User talk:Gidonb/Archive 2010

Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions
You should nominate Same-sex marriage among Native Americans in the United States at Template talk:Did you know so it can appear on the main page. If you want I can do it for you. Hekerui (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for you kind suggestion and offer. I have never nominated an article that I started for anything but (once) deletion so I would follow your nomination with interest! Best regards, gidonb (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So are you doing it or should I? If you've never done it's time to try really. Hekerui (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for your suggestions! I do not wish to ask for any such things and, much more than that, do not wish to tell or even imply what you should do. I am happy to create an encyclopedia with you and all my other colleagues here! gidonb (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no clue what you mean but it's the last day and I wrote up something simple. Hekerui (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I meant to say that the question you asked me was a difficult one. I do not want to submit myself or my articles for anything (without committing for the future), just to assist Wikipedia whenever I can. I do this since 2003. By the condition in your question I could not say that either, as I would imply that you should submit the article. I make it a habit not to command people around, if I can help it. You submitted anyway and that's fine. As long as this is what you really want. gidonb (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't possibly boss me around when I'm giving you a multiple choice and you pick, right? :-) Best Hekerui (talk) 11:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As you put it, by not picking the first option I was telling you what you should do. It's not my cup of tea. gidonb (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So polite! You need to spend some time in Berlin to get rid of that ;-) Okay, I won't bother you anymore. Hekerui (talk) 08:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. gidonb (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the notice! gidonb (talk)

Haiti
No worries, I caught on. Thanks for fixing the article, I went ahead a re-deleted the images. Rafajs77 (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Great job, thank you! gidonb (talk) 12:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Oscar van Dillen
I am not quite sure what I did so wrong over at the AfD. You said: "Please be careful, especially with PRODing, but even with AFDing." If you mean be careful when placing the prod, I missed the previous AfD through an oversight: I removed the prod a few minutes later and sent the article to AfD for a second time. Yes indeed I should have spotted the prod in the history... However, I honestly thought the guy was not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, given the complete lack of sources and the apparent non-usefulness of those Oscar had provided in the other AfD; hence the request for deletion. Once the AfD was underway, I felt I had better try to keep it on track: the previous AfD went off at a tangent at times and some editors even came close to downright vilifying the poor fellow. During the second AfD process, editors slowly but surely started to make sense of all the sources and find a few more here and there. Oscar then contacted me by email to declare his non-involvement in this AfD but also to help out with better sourcing and explain some of the more obscure sources he had found. I then made sure every editor involved in the previous AfD and all the major contributors to the article were aware of the 2nd nom. During all this, four editors, including my self, added the sources we had found and verified (or had been provided with by Oscar) to the article. When you found it, the article was fully sourced and simply required someone who could speak Dutch to verify the Dutch sources. One editor in the discussion seemed to claim that none of them were any good. I asked for confirmation of this but never got it. I was going to withdraw anyway just as you made your speedy request since the article was no longer unsourced and unviable and clearly profiled a notable person. I might add that I am only a year and a half old here on wiki, so I am still learning, really. Oscar thanked me for the thoughful way I was handling everything, so he, for one, doesn't think I did anything wrong. And he is chairman of the Dutch Wikimedia Foundation! On the other hand, if I have indeed done anything wrong that he hasn't seen, I would like to understand what it is exactly so I can learn from it. I do feel we need to be careful with articles about our own people, though: they really should all be up to the minimum standards expected by the policies. This article blatantly was not until the four—now five—of us started to add the actual sources that should have be added three months ago. Or rather should have been added when the article was created... I am not a "deletionist", BTW, far from it. This article came up during a drive to source 200+ unfer'ed BLPs over at WP:CTM and WP:composers. Almost all were sourced. Van Dillen was far harder than any of these—and some of those took hours to sort out. Hence, van Dillen ended up on the scrap heap, so to speak, after we had finished. Anyway, I hope that explains my methods for you and clears things up a little. I look forward to any thoughts you might have. Regards --Jubilee♫ clipman 02:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

(I linked the wrong wikiproject, BTW. WP:CM → WP:CTM --Jubilee♫ clipman  00:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC))
 * Don't worry about it. gidonb (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I've added a few more comments over at the AfD but I think we should both stand back now and let the closing admin get on with reviewing and archiving.  You are right I have a lot to learn but for the life of me, I really and honestly could not source this article!  The refined searches are useful and I should have been more thorough checking them.  But Dutch...?   I would not know where to start!  Google and Bablefish both garble the translations horribly: most often they are impossible to interpret.  Anyway, I really did go as far as I possibly could to source this article from RSs before the PROD was placed and again (quickly, from the sources Oscar provided) before the subsequent AfD was requested.  (I forgot to check for previous AfDs before PRODing, of course, this is true—I did check for PRODs though.  No idea how I missed the AfD but ho-hum.)  We are probably better discussing the various failures here, anyway, rather than in a withdrawn AfD debate.  Your vast experience here will certainly help me focus my future searches, if you are willing to give some basic (and not so basic) pointers.  Thanks, --Jubilee♫ clipman  03:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Musical theatre
Thanks for your contributions to the article. I have put back in the list of foreign countries with strong musicals scenes, because the articled was accused, at one point, of focusing only on the U.S. and UK. I believe the statement is true, but I haven't seen any sources in English that discuss the international musicals scene. I hope someone from those countries will eventually come by to add references. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Lists of state leaders
Dear Gidonb! I saw you changed the List of state leaders in 2007 page, and wrote: "these countries should all be returned in alphabetical order into their continent" and then you did the opposite by creating a sub-region within Asia. So the Asian countries are now not in alphabetical order. And what sense does it make to rename Middle East into Southwest Asia? The only difference is that you omit Egypt. So if you want simple alphabetical lists, why Southwest Asia? ZBukov (talk) 01:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ZBukov, it is not the opposite but sometimes a two-step process of problem resolving and gradual improvement. If in two steps they work as follows: First the majority of these countries are returned to be located under their continent (Asia) and Egypt at its correct location in Africa, then the split in Asia is dissolved. The Middle East is an intercontinental region. It was included as a fictitious continent that corrupts both Africa and Asia. Regards, gidonb (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Gidonb, you didn't mention the second step of your two-step improvement! And I'm still curious, if you want to abolish the Middle East unit as it's not a continent (which I understand and support) than what sense does it make to create a sub-region under Asia? Regards, ZBukov (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, the second step would be dissolving the sub-region into the continent. I already did that for some of the years. gidonb (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That's great! Thank you for your help in improving these articles! :) Rgds, ZBukov (talk) 10:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, wouldn't it save you some work if you effected the merger in one step instead of first creating Southwest Asia than dissolving it a day or two later? As I saw you created the Southwest region on the 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 pages yesterday and today. ZBukov (talk) 10:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I see that you start again creating a fictitious Southwest Asia region. I still se no reason to doing it in two steps. I agree with abolishing the Middle East as it's not a continent, but the last time when you started doing this, you left several Southwest Asia subregions lying around in several articles and I had to clean it up. Please do it in one step and put those countries to where they belong. There is no need for "Southwest Asia" - it's even less relevant than Middle East. ZBukov (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to pick the articles you correct at random. Wouldn't it make more sense if you went through them in order to avoid missing one? ZBukov (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Prod: Meshulam Gross
Hi Gidon: Can you help the Meshulam Gross article? You had once contributed to it. User:Debresser wants to get rid of it. What to make of it? IZAK (talk) 06:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

TU Delft Article
Dear gidonb - It is not true that I have reverted all information back, please compare the last version of the article with the one I created couple of days ago. I have responded to all your comments writing down the summary. You disagreed on adding info about EU - I have given my explanation; You wanted to have a link to "numerous research institutes" - it is there; I have removed excessive information about TU Delft graduates, since you are right that it looked too much as a PR-piece, but I left information about Nobel laureates as such information is available on MIT or UCLA articles for example; finally information on the ranking position of TU Delft was there before I even started to edit the article and the only thing I did is to add more links supporting that statement. The ranking information is available on many university articles I know, look for example at MIT, UCLA, RWTH, EPFL, University College London, etc. In conclusion - I really do not understand your decisions. All the statements in the article on TU Delft are supported by links or other wikis, so I am not creating my own reality. -- Przemysław Pawełczak —Preceding unsigned comment added by Przemyslaw Pawelczak (talk • contribs) 14:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Barry Chamish
Just a reminder but template:cite web requires the title of the webpage as well as the url. Otherwise, you get nothing but errors. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ricky81682, thank you for continuing this important job, that I had not completed! gidonb (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Hebrew songs
Category:Hebrew songs, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I always support standardization and other improvements in categorization. gidonb (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Kim Jong-un
Hi. I see you are a serious editor here. Hope you don't mind my keeping the birth date of Kim Jong-un as 83 or early 84, which is what the BBC profile gives, and supported by a cited Chosun article, which describes how the DPRK is manipulating the dates. Which was the BBC source you mentioned? The profile is dated only a week ago and if you have good references then can we discuss on the article talk page? cheers Earthlyreason (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I could not find it back. Listened already to too many broadcasts on Kim Jung-un in the last hour. Hope it will resurface. In the meantime, the vague date is the correct date as far as I am concerned. gidonb (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Gidon: Good to see that you are still active on WP. Best wishes and enjoy! IZAK (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Still doing my daily edits. Nothing exciting as I'm busy with other stuff. The best also to you! gidonb (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)