User talk:Gilad55

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Gilad55, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

December 2013[edit]

For your recent edit to Category:Jews, in blatant disregard of the discussion and the heavy disagreement on WT:JUDAISM. Debresser (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing.

How to use talkpages[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:TALK#Layout and Help:Using_talk_pages#Indentation to learn how to use indentation when replying on talk pages. In short: take care that your posts should look like a continuation of a discussion and do not place all of them at the beginning of the margin. For those who are used to Wikipedia house-style, it is very irritating when you outdent all your posts, as though with every new reply you start something new which needs to receive major attention. Debresser (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014[edit]

Your recent reverts of my reverts of 3 "Jewish" articles go against the conclusion of the discussion from December 2013 (see above). One more such revert, and I will ask to have you banned from all Judaism related articles. You go against the Wikipedia principle of consensus and engage in edit warring. I hope you understand this will not be tolerated. Debresser (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Category:Canadian people of Jewish descent. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

No consensus[edit]

Gilad55, there was a long discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism about whether "people of Jewish descent" categories could be categorized as "of Asian descent" which you well know of because you were a participant in it. There was no consensus and, if anything, there was a slight majority favoring removing the "of Asian descent" categorization, particularly for people in North American, South America, Africa and Australia. Neither side can claim that it is acting based on consensus because opinion was divided. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is why the recent (relatively speaking, for categories) addition of these categories by Gilad555 and Evildoer187 can safely be removed as having been shown in that discussion as a no-consensus change. The idea of Evildoer187 that the result of "no consensus" means we keep everything the way it was at the date the discussion ended is a misunderstanding of the concept "no consensus". Debresser (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand that you never achieved consensus for removing the cats either. The discussion was divided, and no consensus was achieved in either direction. You had no right to remove those categories.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evildoer187, you are working on the premise that the categories weren't contentious and didn't constitute WP:OR in the first instance. Contributors have the right to remove original research... or are you implying that POV interpretation is a substitute for verifiable and reliable secondary sources? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not if they don't have consensus for removing it. How am I supposed to attach a source to a category anyway? I will gladly do so, if allowed. And how is classifying People of Jewish descent as People of Middle Eastern descent "original research"? And if what you say about the inclusion of those cats constituting original research is true, then why did we even have that long and protracted discussion in the first place? Evildoer187 (talk) 08:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the original question posed at Wikiproject Judaism was not Middle Eastern descent but the fact that some "of Jewish descent" categories had the parent category of "of Asian descent" or "of Southwest Asian descent" which meant that a person who was a "Mexican of Jewish descent" would be categorized under greater parent category "Asian people" (along with "North American people"). This was the question I posed on the project page and then it went off the rails into arguments about Jewish identity and DNA. It was meant to be a simple organizational question that people invested more meaning into a simple category assignment, as if it was defining Judaism itself.

This is not about articles written about Jewish history, ethnicity and culture, it's just how articles and categories are arranged, categories are a navigational tool. Meaning, if a reader is looking for people who are "Canadian people of Jewish descent" would they look for them in the Asian parent categories? I don't think so. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not "Asian descent", but certainly "Middle Eastern" and "Southwest Asian" one should expect to find cats relevant to the Jewish diaspora. In any case, I am only concerned with accuracy, not with people's pre-determined expectations on where they could find such cats.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Potential inclusion in a Dispute Resolution case?[edit]

Hi, Gilad55. You appear to have been silent for a while on the issue of categories. As I've become involved and the issue it at an impasse, I thought it best to take it before a WP:DRN in order that an experienced, neutral party can assist in mediating. I don't know whether you wish to be involved in the process (everyone named has to 'show up' at the DRN before it can go ahead).

Please let me know ASAP as I intend to present the case tomorrow. Incidentally, don't worry about the fact that it sounds so formal. The function is not to reprimand anyone, just to try to come to some sort of consensus or suggest alternatives. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, include me. Thanks Gilad55 (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]

Shall do. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Gilad55. You have new messages at Iryna Harpy's talk page.
Message added 05:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Holy Land during Byzantine rule[edit]

Category:Holy Land during Byzantine rule has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. GreyShark (dibra) 17:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014[edit]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

Somebody re-opened an old discussion in which you took part, and you are therefore cordially invited to partake in the discussion at Category_talk:People_of_Jewish_descent#Middle_East_category_Rfc. Debresser (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Withdraw RFC as poorly worded". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 9 October 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 04:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning Withdraw RFC as poorly worded, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 05:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)