Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:15, 15 November 2006

• (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

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

2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict

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

Hangman

Your opponent is waiting on you. _└  / _talk  19:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• respond here
• guess here

_└  / _talk  19:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil and assume good faith

• "(cur) (last) 14:21, 1 November 2006 Tewfik (Talk | contribs) (rv possible sock)" Violations of WP:CV and WP:AG. Please stop making unsubstantiated allegations. You can and will be reported. It doesn't make editing difficult article easier. I'm sure you agree. Regards. OldRoy 18:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC) "

"rv possible sock" is neither incivil nor a violation of AGF - nor was it even directed at this user. The user to whom it was directed (user:Thepresident1) was subsequently blocked for vandalism. Tewfik 16:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hebrew

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

Sorry but I couldn't resist. I think I can help you out on this one. My Hebrew is rusty but the text above stats: "Clouds of fall in the picture are visible IDF forces take up positions close to fence of the system before the begging of operation” clouds of fall " to foil the Kassam rockets gunfire and infrastructures of the terror in the expanse of Beit Hanoun north of the Gaza Strip. Photograph: Army spokesman" i hope this helps -- Palestine48 21:55, 01 November 2006

Ah, so its called Operation Clouds of Fall? ~Rangeley (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Found more, its "Autumn Clouds" apperantly . ~Rangeley (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Fall or Autum is the same season, it depends which side of the pond you're on! It's death either way you look at it --Palestine48 00:53, 02 November 2006

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Thank you for your support in my RfA, which passed with a final tally of (56/0/2). It was great to see so much kind support from such competent editors and administrators as commented on my RfA. I know I have much reading to do before I'll feel comfortable enough to use some of the more powerful admin tools, so I'll get right to it. Again, thanks; └  / talk  13:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Third holiest site Afd

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

Suspected sock puppet

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

Deon555's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RFA, which closed successfully yesterday with a result of (18/16/8). I'd like to let you know that I won't be running for adminship again, until I am nominated, rather than nominating myself again. Thanks for your support, Deon. — Deon555Review 22:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Palestine-stub

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

I have to assume that in fact, as you made the comment before I closed it, you weren't at that point commenting on my closure. But since you mention it now: SFD/R's are supposed to run for seven days; it was already well "over time", there was absolutely no sign of an emergent compromises or consensus of any kind, and the claimed compromise would have been extremely hard to justify given the large number of entrenched "supports" and "opposes" of the original proposition (such as it was) -- even had anyone other than yourself been arguing for it. Much better to take discussion off-page, and re-start a fresh SFR when (and if) there is some actual agreement, rather than holding the SFR process open indefinitely in the hopes of that emerging in such an environment. The only reason I waited as long as did was because I was waiting to see if anyone else was going to close it. In what way does the practice of not creating 'ethnic' stub types "not apply" in this case? (Dare I say, because it's not convenient to your position?) Many people would be of the opinion that controversial areas are exactly the places not to vary from conventional practice, for the very reason of appearing to do so (or indeed actually doing so) on a partial basis -- including all of the WSS regulars, it would appear. If, hypothetically, you'd achieved a consensus between the "Israel" and "Palestine" editors to ignore the stub conventions, you might then have more of a case complaining about same, but as it stands it seems quite moot. And given the persistent unhelpfulness of your own repeated "it's not a state" contributions, I'm somewhat struck that you'd choose to characterise anyone else's as "inflexible" or "snide". Alai 21:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not in any way "equating" your comments with mine, I'm suggesting they are considerably less constructive and appropriate. One has to parse the comments of anyone other than you, and perhaps one other editor, very hard to see any support for a move {{Palestinian-stub}}. The closure was 9 days late, and there had been no comments for two days (other than the one from you I already mentioned having overlooked). But somehow you think I acted improperly in not leaving it open for even longer, on the off-chance more people decided that your suggestion to ignore the stub guidelines was a great plan? I somehow doubt you'd be making that argument about an AFD closure, nor do I think it would get much credence at deletion review -- where you're of course free to take the matter if you feel that way. The current template does not in any way imply that 'West Bank and Gaza Strip are a territorial unit known as "Palestine"', since it's not scoped that way, regretably, and nor does it seem to be likely to be, given that {{Israel-geo-stub}} doesn't seem to plan to stick to any of the various various of the border of Israel. Without agreement as to what the scope should be, discussion of the template name is both secondary, and IMO ultimately rather futile, especially if it comes down to the proponents of "we must have a Palestine-stub for the sakes of having a Palestine-stub", vs. the proponents of exactly the opposite. Lastly, while the term "Palestine" may be both ambiguous and controversial, it's simply inaccurate to claim that it's not used to mean WB&G. Alai 00:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA

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

Very hurtful.

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

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

2006 Arab-Israeli template

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

hangman

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

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

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

Re: Little Green Footballs

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