User talk:Gilabrand/Archive 6

Your photography

I just want to let you know how great I find your photography. Each photograph you have submitted to Wikipedia has a air of beauty and professionalism about it. Nice job! 24.27.105.150 (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really, truly appreciate that.--Gilabrand (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beit Hanina

There are many different figures about the population of Beit Hanina, and it isn't clear exactly what should and what shouldn't be considered "Beit Hanina". Israeli figures from the Jerusalem municipality put the population of that part of Beit Hanina at more than 20,000. Why don't you join the discussion instead of inserting figures from unconfirmed sources? The label is meant to caution the reader that the material may be unreliable and is there for a reason. Those labels may be ugly, but they are better than misleading text.--128.139.104.49 (talk) 10:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds bizarre to me. I would think it would be the other way around. What purpose would be served by a lower number?--Gilabrand (talk) 10:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything serves a hidden purpose. The fact is that there are several different definitions and several different figures. I don't see anything bizarre about that. Anyway, the source you added has no credentials and I see no reason why it should be trusted. I have a feeling that you wouldn't cite anything else from that particular page.--128.139.104.49 (talk) 11:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So why don't you put the figures you have on the page itself, citing your reference, and note the fact that there are different estimates? --Gilabrand (talk) 11:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem

Hi, Gilabrand. Nice job copyediting this article. On the talk page, I suggested that the second paragraph of "1967 unification" be merged into "Palestinian claims". Also I agree that events that took place after 1967 should be put in the former section, as they are part of history, not claims. What do you think? -- Nudve (talk) 07:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nudve. Unbelievable what a mess this article has become since it achieved FA status and I stopped looking...--Gilabrand (talk) 08:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian Exodus 1949 to 1956

Please do not edit closed AfDs, and do not attack other editors.  Sandstein  18:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

12 hour block

You have been blocked for disruptive editing in articles that are covered by the ArbCom discretionary sanctions. In future, please use the talk page to establish consensus instead of edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) 01:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of Chamin into Cholent

I have put a tag to discuss the proposed merger. Please participate in the discussion. --Zlerman (talk) 07:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, merge - Chamin and Cholent are one and the same. Cholent is the Yiddish term, which is the most widely used, whereas Chamin is Hebrew and mainly used in Israel (primarily by Sephardi/Mizrahi families).--Gilabrand (talk) 07:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR, subscription barriers, etc

I was surprised by this strange edit summary.

I had a quick look round policy pages for any indication that "JSTOR is not acceptable on Wikipedia", and found nothing. Indeed, I would be surprised if that were so, since JSTOR sources are usually of the highest quality, reputable peer-reviewed journals.

Verifiability does not require accessibility by all, only that it is possible for somebody to verify the source. Again, book sources are generally better than web or news sources (and are preferred in featured articles), and anybody with acccess to a good library can verify them. Still verifiable, even though it's more trouble than just checking something on the web. I don't see JSTOR as a major problem, as there are plenty of students and academics on wikipedia who will have direct access through university libraries. In any case, the work in question by Khalidi can be checked in (or through) a public library, just like any other book reference.
--NSH001 (talk) 09:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, just noticed your response on the Jerusalem talk page. Glad to see you've changed your mind, and sorry to have disturbed you.
--NSH001 (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vs. edit

Hi Gila, You made some deletions without explanation recently that constituted vandalism, and I would like to ask you to stop doing so and to start trying to work with editors -- and edits -- you disagree with. The appropriate response to historical facts you do not like is to buttress them with info you do like, not to delete them in their entirety or delete key words so that they become inaccurate.

  • 1. Liftaa did not move, it was expelled. This has been documented by reputable sources. Your edit made the move sound like deciding to go to LA after living in NY too long. To call the Liftaa story a move, deleting the "trucking" element, is vandalism.
  • 2. You changed, "...Palestinians from Haifa left partially as a result of a combination of a campaign of threats from the Zionist leadership and encouragement by Arab leaders in the region to leave, but mostly were forced out by the shelling of Arab villages and neighborhoods by Jewish soldiers.[5][6]" to: "the Arabs left Haifa due to a combination of Zionist threats, encouragement by Arab leaders and the shelling of Arab villages and neighborhoods."[41][42] Morris reported that indeed they "mostly were forced out by the shelling of Arab villages and neighborhoods by Jewish soldiers." To say that this was just one factor among several is simply untrue.
These edits transformed facts into semi-facts, or even lies. Please avoid this.
Finally, you may not have realized it, but I did not permanently delete the mufti quote -- in fact I had no intention of doing so -- I put its placement up for discussion. I found it supremely frustrating that rather than coming to the talk page to explain your point of view, you simply reverted. Please try to engage your fellow editors in discussion rather than acting totally unilaterally, as this provokes edit warring and creates a very bad mood. Thanks LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please also do not accuse me of pushing an agenda. I am certainly not agenda-pushing any more than you are, and truly do my best to balance NPOV, whether or not you recognize that. Give me the benefit of the doubt: my only agenda is to see Palestinian views represented as much as Israeli ones (not to disappear Israeli views, many of which I share). I am transparent about this, not hiding it.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insults plus vandalism equals

I used no names. If you think you and Aaronshavit are in the stated group, that is your prerogative. I added sourced material for all my additions to the article. If there is anyone who has been vandalizing the article it is you. I was one of the editors who worked on it and brought it to FA status. It was far from perfect then, but it was the product of many months of labor and concessions. Since that time it has become a vicious piece of propaganda with one side of the equation commandeering every aspect. My attempts at balance are being challenged by the likes of you, whose record as a Wikipedia editor is far from sterling. Your comments on the talk page are not "nice," as I have already pointed out. Again, this harping on the idea of being entitled to your opinion shows that you are using Wikipedia as a vehicle for your views. That is problematic.--Gilabrand (talk) 06:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely best to take a break from the dispute for a few days; further interaction at this point is likely to spiral than lead to amicable resolution. El_C 06:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please give this talk page a break, LamaLoLeshLa, at least for today. El_C 07:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lehi

Your further comments here would be appreciated. Thanks, TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tafsik v maspik

Please desist from making personal value judgments on my editing as you have done multiple times here. It is my right to remove my comments from talk-pages. I do not know how toi strike comments and perhaps should learn, but that is immaterial - it is not for you to chastise me in such a fashion. Again, if you continue this, I will seek arbitration, or, to have you blocked according to WP:civility. This is the last I have to say on this matter.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You will have me blocked? Maybe you have a friend who drives a bulldozer who can do it even better--Gilabrand (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Yikes. If you weren't being incivil before (and I don't think you were), you sure are now. -- tariqabjotu 15:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

Regarding this edit, and others, please see my comment at Talk:Jerusalem#References. Properly formatting a reference is extremely easy - just cut and paste from another ref on the page, and replace the content. Please take the time to do this, as inserting non-formatted refs (just a link, for instance) looks bad, and was in fact cited as a reason to remove FA status from the article. okedem (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

24 hour block

You have been blocked under the ArbCom discretionary sanctions for a personal attack here. In future, please comment on the content not the contributor. PhilKnight (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Library of Israel

I added a reference in Talk:National Library of Israel. I hope it will do. DGtal (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brittanica is using your picture

Brittanica is using your picture (Image:RamleviewS.jpg) in their Ramle article (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/490687/Ramla#default). While they are crediting you in accordance with the license (Attribution-Share Alike 3.0) they are not stating that the picture is Creative Commons which violates the license. Technically they are violating your copyright and you can ask them to stop. Jon513 (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jon, I had a look and it seemed to me that the license is listed. In what way is it a copyright violation? I can't claim anything aside from having my name cited, can I? Anyway, thanks for letting me know!

--Gilabrand (talk) 04:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you are right. The blue on block text was hard for me to see, but now that I look closely I see that you are right. Jon513 (talk) 10:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "star" in the Jewish Barnstar

Hi Gila: Since you are very much involved with photos and graphics, your input would be appreciated at the discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#The Jewish Barnstar concerning what type of Star of david is best for the Template:The Jewish Barnstar. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Communication

Please refrain from making accusations, especially in the absence of evidence, as you did when you claimed that I have deleted passages I don;t like, as you say, "from the moment you set foot in Wikipedia." This a baseless charge. I would like you to know that of all the editors at Wikipedia, I find you the absolute least pleasant to work with because of your unwillingness to assume good faith and your tendency to jump on every edit you disagree with with a consistently uncivil and even nasty approach to quote-unquote communication. I wish this could change. This is my final say on the matter for the time being.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurva Synagogue

Dear Gilabrand,

I was reading about Hurva Synagogue and this edit perplexed me.[1] The link you cited as a reference is about ecology (More endangered than rain forests? by Zafrir Rinat),[2] not the Rabbi you were discussing in the Wikipedia Hurva Synagogue article. Is it possible that you linked to the wrong article in the ref?

Regards, dvdrw 22:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very sharpsighted of you...I don't know how I did that. Must have had a few articles open at the time. Anyway, I have fixed it now.--Gilabrand (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non english references

Hi, you reverted my changes and added references in a foreigner language into Chocolate-coated marshmallow treats. It will be hard to verify that the sources are correct, maybe you could find an English reference instead or translate any direct quote (see WP:NONENG)? Thanks - 83.254.214.192 (talk) 11:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was there before. I didn't add it, I just restored it along with the others, not realizing it was to a Hebrew site, as well as a dead link. So you were right to delete it. I will try to find an English reference. --Gilabrand (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Gilbert

Dear Gila,
I ask you to refrain to destroy Ashley work on this article.
Most of your edits are in controdiction to WP:NPOV
I will ask you to edit the talk page first and to discuss with him first.
Thank you for your understanding. Ceedjee (talk) 08:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ceedjee, I have not destroyed anything. All my edits are solidly sourced, and I have brought another source that is critical of Gilbert (Tom Segev). So I really don't understand what the problem is. You yourself say that OR is against Wikipedia policy. His quibbling about this number versus that number is not the kind of information that is added to a biography page. --Gilabrand (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mahmoud darwish

I have written an answer to you in the discussion, my answer is long and messy but basically it says:

  1. ID card is given to residents not citizens.
  2. I have 3 sources (2 available online, links in article discussion):
    1. An interview held in 1969 and published in zu haderech (hebrew). Read the preface to the interview which was written after Darwishe's death it has additional info.
    2. An Editorial of al-itihad in feb 71 (arabic, not available online).
    3. An interview with the guardian published in 2002.
  3. You have your own sources, but i think they are mistaken, both sources are articles published after his death and weren't written by Darwishe's biographers and they don't state their own sources.

In my opinion Darwish was stripped off / gave up his residency (i.e. ID card) and not his citizenship, that was after joining PLO and not after leaving to USSR. I will wait sometime for your response and if nothing dramatic happens i'll change the article later.

Please answer me in the article discussion not here. --Histolo2 (talk) 10:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magdiel

Shalom, Gilabrand! It strikes me that the Magdiel page at present doesn't adequately represent the following possible content:

  • Magdiel as an Edomite clan and a modern-day youth aliyah village are under a single page name.
  • Magdiel the moshava in the Sharon has a fairly extensive page in the Hebrew Wikipedia whose content is not reflected in the English, other than your previous edits in which you apparently added it and then replaced it with the youth village.
  • It seems more likely that the youth village is associated with and takes its name from the moshava rather than the Edomite clan of Briangotts' page creation.

I'd appreciate knowing your further thoughts on the above before I proceed (based on the Hebrew). -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cholent

Please bear with me: the entire article is still work in process and I am trying to add sources and references as I work on cleaning language, logic, and structure (which in itself is a mouthful). For now, I am restoring the paragraph that you have deleted because it contains apparently important information on cholent not being eaten on weekdays. We may delete it eventually, but not just now. OK? --Zlerman (talk) 04:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see that you are going for wholesale revision that eliminates with one bold stroke much of what was put in ages ago by many contributors. I withdraw and leave the article in your hands. Good luck. --Zlerman (talk) 04:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is always a work in process. This stuff is not encyclopedic and it has NOT been in the article for ages. It is folklore at best - the product of OR, probably by a bored yeshiva student. There are no laws about not eating cholent during the week, and the fact that someone in America adds tofu to their cholent is not encyclopedic. You can add whatever you want to your cholent, but this is not a cookbook. What is important is conveying what cholent is and the reasons that Jews all over the world eat it. The Karaite issue is not cholent specific. If information is unsourced, it doesn't belong in the article. When you find RS sources, put it back in. Wikipedia is not a catch-all for trivia.--Gilabrand (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: Bank Leumi and England

Ooops! Tomertalk 16:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, no harm done...LOL--Gilabrand (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem stone

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

Beit Jala

I'm not sure what you mean. Note 7 (Associated Press) was not touched and the Note 8 (Jerusalem Post) is still there and backs the entire C-M tensions section as it did previously. --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, the Associated Press is described in this new version as representing the view of "Israeli journalists." In addition, several statements now have an anti-Israeli comment tacked on that is clearly the editor's "interpretation" and not in the source itself. The tenor of the article has changed as a result of these edits. The attempt to whitewash problems in Beit Jalla by accusing Israel of inventing them is unacceptable.--Gilabrand (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew literature

The Hebrew article was deleted a few days ago. HaGamal 14:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How could there be no Hebrew article on Hebrew literature??? I don't get it.--Gilabrand (talk) 15:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beats me. Sometimes Hebrew Wikipedian focus too much on The Simpsons' episodes, fighting with each other and voting in "AfD", instead of writing the really important articles, like Hebrew literature. HaGamal 17:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ecce homo

Hi, Back on May 18, you removed this article from Category:Biblical phrases with the edit summary "not biblical". Was this an isolated incident, or have you removed other New Testament phrases from the category? Johnbod (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undid your photo removal

Gilabrand, I undid a photo removal you made at Participants in wedding ceremonies. You removed a photo of two grooms from a gay wedding and your edit summary said: put gay pictures on a page about gay weddings. I hope you are aware that the entry is not about heterosexual weddings exclusively but simply weddings. Likewise I'm not entirely sure why you chose to remove the photo of an Asian bride from because there were already "enough photos in the gallery" but then proceeded to add another different photo [3]. I think some people would agree that having photos of wedding participants that aren't white, Western and heterosexual adds depth to the entry. You perhaps don't agree? I welcome a discussion on the talk page. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 12:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Paul Newman

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I believe the cateogories should stand, if he self identifed as an Jew and had a Jewish parent then it should be respected. It prehaps doesn't change the status of halakha, and the relgious matter with Rabbis, and prehaps different streams of Judaism, but he can still be classified as a ethnic Jew if he so thought of himself as one and was of a Jewish father. Concensus on Wikipeida is that defining Jewishness should not be done under halakha only, that would not be NPOV (see Who_is_a_Jew#The_controversy). Cheers. שנה טובה ומתוקה Epson291 (talk) 05:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL I'm not about to go ballistic over this. Of course his semi-Jewishness and Jewish identity are worthy of inclusion in the article, but I still think that it is misleading (and POV) to classify him as Jewish when technically he was not. Whatever my/your feelings about rabbis and their rulings, they remain the authority on who is Jewish - not editors on Wikipedia. Shana Tova to you and yours. Best, Gila --Gilabrand (talk) 07:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gila, I agree with you he is not Jewish, but all I am saying is that if he identified as a Jew, has a Jewish father, and the largest Jewish denomination in the United States would regard him as such, it is not right to remove the category. Epson291 (talk) 03:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karmiel

Your removal of well-sourced information on the Karmiel page is simply unacceptable. That you find that "the whole story sounds fishy to me" is simply no reason to remove it when it is well sourced! I have never seen anybody questioning the factual accuracy of Sabri Jiryis work. (except you).

That the "whole history" of Karmiel is still not recounted in the article, well, that maybe so. But then; please amend that by finding new sources/new information to add to the history. Don´t use Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT. Thank you, Huldra (talk) 07:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe it sounds fishy. Since I have not read the book, my assumption is that the material is summarized poorly. All I have done is copyedit - not "removed" - what is clearly an overly-detailed account of a single issue in the pre-history of Karmiel which was taking over the whole article and being inaccurately presented as "the history of Karmiel." New sources & information are indeed needed, and when I find appropriate material I will add it. --Gilabrand (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: Image:YadhashmonaS.jpg

Image:YadhashmonaS.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Yad Hashmona guesthouse.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Yad Hashmona guesthouse.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Israel

Please take a look now. Thanks Epson291 (talk) 07:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very good!--Gilabrand (talk) 08:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Etrog editings

Hi! This is about your recent editings in the articles Greek citron & Etrog. In the first you removed links to the important antique discriptions of the Pitamed citron which they call the "Jewish citron", and are very important for the comprehencon of the article as well as to historical and agricultural knowledge of the subject. In Etrog you wrote that green etrogim are kosher, I would like to know based on what, you take your self the right to argue with the Shulchan Aruch and Nosei Keilim. If you have some reason, are maybe you are would like to reform the Halacha, it cannot be done in Wikipedia since here is not the place for original research.

Perhaps you are unaware of this, but green etrogs are widely used in Israel - and they come with the same rabbinic authorization seals as yellow ones. The issue is not as straightforward as you make it out to be. I can bring a dozen sources that describe the etrog as being yellow OR green. Here's a summary of the rabbinic controversy that might interest you: http://www.torah.org/advanced/haaros/5757/kiseit97.html

Shalom, Gila--Gilabrand (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reference. The source reads that even when it is sure that it would turn yellow naturally, there is contraversy about if the green is considered to be a מראה פסול. If it is not sure about if it will turn yellow naturally it is probably פסול לכל הדעות. The supervision on the boxes is usually only about its being ungrafted. It is impossible to give certification on cleanliness and other problems, since blemishes can happen even after sealing.

BeKovod ve'Hokoro - Shoteh (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

etymology of Ramallah

Hi Gilabrand, you've added on July 9 that Ramallah literally means "height of God". I've been trying to find the Arabic word, but I've been pretty unsuccessful. Could you tell me where you learned about the "height of God" translation--maybe that offers a trace to the Arabic word? Thanks a lot, Ibn Battuta (talk) 00:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference for the translation. See here: http://www.ramallah.ps/etemplate.aspx?id=81. "Ram" also means high or height in Hebrew.--Gilabrand (talk) 04:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Food

The never-ending debate over Hummus has once again fired up. As someone who has previously contributed to Middle Eastern food articles, I thought I would inform you that a debate has popped up in regards to the inclusion of material with questionable terminology. --Nsaum75 (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nsaum, for alerting me to the continuing efforts by certain people to commandeer Wikipedia. The debate is quite ridiculous - and appalling in its wider connotations. Confronting editors who deliberately introduce contentious claims with an anti-Israel/anti-Jewish agenda in the guise of "scholarship" is an uphill battle. The administrators who bend over backwards to appease them in the interest of some warped idea of political correctness are also to blame. If you still have the strength to haggle with these birdbrains, hats off to you.--Gilabrand (talk) 06:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if its strength, maybe lack of better things to do. I do get tired of being told that Israel "stole", "pillaged", "molested", or "appropriated" certain foodstuffs that have been eaten for centuries (and presumably evolved as a food) by Jews and Arabs who lived side-by-side. One of these days someone is going to catch me in a bad mood and when they launch into how Israel is "pillaging" all Arab foodstuffs -- I might just reply with "Sure..Israel has appropriated Arab foodstuffs, just like the Arabs appropriated the Israelites' G-d". I'm sure that will get me banned from Wiki though... sigh... --Nsaum75 (talk) 10:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an idea...

...take a look at an editor's contribs before you make snide remarks in an edit summary.

Here's another thought: numbered inline citations listed at the end of an article are called "Notes". Sometimes, when they're at the foot of the page, they're called "Footnotes", sometimes when they're at the end of an article, they're called "Endnotes", but they're "Notes" either way. "References" is a general term, "Notes" is a specific one.

Please do not revert again. Happy editing. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word "reflist" means a list of references. I will revert as many times as needed to get articles in shape. There are far too many notes/references/external sources/outside links/extra readings/bibliographies and other categories on Wikipedia.--Gilabrand (talk) 07:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milk and Meat

Re: Milk and meat in Jewish law, was it that it was written from an academic essay standpoint that led you to alter it past a point of recognition from its previous incarnation? :) DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 06:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what you mean about being past any point of recognition. I edit for factual accuracy and clarity, and the same holds for this page, which was previously garbled and yes - not phrased in encyclopedic English. If you have a specific problem, please let me know.--Gilabrand (talk) 08:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The kishka dispute

Perhaps you could visit this and add your vote below Badagnani at the very bottom of the section? Thank you. --Zlerman (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created a second kishka article, so please don't panic when you see the existing version of the old one. There are now two articles that can coexist peacefully with sausage for all. I went ahead and disambiguated both on the kishka page, and I even put the Jewish one first. I hope this satisfies your concerns so we can move forward on building a better encyclopedia. I used the existing article for the broader article because of its much longer edit history. I also added some notes on both article discussion pages with some suggestions for improvements. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebbe Nachman of Breslov

Hi again. I have decided to submit this article to peer review in order to qualify for Featured Article status. I value your comments. Would you kindly click on the above link and add your comments or suggestions? Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for going over the article with a fine-tooth comb! I appreciate your alerting me to all the places that need references (I can provide them all). Kol tuv, Yoninah (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to be of help.--Gilabrand (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greek citron comment

If you mean me, just go ahead! I only mind when important information is falsified. I will correct if it happened a mistake, hope you don't mind. Just be awear that somebody changed some details recently about the Blood Libel, it is important that you see one version before, too. shoteh (talk) 04:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stub templates

Hi,

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I'd been adding stub templates because I thought the articles I tagged, like Ilan Leibovitch, are short articles that could be expanded. I wasn't meaning to question their notability - all those people are clearly notable, and the articles are appropriately referenced. I just thought that they seemed pretty short - a few paragraphs isn't much to say about the whole of a person's life. Someone like Haim Be'er, who's published several novels, surely deserves more than just a brief overview.

However, after reading the Wikipedia guideline WP:STUB, I see I was probably wrong here - it says there that 'A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject'. In that case, these articles were not stubs, and I should have been using a different template instead. I apologise for that, and I'll use the stub template more correctly in future. Thanks for the heads-up. Terraxos (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly you are right about articles needing more substance - there is so much work to be done, the mind boggles...But after all my goofing off from work to build up articles, having them branded "stubs" was a little disconcerting. LOL--Gilabrand (talk) 07:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mevaseret photo

What I don't understand is why so insist on being right ! did you think that you may be wrong after all ??!? It seems you have indeed taken the photo from the bottom of Reches Halilim but your photo includes the houses of Ramot neighborhood only !! you can't have the houses of mevaseret and ramot in the same photom from this perspective... not possible ! I think it's insulting that you ignore my argument ! I have no alternative photo but a not correct one shouldn't be there also. Oferschw (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Oh.. we've been through this. I understand, yes, we've been through this indeed! you have proven again that you are so stubborn and unwilling to accept any remarks on your geographical incompetence, that's a shame and makes you look even more stupid ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oferschw (talk • contribs) 08:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your insults will not help you. They only reflect back on you. Unless you provide a better photo, this one will remain.--Gilabrand (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but unless you check this photo issue for real, I'll keep on removing it.

Unless you bring another photo that illustrates the neighborhood better, I will keep restoring it. Don't you have anything better to do with your time, Mr. Oferschw??--Gilabrand (talk) 09:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well.. yesterday I was on the bus back home from Jerusalem to Mevaseret-Zion, I looked to the right towards Ramot neighborhood and surprisingly what I saw was exactly your photo - in the middle of the photo there is some synagogue dome - I recognized the exact building from the window. I brought you a proof here, you still keep on restoring a photo which is definitely not of Mevaseret-Zion, admitting you're wrong is not a sin ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oferschw (talk • contribs) 09:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kabul

I have time problems at the moment. I may just have to wait until he runs out of steam...

Telaviv1 (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reprisal attacks

Your lead is not appropriate, and I'm protesting. Even the bolding itself is POV. It is too short and doesn't sum up the issue properly. I am going to restore the longer version unless you can provide good reason as to why the old version is inappropriate. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read my earlier remarks on the discussion page, you would know why. In fact, looking at the article now, it such a muddled mess I don't want anything more to do with it. As for anyone's hopes of it being a "good article," forget it. Starting from the arguments over the title, it is a lost cause. --Gilabrand (talk) 08:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm. it's a mess largely because so many people have come in from seeing it on the news and made less than productive contributions to the content. That's not to say you were one of them, but I certainly sympathise. I don't want anything to with it either. I've even gone to the measure of preserving an earlier version that wasn't so muddled. Anyhow. That part in bolding was unqualified; asserting straight off the bat that Hamas was involved is not neutral. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shlom bayit

Just to let you know that a consensus discussion is underway about changing Shlom bayit to Shalom bayit. Please add your opinion at Talk:Shlom bayit#Requested move. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Etrog rivision

Thank you for revising the Etrog article to a more professional english, and correct style. I am reviewing your work, as to moniter the important information. I guess that you realized that there are some large bulky paragraphs that must be split, and that the graphic layout may be enhanced by placing some pictures at left, so that they don't cause the text to be shifted to their bottom.

As of now I would comment that the Etrog does not refer only to a single variety, nor to those varieties used for the ritual. Etrog is actually the common Hebrew name for all kinds of citron or citrus medica. Even a fingered citron is called Etrog haEtzaboth אתרוג האצבעות. You may enter also that Etrog in its Sephardic romanization is also the one adapted in Modern Hebrew. Thank again. shoteh (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confused

Thanks for your note, but why did you move the article from its common name to a name used by almost no-one, and then remove the citations referring to it by its common name? Please see WP:NAME. Jayjg (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umm Tuba

What would you think of moving Umm Tuba to Umm Tuba/Netofa, since the identity of Umm Tuba as the Biblical town of Netofa is established.Historicist (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Arab editors would go haywire. The information about Netofa belongs in a history section, and I have organized the material accordingly. To balance the article, more info on Umm Tuba today needs to be added.--Gilabrand (talk) 07:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi, Swastika References Being Purged from Syrian Social Nationalist Party

Would you mind having a look at the problem of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party's Nazi history and swastika flag being systematically deleted/vandalized? This removes an important aspect of neutrality from the article. References from many reliable sources are provided. See its talk page. The edits are being done by users with IP addresses from very similar domains. Thanks, Histopher Critchens (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]