Hi Gila! Just wondering why you deletedBab a-Zahara from the abovementioned template. It seems to be considered a neighborhood, and the article has since been created (translated from Hebrew wiki). Would you be opposed to it being put back? Thanks, Keyed In (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was no article on it for a very long time and I presumed it wasn't an operating neighborhood. You are welcome to restore it.--Gilabrand (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File copyright problem with File:YaaraminadavS.jpg
File Copyright problem
Thank you for uploading File:YaaraminadavS.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
Hi Gilabrand,
I see you've also been editing this article and you have made good changes and additions. I have a lot more to add on this topic too. I noticed you moved the picture of the Weizmann Institute back up to the top of the article from where I had placed it next to the section on Scientific Institutions. I agree that there isn't space to insert a picture of any more of those institutions right next to that section, but I'd like to ask you to consider moving it back for two reasons: the picture is most topically related to that section, and placing it next to the top section causes a large white space bewteen the top section and the next part of the article. Thanks, Chefallen (talk) 08:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this article needs a lot of work and I'm glad someone cares. The reason I put the photo there is because a photo in the introduction makes it more attractive to readers. A plain block of text is plain boring. If you have a more "embracing" photo that would fit, please add it, but I think this one is just fine to introduce the subject of "science and technology." --Gilabrand (talk) 08:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Argaman
Hello Gilabrand! I saw that you added a Hebrew interwiki link to Argaman (grape). While I don't understand that language, the presence of terms such as RGB and CMYK in that article makes me suspect it is an article on the colour "crimson" rather than the grape variety named after this colour? Could you possibly check if this iw link is really correct? Regards, Tomas e (talk) 15:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really an apology, but thank you. For future reference, try and keep accusations of POV/Bias to situations where you have a leg to stand on - for example, when you aren't accusing a jewish law student of being biased in their attempts to delete an Israeli law firm. Ironholds (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Topic bans
Hi. I'm not sure how to deal with topic bans but I wonder if your way is the correct one. I've posted a query about it at WP:ANI, you may want to check it out. I suggest both of us follow the guidelines given there. In the meantime I've reverted my restoration of the comments to avoid an edit war. CheersJeppiz (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
cook afd
Please do not continue to remove others comments. They are not "banned users" whose comments may be deleted. They are topic banned from I/P edits and if you feel that they are in violation of that topic ban you should go to WP:AE, not unilaterally removing others comments. Also, the 3RR applies to that page as well. nableezy - 21:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a clear cut case and either way the proper procedure if you feel they have violated the topic ban is to raise the issue at arbitration enforcement, not to unilaterally remove their edits. nableezy - 21:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Canadian Monkey (talk · contribs), G-Dett (talk · contribs), MeteorMaker (talk · contribs), Nickhh (talk · contribs), Nishidani (talk · contribs), NoCal100 (talk · contribs), and Pedrito (talk · contribs) are prohibited from editing any Arab-Israeli conflict-related article/talk page or discussing on the dispute anywhere else on the project." That seems pretty clear cut to me. --Gilabrand (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "clear cut" was in reference to whether or not that a journalist who writes about the conflict is part of the "Arab-Israeli conflict". And that does not even really matter, the point is that if you feel they have violated their topic bans you should go to WP:AE, not unilaterally remove their comments. nableezy - 21:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Just a brief courtesy note to mention that I filed an arbitration enforcement that reflects one or more diffs involving your edits (though I should point out you are certainly not the focus of the enforcement request). Seehere. I regret that it came to this, especially given that I was at the end of the day on the same side of the issue at the AfD as those editors I am now reporting. But as you know from my comments at the AfD, I was troubled by what I viewed as willful flouting of topic bans, and related editing activity. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is Gil Weinberg trying to update my own wikipedia page to focus on more relevant and new details. You just changed my edits, and since there is an npr piece today linking to it (actually airing right now - http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2009/12/robot_music_play_it_again_shim.html) I would greatly appriciate it if you can bring back my edits.
Sorry, but I do not know how else I can contact you, so I hope this is O.K
Thanks so much
gIL
Gilabrand,
It is really ridiculous that you don't let me edit my own page with relevant and important information. I don't know where you got the trivial and unimportant information you insist to bring back after deleting my edits. Who cares that I played piano since I was 7? I worked with Igal Bareket for less than a year when I was 20. The Musical Shaper and Beatbugs are old student projects that have no wikipedia (or other) reference since, well, they are old an not so important . All of these unimportant details (again, I have no idea where you got them) do not tell the story of what I'm doing.
Who are you to delete all my improtant and relevant edits and bring back the unimportant "play piano since he was 7" stuff? This is completely outrageous.
Please contact me ASAP because what you are doing signifies everything wrong about Wikipedia and I would like to discuss with you how this can be improved. My email is gilw@gatech.edu.
Gil Weinberg
Move
Regardless of your opinion, there needs to be discussion on the talk page first. If your claim that that is how it is referred to is true, why does "Northwest Airlines Flight 253" get five times as many google hits as "Christmas Day bombing attempt". Please bring the issue up at the talk page, and if the opinion is that the new title is better, then it can be moved. Grsz1106:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an accident, and my reasons for the move were spelled out in the summary. There is such a thing as editing using your brains. Most people looking for information have no idea what the flight number is, so Northwestern Flight &%^$## (or whatever number it is) is a STUPID name. But of course that's only my opinion and the opinion of a large number of newspaper editors. So you can do whatever you like. I don't care much one way or other. I was only trying to make it a more sensible article. --Gilabrand (talk) 07:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File copyright problem with File:ZeevrevC.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:ZeevrevC.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
I think we are both working towards a common goal in this article and I believe we have both made solid and helpful contributions to its development. I therefore ask you to tone down your belligerent and uncivil comments in the edit summaries, which I find offensive and discouraging, particularly when attached to material that I have added in good faith and based on reliable sources. Phrases like "delete nonsense" and sarcastic remarks like "copyedit for women's cooking magazine style" and "Ever heard of Turkish coffee & chai" are not conducive to working in a collaborative manner. Straightforward comments like "edit for clarity" or "removed incorrect information" and a referral to the Discussion page will be more effective in making this a more cooperative and productive undertaking.
Regards, -- Chefallen (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I offended you. I was not aware that you were the author/researcher. This article has been around for years, and I have worked on bits and pieces of it in the past. I assumed your contributions were recent, not the stuff I was copyediting. I will be more careful in the future. Bringing up the level of Israel/Palestine related articles is indeed an important mission. --Gilabrand (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the apology. I’m not necessarily the author/researcher for all the items you commented on but it is best to keep things civil regardless. I believe we are generally on the same page about developing this article so if we have any issues, let’s take them to the Discussion page to work out rather than the edit summaries. -- Chefallen (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File source problem with File:Mordechai RotenbergS.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Mordechai RotenbergS.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILYsock(TALK)20:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mordechai Weingarten
Dear Gilabrand, I accept your decision to remove the picture of Weingarten's friend the Armenian Patriach. But could I ask if you could help improve this article? Particularly I cannot find his date of birth, or his death. Is it correct that his home overlooked the Armenian Quarter? I picture it as being on the street leading down from the Zion Gate. Padres Hana (talk) 12:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I removed the photo was that without a photo of Weingarten himself, it kind of took over the article. Maybe you can add it back when the article is more filled out. I'm not really sure about the location of his home. I will try to look for more information about him when I get a chance. --Gilabrand (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Israel FAR
I have nominated Israel for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.
Cptnono (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you put up this article for speedy deletion. Personally, I agree that she doesn't appear all that notable, but it's very likely an admin will decline it in the absence of a specific rationale (it appears you just used a generic CSD template). Mbinebritalk ←16:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As reviewing admin, I think this shows at least some minimal importance, so not appropriate for speedy deletion. That's all it has to show to escape speedy. Passing speedy is much less than notability--any indication that it might be is sufficient. Please check WP:CSD. As for the article, First look for sources, & if not found, only then nominate for deletion. See WP:BEFORE. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I've just been away for a few days, after struggling unsuccessfully in my attempts to help Afalpi understand how to construct a high-quality, NPOV, Wikipedia article, and it was with great relief that I returned to see your excellent work on Yehuda Amichai - especially getting the criticism of Gold's biography into good, properly-sourced, shape. Many thanks - it's good to know I'm not alone. (If he keeps re-adding his NPOV opinions or replacing good text with his brand of broken English, sadly I see no other option but to start issuing him with the appropriate warnings and eventually request admin intervention if he should exceed level 4). -- Boing!said Zebedee04:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You said "I appreciate your comments very much. It can be very lonely, this battle against faceless entities suffering from a variety of strange obsessions". I know the feeling! He's come back again, and is getting more offensive by the day (Apparently you and I, plus another editor, are all the same person!). I think there is no alternative but to go for the warning/block route now, and with the help of another editor, he's already reached his final warning - his next bad edit will result in a request for admin intervention. Best regards -- Boing!said Zebedee07:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks and reads much better after your edits, and your added keynote photo is most appealing. But... did you mean to leave out the Haifa restaurant photo? As you probably know, the discussion over it has not abated, and there is no consensus to remove it. Hertz1888 (talk) 09:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thumbs up, Hertz. Actually I have a problem with the photo because it mainly shows a slum building and a car. I'm sure there must be a better picture of a falafel stand!--Gilabrand (talk) 11:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your addition of the Falafel "sandwich" photo. I was looking over your photos, and have to say you have an eye for photography. Regards --nsaum75¡שיחת!06:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, when I saw "shrimp paste"...well...at least no one can say that they're served in Israel...except maybe at a Russian grocer. Anyhow, do with that section as you feel fit. I have searched and searched for info to help develop the history section, but everything seems to be a rehash of what is listed. --nsaum75¡שיחת!08:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you've seen it, but Epeefleche is trying to help with the conflict over the Yehuda Amichai article - see here. As one of the small number of editors involved, I thought you might like to contribute (or at least observe). -- Boing!said Zebedee02:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only solution is to ask for a block of this "editor" (an amalgam of at least three different accounts). Meanwhile it seems like I am just wasting my time...--Gilabrand (talk) 08:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, yes, I think it will ultimately have to come down to blocking him. But in the meantime I think we need to support Epeefleche's efforts, and then take it furter when that fails - not sure what the process is, mind (I did try WP:AIV, but that was rejected as not vandalism) -- Boing!said Zebedee14:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I've replied to you here. Let's stick together and deal with this rationally, dude, and Wikipedia will benefit - good humour and the knowledge that the consensus will prevail should be our rod and staff.
By the way, are you sure you're not really Ms Gold? - I'm beginning to wonder if I am ;-)
-- Boing!said Zebedee14:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What did you have in mind? The photos in this article are terrible, by the way, and are not a portrayal of Israel by any means. It doesn't deserve to be a featured article as it is.--Gilabrand (talk) 11:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I wrecked anything. I was not aware of any such thing as alt text. Is that something new? I assumed they were captions, and sounded pretty stupid.--Gilabrand (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite new. Wasn't an FA criteria back in the day. It's for stuff like screen readers (for the blind) - just explain what the picture shows. Personally - I don't see the point, but it's an FA criteria, so we need it. Captions supplement the picture; alt text (alternative text) replaces it. okedem (talk) 14:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text isn't the biggest thing in the world and can really be just a quick line. It is useful for those with settings attempting to optimize slow connection speeds or for the blind. I just saw that there were way more images than I last paid attention to. Not sure if it was you but, Clinton clapping is a nice probably unintended touch and the windsurfer one should have been in a long time ago. Cptnono (talk) 10:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing, guys. I spent a whole day searching for photos to spice up the article (it's good I'm my own boss - otherwise I'd be fired long ago...LOL). Israel is such a colorful and diverse place, and the previous batch of photos was just not reflecting that.--Gilabrand (talk) 12:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
February 2010
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Geography of Israel has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Your edit summary here is completely inappropriate and unacceptable. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacksRolandR (talk)21:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article assessment
Gilabrand, I am not sure you are aware of what article assessment is for. Assessment is meant for two purposes:
Rating the importance of a topic in relation to the main topic of the project (in this case, Israel)
Rating the importance of a topic for Wikipedia 1.0
This means that core topics of Israel like government, economy, defense, etc. are all core topics (top importance). Next are very important topics like universities, cities, etc. which are not already core topics. Next are all the other important topics for Israel. And then there's Pallywood, which is really not an important topic at all. It doesn't matter if it touches on a number of important issues; Pallywood as a topic is not important for WikiProject Israel. I ask you to please self-revert because this kind of disruptive rating borders on vandalism. —Ynhockey(Talk)12:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, I disagree with your "rules." Who made you the rulemaker around here anyway. Importance to a project includes ALL matters of importance to a project, and I believe that Pallywood is of top importance. I am stunned at your narrow-minded way of thinking. You are holding the project back in more ways than one. I'd like to hear some other opinions on that and don't intend to revert until I do. --Gilabrand (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that you feel that way. I did not invent the "rules", the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team did, and in fact the "rules" are not rules at all, but instead an assessment scale based mostly on logic. I encourage you to read more about article assessment, what it was made for, and how it works.
By the way, I noticed that you assessed one of my recent articles, Battles of Negba, as C-class. I would like it very much if you left on the talk page a series of notes about what you believe is missing, so that I can hopefully improve the article to B-class before a GA run sometime later.
I'm going to have to agree with Gilabrand on this one. The use of media to sway public opinion, either though distortion, manipulation or the like, is very important to the topic of Israel and Wikipedia itself, and should be rated as such. The very creation of Israel has a lot to do with public relations after the horrors of WW II. That said, whether or not most Israelis realize it, the manipulation of public relations by those who oppose Israel, is now having the same affect on world wide politics and international support. With the explosion of information media and "amateur reporting" (ie: CNN.com's I-Reporter), it is much easier today to manipulate international opinion via the media, especially when the information being portrayed is intentionally designed to be full of passionate misinformation.
This isn't just affecting the "real world" media, but also here at Wiki. Recently there was a "skirmish" at falafel where two editors vehemently opposed to the inclusion of ANY photos from Israel, successfully used Wikipedia's own rules to force the removal of photos from Israel. Both editors clearly stated they were going to find ways to remove the Israeli photos and abused Wikipedia's rules regarding galleries. When attempts to replace Israeli photos with similar photos taken outside of Israel failed, they then began to flood the article with images with the self-stated intent of doing so to force the removal of Israeli photos. Over the period of a few days, the article became jumbled mess and it was declared that "in the interest of WP:MoS" all photos would be removed, except the ones originally in the article that were not found to be "controversial". When it was pointed out that by doing so was rewarding disruptive editing and abuse of Wikipedia rules, the response was to comment on it being "unfortunate", but MoS trumped all other concerns.
So, the issue of topics such as Pallywood, are indeed very important to not only Israel but also the development of Wikipedia, where such sources might be used to influence articles. --nsaum75¡שיחת!11:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm with Gilabrand too - I think Pallywood is a topic of importance, and I agree with nsaum75's reasoning. I think the PR war as engaged in by both sides, including positive PR about their own side and negative PR about the other's, is an important issue in contemporary Israel/Palestine - and I would probably say the same about any articles tackling the tricky topic of media propaganda, whichever side they were covering. (For the record, I'm neither Israeli nor Palestinian, and neither Jewish nor Muslim). -- Boing!said Zebedee12:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is simple. A topic can't be more important that its parent topic. Basically the hierarchy is like this:
Israel > Arab–Israeli conflict > Israeli–Palestinian conflict > Media coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict > Pallywood.
A topic lower in the hierarchy cannot be more important than one that's higher, because the higher one encompasses this topic as well as others. It's simple logic. I am not sure the people who commented here are quite looking at it from a Wikipedia 1.0 point of view. —Ynhockey(Talk)23:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, YnHockey, but your argument is lame and unconvincing. You can go on as much as you like about technical issues like formatting and "logical" sequences, but there are more important issues at stake here, as pointed out above. --Gilabrand (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well, it's an uphill battle, ain't it? Interesting what these people spend their time on when they could be improving the substandard articles and crap written about Arab/Palestinian villages/ affairs. I wonder why they think they are "promoting their cause." In reality, they are only shooting themselves in the foot.--Gilabrand (talk) 06:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shalom Gila. I know these discussions can get heated and intense, but could you please strike out your "Supremenothingness" reference in regards to Supreme Deliciousness. Its not constructive to the discussion and might be considered a personal attack. Thanks. --nsaum75¡שיחת!20:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both accounts are blocked for 24 hours for abuse of Wikipedia policies.
Find somewhere else to fight this battle. When you participate here we expect you to be adult and cooperative, and to abide by Wikipedia policies. Failure to do so is not acceptable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The totality of what you've done with the article is extremely disturbing to me, however one issue stands out rather squarely.
You have repeatedly edit-warred to reinsert mention of the 2007 Syrian nuclear reactor airstrike into the article.
The airstrike was 300 km east/northeast from the Golan Heights and 40 years after they were captured.
There is no reasonable explanation for this edit warring. You are obviously with that point merely trying to throw anti-Syrian critical information on the wall of this article and make it stick, whether it is relevant for this article or not. I cannot assume good faith about that contribution, it's so illogical that you obviously are being intentionally abusive by re-adding it.
Other administrators are continuing to review the totality of the situation - but, on this point, if you re-add the reactor to the article again, you will be blocked. Please consider this a final warning on that point.
My edits to the article have only improved it, by pushing the editors involved to see what a bunch of crap it was and make it better. I have edited thousands of articles on Wikipedia in the hopes of making it a less skewed and more reliable source. Unfortunately, some people think the best way to advance their agendas is to go whining to administrators. --Gilabrand (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On other article topics you contribute positively, yes. On this topic, however, you contribute disruptively and seemingly blind to your own negative influence.
There is no rational or logical way to connect an event 300 km away and 40 years later to the article. That you are defending those actions in any way is indicative of your problematic mindset and responses here.
It is ludicrous but highly reflective of the pathetic reality of Wikipedia that you are suggesting one of the best editors of I/P issue articles should consider stopping her contributions. It is thanks to much of her work that some articles are now SLIGHTLY less biased against Israel. Wikipedia will never be objective and free of the constant vilification of Israel and Zionism in general, but at least users like Gilabrand keep working hard to slowly fight this sad trend. Breein1007 (talk) 04:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it.
