User talk:Tewfik/Archive 6

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

Welcome to Tewfik's Talk page. Feel free to leave comments and criticism at the bottom of the page:

2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict

Well I've since looked at it again, and seen that there were definately 5 reverts. The one that I would question is where the user adds a figure but without taking any away. A revert is defined as "undoing in whole or in part other user(s)' contributions"; I'm not sure how that edit does such. In general, thankfully, 99% of 3RR cases do not concern an edit pattern anywhere near that complex! --Robdurbar 18:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hangman

Your opponent is waiting on you. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 19:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  • respond here
  • guess here

└ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 19:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil and assume good faith

  • "(cur) (last) 14:21, 1 November 2006 Tewfik (Talk | contribs) (rv possible sock)" Violations of WP:CV and WP:AG. Please stop making unsubstantiated allegations. You can and will be reported. It doesn't make editing difficult article easier. I'm sure you agree. Regards. OldRoy 18:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC) "
"rv possible sock" is neither incivil nor a violation of AGF - nor was it even directed at this user. The user to whom it was directed (user:Thepresident1) was subsequently blocked for vandalism. TewfikTalk 16:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hebrew

There is a new picture that has been released on the IDF website, [1], which doesnt yet have an english caption. Would you be able to translate the caption for me? If not, just ignore such silliness: ענני סתיו בתמונה נראים כוחות צה''ל נערכים בקרבת גדר המערכת בטרם הכניסה למבצע ''ענני סתיו'' לסיכול ירי רקטות הקסאם ותשתיות הטרור במרחב בית חאנון שבצפון רצועת עזה. צילום: דובר צה''ל" ~Rangeley (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I couldn't resist. I think I can help you out on this one. My Hebrew is rusty but the text above stats: "Clouds of fall in the picture are visible IDF forces take up positions close to fence of the system before the begging of operation” clouds of fall " to foil the Kassam rockets gunfire and infrastructures of the terror in the expanse of Beit Hanoun north of the Gaza Strip. Photograph: Army spokesman" i hope this helps -- Palestine48 21:55, 01 November 2006
Ah, so its called Operation Clouds of Fall? ~Rangeley (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Found more, its "Autumn Clouds" apperantly [2]. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Fall or Autum is the same season, it depends which side of the pond you're on! It's death either way you look at it --Palestine48 00:53, 02 November 2006

Thank you for supporting my RfA

 Thank you for your support in my RfA, which passed with a final tally of (56/0/2). It was great to see so much kind support from such competent editors and administrators as commented on my RfA.

I know I have much reading to do before I'll feel comfortable enough to use some of the more powerful admin tools, so I'll get right to it.

Again, thanks; └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 13:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Third holiest site Afd

Hi, I've read your comments on the Afd discussion page (sorry about not replying there, but I can't edit that page because 110KB is too much for my connection). I'd like to let you know the article was submitted for AfD after exhausting every other option to reason with the creator(s) of the article for at least 2 months with no avail. They simply had no interest in adding even a word of theological proof that that supported that the Al-Aqsa Mosque was the third holiest site, and reverted any edits that went against their statements and so on. Regarding the sources, why have a dedicated section for the Juwana mosque which only says "Once the KFUPM faculty handbook erroneously said it was the third holiest site", there is no other source backing this claim .An article can have several external links (And only a handful of the links on that page can be considered RS on the topic) but some regard should be given to factual accuracy as well. Also, nobody has a problem with this [3]. I hope you understand and would like to let you know that this is not simply a content dispute, the article is (but I shouldn't really have to tell you this) in open violation of several policies and guidelines. thestick 19:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppet

Hi Tewfik, Based partly on your suspicion [4] which I share, I have reported OldRoy as a suspected sockpuppet of Neilswik - Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nielswik. Fee free to weigh in with your comments. Isarig 22:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Deon555's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RFA, which closed successfully yesterday with a result of (18/16/8). I'd like to let you know that I won't be running for adminship again, until I am nominated, rather than nominating myself again. Thanks for your support, Deon. — Deon555talkReview 22:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Palestine-stub

I initially missed your last comment, coming as it did just before I mercy-closed the discussion as no-con. As I made a number of points, can you clarify which of them is puzzlingly inflexible? Alai 00:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to assume that in fact, as you made the comment before I closed it, you weren't at that point commenting on my closure. But since you mention it now: SFD/R's are supposed to run for seven days; it was already well "over time", there was absolutely no sign of an emergent compromises or consensus of any kind, and the claimed compromise would have been extremely hard to justify given the large number of entrenched "supports" and "opposes" of the original proposition (such as it was) -- even had anyone other than yourself been arguing for it. Much better to take discussion off-page, and re-start a fresh SFR when (and if) there is some actual agreement, rather than holding the SFR process open indefinitely in the hopes of that emerging in such an environment. The only reason I waited as long as did was because I was waiting to see if anyone else was going to close it. In what way does the practice of not creating 'ethnic' stub types "not apply" in this case? (Dare I say, because it's not convenient to your position?) Many people would be of the opinion that controversial areas are exactly the places not to vary from conventional practice, for the very reason of appearing to do so (or indeed actually doing so) on a partial basis -- including all of the WSS regulars, it would appear. If, hypothetically, you'd achieved a consensus between the "Israel" and "Palestine" editors to ignore the stub conventions, you might then have more of a case complaining about same, but as it stands it seems quite moot. And given the persistent unhelpfulness of your own repeated "it's not a state" contributions, I'm somewhat struck that you'd choose to characterise anyone else's as "inflexible" or "snide". Alai 21:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not in any way "equating" your comments with mine, I'm suggesting they are considerably less constructive and appropriate. One has to parse the comments of anyone other than you, and perhaps one other editor, very hard to see any support for a move {{Palestinian-stub}}. The closure was 9 days late, and there had been no comments for two days (other than the one from you I already mentioned having overlooked). But somehow you think I acted improperly in not leaving it open for even longer, on the off-chance more people decided that your suggestion to ignore the stub guidelines was a great plan? I somehow doubt you'd be making that argument about an AFD closure, nor do I think it would get much credence at deletion review -- where you're of course free to take the matter if you feel that way. The current template does not in any way imply that 'West Bank and Gaza Strip are a territorial unit known as "Palestine"', since it's not scoped that way, regretably, and nor does it seem to be likely to be, given that {{Israel-geo-stub}} doesn't seem to plan to stick to any of the various various of the border of Israel. Without agreement as to what the scope should be, discussion of the template name is both secondary, and IMO ultimately rather futile, especially if it comes down to the proponents of "we must have a Palestine-stub for the sakes of having a Palestine-stub", vs. the proponents of exactly the opposite. Lastly, while the term "Palestine" may be both ambiguous and controversial, it's simply inaccurate to claim that it's not used to mean WB&G. Alai 00:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA

I have posted an RfA here Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Israeli_POV that lists you as an involved party Carbonate 03:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Very hurtful.

I am really very much hurt by the remark you left on the Zionist political violence page. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 06:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No, thanks. I have been a professional editor longer than most Wikipedians have been alive, and I am through with this place. Too much posturing. Who needs it? GeorgeLouis 10:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

2006 Arab-Israeli template

Thank you for noticing me. I regret there hasn't been any previous discussion. Cheers, --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

hangman

i give up on hangman they ruin it for us Oo7565 16:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Muslim Guild POV-pushers trying to get original article deleted to protect their POV Fork

Striver's POV-pushing cohort User:Burgas00 has, in a fit of his POV-pushing zeal, nominated Beit_Hanoun_November_2006_incident for deletion here. The cowardly bad faith POV-pusher wouldn't even sign his own name to the deletion request either. I thought you should be warned of this. RunedChozo 22:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Little Green Footballs

Thank you for reverting there; we have a large number of POV arab/muslim editors who seem to feel it's their duty to try to make that article as biased as possible, much as we had (and still have) the problem with the Beit Hanoun article. RunedChozo 16:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

A Whistle In The Dark & other questions

Hi Tewfik. I have a question or two to ask you.

1) On the article Tom Murphy (playwright) no matter how hard I try I can't get the title A Whistle In The Dark to link to the article of that name. I've tried everything. The spelling and use of Capitals is identical but it just won't link. Can you help?

2) How can one change an article heading? On my entry Conversations On A Homecoming I've mispelt the title Conversations on a homecoming but don't know how to correct it. Can you help?

3) Finally, my entry on Jane Leade was given a 'needs a clean-up' marker. I've asked why and how I should do it on the Discussion page but have had no response. Can you help?

Thanks ThePeg 15:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tewfik - thanks for addressing these. One of the A Whistle In The Dark mentions on the Tom Murphy page is now successfully linking but the other two aren't. I have no idea why as on the Edit Page the same procedure has been carried out for all three. Sorry to be a pain but could you look at it again? Many thanks. ThePeg 17:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting this last out. All well. ThePeg 02:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Beit Hanoun

Yeah, my opinion keeps jumping around a bit. One reason for my reversion was that the anon's logic was an unacceptable reason to remove. If I had been thinking more I would probably not have touched it. The POV and fair use concerns seem to be very serious. JoshuaZ 07:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Taba

Do not remove the section again, it could be considered vandalism. If you think it is not properly explained, discuss the matter in the talk page, but do not remove it.--BlueDome 21:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Pointed out proper definition of vandalism to user on Talk:Taba Summit. TewfikTalk 00:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Answering to questions

I read you know the difference between reading and writing. I would like to know if you know the meaning of "to answer". I asked twice on the talk page where the section drew conclusions, but you oand your friends simply avoided the question. I am confident your position will crumble under the load of its inconsistency.--[[BlueDome]] 19:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

User is blocked indefinitely as a checkuser confirmed sockpuppet of Panairjdde. TewfikTalk 17:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Road designation

Hey Tewfik, I’ve left you an answer on my talk page. Thanks for your great input! Db1944 13:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic extremist terrorism

Please specify what new title for the article you would prefer. Thanks, KazakhPol 16:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw your edit on Banu Qurayza article. I couldn't understand! which wikilink are you talking about and secondly, it is Original research to believe that Caeser Farah didn't have any contemporous source with her to reach this conclusion, as this is the job of all historians. TruthSpreaderTalk 05:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Photos

Tewfik, could you guide me to where I can find out how to add a Jpeg to an article? Thanks. ThePeg 21:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that on my TalkPage, Tewfik. ThePeg 14:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Your messy, large, undiscussed deletions on Al-Aqsa Intifada

I have also posted this on the talk page for Al-Aqsa Intifada.

It looks like the method you used on Dec. 28, 2006 to delete large amounts of material was to go back to a Dec. 21, 2006 revision. Here is the revision difference:

Basically you went back to this Dec. 21, 2006 revision: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Aqsa_Intifada&oldid=95710786

The problem is that in the meantime many changes have been made. There were 17 edits made since that Dec. 21, 2006 revision. Most of them were explained or resolved on the talk page. In the last week only one change has been objected to on the talk page, and I came to agree with that objection.

The revert wars had stopped for a week before this latest undiscussed mass deletion of yours. You seem to be the only registered wikipedia user to have a problem with these edits. Please. Let us not go back to abrupt editing. Please discuss major changes on the talk page first. Deleting uncontroversial casualty stat updates can only be looked upon as vandalism. Why did you go back to older casualty stats in the infobox and the casualties section? --Timeshifter 07:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

My reply copied from the article's Talk page:
First of all, here is the diff between my edit and that of Humus sapiens. I did not mass-revert, but rather painstakingly attempted to preserve any and all corrections of grammar, as well as rephrasing the image caption to flow better and link to the proper place while preserving your attempt to fix its neutrality (while you did mass revert my edits). What I did do was restore sourced information which you removed [without even noting in the edit summary] while you moved some data and juxtaposed other unconnected information which served as original research to push an unsourced POV. What I also did was to revert your updates to the casualties, which did not correlate to the cited source, as well as removing the passage added by Annoynmous which had been previously removed by two other users. While it is commendable that you view consensus-building on Talk as important, simply leaving a message there is not the same as having consensus, especially when no one with an opposing viewpoint was even active there in the last week (only one other user even used the Talk, and to comment on a general principle unrelated to the edits which I reverted). I would be more than happy to have a discussion with you about including some of this new information, including updates to the numbers, but I sincerely hope that you can see what the problem with this last set of edits was. Additionally, please don't misuse charges of vandalism. TewfikTalk 18:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

{{3RR4}} noted out - I'm aware the three revert rule, but thanks for your concern. TewfikTalk 06:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I answered you on the article talk page. You have reverted 3 times within 24 hours. You returned the same unsourced material 3 times. You put back the old casualty stats 3 times. You removed the same sourced material 3 times. --Timeshifter 06:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Official Governement Policy

I dont know if we are working on making this article better or not, i have removed official and someone put it back. I have made the topic more inclusive. These titles were placed here by editors like me, they can be changed. But if you want to leave it as official then UK, Uganda and more will maybe India have to go. Idi amin did not make removal of Indians official policy he just did it as a dictator. Indians still live and always lived in Uganda, so it wasnt official government policy and they are no sources given to suggest it was part of the official policy of UGANDA, to add UK George Galloway a very nice man, is making a personal statement, again there is no evidence of an official policy of racism just manifestations of racism, Discuss here or admit my changes to the title.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 04:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Nablus

I shrunk it, and hope it works for you. Happy 2007. Ramallite (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Pallywood.jpg

Hello RHaworth,

I'm a little puzzled by the deletion of this image. Is it possible you could review it and let me know what the issue was? Thanks, TewfikTalk 17:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted because the uploader had requested its deletion - see idw-noncom. It has been re-uploaded but I am even less happy about the present licence tag. The image is described as being taken by a professional news agency photographer. I want very good evidence that this image has been released under a Creative Commons licence. -- RHaworth 19:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I was being too gentle. It is a patent copyvio - Jaakobou must prove otherwise if it is to stay. I doubt if a fair use case can be made. -- RHaworth 06:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
i never asked for the deletion of the image and your doubts should be checked by making a couple phone calls instead of actually going around deleting images and claiming someone asked that you should delete them *shrug* Jaakobou 07:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Impressive

I acted to arrogant in a review of a article for Good Article status. Tewfic responded in a polite but curt answer to my point. Wikipedia should be proud to have him as a contributor.

 King of Anonmity   

A question

Hi Tewfik, thank you for taking the time to read my RfA and comment on it. A number of people have expressed concerns about my answer to question 6. I am somewhat confused about this, and it would be very helpful for me as an editor if I could understand your concerns. If you have the time, I would very much appreciate any clarification you could give me. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 18:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your resonse. I appreciate your encouragement. Unfortunately, I'm still somewhat in the dark regarding the concerns about my answer to question 6. Surely I can continue grow as an editor without understanding every comment made to me. However, I do think it would help me if I could understand this particular concern better because it has been raised by more than one person. So again, if you could give me some clarification to help me understand your concern about my answer to question 6, I would greatly appreciate it. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 19:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration

Thank you for the consideration you gave to my RfA. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. You were one of the oppose votes, and raised concerns. I am more than willing to discuss those concerns with you if you are interested. Please let me know. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 12:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Blind revert

Please do not revert things without even looking at them. It's asinine. Thanks. -- DLH 69.19.14.32 14:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"please don't remove the Cohn section"

Why not? The Cohn sentence, "Werner Cohn would state in 1994: 'Dr. Shahak does not seem to notice that this clamor, which he duly notes, is in itself a refutation of his charge that current Jewish life is dominated by orthodox inhumanity,'" is about Shahak "not seeming to notice" the implication of a reaction to the affair, and not about the affair itself. Jayjg has been insisting that Shahak's opinion on the ruling does not belong in the section, which makes it difficult to see how Cohn's remark about his opinion can be kept. Please explain yourself. Thanks. -- DLH 69.19.14.41 14:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

categories for debating

Thanks for the note, I have made some remarks and duly await the first person to accuse me of being a meatpuppet. Palmiro | Talk 18:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Nea Potidea

I created a Nea Potidea article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nea_Potidea Could you please take a look at it and edit it? and Could you also put it into catagories? Also can you tag http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potidaea as the main article? Thanks! Neptunekh 07:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: AfD

No worries - I really enjoyed the fact that some people were actually discussing the points brought up by others, that's exactly how an AfD is supposed to work. Of course, there were still a few comments that left me scratching my head:
- Strong Delete per leftist/liberal votestacking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US Democratic Party-Iranian fundraising controversy.
- Delete Per nomination. All these complaints are all the fault of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, not Israel directly.

And to be fully NPOV, I suppose I need to include these too:
- Keep but Rename to Israeli war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada.
- "Israeli Massacres against innocent civilians" is a good one too.

As I commented on the AfD again, this article needs more specific sources, but I don't believe that's a case for deletion. I still think Al-Aqsa Intifada also needs to mention the allegations, though, and I'm still concerned about the photographs. The choice of photographs used to illustrate an article is just as important as the article's text, if not more so. What do the three photographs there tell readers? Palestinians use suicide bombings on civilian buses. A 12-year old Palestinian boy was allegedly shot, but it might have been staged. And a mob beat up and killed two Israelis in a police station. I think there should be an effort to find photos which fairly illustrate both sides of the conflict.

Oh, btw, you might enjoy reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 1948 Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine - I think we can both agree that that one's a POV violation. Anyways, take it easy. Quack 688 12:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sophia (Gnosticism)

Hi Tewfik. I've been doing a lot of work and research around the Sophia in Gnostic and mainstream Christianity (as you will see from the TalkPage and the enlargement of the article itself NB I've been careful to separate personal speculation and philosophising and NPOV reporting between the article and the discussion pages). Thing is I've found that there is as much to say about the Sophia in mainstream Christianity and even Judaism as there is Christian Gnosticism. Is it allowed to change the name of the article to Sophia (Christianity and Gnosticism) or Sophia (Christianity & Judaism) or Sophia and Sophiology or something else (like just Sophia?)? I would like to widen the scope of the article. ThePeg 16:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Just replied to your note on my talkpage. THanks! ThePeg 18:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Tremp Guide

Deleted and salted. Thanks for letting me know. --Coredesat 04:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I speedily deleted the new article per CSD A5 since it was pretty much the same as the version that was transwikied (the article had been prodded anyhow). --Coredesat 14:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your support in my RfA, and for your thoughtful comments. I've felt it best to withdraw on this occasion and think about the good advice I received. Thanks again, Jakew 19:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


User Names

Hi Tewfik. Is it possible to change one's User Name? ThePeg 23:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Iraq and WoT

As someone who has shown themselves to be objective in controversial places, I invite you to participate in discussion on the topic of the relationship between the Iraq War and the US-led War on Terrorism campaign at this location. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not add something about genetic heritage?

Hi Tewfik. Instead of simply removing material about the genetic ancestry of the Palestinians with quick edit summaries, why not adopt the sources you feel are appropriate and add them to the article. This transforms its from a confrontational situation into a collaborative situation that is aiming towards a accurate and fair solution. Cheers. --70.51.229.122 02:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Random smiley

User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward2 Jerry lavoie 07:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


CfD renaming

Hi Tariq,

I was hoping you could again assist in carrying out the moves listed here and here. Tedious, but thats what the mop is for {{subst:Smiley|03}}. Cheers, TewfikTalk 03:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we can also rename Category:Aviation in Palestine, Category:Airlines of Palestine, Category:Sport in Palestine which I missed on the CfD, as well as Category:Elections in Palestine to match its article, Elections in the Palestinian National Authority (which I think found support on the original CfD). Thanks, TewfikTalk 18:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Could you let me know one way or the other on this? TewfikTalk 17:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
When I originally looked at the CfD page, I saw that the items had already been completed. For the additional ones you mentioned, I would suggest doing a CfD deletion discussion. A bot takes care of much of the category-moving stuff after the discussion is completed. -- tariqabjotu 20:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I didn't realise that a bot took care of these actions. As for renaming the others, I feel that the previous discussions and agreement between myself, Palmiro, and others is sufficient precedent (Aviation, Airlines, and Sport all fit the CfD exactly, while "Elections" found support from Palmiro on the original bloc CfD, and in any event should match its article's name). That, and I don't particularly want to go through the another multi-week CfD complete with drive-by voting, trolling, etc. Let me know either way. Cheers, TewfikTalk 22:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to do it; I see a couple of the articles have gone through CfDs in past, most notably Category:Elections in Palestine and Category:Sport in Palestine. -- tariqabjotu 22:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Curious

Hi Tewfik,

I'm curious about this expedition to eliminate the Palestine category from a number of articles. Is this everywhere, or only certain ones?

Thanks Ramallite (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

palestinians people

when did I revert this page 2 times or one time to any earleir page. Actually it was my edits that were cut several times and I had to re write some of them because I don't know how to revert. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.220.89.177 (talk) 04:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC). The rule doesnt say that. it actually says that reverting to self is not included in the rule, more over it says that the rule talks about people who take away materials made by others which I did not. I was the one whose material was cut repeatedly71.220.89.177 04:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Support for a full Farsi title

I presume that you are referring to Talk:Valiyat-e_faqih_(book_by_Khomeini)#Requested_move.

I think it is Valiyat-e faqih is Arabic.


Ruhollah Khomeini delivered those lectures in Arabic while in Najaf. He and every Iranian ayatollah know Arabic perfectly. In fact, they have made studying Arabic mandatory in Iranian public schools.

Part of Muhammad plan was to make the entire world speak Arabic. Most people there are Muslims who want to impose Arabic upon the English WP. I personally prefer Islamic Government (book by Khomeini).--Patchouli 05:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

See also Talk:Friday prayer regarding the title.--Patchouli 05:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Assuming good faith I'll not revert your edit. But pls. do provide sources.Bless sins 21:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Expressways

Actually I didn't create that list, but we've had this discussion with Db1944 somewhere (I think on our talk pages, don't remember), and decided that the correct label for 'red' roads would be expressways. I think this is correct because divided roads with partial control of access are what red roads actually are. They do not have full control of access like freeways, but they are divided and mostly don't have intersections with minor roads, even in urban areas. For example, Road 40 in has only 6 junctions within Petah Tikva, while Jabotinsky Rd. (Road 481) has dozens, even though it's about the same length. This may not be an authorative example, but it's an example just the same. I do not think there is a better English equivalent for the red roads than the word expressway. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you well?

Hi, Aren't you the guy who voted to keep Anti Iranianism few mounths ago. :Keep per Nightryder84 & Mani1, however move to NPOV title. The current title does not even reflect the early periods of Greek conflict described in the article. TewfikTalk 06:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[5]--Sa.vakilian 03:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're disagree with its contents, why do you want to delete it? You can put POV or disputed tag on it?--Sa.vakilian 16:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I put a comment in the bottom of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Iranianism about this issue. Please write your idea there.--Sa.vakilian 17:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi Tewfik,

Thanks for participating in my recent RfA. Even though it was ultimately successful (at 54-13-11), I value all of the feedback and have already benefited from the community's suggestions. Hope to see you around. - Gilliam 22:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Verifying the references

Salam

Could you please help us in Talk:Hezbollah#Verifying the references ?--Sa.vakilian 04:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleting content is vandalism

Please do not delete content from the racism by country page. It is valid and it is sourced and there are no debates our grounds for its removal. The content has been written by admin jaygig and has been agreed. You are vandalising this page if you continue to delete this content. Please stop what you are doing as it violates wiki policy. Content with sources valid source is allowed use the talk page but this issue in the talk pages you refer to has cleared this issue.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 02:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

excuse me mr, where is the improper sources? can you please show me where these sources are and why you are creating an edit war? i am free to add anything which doesnt violate wiki policy. all sources in israel are valid, deleting content of any editor who has legally put valid sources is valid --HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 03:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is the improperly sourced content?

look at these reasons "improperly spurced content" for deleting Israel, take a look at chile, and the rest of this article. valid sources are labelled by the pov editor as improperly. this content was re edited by an admin. --HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 03:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC) can you please show me the problem with the above, please stop deleting content which you have personal issues with. it will not go away just because you wish it to.And show me where on the talk page is the content not supported, i see to editors in agreement , please i will ask you again to stop vandalizing my edits it is sneaky to keep deleting an entire country from valid ref of racism. it is destructive and mislesading. i never wrote any of those sections learn to use wiki--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 03:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


Have you actually read this?

Avraham Neguise, executive director of the Ethiopian Israeli advocacy group South Wing to Zion, has claimed racism is behind a proposed Israeli government plan to "halve the rate of Ethiopian immigration to pay for the recent Lebanon war". Neguise has argued that "The government wants to bring over Jews from Russia, France, England or any other communities that are strong from an economic or educational perspective. But it sees Ethiopians as an economic burden." In February 2005 former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had actually promised to double the monthly quota of Ethiopian Jews coming to Israel, and in response the United Jewish Communities (UJC) had launched a $160 million fundraising project called "Operation Promise", $100 million of which was aimed at covering the costs of Ethiopian immigration. UJC representatives argued that this proposed policy change could damage Israel's relations with diaspora Jewish groups.[1]

does this look like the content Jaygig deleted? Jayjg removing the passage are you sure? look before you jump!--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 04:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

pictures

Hi and thanks for your support. I agree with you, there's no point arguing with them, the discussion seems to be going in circles. In my opinion the most effective way to deal with the POV would be to create a new picture (with 4 notable personalities) and replace it with the old one - without seeking a consensus (after all most agreed that it should follow common practice). The problem is that I'm not familiar neither with their personalities nor with making such pictures. Miskin 16:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Response

I 'd appreciate your response here. Bless sins 17:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Hello Tewfik. I'm still looking for a response to my last comment on Talk:Al-Aqsa_Intifada#Merger.3F.Bless sins 22:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I see you're active on the article [6]. I'm still waiting for a response.Bless sins 06:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Changing Usernames

Hi Tewfik, I wonder if you can help? I changed my name from ThePeg to Pegasus1000 but its been a bit of a disaster. It doesn't really work and its causing confusion with people I correspond with. Not only that but when I sign it still comes up as ThePeg. I applied to change it back, using the same rubric I had used before but was told I'd got it wrong. I am very confused by the template offered at the top of the page. It doesn't seem to correspond with what everyone else has put on the page. If you have a moment could you help me out with this? I simply don't really understand how to do it and would really like to go back to my old name. Sorry! ThePeg 18:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)