User talk:GHcool

I'm leaving this here because you just thanked me, and as such I think you're online still lol. So, you may or may not be aware of the fiasco currently taking place regarding the Israel wiki page's lede: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel#Edit_war_attempts_being_made_by_Anti-Semetic_Websites_like_4chan

This was the original lede edit I made:

"The state has attracted criticism for a variety of reasons including: its apparent nuclear weapons arsenal, Israeli civilian settlements built on lands occupied by Israel, the Judaization of Jerusalem as observed by the United Nations under Israeli sovereignty of the city, its targeted killings program, widespread racism despite broad anti-discrimination laws within the country, observed human rights abuses and violations, and an alleged manifestation of an apartheid regime.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]}"

I am aware now that such an addition to the lede could be interpreted as hostile and heavily biased. As such, I have re-written and shrunk it down to something that would be objectively neutral, in my opinion:

"The state has attracted criticism for its policy regarding territories occupied by it^[13], its apparent nuclear weapons arsenal^[14], and its targeted killings program^[15] among other reasons."

I am intending to put this in the lede because of what I did with the Saudi Arabia lede about a year ago (ctrl+f "The state has attracted criticism for a variety of reasons including:" there). I was hoping if you could hop into the relevant discussion on the talk page for Israel and state your opinion, and whether you would be okay with such an inclusion.

Thank you for your consideration, TheEpicGhosty (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

So what's your question? --GHcool (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I reverted your recent addition at this page. I think I understand what you're trying to get at, but the source you added offers a definition of Zionism, not anti-Zionism. I think we want to use a source that specifically defines anti-Zionism in the manner you described before re-adding this. However, I made some further edits that I hope will contribute to neutrality, etc. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The lead as it stands currently is satisfactory to me. Thank you for your cooperation. --GHcool (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Shalom. I don't think we've ever crossed paths before on Wikipedia, but from what I see of your edits/posts and general good outlook on often contentious issues, you are a true asset to have on Wikipedia. You've been around here longer than me. Time brings with it experience and wisdom. Godspeed, friend.Davidbena (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

I don't know why you removed Congressman David Dreier from the list of prominent conservative officeholders. He was a member of Congress for 32 years, a member of the congressional leadership, and the chairman of the House Rules Committee for 10 years. Plus, he was the main proponent of NAFTA, which was the defining free trade deal of the last 30 years and is a staple of conservative economic principles (until Donald Trump turned the Republican Party into a protectionist direction more recently).

Mediaexpert3 (talk) 06:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Moving this to the relevant talk page. --GHcool (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

You have breached 1RR at BDS article (you have also removed an RS (abc) with a false edit summary). Kindly self revert asap. Thank you. Also it is perfectly in order for a source to comment on itself so your removal of the sps was also wrong.Selfstudier (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello :) I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.

For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done.

I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 8 August 2021.

Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project.

Thanks so much,

Sarah Sanbar

Sarabnas ^{I'm researching Wikipedia} _Questions? 20:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Greetings @ GHcool,

Hi, I am User:Bookku, I find information and knowledge gaps create Drafts, try to recruit draft expanding editors and promote drafts articles for further expansion.

• Draft:Turkish textbook controversies in the section 'Depiction of Jews and Israel'
• Draft:Civil life in conflict zones
• Draft:Criticism of Edward Said's Orientalism
• Draft:List of erstwhile slave trading townships
• Draft:Slavery in Mecca and Medina
• Draft:Intellectual discourse over re-mosqueing of Hagia Sophia
• Draft:Amina Dawood Al-Mufti

Requesting your visit to above drafts help expand the same if any of these interests you. Any inputs from Israel academic / language reliable sources also will be welcome.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 07:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your invitation, but I must decline. I have no expertise in any of the topics above and no reliable sources on these topics. I wish you good luck. --GHcool (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Thats a 1RR violation at Anti-Zionism, you mind self-reverting? nableezy - 21:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

DONE. --GHcool (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

ty kindly, nableezy - 00:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I was ready to go to Nishidani's talk page, and gently remind them again but it's you this time! Anyway could you let me know which work Lindfield 2019 refers to, and I'll add the required cite. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. Didn't I put the information in the reference? Elizabeth Young-Bruehl, Hannah Arendt: For Love of the World (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982), 361, Qtd. in Lindfield, p. 77

Sorry didn't mean to cause confusion. When you use short form refs (like {{sfn}} there has to be a full cite elsewhere in the article. In the diff I linked in earlier you added {{sfn|Lindfield|2019|p=77}} but didn't create a cite for it to link with. This creates a no target error, you can see the details and how to turn these errors on here Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. Just ask if you have any questions.-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Although taking a second look I see you didn't add the information, just as plain text. That's fine if you going to use plain text refs to refer to it, but if you use templates like {{sfn}} they need a full cite. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:ShapeIslandTitle.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Shape-island-ss-1.jpeg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

hi there! and happy holidays! very glad to see you active, here at wikipedia. i appreciate all your great work. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Alex-hakobian-studio.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi GHcool. Although you were using this file in your sandbox, it was removed by a WP:BOT because non-free content can only be used in the article namespace per WP:NFCC#9. You can re-add this file once whatever you're working on in your sandbox has been moved to the article namespace. If the file ends up being deleted before then as "orphaned non-free use", don't worry or reupload the file; deleted files aren't really gone forever, but rather are only hidden from public view. The file will still be on Wikipedia's servers, and can easily be WP:REFUNDed once you're ready to add the file to the article namespace. Another thing to consider when you're ready to do that would be to beef-up the non-free use rationale you've already added to the file's page; you can do this either by using the template {{Non-free use rationale biog}} or by otherwise adding a WP:WIKILINK to article where you end up using the file. There are bots that patrol non-free files looking for such links, and they do remove files when they're unable to find one.

Finally, just for reference, I noticed that someone added quite a few references to an earlier unrelated discussion here on your user talk page. I added the template {{reflist-talk}} to that particular section to stop the references from being pushed down to the bottom of this page. This was just done as a courtesy; so, feel free to remove the template if you like it the other way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

You haven't responded in our discussion at Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight#Phrasing even after I pinged you, though you've continued editing elsewhere. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Edits like this and this are not "copy edits". Please use more detailed and accurate edit summaries. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

This recent edit of yours is also not just copy editing. Please stop entering inaccurate edit summaries.

Do you understand the difference between substantive editing vs copy editing @GHcool? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

This is not a "slight copy edit" - there is a big difference between "scholarship today generally considers" and "scholars argue". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@Tamzin, perhaps you could talk to this user as an admin about inaccurate/misleading edit summaries as they have not responded to me. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:11, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Another whitewashing edit with a misleading edit summary here.

Pinging @Vanamonde93, perhaps you could talk to / warn this user as an admin as they have been ignoring me. (Tamzin didn't want to reply per "not sure I've got the time") IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• Without taking any position on whether the edit itself is justified, I agree that an edit like this one needs to be more fully explained, as it is changing the meaning of the underlying content. GHCool, please be aware that you are editing in a contentious topic (I will leave you the formal notice momentarily) and that requires you to be particularly careful in your observance of behavioral guidelines. Best, Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  I'd like to note this edit of GHcool from today: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=1331169359]

  I made an edit based on a rough consensus on the article's talk page, and I included an edit summary. GHcool reverted it both without providing an edit summary and without participating on the talk page. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Is there a reason you removed sourced content in this edit? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days, and you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

This user already has a long history of being sanctioned in this topic area @Vanamonde93. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I see several blocks for edit-warring, but the most recent was 9 years ago. A fresh CTOP notice seems reasonable under the circumstances: did I miss a recent CTOP notice? Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

The ones I'm aware of are old. Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2025 (UTC)