Talk:Gilo

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gilo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070227125402/http://www.hatzola.org.il/gilo.asp to http://www.hatzola.org.il/gilo.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The external link "Israelis leaving Beit Jala, say Palestinians, CNN" is inactive.
The external link "http://legacy.sandiegouniontribune.com/uniontrib/20060430/news_1t30jeru.html" should lead to the page http://legacy.sandiegouniontribune.com/uniontrib/20060430/news_1t30jeru.html, and not to http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060430/news_1t30jeru.html.--77.125.85.13 (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: User:Shrike here removes ARIJ sourced material, with the edit-line "no consensus exist for this the WP:ONUS on those who want to retain the material."
Might I remind you on the lengthy RfC  last year...and Shrike: you participated in that RfC(!) ...where the admin closing the discussion says, (among other things): "had I materials as detailed as these about any of them, I would have thought I struck gold" [...] and: "I would expect these resources to be mined to improve the article, not added at the end as "External links". (Which is exactly what I am doing. Shrike: please revert (or start a new RfC, if you want to try to have it  undone), Huldra (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The aforementioned RfC was about including ARIJ sources as external links in articles, not as reliable sources for facts in articles. Referring back to it in the manner done above is misleading, at best. Here come the Suns (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You did note the sentence: "I would expect these resources to be mined to improve the article, not added at the end as "External links"?  If you disagree about using ARIJ as a source in the article, then please start a new RfC, Huldra (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I did, and you should feel free to start a new RfC about using these sources in articles, using that comment as a reference point. But to refer to an RfC about external links as if it was about using ARIJ in articles is misleading, at best. Here come the Suns (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  No actual reason has been given to not include this information. Zerotalk 00:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, one has been given, in the edit summary ("no consensus exist for this"). You may disagree with this, but don't misrepresent the facts. Here come the Suns (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Someone not liking something doesn't prove lack of consensus. Zerotalk 02:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Editors objecting to the content on the talk page do prove it, though. And as I wrote, while you may disagree that a lack of consensus has been demonstrated, you may not misrepresent the facts - a reason has been given. Here come the Suns (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, in summary, when Huldra and I wanted to challenge a source we provided three explicit arguments against its reliability. When you wanted to challenge a source, they best you could come up with was "there is no consensus". Anyone can do that with any source at all; it has no value and can be ignored. Zerotalk 04:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you have me confused with someone else. I have not removed the ARIJ source from the article - I think it can be used, properly attributed to its advocacy source. But I do object to editors like you and Huldra misrepresenting the nature of other editors' arguments or the nature of previous discussions. Here come the Suns (talk) 04:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

text: , The burden of proof is no on those who want to include  also WP:TO only can be given when there is only two participants. Shrike (talk) 11:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  What does Wikipedia:WikiProject Toronto have to do with this? -- llywrch (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

text: We have that the 2700 dunam expropriation in 1970 came from Beit Jala (1120) and Beit Shafafa/Sharafat (1529) which along with al-Walaja (45) comes to 2694, close enough. Why is this data being contested if it comes from RS?Selfstudier (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it's not (it was only the Bethlehem bit that was reverted which I think is part of the Beit Jala figure anyway. So the discussion is really just about the Mandate era claim which even if true seems not that significant in relation to 2700 expropriated?Selfstudier (talk) 10:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of ARIJ sources 

message: 41.128.168.228 (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 11:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 November 2023