User talk:Sherif9282/Archive 1

Re: Ofira Air Battle
Hi Sherif9282. I admit that I am still a bit on the fence about the Ofira Battle article. In order to pursue deletion at this point, the article would have to go through the WP:AFD process. I'm not convinced it needs to go, so I am not inclined to nominate it for deletion. However, you are certainly free to do so.

Based on your point, I did tweak the article to make it clear that the information comes from Israeli sources.-- Kubigula (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * so what if it comes from israeli sourses? don't your relay, for example, in operation badr, mainly on egyptian sourses?--93.172.229.230 (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Warning
Do not make large, uncited additions to featured articles. Do not edit war over them when they are removed. If you continue to disrupt the Yom Kippur War article, I'm going to block you. Raul654 (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting
Re: this series of edits - I am still waiting for inline citations for:


 * 1) "Commandos had been used during the night of October 5 to neutralise the threat of the underwater oil pipelines, designed to release flammable materials to the surface and deliver a flaming chastisement to anything on the canal. "
 * 2) "At 2:00 pm a wave of 220 Egyptian aircraft crossed the canal and commenced attacks against three airports, ten Hawk missile batteries and command, control and long-range artillery centres. This was coupled with a barrage from more than 2000 artillery pieces for a period of 53 minutes. "
 * 3) "8000 troops"

Please provide them, or I will be removing these statements. Raul654 (talk) 02:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note - I found the source you used for the third statement; however, I have rewritten it to mention the ~100,000 troops that crossed in the first 6 hours instead of the 8,000 in the first wave. Raul654 (talk)

Welcome to wikiproject Egypt
Dear sherif,

Welcome to Wikiproject Egypt, a Wikiproject dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of Egypt related articles. If u have any photos of Egypt please upload them to wikicommons and add their links to WikiProject Egypt/Photo requests. If u want someone to help u on an Egypt related article add it's link to our collaboration page on WikiProject Egypt/Collaboration.

Very happy that u joined the Wikiproject and hope u succeed in making Egypt articles better.

Sincerely,--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Marhaba!
 Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including WPMILHIST Announcements there.
 * Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, article logistics, and other tasks.
 * We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
 * We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
 * If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts and copy-editing alerts.
 * The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 19:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Reason
Because its true. You can list the casualties on the "casualties" section of the article, but the Infobox should state the total losses. They are estimated at 21,000 dead, 45,000 wounded, and 6,000 captured

Fahd-240
Hey there sherif. I was wondering if you could please remove the speedy deletion tag of the article, Fahd-240, because perhaps some one was goofing around and found the article which is less than one day old, and decided "Hey, nice start...let's delete it", so i would appreciate it if you helped in keeping the article. One last pharaoh (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Sherif, i think that there is a mistake with the new name of the article; it should be "Fahd Armoured personnel carrier", or "Fahd Armored personnel carrier" -I prefer the first-. One last pharaoh (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. I changed the name to match the title on the M113 article.Sherif9282 (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

In case you are interested, take a look at this page:.One last pharaoh (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Other Egyptian weapons
Hey there, Sherif. If you are interested, here are other articles about Egyptian weapons, that may need additional effort: Ramses II tank, Misr assault rifle. One last pharaoh (talk) 14:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Permanent blocking of IP addresses
Hi there,

Policy at Wikipedia is to not permanently block IP addresses as they can be re-assigned to different users. See the policy regarding this at BLOCK. However, if the IP continues to vandalise after the block has expired, then you can feel free to send me a message and I will extend the block for a further period, or you can report the IP to WP:AIV.

Hope this helps,

The Helpful  One  20:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Egyptian Army
Seriously, at least one wikipedia user - me - is going to 'spend all his time reading all the details of the Egyptian armies command HQs, all the formation ranging from division-size down to company-size units.' I do not think that should be deleted or altered, yet, anyway. We have the US and British armies in incredibly glorious and minute detail, why shouldn't we have the Egyptian? But I completely agree it reads like a list; we need more textual descriptions. If it gets too long we can always split it. Cheers and kind regards Buckshot06(prof) 14:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note Sherif9282. If you check my talk page above you'll see the answer to the source question I've already asked Orthopraxia. He says he's doing something about it. The British and American Armies have Structure of the British Army, Structure of the Australian Army, Structure of the Pakistan Army etc - one for the US Army is in my userspace. But they're only created when the main page needs a split. At the moment it's not big enough for it. Feel free to remove the duplicative equipment lists, but for the moment, let's try and add some text. Basic stuff. Do you know when the modern Egyptian Army was first formed? What battles has it been involved in? I'll do a bit now, anyway. For equipment, the standard is to split it, as per List of equipment of the Russian Ground Forces, to something like List of equipment of the Egyptian Army. Buckshot06(prof) 16:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Please feel free to take out the doubling, and add a note to who formed it initially - don't write to me, edit the page!! Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 16:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)
The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Clach92
It is pretty obvious that you and User:Clach92 are the same user. This is highly inappropriate, per WP:SOCK, seeing as you have used both accounts to edit the same page (e.g: Talk:Fahd (armored personnel carrier) and WikiProject Military history/Members/Active. Please limit yourself to one account, and make this connection between accounts public on your talk page. Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I find your explanation a little hard to believe. Here, your "little brother" is editing the talk page and commenting on Mulcahy's reliability. 3 edits to the page later, You are removing your "little brother"'s comment, and making your own comment which echoes the same arguments your "little brother" made earleir.
 * Here, your "Little brother" claims to have contributed to 332 articles, the with a current (October 8) contribution to Yom Kippur War. A quick inspection of your "little brother"'s contribution log shows he hasn't contributed to ANY mainspace article. You, on the other hand, edit Yom Kippur War extensively, including many edits on October 8th.
 * I don't exactly know what kind of game is being played here, but if you'd rather I take it up to Sockpuppet investigations, and have an administrator make a determination, I will do so. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply
When you log in to your account on wikipedia there should be an option under the login box that you can check that would keep you loged in for a month. To make it easy for me i use Firefox and it remembers my username and password for me. This means that even if i have to log in again i just have to click login, it is kida risky because if my computer becomes combermised then anyone wouyld have full access to my account, but its a risk i dont mind taking. I hope this helped– Elliott (Talk|Cont)   19:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Hi

Egyptian Army
Hi Sherif, Thank you for your note. I was very busy recently with the birth of my daughter and many other things that kept me away for some time. I will do some adjustments on the page with additions in the history of the Egyptian Army, and as for the multiple variants of each equipemnet, I think it is important to have them as each is, although sharing the same chasis or main designation, is in fact performing or designed for a specific function and the differentiation is justified. Perhaps we can creat another page with main equipement of the Egyptian Army to include all specifics for those interested to go in depth. Same applies for the structure of the Corps, Military Districts and Order of Battle. I do not have any information whether the Egyptian Army is designating a different or particular name for the upgraded M60, but the Plant which is currently used to produce the last approved batch of 125 M1A1 (upgraded to M1A2 standard by the way) and the M88A2 is going to continue to produce the M1A1 turrets for the upgrade and the adjustments needed for the chassis. The engine might be built under license if it is going to be the German MTU (1500 hp), not sure, or be imported and just maintained for overhalls in that Plant. This conversion will take perhaps more that 2-3 years to complete for a 1000 or so of the M60A3. Keep in touch and thanks again for your note.Orthopraxia (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Guys, I'm going to create Modern equipment of the Egyptian Army and move most of the equipment info there. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 15:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Badr and Mersa T'lemet
Hi. Please see my note to you regarding, the Israeli figures in Operation Badr. Also, I'd love to have an "Egyptian side" input to the Battle of Mersa T'lemet, which I started, but is all based on Israeli sources. Best.--Omrim (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Largest tank battle ...
I'm sorry I didn't get to reply to you earlier. Actually, I don't have sources for the Chinese farm tank battle. But, I think this user might be able to help you. We did some work on Pakistan Army ORBAT earlier. Good luck. Razzsic (talk) 11:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry Sherif. I have no special information on that battle, but a series of google searches until you find reputable sources should do the trick. Run some searches like 'Battle of X tank numbers' 'Battle of Y tank numbers,' ignore the fringe sites and forums, and only pay attention to good solid sources. Apologies if you already know how to do this. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 09:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I need help!
Hello Sherif! I am a new member here, and I have joined WikiProject Egypt, I am glad to co-operate with you. I noticed that you are very interested in this topic about yom kippur war, I have some useful information with sources from the internet, and I would like to add them, but I don't know how to Edit. I can give you these information and sources, and you will add them. Good luck. Vagueman (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much Sherif for help!

I knew that you are interested in yom Kippur War from discussions, I will read carefully these links you provided, but this will take a long time. until then, I will show you some of these information: Here is a russian source shows the arab estimates for Israeli air losses.. http://pvo.guns.ru/combat/sudny_den.htm

Quote: "Арабские источники настаивают на уничтожении 366 самолетов. Советские разведывательные источники оценивали израильские потери в 289 самолетов, а американские оценки колебались от 180 до 200 машин."

Auto translate: "Arab sources insist on the destruction of 366 aircraft. Soviet intelligence sources estimated the Israeli losses in 289 aircraft, and U.S. evaluation ranged from 180 to 200 aircraft."

One of my friends told me that the same US and Soviet estimates can also be found in Edgar Oballance's book No victor No vanquished, and in Ramadan War by Hassan el-Badri.

Finally, I have another two questions:

1- Why don't we add the air battle of Mansoura? we have a good source in acig.com

2- Why there is no main picture for this article?

Vagueman (talk) 3:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do we need a title? Is there a problem if I add this arab estimates in the casualties and losses?

BTW, I will try to find which page contain US and Soviet estimates in Edgar Oballance's book, and I will tell you.

For the air battle of Mansoura, I will try to write something, but the problem is with my technical English. I have a book entitled Arab mig-19 and mig-21 unit in combats, this book contains some useful information about this battle, I can give a PDF copy from this book, and I will ask my friends who may have Phoenix over the nile.

For the photographs, what do you suggest? I have hundreds of photos, How can I know if this photo is copyrighted or not?

Note: you can use auto translation from here. http://translate.google.com

Vagueman (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again Sherif, and forgive me for my questions. I will be more helpful in the summer vacation after finishing some exams and projects. I promise to make a revolution here.

Again for the photographs, I have a book about october war contains good photos. their source is (EGIO) Egyptian Government Information Office, can I scan and use them or this is not allowed?

Vagueman (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

For egyptian air losses during the battle, 6 MiG-21s and with the same details mentioned in your article, but the book didn't mention the israeli losses, it just mention that on 14 october EAF claimed the destruction of 24 israeli aircarfts for all fronts plus 2 helicopters, I will try to find other sources for IAF losses during the battle. BTW, you can get this book from here Vagueman (talk) 02:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a russian source about the air battle of Mansoura. http://worldweapon.ru/sam/stat1.php The source is a russian translated article from a german magazine Flieger Revue october 2003, by Michael Normann.. And here is the original article from the german magazine itself. http://www.fliegerrevue.de/fr_heft.asp?PG=87&AID=11793&IDCLASS=11&search=1

Auto translation "At 22.00 Egyptian radio had announced the outcome of the battle. It destroyed 15 Israeli vehicles, and lost 3 of their own. All the airports were in operation. Israel did not reported the incident, it was just announced that during the day shot down 15 Egyptian aircraft. After the war, the Egyptian side has changed their data. After examining all the material it was announced that the destruction of 17 enemy aircraft. Own the loss amounted to 6 cars. 3 MiG was shot down, two more made the forced landing of the consumed fuel, and another near an Israeli aircraft shot down, it was destroyed by its explosion. Both pilots managed to shoot. In this regard, the pilot reported that the Egyptian Muhammad Adubu with difficulty saved from the Israeli massacre of Egyptian peasants. At first glance, the outcome of the battle is clear, and more than understandable why the Egyptians, namely, October 14, celebrate the day the Air Force."

Anyway, I will try to find more reliable sources from books. Vagueman (talk) 02:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sherif! Sorry for my looong absence, last time u asked me about photos, I found some photos which satisfies the requirements u stated, the photos are for Sadat's victory speech at the egyptian parliament in October 16, do u think they will be useful for Yom Kippur War article? Vagueman (talk) 23:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)
The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi sherif, I`m mohamed salim an admin in arabic wikipedia. The Air Battle of Mansoura is a gr8 article, very interesting one. I think that u have a gd knowleage about the militry history of egypt so i want to ask u which one is the right between these two stories about the war between egypt and lybia? thx alot. --Muhammed Salim Nashwan (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright question
— AustralianRupert (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Gamal Abdel Nasser
Greetings Sherif! WikiProject Egypt has selected Gamal Abdel Nasser as this week's collaboration project (See WikiProject Egypt/Collaboration). Please join our efforts to get this article to Featured status. If interested, list your name underparticipants. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Marhaba Sherif, I have listed some online book sources at the project talk page if you're interested. Salaam, --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Maps
Hi Sherif9282! The software I use is CorelDraw. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 22:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

GA review
Thank you for promoting the article! If you can acquire Arab sources on the 1948 war in the future, I'll be glad to have a look. Thanks again, Ynhockey (Talk) 06:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi again! I have looked around and one book that sparked my curiosity is called Harb Filastin, 1948, by Ibrahim Shakib. It was published in 1986 in Cairo. If you currently reside in Egypt, this is likely available in the major libraries. Please have a look if you can, especially if you can send over the specific pages that deal with Operation Pleshet. Thanks, Ynhockey (Talk) 10:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: A-class vs. GA
Hi Sherif9282! I am flattered that you would turn to me for such advice. Indeed you are correct that A-class is considered higher than GA-class, and is generally thought to require a WikiProject review or a peer review. The GAN backlog is a well known and unfortunate issue—once I waited 7 weeks for a review. However, there are no good alternatives for this, unless you believe that your article can go straight to FAC, then you can ask for a peer review and go to FAC, skipping GA (personally, I am ideologically opposed to such actions, but they are not against policy or anything, just my personal opinion...).

The way to improve the situation is by reviewing other related GANs yourself, so that other reviewers are more free to review your article. For example, if you review 5 military history GANs that are "before yours" in line, you might cut your wait time in half. Of course, reviews should be thoughtful and not quick, which is why I personally don't review GANs (no time :.

What I had done in the past in such situation was simply to move on to the next article while waiting for the GA review, whenever that comes. That way you are more busy writing than worrying :)

I hope the above helped. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 00:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that if your objective is FA-class, then you should focus on improving the article until it is ready for FAC. Copyediting isn't the only thing that the article needs—there are two very important issues which (IMO) require massive changes in the article, that will take more than one read-through.
 * The first is the obvious lack of non-Egyptian historiography on the subject. I know that this was a major complaint about several of my article, but this is unrelated; Israeli historiography on this is not lacking, in fact, dozens if not hundreds of books have been written. English-languages sources are abundant as well and I'm sure you can find some free stuff on Google Books. It's more a question of balance than POV; POV is not a serious problem in this article, but I'm sure a lot has been missed with the use of only 3 main sources. Nudve is highly knowledgeable on this subject, you should contact him as well.
 * The second is the enormous background on the subject—at least 20k of the article (the size of a large article on its own) is dedicated to a general background from the Yom Kippur War, which indeed should go into the main article on the war (it's an FA, but one of the not-so-good ones IMO). In fact, the article doesn't pretend to be limited to Operation Badr alone. I believe that the background (everything up to "Preparations for war" and much of the information in that section) should be at least cut in half, and perhaps in 4. There's a lot of useful information there though, but it belongs in the main article.
 * So again, I suggest you focus on working on the article more :) Finding a copyeditor for a quality article isn't as hard as it might seem, but major changes need to be made first. I sincerely wish you luck on this important article! Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 00:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Copy-edit request
I'll get to it ASAP, and leave a message here once I'm done. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest you ask someone else in addition to me. I'm making my way through it (slowly), but I am by no means an expert in copy-editing. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September! Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

English style for ce
American or British English for Arabs/Israelis? At the moment there is a mix  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 01:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Msg at my talk  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 06:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Sherif, Sorry my replay is late. To know the copyright of an image you have to know first in which country it was taken and by who and when? you said that`s a 1973 pic, if it was published in 1973 so it is a copyrighted pic and can`t be uploaded to Commons. That if the pic was an egyptian pic, but if it was american there is no problem to upload to commons. check . u can ask me for more info. thx. --Mohamed Salim [[file:Avion silhouette.svg|link=|15px]] talk 22:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September! For the coordinators,  Roger Davies  talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed
I agree. This reverting game is tiresome. You're obviouly well versed in military history and proud of your nation's achievements, which are many. But we as Wiki editors have a responsibility to present the facts in a neutral manner or at least present both sides so the reader can make up his/her own mind. I've had a long day. We'll talk tomorrow and hammer out a compromise. Be well.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "stay up till dawn?" man, you are truly a dedicated Wikipedian. I'm in the North American Time Zone. I suspect that you're across the Atlantic. Until tomorrow, good night and be well Sherif.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm impressed with your knowledge Sherif and even more impressed by the fact that your familiar with Schiff's book (going back to 1974!).

M60 Patton
Hi, please take note that this particular edit needs more verification. Since you claimed that you're from Egypt, I would really appreciate you if you could provide us with a positive verification that this particular M60 was really captured from the Israeli. Hope that it's not too much to ask of you because if you had gone to the discussion page of M60 Patton, you would find that I had argued with two other editors over this issue. Once you've done that, I will revert it for you, thanks. --Dave1185 (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent Edits
Sigh. Had a feeling you were going to revert. Just wondering what took so long. I was however hoping that you would at least discuss it with me before taking action. Wishful thinking. Where do I begin. First, all my edits were sourced and they were pricipally from three sources; Schiff, Herzog and the London Sunday Times. I've read five books on the Yom Kippur/Ramadan War and I am well versed with the subject matter. Your argument that Schiff is unreliable because his was published just after the war is a poor one. For one thing, I would consider it more reliable because memories are fresh and historical revisionism doesn't have a chance to seep in. In any event, his was one of four sources cited and sourced, relevant material should generally not be reverted without at least some discussion on the issue. I don't want to engage you in an edit war. Rather, let's discuss each edit piece by piece and then we can revert or modify. I will, in exchange, discuss future edits with you. Please let's do this in a civilized non-confrontational manner. It would be quite silly for me or you to leave and then come back in a month or so and play the revert games. Nobody will win and we'll spend wasteful hours editing when we could actually be enjoying ourselves.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest we start with the Preview and Fact Box section and work our way down.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

==DYK nomination of Battles of Fort Budapest== Hello! Your submission of Battles of Fort Budapest at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! &spades; B.s.n.  &hearts; R.N.  11:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Battles of Fort Budapest
Hi Sherif9282:

Although you have asked for a B-class assessment for the article (Battles of Fort Budapest), I would rather give it a peer review. Take my comments in that spirit.

1. I have corrected a few typos; they can be identified in the article history, so you can see if I misinterpreted anything in doing so.

2. Ambiguity remains in the spelling of two names: Fouad or Fuoad, al-Mezahi or el-Mezahi; I don't know which is correct.

3. Reference is made to "zodiacs." I do not know what they are (I infer that they are some sort of amphibious landing craft). A brief note defining the term would be helpful.

4. I would like to see at least one map, to help readers visualize the field. Some can be found | here. I do not know their copyright status; if they were published by the US government, they would be in the public domain, but Egypt and Israel may have different policies.

All in all, I found this to be an interesting article. Right now, it lacks supporting material, but if you can supply a map or two, it will certainly be worth a B rating.

Cheers, PKKloeppel (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review. Your comments were helpful indeed. I think using "dinghy" in place of "zodiac" is clearer to the reader, and that's just what I've done. As for maps, I've seen the ones in that link before, and I can tell you they are copyrighted. Unfortunately I have no knowledge of map-making, but how abount a map from Google Earth? --Sherif9282 (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As Sturmvogel has done the assessment, nothing else need be done. I would still like to see a map; this is a fetish on my part, as I believe almost every military operation should be accompanied by a map. I do not believe that Google Earth allows maps made with its programs to be used on Wikipedia, so I have sought alternatives. One such is NASA World Wind, and I tried to help by creating a map, but the program has a steep learning curve and I am not there. I mention it just so you are aware of it, and you may wish to consider it in the future.
 * Keep up the good work. PKKloeppel (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Re astonishing
I agree to collaborate with you. I propose we go through it para by para and make changes we both can live with. I think if we work together, we can reach middleground and really put together something solid that both of us can stomach. Gotta sign off now but will discuss later and will self-revert if necessary.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Law student? Impressive. Looks like you and I have more in common than just an interest in the Yom Kippur/Ramadan War, though I already passed the Bar. In any event, I don't have much time this week to engage in any kind of substantive editing. However, I will say that as a general rule, I object to usage of non-English sources (Arabic, Hebrew or Russian) for an English speaking encyclopedia users. All sources should be in English as this is a Wiki English article. Second, I'm not crazy about Major Michael C. Jordan as an RS. He's a relative unknown, has done no original research of his own and his work has not been cited or republished in any reliable source. I do believe that Zeev Schiff is an RS and his credentials speak for themselves, see Hundreds pay their final respects to Haaretz reporter Ze'ev Schiff I look forward collaborating with you on this project as you are obviously well-versed on the subject, though it is obvious that we don't share precisely the same viewpoint. (which is not necessarily a bad thing)--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you on a number of levels. First, Schiff is a historian and studied Middle Eastern affairs and military history at Tel-Aviv University. Second, he is an accomplished author having written five books, all dealing with various aspects of the Arab/Israeli wars, including the Yom Kippur War. His book on the Yom Kippur War was critically acclaimed by book reviewers and historians alike. Third, He was a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, chairman of the Military Writers Association, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and an Isaac and Mildred Brochstein Fellow in Peace and Security at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University; all this, on top of being a respected journalist and military correspondent. Simply put, you can not say that he is not a reliable source. It’s obvious to anyone who takes one glance at his impeccable credentials that he is a distinguished author, writer, defense analyst and military historian. He is heads and shoulders over any source that you cite, including Rabinowitz. I am including him as a source.


 * What I find astounding is that you would include Major Michael C. Jordan, a virtual no name, as a reliable source over Ze’ev Schiff. And that brings me to my next point. I have serious problems with your sources. I've already specified my issues concerning Michael Jordan and reiterate that I reject all non-English sources. This is Wiki English for English readers. How do you expect English readers to read Russian or Arabic sources. These are not acceptable sources and must be rejected.


 * Bearing this in mind, I suggest that we start making a collaborative effort to make the substantive edits we discussed previously and move along in a methodical fashion, paragraph by paragraph.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I also intend to cite Luttwak, Edward and Horowitz, Daniel. The Israeli Army.  Cambridge, MA, Abt Books, 1983. Incidentally, Luttwak stated that, “both Egypt's Anwar Sadat and Syria's Hafez Assad soberly recognized that their countries had come closer to catastrophic defeat than in 1967, and that it was absolutely imperative to avoid another war. That led to Mr. Sadat's peace with Israel and Mr. Assad's 1974 ceasefire on the Golan Heights, never violated since then.” I now have four credible sources that reflect an Israeli battlefield success and that should be reflected in the FactBox.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you feel that way. I think you can offer much to the project because you possess a unique expertise. However, even the Wiki policy that you cite states that English sources are preferred. Non-English sources are acceptable where an English equivalent is unvailable. But there is a wealth of information in English. Why resort to Russian and Arabic? As an English speaker, I found it frustrating that I could not read the sources. Here I was trying to use this article as a referenece and I was unable to read the sources upon which the edits were based. Respectfully,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No need to apologise. This Wiki thing is heroin. I almost wish I never started editing. I'll self revert the infobox/factbox back to ceasefire status and we can discuss the rest. Is that Okay?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I was about to revert all of my edits per your request and then I saw your comments on the discussion page. Edit war? I thought we were collaborating as partners in a subject that we share mutual interest. In any event, revert to your heart's desire and cite whatever sources you want. I won't stop you.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It elucidates some of your points and mine.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, you were the one who suggested that we move to the discussion page.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Pointless Discussions
The discussions on the talk page are at this point useless as it is clear to me that you have zero interest in collaborating. An attempt by a neutral third party (Hohum) to reach some form of compromise regarding the lead has been rejected by you. As I made clear in the discussion page, the article is filled with numerous inaccuracies and patent falsehoods. In needs a major overhaul from top to bottom.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 08:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't make assumption about me. I have asked for removal of Hebrew sources as well where English equivs were available.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Notice of discretionary sanctions
As a result of the Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to Israel, Palestine, and related conflicts. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here. These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit Warring
You are engaging in an edit war at Yom Kippur War. Discuss on the Talk Page of respective article and try to reach a consensus before changing the text of this article.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk page archiving
See WP:ARCHIVE. Hohum (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"tag-teaming"
Yes, the 'tag-teaming' accusation against us, that is funny. Maybe we want spandex costumes and leather wrestling masks? Anyway, hello! Honestly seems there are some editors on I-P articles who invariably push a particular government line but ironically regard any opposition to this -- be it from a Dane, an Egyptian or a Canadian -- as somehow 'coordinated'. I am glad to see you are standing up to that sort of arrogance. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sherif, I'm not going anywhere and rest assured, I will make edits as appropriate. All of my edits are well sourced and have the support of many editors.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And one more thing, as for your false claim of alleged POV pushing, I refer you to the old adage, "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Ian Bickerton
Hi Sherif9282! I will have to disappoint you, unfortunately I don't know anything about Ian Bickerton that you can't already find with a Google search. I do not have any of his books either. In terms of being a reliable source for Wikipedia, I'd say that he is clearly a reliable source (but probably not for WP:REDFLAG) because he teaches at an Australian university. Personally, I don't generally use sources that are neither Israeli nor Arab, but this is my own preference and in fact Wikipedia prefers sources originally written in English, where possible. —Ynhockey (Talk) 12:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Sherif9282. I've seen your work at Yom Kippur War. Quite excellent really. I don't know anything about Ian Bickerton. His bibliography at this site, looks to be quite extensive. I'm sure he's an RS, if that's what the issue is, though it probably depends on which book of his you are using for what information. I'm sorry I cannot be of more help. If you have specific information about him you'd like to know, I'd be more than happy to do some googling and see if I can find it. Happy editing.  T i a m u t talk 16:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Always good to your homework, particularly when dealing with editors keen on opposing things that do not jive with their POV. I don't forsee a problem though. After all, its not an Arabic source right? ;) Anyway, good luck with everything and if you ever need in the future, do not hesitate to let me know.  T i a m u t talk 17:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ian Bickerton is one of the contributing editors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica article on Palestine. See for example the section "Civil war in Palestine". harlan (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there. Well, those posts are largely impolite. You might consider filing at Wikiquette alerts. That might help to bring the level of discourse back to a tone where collaboration might be more likely. User:Megaidler doesn't seem to be a new user (IMHO). It might be worth asking him if he has edits here using any other accounts (now or previously). But I wouldn't puruse that line of thinking too much without further evidence. I'll put Operation Badr on my watchlist. If I notice things getting out of hand in the future, I'll do my best to intervene politely. Good luck Sherif.  T i a m u t talk 16:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The best sockpuppet detective I know is User:Nableezy. You could ask him to take a look at User:Megaidler's contribs and let you know what he thinks.
 * I already put the article on my watchlist, but I won't intervene directly unless I think it's absolutely necessary. I am busy with other things, but am always on the lookout for ways to broaden my horizons. Learning a little about Operation Badr (1973) can't hurt.  T i a m u t talk 17:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The main thing is to keep your cool when people behave that way and stay in it for the long haul. I think you know best that you are honestly trying to write good articles, listen to others and improve the encyclopedia. In my opinion you have made real contributions toward balancing articles with underemphasized points of view and sources. The biggest problem in the YK article is that Raul doesn't seem to be around much there to keep people in line now.  I have had very little time recently but will try to help keep things reasonable in the article and on the talk page. John Z (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Here are some extracts. He mentions that cease fire violations occurred on both sides, and that it led to the 3rd Army getting surrounded. He concludes that the war was a victory for Egypt on the diplomatic level: Text on 1973 War Casuality Table I have some other books that cover the events in much more detail. Let me know if this will suffice or not. harlan (talk) 09:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

battle of yarmouk
hi, thanks for your consideration, looking forward for ur review. Regards الله أكبر Mohammad Adil  19:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * He was indeed replaced by abu ubaidah, but on many occasions khalid acted as a field commander (e,g battle of yarmouk) and emesa was no exception.

الله أكبر Mohammad Adil  15:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * as far as i remember, its already mentioned in the article.

الله أكبر Mohammad Adil  16:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * its mentioned in the rashidun army section as During a council of war, the command of the Muslim army was transferred to Khalidi[›] by Abu Ubaidah, 
 * or r u talking about adding this info in lead section ?

الله أكبر Mohammad Adil  16:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If u think its necessary to add tht info in the lead, feel free to add. By the way i didnt get ur last post, wht did u mean ?

الله أكبر Mohammad Adil  14:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Jabla = Jabalah, they r the same person the ghassanid king. There was a spelling confusion tht i hv fixed.

الله أكبر Mohammad Adil  16:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * jabla=jabalah=Jabalah ibn Abi Laham same person.
 * Your copy editing looks good.

Thanks الله أكبر Mohammad Adil  17:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * thanks..

الله أكبر Mohammad Adil  15:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right on YK
Had a long day and just sort of called it the way I saw it. I'll try to muster my usual restraint, anyway good luck on that article you have more patience than I. RomaC (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War & Yad Mordechai
You are engaging in an edit war at Yom Kippur War and the Battle of Yad Mordechai. Concerning the Yom Kippur War, you have on at least three occasions, reverted sourced material within a 24 hr period. What's more, you have not established any consensus for your insertion of factually incorrect information. Discuss on the Talk Page of respective article and try to reach a consensus before changing the text of this article.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sherif, I saw the dispute but it was lame enough that I couldn't really see what it was about in a short time. Looks like Nableezy may have calmed it down? Dupuy has some tables of tanks, planes etc destroyed and tries to reconcile some conflicting Egyptian and Israeli accounts. Just try to avoid 3RR.John Z (talk) 08:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No problemo. Having it on my watchlist at least proves useful for little things like that.  T i a m u t talk 11:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Sherif, have had very little time, probably can't reply before the weekend.John Z (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice to meet you :)
Thanks, your help is very much appreciated :) Regarding the Yom Kippur War article, I've been following its discussion page for a while before I decided to make my own account, and I can see it's going to be tough to bring about a final result that everyone's satisfied with. Nevertheless I'm willing to engage in discussions until a compromise is reached, and I'm quite knowledgeable about the war, if not lacking in some of the finer details. The state of the article right now is, in my opinion, far too biased in favour of Israel. I'm not sure how often I'll be able to come on since I have exams coming up soon but I look forward to working with you and other editors to come up with a reasonable solution. Regards, ElUmmah (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Chinese Farm
Hi Sherif!

Thanks for including me in your work with the Battle of Chinese Farm :). I've read over your draft, and I have to say it's very well done. It's very detailed and well-structured. Perhaps some areas could be worded a bit better, and I'll get around to that as soon as I can. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of Hammad's work, so I won't be able to use him to make any further additions, but I can certainly use Gawrych, as well as other reliable sources I can find. I like how your draft outlines just how bloody the battle was for both sides, particularly the Israelis, rather than the walk in the park that some sources outline it to be, and at the same time keep it relatively unbiased.ElUmmah (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a number of citations using one source I found to be very helpful, and I've also added a bit more info where it was needed. I used one article which is linked in the article, it appears to be accurate but I'm not sure if it can be considered reliable. If you could take a look at it to ensure its reliability that would be great :). I'll continue to add references when I can. I've taken a look at some other scholars, for example, Rabinovich, but his accounts of the battle only relate personal experiences by a few Israeli soldiers, rather than an overall outlook of the battle, so I don't think he's suitable for this article's purpose. Other scholars don't go as in-depth as I would like, but I will pull out what I can. Let me know if there's anything wrong with my edits so far. Regards,ElUmmah (talk) 06:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, I remember seeing that interview with Sharon also. I had thought the 190 casualties were referring only to a portion of his division, which is why I included it. I didn't realize that Reshef's brigade was the only one in action at the time, apologies for that mistake. I've removed that line, as well as the part about Missouri. As for Rabinovich and Herzog, I agree, they could be useful to an extent in this case, however, I don't have a copy of Herzog's book. Unfortunately, I don't have O'Ballance or Dupuy's book, but I am looking to get a copy of each soon. Also, please forgive any inactivity on my part, as I am going to be very busy for the next little while. I will be able to resume extensive editing soon, hopefully with a copy of Dupuy and O'Ballance in hand.ElUmmah (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War
I have made new edits on the article and I'm expecting for answers in the talk page. In the talk page, you may watch the sections dealing with the infobox / belligerents, the infobox / result, the casualties and the aid. I hope we will finally reach a consensus in some issues. This message was sent to many editors. Megaidler (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War
Hey Sherif,it appears Megaidler has a problem with one of your sourced figures, and he uses this as a basis to revert many more edits which have nothing to do with it. I attempted to explain that you had already provided the information he desires, but it seems he needs to hear it from you, otherwise he will continue to revert, and I have no desire to engage in such a pointless edit war. If you could drop a message on the article's talk page it would be great, and perhaps serve as a resolution to this conflict. Thanks :),ElUmmah (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

About the Yom kippur war
Hi Sherrif, I have been trying to edit the article (the part were refuse to remove Israeli tactical victory and refuse to add Egyptian strategic and political victory). At the end of the war after the first and second engagement Egypt held more territory and controlled the Suez Canal while israel had lost territory so its supposed to be a strategic victory for Egypt(supported by many sources). As for the casualties comparison I have many sources that claim that the Israeli sources in percentage terms was more than the Arabs. According to William Burr it was equivalent to 200,000 losses in the US army.Here are my sources all Six Part BBC documentary which is supposed to be a neutral source clearly states and I quote "It is hard to say whose the clear victor of this war" and that Egyptian side was the side that gained the most. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XztQ28ZUXs0 Here is also the link to part6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHpzPCGp1Ek&feature=related —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omarello2 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Here is a link that to the national security archieve which states that the israeli 2600 soldiers in percentage was equivalent to 200,000 Americans. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB98/index.htm an article by Pierre Tristam that describe in details The Egyptian/Syrian-Israeli Disengagement Treaties of 1974 and 1975. http://middleeast.about.com/od/arabisraeliconflict/a/me080421.htm I tried to contact the moderator to replace Israeli tactical victory with military stalemate or at least at that Egypt strategically and politically won the war but he did not respond.I mean "Political and strategic gains for Israel and Egypt" is misleading because israel lost territory to Syria (Quneitra) and lost parts of sinai to Egypt including the Suez Canal. --Omarello2 (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omarello2 (talk • contribs) --Omarello2 (talk) 07:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have tried posting a comparison of the Israeli casualties to US casualties in Vietnam but it was removed,I then tried posting a quote by Ariel Sharon were he mentions that this war was the toughest and the editors removed it.The article is becoming more biased and the editors are not helping.You can take a look at the discussion page they are very stubborn. I dont have the reviewer status so I can't do anything about it.I don't want to waste your time or anything but if possible could you take a look when you are free?--Omarello2 (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Alcácerquibir.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Alcácerquibir.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies  talk 19:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

1RR restriction on Yom Kippur War
You've gone over 1RR, so you need to self revert: PhilKnight (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * edit of 00:10, 14 November 2010 - insert '700 armored carriers'
 * edit of 12:49, 15 November 2010 - reinsert '700 armored carriers'
 * edit of 16:10, 15 November 2010 - reinsert '700 armored carriers'

November 2010
Enforcement--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Though this AE closed without a block, I recommend that you make no further edits to the numbers in the infobox until editors on the talk page have reached a consensus. I see there is a discussion at Talk:Yom Kippur War but no obvious conclusion. Since you all seem to be relying on the same sources, it's hard to see why agreement can't be reached. The same duty should apply to the editors who disagree with you. Follow the steps of WP:DR if agreement can't be reached. EdJohnston (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Notification
As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.


 * Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
 * The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
 * Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
 * Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here. PhilKnight (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

operation badr
Sorry to disappoint you, but the operation succeded only in the first days of the attack. The operation's goals were not to caputre afive km strip from sinai but much more than that. Therefore, the operation was only partially successful.--93.172.70.229 (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Operation Tagar
... was the planned, but never launched, Israeli Air Force SEAD offensive against Egyptian air defences on the canal. Regardless, you were right to remove the red link. Poliocretes (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I checked and it went a little beyond planning. Tagar (=Quarrel) was set in motion in the early morning of October 7. The initial phase, which included preliminary strikes against anti aircraft artillery and EAF bases, was already underway when the operation was cancelled because of fears of a Syrian breakthrough on the Golan. Technically the operational order was called "Tagar 4". Poliocretes (talk) 10:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Operation Badr
Since you haven't responded to my message in the discussion page of Operation Badr, and since you frequently delete my edits there for no reason, here's what I have to say about your article, and I'm sure that anyone who knows a thing or two about the Yom Kippur War will agree with me :

This article is clearly one sided.

Firstly, the outcome of the operation was not a decisive victory. The operation's main objective was to capture a strip of land from the canal to the Gidi and Mitla Passes. As the attack was halted by the IDF after the egyptians captured a five km strip, the operation didn't reach it's objective. Furthermore, the egyptians lost 15,600 soldiers and 8,273 were captured. so the operation was only successful in the first few days, but later on became a clear egyptian defeat.

Secondly, there is no information about what happened from the eighth to the twenty-four of october -there is no information about the successful israeli attacks such as the Ofira Air Battle, the Battles of Fort Budapest, Battle of Marsa Talamat, Battle of Baltim, Battle of the Sinai and the Battle of the Chinese Farm. Therfore the article is clearly one sided. it can even be said that the article is an Egyptian propaganda. This is not wikipedia's purpose.

In addition, there was no "successful naval blockade" against Israel in the Red Sea and Mediterranean Sea. Proving these claim is pretty east, due to the fact that israeli won all the naval batteles of the war.

in addition to this message, here's a list of sourses i ave used to support my edit's:
 * 30 hours in october
 * History of the Yom Kippur War-the IDF's History Department
 * History of the Yom Kippur War-the IDF's History Department
 * Information about the operation in the IAF's official site
 * http://www.merchav-aviri.org/pages/content/view/1471/37/
 * http://www.iaf.org.il/975-20577-he/IAF.aspx
 * http://www.aka.idf.il/iturim/asp/wars.asp?catId=25673
 * http://www.knesset.gov.il/lexicon/heb/yom_kipur.htm
 * http://lib.cet.ac.il/Pages/item.asp?item=1516

--46.116.133.38 (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Your post was almost identical to an earlier one written right before yours, to which I had replied, and my reply practically applies to your post as well.
 * Nevertheless, to reply to your statements. The distance between the canal and the Giddi and Mitla Passes is 55 kilometers, and language-wise, a strip of land is never that wide. The article clearly speaks of the development of Egyptian plans, and their limiting from capturing the passes, to establishing a strip just 10-15 kilometers wide, with references. These same references also state that Egypt succeeded in its objectives, which would make the operation a success. This operation took place during October 6-8 (in other words, it lasted just three days), and that's why it doesn't mention later battles; they're irrelevant to the article. Passing mention is made of the October 14 offensive however for the aftermath, the Battles of Fort Budapest are mentioned, and the article explains the details of the Egyptian blockade and how it was maintained. You would have seen them if you had read the article.
 * As to your sources. I could not find 30 hours in October on Google book or on Amazon. The other sources are mostly official Israeli government sources, coming from the IDF, IAF, Knesset, etc... These are considered primary sources, and in no way should replace the secondary sources used in the article. Please read WP:PRIMARY on Wikipedia's policy concerning primary and secondary sources. --Sherif9282 (talk) 09:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * so, what i get from your response is that you simply re-write the goals of the Egyptian operation in order to make it look like a success, i didn't know that's wikipedia's purpose. If so, maybe i can start re-writing the goals of nazi germany in WW2 was to be destroyed and therefore they won WW2! Secondly, because of the fact that the egyptian goal of capturing the 55 km land or whatever you'd like to call it between the canal and the passes (ginda and mitlle) wasn't achived, we can conclude that not all the operation's goals were acheived. In addition, due to the fact that the israeli counterattakes succeded (the later one's) in bringing the egyptian plan to a halt and following operations pushed the egyptians back to africa causes the results of te operation, which wasn't a three days operation ( where did you get this information from. the egyptian's goals were to even try retake palesting and solve the palestinian problem) were an egyptian defeate and an israeli victory. The fact that my resourses are from official israeli govrenment sites doesn't mean that they are not treu or accurate. they simply state what the same thing that are written in military studies about the war, and they are even more accurate then most of them. I can particullary regard the IAF's and the IDF's sites which cleary shows in which battele he IDF's was defeated or not and why. Terefore my sourses are just fine! Due to the following, stop undoing my edits, which are based on real relayable sourses, and start ganging the article to the point in which it will state what really happened, not the egyptian side of the story. In addition, 30 hours in october is a book written by Shmuel Gordon which examins all the mistakes the IAF's did during the war, so you can stop worrying about my sourses glorfing the IDf or something like that. --46.116.180.17 (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * So were the Egyptians intending to advance just 55 kilometers or to advance on to Palestine? Sort your contradictions first. For the last time the Egyptians only planned to advance 15 kilometers and that's it, and since that's what they achieved, the operation was a success and a victory for the Egyptians. This is what most reliable secondary sources say.
 * Please read Wikipedia's policies on primary and secondary sources. --Sherif9282 (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * maybe i'm not clear, so for the last time - the egyptian main gole was to capture 55 km from the canal to the passes, the fact that they manged to capture 12 km doesn't mean that they intended to capure just 12 km.In addition, The egyptians have indeed caught the IDF by surprise, and have succeded in capturing 12 km, but because they had failed to hold on to those captured groundes, and were pushed back to africa, the operation's result is an egyptian defeat. --46.116.180.17 (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The sources say otherwise, and also, no one, and I mean no one, claims the Egyptians were pushed back out of the Sinai. That is as absurd as it get.

BTW, I still can't find the 30 Hours in October book. Is that in Hebrew only? Do you have a link to it somewhere online? --Sherif9282 (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * the facts are that the egyptian attack - operation badr lead to the israeli counterattacks which resulted in the israeli crossing to the egyptian side of the canal and made the egyptian forceses in sinai flanked by the israeli forces. eventually we can all agree that the IDF reached the 101 km from cairo, and defeated the egyptians in the war. we can compare operation badr to operation barbarossa, which resulted in "Axis conquers vast areas of the Soviet Union and inflicts heavy losses on the Red Army, but fails in its overall strategic goal of defeating the USSR in a Blitzkrieg campaign" (that's what is written in wikipedia) and due to that fact germany lost in the eastren front. Althought israel didn't conquered egypt, it eventually defeated her in battle. Therfore the egyptian operation was eventually and egyptian defeate. In conclusion, operation badr, which started as an initial egyptian victory, resoled in a egyptian defeate.

30 hours in october is a book written by Shmuel Gordon. The book talks about the failures of the IDF, focusing on the Israeli Air Force in particular.--93.172.229.230 (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You are engaging in WP:Original Research, which goes against Wikipedia. You are also removing sourced information. --Sherif9282 (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * you are ignoring the truth using redicules excuses, and youre the only one who's removing sourced information. i have never removed sourced information since the information was not sourced. You know i'm right, the operation wasn't an egyptian victory. the egyptians only won in the first few days of te operation, and then they were halted and defeated. if you don't believe me, i can list out about 20 books that can support my claims. --109.186.42.0 (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You have to differentiate between the war and the three-day operation. The information in the infobox accurately summarizes what the rest of the article says, which is reliably sourced. You're additions on the other hand, go against what mainstream reliable sources say. --Sherif9282 (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)