User talk:Tewfik/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Feel free to leave comments and criticism at the bottom of the page:

Thanks

Thanks for the help on the cite web problem! --Geneb1955Talk/CVU 04:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

origin of missile

This is the article : [1]. Sorry about not assuming good faith before.--Paraphelion 08:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


Israel/Lebanon

Umm so you are right, it was a citied ap source YNET is much more bias--Jerluvsthecubs 09:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fly,
I reverted because you mistakenly added another 9 to the number of Israeli dead, which I had already updated, and because the new Lebanese number didn't distinguish between civilians and militants, whereas the previous source for it (Reuters, not Ynet) did. Cheers, TewfikTalk 15:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah ok thanks, too many changes too fast!--Jerluvsthecubs 20:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Tewfik, you posted in one of your revisions: "I'm not sure why this detailed analysis of US aid is relevant; the vetoes and bombs are included elsewhere". The post you edited explained why it was relevant--because the US is bankrolling Israel. If there were a Wiki article on a war between 2 competing drug lords, I think it would be particularly relevant to mention if one of the cartels were bankrolled by the Colombian government. Same logic applies to the Israel/Hezbollah conflict, IMO. If you disagree, please say why. FightCancer 16:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Image

You have been active on the lebanon crisis page, what do you think about the picture? Some are claiming that its a violation of NPOV because it shows Israeli's, but I think this is pretty crazy. Chances are you will never get both sides in the same picture, and on top of that there are very few images of this event that are free, or qualify for fair use. You probably saw the black and white explosion image, as far as images go its a choice between that and the blockade. Out of these, I find the blockade is slightly more interesting. But what do you think of this issue? ~Rangeley (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, good to see I'm not crazy. And you have done a good job on the article, there has been a surprising amount of vandalism and bad edits to sift through and you have been there fixing it the whole time. ~Rangeley (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I have wanted it gone since it was put up, its more a form of covert vandalism than anything. People slap it on without basis, and dont state their objections anywhere. If people see small errors, they should fix them, not put up a tag. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

CNN4

I removed the first one (hope thats what you wanted.) ~Rangeley (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at it, it seems that the code is messed up somehow. I will try and fix it, if I can figure out how. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Looks like it was fixed, so all is well. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Yea, people who use firefox have that happen sometimes, its a bug or something. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanese

But now you have the problem of not distinguishing between Lebanese and those of other nationalities. OzLawyer 22:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a minor problem at all. It's a problem of truth. Why not just put "civilians/Hezbollah militants" if you don't want to/can't distinguish? (If you can distinguish, you should.) OzLawyer 22:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The infobox is an overview. It should include all the dead. Since you cannot include each nationality, then wouldn't the most logical thing be to list "civilians" (and Hezbollah militants if you know the numbers), ignoring nationality? OzLawyer 22:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
It would be no less useful than the way it is now. OzLawyer 22:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't your mistake; 24.45.196.120 did that. BhaiSaab talk 00:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanese casualty picture

I noticed that you (rightly) removed this picture. I found the picture on the Al-jazeeza website in the meanwhile [2]. This site confirms that it is a picture from this crisis. I however do not know what kind of use of this picture is permitted. Do you know who to find that out? Sijo Ripa 03:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I found it out myself (just had to scroll down): a fair use notice. Sijo Ripa 03:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Are Lebanonese civillians not civillians?

Hi,

I made a change on the 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis with this summary: The deads were civilians according to the references (and I don't understand the reason of using "Lebanonese" for deads instead of "civilians").

Why did you reverted this change? Thanks.

Please join discussions before editing

Please refrain from editing until you read the talk pages. Consensus is not as easy as you seem to think. It takes patience and good faith--Cerejota 04:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have noted to the user that this is a baseless statement, and that my edits were (all?) in line with talk. TewfikTalk 04:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
My statement has much more basis than yours. Your edits where not in line with discussions in most of the cases. Furthermore, you went to an admin and misrepresented my behaivior. I do think you have done some good work, but you could have handled things much better, perhaps you allowed your passion for the subject cloud your judgement. --Cerejota 01:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I have discussed the user's claim of my misrepresentation along with difs of their unfounded accusations of vandalism, POV pushing, accusations of my bad faith and lack of good faith on their Talk. The user has been warned by an admin here and here. TewfikTalk 04:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:Pov tag

Hello Tewfik, I'm sorry but do you think you can remind me what article we are talking about?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Cite crazy

I believe there is such a thing as too much citation. I did not add anything that asserted an opinion or was not widely acknowledged. The sources for the introductory information is so readily available in every imaginable way that it is virtually indisputable because it is so general in nature, and again, I asserted no opinions. I would hardly call it "research". According to your logic, I should also cite that Beirut is the capital of Lebanon, or that Saudi Arabia is an arab country. That is going too far. I notice that "sliced bread was invented in 1928" does not need a cite. I don't see why the very broad uncontroverted info that I added should. I appreciate your care for the article and I do respect the principle you are trying to defend. However I must disagree with you and believe you are taking one step too far. By the way, what happened to the consensus talk page?--Leaf2001br 02:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I would also note that if for some reason, anything were disputed, someone could add a "citation needed". With all the pages of technically and specifically reported information in the article, I hardly see why you would seek to attack the very general introduction. Much of the more detailed info which I outlined is actually discussed more specifically, and CITED later in the article. Again, I just think you are a little to eager to cite here.--Leaf2001br 02:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Why was my post erased?

I thought I raised good, ligitimate points. I'd understand a reply telling me whether and why my post was unacceptable, but you've basically just erased me out of your page. How come? I thought everyone's entitled to an opinion here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naughtius Maximus (talk • contribs)

Introduction

I suggest you take your own advice and read the introductory paragraph of introduction. After all of that garbage in the introduction that details this strike, and that strike, and this road, and the jargon-ish military operational names, etc. etc.

Yet hundreds of thousands of people are in exodus, and the entire international community is scrambling, and you don't think that's relevant to what this is all about??? If you're going to go back and forth with me, I think you should put the tag back up. I don't quite understand how you're somehow entitled to an ultimate decision. The introduction as it is now is BAD without touching on this issue. It ignores the fact that the context of this situation is bigger than just Israelis and Lebanese, and is therefore by definition, biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leaf2001br (talk • contribs)

Your welcome message

Thank you for the welcome message! Regards. --Viriathus 05:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


Civilian Suffering??

I didn't say anything about civilian suffering. I said: "Yet hundreds of thousands of people are in exodus, and the entire international community is scrambling, and you don't think that's relevant to what this is all about? ... The introduction as it is now is BAD without touching on this issue. It ignores the fact that the context of this situation is bigger than just Israelis and Lebanese, and is therefore by definition, biased." I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I'm the one who wrote the part you just cut and pasted from the introduction. The problem I had was that the quality of writing in the introduction was structurally poor and I was trying to improve it. It should touch briefly on the largest issues, not drone on and on about this rocket attack, that rocket attack, etc. You have made it very clear that in your opinion this is not a very "relevant" international issue. I'm sorry you choose to see it that way, and I hope you're right. --Leaf2001br 05:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

removing some part of begining

سلام علیکم

هل تعلم انک تنقص المقالة؟

There is written at the begining of article that Hezbollah called the operation "Operation Truthful Promise". What is the promise? Why did they attack Israel?

When you remove "Few weeks ago Hassan Nasrallah declared that Hezbollah would carry out further operations at a later date to gain the release of the remaining Lebanese prisoners like involving Rafiq Yehia Skaf, Nassim Nisr and Samir Kuntar who are jailed in Israel for several years.[30] " from the begining nobody find the answer of these questions. If this part ("The attacks came two weeks after the beginning of the Gaza-focused Operation Summer Rains whose objective was to free the soldier Gilad Shalit captured by local militants in an earlier cross-border attack organized by Hamas. Eight Israeli soldiers were killed and two were captured.") relates to that part, the reason of attack absolutly relates.--Sa.vakilian 05:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If I revert the text, I may break "three revert rule". Please do it yourself.

Please add that part at the begining of "Initial reactions".--Sa.vakilian 07:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Tewfik

I would like to tell someone about my severe concerns about the Israel Lebanon crisis article. Having family in the areas of conflict makes me very sensitive to this issue, and when people exert control over an article like this and everything i try to change or update is called vandalism,it makes me frustrated. I have many issues with the POV of the article. For one I have a very hard time seeing Lebanon as an actual combatant. Both Hezbollah and Israel vow to destroy one another and Lebanon has become the stomping ground... as shells and bombs destroy the recently rebuilt country. Lebanon has only fired anti aircraft missiles (which it has the right to) if another country's aircraft came flying over the Israel they would shoot them down in an instant. Lebanon must have the basic right to defend its airspace? no? The other problem i have is with the Death/wounded tolls. The 500 Israeli's listed as "injured" are mostly from shock and most are not even hospitalized, not even to mention the source of that figure, and the number 500 which is severely unlikely. And the article states in the infobox: ISRAEL: 12 civilians killed[1] 500 civilians injured [2] 12 soldiers killed 6 soldiers wounded[3] 2 soldiers captured[3][4][5] 1 warship damaged 1 tank destroyed[6]

LEBANON: 210 killed[7] 415 injured[8] 12 soldiers killed (Lebanese government accounts)[9]

The article has the Israeli POV because Israeli dead and wounded are called "civilian" ... and the Lebanese killed and wounded are assumed to not be civilians, it says nothing, leaving the reader to believe that the Lebanese dead were guerilla, terrorist, or otherwise.... (not soldier or Hezbollah)

Please consider what i have had to say, and consider the people dying while we discuss what belongs in the article... all humans are equal under God. Erpals 06:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Crystal Ball

Hi Tewkif. Thanks for your help and message. I'm wondering if you can help. I think that the subsection in 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis entitled "Possible expansion and resolution" is full of Crystal Ball speculation and is incoherent. This has been raised in the Discussion page and suggested for removal. Can I go ahead and remove it? I tried but bibigone accused me of vandalism and reverted it. Thanks (Downs 22:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC))

Stop harrasing me

Thanks.--Cerejota 12:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

a problem in the article

سلام

There is few quotations and viewpoints of Lebanese in 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. --Sa.vakilian 14:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for welcoming me to Wikipedia! Sorry about the delay in response, I've been extremely confused recently! Thanks again! Hydraton31 01:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah/BBC passage

Hey.. yeah I was hoping by now someone would have found a better source than that BBC article. I forgot it was the same article which was used to cite the destruction of israel. Before I put in those quotes, I thought what was there was a very biased re-phrasing of the article, so I figured why not just quote it. I suppose it is awkward. If I have some time tomorrow I'll look for more articles and see if I can come up with something bit better.--Paraphelion 05:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hizbollah casualties

Actually they do. The first source lists two killed before July 18 (its publication date) The third source lists three killed in the Metula incursion and another three killed in two separate incidents near Moshav Avivim. GabrielF 15:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I should have itemized them in the first place. GabrielF 15:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Israeli casualties

سلام

The real nomber of Israeli casualtis is more than what is declared in Israeli media. Please look at my comment in discussion page of that article.--Sa.vakilian 19:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Please look at the table at the above of [[3]]. The soldier Casualties is declared 16 by israel but the nomber of is casualties is more in independent media like al jazeere.--Sa.vakilian 02:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanese Casualties

Hi Tewfik,

Looking at the infobox at 2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict, I think that its a misnomer to say that there are 282 civilian casualties. Surely SOME of the people killed in Israeli airstrikes have been militants. Perhaps we should change it to Lebanese Army and Other with a note that says it is impossible to determine at this time how many of the Lebanese casualties are civilians.

GabrielF 22:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

THis is not what the sources state. YOu might think it, hell, it might be true, but the sources state civilians. Can't defend sourcing only when it fits your viewpoint, you know?--Cerejota 06:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

noted on user's talk that this is not true, and commented on their inappropriate statement. TewfikTalk 07:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You didnt note it was not true. It is true, the sources either make no distintions, or mention civilians, that is unquestionable. If you read Gabriel's message, he doesnt mention 330 as a casualty figure, as you mentioned in my talk page, but more importantly, he doesnt question the figure perse, but if the figure represents civilians. You say you want a positive working relationship, yet it is hard to do this with someone who misrepresents statements by others.--Cerejota 07:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

My response to the user:

I didn't raise concern over the number - that just happens to be the number in the citations and which was in the template before I touched it. The point I made is that the number (in this case 330) is not qualified by civilians, but is rather a cumulative number which includes the civilians as well as others (militants, etc.). Calm down. I'm really not out to get you, or to covertly sabotage the page when you are not looking =D. Cheers, TewfikTalk 07:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
You can see my talk page with the response, but notice how you fail to address the original concern... On what information do you base that any of the figures are cumulative? Or like Gabriel, youa re just speculating?--Cerejota 07:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


Removal of Blog

Hi Tewfik,

Update: oops, I confused your edit with one up the list. Apologies and disregard!

I don't see a reason why you removed my blog from the list in 2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict. I didn't add it, and the analysis/information is no less topical than anything else in the list. If you don't want it there for personal reasons, or if you think links to blogs should not be a part of WP, then remove them all, not just the ones that link to Israelis. For now, I am reverting your change; looking forward to hearing your explanation. Idangazit 11:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad pic

Replied... KWH 14:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

civilians

I don't understand why you removed the "civilians". Isn't the half a million displaced civilian? ActiveSelective 17:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

forgetting most are civilians

the title of that article states at least 300 are civilians. you consistently try to hide the fact that the majority of the number are civilians--Paraphelion 18:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

the title of an article is part of the article--Paraphelion 18:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
the article does go on to say that over 300 have been killed, most of which are civilians, so what I get out of all of that, including the title is that 300 are civilians, but there are more that have been killed that might be civilians, might not be. In any case, tomorrow a new source will come out that says "350 have been killed", someone will replace the source, and you and others will have no problem removing the heading of civilian knowing full well that all reports say that number is mostly civilians.--Paraphelion 19:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
We can tie civilians to a number based on sources that do give numbers. I don't know what we do with the reports that show larger numbers that do not specify... I suppose we could subtract 300 from 330 and say "30 others", but I don't think that's a good solution either. Overall the point I am getting at is that it seems to be POV and absurd to not have any section in the infobox for Lebanese civilians when there are at least 20 times the amount of Israeli civilians killed, but somehow only those civilians are entitled to a proper label. Tomorrow we might find a report that says 40 Israeli killed, and does not make a distinction, but it would be wilful misinformation to then forget any Israeli civilians died.--Paraphelion 19:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Also I find it odd that you are perfectly willing to remove the civilian heading which one article says there are 300 of, and then not at the same time increase the number to 330 unspecified in the other citiation.--Paraphelion 19:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hope you are happy

I hope you are happy. As I predicted, the inclusion (as separate section) in the main page of "Hezbollah rocket attacks" instead than in Military operations of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, has lead to further deterioration of the quality an NPOV of the page. Instead of being the useful and informative jumping point to facts about the conflict, it has become a battlefield of both sides of the POV competing to see which facts support them. If you dont like this situation, please join me to get make this and the other pages to be good pages rather than the disasters they are now.--Cerejota 00:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read: Wikipedia:The perfect article, in particular:
"starts with a clear description of the subject; the lead introduces and explains the subject and its significance clearly and accurately, without going into excessive detail."
In the specific case, including stuff about Hezbollah's rocket campaing, which began later, in an introduction serves no purpose but support an specific POV, and destroys the quality of the article.--Cerejota 00:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Israeli Pic

None, someone removed it. Before that, as far as I can tell, it was the pic of the damage in Haifa. The best solution would be a split screen of that and the damage in Beirut, but both of those images have dodgy copyright status, so I went back to the tank picture, as much as I don't particularily like it, because it's the only one we have with a proper copyright status. We need wikipedia photographers, damnit! (though it's probably a bad idea to have them in a warzone). --Iorek85 06:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

self defence

سلام Why do you removed this part?

But sombebody says Israel can't justified as a self defence because "If only for 2 soldiers Israel destroyed a country, than for 10000-kidnapped prisoner in the Israeli prisons, hizbolallah should eradicate Israel who refuses the basic human rights of the Lebanese to live in freedom and peace. "[4]--Sa.vakilian 07:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

There is some debates about dispropotionity of Israel operation, we should write them in the article.--Sa.vakilian 08:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a notable qutation. The speaker of the parliment of Iran said something about dispropotionity. But if I put that quotation there thay would tell it should be moved to International reactions. I advise you to replace my edition with something which is better. But if you remove this part the article becomes defective.

3RR

Are you knowledgable on how to report 3RR? If so, then you may wish to report him instead of myself. He has now blatantly violated it. --Strothra 18:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

He didn't seem like a new user to me so I went ahead and reported it - I believe I filled the form out correctly. I would be violating 3RR, I believe, if I reverted again and so would you. I guess we'll let the admins decide. --Strothra 18:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop harrasment, lets go to dispute resolution

Thats it tewfik, am fed up with your constant harrasment.

lets get some dispute resolution going... I cannot handle your constant preocupation with my actions that borders on stalking.

I am very civil and have been commended for my civility and balance by people on all sides of the POV, and I just recently gave a barnstar to an Israeli reservist for a great NPOV edit.

It seems you are the only person worried about what I do or say. You continue to harras me on my talk page in spite of my multiple requests to the contrary, and instead of discussing the specific concerns in the talk page of the article, where specific things are pointed out, you try to make it personal. --Cerejota 01:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

As per policy, I have raised a request for informal mediation with the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-24 Tewfik harrassment of Cerejota--Cerejota 01:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Picture

The main picture for the Lebanon article is under debate. It is too biased. What about all the Israeli towns and cities that have been attacked by thousands of missiles? What about all the innocent Israelis that have been killed and injured? Aren't they important too? Keep in mind that if Hezbollah hadn't made an attack into Israel, there would have NO Israeli operation! Keep in mind who the terrorists are - Hezbollah, their charter states that they seek the destruction of Israel. Israel seeks peace so Hezbollah must be removed so that there can be peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.182.215 (talk • contribs)

Incomplete revert

Hi. can you confirm the changes to the figures? Thanks. El_C 03:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Pictures again

The picture is too biased. It is dangerously misleading! Get a picture of the damage to Haifa too! And if you want a picture up so badly, please find one that shows the other side too. I don't really care whether there is a picture up or not. All I want is a picture that is FAIR, not pro or anti Israel, but one that is FAIR. I belive in having ALL the FACTS, not partial facts.

I would make the case that you are vandalizing the pages since you choose to put up biased photos. And if there is no evidence of white powder, then it can't be in the encyclopedia. This is supposed to have FACTS not claims. Because anyone could claim anything, right? So, please keep this in mind. Please keep an OPEN and HONEST mind. That's the problem...too much dishonesty and crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.182.215 (talk • contribs)

Small note about warnings

It's preferred that you subst: usertalk warning templates (WP:SUB). Also, I'd leave the previous warnings you've added instead of replacing them - when admins go to decide whether to block people, they can see that they've been warned more than once. --Iorek85 04:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You

Your unwillingness to discuss any changes indicates that there is a truth to be suppressed? Are you Stalinist by any chance? Because you remind me of him.

Secondly, tell me why you put "By Israel" first! Forget about any "bias" crap. Look at the damn facts. Who started THIS CONFLICT! Hezbollah! Therefore using LOGIC LOGIC LOGIC LOGIC (not bias crap) "by Hezbollah" should be first. I think I am being honest and fair here, while you desire to deceive the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.182.215 (talk • contribs)

Edit war?

salam

My dear friend, I don't want to participate in an editorail war. As I told you above instead of removing the text about Israel disproportionate attack, Please replace it with a better text. If you don't do so I put a new text every time I edit the article. Thank you. --Sa.vakilian 04:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

My dear friend, in the "Israel responce" should be written that analyst and politicians beleive that this is disproportionate responce. First I put something and you said it's POV and I accept and add other text and you removed it and siad look at [WP:Notabe] and then I add something else.I want to show some important persons and neutral sites believe this idia. if you have a better solution help me with it. But if I put another text and you would remove it I think you break 3 revert rule.--Sa.vakilian 04:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you propose a better way to add "israel's disproportionate attack against people and infrastructur of Lebanon"?--Sa.vakilian 05:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Just a notice that you're getting rather close. Everytime you restore/rm something that isn't clearly vandalism or WP:V violation counts as such. El_C 05:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Map

I have updated it as you asked. However, I am sure there were dozens more locations hit. I took a map out of Yediot Ahronot just for the purpose of knowing but somehow managed to lose it. If you have a full list, please provide one so I can update the map accordingly :) thanks. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 08:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Informal Mediation

There has been an Informal Mediation requested involving you. As the mediator, I suggest you visit the link and sign up. We can proceed when you sign up :). Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-24_Tewfik_harrassment_of_Cerejota#Mediation Thanks. GofG ||| Contribs 09:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I second the request. FightCancer 15:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course. Generally, informal mediation is determind on either the article talk page or on the mediation page. As the request involved a question of civility, and not directly the article, the discussion will take place on the Mediation page. There are no charges, as of now. There will simply be discussion between you and the other user. You may, if you want to, open the conversation. I, being a mediator, generally will wait for one of the two users to say something. GofG ||| Contribs 19:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I've looked through all of the talk pages, and I found very unsatisfactory conclusions. For instance, in the civilian casualties debate, it ended on a very poor note with the users not in agreement. If you have evidence contrary to that, please, supply.
In either case, I found that all of your debates came down to the article, and originated from the article. Most informal mediations end up on the article talk page, and this is no acception. If you beleive that the conflict on the two conflicts I chose are irrelivant, please say so :). GofG ||| Contribs 22:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for being patient with me :D... As you can see, it was my mistake. Thank you for telling me that those were no longer disputes. I was of course going by the dates, which were misleading. GofG ||| Contribs 23:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


You're a good editor, keep up your editing and improving your edits. Don't let trolls get to you. Masalaama. --Strothra 03:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

What is your idia

سلام

Can we add wiewpoint in the Israel-Lebanese Confilict? like this[5]--Sa.vakilian 04:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

A POV artice

سلام

Please look at 2006 Middle East conflict. This article only represent Israeli viewpoint. Now look at this reversion [6]. That guy not only revert my edition but also removed the refrences.--Sa.vakilian 12:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you notice to this comment?--Sa.vakilian 02:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation with Cerejota

Hello Tewfik, I'm here about your response to the compromise offer with Cerejota. From what I understand, you think that the allegations made against you by Cerejota are mostly baseless and false. I would like to ask you - despite what you think of his accusations - to apologise to Cerejota so that we all can just put it behind us. Even if you don't think you've done any wrong, and even if you think that Cerejota is more to blame than you, it seems that he was offended by you, although I am sure you did not intend to offend him. All I ask is that you and Cerejota say "sorry" to each other (which he has already agreed to do), and forget about it all. Sometimes it's necessary to apologise even if you think you haven't done anything wrong, in order to preserve a good relationship. Thank you :] Tamuz (Talk) 22:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Qana

Hi Tewfik, there was a discussion on the talk page and something was agreed, though it was a while ago so I don't remember any details. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about a recent move. I can take a look but it might be tomorrow. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 02:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it's fixed. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 02:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

targetting

Ok. Though there then should be some note that it is not confirmed whether or not they were purposely. Or just an account of who accused them of hitting them purposely and who denied it, if that has happened. There is a difference between the kidnap/capture issue than this issue in that in that issue, no one is disputing the event or intent, just what words to use to describe it.--Paraphelion 05:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand

What do you mean ? We used to have that section, but it was removed as being to much of a crystal ball. You can bring it up on Talk if you like.

What is that section?--Sa.vakilian 09:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Grey area?

I was recently warned by you for 3RR, though that is not exactly what I am approaching you about, and I am not requesting a repealing or anything of the sort.

I am curious as to the status of edits like these: [7], [8]. More specifically, what is the status of reversions of random and unconnected IPs that make unconstructive edits against consensus, but that are not part of any edit-war. The reason I ask is because in my [short] experience on the 'pedia, such edits have been often referred to as vandalism, even though they do not fall under its technical definition. In the case of these two reversions:

  • One was an rv from a nonconsensus picture which had been extensively discussed on talk by others. I was not involved in the discussion, but was maintaining its consensus version of the page, and others had similarly reverted other random IPs who made this change numerous times previous to mine.
  • One was an rv of a flagrantly POV and nonconsensus word substitution. Reversions of numerous such IP substitutions had been made by others throughout the day.

Again, neither of these were part of any edit-war (as an aside, they are of a different POV than the other edits included in my 3RR, and I personally believe the other user specifically included them for the sake of blocking me, and not because he contested them). I also discussed this issue with another admin on IRC, and they were at a bit of a loss as to where these types of reversions fit in. How should one react to these types of edits, if they are indeed counted towards 3RR, and then what is to prevent 3RR being used as a weapon based on edits completely unrelated to any edit-wars. Moreover, isn't this type of editing for which sprotect was designed? Thanks, TewfikTalk 00:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message.
Reverts of edits like that absolutely are counted towards the 3RR. The simplest solution is that if a genuine consensus exists for a certain version of the page, then more than one user will be able to revert it - the POV-pusher will violate 3RR but the consensus supporters will not.
The only reverts that are exempt from the 3RR are:
  • Reverting simple vandalism, e.g. addition of nonsense, page-blanking, inserting inappropriate graphics. If it could be argued that the edit is not vandalism, then it is not simple vandalism. Good-faith edits and content disputes are never simple vandalism.
  • Reverts that are made by the same user without any substantial intervening edits by anyone else (just counted as one revert)
  • Self-reverts
  • Reverting banned or blocked users
  • Reverting libellous material
  • Reverting your own userspace
  • Reverting for maintenance, i.e. in the sandbox etc.
This is an absolutely exclusive list - nothing that is not on the list is exempt.
I hope this clarifies the matter for you :) Stifle (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. While I'm now clear on the technical definition, in a case where there are only 2-3 constructive editors under a barrage of unconstructive IPs, albeit non-edit-warring ones (4 IPs at 3 edits a piece), 3 reversions per editor can quickly run out, and that is without any content disputes. It seems that this is would create an application of 3RR which diverges from its original purpose, and could be taken advantage of to block editors not engaged in edit-warring (which of course I believe happened to me, but I'm not addressing that =D). Is this a real, if unfortunate side-effect, or have I just misunderstood 3RR's application? Thanks for your assistance, TewfikTalk 01:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, after a second IP comes on the scene and starts to revert-war in the same way, I would be recommending semi-protection of the page (use WP:RFPP). Admins will take this into account in assessing 3RR violations. Stifle (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to keep bothering you, but... My issue is involvement of non-edit-warring IPs. Perhaps four separate IPs make four separate non-constructive edits, but none constitute vandalism. While they may eventually be reverted, that would be hours away, and if they are lost deep in the article's text, maybe longer. Should one not revert those to avoid 3RR? And if there are only perhaps two, should one then not make more than two content-based reversions later on in relation to a different user? Again, sorry to bother you, but the issue is really disturbing me, as it seems that there may be an application of 3RR (blocking after 4 rvs including those unrelated to edit-warring) which diverge's from the original purpose (preventing edit-warring). Thanks, TewfikTalk 22:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if four reverts are made by one user in 24 hours, unless they are exempted as per above, then the user is liable to be blocked. If the reverts really need to be made, there are several thousand other Wikipedians who can make them. Stifle (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you too

for the warm welcome. I love wikipedia and have been a wikipedian for some years now. Thought it was about time I registered. --Epsilonsa 10:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Please describe your edition

Hi,

I think we debated before and we conclude that "named for a "promise" by its leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, to capture Israeli soldiers and swap them for the remaining three Lebanese held by Israel" should be written in the lead, unless it would be meaning less. You omit this sentence and nobody finds why this raid took place.Cheer --Sa.vakilian 15:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

My dear friend, It's not a good idea. It makes article like puzzle. The reader can't understand for what reason this operation was took place. Only when he/she read the historical background can answer this question.

I think one of the most important factors in an article is clarity.--Sa.vakilian 15:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I see and I agree with you. But I mean we can put just 1 sentence in the lead. By this way we can promote clarity. Also we should add describtion in the text, maybe in the background.--Sa.vakilian 15:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
If you look at talk page and history of editions, you'll find unfortunately many of the editors especialy who doesn't have user name don't pay attention to talk page.

I propose we put that sentence in the lead. I hope nobody removes it. Do you remeber disproportionity --Sa.vakilian 15:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

My dear fiend,
Please look at this sentence:"Hezbollah initiated Operation Truthful Promise,[14] consisting of a cross-border raid, shelling, and the capture of two Israeli soldiers" I actualy believe that this sentence is diseptive. It misinformed people.--Sa.vakilian 17:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for writting this

" Hezbollah's attack was named for a "promise" by its leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah to capture Israeli soldiers and swap them for the remaining three Lebanese held by Israel" in the lead. But I don't think it will be remained. Would you please merge it in the lead. عفوا سیدی --Sa.vakilian 17:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

congratulation for Rajab --Sa.vakilian 19:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your efforts.--Sa.vakilian 03:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot

Hi, Thanks a lot for "welcome". Who are you? Are you an admin in this site?--Accessible 02:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I add US supports Israel

Hi,

I see there is some paragraphs which say Iran supports Hezbollah. So I add something which shows US supports Israel to make the text neutral.--Sa.vakilian 03:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to debate about Hezbollah terrorist or Legitimated resistance. You can say it is a terrorist organization. But I want to say when we write Iran supports Hezbollah then we should write US sopports Israel. By this way we can protect article from POV. The judgement about who is terrorist and who is not by readers.--Sa.vakilian 04:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I think there is a great disagreement between muslims and west. So I propose to write US support and arm Israel to fight agianst Hezbollah-they claim it is a terrorist organization - and on the other hand Iran support Hezbollah and maybe arm it(I'm not sure ) - Iran claim it's a legitimate resistance. UN approved Hezbollah should be disarm but Lebanon Government recognize it as a legitimate resistance and say we don't disarm it until Israel withdrow from Sheba Farm. Then the reader judge who is true.(Excuse me if the structure of sentences are Persian )--Sa.vakilian 05:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what do you want to write in the article?--Sa.vakilian 06:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Please explain deletion

You recently removed the following passage from the Israeli-Hezbollah Conflict article.

"The Canadian UN peacekeeper who was killed had been corresponding with his former commander prior to the fatal bombing. According to those emails, the IDF hadn't purposely targeted the UN post but was forced to target nearby for tactical reasons. He went on to report that Hezbollah fighters had been using the UN post as a shield.[9][10]"

You claimed that this passage was redundant, please explain. Bg357 05:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome for Jokeofanarticle

Thankyou for the welcome Tewfik.

I still think the article is now not much more than a blog, and fairly biased against Israel at the moment. I fear that there are too many with blind hatred and brainwashed minds in wikiland waiting to revert anything that goes against their train of thought. I have stopped bothering with it for now. Will probably take my own advice and come back in a few months. Might even suggest starting two articles: one from the Israeli Perspective, and one from the Hezbollah perspective. Though I doubt it would last long without vandalism? Jokeofanarticle 06:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

International reaction

I was wondering if you can look at talk this and provide some advice/resolution. I believe its someone trolling as the edit history/attitude appears a little juvenile [11] [12], but it also possible that the user Comrade438 thinks I am making a connection between H.R. 291 and AIPAC. It is actually the other way around- AIPAC made a connection with H.R. 291 when it issued the press release. I will also ask on Paraphelion's page as you both seem most active in the discussions. Thanks 82.29.227.171 09:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention I previously highlighted the problems on wikipedian noticeboard [13] 82.29.227.171 09:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi is it possible something can be done about Comrade438? He has removed the AIPAC detail again [14]. This was a 4/5th removal, without responding to the arguments for the inclusion of the text, after a 3rd user lorek85 came up with a 'compromise' inclusion, after another user supported its includion, but admittedly it was before I added further evidence for inclusion on the talk page:
"They [Congress] were given a resolution by AIPAC," said former Carter Administration National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, who addressed the House Democratic Caucus on July 19. "They didn't prepare one." [15]
Like I said- its common knowledge, also note the article points out the pressure that is exercised on the admin via the 2 resolutions. I will prepare a small section detailing reaction of AIPAC and Christian Right Religious Lobby groups.
I noticed Comrade438 had removed the text again when I went looking to rearrange the USA section into subsections- its now entangled. Comrade438 isnt putting forth any arguments against, isn't discussing, isn't taking notice of others, and appears to just be interested in another edit war. Can you suggest a solution to this? Thanks 82.29.227.171 09:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing Unsourced Claims

Why remove unsourced claims when the { { fact } } tag may prompt a citation? FightCancer 19:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

While it is true that the {{citation needed}} tag is sometimes useful, not every claim that is posted is necessarily deserving of remaining up. In general, it is determined by how controversial the claim is. In this case, it was both unsourced, contained possible original research (which obviously can't be verified due to lack of citation), and poorly written. Also, the lack of a source prevents us from seeing how notable the name is, even if it is truly used. For more information, check Wikipedia:Citing sources. TewfikTalk 20:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I checked Wikipedia:Citing sources and it clearly says, "If the disputed text is harmless, and you simply think a citation is appropriate, place { { fact } } after the text." Since it was removed, we may never know if it was original research, and I don't think "poorly written" is a good reason to remove something. Improve, not remove. IMO, the { {fact} } tag is what was called for. Respectfully, FightCancer 20:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Harmless is relative. Saying that one side calls it the event a war is a major claim, and there's no reason to include something so controversial without any sources. Feel free to research it, but I found no record on either the Israeli Foreign Ministry or the IDF Spokesman. I believe {{fact}} is a deprecated tag and should be replaced with {{citation needed}}. TewfikTalk 20:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"Near the border"

Well, whatever: I prefer my language, as it at least leaves open the possibility that the "raid" (which is now looking more and more like a serious blunder on the part of the IDF that Hezbollah simply took advantage of) took place inside Lebanon, contrary to the (phony) consensus cooked up by the major (Western) players.

More importantly: when can this article be renamed "... War"? If I could move it now, I would, but apparently that can only be done by administrator types. +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, since I have you on the line, maybe you can answer a question (a meta-question, really): what is the purpose of the "access date" in the {{cite}} templates? I'm scratching my head trying to figure out why the hell it matters when a web link used in a reference was "accessed" (I assume this means "read by the person making this citation"). The only reason I can think of would be if the content of the referenced link somehow changed between that time and later; but then, how could you know? +ILike2BeAnonymous 22:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Editing WP:Lead

I am not sure what you are refering to regarding my edit in the introductory part of the article. All I did is remove the dead link and formated the error to the source. My other edits pertain to the second paragraph and don't deal with the issue where the obductions took place. --Dado 05:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I read your message after I left a comment on the talk. I cannot find where specifically a consensus was made that Democracy Now is discredited or for that matter that Noam Chomsky is discredited. I found it mentioned here Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/POV but no elaboration. Little direction would help. Thanks --Dado 05:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I found it here [16] . As it is evident one person objected to the source while another disagreed. Hardly a general consensus. Sorry to clobber you with messages but I beleive my edits were credible. --Dado 05:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the links, it's nice to have someone say hello :D.

-Agreed, thanks for the Welcome to Wikipedia notice on my talk page. :) Nuite 15:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Question

I currently attend Li Po Chun United World College and am therefore aware of many of the criticisms of the school not only by students but staff, alum, and other sources as well. I'd like to include these in the article but since this is such a small internal issue (comparatively) there is no BBC or CNN article for me to cite as a source. I'm not sure how / if I can edit because of this

Thanks!! Omishark 15:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

this

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3283816,00.html

The Rally/Protest Pictures

The picture which some object to so much
The picture which some object to so much

Earlier today I did as you just suggested and put up a pro-Israeli rally picture alongside a Lebanese one. Someone removed my picture, and stated that only 1 picture was sufficient. Therefore, I said that if only one is sufficient then it might as well be pro-Israeli for a change. I personally do not care, as long as the article is balanced. I would have liked it to stay the way I had it earlier today, with both pro-Israeli and pro-Lebanese pictures. By the way, I sincerely appreciate your concern and dedication to this page. I am somewhat new to wikipedia, so I am not sure what action to take to keep this article as balances as possible. --Bingman06 00:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

How exactly is the pro-Israeli rally picture controversial? And how exactly is the pro-Lebanese rally picture less controversial? If a balanced solution is not achieved, which I believe it wont since this article is wholesomely biased, I will change the picture and I would expect you to understand why. What's so controversial about a call to peace and an end to terrorism? --Bingman06 01:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Stuff on 2006 Israel-Lebanon ... "talk" page

Just wanted to alert you to my latest contribution to this discussion.

This is an expendable entry which you may choose to remove from your discussion page as it is of little lasting value. +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Its not clear by whom

Narrator mentions theyre being shelled twice. Other passenger is heard to say the attack is shelling. Reasons for doubting whom is shelling? 82.29.227.171 07:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Didnt realise you had also touched the DU weapons stuff. Please discuss on the talk page before removing/rearranging the article thanks.
  • GBU-28 'bunker buster' are DU weapons- they are being delivered [17] and used in civilian areas [18] -no 'allegations' tag necessary to atain NPOV.
The 'suspicion' of use is raised due to my mistake- the China Daily report is from 2001, not 2006- it refers to previous attacks inside Lebanese territory by IDF. Will change it to 'use of DU weapons' and remove the 'investigation' that Lebanese Government are conducting. 82.29.227.171 08:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: 3RR grey area

If the non-constructive edits are blatant vandalism, as opposed to content disputes, then revert away. The 3RR does not apply if you are reverting blatant vandalism. Warning: this only applies to blatant simple vandalism. If it is a matter of content disputes, then what one person may consider unconstructive could be what others honestly see as proper (assume good faith). In that case, the 3RR applies and is meant to prevent edit wars. If you think someone is changing IPs to circumvent the 3RR, call it to an administrator's attention. If the non-constructive edits aren't simple vandalism and you don't suspect sockpuppetry, then list the article at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. This will call attention to the problem and hopefully attract non-partisan third parties to help with the issue. As long as you follow appropriate dispute resolution procedures, it is actually quite difficult for people to use the 3RR policy as a club with which to beat you over the head. When you take the dispute resolution process into account, I don't see this as a grey area so much the way the system is intended to work. SWAdair 03:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If you try to be a one-person army then the 3RR can be taken advantage of to back you into a corner. You're right about that. The key is that there are literally thousands of others editing Wikipedia at any time, and there are hundreds of admins to call upon. All you have to do is give a shout and enough others will put their eyes on the article that you won't have to worry. Just make sure you're in the right, because the third-party people you call in are going to be scrutinizing your edits as well. And give it some time. The response won't be immediate, but it is okay if disruptive edits remain visible for a little while. What matters is the long-term results, so be patient (i.e. edit a different article) while waiting for backup. The good thing about high traffic articles is that they are high traffic. Wikipedia works based on the unwritten assumption that there are more people making good-faith edits than the opposite. Disruptive edits seem annoying if you're the only one fighting them, but that's the beauty of the system -- you don't have to be the only one fighting them. There are several places to call attention to others about disruptive editors. If the article you're watching isn't high traffic, then call in others. If it is, don't worry. There are others watching along with you. SWAdair 04:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. Happy editing! SWAdair 04:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:Reversions

Its really irritating, every time I try to revert I get the edit conflict message again. I just put it back to your version a couple of minutes ago but there are so many of these newcomers that we don't even stand a chance on that article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is the normal way, but when I revert I just go to the version I want to revert to, click edit page and then cut and paste to the current version. I'm not sure if this is the old fashioned way but since I never figured out pop-ups it is the only way I know how.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Wait a sec... What is the normal way? That is the only way I have ever done it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I only have one more revert left today. Do you think we should file a 3RR report or something?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Are we sure?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Phosphorus

Hi! I'll leave a message on talk page over there just now. Cheers! Tazmaniacs 18:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yesha Council

You are wrong, and you are obviously biased. Wikipedia:NPOV does not state any obligational condiction for providing the view of both sides of an occurance, for it to be permitted to be mentioned. In other words, whether you do or do not find Hezbollah's stance on the same issue, it does not delegalize that which the other party already said. ArmanJan 18:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Now you mention that you are against it because it is a "non-mainstream source". Well, I dont know what counts for you as mainstream, but this piece of news is all over Israel, and not only that but YnetNews is used as source all over the 2006 Lebanon-Israel conflict article. Furthermore, no wikipedia rule supports your reasoning for wanting it to be removed. ArmanJan 18:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

ISRAEL-LEBANON WAR

It's about time to call it a war!who are we kidding!

THE ARTICLE IS ONE SIDED I tried many times to balance this article, but it was always reverted (vandalism my ass)! For my comments on the anti-air gun! it was due the fact that it stated that it was "a rcoket launcher used from civilians buildings!" isn't that vandalism! I appreciate that you corrected that! And about the 400 dead from hezbollah! this is pure propaganda! I know for a fact that till now its only 43! and I think we should use the terms war crimes toward the acts of israel! israel due to its military incompetence has killed over 900 civilians!!! Israel is unable to do anything to hezbollah (i'm only stating waht i'm seeing till now) all the news that israeli are getting is full of propaganda! hezbollah has minor minor casualties (till now)!

The LEAFLETS that were dropped on southern Lebanon: I don't think we should keep these unless we state alongside that the leaflets were dropped after all exit roads were cutoff by israeli airraids! I know that because I have nmany friends from there and plus the ones that find a way out on foot get targeted (children!!!that were getting out as these leaflets stated were targeted! this was the case for a village that still had exit roads)! So tell me what's the purpose of these leaflets! they are only an excuse to show to the international community! this is pure hypocratie! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.241.180 (talk • contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.241.187 (talk • contribs)