Just so you know, your edit here on 17 April is largely to blame for the recent escalation of passions at Golan Heights. Seeing as you've become involved in some heated verbal exchanges on the Discussion page there, I think restoring the map you removed from the infobox will be welcomed all around as a positive contribution in an NPOV spirit. Give it some thought.—Biosketch (talk) 04:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion, but the problems on that page were not started by me, nor will they end with me. I do not intend to re-add an image I think adds nothing, but if you believe that will end the squabbling (in your dreams), you can restore it yourself.--Geewhiz (talk) 05:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to imply that you're to blame personally for what's happening now – just that the removal of the image, without replacing it with some other map, was open sesame for the next guy to come along and make a POV edit to the article.—Biosketch (talk) 06:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the satellite map was re added to the infobox, it wouldn't in any way justify the removal of the neutral and accurate CIA map elsewhere in the article that shows the areas geography and politics. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained on the AHAVA discussion page, I sought and received advice from the Wikipedia Live chat help page. I asked for any comments or concerns about the changes I proposed and you made none. It is a shame you have now removed my edits made in the light of those proposals without discussion or adequate explanation. I will repeat here in simple words the information I provided more than one week ago on the AHAVA talk page:
1. when listing a company’s products it is acceptable to list the types of products but not specific products. eg "sunscreen" is ok but not "Banana Boat Bronzing Sunscreen SPF 50 with a Hint of Lemon."
2. social media is not a reliable source nor are aggregators such as Health And Beauty Review
3. the inclusion of a rider such as "However no independent scientific evidence has been adduced in support of this belief.” is acceptable unless such scientific evidence is cited. If you have independent scientific evidence for the “belief” that Dead Sea mud has “benefits for deep cleansing and stimulation of the skin.” then please cite it. If not then it is reasonable to make it plain to the reader that this is just a marketing claim by the company with no more or no less status than the advertising slogan “Guiness is good for you”. And please do not try to hide behind the explanation “copy edit” as removing significant portions of the text is not just copy-editing.
You have also deleted work by another editor without justification or explanation. The fact that you have described the internationally respected Israeli organisation B'tselem as an unreliable source indicates you need to do more reading and research in this area.
I shall revert your changes and please do not do this again without discussion or adequate explanation. Thank you for your time and attention in reading this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floccinauci (talk • contribs) 12:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one who needs to do more reading. Advocacy sites are not RS for Wikipedia. Your personal views regarding the veracity of claims published in an RS do not belong on Wikipedia. From this long winded piece of verbiage you have left on my talk page, it is obvious that you have no interest in improving articles but fighting with people. You seem to be obsessed with this one article. Blanket reversion of my changes, which are all policy-based, will only prove to the administrators alerted to this case that you are a battle-minded SPA with no interest in improving the article.--Geewhiz (talk) 12:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please specifically see my comments in the "results" section, which relates solely to your recent change—for which you used the edit summary copyedit—to Ramot. Thank you, AGK [•] 12:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you are talking about. I have been working on improving this article for years. I would expect you, as an administrator, to find something better to do than leave false accusations on my page about "deceptive" edits. I wrote "keep it simple" and I stand by this edit (and every edit I make). I have done no warring or disrupting of anything. Your assumption of bad faith is misplaced.--Geewhiz (talk) 12:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And allow me to point out that your contacts with Nableezy and offers to reduce his ban make your motives in leaving me this message especially suspect. Clearly you are not an uninvolved administrator.--Geewhiz (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was me who initially topic-banned Nableezy, so I do not see why you think my involvement is suspect. I am concerned that you passed off a major reversion as a copyedit, and would like you to respond at the AE thread at your first convenience. It would also be useful if you could respond to the thread initiated by T. Canens, which crosses over with my own review of your contributions. Regards, AGK [•] 15:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On closer inspection of these "charges," I am totally in the dark about what ban you could be referring to. Apart from these edits not being mine, I am not aware of me being under any restrictions or topic bans. In fact, it appears you are the one who is proxy-editing for a topic-banned editor.--Geewhiz (talk) 06:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gilabrand: You responded to my comment above with an insinuation that I, as an uninvolved administrator, am actually biased. You have now did the same to T. Canens. This kind of behaviour is far from a helpful way to respond to good-faith comments. Also, you have misunderstood T. Canens' statement at AE; he is saying that you evaded your previous topic bans, in ~March 2011 and in 2010, and not a current topic ban. Please comment at AE when you can. AGK [•] 15:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gilabrand: It is evident that you have evaded your previous topic bans. As a matter of urgency, please comment at the Arbitration Enforcement thread. If you do not make some comment to allay concerns, please know that, if the thread continues to move in its present direction, your account may be indefinitely blocked or you may be subject to other sanctions. If you need more time to respond, please indicate so. AGK [•] 22:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notice to administrators: In a March 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."
Despite years of jibes from the academic community, Wikipedia has become a leading source of information. If that information is to be reliable, comprehensive and comprehensible, Wikipedia needs people who are willing to give of their time to bring in solidly sourced information, write in clear, concise English, remove non-encyclopedic and off-topic material, and add images that illustrate the content and make the reading experience more interesting and enjoyable. These have been my goals since joining Wikipedia half a decade ago. I have edited thousands of articles and taken dozens of photographs in this spirit, and I would be grateful for an opportunity to continue.
My sincere thanks to the courageous editors who have taken the trouble to speak up on my behalf. If I am unblocked, I will do my best not to disappoint them.--Geewhiz (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Presently, the amendment request as written only seeks to lift the indefinite block - but not the lifting of the topic ban. If you are unblocked, will you make a greater effort to comply with the topic ban (including not editing while logged out or using other accounts to evade the topic ban)? –xenotalk15:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain, in your own words, the circumstances leading to your most recent sanction/block; and how you will modify your approach to editing (especially in the conflict area) in the future to avoid further sanctions? –xenotalk14:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My IP address is a shared one. I replied to a question on my talk page but forgot to log in. When I noticed the IP number, I replaced it with my signature. This led to an accusation that back in 2010 I evaded a topic ban. I replied that I opened an account five and a half years ago as advised by Wikipedia so as not to be associated with this shared global IP used by a business center with many offices. I was called a liar by administrators and given an indefinite block, although several editors pointed out that this was indeed a global IP address used by others. Anyone who takes the trouble to look will see ample evidence of my productive work on Wikipedia over the course of many years. I have devoted myself to adding content and images. I have turned thousands of stubs and start-class articles into worthy encyclopedia entries. I have written numerous articles from scratch and spent hours assessing articles for various projects on Wikipedia. I have received thanks from editors across the IP divide for my input. So I am not ashamed of my edits, and I have no reason to edit anonymously. If I am unblocked, I will do my utmost to stay clear of controversy, improve relations with anyone I may have clashed with, and work together to make Wikipedia better.--Geewhiz (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gila,
Thank you for the note you sent me. I must confess I am a bit confused, and I hope you can educate me: did you, or didn´t you do the IP-edits to Bayt 'Itab in March? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AE Block provisionally suspended
This post is to inform you that the AE block placed on you will be provisionally suspended as of August 25, 2011.
Great news. BTW, is 25 some kind of magic number? Why that particular date? Anyhow, thanks to each and every one who helped to make this happen.--Geewhiz (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember we talked about it? Anyway, there's a bot that does automatic ref formatting, but it's not always good. I created this tool to help with ref formatting for refs from The Jerusalem Post. Cheers, Ynhockey(Talk)22:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An article that you have been involved in editing, Al-Sinnabra , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Sreifa (talk) 05:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, regarding what you said about Uri Kabiri, would you please educate me as to inserting sources into a Wikipedia page? I've tried to add his Facebook link (before you cancelled my addition), and it didn't look like the rest of the links. I still don't know how to add sources of reffs to a page either. By your name you could be Israeli like him, and you might even personally know him, so would you help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viki333 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to post links for reffs but the website treats this as spam and wouldn't let me post anything. Is there a way I could send them directly to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viki333 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Farouk, I am glad to see someone is interested in working on this article, but most of the information you are adding is not sourced - and is confusing. In order to prevent confusion, I think it is best to keep all the sites in the Military Cemetery grouped together. Also, it might be a good idea to do a spell check and make sure you add capital letters in the appropriate places.--Geewhiz (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No harm done, it can always be moved back. Maybe one day a "full-fledged article" could be written about the history of lighthouses in Israel, but at this point I don't think we have enough material for one. For now I think a featured list is a more reasonable target. --Muhandes (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After much googling, I got a more complete picture of the relationship between these two terms. Most websites place the Bedouin emcampment on the northside of Highway 1 just west Kfar Adumin Junction and Route 458. Some place it south of Highway 1 adjacent to Mishor Adumim. (Well, these are Bedouim, after all. They do get around.)
All of the maps I found place both the Inn and the Church east of Route 458, 2 km east of the encampment. As for the identification between the two, the website, jericho-city.org, omits some important explanations. It is assumed by the Palestinians that the migratory lands of the clan encompasses over 16 square kilometers. (The Israelis would undoubtedly cut that number way down.) So that would place the Inn within the boundaries of the clan's movements, but not inside the settled area. Khan al-Ahmar actually means The Red Inn. The Red Inn is traditionally assumed to be The Inn of The Good Samaratin. So, the encampment takes its name from the Inn, but the Inn is not inside the encampment.
Anyway... I edited the article to add some of this information. Perhaps my edit needs some tweeking. (oh, and I fixed the spelling in the photo caption.) --@Efrat (talk) 11:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think all number changes in Wikipedia contrary to sources should be treated as vandalism. So, what's the reason you changed the number of death from 9 to 7 in the Flotilla Incident? If it is by mistake, can you correct this by deleting sentences that imply "5+2 =7 dead" and add the sentence you deleted either intentionally or by mistake? Kavas (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the answer from admins have come in and I am sure you have seen it: They said your edits were a mixture of good and bad. Although I was mistaken and your edits are not COI, "that may be like saying that a burglar is innocent of jaywalking". So, I am given the clearance to undo those which are in violation of WP:MOS. However, they say they will not tolerate if you contest them. (It seems you have run afoul of Arbitration Committee in the past.)
Here is a description of what is problematic:
Use of inaccurate time clause: You seem to like to censor the day in which Microsoft has categorized Babylon as a malware. You must not do that. According to Manual of Style § Precise language, you must use precise language. Reducing the accuracy of date statement is not acceptable.
Adding novel information to the lead section: Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, lead section must be a summary of the whole article, not a place to praise Israel.
Adding information in a mingled fashion: Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout an article must be divided into subtopics, each detailing units of information cohesively and coherently. Dumping information about company indiscriminately in the middle of article is wrong
Violating image fair-use rationale: The fair-use rationale of File:Babylon (program).png says that image is used to help readers of the article visually identify Babylon software. If you reduce it to such a size that cannot be seen, then the fair-use rationale is violated. 300 pixels width allows images to be optimally seen by owners of modern 16:9 monitors and the owners of smartphones without them feeling it is too small.
Not discussing: Every human is error-prone. However, if you feel there is an error, you must discuss. Follow the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle: When someone reverted your bold edit, discuss with him. If the discussion did not yield a result, follow WP:DR. Do not un-revert; it is called Wikipedia:Edit warring. You have done this thrice in the past. If you do it again, you might permanently lose you editing privileges.
An article that you have been involved in editing, Falafel [[2]] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Veritycheck (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Turelo. After copyediting and rearranging the photos, I thought it didn't really add anything. Sderot is a city with many different sides to it. All the photos are on one theme - attacks and destruction. Too bad nobody has thought to take some photos of these other aspects. But if this drawing is critical in your eyes, go ahead and restore it. Best, --Geewhiz (talk) 05:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call it critical. However, when I first saw it somewhere on the web (and then tracked it to the MFA's website), I thought immediately that it very well expressed the devastating effects of the attacks. --Túrelio (talk) 06:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Water supply and sanitation in Israel
Thank you for your edits to this article, which are greatly appreciated. I noticed that the history section has been moved only partially and perhaps you had to interrupt your work on the article. If that is the case, I just wanted to encourage you to continue to move the history section completely. Also, I noticed that you added a picture of the Menashe artificial recharge plant. Since the article has no content on artificial recharge yet, you may want to add such information. One possible source is here:http://www.mekorot.co.il/Eng/Activities/Pages/WastewaterTreatmentandReclamation.aspx. Keep on the good work!--Mschiffler (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators Noticeboard
You have failed to communicate with me or try to establish a consensus before performing your blanket revert today. You also vandalized my talk page. As such, I have reported you to Administrators Noticeboard. Fleet Command (talk) 08:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And what blanket revert are you referring to? I added new information and sources. You have been edit warring day after day with a whole fleet of editors. You have falsely accused me of COI with not a shred of evidence. You have labeled my additions to the article vandalism. I left you a polite message to stop your edit warring (not just with me) and you deleted it. I don't know what your problem is and why you are so obsessed with keeping anyone from adding to this article, clearly using reliable references. But I have not accused you of COI. Perhaps I should.--Geewhiz (talk) 08:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have now deleted all the new information I added today with another incivil edit summary. You also deleted my comments and those of another editor who criticized you on your talk page. Is there something you are trying to hide? Oh, and by the way, I did not "vandalize" your talk page, I restored my old comment so that my current comment would be in context. Furthermore, if there was any user working against consensus it was yourself, as is very clear from the history of the article--Geewhiz (talk) 08:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, on this article alone, you reverted the edits of Shooby D, Abinyah, Silvergoat, several IPs, Edav, Maproom, Shuki, Epeefleche, Rkononenko, Noinformation, Someone35 and Marokowitz. Interesting pattern, that. Your edit summaries include such statements as "very bad English language," "evidently disruptive changes" and "dishonest edit summary," and you have accused multiple editors of conflict of interest, lying and vandalism.--Geewhiz (talk) 12:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"It was enough for one bullet, fired from a sniper rifle, to end the life of th infant Shalhevet Pass, who up to that event was unknown to the wide public, and just lived her life as all other children, until one day as the evening came she was hit in her head, and her she died, and Shalhevet whom was still small and and in her infant stage, was sentenced to death by a vile killer whom intentionally, using a Telescopic sight, pulled the trigger. The picture of the shot baby is on our table, is engraved in our minds and does not give peace to our souls. We can not understand and we can not accept the unbearable ease in which the killer decided to harm a helpless person... We the judges are only humans and we can not see anything else but image which emerges is our senses, an image full of hate, blood and bereavement. We must not accept this image and we need to do everything we can to condemn it."
I don't want to sound aggressive, but let me just say that you have significantly altered the Rosh Hashanah article of late. You might want to discuss such major edits before you make them, to avoid consequent problems like edit warring and accusations that you are making one-sided edits. Debresser (talk) 15:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited an appalling article, full of confusing trivia, unsourced statements and pseudo-scholarship masquerading as fact. As someone who clearly has an interest in presenting Judaism to the world, I look forward to your input on specific problems. There is still much to be done. Best, --Geewhiz (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Israel and the Cherry Tomato
Israel has a long history of inventing some pretty cool stuff (Nanowire, the Uzi, Quasicrystals, etc.). However, claims that Israel invented the cherry tomato in 1973 are demonstrably false. Please see the following three newspaper articles (all dated prior to 1973, all which reference cherry tomatoes):
While Israel has been involved in plant breeding (and through cross breeding existing plants has developed at least one new variety of cherry tomato that I've been able to find), they clearly did not invent the cherry tomato itself. I would appreciate it if you would stop modifying the page regarding the cherry tomato to indicate that it was an Israeli invention dating to 1973. In light of this evidence, further modification to the page regarding Israel and 'invention' of the cherry tomato would be regarded as vandalism. Regards,
--Stvfetterly (talk) 11:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That academic references like Jaffrelot have been sidelined in favour to partisan unreliable sources does not seem to disturb you. I won't war-edit with you, but the whole article is a grotesque propaganda using dubious, unelevant and non-academic references (e.g. relating ancient jewish communities that arrived in India since Babylon's captivity to Zionism is not just stupid, it's hilarous -and non referenced, of course-). If you think it can serve wikipedia, ok, let just freeze it like that. - TwoHornedUser_talk:TwoHorned13:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
english semantics
Perhaps you don't realise that "until the 16th century" means that the change occurred during the 16th century. The source only refers to Jewish presence some unspecified time in the 15th century. (On the side, I know of some of these sources and they refer to Jews living there, not to it being a Jewish town. There was no such thing as a purely Jewish town in that period.) Zerotalk07:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bais Shebbes
Do NOT delete, Being a non-anglophone institution does not warrant deletion or equal a lack of notability simply for lack of English language references. Please do not recklessly delete articles simply because the go beyond the pale of your familiarity, I happen to be in the said institution right now and if you ask around you will find that it is a semi-dati (Traditional to observant 20% are Shomer shabbat) yeshiva. Thank you and in future please attempt to improve before you criticize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ab merkin (talk • contribs) 16:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alon Shvut
Gilabrand, please respond on the talk page. I do not wish to have further conflict between us and I think we can work things out without any unpleasantness, but there is currently an issue that you do not seem willing to discuss. Additionally, I was topic banned for choosing which revert to self-revert, so if you think your restoration of Levy (self-revert to make a different revert) will shield you from any 1RR report I suggest you read this. Any such measures can be avoided if you discuss the issue at the talk page. Either that or self-revert your edit. You cannot choose to both make these changes and ignore any objections. nableezy - 23:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article which you've edited recently is being discussed at WP:AE#Brewcrewer. I mentioned that some of your edits on October 30 may have been reverts, but since you were not named in the AE request I have not investigated the matter. This notice is intended as a formality. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Highway 1
Hey GB, how've you been? You recently made an edit to Highway 1. What is Highway 76 at the eastern end? 90 is at the end. Never mind that. When I saw your edit, I realized that there are some more serious mistakes, especially the distances and some missing intersections. You may know that I edited many Highways. My edits were based on actually driving the routes. For now, I made some minor edits to the eastern end of Highway 1. (It got shorter!) I suspect there may be an error in distances somewhere at the western end. I'm going to drive the entire route soon and edit accordingly. Unless you get there before me. Who knows, maybe we'll bump into each other. (Not literally, of course! lol) --@Efrat (talk) 05:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, I uploaded Ben-TzionMM's junction diagrams from he:wikipedia (giving due attribution to him) and inserted them into the article. AND ALSO, I sent you an email. --@Efrat (talk) 08:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gilabrand. You made a number of significant changes to Zoological conspiracy theories which were not discussed and in some cases in direct contradiction of consensus which was reached in the article's Talk Page. I am reverting these changes. If you feel like these changes are necessary please discuss them first. Poyani (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Editor's Barnstar
For a great article! Please contact me, would like to send you a private message regarding other editing topics.
Don't know if you misclicked, but you just reverted the Hat article to a version from December 2010. I'm sure it hasn't been that consistently and badly vandalised over the past year. --McGeddon (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you look carefully at the history, you will see that almost all the edits made over the past year have been vandalizing edits. Over time, attempts to revert vandals have led to important sections of the article disappearing. Since working on the article years ago, I am still waiting for someone to add something of substance. --Geewhiz (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not touch the infobox or any content in the article. I only removed overlinking. You are mistaking that edit with someone else's. Please look more carefully before making accusations.--Geewhiz (talk) 06:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, dear. The line you claim I removed was not in the article when I did my cleanup - and appears to have been removed by you.--Geewhiz (talk) 09:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying you removed it, I'm saying you reinserted it, which is totally clear from the diff I have linked to multiple times. This discussion is going nowhere, so I am withdrawing from it. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 09:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There were three other editors who changed the article after my first series of edits on Dec. 3, and they were Kaldari , Marek69 and yourself. As you are a "new editor" perhaps it has to do with your misreading of the ref comparison. The line you are talking about was not in the article when I cleaned it up. One or more editors may have played around with it, but it was not me. As I have repeated over and over, my work on the article did not involve changing content or data. I see you have also made various accusations against others, which is a pity. There is so much constructive work to do be done, and I believe you have the potential to help.--Geewhiz (talk) 10:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a gentle warning. This edit description is very misleading. You put back the "Currently under Israel, Claimed by Palestine" phrase that's being edit warred and didn't refer to it when making other changes. This could be considered gaming and, at a bare minimum, is less than helpful. Please discuss that change on the talk page and cease going back and forth on it. --WGFinley (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here, this is where YehudaTelAviv made the change to the infobox (on December 4, at 4:21pm) [[4]], whereas you are showing me diffs of two edits an hour later in which I added an info & ref about the Katzrin synagogue.--Geewhiz (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's hard for you to concentrate, being online 24 hours a day, but that bit of data was not added by me. It has been in the article since it was created in 2007.[see here]--Geewhiz (talk) 05:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gila, I am trying to be more courteous with you, but these types of responses dont give me much of a reason to continue trying to do so. In the version immediately prior to that edit, the article said is an Israeli settlement in the Binyamin Region, in the northern section of the West Bank. You changed that to is an Israeli settlement located in the Binyamin Regionof Israel in the western section of the West Bank (emphasis added). So, despite your claim that that bit of data was not added by [you] and that due to my apparent inability to concentrate I have falsely accused you of placing that material in the article, you are in fact responsible for the material. So, instead of these unwarranted snipes, could you please address the issue, either by correcting the text or by responding at the talk page? nableezy - 05:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was reverting to a version before all the unsourced data was added and this was the only sentence that had a reference. You don't like it, take it out. It's as simple as that. In all these years, I haven't seen any reticence on your part to delete information you don't like. --Geewhiz (talk) 06:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It isnt about delet[ing] information [I] don't like, it is about removing factually incorrect material. I would like to try to resolve disputes amicably with you, that explains my reticence to simply excise the incorrect material. But seeing as you have no interest in doing so, I guess I will just have to deal with it myself. nableezy - 06:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC):\[reply]
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
If no views and opinions were allowed, there wouldn't be such sections on Wikipedia. You will have to delete half of Wikipedia and get rid of all the articles on journalists whose only claim to notability is what they write, to clean that up. You can start your pruning at Zeev Sternhell, another journalist article full of "cherry-picked" quotes.--Geewhiz (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
There is nothing to explain. The article was full of repetition, bad writing, excessive quoting, trivia, editorializing section heads, overlinking, an inaccurate lead in which pertinent issues were left out. The article is about a ridiculous topic, but I think my edits, additions and references have improved it vastly. Blanket reversions with lame edit summaries claiming that some other version was "better" are not acceptable.--Geewhiz (talk) 07:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for info online relating to Revava has led me the he:רחל ולדן article. While the Hebrew article is pretty detailed, the corresponding English one, Rachel Walden, is barely even a stub. Think anything can be done to salvage this lady's story? I've had no luck at all, just dozens of Wikipedia mirrors everywhere.—Biosketch (talk) 08:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are zillions of architects in Israel. Being an architect does not automatically confer notability. Personally, I think her work is pretty horrendous. Each to his own.--Geewhiz (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with your evaluation of her work. Really I just wanted some sourced material to add to the article. Why did you replace the infobox image of Ramat Gan from one of the city generally to one of just the business district?—Biosketch (talk) 09:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In a perfect world, the lead photo should encapsulate that "special something" that makes a place unique. Although everyone and his grandmother now totes a camera, it seems that good photos are hard to come by on Wikipedia. A blurry photo showing dozens of nondescript apartment buildings from above doesn't quite do justice to Ramat Gan, so I restored the business district picture which is pretty much iconic. The photos distributed over the rest of the article help to fill out the picture somewhat and hopefully someone with a good photographic eye will come along one day and take a few more.--Geewhiz (talk) 12:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you can I would be happy if you would help me improve this article which I created that covers one of the latest most controversial issues in the Israeli society. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 02:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I think my time is better spent editing older articles. There is an incredible amount of nonsense and bad writing here that needs cleaning up.--Geewhiz (talk) 08:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. When you recently edited Jewish National Fund, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gilboa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
A word of advice - recruiting people to help you get around a 1RR restriction could get both you and whoever you're asking into serious trouble. It would be very unwise for Gila to make edits similar to yours at those articles now. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
My understanding is that all the companies on the list are "Israeli." This can be backed up by reading the sources and looking at the entries on Hebrew Wikipedia. I think your problem is the definition of Israeli. If a company was founded by Israelis and later purchased by an international company, the Israeliness of the company (in the eyes of Israelis, at least) does not disappear. If a company has a plant or R&D facilities in Israel, its owners/management/employees are Israeli, or the technology it uses was developed by Israelis, it will be listed as an Israeli company. Sometimes companies do not explicitly describe themselves as Israeli because, unfortunately, that label can be bad for business nowadays. In the hostile world we live in, it is better to be "based" somewhere else...--Geewhiz (talk) 06:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
About a year and a half ago, you created a redirect for Route 417 to Bar-Ilan Street (a page which you were instrumental in editing). As you probably know, Bar-Ilan is just a small section of 417. I have completed the 417 article, eliminating the redirect. In the article, there is a link to the main Bar-Ilan article. I was wondering if the Bar-Ilan article should be copied into the 417 article. Perhaps it should remain separate because of its unique subject matter that may not fit into 417. On the other hand, if 417 is expanded to include more information on each of its segments, then maybe Bar-Ilan would fit into it. Huh? --@Efrat (talk) 08:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should remain separate as route numbers really mean nothing to most people. In addition, there are significant cultural issues, so it's more than just a street--Geewhiz (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i am afraid that if you combine them, then the bar ilan issues (which are probably not over) will overtake the plain and simple article on 417. leave it separate. Soosim (talk) 10:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
.png){kind=link}
