User talk:Thomas Blomberg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] In regards to copyrights

I understand a little more, and apolgize. I am a new member of wikipedia and will not make any major edits or uploads until I read all the policies behind wikipedia. I have gotten called on for doing other things and really need to go back and re-read everything. Go ahead and delete my pictures, as I am unsure how to, and thanks for showing patience and bringing my attention to my photos.

--Sammy The Pirate King 22:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, okay... is there a way to shut down the old account?--Sammy The Pirate King 23:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help with Translation!?

Can you help translate this for me to swedish? Many thanks in advance!

About half of the economically active population is employed in agriculture. Arable land amounts to only one-fourth of the total land area, yet the country meets nearly all its food needs from domestic production. In the mid-1970s, moreover, Albania became selfsufficient in bread grains. Main crops are wheat, corn (maize), sugar beets, cotton, sunflower seeds, tobacco, potatoes, and fruits. Major livestock are sheep, goats, cattle, and pigs. --Armour 14:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Here you go:

Ungefär hälften av den ekonomiskt aktiva befolkningen arbetar i jordbrukssektorn. Det är bara en fjärdedel av landytan som är odlingsbar, men trots detta är landet i stort sett självförsörjande vad gäller livsmedel. Under 1970-talet blev Albanien dessutom självförsörjande vad gäller brödsäd. De största grödorna är vete, majs, sockerbetor, bomull, solrosfrö, tobak, potatis och frukt. Den viktigaste boskapen är får, getter, nötkreatur och svin.

Best regards Thomas Blomberg 17:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Allo, just wanted to thank you for your work on improving the Template:Mil-antarctica, it's much appreciated. I did want to canvas your opinion though, if putting the whole duration (1955-58) instead of just (1955) as a starting date, or else putting "Charcot's Expedition" or "The Pourquoi-pas? Expedition" instead of the lenghtier "Charcot's Pourquoi-pas? Expedition" might make the template a little narrower on the individual pages, and thus less intrusive? I'd welcome your opinion! Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 17:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hrm, I agree with you, move the private expeditions under the respective countries, though we're going to meet some problems when New Zealand shares credit with other countries and such - and you're right, what I originally intended to have 4 or 5 (New Swabia, Tabirin, Highjump, etc) articles, grew rather...well, hopefully better, but definitely larger. Assuming the German expeditions listed were not military/national expeditions, then I agree, definitely mark them with their more common names (Drygalski, etc)
The other possibility, is to make it a bottom-slung horizontal template, instead of a vertical top-hung one...that way we don't really need to worry about size as much, since it doesn't eat into the article text. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 03:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
It looks great, definitely a useful template so that casual readers browsing one of the expeditions will be tempted to read further about others! Thanks for all your work, much appreciated :) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 17:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category: forms of English

Thank you for sorting that out for me. You're right, it wasn't my intention to add LambaJan to the category. I'd like you to know, however, that LambaJan is far more similar to Unification English than to Valspeak. -LambaJan 01:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your move of Forklift

Hi Thomas,

I noticed that you moved the Forklift article to Forklift Truck by cut-&-pasting the contents. This is not the correct way to move articles, as the edit history was left behind at Forklift. I have reverted your move; next time, please use the "move" link in the top of the screen to move pages. Eugene van der Pijll 15:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq Petroleum Co.

Excellent rewrite, congratulations on a job well done. Dabbler 15:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nevsky Prospect

I would have less quick to change the spelling back had you added an edit comment to your second spelling change. Having searched the web for the Gogol story (eventually googling Arabesques Gogol Nevsky), a recent University of Chicago printing of Gogol's tales uses Prospekt, but Prospect seems more common and one site even uses Avenue.

I won't actively argue the street article, but Prospekt is not the right spelling or transliteration for English. Many, many common words end in -ect. dict.org comes up with one word, listed as obsolete or provencial and with four different spellings, that ends in -ekt (but not in the most common spelling.) It's simply mispelled.--Prosfilaes 05:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur. As to your comment on my talk page, Thomas, I made a redirect not so recently, more than a year ago in fact. As to the argument on the talk page, it was a comment by an anon from http://www.nevsky-prospekt.com/ which I moved from my talk page rather absent-mindedly, without indicating its authorship in an edit summary. I argued precisely to the contrary, that "prospeCt" is a better spelling than "prospeKt". Cheers, --Ghirla | talk 10:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Thomas, I moved your most recent comment from my talk page to Talk:Nevsky Prospect. Let the other interested editors to comment on the issue. --Ghirla | talk 12:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect

You seem to have been adding editorial comments to a number of redirects to SRG SSR idée suisse. While comments are not appropraite in article space, at least the ones you placed after the redirect statement are not visible and don't break the redirect. On SSR (television), you broke the redirect. This is inappropriate. If you believe these redirects should not be there, then please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. Thanks! -- JLaTondre 17:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

After having posted my reply I read the introduction on your talk page, about keeping the discussions in one place (good idea), so here it comes again... Hi JLaTondre! Yes, I've been going through the SRG SSR idée suisse redirects because some of them are totally unnecessary now, as Wikipedia searches aren't case sensitive anymore, and I seem to remember that one of them existed in duplicates as well. So I started to check which links went to which redirect and changed them to point to the article directly. The reason I I left the comments was that I planned to revisit them when the redirects were finished and then ask for deletion. Best regards. Thomas Blomberg 23:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Jamtlandic

Please, respect the spelling jamtsk´, not "jamtska" (which makes no sense at all), for the local name of the dialect group in the english version of the article on Jamtlandic. I just tell you this in order for you not to re-edit every edit I perform. 130.242.128.85 17:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC) (Jens Persson jepe2503 at hotmail dot com)

[edit] Request for edit summmary

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 36% for major edits and 6% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear inpolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 04:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] style box

Why did you remove the style boxes? If you had checked your facts, which you clearly did not, you'd know that

  1. They are all factually correct;
  2. The were all inserted as part of a project on styles to stop being starting articles with styles;
  3. The are the agreed form and covered in the MoS;
  4. All are edited to match any local unique styles.

They are not British styles but royal styles used worldwide. They use a British template simply because it was originally intended to create a set of country-specific templates but in the case of queens and empresses consort it was decided that that was not needed, so the original plan was abandoned and the first country-specific template created, for British queens consort, used as a general one on all consort pages.

If you had checked with any of the people involved in the project, or bothered to ask anyone, you would have found that out. Instead you unilaterally deleted factually accurate templates inserted under MoS rules. The deletions have all been reverted. If you don't know what you are doing, don't do it. Check with people first. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed them because I find it both irrelevant and totally wrong to add boxes about how to address a royalty in English who isn't English. There are already several articles in Wikipedia about how to address royalty (Style (manner of address), Royal and noble styles, Title, Majesty, Royal Highness and Forms of Address in the United Kingdom), and I think a link to one of those articles is a lot more useful for those who feel an urgent need to find out how he or she should address Oscar I of Sweden in English, if meeting him in Heaven (as he's been dead since 1859) although he never spoke English. The English title is already abbreviated in the royal family box for each person, and it is also spelled out in full in the second sentence of each article, so why have it repeated yet a third time in a special style box.
If these boxes are factually correct or not, isn't really important. If someone starts adding boxes about everybody's weight and height, should those remain just because the information is correct? Also, I question the correctness of some of the boxes. Let's take Queen Silvia of Sweden of Sweden, for instance. While it's correct that her title in English is "Her Majesty" (which is noted twice in the article), and it's also appropriate to address her "Your Majesty", I think you would get a very strange look from her if you used the very British "Ma'am". I also happened to notice that her coat of arms are wrong. You have inserted the large Coat of Arms of Sweden (also already displayed in the article, as it's part of the totally appropriate royal family info-box), but she actually has her own, totally different coat of arms (the same is true of her husband: he also has his personal coat of arms, which are not the large Coat of Arms of Sweden).
Regarding you reference to Wikipedia:Manual of Style, I can't find anything in MoS about these boxes, which are so randomly added to royalty articles. If they should be used, they should be used consistently, for every royal person, living or dead. They should also be used for every pope, every American president (and Irish), every prime minister, every high court judge, etc., etc. What makes titles of royalties so special?
As you are the originator of these boxes, I can understand that you feel protective about them, but I can't help feeling - like so many others, judging from the discussion (Template talk:Infobox UKkingstyles) - that they are additional clutter to the royalty pages, especially - as I've already pointed out - as the matter of style is already covered in the second sentence of every article. And the notion that everybody should ask people for permission before doing changes in Wikipedia articles, is definitely not generally accepted in the Wikipedia community. We all find our "babies" changed and altered. We can argue and discuss it, but as long as it's not vandalism, but coming from a position of trying to improve the articles, we have to live with it.
However, the existence or non existence of these boxes is not of very big significance to me, so I won't start an edit war with you about them. I'll leave that to others, as I'm sure I will not be the last person to be removing these (in my mind) irrelevant boxes. Good luck. Thomas Blomberg 16:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
PS. I'll add this conversation to the talk page, as I think others should be able to read it as well.

[edit] Swedish Coats-of-arms and the Dutch wiki

I've posted my initial comment on your Swedish talkpage and your reply on my Dutch talkpage on the talkpage of the user whose page you changed, nl:Overleg gebruiker:Kamu, since I'm not completely up to speed about the issue at hand. I just acted upon a previous reversion and a general notion of the discussion about the coats-of-arms, I'm not an expert in that field. I hope that you and Kamu can work it out. NielsFTalk to me.. 01:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Thomas! I've seen the discussion between you and Niels at the nl-wiki. It's not entirely without reason that you were reverted, when changing the sub-pages of nl:Gebruiker:Kamu. This is in fact a part of a project that has been started in order to check and verify the COA's at commons *and* nl-wiki, just as the project at commons:Commons:CommonsProject Insignia. Atm both correct (but old) and wrong COA's are being thrown out, that is one of the reasons for reverting your changes. Our experience is that there is a number of users that alas do not know what they're doing when changing and deleting COA's. I think it could be good if you would tell Kamu what was wrong with the Swedish COA... Please?
If you'll have a look at nl:Gebruiker:Kamu/Problems#Commons you can see a few of the remarks that have already been made. For instance, the Afghani COA that some users seem to favour is a cut-out of the flag ?!
I hope that this has removed a little bit of the confusion - the dutch aren't that strange ;). 10:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC) commons:user:noorse
I see one of my ex-colleagues has beaten me in answering you :) - there's nothing to add for me, except I'd like to know what to look for when judging if a swedish COA is old/new good/wrong... Would you please let me know? Thank you! nl:Gebruiker:Kamu
Hi! Thanks for your message, have had a look at the two COA's. Would you have a second look at the

commons:Image:Sweden lesser arms2.png please? It seems to be out of focus somehow. And, if you check the category Commons:Category:Coats of arms by nationality you'll see that both your new coa's have been added, and that there are more old coa's. Please use this category alongside the ones you added? BR - nl:Gebruiker:Kamu

[edit] Walmarting and Globilization

Could you take a look at the Afd on Walmarting, please. It was nominated the first day it was written with only one author, who wrote an article that was weak. I've tried to improve it and note its linked to Globilization, which is a much stronger article. Thanks==Beth Wellington 19:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. The decision, you may have seen, was keep--no consensus. Even before the vote ended, Rhobite, who had proposed it for deletion, edited it. If you have any UK examples as external examples, by all means add them.--Beth Wellington 20:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your userpage was briefly delisted by a rogue admin

You have a userbox Template:User UN which links your userpage to United Nations Wikipedians. There is currently a movement to ban userboxes from Wikipedia which are shared and which create List of Wikipedians. Certain admins have taken it upon themselves to preemptively sabotage and/or delete such categories and template. Here is the incident report which reported damage to yours, in which hundreds of userpages were delinked from categories without the users' knowledge. They have been stopped, barely, and the damage reverted— for now.

There is a Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll, which if passed, will make required by policy the damage done to categories and templates such as User UN/United Nations Wikipedians. If you do not want this to happen, I urge you to vote Oppose. in the poll. Support is currently running at about 66%, and your vote could make the difference. It is said to require 75%-80% to be deemed reflective of consensus.

Thank you,

StrangerInParadise 23:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drive for Swedish quality articles

Hello. This is in regards to the upcoming Wikipedia improvements Wikipedia:Pushing to 1.0 and Wikipedia:Stable versions, which have the intentions to provide stable versions of articles suitable for prints or publishing.

I've noticed you have written several articles about Swedish matters. If you feel some of these are decent enough to deserve recognition, you are encouraged to nominate them at Wikipedia:Swedish Wikipedians' notice board/Swedish quality articles. In the end, our articles should be comparable to what is expected from the Encyclopedia Britannica. If it currently isn't, but you feel you have spent a considerable amount of time on it, you are still encouraged to nominate it, so that your work will be recognized and others can continue to improve on it. Don't be shy! :-)

Fred-Chess 11:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collateral damage

Hi. Just thought I'd let you know that I've removed one of your statements on the abovementioned article. It's not appropriate to use weasel-words such as "regarded by many" or "according to most" unless you have facts or statistics to back up your claims. Additionally, you used the superfluous word "innocent" before civilians. I believe that these edits violate our neutral point of view policy. Please read up on this policy. If you believe that my comments are incorrect, please respond on my talk page. Thanks, Werdna648T/C\@ 11:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Werdna68, please check the definition of euphemism. The text you removed was simply an explanation of the meaning of euphemism in this context. In the military it's still a euphemism, i.e. a "nicer" way of saying that you unfortunately have hit people or property that you didn't intend to hit. However, when the term "collateral damage" is used in official statements directed to the general public, it can definitely be regarded as doublespeak, as most civilians don't know exactly what "collateral damage" means. As for "regarded by many" being weasel words because I haven't added a link or a quotation, that's silly, as most people definitely regard "collateral damage" as a form of doublespeak. It's like saying that a Wikipedia article stating that "Stalin was regarded by many to be a tyrant" must be rephrased unless this is proved by links and quotations.
By the way, you have now changed the text to say that the "collateral damage" "can refer to friendly fire or the destruction of civilians and their property", thus indicating that there can be situations when it doesn't refer to this. However, as far as I know that's the only meaning of "collateral damage". Best regards. Thomas Blomberg 18:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, AFAIK, the statement "Stalin was regarded by many to be a tyrant" would probably be removed as POV and weasel-worded. You need to let the facts speak for themselves, rather than speaking for them. For further explanation, please see WP:WEASEL and WP:APT. Secondly, in the statement "collateral damage can refer to friendly fire or the destruction of civilians and their property" was intended to say that it means either friendly fire or the destruction of civilians and their property, but not both. Feel free to reword this as you see fit. In either case, weasel-words need to be either reworded to include a source or removed entirely - you need to either explain who believes that it's doublespeak (I don't!), showing survey results, authoritative quotes, et cetera, or rephrase the sentence to remove that assertation. Werdna648T/C\@ 04:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Copyright situations by country

I think you have significantly misrepresented the UK copyright law here when you write "United Kingdom: Life+70, but photographs taken before January 1, 1945, broadcasts made before June 1, 1957 and cable programmes included in a cable programme service before January 1, 1985 are no longer protected. In addition, copyright in sound recordings and broadcast (radio or TV) expires 50 years after publication/broadcast instead of 70 years after death."

If a photo was taken before 1945 (see the government's official website for this) then copyright would have expired on or by 31 December 1994. However, things get screwed up by the EU directives - if the photo was protected in any EEA country on 1 July 1995 then as of 1 January 1996 the copyright is revived. This is a particular issue since Germany had life + 70 years so any work that was protected in Germany became copyright again. Of course, because it is a matter of the national law of the individual EEA countries, and because it is hard to work out if a photograph is protected in that country, it all becomes a legal minefield.

A bunch of people in a similar position to Wikipedia in terms of having to make sense of this nightmare is British museum workers and archivists. The Museums Copyright Group, set up to sort out the mess that arose because of the EU harmonisation, has some helpful guidance on copyright of private works (they also have a good flowchart for Crown copyright too). Basically, for pre-1945 photos, rather than try to see if the photo somehow avoided Germany's photographic copyright law, they have decided to proceed on the following basis:

  • For an uknown author and a photo taken prior to 1 June 1957, copyright expires after 70 years
  • For a known author and a photo taken prior to 1 June 1957, copyright expires after life + 70

Essentially, they are working on the basis that the photo would have been protected elsewhere in the EEA at the critical date of 1 July 1995. Effectively it means that we are back to life + 70 years again.

What is useful is that Crown copyright on photographs taken prior to 1 June 1957 (or published before 1 August 1989) become free after 50 years (from being created in the former case, and from being published in the latter).TheGrappler 02:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Bubonic plague

Hi, I undid your recent vandal revert on this article. As far as I can tell the anon user made a good edit to the info box. I left him a welcome note and explained why his edit might have been undone, (He didn't include an edit summary). I just wanted you to double check for me in case you had a different reason for reverting. Thanks. Orangutan 20:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

My change was not a vandal revert. His/her change was, however. If you read the article you will understand why.
1) He/she didn't replace Plague with Bubonic plague, but simply added the wording "The Bubonic Plague" (please note "The" and the incorrect capitalization) in the wrong place in to the infobox, still leaving the old title. So, if nothing else, he did an incorrect edit.
2) The medically correct name of the decease is Plague. That is what the official A20 code refers to, and this is the decease the article is about. "Bubonic plague" is just one of nine forms of the decease (see the section "Types"). However, it is the most well known form, which is why some people insist that the article should have that as a heading, as they feel that "Plague" is such a general word (see the talk page discussions). However, please note that the other two common forms, Pneumonic plague and Septicemic plague, both redirect to this article.
I intend to attempt a re-write of the first paragraph of the article soon, which could clarify this. Thomas Blomberg 11:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
The issue of plague and bubonic plague seems to be a continuing problem. I realize you may not agree with the editors' concensus to stick with bubonic plague as the name of the article but there are other English uses of the word plague. That is why we have the disambig page and the other Plague article in process. I've replaced the link to the disambig page -- twice. I don't intend to get into an edit war, so if you have another way to get to the page, let's talk on the discussion page. Best wishes. WBardwin 22:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dreadful article

God dag I read last night your comment on the multilingualism discussion page that the article itself was dreadful. At first, I disagreed. Then, I walked away from the computer and actually thought about what you had written and the article itself, and quickly changed my mind. Yes, the article should be accessible to non-experts, yet as it is written it is not. I am going to attempt to re-work/re-write the article in the next coming days. Help, comments, carving knives... would be aappreciated. Cheers. DDD DDD 01:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that someone has finally read my comment, made three months ago. And one day I'll try poutine. Sounds very good. Thomas Blomberg 02:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nominated template for deletion

Hi. I just want to let you know I nominated Template:PD-SwedGov-attribution for deletion. See the template itself, where there is a link to the template deletion debate. / Fred-Chess (not logged in)

[edit] TfD closed for Template:PD-SwedGov-attribution

I've closed this TfD as Keep. I looked at the wording, though, and the line about requiring attribution of the photographer seems more like an instruction to the user of the template, rather than a part of the copyright message, since the photographer's name doesn't seem to appear anywhere in the template. Is there perhaps a way to reword this? IceKarmaॐ 22:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi IceKarma. Just as the template itself is a message to any person planning to use the picture elsewhere, the requirement for photographer attribution is of course addressed to the same person, to ensure that he/she continues to give the photographer the by-line that accompanies the picture in Wikipedia. As the Swedish Government uses a number of different photographers, and as this is supposed to be a template that can be used for any picture that the Swedish Government has released for free usage, it can't contain the photographer's name. The name should however be included in the text that accompanies the picture. Regards. Thomas Blomberg 22:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] <nokwiki>Image:NewSwabiaMap.jpg</nowiki>

Just thought I'd leave a message to commend you on your work on NewSwabiaMap.jpg- it added much to the article New_Swabia! You should recommend it as a featured image- I'd certainly support it.

Regards, EvocativeIntrigue TALK | EMAIL 17:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Thomas Blomberg 22:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PD-Sweden

Hi Thomas. I have changed around the {{PD-Sweden}} a little. The most updated version is the one on Commons: Commons:Template:PD-Sweden. In fact, images with this template shouldn't be uploaded on English Wikipedia, but straight to Commons.

The template is based on your reasonings on the Swedish Wikipedia page on Upphovsrätt. Let me know if I misunderstood something.

Fred-Chess 09:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 Arab-Israeli War Afd

Based on my comments on this article's talk page, and at the AfD, I respectfully suggest that you consider withdrawing the AfD, if that is allowed under the rules. The article can then be renamed to something less official like "2006 Arab-Israeli hostilities" until events develop further. It looks like the "early returns" at the AfD are going in the direction of a split between delete/keep/rename anyway, so if things continue in that direction, there may well not be a consensus reached. The problem is that if the AfD runs its course and a no-consensus result is announced, and in a week or two everything quiets down and no real connection develops between the two operations, you or me or someone else will make another request to delete and people will vote no based on the fact that there was a previous AfD that failed. You may respond here if you wish, rather than having a discussion bounce between our talk pages. 6SJ7 17:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have two problems with the article. 1) Calling it the "2006 Arab-Israeli War" means trying to claim that this conflict should be added to the five major wars in Israel's 58 years of existence; something comparable to the Six-Day War, when Israel had a quarter of a million soldiers mobilised, or the Yom Kippur War, when it mobilised almost half a million. In this case, Israel hasn't even mobilised yet, just called in some reservists, and there is no indication that this is in anyway worse that the many minor Israeli military actions that have been going on between Israel and the Palestinians during these 58 years, like Operation Litani or Operation Grapes of Wrath. The only reason people are so exited, is that there has been reasonable calm along the Israel-Lebanon border since Israel ended its 20 year long occupation of southern Lebanon in 2000, and that a number of people (journalists as well as Wikipedia editors) are too young to remember what things were like in the 20th century. However, Wikipedia should always have a longer perspective, befitting an encyclopaedia. 2) Anyone familiar with the conflict and the region knows that several things often happen at the same time without necessarily being directly linked with each other. Many people sympathising with Israel may of course be inclined to see the two military operations and/or the two kidnappings as related, but it is doubtful that the Palestinians in Gaza and the Lebanese people have the same view. The Hezbollah has successfully traded kidnapped Israelis against prisoners in Israeli jails before, and declared already in 2004 that they hoped to kidnap Israeli soldiers in order to secure the release of more prisoners, so the fact that Hamas kidnapped an Israeli soldier in the end of June has hardly been an inspiration for the Hezbollah to do the same, and it is even less plausible that the two groups, one being Sunni and the other being Shia, have synchronised their activities. Consequently, I see no need for an article which tries to merge these two conflicts. There is already a link in 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis to Operation Summer Rains, and someone could of course likewise do a link the other way. That should be sufficient right now. The 2006 Arab-Israeli War article serves no purpose at the moment, as it tries to merge two separate conflicts and in addition speculates that we're seeing the beginning of a major war. I therefore feel that we should wait for the outcome of the Afd discussion. Best regards. Thomas Blomberg 23:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Image:Nasrollah.jpg

Why did you tag it as "unfree"? Not only had I already added the source, but I also know the owner of that site. You obviously had other reasons for doing that. Anyway, you may contact the owner at: [1] if you wish. I'll remove the tag. ArmanJan 14:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi ArmanJan. It may very well be that it's okay to use the picture of Nasrallah, but if so you must provide better information than you have done. The fact that you know the owner of the site and that he has said that it's okay to use the picture, doesn't necessarily mean that it is true. You claim that it is a promotional picture. If so, you must, according to the Wikipedia rules, show why you think so: who owns the copyright, for what purpose was it originally published, and why you think it can be tagged as promotional. In this case, "promotional" basically means that it must have been sent out to the press by Hezbollah, and that Hezbollah owns the copyright. Best regards Thomas Blomberg 14:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand what "promotional" means. That site also makes pictures and they distribute these pictures for the purpose of advertising (Iran, religious figures, etc..). That is why I used "promotional". ArmanJan 14:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"Promotional" would only apply if the site is 1) an official Shia site (i.e. run by a recognised Shia organisation), and 2) the site owns the copyright (i.e. the site owner of one of its staff has taken the picture, or the site owner has bought (or been given) the copyright from the photographer. If the owner, who you say you know, owns the copyright, the easiest thing is to get an okay from him and publish that okay together with a more appropriate tag, such as a Creative Commons {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} tag. I hope you can sort it out, because it is a good picture and I would like to see it stay, but Wikipedia has very strict rules regarding copyright. Thomas Blomberg 15:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why are you reverting my changes and claim them to be POV?

Namely, who are these "few Revisionist Zionists" you speak of? Stern and Eldad are deceased and you have provided no source to substantiate the claim that they sought to stretch Israel's borders from the Nile to the Euphrates. The "few Revisionist Zionists" you speak of go unnamed and no source is given to substaintiate your view. Thus, until you can do so, your contribution remains only your point of view. —Aiden 22:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

My point is that you need to back up your additions with those sources from the very first. —Aiden 05:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Qana airstrike removals

Hi. I don't see how the sourced material you removed is covered in the timeline. Please reconsider your removals. Thanks in advance. El_C 13:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi El C. I removed two parts of text:
1): On July 30, IAF Israeli Air Force Headquarters commander Brigadier-General Amir Eshel and head of the Israeli Operations Directorate, Aluf Gadi Eizenkot, told reporters that an initial investigation found the building in Qana collapsed about eight hours after being hit [1]. The possiblity was also raised that Hezbollah explosives stored in the building were behind the collapse. [2] There has been no independent verification for either the Israeli or Lebanese claims regarding the timeline.
The first sentence is covered in the second timeline paragraph: According to the IAF Chief of Staff, Brigadier-General Amir Eshel, missiles struck the building a little after midnight. He also stated that he didn't know when the building collapsed, but "according to foreign press reports, and this is one of the reports we are relying on, the house collapsed at 8 A.M. We do not have testimony regarding the time of the collapse. If the house collapsed at 12 A.M., it is difficult for me to believe that they waited eight hours to evacuate it."[3]
The second sentence is covered in the third timeline paragraph: Senior IAF officers said that the collapse could have been caused by an unexploded missile or by a Hezbullah-planted explosive device.[4]
The third sentence, about lack of independent verification of the two timelines becomes irrelevant, as the current timeline text makes it clear that IDF didn't claim that there was an eight hour delay. That claim was based on reports from the IDF press conference by Jerusalem Post and Ynet, but Haaretz made it clear that Eshel only assumed an eight hour delay, based on "foreign press reports".
2): Responding to the IDF investigation, HRW stated that "only an impartial international investigation can find out what really took place." [5]
This is not covered by the timeline text, but becomes unnecessary and confusing once the other two sentences have been removed from "IDF investigation", as the final text now simply states that IDF has found that the building "was struck at 00:25 Sunday by two bombs launched by the IAF. One of the bombs exploded and the other was apparently a dud.", asomething Human Rights Watch probably wouldn't question, as all parties now seem to agree that the talk about the building having collapsed at 7 or 8 in the morning was a misunderstanding based on poor press reports.
Hopefully, this satisfies your question why I removed those sentences. Best regards Thomas Blomberg 14:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ "IDF: Qana building fell hours after strike", Ynetnews, July 30, 2006
  2. ^ "IDF: Qana building fell hours after strike", Ynetnews, July 30, 2006
  3. ^ IDF says it may not be responsible for Qana deaths, Haaretz,1 August 2006
  4. ^ "Kana collapse was hours after attack", Jerusalem Post, July 30, 2006
  5. ^ "Israel/Lebanon: Qana Death Toll at 28", Reuters, August 2, 2006
Hi again. I think the original press conference decsription is better phrased (less quote-intensive) and organized (Brig.-Gen Eshel wasn't alone in the Jerusalem press confrenece - he was with a more senior officer); HRW calling for international investigation was removed entirely, it could have been moved rather than removed. Which is why I'm still not entirely satisfied with the removals. Best, El_C 19:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but the important point about the timeline text is that it explains that Eshel never said that any IDF investigation had found that the building collapsed much later, which the original press conference text says. He said that he/IDF assumed that there had been a delay, because some foreign press had (wrongly) said that it collapsed around 8am. As all the discussions about "a staged event" and collapse because of Hezbollah explosives are based on the view that it didn't collapse until several hours later, and that view comes from a faulty claim that the Israelis said so, it is vital to highlight this as much as possible, so we can move on and stop filling Wikipedia with a lot of nonsense about "hoaxes" and Hezbollah stockpiles exploding. As for the HRW calling for an international investigation, the Reuters article actually doesn't say so. It only says that Sarah Leah Whitson of HRW concluded that "only an impartial international investigation can find out what really took place", not that HRW demanded such an investigation. However, it's a good complimentary article, so perhaps we could insert a modified text about HRW's talk about an international investigation at the end of the HRW investigation section. Regards Thomas Blomberg 23:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Blockquotes

Can you revert this? Not aware that blockquotes take up space, they certainly make whats said more legible than hiding quotes in blocks of text. Thanks 82.29.227.171 02:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I appear to have managed it. If you feel the need to clear up some space why not remove the UN attacks piece? They arent civilians nor are they civilian areas, I think there is an article describing attacks on them you can integrate with. 82.29.227.171 02:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear anonymous user. The blockqoutes are messy. It's something recently introduced in Wikipedia by a few people, and it's highly debated, as they make the pages look terrible. They were originally intended for very long qoutes, where they may serve a purpose, but in this article they are being used very irregularly, and sometimes for just one sentence. There are already quotation marks (") around each statement in the article, so there is no reason to separate them out in addition. If you do, it should be done for every quote in the whole article, not just those some people find important - but if that happens, the article becomes twice as long. In addition, the article contained two different types of blockqoutes. Your page revert meant that all my text clean-ups disappeared as well. Thomas Blomberg 02:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The Blockquotes I introduced have a useful function- without the extra spacing what each person is saying is more difficult to see- the quotes are more legibile. This doesnt lengthen the article, it merely spaces it out allowing it to be read. Thank you for a potted history of blockquotes on wikipedia. Your hatred of them has left the article in a less legible stated.
As you may notice I wrote the majority of the article from scratch, so the issue of me prefering not to use a username isnt particularly relevant. Any typos you fixed are appreciated by the way. Before you revert again please make the case for abandoning blockquotes on the talk page of the article where I have started a topic. 82.29.227.171 12:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

What is your problem? [2] I'll revert it later, stop reverting the quotes, if you want to improve them along the lines of upgrading them then do it. Removing them hides the quotes in blocks of text making the article less legible. Stop vandalising the page by decreasing its quality. 82.29.227.171 04:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

We desperately need to cut down the size of that article, and the use of the blockquotes almost doubled the length of an already too long article. The article is rightly tagged for needing a major edit, and one of the problems are the blockquotes. Look around Wikipedia, and you'l find that blockqoutes are hardly used anywhere else. Blockqoutes should be used for lengthy quotes, not for one or two sentences. Thomas Blomberg 13:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{Campaignbox Lebanon 2006}}

Hello. You changed the order of Tyre and al-Qaa in {{Campaignbox Lebanon 2006}} here but as i can see it Tyre occured on Saturday August 5th while al-Qaa airstrike was on Friday August 4th. See also [3]. Reuters also mentions Tyre was on Saturday [4]. Am i missing something here?--Wedian 21:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Wedian. My mistake. I saw complaints about the wrong chronological order and didn't notice that you had fixed it. I've reverted it now, and have also re-inserted the navigation bar at at the bottom, which makes it easier for everyone to update the box. Regards, Thomas Blomberg 21:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

Just wanted to let you know that I agree with your concerns over the protection of the campaign and album cover templates. —Nightstallion (?) 11:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Thomas Blomberg 12:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UN resolutions

Thank you for your nice comments. I was very pleased to find someone might be interested in Lebanon-related articles. As for me, I was planning on starting different projects including Lebanon and the United Nations and Lebanon itself, but I had to drop it for more urgent stuff :-) I'm planning in a couple of months to start promoting Lebanon-related articles, especially ones about the civil war, but my biggest obstacle is my weak English. Anyway Cheers. CG 06:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re Negotiations for ceasefire in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

Hi Thomas. I have no problem w/ that. It was me indeed who inserted it as i couldn't find any better illustration. For the rest, i totally agree w/ you. Cheers -- Szvest 16:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™

[edit] Voting on kidnapped or captured

"Capture is a POV word in this situation, while kidnapped is not. I just noticed that since the page was unprotected a few hours ago, new anon users have started taking over the editing, and one of the first things they did was changing all the "captured" to "kidnapped", although there has been a consensus to use the word "captured" for at least a week. If we allow "kidnapped" here, then other users will argue that the Israeli Operation Sharp and Smooth action in Balbeek was a kidnapping as well, and we're back to the old edit wars. Thomas Blomberg 22:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)"

I think you meant to say Capture is NPOV. Also, is avoiding edit wars really a legitimate reason for not stating the illegality of Hezbollah's action? Yonatanh 05:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Zar'it-Ayta ash-Shab incident

Your recent edit to Zar'it-Ayta ash-Shab incident (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 13:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Targeting of civilian areas

While I acknowledge that some of that should be removed, I think the last two (short) paragraphs should certainly be included, especially as Fayssal has expressed a strong interest in having those points noted. Let me know, TewfikTalk 17:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tewifik, Both paragraphs refer to HRW statements which are expanded at length in the sub-article. However, I agree that these are important criticisms that are justified a mentioning in the main article. A good solution would be to insert one sentence in the existing HRW paragraph in this section, stating that "The organization has also strongly criticized Israel for using cluster bombs too close to civilians, and Hezbollah for filling its rockets with ball bearings." That way it's covered in the section, and in addition HRW is just given one paragraph in it, just as all the rest. I'll do that, and hopefully that will resolve the issue. Thanks, Thomas Blomberg 18:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

My main problem is that I conducted extensive conversation with Fayssal last week specifically because he felt that this wasn't a good compromise. If we follow suit, the section will most likely be bloated and POV again. (I'll self rv if necessary - I was waiting for your reply) Let me know, TewfikTalk 18:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is already at twice the recommended size, and there are a few sections that need to be expanded further, especially the environmental one, as the Eastern Med is facing one of the world's largest oil spill disasters in history, something which has been very overlooked so far. So, if possible, we need to shorten the existing content even more.
As we have numerous sub-articles which expand the various issues further, I therefore think the content of this article should basically consist of summaries of the content of the sub-articles. That way we get an article of decent size, where those who are marginally interested can get a very good and lengthy summary of all aspects of the conflict, while those more interested can use it as a good starting point for diving into the sub-articles. I noticed that you have re-inserted the lengthy piece about the Fourth Geneva Convention, for instance, which is a typical paragraph more suited in the sub-article. However, in that paragraph you have also the human shields critique, which, of course, need be mentioned in the main article - and the best place for that would probably be in the "Israeli reply" paragraph, as part of the Israeli arguments why civilian areas are being hit. The Jan Egeland statement isn't necessary in the main article though, for two reasons. 1) we already have the views of one UN representative in the section, and 2) as Jan Egeland has also strongly criticised Israel, we would quickly end up with another lengthy paragraph containing both his critiques.
If we follow such a structure, the section will consist of:
1) Summary of Israeli attacks on civilian areas and infrastructure.
2) Summary of Hezbollah's attacks on civilian targets.
3) Criticism of both from a UN representative.
4) Criticism of both from Amnesty
5) Criticism of both from Human Rights Watch (with the inclusion about cluster bombs and ball bearings).
6) Hezbollah defending its actions.
7) Israel defending its actions (with the human shields complaint added).
Short and balanced, giving equal space to both and handing out equal criticism of both. What do you think? Thomas Blomberg 19:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Thomas, In terms of size, I don't think we can look to 32kb as an appropriate length for an article of this type while it is in progress, though I recall something around 64kb being mentioned by Iorek, which seems more realistic. In general, I'm not sure if this is the best part of the article to further condense - again I point to the fact that detail was expanded at Fayssal's insistance, which I think is indicative of future issues we would have here. If me must though, your suggestion is certainly a good one. I terms of the Egeland quote, I think some reference should still be made in the context of the human-shields claim, as (I think) it is separate from the dual critiques he made before and after. Let me know, TewfikTalk 19:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I really think it would be best if we tried my outlined suggestion. After all, Fayssal hasn't seen what we intend to do, I think his objection has been to having all of it disappear, but this would ensure that the main points are there. This section is right now larger than any of the other, the article stand currently at 70kb, and we need to expand the environmental section, with at least one picture as well (I've found a good one which we are allowed to use). If you're not around, I'll do it according to the outline above. Regards. Thomas Blomberg 01:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Do what you plan, and I (and everyone else in the article, I imagine) will emmend whatever they see as lacking, until the editing/discussion reaches equilibrium. Cheers, TewfikTalk 03:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's now down to 67kb, although I've added more text and a picture to the environmental section. However, much more can be done, for instance shortening the International reaction text and making it much more into a summery. Good night Thomas Blomberg 04:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Thomas, while I'm not sure how the article got back up to 70kb, I don't think that the minimal detail that you trimmed is responsible, and I think it removes some necessary context. Additionally, I couldn't find any mention of the Egeland statement; I strongly feel that the trimmed down version is unique among the NGO commentary, and should be included. Let me know, TewfikTalk 17:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

When I started trimming it down a couple of hours ago, it had grown to 74kb and I managed to get it down to 69. I don't find Egeland's statement unique enough to justify expanding the section and creating an unbalance to it, i.e. all the other NGO references currently criticise both sides. If we keep his statement in, we would also need to add his very harsh statements about Israeli actions, as those can be seen as equally valid by lots of editors. I have included the human shields issue by adding it to the Israeli arguments. I have also given Israel the opportunity of a "quick response", by rearranging the paragraphs so both Israel and Hezbollah get to reply to the listing of their "misdeeds" before we let the NGOs speak. As we already have 41 (!) sub-articles linked to the main article or its sub-articles (see Category:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, and as this article in addition is twice over the recommended size, the only sensible way forward is to turn this article into a list of as brief as possible summaries of the sub articles. It would also get the eager editors to concentrate more on improving the sub-articles, which are in dire need of improvement. Most people seem to concentrate their efforts on this main article and disregard the sub-articles. I will suggest this solution on the talk page.
I suspect one of the main culprits for the size growth is the questionable and rather new practice of using template:cite web and template:cite news to create this enormous list of footnotes at the bottom, instead of the much more space-conserving direct linked references used commonly elsewhere in Wikipedia. The footnote method may look more scholarly, as it resembles the references indexes of factual books, but I strongly question if it makes any sense for news-based Wikipedia articles. Instead of allowing the reader to quickly check a reference by clicking on a direct link, he/she is forced to 1) remember the reference number, 2) click on it, 3) locate the actual reference by its number in the reference list, and 4) click on the reference in order to read it. I doubt very few just look at the reference list to establish if the reference in question should be considered trustworthy or not. This footnote method is useful for Wikipedia articles where the sources are books or old newspaper/magazine articles not available for reading on the net, but here, where we're referring to newspaper articles or web news stories that in many cases will not be available for free access within a couple of weeks (as many news media quickly move older articles to subscription archives in order to free up servers and make some money in the process), and where, in addition, the article and its sub-articles probably will have been totally re-written in a few weeks time, based on background articles rather than news flashes, it makes no sense at all. In addition, most of these references are three times longer than a simple url link, thus contributing substantially to the size of the article, as they are so many that they often double or triple the size of every paragraph. This is something that, perhaps, should be addressed centrally in Wikipedia, in order to create some kind of Wikipedia recommendation as to when these references should or should not be used. But perhaps such a recommendation already exists? I'll have a look. Regards Thomas Blomberg 18:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that something needs to be done about the extensive citations, though I don't know that abandoning the format entirely for inline links is the best solution. As for the article size, while emphasis certainly needs to be placed on cleaning up (and reducing the number of) subarticles, I disagree that turning this article into a super-concise list of summaries is, which I see as greatly reducing the utility of the main article, is the way to do it. There are certain sections that can/should be reduced (with all due respect to environmental impact, it plays a minimal role in the discussion [for better or worse], and could be shortened; The extensive discussion of the previous ceasefire could be shortened as well), but I see a size of 64kb as realistic and acceptable for an article as contested as this. Not that there is parity, but World War II is 107kb.

While Egeland criticises both sides, I believe this went beyond his critique of Hezbollah, and is an important 3rd party statement on the human shields allegation, just as the statements about white phosphorus go beyond the declarations dealing with both sides. Let me know what you think, TewfikTalk 19:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Using the line-by-line mode is fine in other types of articles, where the number of references are limited, but in 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict we already have some 140, when including those pointing to the same reference, and if all those would consist of eight lines instead of one, the article becomes 980 lines longer in edit mode!…It is the ideal template for a developing story article which quotes newspapers, as there is no need to insert the name of the writer, coauthors and the date the news article was accessed.

—Thomas Blomberg

Hello. In the above I have to disagree with you. Firstly, for people like myself who ccheck on the references, and there are plenty that are either dead or incorrect, the line-by-line mode makes such debugging much easier, and the artilce much more easily navigated in edit mode. Secondly, the date accessed is critical, because ref's sometimes change, and when the access date is given, it makes it easier to find the article in the archives. Thirdly, the author of the piece is an integral part of any reference -- I fail to see how leaving it out enhances wikipedia as an encyclopedia. This is not Wikinews, this is Wikipedia, and accuracy and verificability are paramount. So the article is long in edit mode; the only people that should matter to is the editors, and having a more enhanced ability to focus on 1) refs amd 2) separate refs from text (text is linear, references are line-broken) is, if anything better, in my opinion. This article is not going to be able to be properly and accurately streamlined until the current events aspect of it calms down. As such, I firmly believe our focus MUST be on accuracy and verifiability, and the suggestions you make, to me, seem counter to that. Thanks. -- Avi 18:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Avi. I agree with everything you say above in the case of normal articles. However, these kind of news articles (which actually should be banned from Wikipedia and instead should be done in a new and better form of Wikinews, thus giving Wikipedia a chance to become a proper encyclopaedia as much as possible) are different, with people pushing POV issues constantly and information changing by the minute. In a couple of weeks time, most of the current references will have disappeared, as many newspapers only keep the most recent articles available for free access, so the links will die, and as the text also soon will have been totally rewritten, with new and much better references. So, the current references are just for now, and thus access date is irrelevant. Also, the names of the writers is unimportant in these kind of references, as most of the news items have no identified author. This is not a scholarly thesis, but a raw news piece which will have been totally rewritten within a month, if not sooner.
As for line-by-line mode, I just find it annoying when you have so many references, as a four-line paragraph can turn into 100 lines when you enter edit mode if there are many references. I'm not concerned with the formalia of reference making (i.e. "is the title of the article correctly written in the reference", "is the date given correct", etc), nor would I ever dream of reading the reference section to look for errors or try to judge the value of the reference by checking author or publisher. My concern is that the referenced article actually contain what the editor claims, so I just click on the reference and read it. Because of this, I actually prefer the direct external links for reference[5], instead of all the small [1.] [2.] which first takes you to the bottom of the page, then forces you to identify the line (oops, I forgot which number it had, so I'll have to go back), and not until then allows you to click on the link. Traditional foot notes are okay in books, but a pain in the neck on web pages. Regards Thomas Blomberg 19:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection of 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

Hi Mets501, I noticed that you semi-protected 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict at 02:34 UTC and then removed it one minute later. This article, which is probably one of the most read right now, was semi-protected for several weeks, which enabled the registered users to largely reach a consensus and create a pretty good article. However, on 11 August the semi-protection was lifted by Cowman109 with the motivations "as it is a current event to allow casual editors to add to the article" and "Unprotected after four days as it's a current event". I can't see the logic of making the most hotly debated issues accessible for anon vandals because they want to play around, while the fairly anonymous news portal is permanently locked for everyone except administrators. Anyway, immediately after that semi-protection was lifted, the vandals moved in and the responsible editors are constantly busy reverting their insertions. It's bad enough trying to sort out the mess caused by a few very POV users who registered only three-four days ago. So, could you possibly reconsider and slap the semi-protection on for 3-4 days again? Thanks Thomas Blomberg 19:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Thomas. I protected the article per a request at WP:RFPP, and removed it later per the requests of several different administrators. In general, articles linked to from the main page should not be protected outside of extreme circumstances, as it goes against the "anyone can edit" policy. I'm a very new and inexperienced administrator (I just became one 3 days ago), and probably not the best one to ask about this. I might recommend asking a more experienced administrator, and maybe they can help you. —Mets501 (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Merging articles

I responded on Talk:Siniora Plan. Cheers, TewfikTalk 07:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Ceasefire Attems during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict: Newspaper Cover

Hi, I wanted to discuss further with you the issue of the newspaper cover. Please see the talk page for that article. Nemilar 07:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

There were a few changes I made to the lead that got reverted in the last flurry of edits. I'd like to make sure you didn't intend to revert them before I go ahead and restore them. TewfikTalk 22:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Tewfik. I made a change based on the discussions in Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict#WP:LEAD, and you reverted it by inserting lots of stuff you thought was important without discussing it. Then other people, notably Kendrick7, expanded it further. I'm currently having a discussion with him there, as he basically wants half the bloody article in the lead. We need to establish that a lead for this type of article should be very short and only include the bare essentials, as readers should be expected to read more than just the lead. And as I see it, the only way to reach that goal and be able to maintain a short lead, is to remove every word that isn't absolutely essential before people start reading the article. I now see that you have reverted the text again without waiting for my reply. However, let's look at where we differ:
  • First paragraph: We two are in agreement (although Kendrick7 isn't).
  • Second paragraph: I can't see that "Israel held the Lebanese government responsible for the attack, as it was carried out from Lebanese territory" is essential in the lead, as Lebanon isn't considered a party to the conflict, only a victim. As Olmert's government has stressed over and over again that its enemy isn't Lebanon and that it only wants to "help" Lebanon by fighting Hezbollah, putting that sentence in the second paragraph belies all that. We also don't need don't need to state that Israel made ground incursions into "southern Lebanon" (including linking it to a crappy and meaningless long list of red-linked villages), as "incursions" by itself means that they've gone into Lebanon, which is more important than stating which part of Lebanon they enetered. If they did their incursion from the north, however, I would definitely want to include it, as that would be something very surprising, which entering from the south isn't. Another minor difference is that I think that "Israel responded" folloed by "Hezbollah in turn" gives a better flow and describes the escalation of the conflict more better (without going into the fact that the escalation took more than three turns). "Israel initiated" doesn't really fit with the statement that Hezbollah started it, as "initiate" means "to take initiative" or "to start".
  • Third paragraph: I don't see an absolute need to separate the number of displaced Lebanese and Israelis. We're not doing with the number of dead (although we, by virtue of the enormous difference need to state that most of the dead were Lebanese), and I want to handle the number of displaced the same way - and there the difference is "only" double so it's not essential to state it. "1.5 million" gives a better impression of the number of people affected, than saying "one million there and half a million there".
  • Fourth paragraph: In agreement.
  • Fifth paragraph: In agreement.
So, when looking closely, it seems that we're really only disagreeing about the inclusion of one sentence in the second paragraph, and whether the number of displaced should be given collectively or separately. I'm afraid Kendrick7 is much further away from both of us. Regards Thomas Blomberg 00:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey - um, I stopped read at the "half the bloody article" above :). I'll have to read all that now, but I did change the lead again. I came here to say that you made a good point about economy, as one of my concerns per WP:Lead is encouraging further reading, and when I look at the result, I realize an economical version does just that.

I can't can't get below five graphs though. Intro, military actions, results of military actions, diplomatic actions, and finally diplomatic results seems to be the minimum. But the devil is in the details, and we do have some disagreement as to the salient points therein. I don't mind lengthening this though. -- Kendrick7 06:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

No problemooo Thomas. I agree w/ your interpretation. -- Szvest 18:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up ®

[edit] Ambulances on Targeting page

Hello, Thomas.

Firstly, please see talk:Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict where there is discussion of this topic already. Secondly, it is extremely relevant. The article is making the claim that the attacks on ambulances are violations of international law. There exists case precedent in Israeli and international law that refutes that claim. The fact that the case precedent may date to 2004, 2002, 1947, or 1856 is irrelevant. What is relevant is case precedent that ambulances used to support military operations are stripped of their protections under the international laws of war. According to your reasoning, none of the Geneva convention should apply, becasue it does not talk about Lebanon, which I agree is an absurd argument. We should continue this discussion on the articles talk page. Thanks. -- Avi 16:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Spedan Lewis

You mention on your user page that you plan to work on this. I've knocked something together quickly and would very much appreciate it if you could check it. I have tried to adopt a neutral POV, but I am a JL partner, and so may have some accidental bias. Many thanks, Davidprior 01:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks good! I've just wikified it somewhat and added categories. Regards, Thomas Blomberg 23:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Cheers Thomas, your edits will certainly make it read better. My only query regards the change in capitalisation in the book titles - I'd entered them as listed on [6] - is the change to lower-case due to a wikipedia house style thing? Davidprior 12:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ieper

Hi Thomas. It's Ieper (ieper), not Leper. Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVERS 11:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me - and thinking about it, it makes perfect sense, considering what the French name is. The inability of seeing the difference of a capital i and a lower-case L is one of the main disadvantages of sans-serif fonts... Thomas Blomberg 12:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/o/User_talk%7EThomas_Blomberg_45b6.html"