User talk:Gilabrand/Archive 2

Jerusalem on Jerusalem Day
It's really sad, but the featured article on Jerusalem Day will not be Jerusalem. It will be some Brazilian soccer player. The featured article director, Raul654, has all kinds of considerations I cannot begin to guess at when he makes the pick. There were two other articles competing for the date. Tariqabjotu nominated as a possible alternative June 7. You can read why at Today's featured article/requests.

About the tagging, if you happen to forget to add a tag, you can always edit the page and add the appropriate image copyright tag. For example: cc-by-2.5. I like the images you've uploaded a lot; maybe you can even try to go for featured picture. If only the article was twice as long so we could twice as many pictures! nadav 11:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Petah Tikva
Hi, I have noticed that you made three edits to the article Petah Tikva. Please note that Wikipedia has some established standards and conventions for section headings, style, etc. As a start, please read Manual of Style and proceed to WP:MSH. I have so far reverted all your edits. Please reply if you disagree with my actions or have questions. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way and that you won't edit the article on Petah Tikva again. I didn't say your edits were bad, but that they didn't comply with some rules on Wikipedia, and other conventions established with consensus. For example, an infobox (Infobox Israel municipality) was created by me a while ago after it was widely agreed that lead sections in town articles were too large because they listed several possible transliterations, therefore logically the infobox would list these as they were needed for clarification. You went and removed them with the explanation that you were 'copyediting' (I appreciate that some of your other edits were indeed copyediting, but not most). You also removed the 'standard Hebrew', which is supposed to be an IPA-like transliteration, and replaced it with just the town name (not useful). Also you changed all headings to capital letters, which is correct as far as English grammar goes, but not on Wikipedia (again, see WP:MSH). Please understand that I am not telling you these things to blast your edits, but to help you avoid similar situations later and maybe quitting Wikipedia because of disputes with other editors (like saying you're a 'professional editor' and others are not). Note that 'near-native' does not say that the level is lower than native, it could actually be higher. Please considering reading all the links I provided in this and the previous post. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 11:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Limburger cheese
Your recent edit contains the worst pun I have read in months. Congratulations; I salute you. =D Mockingbus 08:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was wondering if anyone would notice...I saw that someone removed the entire "joke" section as "inappropriate." But if you think it's that bad, you can take it out. --Gilabrand 08:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, not at all. It's one of those so-bad-it's-wonderful puns. I love it. I don't see why Eyrian removed it, though; the "in popular culture" section is pretty common, and often even warrants its own article. Maybe we should create one? Mockingbus 14:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know about warranting its own article, but maybe you could restore some of the interesting bits under a "trivia" heading, weeding out the sillier stuff--Gilabrand 18:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Knesset article
Sorry, didn't quite understand the "raw nerve" comment. I'm not bothered at all where the election results go; your point is very relevant and I think it would be best to leave it at the end. I'll do it quickly - if it's not what you meant let me know. Number  5  7  09:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm not sure the template is needed at all; I don't see how the votes etc and parties that didn't make it in are relevant. I shall take it out and just leave the bulleted list of parties that are in the Knesset. Number   5  7  09:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah no, I was referring to the Israeli election dates template and the others rather than the results one. Anyway, I've updated the Knesset page. Number   5  7  10:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Hi Gila, my bad. I normally keep my thoughts to myself in edit summaries, but it looked like it was made up, and without a reference it's hard to be sure. Thanks for clearing this up. Yechiel Man 06:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyediting request
Hello Gila. Do you mind applying your copyediting expertise to El Al? The article is a current FA candidate, but I think there are a few stylistic issues that should be ironed out. I've started out on fixing them, too. Thanks, nadav (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, no problem. I'll have look later when I finish work.--Gilabrand 10:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Shimon Peres

 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again.  --Chabuk [ T • C ] 17:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for "clogging things up," as you put it, but the article was really a mess. I wanted to be sure it wasn't featured on the front page that way. I did use the preview feature, but there were times today when there were "lag" messages and my edits were not saved. --Gilabrand 18:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

El Al
Nadav, I am very touched. Thank you for the Barnstar. Actually, I had to go look it up, as I never knew what those stars were about...I've been working on the El Al article, bit by bit (in the middle of work, so I can't do it all at once). I was wondering if there shouldn't be a picture of the aircraft used today at the top of the infobox, above or below the logo, to jazz the page up a little. Do you think the current logo should appear twice (both on top and lower down?)--Gilabrand 07:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume there's some sort of standard among WP:AIRLINE articles about the infobox. You should raise this this point on the El Al talk page. I myself have not been too involved with the article; I just did a little copy editing and "consulting" work for Flymeoutofhere, who I think has worked on it more extensively. nadav (talk) 07:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Mount Zion
In your recent edit to Mount Zion (diff), you blanked out valuable disambiguation material. Please do not remove such info without moving it to a new page, in this case Mount Zion (disambiguation). (I already did this now, and I just wanted to inform you about the procedure. :-)) – sgeureka t•c 18:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Over a month ago, I added a note asking for this information to be removed and got no response. After reading it over a few times, I saw that pages were built for these other "Mount Zions" and thought the list wasn't needed. Sorry. --Gilabrand 18:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if no-one replies to your question on the talk page, then of course you have the right to remove such info after more than a month has passed. I didn't check the talk page either, so it's my bad as well. ;-) Disambiguation talk pages are just not that important to most people... – sgeureka t•c 19:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Givat Shaul
Nice history section. Do you have a reference?--Redaktor 08:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks - the reference is the same as the one in the first paragraph, regarding the name Shaul. I have more interesting things to add when I get a chance.--Gilabrand 12:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Gilabrand, but "beyerushalayim" is lousy grammar; the word is "birushalayim".--Redaktor 14:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hitzkhakta oti...--Gilabrand 15:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That can't be bad! --Redaktor 14:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Cuisine
None taken, it isn't my picture, have anything better? It hardly looks gross to me, and besides, there are no other pictures on the page. Epson291 12:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have a picture of a bowl of Kubbah Hamusta. Shall I upload it? --Gilabrand 18:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, sounds great, you don't need to ask me though. I love many of the pictures you've added by the way.  Epson291 20:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good what you've done. I think there should be further clarfication of "Sephardic" in the lead, since it doesn't always include Mizrahim, especially in English. But it's much better then it was, I didn't do any other work on the article other then translate it from the original Spanish.Epson291 02:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

El Al
Thanks for translating the article ;) About the logos, you weren't the only one who suggested removing the repeated modern example. The issue was raised again in the FAC discussion. nadav (talk) 06:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: What the... == ==

Hey, I just said that "it is possible..." But since you're the editor who reacted to this, does that mean that you're one of those who keep on revising the article? As for what you said in my talk page "If there is a ban on anyone, it should be you."--since when did you have the final say over anything, Mr.Gilabrand? Joey80 12:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I made the last change (long ago), and assumed you were directing your comments to me. I never "keep revising" articles. I make the change I think is needed and leave it at that. Anyway, whoever you were talking about, I think your remark into "cyberspace," as it were, was nasty and uncalled for.--Gilabrand 12:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

El Al
Gila, Great work on El Al. The article was promoted to Featured article yesterday.

Derwig 09:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Derwig! I appreciate that. Who decides on whether an article gets featured status? I didn't see the discussion anywhere. The article is really quite good now. Nadav alerted me to the fact that it needed some work. I'm glad I was able to help.--Gilabrand 09:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The discussion took place at Featured article candidates/El Al, see also link to old nomination at the top of that page. The FA director promotes articles when consensus is achieved. There is another article that you might enjoy editing, and could use your copyedit touches. Have a look at Music of Israel, a relatively new article. It is extensive, but somewhat of a mess. Derwig 09:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Your work had a major effect on the FA candidacy discussion (at Featured article candidates/El Al). I have some experience with User:Tony1's objections from the Jerusalem FAC. He is a stickler for his views on English, and sometimes vocally opposes promotion of an article only because of a small number of sentences he feels are not well-written. (He is also the author of the respected User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.) After you went over the article, he didn't have any more content objections. nadav (talk) 09:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is very gratifying. Wish I had more time to be useful around here. I am always working on deadlines and putter around on Wikipedia to give my brain a rest. I know that sounds strange, but the human brain works in wondrous ways. LOL I read the discussion and Tony's objections. His opus on copyediting is actually an excellent and insightful piece of work. Derwig, I will have a look at the music section when I get a chance.--Gilabrand 10:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Jaffa Road
Hi Gilabrand, I thought that most/all of the suicide bombings in the mid-1990s were part of a Hamas campaign. If its still true that most are, I would still favour the link, as that is the only list of attacks from that time-period AFAICT. Let me know,  Tewfik Talk 09:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's another link listing suicide bombings since 1993 which shows that Islamic Jihad, Fatah and PFLP claimed responsibility for some of the attacks on Jaffa Road.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-%20Obstacle%20to%20Peace/Palestinian%20terror%20since%202000/Suicide%20and%20Other%20Bombing%20Attacks%20in%20Israel%20Since --Gilabrand 09:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I only saw this now - perhaps an entry on the phenomenon would be in order?  Tewfik Talk 06:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Armenian Quarter
Thanks for your copyediting on the Armenian Quarter section of the Old City (Jerusalem) page. In case you are looking for something to do, the main article (Armenian Quarter) needs much the same treatment, if not more. Very best, Hertz1888 22:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your many helpful edits to the Ebionites article on the day it was featured. Ovadyah 12:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that, and thank you for taking a moment to let me know.--Gilabrand 12:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yellow badge
Thank you for reverting the recent attempt to soapbox the article, but do you think you can revert his other addition too? That one is also OR and of similar problems.-- Sef rin gle Talk 06:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. I suggested he take his agenda to the Muslim Persecution page.--Gilabrand 06:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. As a member of the Wikipedia community, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information of living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article must include proper sources.  Sala Skan  11:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your concern, but if you think that Wikipedia is the place to create mythology, I beg to disagree. Leila Khaled, by her own admission, engaged in terror and sat in jail for it. Now she claims to have renounced violence (whether or not that is true). In the interest of compromise, I have described her as a "reformed hijacker" - and added a solid reference. --Gilabrand 11:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I was pointing at this edit. Although you likely acted in good faith, these qualifications are unnecessary. After all, some think Bush is a terrorist, as well. We should avoid the word "terrorist" as it is needlessly divisive. See also WP:WTA.  Sala Skan  11:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not a valid comparison. Bush was not convicted of any crime and he did not sit in jail, no matter who likes or dislikes his policies. --Gilabrand 12:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What about Nelson Mandela? Well, he would not be regarded as a terrorist, but as a "political enemy" or something like that. These qualifications are unnecessarily subjective. See also my previous comment.  Sala Skan  22:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

my edits
Instead of reversing all my edits, one by one, why don't you work on the article itself, which is really quite sketchy at the moment and in dire need of information about matters other than politics? --Gilabrand 18:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not reversing all your edits one by one. I changed a few section headers, and that was pretty much all I was going to do. I didn't do all of the edits at the same time because it was much easier to utilize section editing (much in the same way you made your 40+ consecutive edits several hours ago). I am in the middle of working on the article and have been doing that for quite some time now. You can work on whatever part of the article you want, but I'm approaching the article (for the most part) from top to bottom, meaning I'm probably going to be wading through quite a bit of political material at the start. --  tariq abjotu  19:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It just seems to me that everyone is busy rewriting the stuff at the top, over and over, chewing the cud, so to speak, and never getting past it. As a result, this article is missing big chunks of what makes Israel such an incredible place. Wars, and politics, and human rights. What about the rest of it?? The work I did this morning was just to get it into some kind of workable shape, moving sections around, taking out photos that detract, looking at the "big picture" in a way that I haven't seen anybody do because of all the nitpicking about Palestinians and wars and speculation about how many bombs Israel is hiding. --Gilabrand 19:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit to Haifa article
Just FYI, you put where it should've said and that made the bottom part of the article disappear. It's fixed now but, I'd thought I'd inform you just the same.--Sus scrofa 19:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that. Thanks. One of the things I haven't learned yet is how to deal with references and footnotes. I never seem to get it right...--Gilabrand 19:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Israel tourism image
The image you recently put into the Israel article, Image:800px-Tel Aviv Beachs.jpg, is nice but I am skeptical of the licensing. One of the most visible issues I have with the image is the decorative border. How many people do that to their own photos? I would think an advertisement for Tel Aviv or a hotel in Tel Aviv would be more likely to have that kind of photo. In addition, the uploader of the photo has a had a poor track record, with several photos having to be deleted for incorrect licensing (and there are a few more that are obvious violations). --  tariq abjotu  03:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The photo was on the Tel Aviv page so I assumed it was OK. I thought the page needed a little jazzing up - but if this one is a problem, get rid of it. I have a similar one I took myself. Should I upload it? I have other photos on my User page that appear on Wikipedia, and I could look through my files for some others. How do you know the person who put that photo up didn't take it? --Gilabrand 04:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Hi Gilabrand...

I am not sure why you keep removing the information I put at Herod the Great article. It is consistent with other Encyclopedias, and more importantly, it is ture. You can find a lot of articles about that via a simple search on Google for example. This information is also present in the Wikipedia page of Herod's father. Herod was Jewish in faith, Arab in ancestry. It is a simple fact. At his time, you are either Jewish or pagan. Nothing striking there. In fact many Arabic tribes converted to Judaism. Also, many of them become christians too like the Ghassanids. And many of them become later muslims too... This is a complex region with a lot of interesting history. I will not check this page again, if you are replying, I prefer you do that at the discussion page of the article. Cheers. Almaqdisi talk to me 02:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Your addition of reference to Edom
Since it appears that you refer to a print edition of Brittanica, you will need to add the edition of EB you used. Other publication data would be helpful, as well. IPSOS (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Muslims and Jews
Oh, I fully expect to be 100% reverted w/in 24 hours. Unfortunately, political correctness far too frequently trumps reality in WP. That said, if you think my superlative "overwhelmingly" was too much, why not take it out? Tom e rtalk 10:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent Hurva photo?
You have some really nice photos! My brother, currently in Yerushalayim, told me that the building is nearly finished! I am so excited. Do you think another photo is in order? Could you arrange one? Chesdovi 12:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Chesdovi. The only photo I have at the moment is one of the arch from a different angle. Next time I go to the Old City, I'll try to take an updated one. Incidentally, I think there are too many photos in the gallery on this page. It think some should be deleted. --Gilabrand 12:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Since most of them fall under PD, they should be moved to Commons and then the link added. Chesdovi 12:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have just spokn to my sister who works in the old city and she tells me that there is still scaffolding etc around the site, so I don't know what on earth my brother is on about. I just wanted to let you know so that you don't make a wasted effort. Chesdovi 20:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Artical of the day
Well if you would look at the history you would see why I did it. Oysterguitarist 06:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The whole "Airport Today" section is missing - if you can restore that, it would be good.--Gilabrand 06:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Why have you undone my edit?


Please explain.

Pikuachnefesh 22:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Because Avram Burg has said many things in his life, some smart and some stupid, and this particular quote is damaging not only to him, but to Israel. That's why. In an article that consists all of a few sentences, to bring such a quote without further explanation is disingenious, and says more about the person who put it there than about him. The article as it is now sufficiently portrays the duality of his character and views without "rubbing it in--Gilabrand 04:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC).


 * But it is likely his most famous quotation, outside of Israel. If you would like to add further explanation in order to avoid misleading the reader, you should do so. But is it an encyclopedia's role to protect Avraham Burg's reputation from the foolish things he has said and done, or to protect Israel from the foolish things that have been said about it? Shall we remove Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's anti-Israeli and antisemitic statements because they make him look bad, and might damage Iran or Israel or both? I think it is likely that most English-speaking readers will recognize and be able to place Burg by this quote more than any other. Do you think perhaps some of the other material that is not so famous could be removed in order to restore balance? Pikuachnefesh 17:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you seem to have been posting without responding to my comment here, so I will restore the edit. If you would like to delete something for balance, you might look to the bits about his comments on eliminating the Right of Return, which apparently he has backed away from, something I don't believe can be said of the quotation you deleted. Pikuachnefesh 14:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's any more famous than other statements he has made, but if you think it's pikuach nefesh, go ahead. Splatter mud and turn wikipedia into a vehicle of hatred to your heart's content. I have better things to do. --Gilabrand 15:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that the truth goes further than anything else to save a life, thanks. Pikuachnefesh 16:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Motza
As far as I can tell it was annexed to the Jerusalem municipality in its most recent expansion, and I saw (though can't find now) media reports concerning the choppy integration and irregular delivery of services etc. being protested by residents. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 06:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Would you please stop patronizing as if you're the boss around here, and bring back the nice destination map to ben gurion airport? You're just bullying around, and your opinion is just as good as anyone else's!
 * You are right - my opinion is just as good as yours, which is why I can delete a map that is illegible and ruins the layout of the article. You are an anonymous entity who doesn't even sign his/her posts. So I wonder why you think you have more of a say than people who have been working on this article for a long time and helped to make it a feature article.--Gilabrand 04:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Formatting references
For information on how to format references, see Template:Cite web, Template:Cite book, and Template:Cite web, among others in Category:Citation templates. When you put reference information between tags, they will appear in the "Notes and references" section, where they theoretically should reside. Improperly formatted references can produce this (scroll down a bit to see). If you're not comfortable using the citation templates, you should at least put the link (with a title, publisher, and/or access date) between tags. --  tariq abjotu  14:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about doing so badly with the links. I just can't seem to remember what to do, especially when I'm in a hurry (which is most of the time...--Gilabrand 17:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC))

Second Lebanon War
Indeed Israel has decided to call the war the "Second Lebanon War" but Lebanon has called it the "July War". The fact that we are writing in the Israel article does not license us to only use the Israeli name. That would be akin to rephrasing the first sentence of Palestinian refugee to say "the Palestinian Exodus, the Nakba (Arabic: النكبة, meaning "disaster" or "catastrophe")" instead of "the Palestinian Exodus, which Palestinian Arabs call the Nakba (Arabic: النكبة, meaning "disaster" or "catastrophe")." So, I'd suggest either (a) removing the end of the sentence (like I did earlier) or (b) rephrasing the item to say "known in Israel as the Second Lebanon War" (specifying that Israel calls it that, and removing the link to Second Lebanon War, which is redundant with the "five-week war" link). I personally prefer the first option since (i) we already link to the 2006 Lebanon War article earlier in the sentence, (ii) what Israel calls the war is rather inconsequential, and (iii) we don't explain what the First Lebanon War was (and probably don't need to). --  tariq abjotu  18:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What Israel calls the war is inconsequential??? If we are talking about an article on Israel, and a war in which Israel was involved, I would think it DOES matter what Israel calls it. When I last looked, the sentence said "known in Israel as the Second Lebanon War." I'm fine with that. You can get rid of "summer rain" or "five-week war" (as a media person, I spend every minute of my day with my nose in newspapers, and I can assure you none of those other names are used in any English language source). --Gilabrand 18:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * For Operation Summer Rains, see The Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, the U.S. State Department, the New York Times, and the United Nations. As for "five-week war", I'm not sure what you're attempting to contest here. That the war lasted longer or shorter than five weeks? What Israel calls the war is inconsequential; what matters is that the war happened. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter whether some call it the Second Lebanon War, the July War, or the Lebanon Lollygag; that's why the naming issue is covered in 2006 Lebanon War and not, rightfully, in places such as the Lebanon article. --  tariq abjotu  19:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If in the grand scheme of things nothing matters - not names, not dates and not facts - why get involved in Wikipedia? Just to put things straight, Operation Summer Rains was an IDF operation in the Gaza Strip. The initial name of the 2006 war in Lebanon was Operation Change of Direction, and it lasted 34 days (hey, we could add another name to the list: the Thirty-Four Day War!). In fact, all these names are said to be computer-generated. The names are silly and wars are silly, but we still need to get the facts right (preferably without the angry undertone). --Gilabrand 20:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You did not respond to my comment at all. --  tariq abjotu  20:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Changing information on Jerusalem page
I've undone your edit regarding the Arab population of Jerusalem. The original sentence referred to Arabs within Jerusalem. For some reason, you changed the meaning to refer to the surrounding population. Why did you do this? Robert Ham 11:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently you are not aware of Jerusalem geography or the way the Arabs live. They live in villages scattered on the edges of Jerusalem, which are part of Jerusalem. I am referring to villages/neighborhoods like Sheikh Jarrah, Issawiya, Sur Baher, Umm Lison, Beit Hanina Silwan, Wadi Joz, Azariyah, Abu Dis, etc. There are something like 28 Arab villages included in Jerusalem's municipal boundaries. There was no intention of changing any meaning. I believe this is what the word "clusters" was intended to convey.--Gilabrand 11:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"Unrelenting shelling"
Can you at least remove the word "unrelenting"? That's not neutral language. --  tariq abjotu  17:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, will do.--Gilabrand 17:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The diaspora
Why do you believe "diaspora" is a proper noun? Even the Jewish diaspora article is named with a lowercase d, not an uppercase D. --  tariq abjotu  19:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, Wikipedia is not a reliable source for anything. The more I poke around on here, the more horrified I am by the amount of nonsense that is being accepted by people around the world as "The Truth" just because it says so on Wikipedia. To answer your question, the Diaspora is an accepted historical term that is always capitalized. See, for example, the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: "Diaspora" (capitalized): The aggregate of Jews or Jewish communities outside Palestine; the body of Jews living dispersed among the Gentiles after the Babylonian captivity; in the New Testament, the body of Christians living outside Palestine. --Gilabrand 19:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not saying that Wikipedia is automatically correct. What I'm saying is that using a lowercase d would be consistent with Wikipedia usage. The American Heritage Dictionary may go with capitalized, but Encarta appears to go with lowercase (see first sentence of Part IV) and Britannica doesn't seem to be able to decide. It looks like you will see different forms depending on where you look; even the American Heritage Dictionary (in its second definition, which is basically the same as the first definition w/ a lowercase d) acknowledges this. --  tariq abjotu  20:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the use of a capital for Diaspora is the same as for Holocaust. Capitalized it refers to a specific historic event, with lowercase used for "generic" diasporas or something that someone (usually with a political agenda) wants to compare to a holocaust. Using lowercase in reference to the Jewish Diaspora and the Holocaust of the Jews in Germany, is also a subtle way of downplaying their significance - hence my objection to a small D in an article on Israel or Jews. I have been editing and translating academic books on Jewish and Zionist history for university presses for over 30 years now, and have never seen the Jewish Diaspora with a small D. I just checked the 15 edition of Britannica, which I own, and it uses a capital D. Same for Encyclopdia Judaica. As for Encarta MSN, I suspect that it copies from Wikipedia, and is very superficial. --Gilabrand 04:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * On another note, are you able to read Hebrew? And, if so, does this source support the statement that "Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Yemen are termed enemy countries according to Israeli law, and Israeli citizens are prohibited from visiting them"? I've been having trouble locating a source for that, but the Israeli passport article appears to imply the one I just noted works fine. --  tariq abjotu  05:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read Hebrew. The document in question is dated from 2004, and nowhere does it speak of Lebanon, Syria, etc. as "enemy countries." It says that Israeli citizens may not enter XXX countries that fought against Israel in its War of Independence (with a clause excluding Jordan & Egypt since the signing of peace treaties) without a permit from the Ministry of the Interior. It doesn't use language like "forbidden" or "prohibited" either. It just says "may not." --Gilabrand 05:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I wonder what "first source" you are referring to. The reference numbers cited on the page seem to be incorrect, and I find nothing that says Israel "terms" any country an enemy country. Also, you have used the Hebrew source selectively. It says Israeli citizens may not visit these countries unless they have government permission to do so. That is an interesting distinction with political implications, and also rules out the use of the word "enemy." At the moment, Israel does not have relations with these countries, but diplomatic activity is going on which may change things.--Gilabrand 07:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Your revert to Jerusalem
I'm not going to jump into this argument, but you could be a little more civil in your edit summary reverts. Thank you. Panoptical 16:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your kindness, but the person to whom I addressed the comment actually deserved less civility than that. I was restraining myself.--Gilabrand 16:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Museums per capita
I take issue with you removing the piece about Israel claiming to have the most museums per capita (in leiu of simply saying Israel has the most museums per capita). I'm having serious trouble finding a third-party, non-Israel government source that states this fact and I find it hard to believe any other country is even keeping track of this statistic. Additionally, I found one source (see page 23) that suggests some of these types of factoids on Israeli government websites are false or otherwise exaggerated. I chose a reference that had the museums fact in the midst of prose, but the point still stands that this piece of information originated from lists such as this one. Indeed, they read more like chain letters than researched information. --  tariq abjotu  06:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Good morning, Tariq. Let's start off the day nicely, please. The phrase "I take issue" already shows me you are in a militant state of mind. I did not put that information in the article - it was there. As far as I'm concerned, if there is no source, take it out altogether. Either the country has more museums or it doesn't. I think we shouldn't introduce another source of argument - i.e. that Israel claims to have a certain number of museums while someone else contests it. This is certainly not an issue worth fighting about, and in any case, I don't think this is Israel's claim to fame. --Gilabrand 06:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow. You certainly read way too far into I take issue. --  tariq abjotu  06:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * From the way you are blanket reverting my edits, for the umpteenth time, I see I was not far from the mark at all. I wish you would take it easy, Tariq, and work with me rather than against me. Regarding the museum issue, I found a source for the claim that Israel has more museums per capita in a book review: --Gilabrand 17:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it only me who cannot find a reference to the government websites in the book found by Tariq? It appears that the authors have listed numerous claims without attributing them to sources and easily debunked the most frivolous of them. Looks like a straw-man argument meant to lead to a guilt by association for all factoids that reflect positively on Israel. Beit Or 18:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Israel page
The reason why I changed "Israel is the only Jewish...." to "The country...." is because the previouse two sentences also begin with "Israel...." and it makes the reading odd. It's something taught here that one shouldn't start a sentence with the precedings sentence' initial word when it can be avoided.

In regards to the "of local Arab background", it is there to ensure that the reader knows to distinguish that the Muslims, Christians and Druze and not, for example, African, Indonesian, Bosnian, etc. Muslims, and that the Christians are not "Westerners". The latter misconception is what many readers would think after seeing Christians, since many people (for complex world political reasons than I care to get into) would not associate native Middle Easterners as Christians, and would instead think they are not local people. Al-Andalus 07:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, being Arabic-speakers is fundamentally what makes Muslim and Christian "Israeli Arabs" Arab. By large, Druze see themselves as Arab, and they are identified as such by the state. What they don't consider themselves, at least most of them, is Palestinians. That, however, is a diffrent issue. The Arab Israeli article also deals with Druze in the same way. Al-Andalus 12:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In this way, it's sad to see that for some people distinguishing who is and isn't an "Arab" is not a matter of actual cultural and linguistic circumstance (as most Arab Israelis, Muslim, Christian or Druze, are essentially in the same Arabized boat), but has become a matter of merit. Merit, that is, not be considered Arab after said term has been morphed into a pejorative reserved only for those not inclined to an unconditional pro-Israel political worldview. That, sir/ma'am, is the only real factor that distinguishes the Druze from those you would define as "Arab". Al-Andalus 12:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Israel
Hi,

Sorry for the double revert there. I kept encountering errors, and didn't see that my first edit went through.

I see where you were going with your phrasing, and it's fine (I'll put it back). It's your edit summary that was wrong (or unclear) - Mesorati is not the same as conservative, in Judaism.

okedem 12:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Conservative movement in Israel calls itself the Masorti (the word Conservative would be "shamrani" in Hebrew, so they had to come up with something else). What I wrote in my edit summary is that it isn't a separate stream "within" the Conservative movement," as implied by the former wording. To avoid the confusion, I thought leaving both words out (along with any mention of the Conservative movement) would be best.--Gilabrand 12:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind offering some more insight at Talk:Israel. This article has been at the cusp of FA status for a long time, but the introduction seems to be the biggest stumbling block. Feel free to mention another idea; my example there was merely to illustrate what I was thinking. --  tariq abjotu  15:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello Tariq - I am in the middle of work at the moment and have a deadline to meet. I will give it more thought when I get a chance. Technically, is there any better way to see the changes made than comparing the edit summaries? The whole process is way too time-consuming at the moment, and Wikipedia keeps shutting down. It's hard to get a picture of the whole thing, and all sorts of mistakes creep in by accident.--Gilabrand 15:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Your copyediting of Abba Hushi
Hi, I just wanted to thank you for copy-editing my translation of the Abba Hushi article. Its the first article that I'm translating, and I think its coming along nicely. I also want to apologize for my horrendous English: once I translate the text, it's hard for me to drastically edit it, I think because I'm thinking of the original Hebrew. -ReuvenkT C 18:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad to help out. I will do more when I get a chance, but I think it would be a good idea to merge some of those very short sections into larger ones.--Gilabrand 19:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You are probably right. I've taken the section structure from the Hebrew article. I'm going to continue translating that way, and when its fully translated, I think I'll start merging/cleaning up etc. -ReuvenkT C 08:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Chetrit
Nice piece of detective work running down the correct spelling of Sami Chetrit's name.

--Ravpapa 17:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why, thank you, Rabbi Papa. Blush, blush...Actually I've spoken to him before, among other things to get the English spelling of his name for an article I was working on.--Gilabrand 17:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian people
Do you mind explaining why you reverted PaddytheCeltic's edit removing Child Suicide Bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from the External Links section?  T i a m a t  15:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As I wrote in the edit summary, I don't see why it should be removed. Shaheeds are part of the culture, and Palestinian parents claim they are happy to be parents of suicide bombers. --Gilabrand 18:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's just racist bigotry frankly and not an policy-based argument for inclusion. Thanks for being clear about it.  T i a m u t  23:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Face the truth you far right Zionist
Gilabrand you clearly are a complete morron. You cant claim the entire Palestinian people are supporters of child suicide bombing and ITS NOT PART OF PALESTINIAN CULTURE. That is like claiming all Israelis and Jews are a bunch of money grabbing, land stealers, that would be a unfair statement and biast. Not all jews and Israelis are like that just some bad apples who discrase them selfs and there people, just like the child suicide bombers who put shame on the good Palestinian people.
 * Well, I'm very glad to hear that, but somehow the facts on the ground don't bear that out. If it were not true, we'd be hearing condemnation from someone (like religious leaders, for instance, and that would put a stop to it. I believe there are good Palestinian people, and I am very far from being a far-rightist (a complete morrron - that apparently describes you perfectly), but if they are good, they need to speak out. At the moment, they don't. And by the way, if you continue to write letters in that tone, you are not going to be on here for long.--Gilabrand 04:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, Gila, I don't think you're a moron at all. In fact I think you are pretty much fine.  But in substance, I have to sympathize with this bilious fellow.  The fact that some terrorist bombers are less than the age of consent seems hardly germane to the subject of the Israel-Palestine conflict.  Does the fact that Dov Gruner was only 16 when he blew up the King David Hotel in 1946(?) merit a reference in the Wikipedia?  And who on earth will ever follow that link?  It doesn't really serve any informational purpose, it simply stirs up controversy.


 * Rather than dunking your head in the mire of Wikipedian politics, I think your time is much better spent on your excellent editing and writing on topics like Petach Tikva, Camp Ramah, and Music of Israel. It is these articles, and not the ones on conflict, that will in the end define the character of our country in the eyes of Wikipedia readers.  --Ravpapa 05:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ravpapa, you are a voice of reason, and right, of course. Thank you for getting me back on track. All the fuss was over the fact that there was a link on the Palestine people page to a "child suicide bombers" category. Someone deleted it, and I reverted his delete. In light of all the wrangling on the pages that I have been involved in, as various "editors" insist on adding POV tags and categories that vilify Israel, I thought "why should they have their cake and eat it, too." But you are right, I should stay out of these disputes.--Gilabrand 05:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, Gruner was nowhere near 16 when he fought with the Irgun, he was actually in his 30's. - mnuez —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnuez (talk • contribs) 07:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Right well maybe i shouldnt of aproached you like that but you were acting unreasonable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddytheceltic (talk • contribs) 17:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Israel, yet again
It looks like my contributions to Israel will soon be drawing to a close. I would like to draw your attention (for perhaps the last time) to the changes to the article since your last edit. I don't see any of them as particularly major, but nevertheless I want to know your opinion on them. If you have no issue (or very little issue) with the changes I made, please let me know. --  tariq abjotu  03:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Image on Israel
I have removed the image you recently added to Israel, per my rationale in the edit summary. Regarding the last item (the licensing issue), you can't put your preferred license on the image because it is a derivative work and is entirely a picture of the mural (that was not, presumably, created by you). See User_talk:Quadell. --  tariq abjotu  20:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yad Kennedy
May you upload the image to Commons so that we can use it in the other Wikipedias. Thanks--Domingo Portales 20:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And how do I do that? Can't you just copy the link?--Gilabrand 20:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Palestine terminology
Hi Gila. I had a discussion on the use of "Mandatory Palestine" previously, and discovered that the UK government only seems to use "Mandate Palestine". To me at least this makes sense, as "Mandatory" can also mean "compulsory"! Number  5  7  08:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have edited and translated several books and articles on Mandatory/Mandate Palestine, and the terms are interchangeable (regardless of your linguistic association; the word is capitalized at any rate). The problem is that the article on the British Mandate on Wikipedia uses the term "British Mandate of Palestine" which is wrong - it is British Mandate FOR Palestine. The document itself uses the term "the Mandatory" in referring to the government mechanism sent up in Palestine. This is a perfect example of how Wikipedia spreads disinformation, and it reaches larger and larger audiences as "the truth." To me, this is scary stuff, and the reason I spend time on here. On top of mangling the term "British Mandate for Palestine, Wikipedians have turned it into a geographical location - which it is not. It is an instrument of government, i.e. a system. So people were not born IN the British Mandate. They were born during Mandatory times, when the British Mandate was in force. I hope this explains things. Best, --Gilabrand 08:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK - I agree with not using British Mandate of/for Palestine as a country name. As you can see here, I tend to say in infoboxes that the country was "Mandate Palestine", but in the text I refer to people being born during the Mandate Era. What are your thoughts on that? Number   5  7  09:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I see you have been contributing to Abba Hushi. Was he born in Austro-Hungary or Poland? The Knesset website claims the latter, but the article text the former. If you are sure about using A-H, could you correct his MK infobox? Cheers, Number   5  7  09:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Your solution is a good one. Regarding Abba Hushi, he was born in Turka, Galicia, which was part of either Austria or Austro-Hungary at the time (I'm not such an expert on when all these border changes happened), but not Poland. What is A-H? (Clearly that means I'm not sure about using it....)--Gilabrand 09:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A-H was my shorthand for Austro-Hungary. As it appears that Austria did not exist as a seperate state between 1867 after WWI, the MK infobox should have it as Austria-Hungary (which is the location of the Wikipedia article for some reason, though I have only ever heard Austro-Hungary before). Thanks for clearing it up, Number   5  7  10:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Image sizes on Israel
I noticed you set explicit images sizes on this article recently. This isn't the correct way of laying out an article, as per the guidelines at WP:MOS. If you want the images to be larger, the correct way of achieving this is to change your default image size preferences. On my account I've set the default image size to 250px, so when you set an explicit image size in an article which is smaller than this value the images become smaller for me, not larger. (Caniago 15:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC))
 * Who says you can't set the size manually? I've seen it on thousands of pages. Different photos on the same page may need to be different sizes. I don't believe in this mandatory stuff.I look at the layout from an artistic standpoint.--Gilabrand 16:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You are free to try and change Wikipedia policy, but its all defined in the manual of style link I provided above. By setting a fixed size it may look great in your web browser, but terrible for other people. Leaving images at the default size allows Wikipedia to size images based upon the user's screen size and their image size preferences. Generally the higher quality Wikipedia pages which have gone through a FA review and scrutinized for compliance with the manual of style don't (or at least shouldn't) have image sizes set. (Caniago 10:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC))

Source info
Since it appears you are responsible for adding the Ausubel reference (and I assume you still have access to the relevant book), can you clarify whether the text just supports "In the second half of the 18th century, entire Hasidic communities from Poland, Galicia and Ukraine settled in the Holy Land with their rabbis" or whether it supports the two preceding sentences, "During the 16th century, the pace stepped up, and large communities struck roots in Jerusalem, Hebron, Safed and Tiberias. In the second half of the 18th century, entire Hasidic communities from Poland, Galicia and Ukraine settled in the Holy Land with their rabbis." Also, while I'm here, I wonder if Image:Herzl.jpg or |{ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff}&qsPageNo=1&fdid=&Area=Search&TotalCount=180&CurrentPos=5&WinID={2229f866-769a-4419-ac17-f2ca09283bb5} this image (w/o the watermark, obviously) is more informative and/or more iconic than the current image of Herzl. The photographers for each of the images is unknown, but I would not be surprised if they were in the public domain (I'm not an expert on image policy though). --  tariq abjotu  07:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The text supports both statements: "With the 16th century, in the wake of the many calamities that had struck at the Jews in Europe...the return to Eretz Yisrael, which had been a thin but perpetual stream until this time, now turned into a virtual torrent. Large communities of pietists formed in Jerusaelm, Hebron, Safed and Tiberias...The zealots of the Return greatly increased in numbers in the second half fo the 18th century with the mass arrival of sectarian Chasidim from Poland, Galicia and the Ukraine, led by their holy rabbis, the tzaddikim." The image of Herzl I added is in the public domain (I took it from another page, and I'm pretty sure this is stated by the person who downloaded it). From what I understand, photographs taken in Israel can be used freely after 50 years. The picture of Herzl on the balcony is the most widely recognized, iconic image of him, used everywhere, which is why I thought a different image might be preferable. But if you like the other, I have no objection.--Gilabrand 09:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Surprisingly, I can't seem to find the balcony image anywhere on Wikipedia. It's certainly not in the Theodor Herzl article at least. --  tariq abjotu  15:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I found this in the Commons [Image:Theodor Herz007.jpg] - It looks like a photoshopped version of the original. Maybe the original is under copyright after all. --Gilabrand 16:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I uploaded a different photo (of higher resolution and without the fading on the left) and added it to the Israel article. I believe the rationale for it being in the public domain is reasonable. --  tariq abjotu  16:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahad Ha'am
Shalom, Nice work, copyediting of the above, etc. Have you finished? If so, shouldn't the Copy editing request Tag be removed?
 * The best to you, --Ludvikus 11:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I haven't done copyediting. Here and there, I added information and created new sections, but the text does need revision, as someone pointed out on the talk page. At the moment, I'm in the middle of work. What about you? Also - the article really needs a photo? Any ideas where to get one?--Gilabrand 11:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yom Kippur
Hi! Hope you had a Tzom Kal. You removed a claim that Yom Kippur can never fall on a Friday or Sunday as "nonsense". Could you identify a year when Yom Kippur fell on either a Friday or a Sunday? I believe this part of the claim is true. I'm not sure if the reason you removed (it would interfere with Shabbat) is accurate, but it does make some logical sense. If it fell on a Friday one couldn't prepare for Shabbat and there would be a conflict between when Yom Kippur is supposed to end and when Shabbat begins, while if it fell on a Sunday there would be a conflict between when Shabbat is supposed to end and when Yom Kippur begins. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I misread the statement (too much fasting...). I thought it said that Yom Kippur never falls on Shabbat. Anyway, the wording is misleading. It is not that Yom Kippur can "never fall" on a Friday or Sunday in the Jewish calendar, but that if it does, the celebration is postponed so as not to conflict with Shabbat. I still think a reference is needed for this (I will try to find it in Shulchan Aruch) - so far I have only found mention of it on private blogs. In the meantime, you are welcome to restore it. --Gilabrand 06:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The Hebrew calendar article explains that in years when the 10th of Tishrei would otherwise fall on a Friday or Sunday, then the date of Rosh Hoshana (the first of Tishrei) is moved to ensure that this does not occur and the length of Elul is changed correspondingly. Thus, Yom Kippur always falls on the 10th of Tishrei, - it's never postponed -- but the mathematics of the Hebrew calendar ensures the 10th of Tishrei never occurs on a Friday or Sunday. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Why did you undo my revision?
Gilabrand, why did you undo my revision? I commented in the talk page about it and explained why I made that change. Please comment there if you disagree. As it is now, I can see no need for the POV tag, as I explained on the talk page. --Jdcaust 20:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that - I think it was a mistake. I must have thought you added the tag. With so many people with political agendas jumping in to wreck the article these days, it's hard to keep track.--Gilabrand 08:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Simchat Torah
Hi! I added this comment to Talk:Simchat Torah:


 * Hi! I've added unreferenced tags to some sections after resurrecting them from a previous immediate delete. Much of this article is currently unreferenced and subject to challenge. Given that it is a perennial problem (and opportunity) of Wikipedia's Judaism section that editors arrive unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies, I would suggest that editors concerned about the unsourced content use a gentler approach and add {[fact}} or similar tags and wait a decent period (a couple of weeks) before engaging in wholesale deletion of unsourced content, rather than doing so without warning. Given that there are no WP:BLP or similar legal issues involved here, I believe this will better facilitate a balance between the need to enforce policies and the need to maintain colleagiality and cooperation. Thanks!

Thanks, --Shirahadasha 22:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice that you are so tolerant, Shirahadasha, but I believe that the amount of distorted information on Wikipedia is something that should concern everyone who values the truth. Misinformation is being peddled on here and allowed to remain until someone "finds a source." Nobody is going to find a source for such nonsensical statements as the one about congregrations holding shorter hakafot during the day of Simhat Torah because the whole congregation has a hangover, or the fact that Jews engage in "trickery" on Simhat Torah. These are statements that are clearly written by some teenage yeshiva students using Wikipedia as a personal blog. You can make light of such things, but I find it frightening to think that articles like this on Wikipedia is where the world is getting its information on Judaism. Tolerance and good faith has its limits.--Gilabrand 08:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Israel and references
Can you direct your attention toward Talk:Israel when you get the chance? And can you also finally learn how to use citation templates? They're not that hard to use and your addition of drastically malformed references is a problem. --  tariq abjotu  16:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Gilabrand's recent changes" - OMG. I'm famous. For your information: "The use of Citation templates is not required by WP:CITE and is neither encouraged nor discouraged by any other Wikipedia citation guidelines." --Gilabrand 20:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * But you are not using any referencing format at all. Sticking a URL between &lt;ref> tags (and sometimes not even doing that properly) is not a valid way of inserting references in footnotes. No title, no publisher, no accessdate... just long URLs that sometimes have the effect of forcing a horizontal scrollbar onto a page. --  tariq abjotu  20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Place a &lt;ref> ... &lt;/ref> where you want a footnote reference number to appear in an article—type the text of the note between the ref tags." That sounds like a reference format to me. --Gilabrand 21:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh... no... that's not a reference format. That's just telling people how to insert a footnote; you put what you want in the footnote between &lt;ref> tags. If you are inserting a citation, you are, shockingly enough, supposed to put real information about the source between those tags. If you insert a URL into a footnote, you're supposed to, at minimum, put the link in brackets so it does not extend into other references and off the right side of the page. It is highly recommended (dare I say "required", particularly for featured articles) to also include the title and publisher and other important information, sort of like – again, big shock here – as demonstrated only a few lines after the quote you presented. This is not the first time I have explained or hinted at your unwillingness to format references at least half decently. I have been fixing your mistakes time after time, often despite you having the balls to say I can't write English well or that I somehow have a lot to learn. Oh please; get off your high horse. Stop resorting to meaningless diversions and attacks because you don't want to admit you're wrong. --  tariq abjotu  16:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)