Articles on Wikipedia need to be based on reliable sources. At the moment, the text is "original research" because it lacks citations. When you fix that up, I will gladly help with the English.--Geewhiz (talk) 09:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ahalan wasahalan, Tiamut. Haven't heard from you in a while. Hope all is well. About Allar, the article clearly states that it is 17 kilometers from Jerusalem, which puts it in the Jerusalem District. The only reason for adding anything to the village name is for disambiguation purposes. For that purpose, Allar (village) seems best but since you have done some nice work on the article, I'll leave that up to you.--Geewhiz (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ahlan fiki Gilabrand. I don't know which source says its 17km from Jerusalem so I've removed that bit and gone with Petersen's description which is simply southwest of Jerusalem. Palestinian villages depopulated in 1948 are generally disambiguated by including the name of the district they were located in without prefacing it by "District of..." - its too wordy. As a result, I've moved it back to the original title. I think I violated 1RR by doing so, but don't want to undo and create an even bigger mess, so I've asked at arbitration for advice on how to proceed. In the future, if you could open a discussion on the talk page before moving pages, that would be good. We could then avoid these back and forths altogether then. Take care, Tiamuttalk08:48, 13 April 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]
Re: Folke Bernadotte - I have seen to it that the excessive genealogy once in this article (and many others) has been edited and reduced considerably. So I fully agree with your edit summary comment. But isn't it customary to mention the children of a person with a WP biography? SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC) moved to article's talk page. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having made several additions to this template, I thought you might be interested in the disussion. Last section: "Sources" --@Efrat (talk) 12:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Gilabrand. An IP editor made a rather confusing complaint at WP:AN3#NDS Group. Replying to a single-use IP is not always worthwhile. I noticed your name in the edit history, as someone who had previously reverted one of the people who possibly has a COI, User talk:Shmecklebort. If you think this issue needs wider review, consider opening a report at WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. This would be a better place than AN3 to look into such a problem. If you don't think any admin assistance is needed, then ignore this. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, how was your Seder? I don't know much about extracting images from Flickr, but maybe you can help find a photo there to accompany the content I just added here. Hopefully you'll agree this guy's work is vastly more deserving of attention than that other architect I contacted you about a few months ago.—Biosketch (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gila, I noticed you restored some information about Mandelbaum Gate, the Jerusalem Biblical Zoo, and the archeological digs to this article. I just started a new page, Shmuel HaNavi Street, which is more appropriate to these subjects. I limited the information in the neighborhood article to the neighborhood itself. Best, Yoninah (talk) 10:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I really don't understanding your thinking. Shmuel HaNavi is a distinct neighborhood with those fairy-tale looking buildings. Anything east of that is part of Arzei HaBira and Beit Yisrael. Simcha Mandelbaum's house and the Jerusalem Zoo have nothing to do with the neighborhood, which was built long after, in the 1960s. Maybe the Mandelbaum Gate could be mentioned in the part about the armistice line. For the same reason, I deleted mention of the Shabbos demonstrations at the corner of Shmuel HaNavi Street and Yechezkel. I thought it best to focus on just the neighborhood itself, and leave the larger description for Shmuel HaNavi Street. Best, Yoninah (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What fairy-tale houses do you mean? The Project Renewal buildings? According to reliable sources, the Mandelbaum house, the zoo and the quarry excavations are in the Shmuel HaNavi neighborhood. Mandelbaum's house dates from 1927 (which certainly predates Arzei HaBira) and the zoo was established in 1941, before it moved to Mount Scopus in 1947, followed by Bar Ilan and Malha. I believe that neighborhood articles should include the history of the neighborhood, and that includes landmarks that were there in earlier times, which may or may not be included in what is popularly considered its boundaries today.--Geewhiz (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an interesting question. When you added the "street" information to the "neighborhood" article, the two articles now read almost the same, save for some extra details about the Shikun Shmuel HaNavi housing project. Do you think the pages should be combined back into one article, Shmuel HaNavi (neighborhood)? Yoninah (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When I added material earlier today I kept it short so as not to compete with the street article, and thought that having two articles was fine. With your current editing, I do see them starting to sound similar. So now I don't really know the answer to your question...Maybe we should ask for other opinions--Geewhiz (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jaffa riots
About the "commonly known as Me'oraot Tarpa", what do you think about rewriting it so that it is more like the start of the Bangkok article ? It says what it is known as in Thai, providing the transliteration, and it says what it literally means. Just saying "commonly known as Me'oraot Tarpa" seems quite vague to me e.g. known by whom/where and in what language, Hebrew or Arabic ? Also if Me'oraot Tarpa is going to be treated as an alternative name in bold, there needs to be a redirect to Jaffa riots. Sean.hoyland - talk02:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yom Hazikaron - but not "On this day..." (WP:MP)
Dear Gila, I appreciate your edit to repositioncontent in Yom Hazikaron#History. My content editing on that page these past few hours - mainly to add references and inline citations ASAP - is spurred by the continuing omission of Yom Hazikaron as a Selected Anniversary on the Main Page's "On this day...". This wasn't a problem in the past seven (!) consecutive years, as I noted in my ongoing Main Page Error query. I'm having difficulty believing that the requisite good faith is being universallly practiced here. User:Dweller, with no prompting from me, spontaneously removed the maintenance template, so far to no avail with that page's admins. I hope this will end soon, and favorably. Please let me know if you have further advice for me. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi in your comment concerning the image caption
(diff | hist) . . Ephraim Moses Lilien; 10:35 . . (-32) . . Gilabrand (talk | contribs) (credits are not cited on photographic material)
the museum is not cited as a credit but rather as a location of the item, similar to other artwork found in Wikipedia for example Las Meninas where the museum is noted Drkup(IMJ) (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of Lighthouses
Hi again, Gilabrand. First, thank you for adding material to the article. I've been meaning to do that for a long time and push it to FL, but real life keeps requiring my attention elsewhere. It actually went through peer review but I was not able to take it forward. I take it that you forgot our previous discussion, which still applies. the format is the standard format for lists of lighthouses, and until someone comes with the knowledge and time to write a full-fledged article about the history of lighthouses in Israel, I think a list, which has the chance of going FL, is preferred to an article with zero chance. With our previous discussion in mind, I hope it is OK that I am reverting it back to the list format. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not original research. What you believe the reader should know is all fine and well, but the source does not say that. Hope this clarified things. Best, --Geewhiz (talk) 06:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words. I noticed the sad state of many Israeli wine related articles a few weeks ago and decided it would be a fruitful (pun intended) place to focus my energies for a little while. --Bachrach44 (talk) 11:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Completely off-topic, would it be possible to communicate with you by email? I see that function is disabled on your page. I wanted to ask you something about DC, with which you seem to have some familiarity, judging by your photo contributions--Geewhiz (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just wanted to mention that the official name of the IMJ is "The Israel Museum, Jerusalem" although Wikipedia only refers to it as "Israel Museum". I therefore felt it was correct in the article on the information center as was. I invite you to see our new project [www.wikilovesisrael.com site] which refers you to our new List of public art in Israel. Thanks Drkup(IMJ) (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question about an edit
Hi Gilabrand,
I was wondering about this edit: you removed some content, but wrote 'add' in the edit summary. Did you intend to remove the content? (If you did, I can understand why, but the edit summary implies that this was unintentional).
You are right. I deleted content that was added without a source, but added information in the following paragraph. At that moment, a crew of workers walked into my house and I pushed the save button without writing a full summary. Sorry about that.--Geewhiz (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi!
Hi Gila!
So nice to meet you once more on this page. The article I am writing about Ariadna Skryabina is in Hebrew wikipedia in my user page (subpage). My nick name there is the same as in English wikipedia. The article is not finished, but you can look how it goes and, maybe, fix or add something. I will put the article to the articles' area when at least the most important stuff, WWII and Ariadna's death, will be there. --AllaRo (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Israel State Archives
If you want to write a noninfringing version of the article, do so on a subpage, as instructed in the notice I've added to the article; and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining that you've done so. The content you restored to the article was a clear copyright infringement, your subsequent minimal rewording does not prevent it from being an unacceptable close paraphrase. Deor (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added new sources to the article, reorganized it, and rewritten parts of it. Certain responsibilities of the archive cannot be worded in a different way. At this point, you are scaring off the newbies, which is worthy of reporting to Jimmy Wales, who expressly condemned such practices. I suggest you remove the tag and allow the article to be improved, as I wrote on your talk page and noted on the article's talk page.--Geewhiz (talk) 08:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can certainly report me to Wales or to ANI if you want to. All I did was delete the copyvio in the article some days ago and then redelete it when it was readded (in an unwikified paste of the displayed version of the predeletion content) by Yarrowplant today. I left an explanation on Yarrowplant's talk page, which hardly constitutes "scaring off the newbies".
As I said above, you should follow the instructions on the notice in the article (the third boldfaced line under "Can you help resolve this issue?") if you want to write a noninfringing version, not just add material to the text hidden by the notice—though "Certain responsibilities of the archive cannot be worded in a different way" is not an adequate justification for a literal reproduction or close paraphrase of the Web site's language. Deor (talk) 08:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but we're generating edit conflicts, and I think your ideas about structure are different from mine. I was trying to get the Museum/Education stuff into one lump, tidy up the Military/police section, delete the most incomprehensible bits (and there are a few), and then work out what to do with the stray gardens and sculptures. Also, I think Garden of the Missing Soldiers and Herzl Museum need to be merged back in. Do you have a more logical approach? Beastiepaws (talk) 10:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My take is that the article is about a cemetery. Therefore material on the cemetery and its main burial plots should take precedence to educational facilities and museums. Sections should be illustrated with relevant photos. There is no need for dozens of photos, and those that are included should be of good quality. Incomprehensible English needs to be removed. Ditto for original research unless reliable sourcing can be found. At the moment, this article, about a very important place, is a disgrace.--Geewhiz (talk) 10:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all of that. I believe some of the OR is factually correct and I don't mind hunting up sources for it. I also think some of what looks almost like normal English isn't-- for example, I'm pretty sure all those "central memorial"s are machine translator artefacts that should be "main memorial" or maybe just "memorial". I'm going to leave you to it, since it's late here. If you go lightly over the OR aspects, I'll look for sources in the morning. Beastiepaws (talk) 10:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome :-) Editing anything Israel-related can be a bit of a fraught process. I don't think I've done an A-1 cleanup job by any stretch, but it's considerably better than it was. What do you think about the merge suggestions I made?Beastiepaws (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of important information was deleted. Please take note of what you deleted the article, If you decide that there will be no Memorials here so maybe it is better to make them in a separate article. פארוק (talk) 10:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Farouk, our goal is the same. I agree that the material is important, but it needs to be written in proper English and backed up by reliable sources. Having mangled sentences that nobody can understand does not help anyone. The article needs cleaning up. After that, data can be restored, but the right way this time, not just to fill up space.--Geewhiz (talk) 10:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. But you can be sure that everything I wrote here it is already in the Hebrew version. And if you decide that some articles should be merge into the article here so why now you say it takes too many place in the article ? ..... I wrote separate articles that can take a lot of space in the article. פארוק (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re: IDF Squadrons
Hi Gilabrand,
I agree that the articles are bad, but there are a few articles about squadrons which are actually very good and of sufficient length—as with other topics, it depends on having someone knowledgeable on the subject expand them. Before merging, I would talk to User:Poliocretes about it, he has lots of knowledge and sources.
this section in Mount Herzl have all empty graves for soldiers that have no graves. and i think that someone here hates Israel and because of this he delete articles about Israel or merge them into other articles. even in Hebrew wikipedia we don't delete/merge short articles or articles with a few links and never delete half Article. פארוק (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)פארוק (talk) 08:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC[reply]
We cannot presume such motivations. The best course of action is to improve the article being contested by adding information and reliable sources, preferably in English. Hebrew Wikipedia tends to be more forgiving on the subject of original research. If you translate a Hebrew article by using some push-button translation app, which produces a text that is mainly gibberish, don't be surprised when someone challenges it.--Geewhiz (talk) 08:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jerusalem Academy of Music and Dance
Dear Gila,
I remember that the "conservatorium" was located in Kikar Zion (early 50's). There is some confusion as to the early complicated development of this institution, but one cannot ignore this location while mentioning that "Israeli composer Josef Tal headed the academy in 1948–52". Etan J. Tal(talk)12:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
המוסד החדש, בהנהלתה של יוכבד דוסטרובסקי-קופרניק, עבר מהבניין בכיכר ציון לפעול בכיתות שנשכרו בבית ספר בעיר.
Will this be OK? I suspect there was a personal bias which caused someone not to mention this fact in the formal web site. Ironically there is no mention of Tal there even today... Etan J. Tal(talk)
Yad Kennedy
Dear Gilabrand, I appreciate your looking at "Yad Kennedy" and moving it from "start" to "C-class." Since you did that, I have done a lot of work on the article and think it might even be better than C-class at this point. If you have a chance to take another look, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! NearTheZoo (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see you have made some good improvements. But I see several problems. One, the location map is much too large and has little value. Two, I don't think this page is the right place for potted histories of JFK and his assassination. Both can be read about via links to those pages. I think this page should be devoted to the monument.--Geewhiz (talk) 04:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had a lot of problems with the map. I tried the Jerusalem map, but the location mark ends up being outside of the map. I guess that for readers unfamiliar with Israel the map could help a little, but I also couldn't figure out how to make the map smaller. If you (or anyone else reading this comment) could find a better location map or downsize this one, I would be happy to see that done!
In terms of the very small amount of info about Kennedy and the assassination, I hope that is retained, because I know that fewer and fewer young readers know about him, and a memorial to him and his assassination should (in my view) give some quick synopsis of the history behind the memorial. A fuller reading can be found from the "main article" dablinks above each paragraph. I took my cue from the layout of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial page, where the same is done: most of the article deals with the memorial, but small paragraphs describe the man and the assassination. I know it's a matter of taste and opinion, but my personal hope is that these short descriptions are retained..... NearTheZoo (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Gilabrand, I wanted to share some interesting news that may make this article more important as a resource. I have made the suggestion to KKL-JNF and some friends in the Israeli government that they consider a major event at Yad Kennedy in November 2013, which will be the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination. There is some very positive initial reaction to the idea, and I have been recommending this article as a good background resource. I feel like you and I have been partners in improving it, and I thank you! :) NearTheZoo (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly in the interests of full discloser, I feel I should tell you that I restored {{History of the Palestinian territories}} to the Judea article, it now has a section for Judea. Tough dealing primarily with the modern history of the Palestinian territories, it does to a lesser extent deal with the ancient lands that comprise the modern-day Palestinian territories. It also has a (very sort) section for the Ancient Gaza Strip. When you removed the template it looked like this, and had almost nothing about the ancient Palestinian territories. Considering template's current state, I don't think re-adding it will be a problem, but sense your the one who removed it in the first place I thought it was best to inform you. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Down in the orchard, something stirred...
That IP deletion will have been dozzdozz, who has been trying for a long time to put Upper Galilee in Palestine, not Israel. He/she surfaces at quite random intervals of time, which is why I've got Orchard on my watchlist. A minor edit war, but it's gone on for a few years now. Peridon (talk) 13:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SebastianHelm. I was in the middle of editing and was about to fix the ref problem when you reverted my changes. Nice that someone is tracking vandalism, but in this case, you were a bit quick on the draw. Everything is fixed now, as far as I can see. Best--Geewhiz (talk) 08:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I don't quite understand your recent edits at Jerusalem Foundation. Taking the leadership out of the Leadership section makes it read rather choppy. Also, why did you delete mention of the New Jerusalem Foundation, as the sources clearly show it was an outgrowth of the Jerusalem Foundation? Best, Yoninah (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly (which I may not) I only changed the heading into organizational structure or something similar. If I messed it up, please fix. I don't think the New Jerusalem Foundation belongs in this article. If it is a different foundation (and is noteworthy, which I am not so sure about), it should have it's own article. Otherwise it just introduces political scandals that are not connected to the work of the Jerusalem Foundation.--Geewhiz (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please be cautious with photos on sensitive issues
Hello,
on the Culture of Israel article, I recently noticed you included a picture of the Illegal (to quote wikiAt present, based on the result of numerous UN resolutions that cite Article 49 of the Geneva Convention, the consensus view of the international community is that Israeli settlements are illegal and constitute a violation of international law.[10][11][12][35][36] According to the BBC, every government in the world, except Israel, considers the settlements to be illegal.[37]) Israeli settlement of Tzofim, located in Palestine on the article culture of Israel.
This is not appropriate, as no current international body or even WP:consensus accepts the settlements as part of Israel.
Thus they are completely misplaced. I imagine it was a mistake on your part, but I am just asking is all to be a little cautious.
Nice that you are interested in Israeli culture, but clearly you know very little about it. The link was wrong - thanks for point it out - but Tzofim is the Israeli scout movement which is very much a part of Israeli culture. Furthermore, your attempts to delete pictures that illustrate the Israeli connection to Judaism are not acceptable. I see you have been warring with other editors on this issue. I am afraid it is you who must demonstrate more sensitivity. As you see, I have added photos to round out the picture (including restoring the photo you added showing Nazareth at Christmas). When more sourced text is added, there will be room for more pictures. At the moment, with a section of 3 sentences about marriage in Israel, a mainstream Israeli bride better illustrates the topic. Best.--Geewhiz (talk) 09:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing the edit, It appears I mistaken due to the way the subtitle was written underneath the photo, which to me gave the impression that it was scout ceremony in Tzofim (since the hyperlink itself led to the settlement of Tzofim, not the scout organization), Not the actual scouts. This was clearly a mistake on both of our parts.
Nope, I don't think the text hyperlinked afterall. The picture just didn't clarify whether it was simply a scout ceremony in Tzofim, or Tzofim, the scount ceremony, in an undisclosed location (which the picture caption says is in Tel Aviv). my apologies! Solntsa90 (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to clarify: There may be a settlement by that name, but I had fixed the link to connect to the Scout movement page. The photo itself does not show any settlement - it shows a night activity in which kids build an "inscription" such as this one, and light it with a torch at a ceremony that is very much part of Israeli youth culture. It takes place at all Scout dens around the country, and has nothing to do with settlements. About the Yemenite bride - only a small percentage of brides wear this traditional costume and not at the wedding ceremony but at a pre-wedding party. Yemenite is not the same as "Mizrachi." I hope you will read up more about Israeli culture and then be in a better position to edit the article, which really does need more work. Best, --Geewhiz (talk) 10:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, please note that Absolut Blank #3 by Israeli artist Pilpeled is not part of the city series. This limited edition is already listed under the special bottles section. Also, it comes in 750ml, not 700ml. Please refrain from making edits that are incorrect, thanks. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thanks! Krejsbol (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks. If you invested even a quarter of the effort it took to send me this non-award to add information that is reliably sourced, rather than writing articles based on your personal research, you would be doing Wikipedia a great service. Le'hayim.--Geewhiz (talk) 06:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jewish Quarter (Jerusalem)
I think you've made a mistake (or rather, the author of the text you modified have made a mistake). The source says that the evictions occured after 1967: This reality is less difficult to hide today, since in the years after 1967 some 6,000 Arab Christians and Muslims have been evicted from this area of the Old City. Palestinians are precluded from living in the newly defined "Jewish Quarter" for the simple reason that they are not Jewish. This explicit restriction was contrived by the private company put in charge of "developing" and "reconstructing" the new "Jewish Quarter" after 1967. --Frederico1234 (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the editor who added this text wrote "in the years leading up to 1967." Furthermore the article states that the Arab population of the quarter reached approximately 1,000, a figure that is cited to this same source, so where does the 6,000 come from? Clearly there is a problem here.--Geewhiz (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, its a problem you don't solve by blanking the paragraph in question, because it offends your partisan sensibilities. If there is a "problem here" as you put it, you don't blank a statement from a source like that. You re-write it, take it to the talk page, etc. Do you also mind telling me where you came up with This bit of original research, where you erroneously claimed without source that the Palestinians were evicted by "Jordanian authorities"? Even if you quickly reverted it, that's highly suspect.
If anyone was evicted from the Jewish Quarter before 1967, it was by the Jordanians, as they were occupied East Jerusalem at that time. If you bothered to read up on the subject, you would see that King Hussein evicted squatters from the Mughrabi quarter (which bordered on the Jewish quarter) in 1965 and transferred them to a refugee camp. I did not "quickly revert" anything. There are other people working on this page apart from me, and I suggest you exercise more caution before inserting half-baked material, throwing around accusations and imputing motives to other editors which could equally apply to you. This is especially true considering that you accused me falsely on the Jewish culture page just a few days ago and realized your mistake only after writing to others to libel me. --Geewhiz (talk) 03:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Medicinal mushrooms
Thanks for the interest in the page. I liked your edit and saw it in the news as well. However there are some issues. First, the study is not published yet. Also this is great research, but limited, as it is only in vivo. I believe if this is included it should be under the section "Cyathus striatus". Please write me back, and hopefully we can agree on a compromise. (Also, are you based in Israel? I am just curious after looking at your beautiful pictures.) Jatlas (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
that produced figs, almonds, olives and carob has been confiscated or cut down by Israeli authorities, or has been absorbed into the expanding built-up area of Al-Eizariya.
and this:
Real estate speculation and the opening of many bank branches briefly accompanied expectations that the Palestinian Authority would set up its seat of government in East Jerusalem.<ref name=Shahinp332/>
Despite both being cited, you deleted both for no reason. That, and you made a revision to a picture where you changed the name from "Al-Eizariya" to "Bethany", despite being only an unofficial name (I wonder how you'd feel if we labeled pictures of Jerusalem with "Al-Quds"; at least there would be some legal precedent to do so in such an instance!)
Solntsa90, please tone down your remarks to me. As you follow me around on Wikipedia to every article I touch, you have been consistently uncivil. Yet again you are misinterpreting and putting your own spin on things. Until now, much of the material in this article was sourced to a travel guide, which may be OK for some material, but certainly not for political status and land disputes that are in the courts. On the description page of the image, it says "Bethany," and several other photos in the article have that caption. I see there has been a request to merge the two pages. I personally do not give a fig what the place is called, all I am interested in is consistency, which is clearly lacking. On a general note, you seem to be a newcomer to Wikipedia. Perhaps you don't realize that articles are written by many editors, not one. I have as much right to edit the article as you do, and if you disagree with my edits, you can challenge them and make changes, as indeed you have done. My previous set of edits was only meant as a start. Meanwhile I have added a large chunk of missing history as well as material about political and land issues from more reliable sources. I hope this makes things clearer. Looking forward to your positive contributions. Best,--Geewhiz (talk) 05:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The citations on Al-Eizariya did not come from a travel book. How am I suppose to Assume Good Faith when you say you delete things from travel books, when the source you deleted didn't come from a travel book? Do you see why someone might be suspicious of your intentions, when you justify deleting material from an article for no reason, vaguely mention "travel guides" which have no relevance to what you deleted, and then make misstatements about it? Solntsa90 (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(P.S: as far as "following you around wikipedia", I don't do that, I just simply keep a look out for certain users who give me a reason to check their edits, and what do you know? the majority of my corrective edits stay.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solntsa90 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Asaf Romirowsky
Hi, I'm an WP:OTRS volunteer. Pursuant to an OTRS communication from Mr. Romirowsky, I have undid your revert as a possible violation of WP:BLP and WP:BURDEN. Please don't re-add "Israeli" without discussing on the talk page first (it's redundant anyway considering the rest of the article). For the same reason, I have also declined a request to describe him as "American" in the lead sentence. Removing the nationality was a compromise intended to satisfy all parties. ~Amatulić (talk) 11:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, every source cited here describes him as Israeli, with one exception - his PR bio. So the argument about BLP violation is nonsense. If you ask me, the whole article should be deleted. He may refuse to be called Israeli, but his only claim to fame is being Israeli and thus booted off some panel. Apart from that he is completely non-notable--Geewhiz (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
The sources don't explicitly say he's Israeli, but rather imply it by describing his military service. In that sense, it's WP:OR for Wikipedia to assert it outright. My examination of those sources was what convinced me to compromise between opposing assertions of nationality by eliminating the nationality altogether from the lead.
It is common for a person to be both American and Israeli. That's likely the case here, so it would be inappropriate for Wikipedia to choose only one.
Aside from that, I agree with you about notability. I wouldn't object to the article being proposed for deletion, but I suspect it would survive simply because of the coverage. If the coverage can be shown to apply to WP:ONEEVENT then that might be a valid deletion rationale. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, as you can see from the article, this cemetery, along with Sheikh Badr Cemetery, was established as a temporary cemetery in 1948, when access to Har HaZeisim was blocked. It is now classified as a "closed cemetery" and no more burials are approved there. There has been talk of building on the adjacent land formerly belonging to the original Shaare Zedek Hospital (overlooking Yitzhak Ben Zvi Blvd.), but this cemetery will likely be preserved, since the graves of the Dushinsky Rebbe, his son, the rosh yeshiva of Kol Torah, and Dr. Moshe Wallach are still here and the family doesn't want them moved. Last year, someone took steps to demarcate the cemetery grounds by erecting a perimeter fence with a coded lock (the code to open the gate is printed on a nearby sign). Best, Yoninah (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are engaging in foruming, please revert, article talk pages are not for nonsensical rants, even more so, ones offensive to human nature such as this one. Sepsis II (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is foruming? The comments of others are as valid as your own. Strange, but I see no "rant" on that page. All I see is you deleting a large section of "talk," which is what talk pages are for. --Geewhiz (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:FORUM as I linked to above; ignorance is not a valid excuse for disrupting editing. I have a feeling you would be able to identify a rant if it included statements on how Palestine has the right to annex parts of Israel or how Israel is a terrorist state. Sepsis II (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you have pegged me wrong. My work on Wikipedia consists of adding reliable, sourced information in good English to articles on a wide variety of subjects. I have never spent my time going through talk pages to delete comments left by others, while labeling them nonsensical rants, no matter what side of the political spectrum they are on.--Geewhiz (talk) 05:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stop using WP:Forum as a stick to beat other users. My suggestion for an addition to Two State Solution, a locked article, was posted with a summary of a source representing an important POV (a POV acknowledged across most of the Israeli political spectrum, even including members the far-left Meretz party). First, you responded sarcastically and dismissively, so in order to answer your criticism, I was forced to explain that Israel and the Palestinians do not have equivalent prerogatives because the Palestinians have repeatedly lost militarily to Israel and since they show no signs of offering a serious challenge to the IDF within the foreseeable future. Therefore, as Israel is the side surrendering land to a weaker and historically hostile group, it would be a total abdication of the primary responsibility of a government if the security situation were to deteriorate as a results as a result of negotiations that ignored Israeli military concerns and then led to increased terrorism. The PA does not have any legitimate right to demand that Israel demilitarize, since it does not control territory that it plans to cede to Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.83.168 (talk) 23:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Am I supposed to know you? Why are you asking me to do the work? This is a "free encyclopedia" that "anyone" can edit. Perhaps you should contact User: Sepsis II, who will surely agree to provide the "other side" of the story in keeping with Sandstein's new decree that anyone who edits a Wikipedia article is obligated to write for both sides.--Geewhiz (talk) 07:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ha, now I get it. Sepsis/Hulda (or one of their buddies) has now opened a sock puppet account to make further insinuations against me. Clever.--Geewhiz (talk) 05:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!
Thanks for the barnstar! I'm naught but a humble excavator though. :p Also, I spent the last few days working on that article with the sources available in our Archaeology Library, so if there's anything that could be done to improve it further, I'd love it (a citation needed tag or two would be great). I want to get it to FA status at some point. :D (summary: opposite of WP:OWNERSHIP, I want the article to be as good as possible in accordance with the rules) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 1 Tevet 5774 20:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
November/December ARBPIA Arbitration Enforcement result
I have just closed the open AE case with the following statement:
'Closing. There is consensus of not entirely neutral viewpoint, but not that the bias is sufficiently off-center to be actionable. Gilabrand will be notified that their edits are under heightened scrutiny due to their personal opinions and editing trends on these topics, and that moderation and neutrality will be helpful to avoid further investigations as to whether their edits are becoming single purpose, soapboxing, or battleground type edits and subject to the Arbcom sanctions.'
As is noted in the extensive discussion, there is a widespread consensus that you are editing in the ARBPIA area with an evident bias, though the range of opinions of how strong that bias is are from minor (tending to slant a content decision) to actionable (an editing pattern which violates community standards and/or the ARBPIA sanctions). A consensus existed that a minor bias is not grounds for action, though obviously at some point it would become so.
You have been around for a long time, you have been both productively editing and sanctioned before for less productive editing. Undoubtedly you learned from the sanctions, and your editing in this area shows a much more moderate approach. I would like to remind you personally and as an administrator and sometime AE admin that if you do go much further into the grey area, another AE case and sanctions are likely if not inevitable. You have some rope to work with in editing this area, but if you wander too far it will hang you.
I encourage you to edit as neutrally as possible, and look to some of the commenters' suggestions that you propose possibly controversial edits in this area on article talk pages in a more consistent manner, rather than making ones you might be accused of bias over and letting normal revert/discuss cycles even things out.
You have been and will remain under heightened scrutiny because of your history and opinions. Don't let that stop you from editing constructively, but be aware there are many people looking over your shoulder. Try to find the most constructive and neutral way forwards.
Hi Gila, I haven't seen your head above the parapet much recently, the recent AE case aside. I hope that's a good thing. Certainly, as I said there, your contributions are many and valuable, but you seem to get into hot water when it comes to certain topics around the Arab-Israeli conflict. I'm fairly well read on the history, so I can perfectly understand why both sides have strong feelings and why the topic area on Wikipedia contains so much acrimony. What I wanted to say was that you're a valuable editor, and it would be a great shame of Wikipedia lost those excellent contributions you make to less toxic articles just because you couldn't keep a grip on your temper. We all have our biases, but as encyclopaedists, we have to do our best not to let them influence our writing. So, please, keep up the good work you do, but try not to let your personal opinions affect your contributions—or just leave the toxic subject area alone. You're clearly not just another brainless POV pusher, so don't keep getting yourself dragged to AE. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering why you the last month have started calling me "Hulda" (like here, and here), when I knew that you earlier knew that my name was "Huldra".
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Samaria may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
q=arabs%20samaria&f=true The Fall of Samaria: An Historical and Archaeological Study, Bob Becking]</ref>
You might not know where Qal'at Bustra actually is, and ignorance is not a crime. But you shouldn't write your ignorance into articles. It isn't on the border, it is a few hundred meters inside Lebanon. According to Israeli maps. Whose "political goals" are served by denying simple facts? Zerotalk09:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the request for a source, what are you looking for exactly ? If it's source that verifies that Palestine is treated as a "country" by a relevant source to confirm that its presence in the 'country =' attribute of the infobox complies with WP:V, how about A Guide to Countries of the World, page 245, Oxford University Press, ISBN978-0199580729 ? The word "country" strikes me as a rather non-contentious way to describe Palestine, so I'm not sure what you are after. Sean.hoyland - talk17:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not support original research. Please bring a source that states Ariel University is located in Palestine. Hope this makes things clearer. Best, --Geewhiz (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may also be interested in this, written a little while ago by one of your friends: "WP:OR states that: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article." Dumping material into the article using sources that have no relation to the topic of the article like this is not acceptable. Dlv999 (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ulpan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Baka (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.
Hello, Gilabrand.
I noted your new page, Rimon School of Jazz and Contemporary Music, in the NewPagesFeed. Excuse me for saying, but it's let down by the references, ie. no publisher, date, access date etc. Have you ever considered leaving them as Bare URLs, then using Reflinks to fill them in for you? Just a thought. This news page [1] mentions the school, if it is of any use. Regards, 220ofBorg09:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. I'm more of a content editor and not so good at the technical things. If you can fix it up or add info, please do.--Geewhiz (talk) 09:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have reflinked the refs. Interestingly, I didn't have to go back to bare URLs as I thought. Sometimes it doesn't work if you have a title linked to the source. Might need to 'read the manual'. 220ofBorg12:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
your edits on the Volcani pages, and two questions
First, thank you for the edits. I didn't much like the "peacock" tone myself, but I was asked not to change already approved text, so you gave me a great reason this needed to be done!
Questions:
1. Regarding the change you made in outlining - I understand why you added another heading level (makes it easier to edit and read), but if I add this level where needed for symmetry, there will be over two dozen low level paragraphs in the table of contents (TOC), which seems like overkill. Therefore, I removed those subheadings you added (I hope this isn't considered rude, if yes, I apologize; I am new to Wikipedia editing). Then it occurred to me that I can probably define the level reported in the TOC, and therefore keep the subsections, add symmetry, and not add length to the TOC. Is this indeed possible? If yes, I'd be glad if you'd tell me how to define the TOC.
2. I added some references, but this will take a long time to complete, as there are so many statements! As you can see, the references I added are (virtually) all to published scientific papers. The problem is, I could probably add 100's and still not exhaust the supply. So I hope a token one or two for each major statement will suffice. In your experience, will this pass muster?
Thanks! e1baa340@opayq.com (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gilabrand, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
To enforce an arbitration decision, and for sock-puppetry in an area under discretionary sanctions and POV-pushing. See AE thread. This block will run concurrently to the indefinite SPI block as an arbitration enforcement action., you have been blocked from editing for a period of one year. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "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." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.
Further to this, I am indefinitely banning you from making any edit connected to Palestine or the Arab-Israeli conflict anywhere on Wikipedia. This topic ban will run concurrently with the blocks (meaning that any such edits you make through sockpuppets will be reverted as being made in violation of this ban) and will continue once you are unblocked. To appeal the topic ban, you will need to go to AE after you're unblocked. To appeal the AE block, use the {{unblock}} template and ask the reviewing admin to copy your statement to AE. I would suggest, as a ball-park figure, that six months would be an appropriate amount of time passed before I would be wiling to consider lifting the AE block. If you evade the block in the meantime, it will be reset. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gila. Would you mind not changing the map sizes to 100? It becomes a bit too small at that size, and also leaves the infobox looking a bit odd due to the space on either side; 250 was set as the standard size so as to fit nicely in it.
In my opinion the 250 mapsize looks terrible. It is big and clunky and is basically an empty map with only one designation on it that fills mostly empty pages. Decreasing the size makes the location of the place in the country much more visible. I think it should be changed globally. I have undertaken to add images and fill out information on these ugly, uninformative pages. In fact, I don't see anyone else active on those pages who seems to care one way or another.--Geewhiz (talk) 04:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jackmcbarn: I left a note on your talk page a while ago, perhaps you missed it.
Gila, yes I know it is clunky, but unfortunately I think it's better than the 100px version (until we get the old map format back). I had been undoing your changes where I had seen them up until a few days ago. Perhaps @Ynhockey: would like to comment? Number5712:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just like my previous maps better :) that pretty much sums it up. I don't mind if someone else creates the maps, but we don't need a map of all of Israel for each location IMO. —Ynhockey(Talk)11:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
![{\displaystyle {\Bigl [}{\begin{smallmatrix}\mathrm {T} &\mathrm {*} &\mathrm {*} \\\mathrm {*} &\mathrm {*} &\mathrm {*} \\\mathrm {F} &\mathrm {F} &\mathrm {*} \end{smallmatrix}}{\Bigr ]}}](https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/32d8bb25b663aacd92e78e5d79f6e21f1c1e0fbe)
