User talk:Tewfik/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

• (rocky start) Archive 1
• (until 17-06-2006) Archive 2
• (until 03-08-2006) Archive 3
• (until 04-09-2006) Archive 4
• (until 30-10-2006) Archive 5
• (until 21-02-2007) Archive 6
• (until 27-05-2007) Archive 7
• (until 20-07-2007) Archive 8
• (until 31-10-2007) Archive 9

intersted in your view on this issue

Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-19_Inayat_Bunglawala. Tnx. Zeq 08:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

expert sources on anti-Zionism

I see you're contributing to the edition of the anti-Zionism article.

You've made an interesting point, i.e. that certain sources are not expert, including the poet Michael Rosen and Tanya Reinhart, of Tel Aviv University. However, the same applies to Diana Muir, a historian who makes claims pertaining to the field of statistics, and who misrepresents the very survey she's reviewing, claiming that it deals with anti-Zionism, when actually this term is not once mentioned in the paper.

My point is, either we delete all nonexpert sources or we leave them all.--Abenyosef 01:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Al-Aqsa Intifada

I would appreciate a response to my objections to your edits on the talk page there. I see that you are editing there now and ignoring my latest comment regarding the fact that s source was provided for non-violence as majority tactic, whereas you have no sources for the opposite point of view. I would appreciate acknwoledgement of this point. Thanks. Tiamut 10:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

My contributions show that I was not editing this or any other entry for over four hours prior to this message. Tewfik^Talk 17:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Your response here

I'd like your response here.Bless sins 21:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

A final warning

Tewfik, if you revert my well-sourced additions one more time, particularly as regards the indigneous status of Palestinians, I will report you and include a history of your reversions of all the well-sourced information I have added in the past. Please see: Category:Indigenous peoples. Note that it says only one source is required from an international, national or sub-national organization or scholar to establish indigeneity. I have provided over 7 in different arenas where we have had this discussion. I also appended the UN one to my inclusions of Palestinians to the indigenous pages in question. Stop. Now. Thanks. Tiamut 17:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent the situation with strawmen, and please don't issue these threats. Tewfik^Talk 19:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

User subsequently blocked for 3RR on that entry. Tewfik^Talk 22:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

I posted the following message on User Talk:GabrielF, and am pasting it here. Same story: if it is a mistake, and you can explain, I apologize, but otherwise I hope you will prevent the need for a report and/or further remedies. I might stress that there is more evidence I could provide, but have stuck with the main issues here. Respectfully, Mackan79 03:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi GabrielF. Your recent edits on Anti-Zionism and other pages have raised concerns with me and others that you and User:Tewfik are the same user. I'm laying out the basis for the concern below, so you can respond, before I file a request for checkuser. If there is some odd explanation for this, I apologize, and will gladly see this deleted.

My concern was raised by the following series of edits on Anti-Zionism on February 21, before which neither Tewfik nor GabrielF appear to have edited the page in several weeks or months:

• Edit 1: 20:44 21 Feb 2007 - Tewfik enters content dispute to revert Reinhart paragraph
• Edit 2 (Talk page): 20:47 21 Feb 2007 - Three minutes later, not Tewfik, but GabrielF leaves message "explaining revert" of Reinhart paragraph (see edit summary).

Huh? Ok, we wait.

• Edit 3 (Talk page): 21:03 21 Feb 2007 - Tewfik leaves message with nearly identical sentiment to GabrielF (but without acknowledging that GabrielF just said the same thing).
• Edit 4: 21:50 21 Feb 2007 - Tiamut reverts Tewfik back to Mackan
• Edit 5: 22:17 21 Feb 2007 - GabrielF finally reverts Tiamut in first edit on page since 13 September 2006

Ok, so specifically: What revert were you explaining at 20:47 21 Feb 2007? It appears Tewfik was the only individual who had just reverted the page, 3 minutes ago. You had not reverted the page for several months prior. So it a coincidence that you show up for the first time, 3 minutes after Tewfik's also-first revert on the page to directly explain it?

In this regard I also found another sequence of interest, which I recalled from Zionism.

• Edit 1: 15:54, 16 Feb 2007 - GabrielF reverts material for POV concerns.
• Edit 2 (Talk page): 15:58, 16 Feb 2007 - Four minutes later, GabrielF leaves message "explaining my last revert further" (see edit summary)

And then on Racism by country:

• Edit 1: 15:48, 12 Feb 2007 - GabrielF reverts, wanting more discussion
• Edit 2 (Talk page): 15:55, 12 Feb 2007 - Seven minutes later, GabrielF leaves comment with "explanation of revert" in talk.

Two points:

1. A person generally does not say they are "explaining revert" unless they have actually reverted. Rather, they post an explanation, and then revert "per talk." "Explaining revert" generally suggests one has already reverted, not that one plans to do so.
2. Your previous editing indeed seems to show that your pattern is to revert and then "explain" your revert, not to "explain revert" and then assume the material will still be there to do so.

Based on these issues, I took a look through each of your edit logs (Tewfik [1] and GabrielF [2]), and was interested to find a very strong correlation. That is, when GabrielF is editing, Tewfik is not. In fact, despite rather heavy editing by both accounts, I could not find a single day among the first seven months of Tewfik's account where you were editing at the same time. This held true until 25 May 2006. On that day, you (GabrielF) inexplicably went on a spree reverting vandalism on many random pages, something you hadn't done before, along with placing a series of "test" templates on user pages in very close succession. Tewfik, during this period, went on editing as normal.

In other words, the one time you edited at the same time, it was done in the way that would most likely have been orchestrated with a friend (or alone) to cover your tracks, and in a way that was highly inconsistent with your previous style of editing.

In sum, I find this very frustrating, because you seem to be a dedicated editor, if also somewhat of a dedicated edit warrior as Tewfik. In fact, I did not plan to report this based on the first incident on anti-Zionism, despite having seen the events unfold, because I did not want to deal with the hassle. Unfortunately, your continued reversions on the same page force my hand. Ultimately, if this is a misunderstanding, I will be happy to find out why, and will apologize fully. Alternatively, if you would like to admit that you are the same user, and that it was simply a mistake on your part (technical and/or judgment) that you ended up editing on the same page a few times, I will be happy to simply see Tewfik retired, along with his combative style of editing. If there is a poor explanation, however, with all respect, I think a checkuser and any subsequent remedies may be necessary.

I hope we can deal with this constructively. I'm also posting this on User:Tewfik. Mackan79 03:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I can appreciate how wanting to find a connection can lead one to see what isn't there, and I don't blame you for that. However I do take offence at your 'respectful' description of me as a dedicated edit warrior with a combative style, and I question what type of response you imagined that that would elicit. Tewfik^Talk 08:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

(Pasted from my talk): Unfortunately, I found myself in a situation on February 21 where I was writing a response to GabrielF's explanation of Tewfik's revert. Sorry, I found that odd. Should I not have? I'm also sorry this has now escalated to wild personal attacks. In any case, I guess the first thing is to see what checkuser says. Mackan79 17:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser request has been placed here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/GabrielF Mackan79 19:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tewfik -- Sorry about the report, and thanks for your civil response. You seem to have seen what raised my concern, and I appreciate that. Based on your response, I probably would have discussed the matter in more detail, but unfortunately the dialogue with GabrielF seemed to escalate the matter where a checkuser seemed necessary. Best, Mackan79 16:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

sockpuppetry

Hmmm... If we're actually the same person than why are we paying twice for our official Cabal membership cards? It seems like we should get a multiple-personality discount.

I'd bring this up with Jimbo but I have a sneaking suspicion that he's actually only a voice in my fusiform gyrus.

GabrielF 19:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Newer, secondary source versus older, primary source

Hey Tewfik. I noticed you changed the >530 citation back to 600, citing that the secondary source was newer than the primary source. I don't disagree with you per se on this point, but we need to be consistent. The same newer secondary source lists the Israeli military death toll at 120 (one more than the current article, which cites an older, primary source at 119), and the Israeli civilian death toll at 39 (four less than the current article, which again cites an older primary source at 43). I don't really care which way we go on this, but I think it's important we be consistent, in the interest of accuracy (and, to a lesser extent, neutrality). I'm going to update the Israeli military and civilian figures to also match the newer, secondary source, but I just wanted to give you a heads up. Cheers. — George Saliba ^[talk] 08:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Request help...

Hi. I don't seem to like the category I created [3]. Sorry. What is your concern about it? I was about to split it by creating a "Military operations involving Isreal and the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict" category for the more recent ones. There are so many military operations that it can be useful to split them. I also created this category [4]. I find separating out the battles useful from the larger "conflict" category. I have been trying to think of a good name for a Palestinian equivalent that doesn't use the word terrorism. Something alone the lines of "Palestinian militant operations and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" which could contain all Palestinian attacks both against civilians and military targets. This wouldn't replace any existing terrorism or massacre categories but rather collect all of the operations in one place. --HistoryBuff1983 05:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it is best to start with an equivalent category to "Battles involving Israel", how about "Battles involving Palestinian militants"? --HistoryBuff1983 05:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you don't like the categories? I think they help. I see the templates and they are good too. Are you going to remove ever category I made? I was copying this category "Battles and operations of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War" and "Battles of the Yom Kippur War" in a way. --HistoryBuff1983 05:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing some of my mistakes. Sorry. I just realized I misspelled Jordan in this new category relations and I just found "Category:Nursing_schools_in_Palestine" with one entry which shouldn't have been there so I removed it. --HistoryBuff1983 06:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

reuters

look [here] amos 19:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

why is it needed to be used in an article to stand out? the line sais reuters is still hosting an image by hajj on it's website, and that is exactly what it is. i think i probably didn't understand you. amos 22:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Asia topic

Please stop breaking the template. While you may be looking at a particular use of it where "the" is not required, in most cases it is vital. Warofdreams talk 01:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, just check the examples on the talk page. Geography of the Palestinian territories makes sense as a link (although it is currently a redirect), Geography of Palestinian territories does not, and does not exist. This is the same for every use of the template. You can see exactly the same format for other countries with names which take the definite article, such as the Philippines. Warofdreams talk 03:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

But your revision isn't an actual example of the template in use. It's not used anywhere else to simply link to the national entities. Take a look at the talk page and the Wikipedia:Guidelines for "(Continent) topic" templates to understand how this template is used. Warofdreams talk 03:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Arab citizens of Israel

Hi Threeafterthree, Unfortunately, your observation about conflict carrying over is often true, though WP generally lets us sort more out than not in the end. As for your compromise, I'm afraid it is has the same problem, since the same Arab Israelis that don't identify as Palestinians, don't identify as Palestinian people. It would be like labelling the population of N. Ireland Catholic or Protestant - neither fits both. That some Arab Israelis identify as Palestinian is represented in the text, but such a disputed description should not be applied across the board as a category (per policy). Cheers, and thanks for your help in any event. Tewfik^Talk 19:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Okie dokie. Thanks for the explaination. Cheers! --Tom 20:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Zionism and racism allegations

It is being considered to be moved back to Zionism and racism. I noticed you were the one who moved it to the "allegations", so I would be interested in hearing what you think on the matter. Thanks.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 20:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Free Spirits & Christianity

Hi Tewfik. I've done a massive redraft on the Brethren of the Free Spirit article. I was wondering if you wanted to put the Wikipedia 'Christianity' tag thing on it - or if not who I should bring it to the attention of? I would do it myself but I don't really know how. Hope this is ok.ThePeg 14:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Palestine election map.PNG

Tewfik. I corrected the category for the image. Category:Maps of the Palestinian territories is correct. Not Category:Maps of Palestine as you put it in twice now. Your edit summary was: "please don't create cats for single images when they can populate supercats".

There are multiple images in Category:Maps of the Palestinian territories. See the subcategories there. They have more images. Please learn more about image categorization. I have been categorizing many images with only a couple complaints. --Timeshifter 05:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said there are more images in the subcategories. Also, I just found many more uncategorized images that belong in the top level of the category. I am adding them now. --Timeshifter 05:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

See how wikimedia commons categorizes these maps:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps_of_the_Palestinian_territories --Timeshifter 05:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of the images on the commons were already categorized in their present categories before I started categorizing them.

Many of the images belong in both of these categories:

Category:Maps of Israel

Category:Maps of the Palestinian territories

Where applicable the images are put in both categories. --Timeshifter 05:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Maps often cover more than one nation or territory. So both wikimedia commons and wikipedia have a long history of categorizing maps in multiple categories. --Timeshifter 06:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Maps are given various names by their uploaders. The maps are then used by other people on many different wikipedia pages. Those wikipedia pages concern different nations and territories. Thus the maps are categorized under multiple nation and territory categories. The maps are not owned by the original uploader, nor by the name the original uploader applies to the map. Oftentimes the uploader only puts the name of one nation in the image name. There is not room to put all the nation and territory names. It would make the image name too long. Category content includes the subcategories, too.--Timeshifter 06:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am talking about both the filenames and the maps. The maps cover multiple nations and territories, and not just one nation or topic.--Timeshifter 06:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Your objection is clear to me. But it goes against a long history of wikipedia and wikimedia map categorization. I have been categorizing many maps. From other regions, too. As far as I remember I have had only 2 complaints. I went along with the other complaint. I disagree with your complaint.--Timeshifter 07:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Look at

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps

You will see that maps are often categorized under multiple categories representing the nations and territories covered by the map. --Timeshifter 07:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Buss Suicide Bombing West Jerusalem3.jpg

Yes, that wasn't a model of an explanatory deletion summary, it's true. I was closing Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 February 22 and deleted the image as part of that. The image should never have been uploaded here in the first place, as it came from AP. Associated Press makes it living from providing its subscribers and readers with informative content, enhanced by commercial photography. We cannot then take that photography, which they pay for and relicense, and use it to illustrate our articles and claim that there is no commercial impact. That is what I meant by "From information provider". Counterexample #5 at Wikipedia:Fair use mentions this explicitly. If you know of any other images like this, please do nominate them for deletion. Thanks. Jkelly 17:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

CSD

Before nominating a category as empty-cat, please ensure that it is empty. If you do not it will leave red-linked category on other pages. If you disagree with the tagging of en: pages for commons:'s media (e.g. Image:Hitt Egypt Perseus.png), please resovle that issue first. Deleting the category will not delete the en: media page, but will red-link it's cats (encouraging someone to recreate them). — xaosflux ^Talk 01:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I must be missing something, when I look at Category:Maps of the Palestinian territories it shows three entries: Subcat Category:Maps of Gaza Strip, subcat Category:Maps of the history of the Palestinian territories and media page: Image:Israel.png. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As for the content dispute, I don't really want to get involved in it. I'm looking at this from a "Red-links encourage creation of a page for the red-link" POV. To that, deleting a category with inbound category links encourages someone else to recreate it. The same would go for subcategories that are uplinked to it. In that case I'd suggest either also nominating the sub-category, or editing the sub-category to remove the "parent" category. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think we need to recreate commons: cats here for media that isn't on here. The tags reffering people to the commons' categories can be put on the articles and or article categories. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Commons media in English wikipedia categories

Commons media are for the use of all wikipedia sites worldwide. The English wikipedia category pages for those commons media list the English wikipedia pages on which those commons media are used.

The commons page for a particular image does not list the English wikipedia pages on which that image is being used.

Sometimes better images are uploaded that can replace lesser-quality images. Without the list of English-language wikipedia pages it would be very difficult to find and replace a particular image on multiple English-language wikipedia pages.

There are images in English wikipedia categories that would not be accepted in the commons. Gif images, fair use images, etc.. So the link to the commons category allows for more public-domain images to be used in English wikipedia pages.

The existence of the English wikipedia category allows for links to be made to the commons category of the same name. So English wikipedia editors then know of the additional commons media available to them. Those images are sometimes better, as explained previously. Oftentimes there is a larger selection of images at the commons.

The existence of the English wikipedia category also allows a logical location for links to the English wikipedia subcategories.

Not all commons images are suitable for placement in English wikipedia categories. Images captioned in other languages for example.

As many others have done I put some of the English-language commons images in the English wikipedia categories. This saves editors time in finding images. Because they don't have to click many commons images to open them up and see what language is used on the image.

It is common for a map or media to be in several categories. There are many examples of this. Maps, for example, often show several nations, territories, etc..--Timeshifter 09:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Categories

As for Category:Maps of Gaza Strip, I think that as Image:Gz-map.png (the only local image) is public domain, it should be transwiki'd to commons: then deleted. Then there would be no need for this category here, and the other projects would benefit from another image. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

And if the other images pages existed just to add it to a category here, they should be deletable as well, thus emptying the category. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

See my comment in the above section. --Timeshifter 08:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

transjordan, western palestine

Hello Tewfik, Here is how the text was before:

Between July 1922 and 1948, the term Palestine referred to the British Mandate of Palestine. After the seperation of Transjordan, the term referred to Western Palestine,

First there is a contradiction, since the first sentence says that Palestine meant the full area of the Mandate (which included Transjordan) up to 1948 while the second says that it only meant the west part after the separation of Transjordan. Second, the separation of Transjordan preceded the coming-into-legal-existence of the Mandate, so the time sequence is wrong. Third, it seems confusing to say in effect "Palestine meant Western Palestine" as if there is also another Palestine that isn't Palestine. The facts as I understand them is that before the Mandate came into effect "Palestine" was only informally defined, then as soon as the Mandate came into effect the British administration began to use Palestine to refer to the left bit and Transjordan to refer to the right bit. --Zero^talk 07:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Multiple categories for maps

It is common for a map to be in many categories. I have seen many examples of this. Just today you added more categories to some maps. So you left those maps in multiple categories. We discussed the need for this previously on my user talk page. --Timeshifter 08:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Incorrectly adding template to some map pages

You are incorrectly adding this template to some map pages:

• Template:NowCommons
• Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons

You are adding that template to maps that are already on the commons.

I explained previously about wikipedia category pages that include commons maps. Let me clarify. When one put a commons map in a wikipedia category, one is NOT storing the map at wikipedia. It is still at the commons.

Look at one of the map pages where you incorrectly added the template: Image:Gz-map.gif. It says on the wikipedia map page, "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. The description on its description page there is shown below."--Timeshifter 20:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The record will show that I just pasted the message from xaosflux (ibid) onto Timeshifter's Talk, and he promptly removed it under the strange edit summary:revert. Please do not sign for other people. Feel free to quote them, though. And be sure to add your signature., and then went on to revert the edits I made based on that response from xaosflux. Tewfik^Talk 20:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

On my talk page you added 2 old comments from Xaosflux. I had previously replied to his comments where he made them. So he may have changed his mind since then. I removed them because you did not write anything to explain them. Those 2 comments just appeared on my talk page by themselves, but you were listed in the revision history. Some would consider that to be deceptive. When you put them back and explained what you were doing I left them in. Please be clearer next time. --Timeshifter 21:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Mess Up

Hi Tewfik, I wonder if you can help. I've made a bit of a mess up on two entries I've made to do with titles and don't know how to change them. One is Rosicrucian Manifestoes which should read Rosicrucian Manifestos. The other is Monad Hieroglyphic which should read Monas Hieroglyphica with redirects from Monad Hieroglyphic and Hieroglyphic Monad. Would you be willing to change them for me? I don't know how. Thanks! ThePeg 22:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting this out, Tewfik! I often find myself lost trying to figure out Wikipedia intsructions. Can't make head or tail of how to post pictures, for instance, in spite of looking at the section you recommended! Much appreciated! ThePeg 10:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

MAavak Sozialisti deletion

Shalom, Would [5] establish notability in your opinion? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 09:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr Tewfiq, Please be so kind as to respond. Thanks ابو علي (Abu Ali) 22:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Map

Hi, thanks for bring the map to my attention. I am honestly not sure I can come up with a proper replacement, since many of the things on the map are constantly changing and it would be difficult to come up with an accurate version. Which brings me to the point that the map in question should absolutely not be used for any purpose on Wikipedia, because it has countless factual errors, as well as dubious POV statements. I mean, what's 'Greater Jerusalem'? Who defined it? Are they talking about the security barrier?

In any case, I'll see what I can do, maybe I'll come up with something. But for now please oppose the usage of the current version in any way you can. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Here's another related map, although it does not show the expansion plan. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

For example, the 'main roads' are all screwed up (important roads aren't marked, minor roads marked as 'main'), and there are a few fictitious roads. For example, notice on the map the part of Adummim to the left of the main cluster, so to say - it is supposed to be left of a 'major road'. Actually it's to the right of another major road, as you can plainly see here, and the road to this neighbourhood's right, as the map shows, doesn't even exist (although there is one somewhat resembling it). In addition it's hard to say whether the map even shows areas in West Jerusalem because it chose its edge like that on purpose, but I don't think it shows Ramat Rachel, the edge of which is supposed to be just barely visible.

As you said yourself, it also doesn't show Mount Scopus at all, doesn't show the Jewish Quarter of the old city, and the Jewish cemetery in the Mount of Olives seems to be marked as 'Palestinian Built-up'. These are the most outstanding direct factual errors, although there are a lot of subtle errors (never heard of the name Pisgat O'mer) and deceptions on the map.

Also I have doubts about the authenticity of the location of E1 on that map, which is actually the Ma'ale Adummim forest - I don't think they deforest the area after spending so much money on it, especially considering there's so much empty space around! I believe the real E1 is between Ma'ale Adummim and Anata (as on this map), also because I was just recently there and they're building a lot of things, notably multiple new roads.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: email

I don't know what you mean by "unlinked Commons pages". Could you please explain? CSD I2 is for image description pages for images that don't exist here. MECU≈talk 16:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

deletion from "1947 Partition Plan"

The text was: "The British proposed a divided Palestine between a Jewish and an Arab State, but in time changed their opinion (see: 1939 White Paper) and sought to limit Jewish immigration from Europe to a minimum. This was seen as betrayal of the terms of the mandate especially in light of the Holocaust in Europe and was met with a popular uprising and guerrilla war from Jewish militant groups (viewed by many at the time as terrorist organisations) that finally forced the British to leave Palestine and hand the problem over to the United Nations." This is very poor text for several reasons. The first event is unidentified; I guess it is supposed to mean the Peel Commission proposal from 1937 but only people who already know about that will understand. They did change their minds in 1939, but they didn't seek to "limit Jewish immigration from Europe to a minimum". The minimum would have been 0 but they allowed for 75,000. Less than the Zionists wanted, true, but not a minimum. The worse sentence is the connection to the Holocaust which is tendentious and historically incorrect. There was no Holocaust in 1939 and the immigration quota did not have an effect in practice since the quota was not reached. The main thing that happened was that Germany closed the exit routes before the immigration certificates were given out (which was mostly under Jewish Agency control). At the least this is a controversial issue that belongs in a detailed discussion and not in a brief summary. For the last part, "viewed by many at the time as terrorist organisations" makes me cringe. Why are people so eager to apply labels? Also, it is a matter of opinion whether Britain was forced to leave by the violence. Most historians relate it to a variety of factors that include domestic politics, US intentions in the Middle East, the Cold War, etc etc, as well as the local violence. A brief summary should just state the fact of Britain deciding to leave and not try to present one of many viewpoints about it. --Zero^talk 10:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni&diff=prev&oldid=119004521 Zeq 08:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced anti-Israel statements

Hi, I won't be able to edit for the next couple days so please watch out for the user Al Almeer son, who is inserting anti-Israeli propaganda, such as this without providing sources, and keeps doing it despite my reverts. Assuming good faith, I have contacted him about it (user seems new on Wikipedia, and has arguably improved some articles about Israeli Arab towns). He also went under an IP address before, and made a number of similar insertions, please take a look here and revert and more damage (like in Majd al-Krum, I simply have no time at the moment). Many thanks, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 04:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I will try to get the map that you asked together as soon as I can.

Talk:Arab citizens of Israel

your commentary is requested here: Sikkuy and criticism about Arab Israeli economy influencing culture. Jaakobou 20:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:1929 Hebron massacre

i left you a message there for discussion^[6], please don't revert blindly, i'm sure we can get an agreement quickly if we just try to do it with reason. Jaakobou 23:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Beit Sahour

Could you please reproduce the section you are referencing in this edit. Specifically, I'm concerned about some of the details: did they cut all telephone communication? who were the 40, were they selected at random? From whom was money or goods taken, etc. Many thanks, Tewfik^Talk 03:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've given references to the source material, but don't feel like typing it all in (you can find PDF'd page scans on line if your library subscribes to JSTOR). -Moorlock 06:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand that it could be tiresome to reproduce the text. Perhaps you could just clarify the points above that you are basing the statements on and/or provide specific page numbers for the cited statements? Thank you, Tewfik^Talk 16:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'd very much appreciate if you could provide specific page numbers for the statements and/or quote the relevant lines. Thank you, Tewfik^Talk 22:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Seriously: I've given the author, title, publication, and date of publication. I'm not going to go back and look it up again so I can type in the section by hand to satisfy your curiosity. You need to do your own homework if you're curious. -Moorlock 22:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I never asked you to type the section by hand. I made a perfectly reasonable and polite request for either the specific line/s, or their page numbers. Tewfik^Talk 00:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It's amazing what a few seconds of Googling will get you. -Moorlock 00:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I know exactly where the document is located. I want to know what the page numbers for the assertions are. Tewfik^Talk 00:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Mizrahi (political party)

Just wondered where you got the "official" spelling? The Knesset website doesn't really count given its horrible inconsistencies (spelling Chaim Weizmann two different ways on the same page!). Number 57 21:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It took me a while to find your message on my talk page! Anyway, I'm afraid I have reverted the transliteration on the article pages again because (a) Unicode characters don't show up on most computers and it would be silly to let most readers see a box in the middle of the word, (b) the standard Israeli transliteration of the letter is "kh" (see Romanization of Hebrew) and (c) italicised words after names in other alphabets are meant to give an accurate guide to pronounciation rather than a reflection of spelling (which is included in the article title) and in English "kh" is about the closest you can get to a ח (leaving it as just "h" would be misleading). Given that the subjects in question would be little known outside Israel, it makes sense to use the standard Israeli spelling. Number 57 08:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Dispute on Israel's infobox

Perhaps you'd want to contribute to the discussion on Template_talk:Israel-InfoBox#Request_for_Comment:_Israel.27s_area_figure_in_the_infobox. Isarig 02:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Israeli apartheid

In an op-ed for the Jerusalem Post, Gerald Steinberg, Professor of Political Studies at Bar Ilan University, argued that "Black labor was exploited in slavery-like conditions under apartheid, in contrast, Palestinians are dependent on Israeli employment due to their own internal corruption and economic failures."[69]

That sentence is under "Status of Israeli-Arabs." The people Steinberg refers to are Palestinians, and makes it clear by saying "their own internal corruption and economic failures" (of the Palestinian Authority). I havent been involved with this article recently, so I just ask that you can make it work well. --Shamir1 17:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hebron

I know, that's why it's taking me longer than usual, because I'm trying to make my response detailed. I'm really busy at the moment, but I'm going to try to get it done by tomorrow. Khoikhoi 04:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Capture vs. Kidnap vs. Abduct

Hi Tewfik. I noticed that you changed all the variations of "capture" to "abduct" in the 2006 Lebanon War article. I started a discussion over here as to why I disagree with this edit, per an earlier discussion held on the Hezbollah article talk page. I'm not going to revert your edit; I just wanted to try to describe my reasoning. Cheers. — George Saliba ^[talk] 20:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

False Flag Page

Your edit of my false flag examples, I consider to be wrong. I want to indicate with the star next to these items that they are indeed true, however, they are unpopular/blacked out of the American Media and thus may be critisized and labeled conspiracy theories as such. My goal is not to spread controversy and get people arguing over the details of these events which happens frequently, but to give more examples of false flag examples in history including those which are currently oppressed by the country that created them. A false flag is not just something that can happen 100 years or more ago and I want people to realise that. If there is a better way I can word the events of 9-11-2001 or Pearl harbor, I'm willing to listen, however I don't appreciate things being outright deleted. The double astricks was no more of an indicator than a dictionary warning somebody that a word is considered vulgar-slang or innapropriate in some cultures. Outright censorship of such, however, is wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pretest (talk • contribs) 04:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

In response to your message, it's not taking a vote to see what the 'popular' belief is on a subject. I took both sides by labeling such events false flags, however indicating the fact that certain countries (Namely the USA) are censoring such views because it is advantageous for them to do so. The USA does not constitute 'a majority' of the people in this world, although they think they do and try to push their beliefs upon the entire world. I don't know how more neutral I can be in presenting useful information to people. If I wanted to read a bunch of censored or filtered articles then I would go to the library and thumb through britannica. There are hundreds of other articles that can use cleaning up, however, because the topic isn't so controversial, people ignore them. Why am I even wasting my time with this anymore... or this site for that matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pretest (talk • contribs) 01:03, 27 April 2007

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States military aid to Israel

The debate was closed by the time I got to the computer! Number 57 08:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This time I've made it clear I'm for deletion! Number 57 08:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for that :) Number 57 08:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Requesting feedback at 2006 Lebanon War talk

Hi, I noticed that you're one of the fairly active editors on the 2006 Lebanon War article. If you have a chance, please take part in the requested move discussion going on there. The move is in regards to whether we should use uppercase "War" or lowercase "war" in the article title. Whether you agree or disagree with my position, your feedback and vote would be appreciated. Cheers. — George Saliba ^[talk] 18:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hassan Bek Mosque

I appreciate your changes, my only concern was that it would be grammatically incorrect. I like the current version. I am now getting some steam from someone who doesn't like the way I cite things on my article. Could you help me with this? I would greatly appreciate it.--Brad M. 21:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

UNIFIL soldiers & human shields

Hey Tewfik. Good point that the information should be kept somewhere. I've moved it to the Attacks on United Nations personnel during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict article. I'm not sure if this is the best place, but it seemed more accurate, since I don't think military personnel can be human shields (not in a war crimes sense at least), and I think we should keep all these sections as concise and to the point as possible, given the articles length. If you find somewhere more appropriate, I'm open to that too – it just doesn't look like the main article currently mentions any of the UNIFIL casualties due to Israeli bombing (which would also be a good place). Maybe we should add another section to the "Casualties" section named something like "Foreign nationals and international peacekeepers." We have a sub-article that covers that though, so it may not be necessary. Cheers. — George Saliba ^[talk] 22:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply

(copied from my talk page)

My apologies. I saw the initial message but I got sidetracked. I will go look at the page now. IrishGuy ^talk 23:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. If I am reading the conversation correctly: It looks like one editor told you to go ahead and be bold. Another seemed to agree that clarification might be needed, but I don't think he/she agreed with your idea for change. (the comments aren't against your suggestion, but I'm not sure the editor was for it either) The third editor obviously disagreed entirely. I don't personally think that a consensus on the wording was reached. More discussion might be beneficial, but I don't know the history between you and the disagreeing editor. IrishGuy ^talk 23:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

GA ref cleanup

Great job on the reference cleanup for the GA review! One thing – I noticed in one of the diffs[7] that you merged two sources which I don't think were the same article. It looks like you merged this article with this article. They're both from CNN, but one is from two days later (note the url). Just wanted to give you a heads up. I'm not very good with references formatted with templates, so I'll leave you to take a look at it. — George Saliba ^[talk] 07:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"Apartheid wall" / "Separation fence"

I don't really disagree with your removal of the words "Apartheid Wall" in the timeline at Allegations of Israeli apartheid, but they were added for a reason. There's another editor who removes anything that doesn't explicitly contain the word "apartheid", claiming it is "original research". So when he removes an item, it has to go back in with language that inarguably refers to the term. That's what's drove this bit of language. --John Nagle 18:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

(pasted from Nagle's Talk)

I understand the problems you might have, and I acknowledge that its inclusion in the timeline might be subject to a discussion determining what is or is not relevant. However, it is mentioned in the entry, which is where one can find reference to the arguments "alleging apartheid". Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 22:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a mess again; take a look at the last few edits. Someone put in a quote, that got a "citation needed", and if that's left in, it will be deleted. So I put in "called apartheid wall by critics", which is accurate, verifiable, and not too slanted either way. The magic words have to be in there or the usual suspects will delete it as "original research". --John Nagle 00:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you didn't leave this comment on my talk like the last one, but you must be mistaken about what you described. I see no {{cn}} tags or any other edits to the timeline other than yours...(?) Tewfik^Talk 02:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This edit added a {{fact}} tag, which outputs "Citation needed". --John Nagle 03:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Despite having looked twice, I missed that. As an aside, the timeline is beggining to verge on OR at this point, and I'm afraid that unless very specific criteria are laid out, it would probably be best not to have it at all. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 21:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll do it

I'll mediate any dispute you might have, just make the request. I hope, of course, you've improved on what I previously mentioned, or at least that you remember something about what I said. If you'd like to take it to the medcab, that'd be great, or maybe a subpage on someone's userpage. GofG _|^|_| Talk 21:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. A quick glance does not show that you posted this to the MedCab. More informal than that? GofG _|^|_| Talk 21:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

U.S. military aid to Israel

OK, OK -- I'll take a closer look soon. It sounds like a lot of quibbling. The recent AFD reveals an almost scandalous lack of gratitude among the pro-Israeli editors for all that American taxpayers' dollars have done for their beloved country. Maybe the day my last pittance of a check to the U.S. Treasury cleared the bank isn't the best time to find me feeling neutral. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Walls of Constantinople GA Review

Thanks for your keen eye on this article. I am looking for sources for the latter part of the Theodosian Walls section, but it might take me a few days. Thanks, in advance, for your forebearance. Argos'Dad 01:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hamas and Beit Lahia massacres

Hey wuts up, i wanna know why you removed the "massacre" headings in the Beit Lahia article when clearly they were massacres and removed crucial information on Israel's truce violations in the Hamas article which is factual and Arab propaganda which i believe you assumed

until you explain why you made these "adjustments" i will rewrite what i had wrote earlier in these articles -- User: Al Ameer son 08:13, 3 May 2007

Hey y'akhi thanks for the explanations i see you do have justified reasons on your corrections of these two articles and I wont rewrite the subheadings any more

thanks on the compliment. I've seen all of the huge contributions you made for this site and all i got to say is keep up the good work salaam - User: Al Ameer son 18:49, 5 May 2007

Hey Tewfik thanks again for the info and I searched the specific topic about the 1948 killings in Majd el-Krum and I found a number of sources that cite that the event is factual including a UN archive but I'm still not sure whether those sources are reliable since many of them do seem Pro-Arab. I put the sources on the Shagor page if you want to oversee them and if they are not valid I will try to find more attributable ones. Thanks

As for the naming of the Mohammad Bakri article, I had the notion that there was an "a" not an "e" because when I constructed it, I used the spelling that his offical website had used I only questioned it because on the article "Private" he is a part of the star cast and his name was spelled Mohammed.

P.S. I assume you're Arab i was wondering what country you're from. - bye now User: Al Ameer son

RE: RE Shagor History

Hey Tewfik Thanks again for the info and I searched the specific topic about the 1948 killings in Majd el-Krum and I found a number of sources that cite that the event is factual including a UN archive but I'm still not sure whether those sources are reliable since many of them do seem Pro-Arab. I put the sources on the Shagor page if you want to oversee them and if they are not valid I will try to find more attributable ones. Thanks

As for the naming of the Mohammad Bakri article, I had the notion that there was an "a" not an "e" because when I constructed it, I used the spelling that his offical website had used I only questioned it because on the article "Private" he is a part of the star cast and his name was spelled Mohammed.

P.S. I assume you're Arab i was wondering what country you're from. - Salaam User: Al Ameer son

Ra'ama name change

Hello sorry to bother you again but I would like to ask you for a favor and thats changing the name of the article i just constructed - Ra'ama to Rama which is how it is most widely regognized as well as pronounced. CBS spells it Rame which how it is pronounced by locals but Rama is the approriate title for it. (It should also not be confused with the ancient Indian king, Rama). Tahnks a lot User: Al Ameer son

Actually the name they have on CBS is also the way the town's residents and the majority of the Galilee's Arab residents pronounce it so I think Rame should be the name we use as the Title of the article. The reason I mentioned Rama is because under certain websites and internet links relating to the town, it is spelled Rama - User: Al Ameer son

Isreali Students

Shalom. I wrote a request on WP:ISRAEL for an atricl eon the students. [8] Can you help? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 21:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Re Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine's scope

Hi Tewfik,

...the differences between Palestine, State of Palestine, Palestinian National Authority, Palestinian territories etc ... regarding the just reborn Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine. It seems to me that there is a vagueness about the scoping of the WikiProject that will ultimately allow it to conflate all of the above terms in a manner that would never be tolerated in the article-space...

Thanks for an intriguing (and generous!) message; to put my first thoughts in a nutshell, I imagine there'll be folk who'll keep the project's pages on their watchlist and/or spot any creeping POVs, agendas, etc. To expand the nutshell a little, my impression is that "Palestine" is probably the most appropriate name for the project, if it follows the goals and scope it declares on its page. I realize, however, that this rides on my taking "Palestine" to mean the geographical area, i.e. per the Palestine article. Assuming this is also the project's interpretation, perhaps it would be worthwhile to insert a statement or statements along the lines of "...about the [historical and?] geographical area known as Palestine" in the Goals and/or Scope sections on the project's page, i.e. at or near its beginning... Anyway, there's some first thoughts!  Best wishes, David (talk) 07:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Palestine scoping

No, I agree that the scoping ambiguity is an issue, and that careful wording of the scoping statement (on template and category) is necessary. The trouble with the previous case was extending that line of argument to the template name. Alai 06:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguity does not, in and of itself, make a usage "less than factual". The term "Israel" (say) is not without ambiguity, but no-one raises (any serious) objection to its use in templates. Alai 07:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The ambiguity is greater in the latter case, but I don't think there's any danger of success in arguing that it's absent in the former -- in Wikipedia, much less in general. And as for your assertions about the general intent: let's not rehash the whole exercise-in-assuming-bad-faith that characterised the previous discussion -- much less start adding guilt-by-association on top of that. (That the earlier rescoping from Palestinian territories to Palestinian National Authority still stands seems pretty strongly suggestive of which direction scope-creep is likely to occur around here.) Alai 08:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there are only relative levels of ambiguity, I just think it's very clear that both of those things are ambiguous in their scope (and to different degrees). In fact, this seems so clear-cut I'm not quite sure I see what your objection to the proposition is. Are Ariel, Herodium and Nablus in "Israel"? I also don't see on what basis you decide in which discussions one is supposed to assume good faith, and in which one is not (though it seems to me that in fact you were doing so in neither). And to "pretend" that some other explanation exists? Are you now saying that everyone that opposed that renaming did so in order to push a definition of "Palestine" that includes Israel, with no other explanation possible? The point about scope-creep is this: you've raised the (IMO completely unrealistic) spectre of an aggressively maximalist interpretation of "Palestine" prevailing on the basis of templates containing that term (the region); in fact, the status quo is an aggressively minimalist interpretation (whatever territory the Israeli cabinet decides that the PNA controls at a given moment in time), despite (supposedly) the template name. Alai 02:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Consistent Palestinian naming standards

You seem to know a lot about naming standards with regards to Palestinian related articles. Maybe we could write this out formally at WP Palestine so that we can avoid problems in the future and ensure that the standards are not shifting aimlessly. I am also concerned about appropriate parent categories so that we tie everything together, it may eventually be impossible to have a single category as the root category, and thus I am thinking that maybe a template that lays out the naming standards can be applied to each of the many base categories thus tieing them together in such a way that it is relatively equivalent in effectiveness to a singular base category. Your thoughts? --Abnn 23:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I've written up a quick attempt: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palestine#First_attempt_at_a_standard_naming_scheme. I think that a template on the base categories it applies to might be the best way to ensure that it stays enforced and to avoid creeping confusion as contributors to Wikipedia come and go. It is a peculiar and unique arrangement because of the admittedly unique circumstances involved. --Abnn 01:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Cfd

Hi Tewfik, I don't see where anyone has proposed what I have, indeed it's hard to say who is favoring what at this juncture. I may have missed it or may have misunderstood, so if you could point out (perhaps grabbing a quote) that would be awesome.

P.S. I don't see myself as pro- or anti- either side in that particular dispute, although the extremists on both sides would no doubt claim that I'm anti-their position. Carlossuarez46 05:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see your comments as an accusation; but I just thought that you might care about what motivates my position. :-) I am much more interested in the history of the region from the time of Alexander the Great to that of Justinian; you can see my edits of various articles related to that region are basically adding historical color from that time of history. So monasteries and archaeological sites are of particular interest to me. And, sorry for repetition, to my mind these should be categorized by the most defining characteristic: their location, regardless of who inhabits that region, who "should" inhabit it, who "once" inhabited it, and also regardless of the nationality of the monks/nuns in such monasteries or excavators/archaeologists at such sites (otherwise we might categorize Troy as a German archaeological site, and Saint Catherine's Monastery, Mount Sinai as a Greek monastery). Because we all know what West Bank means and what Gaza Strip means, these seem reasonable terms (if these eventually become 2 parts of a Palestinian state, a national category can be put above them). For things that depend on the current population and the de facto powers, classification by that seems appropriate. Presumably, Palestinian airlines, governmental symbols, and what-ever are not affected by whether this or that little piece of land ends up on one side or the other of a border; oddly no one has proposed that Israeli airlines or symbols, etc. would be affected by a change to its borders or control over land. Carlossuarez46 06:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm preachy - 13 years of Catholic school is not easily outgrown. :-) I was editing my comments in the CfD as you left your message. I removed my opposition, and concurred with you on the geographic points. I can live with either Palestinian territories or Palestinian Authority on the culture, national, sport, aviation, etc., but as I noted if Palestinian Authority is to Palestinian territories as Fooian government:Fooistan, then the construct becomes awkward: Airlines in the Palestinian Authority would seem to include articles on airlines owned by the PA, and how the PA regulates airlines, but wouldn't really technically include privately owned airlines that operate in the Palestinian territories; think of a category Airlines in the German government and you can see the ambiguity of the construct. Carlossuarez46 06:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

...of the week

Hello, I noticed that Jerusalem didn't make it. Could you point me to where that happened so that I can see what the problems were myself? Also, I just read through the Shatt al-Arab controversy, and I have to say I agree entirely with your position. Is it too late to sound off now that its gone mediation-ho? Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 05:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No Article of Week was chosen because the idea was rejected. No, it's not too late to chime in on the issue regarding the Shatt al-Arab; we're still looking for outside opinions. -- tariqabjotu 11:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Spurious charges

I've removed spurious charges of wikistalking by a user in a content dispute. Tewfik^Talk 16:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

To explain: I have reposted these comments because while you may disagree with the validity of the charge of wikistalking, the other charges regarding the deletion of sourced information remain unanswered and quite valid. I do not understand why you do not want others to see these comments in full on your talk page and why you keep deleting them and replacing them with the link above. I would ask that you address my concerns and leave these comments intact.Tiamut 10:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've again removed the comments to the diff because I have dealt in depth with every one of my edits and their reasons on the Talk pages in question, and your claims simply do not match the reality of the situation. I'm sorry that you don't see things that way, but I'm not going to allow such charges to stand here, devoid of context or proof, when they are properly discussed elsewhere. Tewfik^Talk 03:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Translations (Arab localities)

Hey Tewfiq I hope you dont mind, but can you add the Hebrew translation to the local council of Kfar Qara and if you are able, the Arabic translation of the Al-Batuf Regional Council. Thanks, P.S. I also want to thank you for translating Bethany (Israel) and the local councils of the North District. - User: Al Ameer son

Al Batuf

Hi again Tewfiq, I was curious to view your sources on the villages in the al-Batuf regional council. I just want to make sure that Hamamma is indeed apart of this regional council only because I believe it is too far from the other villages to be considered so. Thanks, User: Al Ameer son

I got the names from the a map. The area in the Galilee said Al-Batouf Plain, I saw the custer of villages located there so I assumed. Uzeir and the other villages were also located there but at the edge.

Thanks for the major correction. User: Al Ameer son

GAC review of Walls of Constantinople

Can you please update this article at GAC and it's talk page as to whether it is pass/fail/hold. It was nominated on 12 April and it's been tagged as under review by you since 26 April. If it's on hold, then it should be tagged as such for no more than 7 days. Thank you, LaraLove^T/_C 17:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Case Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-20 Al-Aqsa Intifada

You are involved in this case, quite obviously as you submitted it, and I hope you're going to join the discussion. GofG _|^|_| Talk 14:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation for MA article

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 Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.--Pejman47 19:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Evidence

With respect, I wonder if it makes sense to post long comments on an Arbcom evidence page that focus solely on an uninvolved editor? [9] [10] You're no doubt more familiar with the process than I am, so please forgive any presumptiousness.

Also, I was curious about the four examples of POV-pushing you provided.[11][12][13][14]. Three of these (the first, the second, and the fourth) would seem to me very clear examples of an editor replacing POV-phrasing with NPOV phrasing, and doing it in a modest and good-faith way (as opposed to the tactic – all too common on both sides – of adding counter-POV which can then be used as a bargaining chip). Am I missing something here? "Newspapers...ran articles criticizing Zombie" is more NPOV than "Newspapers...ran articles attacking Zombie," no? And in an article section on "allegations of photo staging," a photo caption that describes its subject as "carrying a dead child" is more NPOV than "posing with a dead child," no? This is exactly the kind of modest editing we need in the fraught, embittered Israel-Palestine regions of Wikipedia, right?--G-Dett 20:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I can understand why one would want to respond there to statements by other editors; I see Tiamut has now responded to you. I just wonder whether this is best for the process. If Chris is "involved" because he's had previous conflicts with Jay, then just about everybody is "involved" and this could quickly become a free-for-all donnybrook. I understand the thrust of your remarks about the diffs you provided; I guess I'd make a distinction between editors who "line up" on a side, as you put it, and edits that are themselves POV-pushing. I don't know if ChrisO "lines up," but it seems like most everyone does on those pages. I do know that at least three of the diffs you provided were solid, modest NPOV improvements to the articles in question. All best, and thanks again, --G-Dett 21:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your courteous note. It's my hope that this episode will close in a way that isn't overly burdensome for either of the principles and purges some of the acrimony from the rest of us. Cheers,--G-Dett 01:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Hey Tewfiq for the sources in Deir al-Balah article where it says the city is a Hamas stronghold in terms of general support and militia and legislative membership, I removed the word militia because I realize there is no official souce for that and I elaborated in the paragraph how it is a stronghold and i named the source. I placed the source in the artcile however in the process I think i erased this paragraph - (The city has been a frequent target of Israeli incursions since the Al-Aqsa Intifada in 2001, in part due to Qassam rocket-strikes.) It appears in the editing format but not to the viewer's eyes.

I also wanted to check by you if this source is reliable. - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/04/AR2005090401229_pf.html Thanks, Al Ameer son

Re:You comment

Re: your comments:

Tiamut, as I said elsewhere, my primary problem is not with Shahin per se, but with it being used as a direct reference for expert claims. My major request has consistently been that the sources she cites be presented alongside any challenged claims, since it is a travel book, and not a treatise on archaeology, history, etc. I would hope that you could limit future AGF-violating speculation and keep your discussion limited to content instead of contributors. Maybe you could reciprocate the lack of such speculation on my part towards you? Tewfik^Talk 23:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see how my comments violate AGF. I described your position that Shahin is not a reliable source. Perhaps the word "attacking" was strong, but that is how I felt about your refusal to recognize her as a reliable source. As for my speculations as to your intentions in doing so, I think the comment was quite mild and inoffensive. I call it like I see it; however, should you have felt offended, I am sorry for that. Tiamut 07:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Its not just the "attacking", but mostly the speculation about my intention, which is exactly what AGF is designed to prevent (I think the hope was if they could get it disqualified for use at one of those articles that they could stop its use everywhere). Moreover, the speculation is not an accurate representation of my position, which I restated above. I do appreciate that you saw fit to apologise for what you saw as an offence, and my hope is that we can have more productive communication in this spirit. Tewfik^Talk 03:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy renames

You are someone that is interested in categories so I'll share this. I've requested 4 speedy renames of categories that I don't think are at all contentious. They are listed here: [15]. Take care. --Abnn 02:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Also one more [16]. This one could be contentious, but I really think it is clearly about politics more than about geography and thus it should use the PNA terminology rather than the PT terminology. --Abnn 02:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Gracenotes' RFA

While I respect your right to oppose for any reason you see fit, please note that GN clarified the oft-misunderstood answer to Q4 regarding attack sites here. I believe some people are over-reacting, but if you still disagree with GN's stance, I won't bug you again. -- nae'blis 21:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

I am not sure if you forgotten, but would you please sign the mediation, so that we can resolve the issues? We need to have all the signatures by tomarrow, or the mediation may be rejected. Currently you are the only one holding this back.--Sefringle 06:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)