Hi and welcome to Wikipedia, I was struck by one of your recent edits that the article at list of invasive species implies that whether a species is invasive is country specific. For example, the red fox is invasive in Australia but not in the UK. As such, I have queried at category talk:invasive species whether category is valid. Perhaps you could add your thoughts on that talk page? MikeHobday 12:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

היי, בטעות הוספת את השם של המשפחה של הצמח תחת השם בערבית. שיניתי את זה, אבל לפי כמות המידע אולי עשית זאת עם סקריפט מסוים, אז חשבתי שאולי אעזור אם אני אציין את זה. Fdskjs (talk) 11:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

?למה להעליב? RickJP 20:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, you should have put back the ((LEAD|January)) template, or re-written the lead. RickJP 07:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gidip. I noticed your note at the Village Pump. I know the frustration of (coping with vandals) multiplied by (overwhelmed by documentation). I'd drop a note on the IP address' Talk page; it will be seen by others who also anonymously edit from that IP address, but I don't see the harm in that :-).

In general, when you get to feeling frustrated, I suggest using the "chat rooms", where you can ask questions, in real time, of like-minded edtors. I suggest Bootcamp. There are a couple links about downloading a freeware client and connecting, at a spot in my own Talk Page. I try to collect together some of the generally helpful tools as I go along. Shalom. Pete St.John 15:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Gidip 19:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Life
		It's a bit late for this, but I just noticed your amazing work on the Self-incompatibility in plants article. Nice work summarizing so much recent research! That's perhaps the longest references list I've seen in a biology article (and I mean that as a compliment). Calliopejen1 14:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I am actually planning a major revision of the article sometime in the following months. Gidip 07:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to find Gidip's splendid Verification. Have you the opportunities of playing Schubert's works so much? The F-minor is often regarded as a sonata form.----Kaori Makube 00:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am a devoted Schubert fan, and I played most of his major piano works (with my very limited technique), including the Impromptus, Moments Musicaux, and most of the sonatas. What about you? Gidip 23:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schubert's piano sonatas have unpredictable misteries and artistic tastes.Especially in the 7th piano sonata and the last sonata.I hope Gidip's deep seekings for the Schubert's works.----Kaori Makube 23:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On November 20, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Schubert's last sonatas, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Howdy there Gidip. Kindly nominated by PFHLai. Do feel to self nom in future, we always need more classical culture on DYK.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that, thanks. Gidip (talk) 08:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You're welcome. Schubert is one of my favourite composers along with Bach for his melody-writing abilities. I think his early death was the greatest tragedy of western classical music. Graham87 00:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From my skimming, it's already quite impressive. It looks more like a book than an encyclopedia article. I will listen to the B-flat sonata tonight and tomorrow I will read the article again. Jindřichův Smith (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gidip (talk) 07:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I am sorry to say that I have given up peer reviewing for quite sometime, for a while back it was associated with bad memories of staying up at night poring over long articles and just a general feeling of fatiguée. In fact, it was a factor which made me consider leaving Wikipedia, though I came back shortly afterwards.

Notwithstanding, I have skimmed over the article, and it is a real gem. I've contributed a little myself, but there is very few things that I would change. I would only suggest that the lead be expanded a bit, but that is about the only comment I could make.

Cheers, and congrats on a highly promising article!

—LaPianista! «talk» 21:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Gidip (talk) 10:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

What a brilliant article that is. A treatise worthy of its subject, scholarly, informative, eloquent, well endowed with addenda, in a word: masterly. Although I consider the featured article process deeply flawed, as well as the pertinent criteria, I guess it is should be worth a consideration, just because the article deserves every imaginable publicity. What do you think? Kosebamse (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliments. The article has undergone peer review (you can reach it from the article talk page), and I fixed some of the issues raised by the reviewers. I think we can nominate it for the good article review, although I might have to explain why I haven't dealt with the other issues raised in the peer review.

I believe there is still much left to improve in the article's phrasing, in order to reach featured status. Unfortunately my English is not native and therefore I think doing this by myself will be very difficult. If other editors are willing to commit themselves to the task - it might be achieved.

All the best, Gidip (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Well IMO it mainly needs copyediting by a native speaker (which I am not, unfortunately). The points raised in the review seem mostly very valid and before submitting that article one should go through that list again, do the homework, or answer why one would rather not in specific cases. I am not so sure that good articles is the perfect venue - there is such a thing as over-reviewing a well-written article, and the result may look rather camel-ish. With such a fabulous article it might be better to ask a few knowledgeable persons to review it in private and go directly for FA, I'm not sure. I'll ask Antandrus for his opinion, his judgment in music matters as well as Wikipedia is razorsharp. Again, my compliments. Kosebamse (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to an old post, I wrote those guidelines based on Writing About Music: A Style Sheet. They are open to revision, of course, considering this is a wiki, but in the spirit of Wikipedia I based the guidelines on an outside source. They are not my own creation. – flamurai (t) 07:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No More Mr. Nice Guy (yes that's his name) is proposing to delete List of native plants of Palestine (A-D) because he is under the mistaken impression that I have something to do with its creation, he doesn't like the use of the name Palestine, and he believe there is no source to support the information listed there. I have tried reasoning with him, but frankly do not have the patience for his attitude. Would you mind joining the article talk page and providing the name of or a link to the source you used? I assume its Flora Palestine by Zohary, but I don't have access to its contents and so I cannot be sure. It would be great if you could help clear this up. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 16:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you happen to have expert knowledge that could help this article? Brambleclawx 22:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to List of think tanks. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Trafford09 (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're in a bit of a pickle in the Wagner discussion page. The issues concerns Social class (sociology) and the phrase supposedly common Germanic past and has now been dismissed by some editors as inconsequential. Furthermore, the name Other interpretations in the article dismisses the general review and broader Wagner analysis to a subcategory under Controversies (mainly the topic of anti-Semitism). Please help. Just take fast look and maybe help in the balancing act. Thank you

• In his own era he furthermore provided the newly emerged middle class with a medium to transfer its familial and political conflicts into a myth of supposedly common Germanic past.

(In the introduction, removed as non consequential)

User:Major Torp (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that you have expanded this article:List of bees of Israel

Could you tell me if there are bees in the list that are in the Palestinian territories and/or in the Golan Heights, but not in Israel? You can reply here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on the article talk page. Gidip (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have dipped into your long note at the article talk page, and I get the gist, I think. You may like to request a review of the article's FA status: Wikipedia:Featured article review. Tim riley (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And you can submit the article about Schubert's last sonatas to FAC any time, as long as you have the time to work on the reviewers' comments. Graham87 14:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As we have different views on whether WP music articles should be written for the lay person or the expert, I should particularly welcome your commments at the peer review of the main Fauré article. Tim riley (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing all your fine work on lists of flora and fauna in Israel, I was wondering if you could add an image section to the list of adventive wild plants native to the country. Someone left feedback requesting it, and I also think it would be useful.--Geewhiz (talk) 10:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliments. The list also needs some revision, I hope to find the time. Regards, Gidip (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Golan Heights, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yarmuk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Tal Brenev. I've recently left a message at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Classical music/Compositions task force, in an attempt to revive the WikiProject. I will try to send a message to everyone on the list of participants, so as to get more suggestions and/or ideas. If you would like to participate, leave a message at the WikiProject Talk Page, or on my talk page. Thanks!

---Tal Brenev (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lessepsian migrants, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Kirinia roxelana male 1.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 08:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Gidip (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Cigaritis cilissa 1.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 02:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gidip This is alarming. I have never edited Megachile or aculeate articles other than to link an authority name and that rarely so I don't notice problems.Hope you resolve this most unfortunate occurrence. Thanks for the warning. Robert aka Notafly (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC) Ps The opposite problem occurs also when species information is given as applicable to the entire genus by well meaning authors.[reply]

Hello, Gidip. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Honey shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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.

Please slow down at the article. You're missing a lot of points being made about your edits from multiple editors now by reverting. Please be aware you are now at 3 reverts. I highly suggest undoing your revert and using the talk page is something isn't clear at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please read WP:EXPERT if you haven't seen it yet. I've seen some of your comments referring to yourself as an expert relating to bees, your own publications, etc. Wikipedia is a tough place for some academics because you can't rely on being able to say something is true soley due to expertise. You need sources to verify it, and writing for an encyclopedia is sometimes very different than academic writing. That's just been my take on your recent edits, but I'll comment on the honey edits at the talk page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. Gidip (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gidip. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Schubert bees

Thank you for quality articles on music such as Schubert's last sonatas, and biology based on scientific background, such as List of bees of Israel, for expanding Johannes Brahms and Trout Quintet, among many others, for service from 2006, - Gidi, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With pleasure! Thanks for the feedback! Gidip (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two years ago, you were recipient no. 1877 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gidip. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Vespa orientalis 2.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 11:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gidip,

This is to let you know that the featured picture File:Kirinia roxelana male 1.jpg, which you uploaded or nominated, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for August 11, 2020. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2020-08-11. It has taken a long time before it was listed as picture of the day, but that was because the article was a stub. Now that the article has been expanded, it can go! If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kirinia roxelana, the lattice brown, is a butterfly in the family Nymphalidae found in south-eastern Europe and the Near East. It is found in a variety of habitats such as warm, dry grassland and scrubland near woodland, forest verges, vineyards and olive groves, usually in association with rocks or stone walls. It is a large butterfly with a wing length of about 3 cm (1.2 in); adults are most commonly on the wing between May and July, while caterpillars feed on broad-leaved grasses. Like other members of its family, it stands on only four legs while the other two remain curled up. The wings are covered with minute scales, and their distinctive pattern help the butterfly protect itself by camouflage. This photograph shows a K. roxelana male resting on a rock in Mount Carmel National Park, Israel. Photograph credit: Gideon Pisanty Recently featured: Battle of Scheveningen Singapore National Day Parade Portsmouth Cathedral Archive More featured pictures

• view
• talk
• edit
• history
• watch
• file page

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Yoni Gera, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. (t · c) buidhe 17:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gidip. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Yoni Gera, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gidip. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Yoni Gera".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Schubert's last sonatas has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]