline.

I'm also not sure you understand what a blanket revision means. A blanket revision would have meant that I just reverted the article back to the version prior to all of your edits, without caring if there were any obviously legitimate edits in the interim -- sort of like what you did here, reverting your own edit and reverting shifts of images left and right (as if those need "consensus"). -- tariqabjotu 12:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu, instead of removing images to fit the section, how about improving the article and expanding the sections so the photographs "fit better"? There are two ways to approach this, and removing content does not seem to be in the best interest of Wikipedia. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 18:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Instead of edit-warring

This material into Palestinian people, ([1], [2], [3]) against WP:CONSENSUS, perhaps you would care to join the discussion I opened regarding this material on the talk page [4]? PS. While I did not call Mohsen a "stooge" of the Syrians (Zero0000 did), that is a pretty accurate, if harsh, description of his political position. Tiamut^talk 13:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and Gila, I'm quite sure you would view the addition of a selected quote without any context from The Invention of the Jewish People by Shlomo Sand to the introduction of Jews or Israel as vastly inappropriate. Try to think objectively regarding this issue. I understand that your discovery of this quote has excited you, but its old news and was in the article body before, before being removed because of bad sourcing, UNDUE, and the POV de-contextualization of Mohsen's statement. Tiamut^talk 13:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not UNDUE. It is providing a balanced picture, and it summarizes a viewpoint articulated in the article itself. About my not liking a negative statement in the lead about Jews/Israel/Jerusalem neighborhoods, well, I fear I don't have much say in that. Nobody seems to care much about what I like. --Gilabrand (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I see. This is retribution for people including the views of the international community in the lead of the article on Gilo. Fine. I'm not going to edit war with you over this. I'll simply wait for someone reasonable to come along and remove your edit as it obviously in violation of several core policies here at Wikipedia. Good day. Tiamut^talk 14:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Retribution? No, dear. It has to do with NPOV and applying the same policies to all articles and subject matter. --Gilabrand (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well dear, if that's true, you seem to be misunderstand the content at hand. Gilo is recognized to be an illegal Israeli settlement by most of the world. That's a majority viewpoint which should certainly be mentioned in the WP:LEAD, particularly since there is an extended discussion of that position in the body of the article. Conversely, the idea that the Palestinian people are actually Syrians is a WP:fringe minority viewpoint that is not discussed at any length in the body of that article. As I said, I await someone more reasonable to take a look at the issue. Until then, ta ta. Tiamut^talk 14:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I know you are just pretending to be reading-challenged. The real Tiamut is smarter than that.--Gilabrand (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The real life person behind Tiamut is much smarter than you'll ever admit. Tiamut^talk 15:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Why wouldn't I admit it? I'm sure you are. --Gilabrand (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Young Judaea

I am an active member of Young Judaea. I have noticed that you have been constantly deleting our past members of the Mazkirut. Judaeans wrote it, and I don't know who you think you are to say "long lists of people are not needed". It is for us to decide what is and isn't needed, not you. We are proud of our past Mazkiruyot, and enjoy looking back at the list. You have taken that privilege away from us. I will be promptly restoring the page to how it was before you decided to make your oh so helpful edits. So please, stop editing our wikipedia page. And next time you edit a page, make sure you know enough about a page and the topic its on to know what is and isn't "needed" on a it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.159.20 (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you are the one who doesn't understand what is needed. Wikipedia is not an advertising space or a place for massaging anyone's ego. An article on an organization needs to explain what it does on the basis of reliable secondary sources, and provide this information without peacock terms. Listing past officials so they can "feel good" is not the purpose. You have Young Judea's website for that. If you add the material, it will be deleted again, if not by me then by other editors, who have just as much right to edit the article as you do (if not more, considering that you are clearly breaching Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. You should thank me for taking the time and trouble to get the article in shape so that people outside your organization will take any interest in it, rather than attacking me.--Gilabrand (talk) 04:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, as someone who has been involved with Young Judea in the past, I support Gila on this. IP, you should calm down and worry about the reputation you're giving Young Judea when you come onto the Internet and appoint yourself as the representative and then talk to people like that. Breein1007 (talk) 05:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I just happened upon Gilabrand's removal of content from Young Judaea, and I have to say I agree with its removal - lists of members of organisations, past or present, should only be included in articles if the members are notable in their own right -- Boing! said Zebedee 05:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who says "our wikipedia page", as the IP did, should read WP:OWNERSHIP. WP articles don't have owners. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

losers, GET LIVES —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.137.130 (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please take part in dialogue

Gilabrand, I know we have had our differences, but I am requesting that you take part in dialogue with me and the other editors on pages involving the Ring Neighborhoods. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 11:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Please..

..self revert this edit, read this WP:V compliance problem raised by Zero and discuss it on the talk page. You can't simply keep putting it back. You need to address it sensibly. This is the third time I've asked you to take it to the talk page. Also, you have no reason to say things like 'I see you are reading challenged' in edit summaries to me. I have done nothing wrong so give it a rest. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Gilo

Read the Talk page. Reply on the Talk page. Your editing practices are getting worse by the day. Zero^talk 09:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what your problem is. I inserted a reference as requested. If you people like to blab endlessly, go ahead and blab. Issue resolved. It's time to move on, dear.--Gilabrand (talk) 09:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You are going down. I started collecting your many examples of tendentious editing, violation of policy, blatant pov pushing, and personal attacks. Zero^talk 09:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you reviewed WP:TALK recently? Breein1007 (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I would also suggest you look at the amount of positive work I have done on thousands of articles on Wikipedia and compare that to your disruptive contributions on a handful of pages that only end up fanning the flames of hatred and hostility, not to mention perpetuating falsehoods and trying to silence people who add to articles rather than detract from them.--Gilabrand (talk) 09:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You are edit-warring on Gilo. You have made over 3 reverts of the exact same material, without even addressing why that material was removed. nableezy - 19:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone else edit warring? Breein1007 (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody else has already made 5 reverts. nableezy - 20:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Zero, is that a threat? Are you trying to bully Gilabrand? --Shuki (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Debresser

Hello,

I wondered if you could look at these, and see if you feel you can counter sign either (or both) of them?

• User:Newman Luke/dDb
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Newman Luke#Response

Newman Luke (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Attn: Request for Immediate response & stop removal of sources

Please see my request for you to immediately fix up the revisions you have made available on the following page: Talk:Pisgat_Ze'ev#Sources. Further, I request that you stop your attempts to remove sources showing opinions (and majorly held ones at that) which vary from the POV that runs throughout the content on your edits on all the pages relating to the Ring Neighborhoods of Jerusalem. If you cannot involve yourself in discussion before reverting edits, refrain from removing sources for no reason and the content that they bring to each Wikipedia article, then I will be forced to take action as Wikipedia policy allows. Regards, Colourinthemeaning (talk) 07:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Thought you might be interested in this -- Boing! said Zebedee 07:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Kiryat Mattersdorf

Thanks for the compliment. I have some pictures in my camera, and I'm also planning to take more. I'm about to post an article on Rabbi Shmuel Ehrenfeld, founder of the community. Now, what can we do about changing the page name back to Kiryat Mattersdorf? A move won't work because a page already exists with a redirect. Kol tuv, Yoninah (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive edits to Israeli art student scam article

[5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]

Please do not continue inserting this provocative, unsourced material into an entirely unrelated article.

I see that by your admission that "this is not any more disruptive than the rest of the article" ([11]) you are well aware that what you are doing is wrong and that you are using Wikipedia to prove a point.

If you want to have the article deleted, please express your views by participating in the AFD process like everybody else. Factsontheground (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Just letting you know that I have brought this to WP:ANI. Factsontheground (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI

[12] Best wishes,--Mbz1 (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

Your disruptive edits adding irrelevant material to the Israeli art student scam article were an obvious violation of the WP:POINT rule: even if you were right in thinking that the article was bad (and I personally agree with that), countering disruptive edits with yet more disruptive edits just to demonstrate how disruptive they are is a big no-no.

Since you have already been warned and blocked under the WP:ARBPIA general sanctions, I am blocking you for repeated disruption, 48hrs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least you got blocked fighting for the right cause! Enjoy your break. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I hate to see good people commit virtual suicide, let the other wild cannons do that to themselves. --Shuki (talk) 08:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. It seems I forgot to actually press the block button this morning. Well, I did mean to block you. But seeing as your editing since has been in what seems to be uncontroversial areas, and looks overall constructive, I guess making the block now in retrospect would be a bit silly. So, you get off lucky. However, this is on condition you stay away from contentious WP:ARBPIA topics for at least the period of the intended block. Some sign of acknowledgment that you understand why those WP:POINT edits were unacceptable would be appreciated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back :)--Mbz1 (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement topic ban

Gilabrand, this is to inform you that, under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, I am banning you from the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the duration of three months. (For the avoidance of doubts, this includes all pages or discussions related to the topic, broadly construed.) This ban may be enforced with blocks or additional sanctions as necessary. For the rationale of this ban please see WP:ANI#Arbitration enforcement topic ban of Gilabrad (permalink). This sanction may be appealed as described at WP:ARBPIA#Appeal of discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  22:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I see now that the article Gilabrand edited has nothing to do with the I-P conflict, so in essence, this three month unrelated topic is a mere disproportional punishment. --Shuki (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a very good point!Should somebody ask Sandstein to clarify his decision?--Mbz1 (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of my AFD comment and personal attack

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Factsontheground (talk) 07:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Forgive them, for they know not what they do.--Gilabrand (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. "Welcome to Wikipedia", to someone with an edit count past 20,000? Hertz1888 (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No doubt part of a disturbing trend where sourced material that happens to be written by a Jew is challenged as not being RS simply because of the religion of the author...sigh --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 09:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

enforcement

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&action=historysubmit&diff=348307449&oldid=347774430 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The article has nothing to do with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It is about an alleged art scam in other parts of the world. Please refrain from false allegations. They may backfire.--Gilabrand (talk) 10:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Your edit to Israel–Zimbabwe relations where you removed information relating to the P-I conflict does go against the imposed sanctions, however. SGGH ^ping! 15:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is about Zimbabwe Israel relations. It has NOTHING to do with the Israel-Palestine conflict.--Gilabrand (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Now we both know that isn't true, because the content you removed discusses specifically Zimbabwe's support for Palestine in the I-P conflict. I do not believe your argument of WP:UNDUE is valid. As I state in the WP:ANI entry made about this, UNDUE does not apply in this case IMO. Zimbabwe's take on the I-P conflict is a valid slice of I-Z relations, and the fact that the article focuses on it isn't undue weight, it is simply that no one else has written other information in. SGGH ^ping! 15:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed the material because Zimbabwe's relations with the PLO is not the subject of the article. I reinstated a certain portion of the material that does have some relation to the topic. Beyond that, it is WP:UNDUE. When I first saw the article there was not a single word about Israel. It was all about infighting between various Zimbabwean leaders and their support for the PLO. In what way is that relevant to "Israel-Zimbwawe Relations"??? I have added other material in the meantime.--Gilabrand (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

With the I-P conflict being so serious to Israel, Zimbabwe's assessment of the situation would by integral to the subject. The content you removed certainly was. In any case, I have updated the entry on the ArbEnforcement page and it will be decided there if this constitutes a breach. SGGH ^ping! 15:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Breach of what?????? I object to this ganging up on me. This constitutes harassment. I have been editing Wikipedia for several years, and I have over 24,000 edits to my credit. I have improved thousands of articles that contained not a single reference or one bit of solid data, and turned them into useful sources of information. That certain POV editors are hounding me and stalking my every move is a sad testimony to what this "encyclopedia" has become. --Gilabrand (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

In enforcement of the topic ban previously imposed by Sandstein, I have blocked you for 48 hours for your edits to Israel-Zimbabwe relations. Your comments above show that you are determined to lawyer your way around the restriction. Let me make this clear: the topic ban is not restricted to articles that are nominally and in toto about the Israel/Palestine conflict, but to all edits that are related to such topics. As such, your edits, which removed material that was precisely about an effect of the Palestinian conflict of Israeli foreign politcs, clearly fall under the ban. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It was an article unrelated to the topic ban. It was about diplomatic relations between two countries - and neither of them was Palestine. If you think that the way to improve Wikipedia is by imposing bans and blocks on serious editors and giving free rein to whining agenda-pushing crybabies who get their kicks by reporting people who had the gall to "move their cheese," maybe you need to think again. --Gilabrand (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Fut.Perf - the article has nothing to do with I-P. If you are choosing to make an example of Gilabrand, you are making a bad decision. --Shuki (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment

Hi Gilabrand. I hope you had a good weekend and are well despite your frustrations related to Wikipedia. I followed the events as they unfolded and I think that you may have made some mistakes, but it is unfortunate that your fellow editors and administrators didn't choose to communicate their concerns with you in a courteous and collegial manner so that the issues could be worked out in a civil and respectful manner. Unfortunately, that's just not the way things are done here in the Wikipedia jungle. Abuse and intolerance are the status quo. Wikipedia just isn't a healthy or collegial environment. But there are exceptions and I want to thank you for your good work and your collegial approach to editing. I hope that whatever course you choose going forward that you will find enjoyment and fulfillment in your work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gila, you know I am at your side, and I believe one should remember that usual wikipedia polices do not apply to the banned and blocked users in the way they are applied to others. In other words whatever you are doing or saying now is examined under a microscope, and the results of those examination are not always treated fairly. So please, Gila, try to stay out of the troubles. Having said all of that, I have to add that I understand how you feel. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Why did you...

... reinstate the propaganda and dead link that I removed from the Iraqi Jews article? Letriste1977 (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Calling it propaganda is your personal POV. It is a paper by a university professor and a perfectly acceptable source. Here is a working link. [[13]]--Gilabrand (talk) 04:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, seeing a transcript of the actual paper makes it a whole lot more believable than a dead link. But I still find it hard to believe that Jews did not consider themselves a people, but rather part of another. It seems to go against Jewish self-view throughout the ages. It does sound like anti-zionist propaganda IMO (although I don't suspect the author of such sentiments). But I'll leave it. Is there a working link to the actual paper? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Letriste1977 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Gilabrand! :)

Just informing you of an arbitration enforcement request here. Thank you! Factsontheground (talk) 06:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Factsontheground! :)

Just informing you: Stop gaming the system, harassing, wikihounding, stalking, and assuming bad faith. You have mocked and insulted fellow editors, and inundated noticeboards with accusations to make a point. You create articles to spread lies and POV. You engage in edit-warring at every opportunity and intimidate others. You delete the comments of others (on talk pages, AfD pages and your own page). You manipulate and falsify material in articles, altering quoted material and rephrasing it to suit your goals. You have added nothing constructive to this encyclopedia. You wallow in self-pity and get your kicks from hate-mongering. Thank you, and have a nice day! :) --Gilabrand (talk) 08:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Turn of the Screw

Quote from the page where Factsontheground reported me, which he has taken to doing daily:

"I was invited to help copyedit an article on the Hurva Synagogue that was up for FA review and the administrator who blocked me said he did not object to my working on that article. I did NOT change information. I edited the lead, and all the material I edited appears in the text of the article. In the article on Israel's foreign relations, again, I did NOT change any material. I shortened a certain section that was not in proportion to the rest of the sections in the article, and left ALL THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST ISRAEL exactly as they were. I changed a subheading on relations with Russia to conform with ALL the dozens of other sections, which refer to a main article that is called "X country's relations with Israel." These did not change the political message that Factsonthground is so anxious to convey. Factsontheground is stalking and harassing me (and not only me, as you can see from the numerous administrators' pages that are taken up with his complaints and back and forth reparte, feigning innocence but gaming the system. Tariqabjotu is also keen on wiping me out of existence, as he didn't like the fact that I added photos to the Israel page which he has effectively claimed as own. The vindictiveness and hostility is growing by the day and users like Factsontheground are playing a major role in turning Wikipedia into a battleground and a forum for their personal agenda. He and his friends, like Supreme Deliciousness, Ani Mejool, and a host of others, are doing all they can to scare away editors, get others blocked and insert information about Palestinian grievances in every article they possibly can, including those that have nothing to do with the subject. This is so transparent that it is almost laughable. When administrators let them off lightly without looking at the bulk of contributions, they are perpetuating this and helping to create a laughingstock of Wikipedia, furthering its image and as unreliable source of information. On my part, I will try to stick to copyediting, and improving articles with solid content and references, and illustrating them with attractive pictures. That is what I came to do on Wikipedia, and that is what I hope to continue doing. --Gilabrand (talk) 09:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Jimharlow99 (talk) 12:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)== Block notice ==

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been temporarily blocked from editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may appeal it by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below; but you should read our guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks first.

Notice to administrators: In a 2008 decision, the Arbitration 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 community consensus to do so. 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."

You came off a two-day block for violating a topic ban and launched right into a new violation of the ban at [14], [15], and [16]. I have therefore blocked you for a further week; ignoring the topic ban won't make it go away. Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Appeal_of_discretionary_sanctions explains how you may appeal the topic ban when you block expires; {{unblock|reason}} can be used to appeal the block. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I gave my reasons in an e-mail to you and spelled them out clearly on the enforcement page. See the discussion on this by the administrator who blocked me, who states that he has no objection to my editing the Hurva page. This block is rewarding people who are gaming the system. I hate to think there might be some darker purposes at work here, but this is really going over the top.

--Gilabrand (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'll note here that I had previously made a comment stating [17] that "I wouldn't have a problem with her editing that section [i.e. about the destruction of the Hurva synagogue ] either, as long as it's really just uncontentious copyediting - but I cannot be positive that other admins would see it the same way". FWIW. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Notice to anyone visiting this page

If you think the three month topic ban and editing block imposed on me through baiting, harassing, stalking, hounding, POV-pushing, lust for revenge (and possibly racism) is unjustified, please write to the administrator(s) who dealt with this case. If you think otherwise, go dance a jig.--Gilabrand (talk) 08:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Jewish philosophy

Hello Gilabrand - you updated the Jewish Philosophy page with a philologist and a pulpit Rabbi - your edit was subject to undo because your edit might be construed to be vandalism by those who have placed a "three month topic ban" and "editing block" upon you - and no one wants that to ocur. Should you be able to, provide evidence in the form of references, that your edit was improperly undone, then I will stand aside on this issue.Jimharlow99 (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2010

Sorry, but you have misunderstood. I am not topic banned from anything except the Israel-Palestine conflict. Also, the editing block is long over. My edits were perfectly fine. Yochanan Muffs and Samuel Schafler were both philosophers of the Conservative movement. Writing about other topics or holding a rabbinic pulpit are not reasons to say someone is not a philosopher. If they have written on philosophical issues (Schafler on the philosophy of Jewish education; Muffs on man's relationship to God), they are philosophers. --Geewhiz (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Gilabrand, Thanks for all your contributions on the Israeli cuisine article over the past few months. I'm happy to see that it has been promoted to GA status and I'm sure that is in no small part due to your efforts! Best regards, --- Chefallen (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

File:TzimmesS.jpg

Could You please add this file to the Commons so other wikis could use it too? --Renessaince (talk) 09:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked for a period of 1 month 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. Tim Song (talk) 15:43, 13 April 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."

Factomancer is LYING - Please check the material she is reporting me for. I can't believe administrators don't look at this stuff. It is TOTALLY made up!!!--Geewhiz (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Your three-month topic ban is extended to six months, to begin to run after the block expires or is lifted. I would recommend that you stop testing the limits of the ban, and edit something unrelated to Israel. Tim Song (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I have sent you an e-mail. The ban is on Palestine/Israel conflict. Who ever said I can't edit articles on Israel???? The intellectual dishonesty on this site cries to the heavens. --Geewhiz (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you are not banned from editing Israel-related articles. But since it appears you can't properly distinguish between Israel-related articles that are outside your ban and those that are within your ban, it is probably to your benefit if you take a voluntary break from Israel-related editing altogether. Tim Song (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Voluntary? Interesting.--Geewhiz (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If it's of any use to you, the matter is now at ANI. -- tariqabjotu 17:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments about the above block (some copied from Tim Song's page)

• You have got to be kidding me. Neither Mossad or Eilat as a whole fall under the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, even broadly defined, and the edits -- really, look at them -- have nothing to do with the conflict. If you are seriously sticking with this outrageous block, I will take the matter up at ANI. Not a threat; just requesting a confirmation that you really stand by your move. -- tariqabjotu 15:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• If he doesn't follow through with that, I certainly will. If you do not feel strongly about your decision, I urge you to reconsider both the context and the actual edits in question. What you are doing here is sending a message to Factomancer and users like Factomancer that will only perpetuate this petty series of events that has developed over the last few weeks. They will see this as a success in their WP:BATTLE and proof that if they report everything that can possibly be construed as a violation to AN/I and AE, some shit will eventually stick. I think you mentioned something about gaming the system? Indeed. Breein1007 (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Factomancer hasn't even edited most of those articles. [1] It's obvious she just went through Gilabrand's contribs looking for things to report. It's a shame this sort of behavior gets rewarded. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• As I suggested earlier, I brought this block to ANI. -- tariqabjotu 17:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• The hasty and questionably-based block of Gilabrand should be reconsidered and rescinded. In addition to being unjust and disproportionate, this unfortunate block sends the wrong message to others. Along with other blocks and bans in the past 24 hours or so, it has already had negative consequences on the health of Wikipedia by encouraging one of the most disruptive of anti-Israel editors to resume activity, with the comment seen here. Gilabrand, with an outstanding record of diligent contributions, is blocked, while Ani medjool, who finds it difficult to write the words Israel or Israeli without quotation marks, is free to edit. I hope the irony is clear to everybody. Please. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Response of Sandstein to my appeal, copied from his page

Your signature impedes communication; please bring it into conformity with WP:SIG: "Signatures must include at least one internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page; this allows other editors easy access to your talk page and contributions log. The lack of such a link is widely viewed as obstructive." Sandstein 15:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to appeal, you should take it to AE, not Sandstein's page. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Email reply

Hello Gilabrand. I received your email of 13/4/10 asking that I look at your recent arbitration enforcement block from the perspective of an uninvolved administrator.

I have read through the original arbitration enforcement request and reviewed the diffs provided there. I have also read the subsequent remarks at arbitration enforcement and the thread raised at WP:ANI.

It is my opinion that the arbitration enforcement block is valid and the length is appropriate. For that reason, I am afraid that I will not be able to intervene on your behalf, as you requested. However, if you require technical assistance raising a formal appeal at arbitration enforcement, I, or any other administrator, can provide such assistance.

CIreland (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This sort dissent, so firmly rejected by CIreland, and this sort of complaining about administrative decisions, is viewed as a threat to administrative authority and that is why it is typical for administrators to respond by circling the wagons....as can seen clearly on the AN/I thread. The block and the ban are absurd. But no one is supposed to say that because users should not indulge that kind of thinking. - 173.52.124.223 (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This one takes the cake

Factsontheground (who has changed her name to Factomancer) writes: "Tariq, I did not file that AE request simply to get Gilabrand blocked." Oh no, of course not. Who would think such a thing?--Geewhiz (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it will make you smile

Hi Gila, I know it is a hard time for you. I'd like to share with you a poem I wrote for both of us. If it makes you smile for at least a moment, I will be very happy.

Rhyme exercise with the word "ban"

Ah, Gila, it is not a fun,

when one receives a topic ban,

enforced by an unfair clan

with ever hardened terms and span,

to exercise their master plan

to get us trapped with nowhere to run.

What's left for us? To drive a van

to warm and sunny port of Cannes,

where we could try to get some tan,

or maybe travel to Japan,

or even better to Bhutan,

hike Everest... all better than

to be upset by stupid ban :)

And now, please do take it easy :) Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It's both funny and irretating at the same time how some admins are so "worried" about the drama that they can't and not willing to see and considering anything else. Someone have to study it and submitt it to publication-I think that this cause much more drama than any editor-even the most disruptive one cause. And Gila, take it easy--Gilisa (talk) 06:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic terrorism, Jewish religious terrorism and Christian terrorism included in AfD.Steve Dufour (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Fan with the ban

Hi Gila, I hope you are well, and enjoying your time off :) Few days ago I was blocked for 72 hours for the violation of my interaction ban for posting this message to Gilisa's talk page :). It took the blocking administrator 15 minutes to figure out that I violated nothing. This episode made me to realize that the rules of those bans are so complicated and so stupid that even admins have a hard time understanding them :) That's why I decided to make some visual explanations. I took two images. The first one to illustrate an interaction ban, and the second one to illustrate a topic ban File:Red-eared sliders and Mallard in Golden Gate Park 1.jpg;File:The image explanation of the broadly constructed topic bans.jpg.Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

:-) --Shuki (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Biblical names

Based on your earlier talk page commentary on List of Biblical names, your expertise may be useful in the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Biblical names. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Yoplait

I have removed the WikiProject Israel tag (that you added) from the page because the article doesn't mention anything about Israel. Another editor removed it, and you added it again with no explanation. If you still think it should be tagged, please explain here, my talk page, or on the article's talk page. Thanks, Griffinofwales (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for uploading a picture of Shimi Tavori you took to the English Wikipedia. I uploaded it to Commons here so that I could use it in the Hebrew Wikipedia article (here) --אריה ה. (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This one as well: [18] for the article [19] --אריה ה. (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Holon

Actually, it shows a city square, with the skyline in the background.--RM (Be my friend) 19:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

In your dreams, kid.--Geewhiz (talk) 20:34, 24 May 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)

Dalia Dorner

I deleted the duplicated source because it is redundant. In effect, the entire entry could be based on that source.--Sreifa (talk) 11:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to create one of these "a-b-c" multiple refs for something like that. I don't know how to do it myself, but I don't think these statements should be left without a reference. A single citation for a whole paragraph or article is not the way it's done on Wikipedia.--Geewhiz (talk) 11:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I hear you, but again, 90% of the article could be attributed, and since it isn't attributed to anywhere else, I think one ref is enough.--Sreifa (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I hear you, too, but I'm afraid that what you "think" doesn't correspond with the reality on Wikipedia. Unsourced statements - in biographical articles in particular - are subject to deletion.--Geewhiz (talk) 12:55, 27 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)

Hurva pic

Hi, The picture you added of the finished building is inaccurate. The name of the Ramban synagogue, which is on the ground floor of the building, was airbrushed from the stone facade right under the railing on the righthand corner. Yoninah (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I was there yesterday and this is the finished building photographed from the Jewish Quarter courtyard. The fact that the ground floor may house another synagogue is irrelevant.--Geewhiz (talk) 08:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about another synagogue; I was talking about the name on the side of the building. I was just there last week and took a picture of it from this exact same angle, and my picture has the name of the Ramban shul affixed to the wall. (A lot of people, like me and my family, got mixed up trying to find the entrance to the Hurva, which is on the top floor.) I hope to expand the "Restoration" section of the article, but in the meantime, I'm just saying that the picture is doctored and therefore inaccurate. Yoninah (talk) 18:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw that sign, too, but why do you assume it was doctored? Maybe the lettering was added after March, when this photo was taken. Seems to me there is still work going on. By the way, did you manage to get in? They wouldn't let us in because we didn't have an appointment.--Geewhiz (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting theory. OK, I won't make a fuss. :)

I think you need an appointment to view the shul when it's not davening time. But the shul is open to all comers during Shacharis (neitz-8 am) and Mincha/Maariv (6:30-8 pm). The times keep changing based on the clock; it did take me 3 tries till I found the right time. While they're davening, you can take pictures in the women's section (as I did), and in-between Mincha and Maariv, a man could walk around on the main floor taking pictures (as I sent my son in to do!). Yoninah (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

When I was there recently, all the monitors were very strict that no male is allowed in the womens section at any time, even when no women are present. When I flouted this rule after seeing a man escort his elderly mother into the womens section, I was soon evicted from the building by a young boy annoyed that I had dared to ignore his orders! Very strange. Maybe if one books on the tour, access is permitted? Chesdovi (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

All these comments are very distressing. Someone is clearly turning this place into a private sanctum and imposing all kinds of rules and restrictions. Maybe someone ought to complain. By the way, your new photo is very attractive!--Geewhiz (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It's the building which is attractive. I just took the photo! Chesdovi (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Jaffa orange

I believe your edits to this page can reasonably be interpreted to fall under the scope of your topic ban. I don't plan to file a report about it, but would ask that you refrain from further edits to that page. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 07:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Tourism in Israel

Could you please comment on the talk page of Tourism in Israel? Talk:Tourism_in_Israel#Inclusion_of_non-Israel_territories_is_extremely_POV--TM 07:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)