User talk:Gidonb/Archive 2006

Archive 1 (December 2003 to December 2005 - long!)

Netherlands embassy move

Could you please provide a reference? I do not recall any such move... I could be wrong. elpincha 23:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure. One moment. gidonb 23:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This source quote that it were 13 ambassees had moved [1], I only remember it from the time it happened. More follows. gidonb 23:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

OK. Waiting. Just make sure the source says whence and whither. See my other comments in Talk Tel Aviv. elpincha 23:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

OK here you go: Van der Klaauw is de Nederlandse parlementaire geschiedenis in gegaan als de minister die, nadat Begin had besloten Oost-Jeruzalem officieel te annexeren, onder druk moest besluiten de Nederlandse ambassade van Jeruzalem naar Tel Aviv te verhuizen. "Evenals de andere landen erkenden wij die annexatie niet, maar Nederland had de pech als één van de weinige landen een ambassade in Jeruzalem te hebben. Alleen de ambassade van Costa Rica zat er en die van nog wat andere Zuid-Amerikaanse landen. De Arabische landen dreigden de relaties met Nederland te verbreken indien onze ambassade in Jeruzalem zou blijven. Uiteindelijk heb ik in de verhuizing toegestemd, toen ook de Veiligheidsraad een resolutie in die zin aannam. Overigens is één en ander in goed overleg gegaan met de toenmalige Israelische ambassadeur Ronn. Hij wist hoeveel moeite ik met die beslissing had". source - forelast paragraph

Automatic Babel translation (I can do this better, but the gest gets through...): Of of the Klaauw the Dutch parliamentary history has gone in as a minister who, after Oost-Jeruzalem had decided annex beginning officially, had decide the Dutch embassy of Jerusalem move under very nasty tel of Aviv. As well as the other countries did not recognise we that annexation, but the Netherlands had to have the breakdown as an one of weinige the countries embassy in Jerusalem. Only the embassy of Costa Rica zat of it and that still what other South American countries. The Arab countries threatened the relations with the Netherlands break if our embassy in Jerusalem would remain. Eventually I have agreed in the removal, then also the Security Council in that sense adopted a resolution. Moreover one and other one in good consultation has gone with the then Israelische ambassador Ronn. He knew how much effort I with that decision had. It may have been already early eighties by then. Cheers, gidonb 23:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Good boy. Now maybe you should add the link to the main article to make it revert-proof. Happy 2006. elpincha 23:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure. I hope links in Dutch are not removed. Happy New Year! gidonb 23:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Got it. See here. The embassies transferred from Jm to TA after the passage of the 1980 "Basic Law, Jerusalem" act and a Security Council resolution. So it was not the 1970s... Could you kindly make the change in the main article and cite the source? Looks like this is the website that the Irish revertmeister was looking for... and it does not state what he states it states. Sigh. elpincha 23:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Elpincha, as can also be understood from the interview with Van der Klauw, certainly for the Netherlands it was the early eighties. Probably for all. Thanks for verifying this fact and coming up with the citation of Israeli Foreign Affairs. Countries that still have their embassies in Jerusalem get most of their oil from Columbia and the area. As I was mostly engaged in keeping the issue constrained to its deserving proportions, I had no conflict with Jtdirl. I now really must take my break. Gracias et adios! gidonb 00:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Léon-Bernard Giot

No I do not know him so I would recommend if you feel that the article in question has POV issues then mark it {{POV}} and let people who know the subject better get to work on it.
:) I created that because it was listed as an Article for Creation and we a similar article in the NL language already. No other reason. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 00:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Went ahead and POV'd it for you -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 00:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. gidonb 10:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categorization

Thanks for your note. I'm not terribly familiar with the use of categories and would welcome your advice or pointer to a suitable explanatory article. --Ian Pitchford 18:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. See for example Wikipedia:Categorization of people and related articles in the Wikipedia namespace. For example, when a person is an "Antartican criminal" he is by the virtue of this categorization already an "Antartican person", as all criminals are persons. Regards, gidonb 19:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see! That's perfectly clear. --Ian Pitchford 21:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Great! And please keep up the good work. Cheers, gidonb 21:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you really on a Wikivacation?

Your user page says you are. If not, could you please e-mail me at Jayjg99 (at) gmail.com? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Gidonb/Affairs/Language of the Middle East conflicts

Hi, did you accidentally place this page in the main space? Shawnc 13:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Shawnc, yes apparently I did *blush*. Thank you the moving and the recognition in the edit summary that it was a mistake! Can you also remove the copy with the typo in a sec? Regards, gidonb 13:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem, these things happen to everyone! Unfortunately I'm not a admin (yet) but I did take the liberty and copied it to your userspace and fixed the linking tags, if that's ok with you. :-) Shawnc 13:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Be sure to tell me when you run for office! ;-) gidonb 13:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Western Sahara

Hi, I see that you reverted my last edit in the WS portal. Western Sahara is a territory disputed between Morocco and Polisario, each side has its own arguments which they think suffiscient, the UN is trying now to resolve the problem through a referundum. First of all, the problem is about neutrality of WP, the flag shown in the portal page is the flag used by one party of the conflict (polisario) and refused by the other (Morocco) and not recognized by the UN (the mediator in this conflict). There was an edit conflict about the flag in the Western Sahara page between me in one side and Koavf and Arre in the other, a survey was necessary and the results are here and here. The "no flags" option seems to be the least controversial solution, 2 flags was the second choice and the one flag options was the worst choice, can you explain me your point please? Daryou 20:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

As I understand NPOV the flag needs to be a flag that refers to the territory per se, not of a country with a dissimilar jurisdiction (even if it exercises control over most of the territory). However, if the territory is separately defined in the Moroccan framework and has a separate flag as such, that flag can be added. No flag is also valid, but I think we should not give up hope yet on NPOVing the Western Sahara articles. gidonb 20:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The flag that I see is the flag used by one party of the conflict (polisario) and refused by the other (Morocco), displaying this flag reflects polisario's POV and is biased because of pro-polisario and anti-Moroccan stance, the Moroccan flag in that case will reflect the Moroccan POV (WS being an integral part of Morocco). However I'm not against a NO FLAGS option in this page, what do you think? Daryou 20:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I assume Morocco and Moroccans have hard feelings over some of Polisario's actions and therefor have negative emotions towards this flag. I can understand that. However, the flag is used by other parties than Polisario as the flag of Western Sahara. I do not know any other flag specific to this territory. Do you? I just told you what I think about the no flags option. I believe we should strive for NPOV even if emotionally this is difficult. See also the article linked to affairs at my user page. Regards,gidonb 20:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning, however WP is first of all an organ of information not of moral jugement, WP is supposed to be neutral and unbiased, displaying this flag is pro-polisario biased. Are you saying that WP should take a pro-polisario stance just because you don't know any other flag specific to the territory? I don't think so. And what do you think about the survey that I linked above? Daryou 21:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Daryou, I already answered your first point, because it was also raised in your previous posting. I believe we are not neutral and unbiased enough. I will cast my vote in due time, if the survey will still be running. Thank you for referring me. Regards, gidonb 21:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, actually the survey is already closed, thank you for your opinion, best regards. Daryou 21:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes I picked that up in the meantime. gidonb 21:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Actually neutrality according to WP:NPOV is "to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree", in the same page you can also read "Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, which means it is a representation of human knowledge at some level of generality. But human beings disagree about specific cases; for any topic on which there are competing views, each view represents a different idea of what the truth is, and insofar as that view contradicts other views, its adherents believe that the other views are false and therefore not knowledge. Where there is disagreement about what is true, there's disagreement about what constitutes knowledge. Wikipedia works because it's a collaborative effort; but, while collaborating, how can we solve the problem of endless "edit wars" in which one person asserts that p, whereupon the next person changes the text so that it asserts not-p?". This flag isn't accepted by one party of the conflict and by then isn't neutral, even if it is "widely" used by pro-polisario sources. Thank you very much. Daryou 20:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Your focus is again on the conflict between Morocco and Polisario. The focus of the articles on Western Sahara however is on the territory itself, not on this or that conflict. Stronger, if by chance Polisario supporting and Moroccan POV pushers did make this the main focus, we need to make sure that the articles will be NPOVed. The conflict is one of many dimensions of this territory, among which its population, its history, its physical features, its economy and its cultures. The territory has one and only flag, that is widely quoted, and therefor it is totally NPOV to show it. No rights whatsoever are attached to the acknowledgement that this is the Western Saharan flag. Also the fact that the government of one country in the world does not like this flag is hardly relevant in this case, as it is a minority position. You can also look that up in our guidelines. If the article is about the conflict itself, however, than the Moroccan POV carries much more weight as implied by the quote above. gidonb 21:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, the conflict is't the most important thing about WS. But when we are talking about the flag, the conflict has all its importance.

About minority, SADR isn't recognized by the UN but only by 45 states (over 192) from the third world. The UN doesn't recognize this flag. The position of one country in the world (Morocco) is relevant because it's a party of the conflict.

Using this unique flag of the territory isn't at all NPOV because it reflects a pro-polisario and an anti-Moroccan stance. Daryou 22:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not a pro-Polisario statement as the flag is used wider than only Polisario. It is used exclusively for this territory. Compare with using the PLO flag for the Palestinian authority or the partially recogized Palestinian state that did not take off yet. Nobody claims that this flag should not be used because of the conflict between the PLO and Israel. gidonb 23:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a major difference, Morocco claims WS as an integral part of its territory, Israel doesn't claim West bank and Gaza as a part of its territory. Israel doesn't refuse the Palestinian flag. Mrocco refuses the SADR flag, by then using this flag is anti-Moroccan and reflect a WP pro-polisario stance in the conflict. Daryou 15:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, this flag is widely used as the flag of WS because there is a general confusion between WS (a disputed territory) and SADR (the self proclaimed Republic), the sources using this flag are either pro-polisario or ill-informed. The SADR isn't recognized by the UN and 147 states (over 192) neither is its flag. The conflict is under UN mediation, untill it's resolved, WP should be unbiased without any pro-polisario or pro-Moroccan stance. Daryou 17:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

You retun every time to your thesis that the flag is pro-Polisario and anti-Morrocan but as evident from the wide use of this flag for Western Sahara this is not correct. To dismiss this use as ill-informed seems not very serious. gidonb 18:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Using this flag is YES or NO anti-Moroccan? Daryou 18:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Neither. It is only a symbol of a territory. gidonb 18:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

You say that this flag is the symbol of this territory. Well, to be honest, I think that you are a little bit ill-informed. If it is an unbiased symbol of this territory, why doesn't it flow over most of the territory (Moroccan controlled parts)? Why does the Moroccan flag flow over every court, office and school in the territory? Daryou 19:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

When I got to my library I never wonder why I see the flag of the US and not of Illinois. We, that is Illinois, are a populous state, one out of 50 that actually make up our federation. No we all agree that Western Sahara is not a state, it is not a Moroccan province, it is a territory with borders that are crossed by at least the provinces above. So why do you wonder that Moroccan schools in this territory do not show its flag? What does it prove? That there is harsh sentiment in Morocco towards Polisario and therefor they are unhappy with this widely accepted symbol for the Western Sahara? We agreed on that. It does not disprove however that this is the only flag of the territory, used by many others but Polisario in and outside WS. If you would like to call them all ill-informed, that is fine. That is your personal POV. gidonb 20:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

You said that "there is harsh sentiment in Morocco towards Polisario and therefor they are unhappy with this widely accepted symbol for the Western Sahara". Daryou 20:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Right, the flags of Polisario and Western Sahara are identical. Just like the PLO flag for the Palestinian Authority and the little recognized state of Palestine. gidonb 20:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

You are completely wrong, the flag of SADR isn't the flag of Western Sahara. The flag of SADR isn't recognized by the UN and by 147 countries (80% of the countries of the world) Daryou 16:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War

I've more than clearly explained why Yom Kippur War is a POV title. Just because you don't agree doesn't automatically mean that the title is disputed; in fact the debate on the page has several others agreeing with me that it is POV, so there is an OBVIOUS dispute.

Unless you can explain better why you removed the POV template, I will replace it later this evening. Unfocused 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well you did witin minutes after writing this. Since this is not personal, I will continue the discussion on the talk page. I found a document on the Egyptian Information Service that used the phrase Yom Kippur War. You never reacted at the page. gidonb 22:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime, the adding of the POV tag to this page as against WP-procedures was undone by another editor. Is he also part of what you refer to as "Jewish POV"? I suggest that you will comply with our rules and stop using terms that really do not belong here. This would definitely make the communal work on this project more pleasant for everyone. gidonb 16:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Burger Ranch (Portugal)

You tagged this a speedy deletion candidate as well as copyvio with the reason being, "this article was creating while infringing my rights under GNU/FDL." Sorry, can you explain what you mean by this? I've removed both the deletion and copyright tags for the time being. howcheng {chat} 23:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Howcheng, someone made a mess in the articles: Burger Ranch, Burger Ranch. Two articles were created dumping texts with no respect for official names and edit histories. After I saw the solution of User:Antaeus Feldspar for the Israeli firm, I applied the same solution to the Portugese firm. Regards, gidonb 03:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Netherlands fight

I'm having trouble figuring out what the argument is about specifically. From what I'm reading on the talk page it sounds like an argument over whether or not the sky is blue or turqouise. Tomer^talk 14:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Porn stars

I just removed the birthnames which have no source (and may be incorrect). If you see that I removed something else about porn stars please revert me. --Haham hanuka 14:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I saw you taking out infoboxes. Was inspecting your usual round of vandalism on Yigal Amir and Israeli right related articles. I have little knowledge of porn actresses myself. gidonb 14:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

you are the one who vandalized Israeli right related articles by adding them your Points of View. --Haham hanuka 08:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I would say you have an extreme minority opinion there. Many other participants make the the same reversion as I do, according to the Wikipedia guidelines. I think you were blocked a long time for not keeping them. Hope you will do better now. gidonb 12:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

off topic quip

I totally agree. The US is heaven on earth for anyone who is not part of a majority, including women who are the majority (51.1% in 2004). gidonb 18:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Women are apparently a minority in much the same way that blacks in south africa are. I know it requires some mental gymnastics, but so do alot of leftist concepts ;) Sam Spade 11:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Rotary International

Hello, I would be happy that you have an eye on the contribution I made about Rotary. I forgot to mention that Bush family was involved in financing German banks and Oswiecim mines befor WWII and that a famous Rotarian, Charles Lindbergh was rather friendly to NSDAP.

Would you have the time to review the Wiki, why not in all the langages for Rotary ? I tried to let evolve about all langage versions, and it began when I read in the de.wikipedia that Rotary made discussions from 1933 to 1937 with NSDAP.

Thank you Pierre Larcin, pierre.larcin@ifrance.com 20JAN2006, 20H00 Paris time

17 January 2006 (UTC)

Many foreign parties had some connections with the NSDAP when they just came to power, and eventually broke off these ties. This does sound awful in retrospect, but one has to consider the fact that it takes some time to adjust foreign policies in a relative peaceful period and that it was, at that time, not yet the global communications "see all know all" era. The relations may have been continued diplomatic and economic relations with Germany in general and its establishment. The important fact is that they were broken off well before the war, after the true nature of this German government became clear. I frankly do not know what you want from me. gidonb 20:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Israeli criminals

I left a request for you at Category talk:Israeli criminals, you may have missed it.

Lapsed Pacifist 13:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Barry Chamish

Do not remove links to his website. This is not a spam. If it is a spam so Barry Chamish entry on Wikipedia is a spam. If we have an article on him we should provide a link to his official website. --Haham hanuka 10:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

If you continue to remove those links you will be blocked. --Haham hanuka 10:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Please read my edit summaries more carefully and do not threaten those who positively contribute to our project. gidonb 10:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I've your edit summary and I still don't understand why those link should be removed. Can you explain why? --Haham hanuka 10:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Haham hanuka, thanks for asking this time. Please read the discussion on the talk page of the Rabin murder conspiracies carefully. If you have something to add, add it there. Do not add the links again until a different consensus is reached. You are quickly nearing the point at which you will be blocked under WP:3RR. gidonb 10:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I've read the "discussion" and I still don't understand why, can you explain it here?. I consider what you are doing as a vandalism. --Haham hanuka 10:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I have decided to hold the more substantial discussions on the relevant pages, so that other participators may join in or can refer to it in the future. According to our policies and the consensus reached, we do not link to this site. It is all on the talk page. You are of course entitled to think what you like. I wish to point at the fact, however, that you are frequently barred from editing Wikipedia. Surely there is some reason behind this. gidonb 10:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus about it, thats you own PoV. You should be blocked under WP:3RR. --Haham hanuka 10:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to vote against me, when I run for admin. I have reached to the point where a few POV pushers consume so much of my time on Wikipedia that it has become difficult to be otherwise productive. What happens with your contributions? Why don't you concentrate on the porn actresses, where you seem to actually write something? gidonb 11:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Please be careful in your editing of this article. Do not break WP:3RR or you will be blocked; do not label content disputes as vandalism [2]; do not misrepresent "consensus" on the talk page. William M. Connolley 17:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC).