User talk:GHcool

Re:Arab nationalism

Good job yourself! Thanks for spearheading edits to the article. Obviously it still needs more expansion and editing. I look forward to working with you on improving it further if you're interested. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

question on article

sorry, WHY did you delete that section? not sure i understand. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It was an extremely minor event. The article deals with big picture stuff. --GHcool (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

well, I understand your concern. however I believe that I was elaborating on an item which is very appropriate in its place in the section on peace efforts. i can leave it alone for now though. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 11:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You let Israel have their rocket attack picture, but you won't let Palestine have their refugee picture. Nice. It is surprising that Wikipedia still allows you to edit the Israeli–Palestinian conflict page considering the ignorant rubbish you spout on your own page. I hate to use the term biased, but that is what you are. Lolcab (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If I knew what you were referring to, I might respond. --GHcool (talk) 04:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You do know, and after reading your user page I understand why you would not want Palestinian victims shown alongside Israeli victims, you are sick. Lolcab (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Slave (book)

The article The Slave (book) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RadioFan (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Kindly put back the 1961 CBS statistics that you just deleted. Zero^talk 01:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Israeli wars and armed conflicts

Please share your knowledge regarding which were the most prominent IDF military operations in the discussion page of that article. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I more or less agree with the list you gave. --GHcool (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Without inspections?

Isn't this impossible since the cargo has already been inspected? Zuchinni one (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is that Hamas wants the flotilla folks to come onto Gaza's shores and deliver the aid. Israel cannot allow this because who knows what else the flotilla guys have hidden up their sleeves. Israel insists on being the middle man for obvious reasons. Is there a way we can make this clearer? --GHcool (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"I think the point is that Hamas wants the flotilla folks to come onto Gaza's shores and deliver the aid." You think so??? Do you edit articles when you "think so"? Are you an advocate or spokesman of Israeli government and creating excuses for an attack to a passanger ship on international waters? Is this a discussion forum or an encyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tufankaya (talk • contribs)

I edit articles when I think they can be improved. I am not a spokesman of the Israeli government. --GHcool (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

So you improve articles with your thoughts since you explain and defend your edit with starting "I think..." My idea you also give the source below as "my brain"Tufankaya (talk) 08:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

No need. I use my thoughts to decide whether an edit is appropriate and if I decide that it is, I use a reliable source to back it up. I suggest you try it some time.  :) --GHcool (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Whatever, I feel that you are not open to critisize yourself since you take yourself as a "side" at certain articles. You can continue to make up these articles and try to show a certain state as less disrespectful to international laws. It is your personal problem to deal with. Have a nice day and bye.Tufankaya (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

your essays

shalom, I read them and I congratulate you for being so forthcoming (and calling the flak!). I will add two facts: (a) regarding the Palestinian identity as a people, just that the 1947 partition decision was stated for a Jewish and an Arab state (not a Palestinian state, then nobody did seem to notice there was such a thing as a Palestinian people), and (b) the Palestinian genocide by the Israelis is the only known genocide of a population steadily increasing (while being genocided) and even so out of proportion with any other one world wide (thanks to the US -the reviled and demonized ones- subsidized support of the UNWRA and the well hailed Palestinian scheme of the demographic bomb, may be an Israeli plot to multiply their victims (more fun)? pff these clever Jews! You give the wise advice: One way that fair-minded Wikipedia editors could help is by not getting emotionally involved in an argument with an anti-Semitic, anti-verifiability, or intellectually dishonest Wikipedia editor and engaged in revert wars. They should simply let the evidence speak for itself and argue in favor of the evidence. Sure but this is highly ineffecient when confronted by an organized systematic front, what do you think of an editor which busy himself with tracking every mention of Israel in order to delete as many as (even im)possible and to include where ever he wants the diverse declentions of the O word -(80%) of his edits the remaining 20% being litigation against his adversaries...- as if that was his existence's sole purpose, it's called gaming the system and you advocate us fighting terrorism with an hand tied behind the back. Please note also that that editor doesn't participate in the discussion for the RfC leaving his lieutenants go into the battle and eventually take the fall. Any other advice? take care, Hope&Act3! (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'm not sure what you're referring to in the latter half of your message, but if you read my essays, you no doubt read my essay attesting to the fact that Israel has never been guilty of genocide. --GHcool (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Zionist terrorism category in Israeli–Palestinian conflict article

My apology for changing the categories. I was wrong. Thanks for informing about the guideline, of which I was unaware. Cheers. --Frederico1234 (talk) 11:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Thank you for your cooperation.  :) --GHcool (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Praying with Lior

A tag has been placed on Praying with Lior requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Derild4921☼ 00:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Note

hey, good to see you active here. Shanah tovah!!! --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:KIBBUTZ SUFA ROCKET 04-16-08.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:KIBBUTZ SUFA ROCKET 04-16-08.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparent 1RR violation at Hezbollah

Hello GHcool. A complaint about you has been filed at WP:AN3#User:GHcool reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness. The Hezbollah article is under a 1RR/day restriction due to WP:ARBPIA, which you can easily see at the top of Talk:Hezbollah. If you respond at the noticeboard and promise to stop warring on this article you may still be able to avoid sanctions. You should also promise not to edit the article for seven days. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Promising not to revert the article is not sufficient (per your comment at Talk:Hezbollah); you should promise not to edit the article at all for seven days. Please respond at WP:AN3, otherwise you may be sanctioned under the Arbcom case. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block.

---

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

Per WP:AN3#User:GHcool reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result: 24 hours). EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

---

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision. EdJohnston (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Usage of inappropriate language

Dear friend. You edit here is in contrast with WP:Civility. Wikipedia users are not speakman of their countries foreign minister. In matters like Hezbollah's one, there are controversial view points and Wikipedia reserves equal weight for all of them. Such comments don't have any place in Wikipedia. Try to respect, else you'll encounter further problems. Thanks.--Aliwiki (talk) 08:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

Hi GHcool, thanks for your kind words. Even if we may not always see eye to eye, I'm glad that we can work together constructively, and hopeful we can continue to do so in the future. Working under an umbrella of civility makes dealing with our differences of opinion much more manageable I think. Cheers. ← George ^talk 07:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Hezbollah. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive; until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hello. You are mentioned here -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 18:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 55 hours for violating the 1RR restriction on Hezbolah.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. Courcelles 18:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

---

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

Discretionary sanctions

In accordance with WP:ARBPIA#Dscretionary sanctions and the consensus of uninvolved administrators, I am hereby informing you that you are banned from editing any page or taking part in any discussion (regardless of namespace) related to the area of conflict covered by the case, broadly construed. This restriction is in place for 62 days from the expiry of your current block (0137, 26 March 2011, UTC) and, if necessary, will be enforced by escalating blocks.

You may appeal this sanction at any time to the relevant noticeboard, currently WP:AE, or directly to ArbCom. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)