User talk:82.29.227.171

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First of all:

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, make sure to sign your posts and comments with four tildes (~~~~), which will let others know who left it.

In terms of the International reaction stuff, you should probably just discuss it on Talk, though the insertion by the other user of the CAIR stuff seemed like a disruption for the sake of making a WP:Point. If you have any other problems or questions, feel free to ask me. Cheers, TewfikTalk 16:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comrade438/international reactions to the 2006 Isreal-lebanon crisis

I've restored what I think is a fair comprimise - it originally read a little POV and repeated text that was already in the U.S section. I still think it's relevant, though.

As for Comrade438, he came close (but didn't) to breaking the WP:3RR, and his comments are bordering on personal attacks. Deleting his talk page is also bad form. Still, I can see his point. However, I don't think the section is on the U.S government alone - it has opinion polls, so that shows the American public - why not a major American lobby group?

As for protecting a page - only an admin can do that. He isn't an admin, so feel free to ignore any of his sprotected tags. (Or get an account! :) ) --Iorek85 23:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Funny by FearWig appearing here

IDF officials have reported that as of August 1, only the Volkswagen Rabbit, Mini Cooper and Chevrolet El Camino have highway clearance in southern Lebanon, as they have been determined simply too amusing to destroy. 82.29.227.171 21:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] civilian attacks

ok but i cant see a discussion on the topic. It is quite clear to me that it is a proper article and NPOV.--Burgas00 00:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Airstrike on Taybe

Fair enough, I'm not sure of the details, but neither of those references at the end of the sentence in that section refer to Israel breaking the 'no airstrikes' rule. That CNN article doesn't mention it, but I'm sure they reserved the right to protect their ground troops, which that attack would have been. I'll have a look to see if I can find the article. Either way, it needs to be referenced if that sentence is going to be included, otherwise it looks POV. Thanks for notifying me. --Iorek85 10:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 Airstrike on Qana

OK I see it is a delicate situation with these people. I'm re-writing the hoax section now as 1) the allegations in all their gruesome detail arent listed 2) the rebuttal/denials to the allegations arent listed. So its suitably fudged to give the impression there is some factual detail lurking somewhere. Once re-written it can go into its own article and be kept away from factual information on the event. Its polluting the page, just as certain editors are polluting & stifling the athmosphere of the discussion imho. 82.29.227.171 14:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You are too much. Why can 9/11 conspiracy theories appear in the September 11, 2001 attacks article, but the Qana airstrike is so precious and statements by nameless Lebanese residents are above all suspicion. --216.75.93.104 17:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emphasis on critism quote

I quite agree that there needs ot be context around the leaflet. I Think it's great we have criticism of the pre warnings. But that entire section now reads like a hezbollah statement - it starts, saying Hezbollah have warned civilians of attacks (for which there is no reference), not stating that Israel warns Lebanese of attacks, then jumping into a massive criticism of Israel's warnings, then into a big quote with the criticism bolded for emphasis. I don't see how this is fair on Israel. The emphasis is not by the people making the statement, it's by you, which is a violation of POV, because you are choosing what you think is more important. The whole section is terribly anti-Israel. I'll take my suggestions for the section to the talk page of the article, where we can discuss it with everyone. Thanks for explaining your edit. --Iorek85 03:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personally attack warning

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. , Omarthesecound 11:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Qana

Please stop usig poisoning well epithets and prove that Israeli insider is really a blog--Shrike 20:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel insider is not a blog--Shrike 20:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Qana conspiracy theories

What about template {{Verify}}? Seems ok to me. May be also {{disputed}}?? What do you think? BTW, why not start a user account?--Wedian 20:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems good enough.--Wedian 21:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arab-Israeli conflict facts

Actually i was not very inclined to improve this article. I was thinking of tagging it with {{importance}} or may be nominate for deletion. My point here is that if the article was about the conflict it should state facts of the conflict , e.g. history of the conflict and facts about the wars: number of deaths, POWs for all parties, .. which -i think - are well explained in the series of articles about the conflict. Military expenditure, Palestinian refugees and may be US aid are ok but i can't see how infant mortality rates are relevant to the conlict - unless we're comparing these countries in general and not just in aspects directly related to the conflict. If the article and the table remain as they are, i'd be inclined to rename it to something like the name you gave at my talk page "mideast facts and figures" but then the importance of this article would be in question. If this is a mere comparison of the middleeastern countries- not directly related to the conflict- then there will be an infinite number of points to compare and i can't see how this type of "comparing countries" fits into an encyclopedia which is supposed to provide facts and not statistics and comparisons. I see there are no other articles in wikipedia with such type of comparison tables for other regions of the world including regions of conflict. Do we have an India/ Pakistan comparison table, for example? Wouldn't it be better to have an article comparing points as: GDP per capita, infant mortality rate, fertility rate ,.. etc for the whole world? IMHO, this article was created only for POV pushing, to find a way to show the superiority of Israel. I'm trying not to assume the bad but i 'm somewhat suspecious about the choice of Netherlands for comparison. As i said in the article talk page it is not the highest, lowest or the median in the aspects of comparison, however, it has values close to Israel in several aspects. As for the IP address, i feel there is more appreciation in wikipedia for using accounts rather than IPs. I saw you used Mema435 to create al-Qaa article. Why not continue with this account?--Wedian 17:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hello, my username is Clevelander but during weekdays while I'm at work, I can't log on to Wikipedia, so I edit as an anon. If you have any further messages that you would like to address to me please put them on my talk page. I hope you understand. -- Clevelander 12:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cool

I like how your user name is an IP address! Very cool!

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../8/2/2E/User_talk%7E82.29.227.171.html"