User talk:Gilabrand/Archive 10

FYI

Enforcement: [1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Supreme Deliciousness (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

June 2010

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked for a period of 3 months from editing . Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read our guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. T. Canens (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

See AE thread. Your 6-month topic ban is reset to begin anew upon the expiration or lifting of the block. As it appears that you have difficulty distinguishing between edits that violate your topic ban and edits that do not, I recommend that you voluntarily avoid all content and discussions related to Israel for the duration of your topic ban, to reduce the likelihood of further violations. T. Canens (talk) 19:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is to confirm that I have received the four emails you sent to me. The reason for the delay is because, upon a preliminary examination of the emails, it was apparent that they stated no claims upon which an unblock may be granted, and were consequently of very low priority. Your claim that the edits do not violate the topic ban was rejected when I blocked you, and I see no reason to reconsider that determination. You have been warned multiple times that the topic ban will be construed broadly; you have been blocked multiple times for similar edits, but you have still persisted. To the extent you challenge the severity of the sanctions, it was apparent that less severe sanctions, such as the most recent one-month block, have failed to alleviate the problem. Insofar as allegations of misconduct by other editors are concerned, they are irrelevant to your actions, which are the only matter I am concerned with. Similarly, your previous good work supplies no reason to violate your topic ban. T. Canens (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National parks of Israel template

Please share your opinion here. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harel Skaat

Hello, I have been working on the article for Harel Skaat and if you get a chance could you please check over it and give me some feedback on it? Thanks. Hjquazimoto (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Per your email acceptance of the terms of the conditional unblock, namely:

You agree to a voluntary topic restriction from all content and discussion related to Israel and/or Palestine, broadly construed, for the next 30 days.
At the expiration of the above restriction, you are further topic-banned from all content and discussion related to the Israel-Palestine conflict, broadly construed, for 30 days.

If you completely abide by these restrictions, then at their expiration your 6-month topic ban from content and discussion related to the Israel-Palestine conflict will be lifted.

Request handled by: T. Canens (talk)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Re: Human

Years ago? See the talkpage; try 3-6 months ago (for the most recent related discussion); the RFC was less than a year ago. Further, while I appreciate the virtue of WP:BOLDness, content choices that are the results of long prior discussions in which much thought was expended and which are clearly marked as such are not the best places to apply boldness; discussion is warranted. And aside from yourself, I am unable to recall (although admittedly the archives are large) anyone else voicing concerns that the image is "condescending" to those depicted therein (not that other concerns weren't brought up); you are almost certainly the first to suggest that some sort of comparison between the couple and A. afarensis is intended by the article. (You are reading in and jumping to the conclusion of bias where there isn't any.) --Cybercobra (talk) 08:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the same photo appears in "primates" I doubt that any of this is the figment of my imagination.--Geewhiz (talk) 08:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Child article

Hello, Gilabrand. I reverted one of your edits because of what I stated in this edit summary. This is being discussed on the talk page. While I agreed to leave the biological definition first, I also feel that it is better to acknowledge that we are initially speaking of the biological definition. Some people are taking offense to the lead defining a child simply as someone who has not hit puberty. Making clear that we are speaking of the biological definition first, then the legal definition, is better I feel.

And thank you for your addition of how a child came to be seen as so different from an adult. I tweaked this section by moving it higher, and as a subsection of the section on definitions of a child. Flyer22 (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you will take a look at the wikibias website.RockvilleMD (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Safed

Can you take a look at edits made by User:Basjor/User:194.176.105.41 - I only came accross him because he added spurious conent to another article. I have previously reverted his edits but don't want to get into an edit war about a subject I know nothing about, but (for example) the paragraph "In the 12th century, Safed was given away to the crusader by الصالح إسماعيل صاحب دمشق، the king of demuscus as a gift to show the crusaders his loyality to them, a fortified city in the crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem known as Saphet." doesn't make sense, apart from having spelling errors and Arabic text. Your help and advice would be appreciated. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:HapoelscarfS.jpg

Hi Gilabrand, I saw that you uploaded a picture of a hapoel katamon jerusalem scarf in the englisch wikipedia, could you pleas upload it as well on commons, 'cause i'd like to include it into the german version of the article. greetings --Cartinal (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to do it, but feel free to ask someone else for help.--Geewhiz (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I will have a look how to upload it there, perhaps i can do it myself. cheers --Cartinal (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Ramah article

Please do not remove AfD notices. You need to let the discussion run for seven days, where a consensus will be reached. You can comment on the discussion here. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yael Arad

I am not reverting your edits "robotically", nor am I vandalising the article. I am merely ensuring that Wikipedia doesn't break the law. Removing copyrighted material is a specific exemption from WP:3RR, whereas inserting it is a blockable offence. If you carry on inserting this material into the article you are going to end up blocked. Hut 8.5 13:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which material are you referring to? I have rewritten most of the article. There is nothing here that is remotely close to "breaking the law." Your threats are not appreciated. You are deleting solidly referenced texts based on numerous sources that in no way constitute plagiarism, are not contested by anyone and do not constitute libel.--Geewhiz (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply on the article's talk page. There are legal issues here; the copyright holder could (in theory) sue Wikipedia for hosting the material, and that is why Wikipedia policy is so clear about removing copyrighted material. There are no issues with libel, factual accuracy or referencing here and I don't know why you are bringing them up. Hut 8.5 13:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Rami Kleinstein

The article Rami Kleinstein has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 20:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

You are aware that when reverting an edit that is not vandalism you should give a reason in the edit summary, correct? If you did not know that, this should serve to inform you of that. nableezy - 06:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the previous version because you deleted sourced information. I thought that was obvious, but if it wasn't then please forgive me. It was an oversight. --Geewhiz (talk) 06:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you did it again. And this time you violated naming conventions that were created following an arbitration case and also did not say one word on the talk page. nableezy - 14:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did what again? Your POV (West Bank) is still there. Shomron is a perfectly fine term and has it's own Wikipedia article. Who says it can't be used??-Geewhiz (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You again reverted an edit without saying one word in the edit summary or the talk page. And who says? Wikipedia says: The terms "Samaria" or "Judea" cannot be used without qualification in the NPOV neutral voice; for example, it cannot be asserted without qualification that a place is "in Samaria". If you bothered to read the links in my edit summary or the talk page comment I made you would have known that. Those naming conventions were created after a number of users were indefinitely banned by the Arbitration Committee. Those naming conventions have a consensus and were created under the supervision of the Arbitration Committee. nableezy - 14:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, West Bank still appears. That "qualifies" the term. So I don't know what you are so upset about. If your feelings are hurt, again I apologize.--Geewhiz (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you said, repeating it does not change the fact that you are clearly missing the point. The naming conventions stipulate exactly when you can say "Samaria". It explicitly says that the use that you reinserted is not acceptable. You wrote that a place is "in Shomron". I am sorry too, but only because I may have to ask that your topic-ban to be reinstated for tendentious editing. These naming conventions reflect a consensus and refusing to abide by them is not acceptable. We should not have to deal with this same nonsense every time some nationalist user feels like starting the fight again. nableezy - 14:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The qualification that you think is met is not a "qualification". "West Bank" is not qualifying "Shomron". The rest the naming conventions stipulate when you can use the terms:

Any uses of the terms must be in one of the situations described below:
- 6D) The term is being used within the article about itself, where its meaning and usage has already been explained to the reader; although additional qualifications may be needed for some uses even there.

The use you reinserted clearly violates those naming conventions. I really do not want to have to go through any administrative channels dealing with this. I know you may not believe this, but I actually dont dislike you. But if you refuse to abide by consensus and make me have to go through the same arguments over and over then I will. Bye, nableezy - 15:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So revert it, Nableezy. If that's how you get your kicks, be my guest. To me it seems that my edit is perfectly fine, but if you disagree, tfadal. --Geewhiz (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should not have to, and I do not want to as I dont want to give further ammunition to those friends of yours wishing to see me banned. If I provide clear evidence that your edit is against established guidelines you should revert it. nableezy - 15:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any friends of mine wishing you anything.--Geewhiz (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right, let's call them friends of mine and recognize the point stands. nableezy - 15:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nahal Kziv

Although I tend to agree that "Kziv stream" sounds a little lame, I was trying to keep it uniform with a bunch of other "nehalim" that can be seen in Category:Rivers of Israel. I once changed the name of the "taninim stream" and had it changed back for the same reason. So I would say that you should either adhere to the convention, or go ahead and change all the names. --Sreifa (talk) 12:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying, but all the sources quoted in the article use "Nahal Kziv." In fact, "stream" is not necessarily the correct translation. Not all nehalim are streams. Many are dry riverbeds, or were in the past, and the riverbed is no longer visible. In some cases, they are rivers. There are many articles that have not been switched over, among them Nahal Sorek, Nahal Snir, Nahal Iron and Nahal Tut. I agree that consistency is good, but think that in this case, the Hebrew term ought be left untranslated, with a translation in parentheses in the lead.--Geewhiz (talk) 12:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Stream.
In any case, we need an English term. Or we can just go and change mts. Arbel and Meron to "har".... --Sreifa (talk) 14:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some Hebrew terms cannot be properly translated and should remain as is. "Wadi" and "tel" are good examples. Looking at the Wikipedia article for stream just goes to show how imprecise the word is, and the extent to which it is not a translation equivalent for "nahal." Regarding "har" - I am not saying it shouldn't be "mount XXX," but the truth of the matter is that most mountains in Israel are not mountains at all, but hills. So across-the-board translations don't really work here. On top of that, Wikipedia is based on published sources, and most of the English sources use the term "nahal" as part of the name - which doesn't mean that it cannot be described as a stream/river/brook/dry riverbed in the article iself. -Geewhiz (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think stream is fine, if anything the stream article should be expanded with the Israeli info as well here Stream#Intermittent and ephemeral streams. There are many uses of Hebrew words turned into colloquialisms thrown around in our everyday vocabulary that I think should not used. For instance, I had supported the use of 'yishuv' in many instances, but quickly understood that we should avoid it. At this time I would not support the use of nahal in the article title. I would hope that the community could agree on a convention or point us to where this might have already been discussed. --Shuki (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about "Yishuv" (with a capital "Y") when used in the context of the pre-state Jewish community in Palestine, which is the name for it in all academic literature. In the case of "nahal," I think it should be retained when it is part of a place name. Think about "mitzpe," in the context of the Galilee mitzpim. The name of Gilad Shalit's village is Mitzpe Hila. Are you saying Wikipedia should rename it Hila Lookout?--Geewhiz (talk) 06:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on the Yishuv thing, that is what I was referring to and it was agreed to no use it in place of the word community in post48 populated places as well as Mitzpe X and Maale Y. But a water is not the same. --Shuki (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Shuki that Stream should be used, and in general we should be using English-language terms. Two analogies provided by Gilabrand are incorrect; Mitzpe X should not be translated because it's part of the name of a locality, while Nahal is not (see for example how encyclopedias such as the Hebrew Encyclopedia and Ariel Encyclopedia list articles about these things). The comparison to Wadi is also incorrect because Wadi is an English word that appears in English dictionaries. Nahal is not (although dictionary.com describes it as "a military youth organization" or "an agricultural settlement, esp in a border area, set up or manned by Nahal members"). Not to mention, the term Wadi has a Wikipedia article while Nahal has one about the "military youth organization".

In short, there is absolutely no reason here to use the Hebrew term. Keep in mind that this is the English-language Wikipedia, and should be first and foremost accessible to English-speakers (most of whom come from countries other than Israel and do not know what Nahal is).

Finally, if no consensus is achieved here, we must take this discussion to a broader forum because discussions that affect dozens of articles should not take place on user talk. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please posta link to the said conventions?--Sreifa (talk) 07:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you're asking me, but much of my argument was based on WP:NC and WP:ENGLISH. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing advice

Please carefully review the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank) page, which outlines the consensus on this subject. Changing articles without discussion against this consensus is disruptive, and could result in sanctions being applied against you. PhilKnight (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tel Aviv

You have made a fantastic tel aviv page look like crap with old photos, all lying to the right! I've uploaded many updated shots and edited the information in a very accurate way and you've destroyed it! You're not a Wikipedia contributor, but a destroyer!

A fantastic page??? It was downgraded from featured article status because it has slowly been turned into a badly written piece of hype stuffed to the gills with substandard photos. --Geewhiz (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deanb, please stop your personal attacks against other editors. Gilabrand's edits were justified and it is your edits that were not. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Message at Kinneret, Israel

Please see: Talk:Kinneret, Israel#Moshava. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's right, it's a moshava. See he.wiki, among others. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

for the interesting etymological article you linked to in Emek Refaim. I have learnt something, for which I am grateful. RolandR (talk) 11:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Streets in Jerusalem

Hi, I noticed you made some adjustments to the template. A while back, a different user started adding streets, making lots of red links. I decided to try to write articles about some of them, and found it very rough going (it's far easier to find information about neighborhoods than streets). I'm just wondering if all these streets really qualify as "major" streets in West Jerusalem. Is Burla really a "major" street? I've never heard of it. Kol tuv, Yoninah (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after I started messing with it, I'm not sure such a template is a good idea. There are dozens of main streets in Jerusalem these days, and many of those currently mentioned link to the wrong articles. Also I think writing full articles about some of these streets will be pretty much impossible. Maybe we should delete it altogether...FYI, Burla is a major street running from the Knesset to the Israel Museum, the Science Museum, the Rabin Guesthouse and the Hebrew University. --Geewhiz (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. If you decide to delete the template, I support you. Yoninah (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for this edit. I was going to do something similar last night, but was too tired when I got home, and had to go to bed. --NSH001 (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reassessing Ayoob Kara. :) --Metallurgist (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do you have any recommendations for how to improve it further?

Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs

I see that you have resolved the ongoing, long term conflict of interest issue by simply removing the tag. Brilliant. Let that be a lesson to the JCPA editors. I'm not going to pretend to care. More seriously, I think the best way to solve the issue in the long term is to simply make the article better so any help with that is appreciated. Unattributed propaganda like "...in the wake of the NGO-led campaign to demonize Israel." is not appreciated at all however. Anyway, baby steps. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tags because all the material taken from the center's website or added by persons that appear to be from the center has been removed. The sentence you quote is solidly sourced, even you consider it propaganda. May I remind you that your personal views are irrelevant. I have removed the COI and added historical data from external sources. The article certainly needs expansion, but I think it is much improved. --Geewhiz (talk) 12:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough on the tags. To clarify, my view was that you using Wikipedia's neutral narrative voice to speak Gold's non-neutral unattributed words on his behalf was propaganda rather than that Gold's words were propaganda. Basically I'm calling you a propagandist but I assume it was unintentional on your part. I'll try to add something about their various programs, ICA etc when I get a chance but if you stumble across some secondary sources it would be quite handy. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ghajar

Are you aware that there is an ongoing discussion about the topic you reverted on? And I have already told you that Wikipedia policy says that if you revert an edit that is not vandalism you are required to give a reason in the edit summary. You have inserted a map that says a place nowhere near Israel is in Israel without saying one word on the talk page or the edit summary. nableezy - 17:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere near Israel? Are you sure? I edited the article a long time ago. Maybe something happened in the meantime. Sorry if I got it wrong. --Geewhiz (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry, I didnt realize I was dealing with somebody who didnt know the basic facts. Ghajar straddles the border between Lebanon and Syria. The Syrian territory it is in is occupied by Israel. It is not however in Israel or anywhere near Israel for that matter. nableezy - 18:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honorifics

Thanks for your corrections to the Jewish Theological Seminary of America page. I saw that you removed most uses of the title "Rabbi" from the article, but I see that many other Wikipedia articles use this sort of title. Is there a Wikipedia policy or set of guidelines on how to use such titles? Thanks! Hznhr (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can have a look at WP: Honorifics for help. I don't think there is a hard and fast rule, but honorifics are generally discouraged on Wikipedia. Describing someone as a rabbi is fine, but in this particular article, where nearly everyone mentioned is a rabbi and/or doctor, the repetition of "Rabbi Dr." seemed excessive to me. Anyone who goes to the linked pages will find out that the person in question is a rabbi or a Ph.D.--Geewhiz (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV: Settlements are illegal Re: Gush Etzion

Please refrain from removing ICJ references from the Gush Etzion article, discuss on Talk:Gush_Etzion#NPOV:_Settlement_is_illegal before removing NPOV terms.User:Waqas.usman (Talk) 17:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take your agenda somewhere else. This stuff has been discussed ad nauseum. If you are trying to push forward your personal agenda, you should join a political party. An encyclopedia is not the place for it. --Geewhiz (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit

In regard to this edit I suggest you reconsider your approach. Firstly, your tone is condescending, and secondly there is a good faith content dispute, which you appear to be disingenuously ignoring. Regarding the tags, I appreciate that I'm here as an admin, not a mediator, but I fail to see why you can't compromise and have a single tag. Anyway, I'd much prefer if you could look again at your edits, so I could close the report at WP:AE without taking action. PhilKnight (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've been reported at WP:Arbitration enforcement

Hello GIlabrand. You are invited to respond at WP:AE#Gilabrand. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

response

I dont know what it is that I did to you to bring about your scorn, but please allow me to explain myself. I think that you are, for the most part, a decent editor. You certainly have faults, and you have one incident in your history that is difficult to set aside when dealing with you, but you are by no means a bad editor in my eyes. The only problem that you and I have had, as far as I know, has been your blanket reverts of edits that I make that are discussed on the talk page without you making so much as a "me too" appearance on the talk page. How am I supposed discuss a dispute with you if you never discuss when we have a dispute? I grant you, 3 tags was overboard. But I opened a section on the tags in the talk page on 16:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC). Nobody responded and I restored the tags a day later. Within minutes that edit is reverted. If you were able to revert the edit in minutes why were you not able to respond on the talk page in the 22 hours since I had opened a section about the tags? Tell me, what exactly should I do to try to solve what I see as major issue with the neutrality and accuracy of the article? When I add material it is removed. When I modify material it is reverted. When I add tags just saying that there is a dispute, even that is removed. What would you have me do? How should I react when editors not only remove material that I feel resolves the dispute but actually deny that a dispute even exists?

Gilabrand, I say this with complete sincerity; it is not my intention to cause you any distress, and if I have done something in the past that did so I apologize. The only thing I want from you is to explain why you revert an edit when you do so. Thats it. I dont think that is an unreasonable request. If you do not want me to leave messages here I understand and I wont. nableezy - 07:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike you, I have a life. I do not spend 24 hours a day on Wikipedia looking for fights. You have earned my scorn because you bring nothing to this project apart from disputes. No content, no editing of substance. Just reverts and squabbling over individual words. I do not read talk pages that you have filled up with circular arguments and trashing of anyone who tries to help. I have more constructive things to do. I may not agree with you, but I have not reported you for anything, or complained about the crude and harassing remarks you have made to me. You, on the other hand, think that reporting me to administrators and having them block me after I spend endless amounts of time copyediting articles and improving them, is the way to go. You do have fine lawyering skills and do not appear to be unintelligent. What a pity that you don't use these talents for good.--Geewhiz (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry you feel that way, I really am, but what you write isnt true. My problem isnt with your copyediting, my problem is with the other edits you make and refuse to explain. For example, at Ghajar, there was an ongoing discussion about why the Israel pushpin map should not be used. You reverted to use the Israel pushpin map, completely ignoring the discussion and not commenting in it even after I come here with my complaint. At Psagot, there has been a huge amount of discussion about how to include illegality under international law. You come in, and without saying one word in the discussion, completely remove any mention of that illegality. You say it was SYNTH but you removed a source that explicitly says that Psagot is illegal under international law. Please tell me how you expect me to react to such editing. nableezy - 13:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Renanak

You contacted him on his user page, not his talk page. s/he will not get an orange message bar. best, --brew crewer (yada, yada) 13:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1RR and discussion restriction

Under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, and per this AE thread, you are limited to one revert per rolling 24-hour period per article on all articles within the area of conflict, as defined in WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict, until 00:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC). Furthermore, you are required to discuss any reverts you do make on the talk page, in English, within 30 minutes of the revert, excepting reverts of obvious (as in, obvious to someone who has no knowledge of the subject) vandalism, as defined in WP:VAND. T. Canens (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a sanction that goes against Wikipedia norms, since the person who complained about me retracted his statement. I will continue to edit as necessary, reverting tendentious edits and removing unneeded tags that are placed on articles out of some political agenda or spite. I will continue to copyedit as necessary, and add content and solid references to articles. I will NOT leave comments on talk pages unless I feel it is useful and contributes to improving the article. I will NOT take part in the ridiculous semantic debates that certain editors initiate to bring the state of the article to a standstill. I expect the above message to be struck from the page, as it has clearly been put there in error. Administrators with a chip on their shoulder should be dismissed from the project--Geewhiz (talk) 07:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel

Hi Gilabrand. An editor accidentally revealed their IP on your talk page, and an admin seems to have revision-deleted two comments as a result. I put back the comment by Smallman12q. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 06:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, EdJohnston. I would also appreciate your attention to the above. Why do I have the sneaky feeling that nothing happens on here accidentally?--Geewhiz (talk) 07:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome of an AE case may occasionally seem random. It may depend on who was at the center of the latest skirmish, and others who edited in close proximity might be missed. Still, an admin who noticed that you have nine I/P blocks in your log since mid-2008 would probably think that there was some kind of ongoing problem. As time passes, more and more I/P editors (with strong affinity for one cause or the other) will probably slip up and acquire 1RR restrictions, unless they behave with great correctness. That is always an option to consider.

Regarding this particular case, the original complaint was that you were reverting several times without participating on the talk pages. Your response was to counter-charge, mentioning bad behavior by the others. ("I am sorry for being so naive as to think that I could stop the fighting on a page where Nableezy's name appears"). It would have been more persuasive if you had apologized for not participating on talk, and explained what you were willing to do differently in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the explanation, but I really don't think what I say or don't say has any bearing on the outcome. It seems pretty clear that there is a blacklist and a whitelist, and I know which one I'm on. And by the way, there are lots of rules on Wikipedia, but I am not aware of any law that I must write on talk pages. I am here to edit articles, not talk pages. --Nopleazy 17:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I was not "reverting several times." I reverted once, after thoroughly copyediting the article restoring the neutral tone. Those "several times" you are talking about were the work of other editors. Administrators are jumping to conclusions without examining the facts. I was not under any 1 RR sanctions and it was perfectly legitimate to remove Nableezy's triple tagging after addressing the problems.--Nopleazy 17:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy's complaint mentions three different articles. The fact that your revert was not banned by any restriction doesn't rule out its being considered aggressive, especially in the absence of talk discussion. You resent being required to discuss your changes as the outcome of the AE, yet the complaint said that you didn't discuss them, and you had no good response to the complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ajami, Jaffa

Could you discuss your reverts for Ajami, Jaffa at Talk:Ajami, Jaffa...the page is part of an academic assignment under USPP and the editor is a bit confused as to why you reverted. (I'm not sure why you removed this comment after it was added back)Smallman12q (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smallman12q, please note the message at Talk:Ajami, Jaffa#Cleaning up the POV and misuse of sources which is a response to Ka Yaffa's proposed changes. The signature 'Nopleazy' is sometimes used by Gilabrand so you might have missed it. (Hover the mouse pointer over the signature to see who it really is). Controversial changes are best proposed on the article talk page before being made. EdJohnston (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ye...must have missed it with a different signature...sorry about that.Smallman12q (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tell or tel

I can find no dictionaries giving a derivation from the Hebrew. Both Chambers and the OED are highly reputable works. Both give the etymology as from the Arabic. I have no doubt that the Hebrew word is very similar, but that does not change the fact that the word entered English from Arabic, and not from Hebrew. Could you provide the quotation from Albright (who does not seem to be a lexicographer of English) in which he derives the English word from the Hebrew? Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Arabic it's not Tell, but rather Tall (note that the vowel /e/ does not exist in Arabic). On the other hand: the Bible, from which English has borrowed many Hebrew words (e.g. Seraph, Cherub, Sabbatical, Jubilee, Amen, Halleluja, and so on) has the word Tell, in our meaning. See: Ezekiel 3 15 (which mentions "Tell Aviv", translated into Arabic as "Tall Abib"), Deuteronomy 13 17, Joshua 8 28 (both of which mention "Tell for ever"), Ezra 2 59, Nehemia 7 61 (both of which mention "Tell of salt"). In Hebrew, the word Tell means what it means in English. And...yes: I speak both Arabic and Hebrew. 87.68.58.51 (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable sources to say that the English word is derived from the Hebrew word rather than from the Arabic? Because that is what we go on here. The citations in OED are:

The Arab name for an artificial hillock or mound, usually one covering the ruins of an ancient city.

1864 W. F. AINSWORTH Comm. Xenophon's Anabasis 285 The hill..appears to have been one of the ::numerous artificial mounds, topes, or tells, sometimes sepulchral, sometimes heaps of ruin, which ::abound on the plain of Babylonia. 1878 CONDER Tentwork Pal. (1879) II. 46 We may next notice the ::most remarkable of its antiquities, namely the Tellûl or Tells there found. 1878 MACLEAR Bk. Joshua ::xv. (1880) 149 The tell is very strong and it rises about 200 feet high. 1882 F. S. DE HASS Buried ::Cities III. v. 380 (Funk) Tells or conical hills.., many of them the craters of extinct volcanoes.

::DuncanHill (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source? How about Webster dictionary? Roll down this page, until you come across the picture of trees on a mound, and then... read. The dictionary gives two possible spellings: Tell/Tall, and indicates two possible origins: Arabic and Hebrew. Note that the spelling "Tall" is suitable to Arabic, whereas the spelling "Tell" is suitable to Hebrew. Eliko (talk) 00:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Additionally, the fact that the more common English word is "Tel" - rather than "tal", proves that the English word is derived from the Hebrew, because Arabic doesn't have the /e/ vowel. 77.124.160.201 (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The more common British English spelling is tell. The spelling, given the English language's notoriously cavalier treatment of foreign vowels, tells us little. I'm interested to note that you (how many accounts and IP addresses are you using?) don't regard Chambers and OED as reliable sources. Are you trying to promote a particular nationalist position by denigrating the contribuiton of Arabis to the English language? DuncanHill (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for your personal questions:

I've got no accounts in Wikipedia.
I'm 87.68.58.51, and I'm also 77.124.160.201. My server changes my IP - whenever I put on my computer.
I'm not trying to promote any particular nationalist position, nor am I trying to denigrate the contribuiton of Arabic to the English language, because I myself speak both Arabic and Hebrew, and I respect both languages, and I'm totally aware of the contribution of both languages to English.

As for your comment about Chambers and OED: No, I don't disregard them, why do you think I do? Where did I claim that the word is not derived from Arabic? As a linguist who speaks both languages (Arabic and Hebrew), I've only claimed that the spelling Tall is more suitable to Arabic, whereas the spelling Tell is more suitable to Hebrew. As for your claim about the vowels: as a linguist I can "tell" you, that when borrowing an Arabic word (e.g. admiral, lilac, magazine, sugar), English never changes an Arabic stressed /a/ to a stressed /e/. Anyways, why do you disregard the sources given by User:Eliko and by User:Gilabrand? Do you think they are not reliable sources? As far as I'm concrened, I've never claimed that your sources are not reliable, as I explained above.

87.68.59.57 (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing

I don't know what you're up to, but I'll have no hesitation in reporting you under the ArbCom provisions if it continues. And this edit summary is unacceptable. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin, you are violating AGF. How about we report that? --Shuki (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And how about we report you swooping down on an article you have never edited before and removing a perfectly good source backing up a statement that has never been contested - without explanation? I identified that as vandalism since I could not see any other reason for its removal. My restoration of the source and addition of material to make the statement clearer is what people who are interested in improving Wikipedia and writing an encyclopedia do. --Nopleazy (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gilabrand, please stop signing yourself as "Nopleazy". Note that the the criteria governing what are unacceptable usernames also apply to signatures (see Username Policy). Specifically, misleading, offensive and disruptive usernames are banned. This is my second time of asking. ← ZScarpia 16:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with Nopleazy. Why is ZScarpia any better?--Nopleazy (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel

Why did you remove the section about Israeli MP inciting to kill Ahmadinejad?

Re: Isdud

Hi Gilabrand! I can't see anything wrong with the first paragraph except that it's not very well-written and could use a copyedit. Is there anything specific you believe is incorrect? I have plenty of sources on the events surrounding Operation Pleshet and will look into it ASAP. Regarding the second paragraph, I am not so sure, but it's not sourced. I can take a look if this is the part you believe to be incorrect. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just looked at your edits to the article and believe I understand the concern. I will look into it. What's obviously incorrect however is the sequence of the events; events at the "end of August" (Operation Yoav) should be described before events at the end of October. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Emesik (talk) 13:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]