User talk:Tewfik/Archive 5

===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!

Ctrl-F5 Iorek85 04:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Casualties of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Carbonate 11:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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. —     21:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat/In many languages...
Thank you for the Hebrew translation tweaks -- Cat out 14:36, 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)

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


why too POV
why are you so Israeli-sided? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nielswik (talk • contribs)

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. 

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)

2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict
Could you clarify whether your reversion was meant to remove the vandalism or to reinstate the Al-Manar report? Thanks,  Tewfik Talk 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,  Tewfik Talk 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 Face-sad.svg,  Tewfik Talk 04:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you two are not the only ones working on this article: (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)

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.  Tewfik Talk 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)


 * I think Muslims identify with Hezbollah in terms of their fight against Occupation and Zionism not their perceived or actual hatred of Jews. I don't wish this to become a comment on the status of Jews within Islam.Palestine48 22:35, 12 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 ? . 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)

2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict
Hi! I noticed your entry on the "Requested Moves" page, and thought I should point out to you the bias in the title 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Firstly, the conflict was between Israel and the Islamofascist group Hezbollah, not between Israel and Lebanon. Secondly, the Islamofascists were the ones who started the whole thing by kidnapping innocent Israelis, so the word "Hezbollah" should come before "Israel". I propose the title be changed to "2006 Hezbollah-Israel conflict". Kindly do the needful. Thanks. Cerebral Warrior 10:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that since you are Israeli (which I realised after linking to your userpage fom th "Requested Moves" page), you may be interested in changing the title of the aforementioned article. For some reason, I am unable to do so, but since you are more experienced perhaps you could take the necessary action to ensure that the title of the article does not make it look like Israel made the first move. Sorry for the misunderstanding, I should have been clearer. Cheerio and good luck. :- ) Cerebral Warrior 12:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Gary Kirk's RfA


Transliteration of Jisr Al-Zarqa
Hi Tewfik. Thanks for your additions to the Jisr Al-Zarqa article. One thing though ... on the issue of transliteration of the name in Arabic. Standard transliteration uses the literal form of the word, which when written appears as Al-Zarqa. It is true that it is pronounced az-Zarqa, but that is not the correct transliteration of the word into English. Would you mind moving the page back to its original title? I would appreciate you doing it since I don't know how to. Thanks. Tiamut 20:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi and thanks Tewfik. Arabic definite article (MoS) can help you guys. It says the following:


 * Both the non-assimilated ("al-") or the assimilated ("ad-") form appear in various standards of transliteration, and both allow to recreate the original Arabic. For this manual of style, assimilated letters will be used, as it helps readers pronounce correctly.


 * Personally i prefer the non-assimilated but we have to respect the MoS. -- Szvest 11:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up ®


 * Thanks for getting a second opinion Tewfik. I too prefer the non-assimilated style, but if the Wiki MoS says its assimilated, so be it. Thanks also for explaining how to move a page. See you! Tiamut 23:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

David Weiss Halivni: rescued fair use image
Hey, I noticed on the page David Weiss Halivni that the last edit was you who "rescued fair use image". Firstly, the image is gone, but I was wondering how I (the uploader of the image) could have declared it a fair use image. He was a professor of mine and I got it originally from an article about him. I uploaded the picture on two occasions. The first was actually my very first contribution to wikipedia with a username and I therefore didn't know about wiki copyrights. The second time I uploaded it, I couldn't find a proper category for the copyright. How would I be able to classify this as a fair use image? Thanks, Valley2city 18:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC).


 * Tewfik, I uploaded the file again (Image:Halivni.gif) and again gave specific information about where it came from. Third time's the charm? Once you figure out the copyright thing could you possibly let me know how I can code it for future reference. Thanks, Valley2city 02:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC).

Jizya
You can shorten it up then why you decided to delet it all together? --- ابراهيم 21:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Areas of attack
I found a source, hopefully i can get more. I wanted to see if we could incorporate it into the 2006 Israel-Lebanon article. When the conflict first started i read on yahoo! and other sites (of course i cant find it now) how christian areas had been almost untouched, that hezbollah fighters and rocket launchers had been hiding in muslim (predominantly shi'a) neighborhoods. This site says "Shiite Muslims have been streaming into the town and other Christian areas seeking safe haven". Also, there has been much christian opposition to hezbollah, im sure you know but i havent seen much of it in the article if at all. --Shamir1 05:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
My administratorship candidacy succeeded with a final tally of 81/0/1. I appreciate your support. Results are at Recently_created_admins. Warmly,  Durova  21:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
''' Announcement: It's an administrator! '''

Tewfik, thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was a robust 62/1/1, so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any questions about my actions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thanks again, Chris Griswold

Palestine-stub
Hi, I see you get into trouble. Do you know today is International Day of Quds.--Sa.vakilian 05:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Judaism and Islam
I wanted to know your attitude about Islam exactly. So please help me if you would like. As I know this two religions have the most similarities among the others. You may think that Rasool Allah/Muhammad has derivated Islam from Judaism and we think some of you know him as the real prophet as written in the real Torat but don't confess. I wanted to know if there is any Jew who beleive that Muhammad is the massanger of The God like Moses but don't accept Islam. For example because he or she believe that Judaism hasn't been abrogated by God.--Sa.vakilian 11:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I read this . Why do you portrait the God. As I read it is forbidden in Judaism. Also there is written "The woman replied that they could eat any fruit other than that of the tree in the middle of the garden, which God had warned them neither to eat nor to touch, on pain of death. (Gen. 3:2–3.) The serpent told the woman that she would not die, but that as soon as she ate the fruit, her eyes would be opened and she would be like divine beings who knew good and bad. (Gen. 3:4–4.) When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, pleasing in appearance, and desirable as a source of wisdom, she ate some of its fruit and gave some to her husband to eat. (Gen. 3:6.) Then their eyes were opened and they saw that they were naked; and they sewed themselves loincloths out of fig leaves. (Gen. 3:7.)" what does it mean. You the God has told lie and serpemt told the truth. The God didn't want their eyes were opened . If it were the source of wisdom, they would do right to eat it and they should do it. It's completely against what we believe in it.

"العقل ما عبد به الرحمن و اكتسب به الجنان" Please read this: and --Sa.vakilian 19:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:WHMT
Hello,. You may or may not remember signing up for the Wikipedia Hangman Tournament, but the time has finally arrived for you to start your game! You have until, July 2024 (UTC) to begin your game by typing  on the corresponding round page. You should also visit your match page, as you will be able to see various aspects of your match.

I would also suggest:


 * Familiarizing yourself with the rules of the tournament. The rules include how to win, how to play, and how to navigate amongst the various pages of the tournament.
 * Visiting the Tournament 2 page, which has the rules and pairing for the tournament. Use the tournament tree to see tournament updates, as well as
 * Placing WikiHangman Tournament/Tournament 2/Match 7/Round 1/A, WikiHangman Tournament/Tournament 2/Match 7/Round 1/B, and WikiHangman Tournament/Tournament 2/Match 7 on your Special:Watchlist, as each of these will be updated with or without notice. As the match progresses, add subsequent pages to your watchlist.

If you have any questions at all regarding the procedures and rules of this tournament, please feel free to contact me at my talk page. Thanks again, and good luck!

In case you are wondering why it took so long to begin this tournament, my computer was not operating correctly, and my Internet usage was limited to public computers. My opportunities to use public computers were limited, so needless to say, I didn't have a lot of time to commit to Wikipedia. So, sorry if this has caused you any inconvience. Good luck! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget...
Don't forget to edit your Hangman game so that you have the correct amount of letter blanks. Edit the "word =" part, adding "."s for letters. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 16:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:WHMT I am the person you playing in the first round so i started my game i already a word pick so anytime you want pick yours so we can start guessing each other words ok just leave a meassage on my talk page when you want to start ok —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oo7565 (talk • contribs)

i started my game i been waiting for you to start yours so please doOo7565 08:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Will314159
I blocked him for 10 days per WP:AN/I. RyanG e rbil10 (Упражнение В!) 20:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Wills Section - Israel Lebanon
Agreed, but the abstract says "was described by the UN human rights chief Wednesday as having the potential to result in charges of "war crimes"", which I think has to be a violation of the convention. However, I've just realised the person making the statement is from the U.N, not Lebanon. I'm sure he's right, but I was waiting for him to give the reference. I notice he's blocked for a while, so I might have a go at finding a more accurate reference in a little while for him. Iorek85 06:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A quick glance and I couldn't find anything else. Plenty of NGOs claiming war crimes, but not the Lebanese government. I'm sure it did, though. Iorek85 09:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The Hill of the Wall
I'm glad I was able to interest you! That's part of my mission on this planet, to provide interesting ideas. Anyway, I have two responses to this:
 * 1) I believe the dispute over 'who is a terrorist' is far greater than 'what is a settlement'. If we look at 'common usage', at least as it appears this decade, the word 'militant' is far more prevalent in neutral press than the word 'terrorist'. On the other hand, the word 'settlement' is prevalent. Part of the reason for this is that those who believe that these areas are not settlements, even within Israel itself, are a fringe minority. As I said in the edit summary, reading accounts of the Har Homa construction in the book by Dennis Ross shows that even Bibi realized it was controversial and regarded it as a new settlement. One might say that it is not 'politically correct' to use the label 'terrorist' because of the motto that One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, but there is nothing politically incorrect about the word 'settlement'. Again, enough Israelis use it themselves (in reference to the Jerusalem area) that it's okay. In short, the two examples you gave are not comparable.
 * 2) There is also a POV situation on the Har Homa page. The word 'neighbourhood', in and of itself, is fine, and has a meaning in the English language. Similarly, the word 'settlement', in and of itself, also is fine and has a meaning in the English language. Any built up area in English is referred to as a settlement. London began as a settlement, Ramallah began as a settlement, and Reshion Letzion began as a settlement. However, both those words, in the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict, have political connotations. Those who refuse to use the word 'settlement' insist on the use of 'neighbourhood' instead because they see 'settlement' as a dirty word that denies the notion that these are Jewish lands and 'Arabs' need to be kicked out of it. Conversely, those who see the places as 'settlements' regard the whitewashing term 'neighbourhood' as intentionally misleading . In fact, I've always seen 'settlement' as the compromise between 'neighbourhood' and 'colony', because since I am not allowed to set foot or live near any of those places (even before any intifadas) for the sole reason that I'm not Jewish, that to me is the definition of a 'colony'. Some Palestinians actually think 'settlement' is just as whitewashing as 'neighbourhood' . However, you removed the "Israeli settlements" category but retained the "Jerusalem neighborhoods" category. The intro of that article is pretty POV as it is, relegating the 'settlement' aspect of it as a secondary sentence and omitting the fact that the original owners of 33% of the land (Beit Sahuris) are not allowed to live in the new "neighborhood" that their land was expropriated for (with little or no compensation compared to Jewish owners) because they themselves are not Jewish. So the strategy of slowly 'sterilizing' the reality of what Har Homa actually is - in the article - is something I find very disconcerting.

So what's to be done? Keep in mind that 1) the Hamas article does have a category "Designated Terrorist Organizations", 2) the word "neighbourhood" has political connotations just like "settlement", and 3) the dispute over the word "settlement" (itself a compromise neutral term) is not anywhere is intense as that over "terrorist". I would much rather keep "terrorist" in other articles if it means keeping "settlement" here, instead of having them both removed. This, despite the fact that the two situations are not comparable. Ramallite (talk) 14:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Before I respond to your comment, you failed to address the concern about the political connotation of "neighbourhood". If you remove the settlement category, you should also remove the neighbourhood category or address why one POV matters while the other doesn't. If you will tell me that the word 'neighbourhood' is not POV because it describes exactly what it is, then the same should go for 'settlement' since, if we're only talking about English language definitions, it applies also. However, I refuse to believe you are oblivious to the political connotations of each, even if you make an argument to the contary. I also have not "discounted" the fringe opinions other than calling them fringe opinions, as I'm not sure all the people you mentioned (including all Israeli governments) concur with what you wrote on my page. Lastly, I'm quite aware what I wrote about Palestinians with Jerusalem ID cards moving (albeit with difficulty and discrimination) into Jewish settlements, but in my post above I was referring to the Beit Sahuri landowners, who do not have Jerusalem ID cards, and cannot obtain them unless they are Jewish, and as such cannot live on the very land they once owned but what was forcefully taken. I appreciate your lack of appreciation of why this is a big deal since it may not have happened to you, but Palestinians are human beings too, and its not a bad idea for an encyclopedia to reflect some humanity once in a while. Ramallite (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You write "the Israeli government, the municipality of Jerusalem, and in my experience, most residents of such places, who have little or no cognisance of the political controversy, especially since it is treated the same as every other part of Jerusalem. Thus, the status of newly constructed neighbourhoods in the parts of Jerusalem annexed since 1967 are not universally recognised as "settlements," and as such should not be categorised as such."
 * I can easily respond: "The Palestinian Authority, Palestinian institutions in Jerusalem, and in my experience, most residents whose lands were expropriated for building these structures have high cognisance of the political controversy. The areas are not treated as every other part of Jerusalem because I don't recall when US pressure or political considerations prohibited/delayed the construction of buildings in Mea Shearim, for example. Thus, the status of the newly constructed settlements (ordinary English definition) in the parts of Jerusalem annexed since 1967 are not universally recognised as "neighbourhoods" (political connotation), and as such should not be categorized as such". Ramallite (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Tewfik, I only came across this interesting discussion a bit late in the day. I have put the settlements category back into Har Homa; I have also added my views in justification of that to the talk page, which are along different lines to Ramallite's (though I agree with all his points, as well). I might also be bold enough to suggest that since you and SlimVirgin appear to have won the rather unpleasant war of attrition over how to phrase the articles on the East Jerusalem settlements (there was never any consensus, just one side gave up in disgust), you might exercise some magnanimity in relation to their categorization, even if you disagree with all the arguments enlisted! I hope all is well with you, in any case. Palmiro | Talk 00:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't question your general commitment to NPOV, nor do I have any knowledge (and therefore can't question) your relating to the "Palestinian experience", whatever that may mean. My only argument is that, for those of us who live/lived there, we are very aware that the word 'neighbourhood' is being deliberately used in political circles to counter the word 'settlement'. In other words, two benign English words have, in the context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, become opposing POV words. And I won't even bring up "colony" here. It is when you regard just one word as POV, but not the other, (i.e. choosing to use the general English definition of one word without acknowledging its political usage, while emphasising the political meaning of the other words while ignoring its general English usage) that I see as lack of neutrality. I agree that it's all ridiculous, but I didn't create these POVs (or is it PsOV). Therefore, I appreciate that you are "absolutely commited" to NPOV, and hope that you realise that this would require inclusion of both or removal of both. Thanks Ramallite (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict
Kendrick7 & Nielswik are back adding Al-Manar as a source. I thought we wer through this before... Isarig 04:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka
Thank you for participating in my recent RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I appreciate that you took the time to comment, and I did pay close attention to your thoughts, as I find it a valuable thing to understand how I am perceived by others in the Wikipedia community. Though the RfA was unsuccessful, I intend to continue contributing in a positive manner to Wikipedia, and if there is anything that I can do in the future to help further address your concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. --Elonka 10:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Zionism
Take a look at the section and the talk page and offer comments if you want. --Daniel575 | (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that page was really necessary. Want to help along some? --Daniel575 | (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Palestine-stub
Hi Tewfik! Long time no see! Hope you're doing well.

What i don't fathom is that everytime such an issue is being debated a huge fuss is being made out of it. Mostly, there are political arguments that are contrasted w/ reason. Let's have a look at Category:Palestine. What's in there? I am afraid that the category covers and goes beyond the Palestinian Authority. So what's the diff between the cat and its related stub? -- Szvest 09:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I see your point of course but that doesn't mean that stub biographies of non politicians Palestinian people should be included in Category:Palestinian Authority. Palestine as a state doesn't exist but Palestinians do exist and of course they are related to a land called Palestine as they don't live in Colorado or Venus! -- Szvest 16:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * They also live in Asia. Palestine refers to a region, while Palestine stub refers to a specifc region and culture etc inside Palestine. That's why the stub is wrong... that's all there's to it. Amoruso 16:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Lists of species
Thanks for bringing my attention to the discussion. I did comment there. Is n't there any way to create lists as lists but not as articles? --Thameen 09:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If there is no way to annex lists to articles then this is a serious limitation of wikipedia. Thanks any way --Thameen 20:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hangman
Tewfik, your opponent is waiting for you to play.

First, you need to go here and place periods between the "word=" and the "|", in order to let your opponent know how many letters your word is. For instance, if your word has five letters, you'd edit "word= .....|".

Next, you need to go here and make your move. To make your move, you want to type # GUESSED LETTER in the game log. Then you guys can get to playing. Good luck! └ <b style="color:blue;">OzLawyer</b> / <i style="color:black;">talk</i> ┐ 14:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

hey i been waiting for you to look at the letter i guess on your hangman and waiting for you to pick another for yours ok hopefully soon Oo7565 16:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA
Thank you for supporting my RfA that I have passed with 73/2/1.--Jusjih 10:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Invitation to discuss
Hi there Tewfik. Would you mind coming to the Nazareth page to discuss your reversions at the Nazareth page. While you may have engaged in this kind of discussion before, I have not and would like to hear more of your reasoning for your reverts. In answer to your editing note, the name of the template is Palestinians (as in the a people known as Palestinians) and not the Palestinian territories (as you would have preferred). Therefore, appending it to the Nazareth article is perfectly legitimate. The entire town is Palestinian Arab, even if they live in the geographical entity known as Israel. Why should we deny readers an acquaintance with the history, culture and politics of the people who live there? To give you another example: let's say there is an article on the name of a native reservation in Canada. The template Canada would be there because that is the geographical location. The template Aboriginal Peoples or First Nations however, could also be placed there if it existed because the people there are of that national/cultural community. Would we fail to append the First Nations template because it might be viewed as making a claim to Canadian land? No. That would be quite ridiculous now wouldn't it? I await your comments on the talk page. Tiamut 20:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank You
I very much appreciate your response to my withdrawal. I will take the time to read up more on the issues and Wikipedia's policies before I make any further moves.

Regards, Ariedartin JECJY Talk 16:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Your Name
It's really misleading for Muslims on Wikipedia and no, I'm not saying that it was intentional. BhaiSaab talk 04:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 22:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you know what it means? BhaiSaab talk 22:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? I am still quite confused.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 22:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying it because I assumed you were Muslim because of the name - then I found out you're not. That's all. :) BhaiSaab talk 22:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you could have found out what religion (if any) I might adhere to, as (I think?) I try to not get to personal about those issues <abbr title="Sad face" style="border-bottom: none;">Face-sad.svg . But yes, I do know what توفيق means, as it is my family name. In any event, keep in mind that Islam isn't exclusively Arabic and that neither is Arabic exclusively Muslim. I'm sure you are aware of how complicated the world can be, and the Middle East is far from an exception. All the best,  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 22:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Third holiest site in Islam
Could you put your comments on the new lead on this page? What do you think? Elizmr 13:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)