User talk:Tewfik/Archive 5
- (rocky start) Archive 1
- (until 17-06-2006) Archive 2
- (until 03-08-2006) Archive 3
- (until 04-09-2006) Archive 4
Welcome to Tewfik's Talk page. Feel free to leave comments and criticism at the bottom of the page:
check out the Lehi page
User:Zero0000 is trying to push his WP:POV and WP:OR to slur the group in a non wikipedian fashion. Amoruso 05:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- to make it NPOV one needs to delete the whole line about terrorism not based on facts except for the british angle. Notice also the WP:OR and irrelevance in the end. Amoruso 07:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hi. The version with the unbased claims based on that editorial alone is being reverted, also other corrections of libel material are being reverted without any explanations using pop-ups by User:Zero0000's close friend on these matters, Ian_Pitchford (and also seems a user named Derex). I explained all the changes very much in detail in the discussion there. thanks. Amoruso 20:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- what Ian_Pitchford is simply ridicilous. Why is he allowed to do that sort of things on introductions of pages, it's unthinkable. Amoruso 20:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Short article
The recently created article Eric Szulczewski doesn't seem to have enough information to be useful to the Wikipedia community, and it seems that such a person doesn't exist. I'm not sure what to do about this, as I know it's not vandalism, but it's not helpful either. Do you think you could deal with this? (by the way, the reason I'm asking you is because I believe you are a sysop) Thanks, Ruff Bark away!
Talk
Thank you for the help. I'm not quite sure what you mean by saying I should stop clearing my talk page. If you really want to, you can look at my archive, but I sure wouldn't if I were you 
. Ruff Bark away! 22:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
HEEELLP!
Do you have any idea of how I can clear my browser cache? I keep trying to sign stuff and it ends up with my IP on it instead. AAARRRGGG! Ruff Bark away!
Ambulances
Sorry! I didn't see your comment (the guy below you posted at a similar time, so when I woke up, I say his comment instead of checking the diff. I wasn't ignoring you, I swear! Yes, downers comments make it somewhat notable, but he only got his info from the zombietime (and yeah, it scares the shit out of me that the foreign minister of my country gets his information from a conspiracy blog). The problem is, if we add it, then we add the refutation as well, and we end up with "a blog claimed the ambualnce attacks were hoaxed, but the red cross and the media involved refuted this." which doesn't say, anything at all, really. Not to mention that zombietime, I don't think, can be considered a reliable source. Again, sorry for taking so long to reply. Iorek85 04:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Pie chart
Hi, can you please help changing/removing the pie chart from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict (if it will be returned after my edit) Also check out the discussion there. 83.130.97.111 17:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Israel's bombing of civilian cars
Deleting well-referenced and relevant information does not make an article "more neutral". In the diff I quoted in the 2006 Israel Lebanon war talk page you deleted the info that Israel attacked civilian cars fleeing the south. This is a well known fact (see here). It's also highly relevant addition to the Target in civilian areas section in the paragraph that speaks about Israel's leaflets warning the civilian population to flee the area. Finally the wording I use is taken from a letter sent by a well-respected Israeli organization, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, to the PM of Israel so one can't allege that it displays an anti-Israeli bias, as sometimes happens when an editor contributes info that is critical of Israel government action.
As for having my email address in plaintext in my userpage I don't care - it's already in the open; but thanks for the warning anyway. Dianelos 08:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Help me out here. My text was: "Nevertheless the fact that roads and bridges in southern Lebanon were destroyed by Israel, and the fact that Israel's air force attacked vehicles transporting refugees to the north of the country, prevented many residents from acting on these leaflets and left them with no choice but to remain in their villages". You changed this into: "Some point to Israeli attacks on transportation infrastructure as preventing civilian evacuation." First of all it's a fact that Israel did attack Lebanon's transportation infrastructure (400 miles of roads and 30 some bridges destroyed, etc - you know the references), so "some point to" are weasel words. Secondly you did delete the part about the attacks on civilian cars. This too is a fact - there is an entire article about this issue - and further it is a highly relevant fact in this context, for obvious reasons. Also I don't know whether the destruction of roads and bridges and the risk of being bombed while leaving was the "primary reason that civilians did not leave"; for many it probably was - many others may have decided to stay for other reasons (maybe they didn't have access to transportation means?). In any case the fact that Israelis warned civilians to leave while at the same time destroying roads and bridges and even in some cases attacking civilian cars that were leaving is clearly relevant information in this section of the article. (My personal opinion is that Israel did try to minimize the number of civilian deaths but put priority in achieving their war aims; in hindsight I wonder why they did not give civilians a few days to leave ths south before starting to bomb.)
- BTW, you have invested enourmous energy editing this article (1000+ edits). I respectfully ask you to consider whether it might be a good idea to slow down (we Greeks have a famous saying: "pan metron ariston" translated as "all good things in moderation" or "perfection comes from good measure"). AFAICS Wikipedia is here to stay. There is time to help improve this article in the future. Sooner or later the biased information or plain propaganda will be filtered out anyway. Cheers. Dianelos 09:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you
Tewfik, thank you for your welcome. I've decided to stay ;) To stay better, I'll check the suggested links.
Regards
Lquiroga 22:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 | This user subpage is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
 | Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/OpenNote is deprecated. Please see User:MediationBot/Opened message instead. |
Ahlain Tewfik
I didn't know that this page (the israeli-lebanese conflict) is your personal property. Anyway, it is a job well-done. Keep the property in good shape and good luck.
Azizi Tewfik, If I may clarify, I would like to say that the Israeli-Lebanese coflict page is very neutral in my opinion and I thank you for this. Good job and keep up the good work.
Marwan123
My RFA
Thank you, Tewfik, for voting on my RFA, which passed 95 to 1. Now that I have the mop, I hope I can live up to the standard, and be a good administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. —this is messedrocker (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the Hebrew translation tweaks --Cat out 14:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 |
Hi Tewfik, thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which was closed as successful last Wednesday with a unanimous support of (47/0/0). I will do my best to help keep Wikipedia clean, green and vandal free. Once again, thank you! --Konstable 14:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC) |
Belated thanks
Thank you for participating in my RfA. Consensus to promote was reached, and I am now an administrator. I'll be using the tools cautiously at first, and everyone should feel welcome to peer over my shoulder and make sure I'm not doing anything foolish. --RobthTalk 04:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
WP:WHMT
Hello. You may or may not remember this, but some time ago you signed up for a Hangman Tournament hosted here on Wikipedia. The next tournament is about to start, and I was just wondering if you were still interested in participating. If you are, please go to the page (linked above) and bold your name in the sign-up list. This will confirm your registration. If you are not interested any more, please feel free to remove your name from the list. If you haven't responded within 7 days, I will assume you are not interested, and remove you from the list.
If you think anyone else may be interested in this tournament, please drop them a note and ask them to sign up. Good luck, and I hope to see you at the tournament! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka Talk to me! 13:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Shabtai Shavit quote
What's the problem with this quote? -- Kendrick7 16:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I removed the whole Hersh section. I had put it in as it had existed at one point in the original background section, (and added the Shavit part for balance) but the claim is unverified heresay; I never much cared for it myself. It was only later I noticed the Shavit quote sequayed into the assinations.
Lead to Israel-Lebanon conflict
- As for the lead, I think you meant to do something, but accidentally wiped a large section. -- Kendrick7 16:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know about having all the wars in this lead, since this gets covered further down. I realize there's an immediate implication against Israel simply by mentioning it first, but I try to quickly mention Lebanon's foibles quickly thereafter.
- I also recognize that, ridiculous as it is, leading off mentioning the creation of Israel is loaded with certain baggage, as there are certain people who believe all the worlds problems would be solved by its destruction, but it's otherwise the appropriate gloss. -- Kendrick7
- Partial restoration; I'm leaving out the word Jewish, even though it had a nice poetic balance to the following mentions of Catholic and Muslim, it's not relavant and makes the baggage problem heavier. I know you view this as part of a larger Arab-Israeli conflict, which is true; however I see all the subject of this arcticle interelated by Lebanon's failure to control its southern border with Israel, which is the overarching idea I would want a reader to take from the lead. -- Kendrick7 17:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I never mentioned wanting avoid any ideas. The long version we could probably agree on, for a reader who has no idea about the topic is, I would suppose would go:
- The 1948 establishment of Israel's borders after the Arab-Israeli War and the influx of Palestian Arabs, who were living in Israel previously, followed by a further influx of Palestinians Arabs after Israel captured the West Bank from Syia as a consequence of the Six Day War, followed by a further influx of Palestians after Palestians who had fled to Jordan, also due to the 1948 establishment of Israel's borders at the end of the Arab-Israeli War and the capture of the West Bank during the Six Day War, and had failed in a coup attempt against it's reigning morarch and been driven out, into Lebanon, ultimately... .
That would hit all the high notes in sumarizing the background sections of the article and all relevant immigrations from 1948-1975, but way too much is occuring before the "ultimately" which is the more important part of the sentence. -- Kendrick7 19:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- I would suggest all three waves of immigration effected the demographics of Lebanon, which led to the Civil War. The Jordian Palestians would not have fled to Lebanon were it not for there already being more Palestians there as a base of support, and, of course, if Lebanon had kept them out, which it failed to do. The particular straw which breaks a camel's back isn't any more or less relevant than all the other straws, no? -- Kendrick7 19:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Then the article on the Lebanonese Civil war is internally inconsistant. It implies LNM was calling for a new census in 1969, which was a year or two before the Jordanian explulsion, a new census which they believe would cause the constitution of Lebanon to be rewritten. It implies that ongoing birthrate demographic trends would have eventually resulted in a majority Muslim, minority Maronite nation, which perhaps would have caused a war ultimately anyway. And there is certaintly the implication that the Druze and the Lebanese Arabs regarded the PLO's defacto state in the south of the country with jealousy while they themselves were being ruled by Maronites.
This article in no way purports to be a survey of the causes of the Lebanese Civil war, and this part of the lead is merely trying summarize the background section and to suggest how things got to the point where, further on in the lead, Israel found itself with "a troublesome border with various forces calling for the destruction of their nation, and coordinating attacks against it" -- Kendrick7 21:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- The Lebanese Civil war article mentions Black September in Jordan exactly three times and in no way suggests it was the cause. Read it again. I'm starting to feel like I am living in a real life version of Loki's Wager. -- Kendrick7 21:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- I admit, the demographic data I've dredged up from the subarticles is weak. I've suggested some rough guestimates at Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. -- Kendrick7 22:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Because Palestians fled to Lebanon as early as 1948, as detailed in Israel-Lebanon conflict under the section "1948 Arab-Israeli and aftermath". -- Kendrick7 18:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
RfA Thanks
|
Thank you very much for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully today with a result of (50/3/0). If you have any further questions or suggestions, feel free to write me. I hope I will live up to your trust. Michael 01:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC) |
Sorry
I just meant to revert the changes made by "Ender higgins" and not any subsequent changes. I will be grateful if you fix my damage. --Gabi S. 20:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Tewfik
Hey Tewfik, thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It finished with an amazing final tally of 160/4/1. I really appreciate your support. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Please provide some comments
In case you did not notice, I posed some questions for you over at Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict, in addition to those you still refuse to answer. Don't you think it would be appropriate to cooperate and comment on these instead of just undoing all of my edits in one of your usual revert orgies? Thanks. Kosmopolis 02:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
The Halo's RfA
|
Tewfik... Thank you very much for the constructive criticism in your oppose comment in my request for adminship. Ultimately, no consensus was reached, and I failed to be promoted, but I am very grateful for your coments. I will strive to better myself in all areas, especially Mainspace. Yours, Thε Halo Θ 00:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC) |
why too POV
why are you so Israeli-sided? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nielswik (talk • contribs)
Mr. Lefty's RfA thanks
|
Hi, Tewfik, and thanks for supporting me in my recent request for adminship, which succeeded with a final tally of 70/4/4. I hope I can live up to your expectations, and if there's ever anything you need, you know where to find me! --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC) |
Citation needed
We're still talking past eachother on the lead sentence Tewfik -- it vaguely looks like you want a citation that the Palestinian exodus occured in 1948, and I'm nearly positive that's not what you want. Maybe you want to just put a "disputed" tag at the end of the sentence, and we can discuss it on the Talk:Israel-Lebanon conflict. -- Kendrick7
Valtam's thanks
Tewfik - thanks for your comments at my talk page. They were reassuring! Valtam 16:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Israel-Lebanon
Couldn't agree more. I was planning on shortening the 'attacks in civilian areas' as it's huge, and it already has a subarticle. I haven't got around to it yet since I'm writing a Uni essay over the next few days. I might have some time to look at it in more detail and maybe clean it up tonight. The 'post-ceasefire' section should be at the bottom of the article, and safely can be called 'post conflict' now, since it is well and truly over. Good luck - I've no doubt any edits you make will be branded pro-Israeli by someone, though. :(
- The problem with that specific section (and yeah, I think it's a little long) is that it doesn't have a sub article to call it's own. Any shrinking, then, would be removal, and a lot more of a problem than the civilian section. I'm still happy to chuck in my opinion if we were to all discuss it on the talk page, though. Iorek85 08:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Yahoo! article
Hey. I thought you might be interested in this article. Also, it says 850 Lebanese have been killed in the war, which contradicts the numbers on the site. [1]
Merge / delete Israel-Lebanon sub-sub-articles
You noticed that I tried to get rid of the sub-subs. Instead of sabotaging my attempts again, maybe you'd like to propose a better idea how to make them manageable? Kosmopolis (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- Do we have the same objective here (getting rid of the sub-subs)? Please look at International reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict and Humanitarian and economic aid in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, I also *edited* these after merging, so please be careful what you revert. Kosmopolis (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hm, I inserted a redirect statement into the Position of the European Union in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict article, but it doesn't work. Do you know why? Should it take effect immediately? Kosmopolis (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, problem solved. Just took some time. Thanks anyway. Kosmopolis (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Recurring differences
Hi Tewfik, I guess it is about time to work out a resolution for our recurring differences. I have edited our article again. Please look at the talk page before reverting. I also introduced some new and non-controversial tweaks and refs. I have done my best to carefully balance the targeting section; all I ever intended was to untangle the spaghetti quoting. The background issue is solved, now, and the rest are only isolated issues, which we should be able to work out somehow. Given these circumstances, maybe I can convince you that retracting the 3RR report is in both our interests. Obviously, we are both very persistent, so this might seem difficult, but I do hope that we can get to a reasonable solution or compromise, making this more fun and less tedious for both of us. Cheers. Kosmopolis (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Attritious?
I think I immediately understood your meaning. I didn't get the impression many Israeli soldiers died between 2000 and 2006, but then I haven't been paying much attention. Anyway, I kept looking at it and decided you spelt it wrong. Then I was shocked to discover it isn't even a word. m-w.com would suggest you meant attritional, and I imagine you combined this with attrocious? -- Kendrick7 07:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oops, right -- I should have said 1982-2000. 1982-2000 South Lebanon conflict lists 1,200 Israeli soldier deaths (uncited). To say they had to withdraw due to attrition would imply they no longer had the manpower to defend the border, but Israel Defense Forces suggests, if I'm reading it right, that they had an estimated 2000 reserve of 1,499,186 to call on. With that attrition rate, Israel could have held its position until... um... the year 24,487 AD. Of course, by then Hezbollah would no doubt have enlisted the aid of the Alien Space Bats, and then who knows what would have happened? -- Kendrick7 19:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- I thought the phrase "early withdrawal" at least gives the sense they were going to withdraw anyway. The main article should eventually have a paragraph about the turning tide of Israeli public sentiment, and the announced change in policy prior to the withdrawal. I imagine Lebanese army suppression of the refugees camps made the purpose of occupation, except for the sake of protecting the SLA, strategically moot after some point in time. Of course, Richard Nixon, while a candidate for president, promised to withdraw from Vietnam, it just took him about 5 years longer than he had planned. Come to think of it -- George W. Bush promised in 2000 never to invade an other country for the purposes of nation building. Campaign pledges aren't quite equivalent to policy decisions, obviously. -- Kendrick7 22:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Could you clarify whether your reversion was meant to remove the vandalism or to reinstate the Al-Manar report? Thanks, TewfikTalk 04:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- It was to revert the vandalism. I usually revert the specific instance that I found to get the vandalism off the page ASAP (and alert other editors that I am working on the page), then search the history for relevant collatoral damage and/or additional missed vandalism. If I find any then I make a correcting reversion, which I have done in this case. Cheers, Vectro 04:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- I would appreciate if you could revert to my last edit, as I was in the process of removing a claim which you reinstated (accidentally it would seem). Thanks, TewfikTalk 04:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Done. Let me know if you need anything else. Cheers, Vectro 04:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to keep bothering you, but you reverted to the version from after you began reverting. I am suggesting that you revert all of your edits, since you reverted my edit with the vandalism. If you reinstate my edit, I will remove the vandalism. Thanks, and sorry about the timing
, TewfikTalk 04:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, you two are not the only ones working on this article: Nielswik (talk · contribs) (who I originally confused with you) is also making changes in the middle of this mess. I don't want to back out his changes, but I can't back out my own without also reversing his. I'm happy to eject from this and let you two make whatever changes you need to; if anybody complains, point them to this post. Cheers, Vectro 04:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to keep bothering you, but you reverted to the version from after you began reverting. I am suggesting that you revert all of your edits, since you reverted my edit with the vandalism. If you reinstate my edit, I will remove the vandalism. Thanks, and sorry about the timing
- Done. Let me know if you need anything else. Cheers, Vectro 04:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- I would appreciate if you could revert to my last edit, as I was in the process of removing a claim which you reinstated (accidentally it would seem). Thanks, TewfikTalk 04:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Context?
If you want to mention the PLO, then you need to mention the refugee situation to provide complete context. Otherwise it paints an incomplete picture of the reality on the ground. My last edit is the only compromise I can imagine us making -- Kendrick7 07:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking of some alternative backgrounds: "In 2006, the Hezbollah Shi'ite were a peaceful, goat and fireworks loving people, dwelling south of the slopes of Mount Lebanon, and enjoying the bloom of the June cedars. But little did they know, Iran had secretly and slowly been replacing their bottle rockets with Katyushas." No? Too POV? -- Kendrick7 07:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
As for the background for Israel-Lebanon conflict, as much of the troubles involved Palestinians, to not mention in the lead somehow, even in passing, what the Palestians were fighting for would be POV, a sin by ommision. There is no cabal. -- Kendrick7 07:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Hezbollah/al Manar
you wrote : Please review the policy about reliable sources: Widely acknowledged extremist or even terrorist groups, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources, that is to say they may be used in articles discussing the opinions of that organization. Even then they should be used with great caution, and should be supported by other sources.
Even if some country considered Haaretz or Yediot to be terrorist organisations (and none do as far as I know), they would still not be widely acknowledged as such. Hezbollah and Al-Manar are. TewfikTalk 15:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- No my friend, Al-Manar is not that widely known as terrorist. It's only USA, Israel and some European countries that consider hezbollah as terrorist, and they constitute no more than 10% of world's population. almost all of 1.3 billion of muslims will not say hezbollah is terrorist. Nielswik 15:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- if that's true, it will say something very bad about all these muslims. I hope it's not. Amoruso 05:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Stones and Siniora
Please consider reverting these back. As for Siniora, I did not fight any mention of his speech, where is it ? I think the crying is an indication that Lebanon might not have won... I didn't find any mention of this speech. As for the stones, the violation is the fact that it was right on the fence on Israeli jeeps. Amoruso 05:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Also why were these dropped ? [2] . It's misleading to think that Hezbollah simply fought for the end of "occupation in lebanon" and these are significant events, the terrorist acts. Amoruso 05:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- sababa. added 2 more refs to signify this was on israeli patrols. it's seen as a very grave development in israel, i think it should stay. Moi. 05:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)