Hello Gilisa! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Runcorn20:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is lies the Rothschilds and the elite families of the world are ashkenew jews.
Hi Gilisa, I realize that English is not your native language; so this some friendly advice to improve your written English (and explain my modification of your edits in Albert Einstein. The expression "alot of" is too informal for written English; write "many" instead. Also do not put a space before a period or comma, but do put space after a period or comma before the next letter. --teb72817:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gilisa
Sure, go ahead and change it. I'm just the copy editor, I've been trying to take all the sentences the real writers put in and make them into proper English with good references, that's all. I hope I didn't misunderstand and mangle something you wrote, but if I did go right in and fix it up.
Haifa? My best friend's dad was a university professor there for years, last name Tabak. She lives in Tel Aviv now, she sends me pictures of herself with The Cats. :)
Good luck, and write on!
~ Otterpops16:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Back on the Ashkenazi Genome
Hello again, I wanted to take this discussion away from the board, if you don't mind. While I don't have a degree in genetics, I do possess a degree in biology and have some experience in interpreting genetic tables. While this isn't texted in the source your scrutinized, the table that the scientists were pointing out from the source. http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/08/refinement-of-ancestry-informative.html I do get a little suspicious when I see clusters coming closer to Italians and Greeks rather than certain near-eastern ethnic groups (one of them being Palestinians). This is where, I suspect, the bloggers drew their conclusion. (although this issue wasn't touched in-depth in the study)--Jtd00123 (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support the inclusion of Golda Meir. Politics aside, the fact is that she is known internationally as a great female 'statesman'. Best, A Sniper (talk) 07:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
September 2009 3RR blocking
As you can see I was blocked for a period of 48 hours by Backslash Forwardslash (after I I applied to the Administrators' noticeboard on Edit warring against two other users) for violeting the 3RR and after I was warned by him following a complain by Headbomb who one hand with Anonymous Dissident revert my edits on the first paragraph of Quarks article history section for at least 5 times in one day after I provided appropriate sources that indicate factual mistakes in this section. Anonymous Dissident delete the sources without even reviewing them first. In the original version it was written that Yuval Ne'eman suggested the eightfold way in 1962 and Gall Mann suggested it in the Early 1960s. I also provided sources that indicated that the Eightfold way as proposed by Ne'eman most probably lead to the subsequent Quark Model. These arguments are sourced well by virtually all high profile references available on this matter. As I wrote, my edits were revert, on the talk page I was facing impermeability and only shortly before I applied to the Administrators' noticeboard on Edit warring Anonymous Dissident was willing to accept that Ne'eman proposed the eightfold model in 1961 but unwilling to change the wording of "early 1960s" (for Gall Mann) to 1961 (as all sources explicitly stated. Also, Headbomb found that adding the fact that Ne'eman was considerd as the one who exposed the quark model by the Technion as one which is not noteworthy (even if sourced well) and remove it without discussion. I think that my blocked by Backslash Forwardslashis wrong, that the blocking for 48 hours is too long anyway and that my arguments were ignored. Would be thankful for any help on this.--Gilisa (talk) 09:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that your arguments were ignored, it's that we disagreed about how to present content. You took issue with the dates (and this lead to the correction from 1962 --> 1961 for Ne'emann), and the sourcing, (and this lead to the addition of 3/5 references) for that passage, you objected to explicitely saying Ne'eman didn't developp the quark model (and this lead to a rewording of the section). Where disagreeing about giving the specific date for Gell-Mann's because (and I'm speaking for myself here) Gell-Mann's Eightfold Way idea was not published in journals, but rather made its way trough internal documents from Caltech's Synchrotron Laboratory, printed in 1961, 1962, and 1964. Second, regarding Technion's view of Ne'emann, that is by far not a mainstream POV, and to report that here is to give undue weight. The quark model is from Gell-Mann and Zweig. It rests on the Eightfold Way from Gell-Mann and Ne'emann. That Ne'emann didn't receive a Nobel prize for his work is not something that needs to be explicitely noted, we report those that did win it. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 14:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you like we can discuss it in more details after the blocking will end. As I see it I fail for bureaucratically reasons and I still think I'm right. If you make a review you will find that the Technion view is also accepted by several top physicists-Nobel winners-who worked with Ne'eman, the Technion itself is not a meaningless academic institution-if it was Harvard or MIT coming out with such statement you wouldn't ignore it. I realy don't think that there is a place for different attitude here. More, I didn't claim even once that Ne'eman did formulate the Quark model but he certainly played very important role in its history (and at least for the 8way he should be mentioned with Gall Mann at the same line and not only incidentally )-I don't think you would denay it and such an opinion is deserve to be mentioned as part of the history of this discovery -without telling whether the Technion right or wrong (you may mention that it's not the the prevailing opinion) and without lessening the present role and even exclusiveness attributed to Gall Mann on the article at present. What more that I'm sure that the Technion view is not truely violeting mainstream POV. It's realy an interesting story as Ne'eman and Gall Mann had tight work relations (for instance, they co authored scientific paper or a book in 1964). [1]
I'm not telling that we should enter it right now (the Technion issue) or ever, I accept that we should discuss it. So, if you want I'm willing to start new discussion in a more constructive fashion, without edit wars, warnings and etc. Just help me to lift this annoying blocked, as you can see my request to lift it was declined on 14:35.--Gilisa (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gilisa, we can continue to discuss this matter until the cows come home, but the fact of the matter is that what you are trying to insert goes against what is neutral and what is common scientific opinion. That will never change. I see no reason to continue discussing this tiny piece of phraseology. Ne'eman's contribution is not ignored in the article – but your version over-emphasises it. The Technion's view is not in agreement with mainstream opinion. And no we would not listen to "Harvard or MIT" if they said something different; that's a silly proposition. What is outside of the norm is outside of the norm, and does not belong in a neutral encyclopedia – regardless of who said it. This is the last thing I will be saying on this matter. If you are still unsatisfied, I suggest you solicit the opinions of the article's other main contributors (User:TimothyRias, User:A. di M., User:Markus Poessel), with the precondition that you accept the consensus. I'm almost certain that they will agree with us. I hope our future interactions, if we should meet again, are more positive. Best, —Anonymous DissidentTalk15:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, agreed for now on the Technion issue (but it's very naive to think it was the same for MIT). As for neutrality: your presistence to keep the former wording (stating that Ne'eman proposed the 8way in 1962 while Gall Mann in the early 60s, even after I provide sources, may sound less neutral and this is the reason this discussion go for the wrong). More, as for the present wording: "..The quark model was independently proposed by physicists Murray Gell-Mann[19] and George Zweig[20][21] in 1964.[5] The proposal came shortly after Gell-Mann's 1961 formulation of a particle classification system known as the Eightfold Way—or, in more technical terms, SU(3) flavor symmetry.[22] Physicist Yuval Ne'eman had independently developed a scheme similar to the Eightfold Way in the same year.[23][24].." I can't see why you object for a different and more objective wording:".. The quark model was independently proposed by physicists Murray Gell-Mann[19] and George Zweig[20][21] in 1964.[5] The proposal came shortly after Gell-Mann and Yuval Ne'eman 1961 independently formulate a particle classification system known as named by Gall Mann as the Eightfold Way—or, in more technical terms, SU(3) flavor symmetry.[22]. After all Ne'eman is no less important for the 8way than Gall Mann is. Anyway, would you help me to lift this block off? Sorry for the bad English, I'm on rush.
We can't "lift the block" since we're not admins (at least I'm not, don't know about AD). As far as placing Ne'eman and Gell-Mann in the same sentence, I have no "real" objection", but I'm opposed to giving a specific date for Gell-Mann. Which in turns makes it very hard to fit all of the information in one sentence without the sentence growing too long to be easily read. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know you don't, but you can contact the one who cast it on me-I can't. Now the all issue look to me more like a storm in a cup of tea (but still I think they should be mentioned in the same sentence. As for the year-there are pleanty of sources, why do you refuse? You may word it that they both formulate it in the early 1960s) :)--Gilisa (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
Per discussion above. Please don't engage in edit warring in the future.
Hi Gilisa. I've enabled e-mail from others. Please feel free to send me a message via e-mail if there's something you'd like to discuss. Cheers. ← George [[[User talk:George|talk]]]20:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dust storm in Melbourne
Hi, don't have a clue about Melbouren was affected. Heard Canberra, Sydney, Brisbane. Check the wikiarticle about the 2009 Dust Storm in Australia. Good kuck! DPdH (talk) 05:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I'm not vindictive and even if I get it hard to understand your arguments I still willing to give it a new start and to make more efforts to understand your point of view. Do you wish us to restart? --Gilisa (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be best if you did not impute to others positions that are not theirs. In general, it is best to take other people's explanation of their opinions as sincere, unless you have strong reasons to believe otherwise. I believe that your positions are best expressed in your own words, and have not attempted to reformulate them.
My arguments are clearly stated, though you may find them unusual. I see little point in starting a discussion between two editors alone at this point. Please take a look at how you interact with other editors in general. Feketekave (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess that that at least I tried to start over. But you are right, I realy don't see how we can get to an agreement and I can't find any exaggeration in my arguments. However, I'm not interested in long lasting conflicts even if I see myself right, and this is the case. I will take your advise to discuss issues with other editors.--Gilisa (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure about that, but this is the most important part. I hope that if we "meet" on other issues we will discuss them with clean minds and without remembering the past. Cheers--Gilisa (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his alleged Jewish ancestry
Minor question: in this edit you wrote "have flout this assertions". Do you mean "have denied this assertion" or "have made the same assertion"? I can't work out what you mean by "flout", which I'm afraid is unclearly used (you "flout" a law or rule, i.e. you break it deliberately) to say if others are confirming or denying, and on a second minor point it's either "this assertion" or "these assertions". Let me know if I can be of any help! Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 08:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Gilisa, I understand and appreciate your arguments for non-inlusion of this information as fact due to its political nature/implications; however, can you concede that the Telegraph is not a tabloid? I would argue that it is a respected news source: neither is its article overly sensationalist: its suggests that M.A. could have been born a Jew due to his surname, and not that he was acually born a Jew and converted. Thats not how Tabloids write articles. Nonetheless, it is but one source, more are needed. Kind regards, Pob1984 (talk) 09:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, there is a fairly recent press article from The Guardian that attempts to refute The Telegraph's allegations, so there is maybe a point into what user:Gilisa and others are saying. Until there is a greater consensus among Wikipedians, as well as among journalists and experts, I would not be very supportive of including such public assertions. Also, I have the impression that certain Jews in Israel and elsewhere feel uncomfortable with these allegations, because it gives antisemites a new reason for criticizing them, with the notion that they are needlessly picking on one of their own. [3]ADM (talk) 10:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats very interesting - and goes way further than what I just wrote about the Sabourjian name not neccessarily denoting jewishness (since the family appear to devoutly profess Islam - a religious status that is predicated on profession of faith and not ancestry anyway). I think I'm going to change my vote back to wait! Pob1984 (talk) 11:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Links
Gilisa, blue links are supposed to appear ONCE in an article, at the first mention. All these prizes and institution names have been cited in the text itself, which is why I removed the links. Best, --Gilabrand (talk) 12:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The English Wikipedia
I noticed that you have posted comments to the page User talk:Flayer in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Edison (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a demand far beyond that which is outlined by WP:AGF to expect others to overlook your poor choice of words -- whether intentional or unintentional -- when responding in defense of one's edits. If I say, "X is Y," and you state afterwords, "Actually, X is Z," that indicates a rebuttal of my statement, despite your best intentions or poor grasp of the (nuances of the) English language. If you understand that, we are all good. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs)16:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's over -- just realize that prefacing a statement with "Actually," indicates that you are refuting what the other person has said. Then to go ahead and state the exact same thing makes one look odd. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs)18:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ashkenazi photoboxes
After all that work in figuring out the photoboxes, another editor has come along to un-do it all. Please assist me in keeping the peace... Best, A Sniper (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
← Georgetalk has given you a falafel sandwich! Falafel sandwiches are a specialty of the Middle East. With a little tahini and maybe a spicy sauce, they are delicious and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day.
Spread the goodness of falafel by adding {{subst:Falafel}} to someone's Talk page with a friendly message! Give a falafel sandwich to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.
Hi Gilisa, I really am very interested in your response to this. It could well be that I am operating under a misconception, in which case I would be grateful to you for engaging me so I can be corrected. Best Regards, Unomi (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WEIZAC
Hi Gilisa, you can say "WEIZAC, the Middle East's first computer, was built at the Weizmann Institue of Science in 1955. Its development helped fuel Israel's technology industry." Don't forget to include "alt" text with the picture (see WP:ALT for more information). Thanks. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk02:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there!
!שלום
Do you really have es-4 level? Si es así, es una suerte haber encontrado al fin a un usuario (o usuaria) que pueda hablar hebreo y español, es muy difícil para mí leer algunos artículos que me interesan bastante. Además veo que coincidimos en temas como la historia antigua, yo estoy redactando el artículo de Masada en español. Un saludo! Kordas (sínome!) 19:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Translation: I'm very lucky to find user (man or woman-my comment-I'm a man) who can speak both Hebrew and Spanish because I find it preety difficult for me to edit some intersting articles. Also, (look if you are) familiar with themes like ancient histoy, you are wellcome to join (to edit) in the article on Masada in Spanish wikipedia. Sincerely--Gilisa (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hola, me encanto a concocerte tambien. Te agradesco por la invitacion y estor seguro que hay otras fuentes que puedan ayudar con el articulo, si no en Espanol en Italiano y los podra usar tambien. No estoy seguro que tengo el tiempo para tomar parte en el proyecto pero podre ayudar te en la ejecucion. Y ahora, podemos pasar a conversar en Ingles? Por cierto, me usuario :)--Gilisa (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Translation: I'm very glad to meet you too. I thank you for your inventation and I'm sure there are other sources which can help in better editing of the article-if not in Spanish then in Italian and you may use them. I'm not sure that I've time to join into this project but I will be able to assisst. And now, should we return to discuss in English? BTW, I'm male user--Gilisa (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my English isn't very good, but as you prefer. I could ask you if I see any difficult Hebrew phrase for the article, if you don't mind. I have good books to finish it, so the sources aren't the problem at the moment, but I'll appreciate any help or suggestion you can give me. Thank you so much for your warm answer! Regards, Kordas (sínome!) 16:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC) P.S.: I'm a male, too.[reply]
I copied here my correspondence with Tiamut after she told me to stay out of her talkpage. I will reply to her last comment here
Tiamut, you ended your comment on FoG talk page[5] with a sentence which is last words are written in Arabic: Don't worry though my friend, because it is all really awha(m) min beit il ankaboot. The translation of it is "Don't worry though my friend, because it is all really stronger than the house of the spider". Please notice that you should always add translation when you write in language different than English. Also, the term "house of the spider" is famous tem that was coined by and regulary use Hezbolla leader when he speak out publicaly against Israel-according to him, Israel is "the house of the spider". So, in this context, I just want to ask you if that's what you refered to? Does anyone who oppose some of FoG edits, to the matter of fact, is included in what you refered to as "the house of the spider"?--Gilisa (talk) 10:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gilisa, it means "weaker than the spider's web", not stronger. Its a metaphor and I'm using it with multiple meanings here intended for Factsontheground, not anyone else and not about anyone editing here, but about the general situation she faced. Its meant to be of some comfort to her. Can you leave it at that? Tiamuttalk16:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care to comment on the content of that edit. I will say that considering your own sensitivity to people repeatedly posting at your talk page taking issue with your comments and advocating for you to be blocked, I would think you would be more sensitive to a user who is blocked from even editing their talk page and can't respond to posts made by you and others tht she doesn't want to her from right now. Both you and Breein1007 should leave her alone. Tiamuttalk17:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I knew, you would not care to comment! BTW I know your "friend". I saw many like her, who would scream on demonstrations: "Palestine will be free from the river to the sea" while displaying Israeli flags with swastikas, and then accuse everybody around in being "racist".--Mbz1 (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you knew I wouldn't answer then your question was designed for some other end. Please stop soapboxing on my talk page and talking about a blocked editor that I've already asked you to leave alone. Dont bother replying. Tiamuttalk17:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You choosed to put it in Arabic, it is a very well known phrase sounded by Hasan Nasrallah who describe Israel that way ("weaker than spider web" there is also the Hezbolla museum named "the Spider house". In the context of your grievances on racism against palestinians on FoG talk page it sound realy bad. Would appreciate if you avoid it next time, if it's not too much to ask.--Gilisa (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is too much to ask. Your assumption of bad faith regarding its meaning is not my problem. I will write in whatever language I want to. Just because Hassan Nasrallah uses a metaphor doesn't mean that I can't and I will use it whenever I see fit. And now if you're quite done, I'd appreciate you also staying off my talk page for now. Thanks. Tiamuttalk17:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You ask me to stay out of your talk page and at the same time accused me for not assuming good faith? And what about this[6], where you specifically told that my edits have only disruptive meaning. And the problem is not with the Arabic but with the context and the words. But of course it's your choice, I only asked. In any case, as long as I'm not allowed to write on your talkpage-you are not alowed to write on mine as well.--Gilisa (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again
Wow... have you been blocked? For doing anything? That's so sad... Well, I have one proposal for you: do you want to record the word "Masada" in Hebrew? I just need something like this, and thereby I could use it same way you can see here. If you don't want to use your own voice, could you convince anyone to do that instead? Thank you so much and hold on, dude :)Kordas (sínome!) 01:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me, for nothing but replying too much on a certain ANI. However according to WP:GUIDELINES. As for your suggesstion, would love to do that. And, oh, I feel bad now-we can correspond here in Spanish. I gained it after living in Argentina (Buenos Aires) for more than two years.--Gilisa (talk) 07:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just recorded it, but I can't upload it until what left of the 12 hours pass. And at least in one of the samples you sent me (the one I was hearing) the speaker don't sound to have Israeli accent.--Gilisa (talk) 08:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
¡Muchas gracias! You were so fast, hehe. But let me tell you forgot to choice one license xD I noticed that fact when I was moving the file to Commons to be used in other projects. And about other files I showed to you, feel free to record all files you think can be replaced or improved. !תודה Kordas (sínome!) 14:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
De nada! usted puede hacer con el archivo lo que quiera todos los permisos se pueden cambiar a su gusto.--Gilisa (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC) (Translation: Do with the file whatever you wish)[reply]
I have much interest in Iberian history and in Latin America. It's clear that you have interest in Israel related subjects, so realy out of curiosity only, can I ask where it's come from? Regards--Gilisa (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have archaeological training, so the interest in such region came inmediately at early age. And the interesting history of Jewish people helped as well: it was an unusual example of how a people could go back home through centuries of persecution and hate to be a nation again. Really instructive. Kind regards, Kordas (sínome!) 16:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's, but I was thinking on something else-I know that many Spanish people are descendants of the Anusim-I thought that you have such background and you aware of it and interested in it. Well, in any case you are a great person and if you need any assistance of any kind don't hasitate to contact me. Also, we can return to Spanish! Regards and best wishes--Gilisa (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
May be I have descent from conversos, but I don't know that point for sure. My surname is a patronymic one, so it can be a clue. And I'm from Andalusia, and there was a Jewish quarter where I live (see this awesome picture I took). But my family history cannot be tracked so far than 1870. Such a pity. Regards! Kordas (sínome!) 13:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's always great to hear from you! And the picture is very interesting..If you want, we can discuss via e-mail. BTW, many of Israel's greatst artists came to Israel as adults from different Spanish speaking countries (e.g., Shlomo Idove: The song's name is "dreaming in Spanish", Pablo Rosenberg and many others). The history of Jews in Spain, and the history of Spain in general is very interesting for me. When ever you need assistance don't hasitate to tell!--Gilisa (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I am putting the question here, since it is for you and to not have to bother too much the other user. I would like to understand how people that consider those cartoons antisemitic see them. Could you please pick one or two that you find representative of this position among those at commons. And help me see it the way you see it. Also maybe I don't understand the way the word antisemitism is being used. Abisharan (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look, he don't seem to fall into the classic Nazi-inspired caricature style where Jews are portraed with huge curved noses, huge teeth and etc. However, he constantily use images from the holocaust to emphasize that the Jews (Israeli ones, but the principle is the same) are now the Nazis and palestinians are their victims. Their are even Palestinian activists who avoid such comparison and not because they feel threatened. As I mentioned, it doesn't matter if he anti semitic or not, his works are offensive to many Jews and surely undermine Israel's rights to exist as it's the ultimative evil. There are not many conflicts in the world, if any, that are being drawned this way or even closely-and there are many bitter conflicts in the world.--Gilisa (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with it being offensive. And if I were him, in order to be fair I would also criticize suicide bombings etc. The thing is that one can defend Israel's right to exist but it is blind not to see that some have used that right for darker purposes (for US it is a business in which gain money and influence in the region) and have imposed that right in criminal ways. I am not sure why Mbz1 is so wounded (I know only some of the story visible in Wikipedia and it might be more in real life) but certainly the way she is approaching it, being stubborn, attacking everyone, being proud, behaving like a holy warrior ... is only bringing more problems (mainly for her) as it always do. I have no idea about User:RolandR's real positions but, taking it in abstract, the combination of a Jew (which I assume would feel joy by the creation of a Jew state, of the promised land ...) criticizing those who are doing it by criminal means is something that I think deserves respect and a minute of meditation. Not a bitter reaction as coming from a wounded beast. Because that's what happens when you have a wounded beast that have made a schist to protect itself from everyone else, indiscriminate attacks to all that come too close. She is, in general behaving stupidly. Like that "Let them have it their way", assuming everyone means an attack to Jews. I have many good friends that are Jew and who also see the IP-conflict as a stupid one being increased by many greedy (not referencing to Jews but to US interests and Arab interests) influences. One thing is true about that post of her. And that is that better and more important is a good picture of a pepper; and that is what she should be doing instead. That is she is good at, in taking pictures, instead of dealing with a topic in which she have shown being too blind and too biased. Abisharan (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abisharan, can I assume from you name that you're Iranian? ust asking, would be very interesting if you are! ( I met many abroad). The Israeli-Arab conflict is a result of many things, but I have no doubt that things could be different even with a Jewish state standing where it's now. I obviousely don't know in details what RolandR opinions are about the existence of Israel, I may assume what they are from my acquaintanceship with few radical left wing marxist Jews living in Israel, but I can't speak for him. You asumption that Jew who self identify himself as Jewish identify with the idea of a Jewish state or feel proud for it even when he's in the most left wing location on the political map, is wrong. There are Jews who call to the dismantlement of Israel, there are also those who represent a small monority but can demonstrate my point. Personally I have reasons to believe that the conflict is mainly a cultural one and that with most Arab nations peace could been achieved in totaly different ways than were suggested until today. As for Mbz1, don't disconnect her from the context she was acting in. She many times push back against other editors who are harsh with her. There are many stubborn editors on the I-P issue. It's ten, if not hundred, times harder to insert any change, even minor, to any article on the I-P issue than on American politics and certainly than on scientific subjects. There is almost not even single day without board or admin getting involved, one group of editors revert the other group on the same sentence and so forth. So, blaming her, and crown her with these titles is incorrect-it's a very frustrating topic, and seemingly, everybody have their breakpoints. What can we do that this points are not acknowledged by wikipedia guidelines and it not even provide a spa or something to cool down..--Gilisa (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Numerosity adaptation effect
On April 6, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Numerosity adaptation effect, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
It is interesting that you saw the swan too as I did. I read somewhere that people usually see different things in natural shapes, for example in clouds.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope... somewhere in Talmud. Let me see if I can find it somewhere... here's a link: [7]. Hahahaha oh no!!! Poor Edom. What if one of them comes on Wikipedia and sees your message? Ridiculous lol but somehow not surprising... Breein1007 (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, here is the citation (Malik, if you read this- don't be shy-feel very to join, you are most welcome here!) it's in Aramic:
ויהי כאשר ילדה רחל את יוסף וגו' מאי שנא כי אתיליד יוסף אמר ליה ראה יעקב אבינו שאין זרעו של עשו נמסר אלא ביד זרעו של יוסף שנאמר (עובדיה א, יח) והיה בית יעקב אש ובית יוסף להבה ובית עשו לקש וגו' איתיביה (שמואל א ל, יז) ויכם דוד מהנשף ועד הערב למחרתם אמר ליה דאקריך נביאי לא אקריך כתובי דכתיב (דברי הימים א יב, כא) בלכתו אל צקלג נפלו עליו ממנשה עדנה ויוזבד וידיעאל ומיכאל ויוזבד ואליהוא וצלתי ראשי האלפים אשר למנשה מתיב רב יוסף (דברי הימים א ד, מב) ומהם מן בני שמעון הלכו להר שעיר אנשים חמש מאות ופלטיה ונעריה ורפיה ועזיאל בני ישעי בראשם ויכו את שארית הפלטה לעמלק
Translation: "And when Rachel gave birth to Joseph and so forth, she asked Jacob what will happen as she understand that she also gave birth to Joseph hater (Esua)-Then Jacob told her that Esau offsprings are to be defeated by Joseph offsprings..And the house of Joseph shell be flame and Esua's straw....And they bitten Amalek" (Sorry the translation is realy hard-you need someone with better English than mine and with better Aramic knowledge).--Gilisa (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence in question is more accurately: "Jacob, our father, saw that Esau's seed could not be delivered by any except Joseph's seed." Breein1007 (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I never learned it actually, but here is an interesting note that demonstrate my point from the source you provided:
"..I Sam. XXX, 17. This shows that a descendant of Judah (David) defeated the descendants of Esau (Amalek, cf. Gen. XXXVI, 12). How, then, could it be said that Esau's seed would fall into the hands of Joseph's seed only? .."
This is one example that the sentence refer to Amalek, in the original sentence written in Aramic, above, the link is much more direct. Just give it up. Regards!--Gilisa (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You believe that I'm disingenuous? I'm..OK, it's very offensive when it comes from you. I think that adpoting higher standards of AGF is a good idea, because the same way you walk in (i.e., ABF without no reason) I can assume that you just want to turn the fire to me in any case. I provide adequate evidence to refute your allegations but you seem to insist that my reference to Esau seed is outside of this phrase and outside the scope of what he symbolize. Whatever your reasons are, you are wrong!--Gilisa (talk) 06:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked
I finally got what you were trying to tell me, that you are under the same interaction ban as Factomancer, and that your initiation of a discussion about them and your pestering me to block them were violations of said ban. Thanks for pointing that out, sorry it took me so long to figure out that I should block you. Now please don't violate your topic ban again. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi achi, I suggest you appeal this irresponsible action by Beeblebrox. He has blocked you for reporting Factomancer's violation in the appropriate manner. According to his words, he believes that reporting another editor for a violation of the interaction ban is in itself a violation. That is false. If anything, the block should be overturned in principle and so that it does not smear your block log. Breein1007 (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BWilkins, There is nothing snarcy in my comment here. The block notification is sarcastic ("Thanks for pointing that out, sorry it took me so long to figure out that I should block you" and refer to me as a pest blamed me for pestering him with these exact words "and your pestering me") and there is a serious problem of judgment in this blocked. These are facts, if mentioning them only "will ensure the block continues" that's fine. Not much of it left anyway-I don't know what my chances are, and I know many times it may ended with unexpected outcomes, but if it stay in my block log, then I'll take it to WP:AFAR-why? Because of this farce- if you read my interaction ban restrictions and will come over the chain of events that lead to my block you will see nothing but serious judment mistake of the blocking admin and persistence lack of will from his side to accept or even disucss it . Now, I do know that WP:GAB ask me to bow my head and to say "I'm sorry", but this is the case when the block is have any basis at all-which is not this case-and this time it's not even a matter of interpretation. --Gilisa (talk) 09:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.s. In regard to your assertion that I don't assume enough good faith. I was only pointing to the facts (and I assume that admins are also under the obligation to WP:CIVIL). And in any case, how this is related to the fact that he had absolutly no reasons to block me? You say that this block stay untill I assume that he had no sarcastic strain in the block notfiction he posted here-regardless the fact that he had no right to block me?--Gilisa (talk) 11:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I'm not under "topic ban" and I didn't violate the interaction ban[9]-I didn't discuss about the other party at all (see link above and outside the unblock tempalte). Only complaint about violation of the interaction ban according to the terms of it (i.e., the interaction ban allow me to report to uninvolved admin at least 12 hours after the violation was made-that's what I did, that's why I got blocked ). This blocked seem to be the fruit of wrong judgment, the sarcasem in block notification Beeblebrox (where he blamed me for pestering him because of my complaint and also thank me for paying his attention to this I "violated" the interaction ban) has leaved here only make it worse. Please lift this blocked and remove it from my log of blocks.--Gilisa (talk) 05:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Block has already expired. For future reference, the Arbitration Committee does not review very short blocks such as this, as the appeal process can take over a week to complete, and sometimes longer. Hersfold(t/a/c)20:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Despite the giant loophole built into the interaction ban, it also says "Repeated spurious reports to administrators using this mechanism shall be grounds for blocking for disruption." You pestered me about this for two days, and the ban also says it is to be broadly interpreted. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblock At first I looked at how many messages Gilisa left at the blocking admin's talk page, and I thought the block was justified, but when I read the messages, I have changed my opinion. Gilisa reported the other party only once, no rules of the interaction ban were violated. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, I didn't "pester" you(and as I already wrote this word is annoying me, you may stop using it so frequently-but good to know that you now find other "reason" which is again not supported by the interaction ban terms nor applied to me in this case)-I reported only once and then asked you if I can address the issue to other admin -because you wrote yourself you didn't feel right to deal with the subject. You only replied this once and I didn't ask you again to enforce it. I did asked, after the interaction ban was enforced and before my blocked (clearly not asking you to enforce anything), how come you are not familiar with my interaction ban details (you said so spcifically after I asked you if it wouldn't be a violation to address other admin) -simply because it's abit absurd that one who handle with interaction ban enforcment in which I'm a side myself and is expected to have full understanding of it-actually don't know the details of my interaction ban (and it seem you don't). In any case, I will take it to WP:RAFR shortly after the blocked is over. This wrong judgment of yours is not going to smear my block log. Your argument regarding that the ban is to be "broadly interpreted" and hence it justify this blocked somehow is just unlinked. P.s. It would be apprecitated if avoid yourself from commenting on my talk page for now --Gilisa (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I already appealed to ArbCom for this very wrong block (If you can't see it, maybe they will) to be removed from my log of blocks. And I can't participant in this AN/I while I'm blocked, obviously. Also, concerning this blocked I would expect you not to make suggestions regarding me, my interaction ban and etc.--Gilisa (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Hi
There is no appeal process for this; while the technical ability to remove the log entry exists, using that tool to delete a block log entry is considered abuse of the tool (see Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Log redaction). I would strongly recommend you drop the matter, especially given the reason for your block. I did note, however, that the blocking administrator seems to have opened a discussion on ANI about the clause of the ban that led to your block; you may want to participate there at WP:ANI#Interaction ban needs tweaking. Hersfold(t/a/c)21:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In case you're wondering, I have no opinion on the status of the block; in all honesty, I only briefly skimmed this page before removing your unblock request. I have a script that told me you were unblocked before I opened your talk page. Hersfold(t/a/c)21:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.
These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.
Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.
This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here. -- ChrisO (talk)
Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.
These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.
Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.
This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here.
You wellcome, but I don't realy interested in editing there. However, if you already here, there is a problem of removed information that was cited with reliable sources that were removed, also, without proper process. Although the majority of editors on the relevant article TP may support these edits, they does not meet the five pillars of WP and I guess that sysop intervation is required not only in imposing edit restrictions, but also in evaluating issues concern with content-such as enforcing WP:UNDUE and so forth. Just suggesting. Regards--Gilisa (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm really sorry to have been so inept with my "good job" post on the flotilla talk page--like an ass I didn't realize it would be as viewable as it was. (I commented as if it were a user talk page.) I just want to thank you for the unbelievable save--I think you said something to the effect that anti-Israel comments came from my IP address "if you remember right." Wow, that was too close for comfort, though. :) Will avoid unnecessary chatter, or as we Brits say, "garrulity." (I was born and raised in London prior to my aliyah three summers back--I'm currently doing a masters in poli sci in the states, but that's enough about me.)
Hi. I can ask the same question: Why do you insist to make the Israeli Air Force bigger than is? :) While most source tend to report the total number of aircraft that were supplied to Israel, I tend to believe that smaller numbers in most cases are correct, because aircraft go old and sometimes withdrawn from service. When I see different numbers for Cobras, I believe that the smallest number is correct. In the other hand, when I see different numbers for T-6's or AH-64D's, for example, I take the the maximum, because IAF receives them nowadays. Anyway, I provided a reference - IISS, which has the same mistakes like INSS, but also has the latest date. Flayer (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think my approach is just fine as it is, and I also provide sources to avoid accusations of pushing original research. Flayer (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, where did you find the ""World Military Aircraft Inventory". 2010 Aerospace Source Book. Aviation Week and Space Technology, January 2010" source? May I see it? Flayer (talk) 12:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree many times it's biased against Israel. But you know what, the problem Israel has is for long not with the Arab people-meaning, we do have conflicts with some Arab nations, but not with all or even most-even if publicly they speak against Israel. The problem Israel has is mainly with radical Islam. Turkey is not an Arab country, nor did Iran. Nevertheless, the first become more and more anti Israeli since Erodgan, who served two years in prison when he was young for his activity in radical Islamic movement, was elected while the last become Israel's enemy only after radical Islam took over the country.--Gilisa (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you of course. To me this cartoon is a cartoon about UN. Yesterday we had an interesting conversation about this cartoon with Nableezy.I mean it started with cartoon, but then we discussed Palestinian government and so on, and Nableezy wrote: "Hamas is the democratically elected government of the Palestinian people. They were not elected because the Palestinians want an Islamist state or support "terrorist attacks" or any other such reason; they were elected because the Palestinians were largely fed up with the corrupt and inept leadership provided by Fatah." I liked this statement, and it is probably the truth. Palestinians like freedoms as all other people do, and "Islamist state" cannot provide that freedom. Palestinians like to live in peace as all other people do, but Hamas they elected cannot give them that peace. I also understand frustration of people because of corrupt governments. I understand it all, what I cannot understand why now, 4 years later after Hamas was elected, Palestinian people do not overthrow it? But back to Nableezy. I was surprised to find out that he believes that Hamas will lead Gaza to be an "Islamist state" that supports "terrorist attacks", and I liked it. Best.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe people are responsible for the choice they made, though some are being considered as more responsible as the cartoon shows. Nevertheless, I know Israel do its best to avoid causalities among what is considered as "uninvolved civilians", meaning people who do not carry weapon but are in dangerous proximity to terrorists from Hamas and other radical Islamic terror organizations who do carry weapon. Sometimes the "uninvolved civilians" are people who on purpose get close to those because they know the IDF will not strike them this way. See this link. But if you ask me, then from the operational perspective, putting such efforts to prevent causalities on the other side, even when international law allow that (international law, regardless how selectively and with how much impartially it's enforced, do allow for instance to strike citizens who willingly serve as a human shield for armed forces of the enemy who shot on you) damage the IDF abilities. Many people compare this situation to a situation when one is get into arena with one of his hands is tied behind his back. I think Israel have to ignore the UN when it's clear it's biased and to make less efforts to avoid its enemy causalities while increasing the efforts to keep its soldiers life. A commander who risk his soldiers life to keep those of its enemy citizens is immoral and non competent. --Gilisa (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But you know something Mila, any hypocrisy and every evil have its end. And if you carefully watch the chain reaction of historical events happening in such short time, you will get to the conclusion that the entire world is standing in front of a decisive point. Humanity in general have very weak historical sense, people are under the illusion that the wheel is spinning at the same point while it actually progress.--Gilisa (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those videos! They are great. When the president rebuked UN watch representative it sadly sounded veri similar to some Wikipedia admnins rebuking some users: "I cannot care less that what you are saying is the truth, to me it is better you were talking lies, but a nice lies" :)--Mbz1 (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Elicohen.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the main contributors to the article, can you discuss this controversy we're having
Your mention of taking a Wikipedia dispute "to court"
Hi,
Your comment [[11]] saying "I think we should be bold and taking their sanctions against us to court again" may be interpreted as a legal threat, particularly when taken with your later edit of your same post [[12]] which talks about "we should go all the way" and "it effect real life".
I suggest you should withdraw or clarify those statements to avoid their possibly being interpreted as falling under WP:THREAT.
@Demiurge1000, Of course Gilisa did not mean the court of low. They meant RFC or AN/I in the worst case scenario. I have deleted everything from my talk page, so there's nothing to withdraw I guess.
@Gilisa, Nope, I am not going to appeal my ban. I am enjoying every single moment of it. It is the best thing that happened to me on Wikipedia. Even 24 hours of highly unfair block could not spoil my enjoyment. BTW did you get my email? Please do email me ASAP. Best.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Demiurge1000, but I wrote-as you well quoted, "to court again". Meaning to the AE or AN/I. Next I will use more proper wording, but it wasn't a legal threat nor meant to hear like one. Also, I've no intention to take anything going on Wikipedia to real court in USA, I think such things seldom happens, if ever happened, and on other subjects which barely fall under the freedom of speech (like articles containing adult or pedophilic content. I do hope, if we already talk about it, that some day what happen on Wikipedia (but not only) will get some attention from legislators in the USA or that at least enough media sources will criticize whats going on in here.--Gilisa (talk) 08:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gilisa, I have no problem with anyone posting their thoughts on my views, and I'm open to reconsidering them when provided with newer info.
First, a question for you: do you think the status quo is sustainable for Israel? You're correct that everything is constantly changing in the Middle East - birth rates and demographics, political parties and alliances, technological and military might - but I just don't see the current path being good in the long term, for Israel or its neighbors. I don't know if you agree with me or not, but that's the background behind my thinking.
If you assume (as I do) that the current path isn't sustainable, and that peace would be better for of all the peoples of the Middle East, then the question simply becomes how to achieve that peace. It's a complex problem that gets even harder to resolve the longer it goes unsolved. I don't think any military can achieve peace in the Middle East (short of a huge power dominating the whole area, as the Ottoman Empire did for a while, but that too isn't sustainable). The likelihood that a two-state solution will ever work gets smaller every day, as Israeli settlements continue to grow, making an eventual one-state solution almost inevitable. In recently leaked Palestinian documents, it was revealed that the Palestinian Authority is already considering pushing for a one-state solution ("PA leaders also mentioned the possibility of a one-state solution. At one meeting, Erekat said that if Israel does not stop building in the settlements, 'we will announce one state and struggle for equality in the State of Israel.'"[13]).
You asked why Israel should return the Golan to Syria? Nobody gets something for nothing, and if Israel wants peace it will have to make concessions to achieve it. I know of nothing else that Israel has to offer Syria in exchange for that peace. Do you?
Regarding Lebanon, I'll tell you exactly what I expect will happen. Hezbollah's Sunni candidate for Prime Minister, Najib Mikati, will be elected. The current majority won't support the government easily, but Lebanon will officially drop its support for the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, which will go ahead and indite Hezbollah members anyways. Lebanon's government won't issue warrants for any of those named. Worst case there will be some minor skirmishes, as there were in 2008, but not full scale war. While Hezbollah and Syria's allies will have power (as they did prior to Syrian withdrawal in 2005), Lebanon will not be a Shi'a state. That won't stop Israel from citing Hezbollah as an excuse for attacking the Lebanese government in the next flare up of violence.
Regarding religious states, I'm an American, so I strongly believe in the separation of church and state. Any time you have religion dictate state law, you have the strong possibility of one person's beliefs infringing on the another person's rights and freedoms. Too often religious intolerance leads to discrimination and genocide. Today, Arabs can't marry Jews in Israel. Tomorrow, who knows? Maybe working on the shabbat will become illegal, even for for Arabs. If that separation isn't maintained, that line will keep moving.
I'm not too familiar with the circumstances around Jews leaving other Arab countries, but if they were forcibly removed by the armies of those countries then they should be given the right to return. Do the nations you listed actually make it illegal for Jews to buy land or attain citizenship? From what I've heard, Israel does discriminate against non-Jews in this manner. Neither is okay.
I know people on both sides of the right of return debate. I can't imagine that there are many refugees left who were alive before 1948, which would make it a nice, symbolic gesture to allow them some right to return. Here's a question for you: If the Palestinian Authority announced tomorrow that they would allow Palestinian refugees outside of the West Bank to buy land in the West Bank and apply for Palestinian citizenship, do you think that Israel would allow them to travel to the West Bank? I would strongly suspect not. ← Georgetalk23:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Gilisa, you're invited to participate in WikiProject Judaism, a WikiProject dedicated to developing and improving articles about all aspects of Judaism and Jewish Life. You can check out the Judaism WikiProject page for more information about the project and what our goals are. You can join by adding your name here. We hope to see you join us! ___________ -Invited on 1 July 2011 by Magister Scienta.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Gilisa. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-officeconnect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.
Hello :-) I opened a discussion on the Israeli Jews page about creating a new selection of photos. I saw you showed interest in it in the past so if you would like to participate you are welcome! I am trying to promote an equal representation between Ashkenazi a Mizrahi Jews (right now only 4 out of 21 are Mizrahis) and less politicians in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.21.223 (talk) 18:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I went on the Germans page and saw that on the collage they put Einstein and Marx, who were obviously not German. I opened a discussion on the topic on the talk page, and I got a bunch of Germans saying Jews are not an ethnic group but a religion. Could you join the discussion and help explain them that Jews are an ethnic group and Einstein (who identified as a Jew) and Marx are Jewish.
Discussion on Ashkenazi Jews talk page - should Sholem Aleichem be in the collage
Hi :-) Due to the fact I saw you interested in the topic, I thought you might want to take part in it.
There is a discussion on the Talk:Ashkenazi Jews regarding should Sholem Aleichem and Mikhail Botvinnik be in the collage or not. The discussion is called "Ones and for all, should Sholem Aleichem and Mikhail Botvinnik be in the collage".
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abraham Zacuto, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Columbus (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.
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Gilisa. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Gilisa. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
