User talk:Tewfik/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

Editing of comments at House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Tewfik, the editing -- or censorship -- of others' comments is very controversial and generally reserved for clear-cut, seriously offensive attacks. It's difficult for me to see how "You failed in your attempt to delete this article, but now you are attempting to delete it in a piecmeal fasion by narrowing the scope of the article" is a personal attack at all, let alone something so uncivil that it needs to be expurgated. It was mildly impolite for Abu Ali to question your motives, but probably worse for you to censor him. The edit war ongoing at that page is likely to get worse if actions such as these are taken by either side. Eleland 02:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to defend that attack's inclusion on AN/I or wherever you please. Tewfik^Talk 01:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not a question of "defending" what that user said. I have no view about what they say. However you can't just edit out other people's comments on article talk pages, especially when they are not definitively in breach of any policy or guidelines. Anyway if you really believe that the comments are so offensive, aren't your interests better served by leaving them in so everyone can see what you have to put up with? --Nickhh 07:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on how WP:3RR works, but it looks to me as if you've just breached it. And you've done this despite having posted a question on the admin board about whether you are doing the right thing in the first place, and not yet having received a definitive answer --Nickhh 18:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

GA for Ashdod

I glad to inform you that Ashdod article passed GA nomination. It was my main task on Wiki. Thank you a lot for your contribution.Shmuliko 05:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Monte Ne

Hello, I have finally had time to return to the Monte Ne article and addressed all of your concerns. I have relisted it on GA. Would you mind looking over it once more? --The_stuart 20:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Cermonial counties

Wow! That's cunning! How does one remove the Sandbox Cheshire from the live category though? Johnbod 08:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• There is or was a user sandbox page in the category, because they are using the template. I couldn't see how to delink it, but it's not important. Johnbod 16:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Jenin

Tewfik, I'm giving up on this edit war now, as I don't have a hope of changing the endemic lack of neutrality in one of the Mid East related articles, let alone all of them. However I should just say that your latest edit to this article has left the disputed section really badly written, and not making much sense. And, as for your suggestion of OR, I very carefully avoided asserting that Israeli reports directly contributed to the massacre claims, by my use of the word "subsequently". That wording enables readers to see a broad overview of what happened at the time, including what both sides were initially saying to the media, and then infer whatever causality they wish to. That is what a truly neutral encyclopedia should do --Nickhh 18:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirecting into the middle of an article doesn't work

You wrote In my mind the ideal would be a redirect to Israeli West Bank barrier#"Apartheid" opinions, but that would be pointless.

Unfortunately, you can't redirect into the middle of an article. It's a known MediaWiki bug. There's some syntactical problem with URLs that prevents this from being easily implemented.

I've wanted that fixed to help deal with fancruft. There's a tendency to have one article for each story/character/album associated with a given show/comic/musician, even when there really isn't enough information about the individual item to justify an article. This got out of hand in the Star Wars Comics area, where an editor was creating a separate article for each minor character in each story in each Star Wars comic book. In the fancruft area, it's a notability issue; the level of detail that interests some fans falls below the notability threshold for full Wikipedia articles. --John Nagle 19:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On July 26, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Motza, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Well done Tewfik and goood to see you around. You have earned yourself the pictured slot. Happy editing, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Map

FYI, I have created 2 new maps, one of which you requested. You can see it at Israeli West Bank barrier. The other one is a population density map of Israel, which I thought was lacking, it can be seen at Districts of Israel. Please expand these maps to more articles because there are quite a few additional ones which could use them, I'm just not sure which at the moment. Thanks, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Jenin

In response to your message of few days ago - yeah the language was tidied up to make more sense, but I think your version is POV the other way, in that the "yet" suggests that Palestinian claims were solely responsible for all the high casualty estimates; and that initial high Israeli figures, and the closing of the camp, should somehow have dampened down any claims of a "massacre". As I've said, I was very careful to use the word subsequently, not consequently, in my version when listing all these things, in order to avoid making any definitive assertions about causality; by contrast your version excludes the possibility that Israeli actions and statements may have fuelled the furore. Anyway this debate is a little old now, and as I've said elsewhere it's one of the smaller issues around Jenin at the end of the day, but I just thought I'd do the courtesy of a response. --Nickhh 15:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party is now active, and your input is requested. Further information is available at the Mediation location, Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Kind regards, Anthøny 16:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Area

I have a document from the CBS on my computer (can't remember the URL) which gives the approximate area (rounded to one decimal spot, in km2). I have not been able to find the exact area anywhere on CBS. The fact that many of its pages are broken doesn't help. Maybe we should contact the guy who made the bot on HeWiki and ask how he did it. It's supposed to say here but I've clicked on all the links and didn't come out any more knowledgeable. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 05:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

motza

I saw you added Motza as a neighborhood of Jerusalem - are you sure about that? I believe they are not under the jurisdiction of the Jerusalem municipality, but I would check that--Gilabrand 10:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC).

Update

bah, I always forget about you. :P I'll try to talk to some people. Yonatan ^talk 08:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe time

Sure, why not. What gets people upset is submission over and over right on the heels of a prior discussion; nothting will have changed in such a short period, but now heads may have cooled and a more logical discussion had. Carlossuarez46 17:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• se hace. From your user page: 6 DYK's; I've only done 3, two in my Wikiproject Sicily stuff, I had better get writing! Carlossuarez46 18:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Two topics: on the maybe time one, I've done it. I noticed on your user page that you have done 6 Did you know articles, my score is only 3, so I have to catch up! :-) Carlossuarez46 19:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Khalidi

The thesis of Khalidi's 1997 history book, Palestinian Identity, is that the Palestinian identity or nationalism or whatever one wishes to call it was developed roughly at the time the Ottoman empire fell. I happen to disagree with how Khalidi emphasizes certain events and documents that took place before 1948 to fit his argument, but the facts and documents he cites are all sound and verifiable. There is a part of the book that discusses the alleged ancient history of a Palestinian people, but Khalidi says clearly that Fatah and other Palestinian organizations have largely invented and exaggerated this "ancient" connection to the Land of Israel in the 1960s. I cited the page number and its all there in black and white. Khalidi stops short at using the word "propoganda," but his meaning is the same and I can't think of a more neutral word for what he describes. --GHcool 21:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian people

I posted a comment on WP:ANI regarding our impasse. Thought you might want to know. Tiamat 19:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Happy Tewfik's Day!

Tewfik has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Tewfik's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Tewfik! Love, Phaedriel 01:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

Than you, dear Tewfik, for being the excellent person you are, and may this very humble gift serve as a token of my own gratitude to you for the beautiful, warm wishes you dedicated me :) And btw, I haven't forgotten about your request for help at your userpage! For reasons you know too well, I've been really short of time lately... but witha little luck, that'll change real real soon, and I'll unleash the fairy over it :) Have a joyous Day, my friend! Love, Phaedriel - 20:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on having your own day! I'm jealous. Anyway, I made suggestions for Talk:Second_Intifada#Casualties. Ciao. HG | Talk 04:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply on Talk:Second_Intifada#Casualties. I didn't know what you meant exactly and I'd like to clear it up here, rather than Talk, because maybe the regulars got it. (1) You said (my italics) "we are not under any obligation to reproduce all of their [B'Tselem] data, much less to select only some of it". If we don't use all of it, then we'd be selecting some of it, right? So what did you mean by "much less"? Did you mean to say "it's up to us to carefully select from it"? (2) Which "new edit" were you referring to here (my italics): "The civilian numbers that are being introduced in this new edit"? Did you mean my recent edit on the page, my proposed 4 steps, or some other recent edit(s)? (3) Also, I gather from your words that you all have been discussing the difference(s) between "civilian" and "non-combatant" numbers. (The civilian numbers ... skew the picture when it is substituted for actual data on non/combatants.) What is the difference betw the two? Thanks for your help and your patience. HG | Talk 10:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note to my Talk. I put up a follow-up question at Talk:Second_Intifada#Casualties_(II). Thanks. HG | Talk 22:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Caterpillar deletion

You removed well cited and clearly relevant information from Capterpillar, Inc. The rationale you offered (already discussed elsewhere) was manifestly inadequate. Obviously, Wikipedia articles often include information which is discussed in other articles. It's reasonable to expect that virtually all information on Wikipedia is discussed in more than one place. Thus, it is difficult for me to believe that this edit was made in good faith. If you are attempting to censor relevant and documented information simply because it doesn't flatter your personal biases, I must warn you to stop now. Eleland 18:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Chinese apartheid AfD

Following your recent participation in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 30#Allegations of American apartheid, you may be interested to know that a related article, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, is currently being discussed on AfD. Comments can be left at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 15:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I will when I get around to it, sometime this week.

Thanks for your message. Carlossuarez46 18:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Islam and antisemitism

There is no reason to revert an edit solely because it has been made from an IP address. --Raphael1 10:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sock Puppetry

Were you suggesting that I am sock puppeteering? Really, this is my only account - I just started with Wikipedia. --Wastekid 19:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Islam and antisemitism

Why do you say that the content I was/am inserting violates WP:SYNTH?[1] Please do explain, as I sincerely want someone to back up that claim. I worked hard on researching this, and made sure that all the content was directly relevent to the topic of the article.Bless sins 02:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You said: "Judaism in Muslim theology and beliefs", which is constructed of quotes not connected directly to antisemitism." Let me point out, with alld ue respect, that this claim could not be farther from the truth. I took great care to ensure that all my sources WERE IN RELATION TO ANTISEMITISM. I am tired of repeating this again and again on the talk page to various users. Plese let me know any sources not directly related to antisemitism, I'll be more than happy to review them.Bless sins 22:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Jenin

Hey... I tried to fix the "The Battle" section where some subsections weren't displaying properly. (But I did it clunkily.) Would you take a look at the article and see why they were there, but not displaying, at your last edit? I can't find why the "Change in Israeli Tactics" and "Aftermath" sections were vanished. Kyaa the Catlord 07:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC) I think we figured it out. Eventually. Silly problem really. Kyaa the Catlord 18:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Religious Israeli settlements

Why on earth have you removed them all from this category? It was discussed, and no-one offered any concrete objections, even after I said I'd done it. Plus someone else (Shuki I think) has gone through and removed all the Israeli settlement categories from them, so now they are not categorised as settlements at all! I am putting them back in the Religious settlements category, so please don't revert this again until it has been discussed again on the WikiProject Israel talk page. Thanks, Number 57 09:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually if you read the comments, the majority (5-3) was for the creation of the Religious Settlements category; it was supported by myself, Shuki, Palmiro, Ynhockey and LordAmeth. You, Beit Or and DLand are the only ones who objected. And how on earth am I framing you for POV? Number 57 12:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

i havn't read the text here (being lazy) but i've left a comment here. perhaps i should go over the discussion you're mentioning... i'll do it tomorrow if i can find some time. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome, Tewfik. Sakura rin24 12:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!Jshalvi 21:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

GAC backlog contest

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		Thank you for your participation in the GAC backlog elimination drive! ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 20:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"Solicited Vote"

Please do not lie by suggesting that my recent contributions to Palestinian Territories related debates was solicited. Your comments imply that I commented or voted (actually, it's not a vote, you seem to have missed this very basic point about CfD debates) to comply with the wishes of another user. I did not, and it is untrue to suggest that I did. A user informed me of a debate he thought I might be interested in - this is what is known as "good manners". I read the debate, and contributed according to my lights. Ultimately of course, your persistent misrepresentation of others' actions and positions serves only to undermine the contributions you make across Wikipedia. DuncanHill 10:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Requesting feedback regarding edits made on the Incense Route article

Hi, I came across the Incense Route article and noticed that though generally correct this version was lacking footnotes or citations. I've made a few major edits to the article and was hoping for some feedback and suggestions. Kindly take a look into it and tell me what you think about the edits. Best Wishes, Havelock the Dane 09:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Map

Regarding the East Jerusalem map, you might want to look at Image:EastJerusalemMap.svg, it's an SVG version which you can edit with Adobe Illustrator or Corel Draw. You do not need to really know how to use these programs to make small changes. I can do it, but I didn't catch the exact error. Can you please tell me again? Also, what sourcing? I must've forgotten something I promised to do, sorry about that. I probably won't have time next month (sergeants' course), but if it's not difficult I will definitely try to help on the weekends. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Burgas00 RFCU

I'll take a look at that some time today. I'll need to read up on the RFCU process first, and have a few other off-wiki matters that I need to attend to. I seem to remember looking after the last request was delisted, and thought that the wrong code had been used. I'll let you know here when I'm done. Mark Chovain 20:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just spent some time looking into the various options that are available. I suspect that an RFCU request will be rejected on the grounds that it generally shouldn't be used to reveal IP data. Exceptions are made in more serious edit wars, where a user uses multiple IP's to avoid a 3RR violation, but I don't think that will apply here, especially given the time that has elapsed.

Another option, which I suspect would have been the right way to go from the start, would be to create an SSP page for Burgas00. This would likely have reached the same conclusion we reached on the G-Dett page, and the block either extended, or referred to RFCU. Unfortunately, it's been almost 2 weeks now, and SSP doesn't generally accept requests which have "staled" by more than a week.

It's worth keeping in mind that the purpose of blocks is preventative, not punative. Looking through Burgas00's recent contribs, he has not taken part in any edit waring since his block expired (note that he self-reverted his only revert). At this point, a block will serve no preventative purpose.

I think the best way forward here is to make Burgas00 aware that suspicions were raised, and that if those suspicions were correct, it was a gross error of judgement on his part. I'd be more than happy to write a message on his talk page for you as someone who is not involved in the articles in question (I have somewhat famously been involved in discussing editors in this part of the wiki, but that may make me a better person to write the message).

For the record, I don't entirely agree with Wikipedia's preventative/punative position - I think in some cases, punishment could be used to prevent others from breaking the rules. By not punishing someone who has gamed the system, we encourage others to do the same. But that's the framework within which we live.

If you disagree with my thoughts on RFCU or SSP, I'd be happy to discuss those options further. If you'd like me to write a message for Burgas00, let me know: I'll have it done within half a day of your request. Regardless, if you suspect he does something similar again, let me know (by email is probably best) and I'll make sure we get the SSP process off the right way this time. Mark Chovain 22:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Be that as it may, an article needs four support votes to pass, and it had none, other than your automatic support. There were three opposes, the list had been a candidate for 12 days and you had not made an edit to the article in 2 days. The FL criteria clearly say "Featured list candidates will remain on this page for a minimum period of 10 days. Consensus must be reached in order to be promoted to featured list status, and a list must also garner a minimum of 4 "Support" votes (counting the original nomination as a "Support" vote, provided it is not withdrawn). Featured list candidates that are not promoted after 10 days will be removed from the candidates list to the failed log unless (1) objections are being actively addressed; or (2) although there are no objections, the list has not garnered 4 "Support" votes. In these cases an additional period of time will be given to the list to see whether it can attract more support." and I did not feel that any of those conditions were met. So, I will not reopen it at this time. I suggest talking to those who opposed and then renominating it. The only renomination condition is that all prior concerns be met, so you can do it whenever you feel like. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk to User:Circeus. If he thinks it should be reopened, then I will reopen it.

But, it was heading towards a fail anyway, and you do not need an active FLC to discuss changes with a user. I really do think the best thing would be to continue your discussion with the user THEN renominate the page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Stalking?

Response User_talk:Eleland 18:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

need help after long time

need your help.User talk:Yousaf465 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yousaf465 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Lock on Yasser Arafat article

Greetings Tewfik, I have a question for you dealing with the constant acts of vandalism towards the Yasser Arafat article, which you can view by looking at the article's history. I need to know how to place a lock on the article to prevent these actions and I ask you before anybody else because I know you are one of the most experienced. --Al Ameer son 16:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Kurdi Bear interview - do you dispute it?

You said this about the Kurdi Bear interview - "If this was as groundbreaking as some make it out to be, then it would be subject to multiple, nontrivial mentions in the press. All we have is selections from an interview mirrored on dozens of partisan websites. Moreover, it does not say what some editors here say it does, and its text was distorted in its various inclusions. The primary method of ensuring that such primary sourcing says or doesn't say something would be to use RS press sources, which again, do not exist." Tewfik^Talk 18:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This despite the fact you'd already posted: "The dispute with that report has focused somewhat on the less-than-perfect translation, but mostly on the quoting selectively in such a manner as to distort what was actually said". Tewfik^Talk 08:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you now deny what "Kurdi Bear" claimed and that it was published "in Yediot Aharonot, Israel's most widely circulated tabloid paper, on May 31, 2002." according to this link (and an equivalent Hebrew link)? PalestineRemembered 21:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

War-crimes alleged against Palestinians in Jenin?

You said this at the Battle of Jenin "The allegations of war crimes were levelled against both sides. TewfikTalk 18:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)". Are you sure about that? Palestinians were criticised for hiding amongst civilians, but in all the dozens of pages of really serious allegations, I don't recall them ever being accused of war-crimes. Where did you see this said? 14:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:Incense Road

Thank you for the reply and the kind note.

The Incense Road is currently under GA review and I removed this section as I couldn't verify it. The "Incense Route in Sacred Literature" could have been the highlight of the article if in-line citations from the Quran could have been procured.

It would be of immense help if you could verify where the Incense Road is mentioned in the Quran [the article mentioned Surat Saba (34) and in Surat an-Naml (27)] and what does the quote from the holy book say. I can try and get a source on the Old Testament mentioning the "Gold and Incense route."

With Regards,
Havelock the Dane 01:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Esperantists up for review

The deletion is up for review. In case you'd like to chime in, go here. --Orange Mike 18:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

editing conflict

It seems to me like an honest editing conflict mistake which resulted this mishap. I've noticed my edit had an error also and there seems to be a new anon. editor already changing the article, so there is no point in asking you to fix the issue as i planned on doing. *shrug* Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

TfD closure

I will gladly relist the template. Although the average template receives little attention before closure, there was opposition by a Wikiproject (which probably has most knowledge on the subject and thus can provide the most informed input) to this particular nomination. Singularity 19:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ping for Talk:Jerusalem#Category:Cities_in_the_West_Bank_(take_2)

I have responded to your edit. Robert Ham 09:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I have responded again. Robert Ham 13:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

preffered version

considering this comment of yours, you should really give a comment at the related talk. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:Yasser Arafat

No problem, I can tell you are quite a busy editor :). Well, I have already placed the semi-protected lock on the Yasser Arafat article, so thats no longer a dilemma. However I would still very much appreciate a review by you and consequently, your opinions on the overall quality of the article (text, references, etc.) and for you to point out anything that needs work on, so that the article may achieve FA status. --Al Ameer son 20:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to mention to add your thoughts and conclusions to the Arafat Peer Review discussion page - Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Yasser Arafat --Al Ameer son 22:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking your time to edit the Arafat article. Hope to see more reviewing from you. I really appreciate it because I think its been 7-8 months that I've been working on it and I'm really shooting for an FA star at the top of the page. Salaam, Peace, Shalom! --Al Ameer son 20:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

pallywood

heyo, i'm hoping to get some feedback on the genocide 2 subsection on battle of jenin, some exploration into this issue can resolve some of the conflicts on how the article is phrased. i'm also planning on archiving a few of the topics that are almost decided and you could leave some comment there, it could be helpful as future reference. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Help reply

The problem is solved now.Just a minor issue.User talk:Yousaf465 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yousaf465 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Citations at Palestinian textbooks

Hello, I noticed that you restored citations to specific Palestinian textbooks. As you know, WP:CITE requires us to cite the sources we actually used, rather than copying someone else's footnotes. I previously explained on talk that I believed it to be extremely unlikely that Wikipedia editors posses a wide selection of Palestinian Authority grade school textbooks, so I removed the citations. Since you once voted to ban a user based on his use of incorrect citations in this manner being "the last of many disruptions", so I trust you realize how serious this is. Please go back and remove them - unless of course you have read these textbooks, in which case I apologize for wasting your time. Eleland 18:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN/I#PalestineRemembered_IV

Per WP:AN/I#PalestineRemembered_IV are you prepared to accept me as PalestineRemembered's mentor?Geni 01:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

GAC

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		Here is the official barnstar to recognize your contribution towards GAC backlog elimination drive. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Hi Tewfik. Thanks for your message of support during my RfA. As you might have seen, it was ultimately successful, so if you need any help (preventing vandalism, etc), let me know and I'll try and help (though not for a bit - I need to swot up on adminship!). Number 57 16:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ir Ovot

Hi. I'm just making sure you are aware that Ir Ovot's GA status has been placed on hold as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. Epbr123 23:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Israeli-Arab Human Shields

Hi Tewfik. Just to be clear, my initial position was to remove the statement outright as WP:UNDUE, however my stance changed due to the HRW report. The language of the report (as with most of their reports) is somewhat conflicting, but I would note a few key statements made:

"[T]he incidents described above raise questions as to whether Israel complied at all times with the international humanitarian norm requiring it, to the extent feasible, to avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas, and to protect the civilian population under its control from the effects of attack."

In the above quote, they're stating that questions were raised. Not that Israel was guilty, just that questions were raised.

"While Israel has invested heavily in civilian protection, Arab residents of northern Israel raise legitimate questions about whether Israel discriminates against them in terms of the degree of protection it provides them from belligerent attacks."

This statement isn't citing this Azmi Bishara person, but instead "Arab residents of northern Israel" – a much larger group. Also, it classifies their questions as "legitimate", reflecting HRW's viewpoint of the questions, not of the outcome.

"The Arab citizens and nongovernmental organizations who alleged discrimination contended that the state provided inadequate Arabic-language information, insufficient alarm systems in Arab areas, and fewer public shelters."

Again, this statement isn't citing Azmi Bishara, but "Arab citizens and nongovernmental organizations". It cites Sharon Roffe-Ofir and the Mossawa Center, neither of which is Azmi Bishara.

These statements together, along with the fact that HRW would even take the time to investigate it, indicate that the charges, whether true or not, were not "only the claim of Azmi Bishara", but in fact claimed by various people and/or groups. That meets the bar of inclusion under WP:UNDUE. Cheers. ← George ^[talk] 23:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, correct you are – it doesn't mentioning shielding. The article text should probably be changed to cite just this one fellow for the accusation of shielding, then citing the groups HRW cited for the accusation of "take 'constant care' to protect civilians" (unless there is a shorter term for that). Also, I forgot to mention this in my revert summary, but I think that these should be also mentioned in the main article on allegations of war crimes, and only briefly summarized in the main article. Something like "Others have charged that Israel used Israeli-Arabs as human shields or failed its obligation to take 'constant care' in protecting them." I'm not sure the exact wording, but I think you get the point, leaving the details to who said what to the main article on the allegations of war crimes.

Indeed, my intention was to remove the terrorist per WP:BLP and WP:TERRORIST, but my intention in removing the mention of convicted was that it's an unnecessary statement. From your edit summary, it appeared you were trying to balance the POV with the other part of the sentence (something about one of them being "held for unknown reasons") by mentioning that they were convicted by Israel, but I felt it was more balanced and succinct to just remove the "held for unknown reasons" altogether. If you're trying to say that these were prisoners (which is already mentioned elsewhere in the article), instead consider something like "Hezbollah named the attack "Operation Truthful Promise" after leader Hassan Nasrallah's public pledges over the prior year and a half to seize Israeli soldiers and swap them for prisoners held in Israel – specifically Samir Kuntar, Nasim Nisr, Ali Faratan, and Yahya Skaf."

By the way, what's up with the statement "whom Hezbollah claims was arrested in Israel (Israel denies this)"? Is this accurate? I had always heard they were trying to trade them for three, but I'm not sure. If it is indeed four, that should be reworded something like "Hezbollah named the attack "Operation Truthful Promise" after leader Hassan Nasrallah's public pledges over the prior year and a half to seize Israeli soldiers and swap them for prisoners held in Israel – specifically Samir Kuntar, Nasim Nisr, Ali Faratan, and Yahya Skaf (whom Israel denies holding)." Cheers. ← George ^[talk] 01:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; I'm quite busy myself at the moment. :) I don't look at the HRW report at all as making any definitive determination (they rarely say anything concrete), but they're explicitly stating that other people are making the claim (other people being the "Arab citizens and nongovernmental organizations" in the third quote above), and that is what warrants mention – not that HRW makes these claims, just that some citizens and organizations have. Again, I think the current wording is far too long, but I don't think it need be completely eliminated (as the previous six lines or so are talking about Hezbollah's use of human shields, in which HRW similarly found "no cases" of). ← George ^[talk] 01:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the first half of the report is dealing with charges that Israel located military assets too close to civilian populations (see first quotation above), in violation of international humanitarian law (The obligation under international humanitarian law to take all feasible precautions to protect the nearby population means ensuring that an adequate civilian protection plan is in place for the population living nearby, or relocating those assets away from densely populated areas). The second half deals more with the charges of discrimination related to why those groups claimed to have not had sufficient protection (i.e., discrimination), which "international human rights law would prohibit." So it likely belongs in both articles. ← George ^[talk] 14:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Jenin

Hi Tewfik. Thanks for helping out with the Jenin article. As you may have noticed on the talk page, my recent edits had been floated for discussion. I certainly don't mind your editing, but I am curious about why you considered the following text unencyclopedic: "Like many armed conflicts, the Battle of Jenin also has been a war of words and contested facts. Nowhere have the facts been more confusing or conflicted than in the reporting of casualties, especially during the battle and soon thereafter. Reporting has been controversial both in regard to the number of deaths as well as the characterization of the battle." This section lead is to introduce the two main issues for the section, the contested reporting of casualties and the characterization of the battle (aka 'massacre' allegations). I think it's necessary and common for a long encyclopedia article to give readers some context and a signal about what they'll be reading. Maybe you could edit this lead? Or discuss it on the Talk page? Thanks. Take care, HG | Talk 02:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a friendly nudge to encourage you folks to shift to Talk instead of reverts, at Second Intifada. HG | Talk 22:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the message, but that is a user with whom I've unfortunately never been able to have a productive exchange, my every attempt at conversation only generating gross incivility; even at times were there was no conversation I found strings of unprovoked attacks on myself posted by him around WP. Perhaps you will have better luck... Tewfik^Talk 22:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tewfik. You asked me a question at Battle of Jenin about how to proceed. Perhaps I went overboard in my answer. But when you get a chance, it'd be nice to hear your response. Be well. HG | Talk 01:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Homophobia

I noticed that you participated in the recent CfD of the category "Homophobia" [2]. It has been re-nominated for deletion, on the same grounds as before, and I was making sure you had an opportunity to present your interpretation of policy on this matter. The discussion can be found here. Best. --Cheeser1 14:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Dimonalogo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dimonalogo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Dear Tewfik. Welcome back. Yes I allow myself to be dragged into extenuating argument, or rather, if I find behaviour that is repetitively insistent on a dubious point, I tend to justify my editorial judgement in extenso perhaps with boring and distractiver intensity. I don't think this upholds the pages concerned, as much as derails more sensitive projects which require both great tact and concentration, such as my desire to assist folks over at the Ebionism page and to do a reasonable page on Ariel Toaff. I would note that these contretemps occur almost as frequently at times with those who find some generic sympathy with my POV, as with militant editors who do not share it. There are ways for people who differ pronouncedly in their political philosophies of history can meet on common ground, when understanding of nuance, sensitivity to relevant detail, and dislike of agitated wadding of materials prevails. With them I have worked rapidly and productively. Alas, some pages that interest me are intrinsically difficult because, as experience shows, there are deep and rooted interests, where the politics of knowledge prevail over the dry historical imagination. I don't exclude myself from such interests. From Mannheim to Habermas we know what the problem is, and it is unresolved. I try at least to be aware, and let others know, where I stand in that obscurer off the page dimension, and, when in conflict, explain aspects of this 'POV' I detect in the other, not because I wish to drag in extra-wiki issues of epistemology, but because, despite strong evidence at times, I remain convinced that logic and sincerity can prevail over an obdurate irrationality.

I have abstained from the Biblical side because, though relatively prepared for it, I can see that it will, given the state of hyper-attentiveness to implications on the Hebron pages by all parties, almost inevitably precipitate into a bunfight. If our mutual friend insists in the intro. to 1929 on plural Arab policemen for so many weeks, it cannot be simply because he loves to get things straight, particularly since the detail he requested is already duly footnoted. When I detect that, well, I don't go, as youngsters say, 'ballistic' but I get my defensive shield out. The Biblical Hebron material is, in retrospect, almost impossible to handle. Mention Joshua and similar implications, by themselves, emerge, and look though one is loading the page against the KA settlers (who however, from my knowledge (and it is far more detailed that I give out in these pages) take a charter from Joshua's example for their own behaviour). So rather than do that, I abstain. I appreciate your gesture and invitation, and will mull this further. Of course, you certainly know more than myself about this material that indeed does beg inclusion, so eventually perhaps the saner approach is to sketch what of the Biblical narrative on Hebron is sufficiently salient to merit the attention of all editors, on the Talk page. I'd be happy to collaborate on this, once I have fixed up a few articles that are inchoate and require intensive construction. Till them, I am in a defensive salient here generally, trying to keep the pages simple, straightforward and untroubled. Regards Nishidani 08:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

List of ... during the ... Intifada title

Hey, this is a spam note to anyone who has ever moved List of massacres committed during the Second Intifada. A discussion is ongoing on the talk page, which currently appears to endorse a move to "List of attacks on Israeli noncombatants during the Second Intifada". Consider making your views known. <eleland/talkedits> 17:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Jenin on its face

Tewfik, hi. Saw your recent reply to G-Dett at Talk:Battle of Jenin. Maybe you could also reply about an RfC and if so, what text for the request. Also, maybe you should look at G-Dett's concern on my Talk. Be well, HG | Talk 16:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Greetings again. You were mentioned again at my user Talk page. Basically, same question as I posed at Talk:Battle of Jenin -- Are you persuaded by G-Dett et al., or do you think this should go to RfC, or some other dispute resolution mechanism? (Also, G-Dett suggested maybe the 2 of you discuss this through me.) What would work best for you? HG | Talk 18:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC) (PS Perhaps other users share your view?)

Questions re Jenin

Hi Tewfik. I want to ask you a couple of questions here, as so much back-and-forth on the Jenin talk page misleadingly suggests great complexity to readers of that page.

1. In your latest post you wrote "AI's position hasn't changed." No it hasn't, but what's the significance of that? AI's position has always been that the IDF carried out war crimes in Jenin.
2. You also write that you "don't understand what Holley's quotes in a news piece prove." I find this odd; aren't we using Holley's quotes in that news piece as one of our key sources for the rebuttal of massacre claims?--G-Dett 23:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

While I think you both could work this out without my long-winded efforts at on-line facilitation, I did post some questions at Talk:Battle of Jenin for you. Thanks muchly, HG | Talk 04:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tewfik, I hope you appreciate I'm doing the best I can. I'm going to try to clean up your Talk dialogue w/G-Dett, now that you've given me some leeway to edit your own comments. BTW, I didn't grok your reference to "larded" from G-Dett. Also, for what it's worth, I happen to think that G-Dett's comments about maximalist vs minimalist interpretation has some theoretical interest, though less practical import for our editing -- but I really didn't think it was intended to insult you -- only to disagree with you. (Ok, then it did get somewhat insulting after you took offense, I'm not sure I can explain what I mean... Well, it wasn't that you're acting in bad faith, i.e. to harm Wikipedia, it's that she's arguing against the consistency in how you read the sources. Well, that's my charitable understanding of what's going on.) Anyway... Maybe you could look at my workshop page where I'm trying to think out loud. What do you think? All the best, HG | Talk 22:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait, Tewfik, stay and chat.... Bad faith means trying to harm Wikipedia, not being honest, disruptive, etc. Isn't G-Dett saying something less personal -- contending that if we are cautious about citing HRW/AI on the war crime issue (as you've suggested), then we should be equally cautious in reporting HRW/AI on other issues, like massacre. Regardless of whether it's a fallacious or useful claim, this doesn't strike me as harsh as bad faith. True, she could word her concern in a less personalized way. Yet, even were she right, you have rebuttals that aren't about you as a person but your interpretation. E.g., you may well argue that you are making a valid distinction, not an inconsistent one, or you may say that a "foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" (i.e., Wikipedia is not bound to apply a single hermeneutic to each source). Anyway, I am between a rock and a hard place if you only take this as an accusation. G-Dett says it's a key point, you say it's a personal attack. I'd like to persuade you to tackle the substantive aspect of G-Dett's point, and I'd like to persuade G-Dett that it's not so compelling that we can't make progress here. What say you? HG | Talk 22:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding you last reply, your like my first attempt on the subpage? (or are you saying you're at the wrong subpage, the one I didn't have in mind, huh? <tired>). HG | Talk 22:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Arab Jew and exodus from Iraq

You've reverted me here calling the claim that Zionists threw bombs at Jews in Iraq a "Fringe Theory", when you must know it's nothing of the sort. There was a conviction for it, Iraqi Jews say this is what happened, the US military attache says it's what happpened and so do the anti-Zionist Jews. Even if it were not well known, the Zionists recklessly bombed all kinds of people, killing over 200 Jews in 1941, carrying out a false flag operation in 1954 - and in every case they deny it. The default position must be that Zionists are first suspect in all bombings.

Here's a paper presented at the "14 Jewish Studies Conference Melbourne March 2002" held by the "Australian Jewish Democratic Society" by Philip Mendes of the Latrobe University, "THE FORGOTTEN REFUGEES: the causes of the post-1948 Jewish Exodus from Arab Countries". "The alternative anti-Zionist view highlights the positives of Arab-Jewish history. The Jews of Iraq are depicted as an overwhelmingly prosperous and integrated community. Their exodus is attributed not to anti-Semitism, but rather to a malicious Zionist conspiracy including instances of bomb-throwing aimed at achieving mass Jewish emigration to Israel (Hirst 1977; Wolfsohn 1980; Shiblak 1986; Alcalay 1993:45-51; Bahry 1996:111; Gat 1997:2; Abu Shakrah 2001)."

I don't understand, when there is so much good work to, do you'd try to dig in on something so un-controversial. PR^talk 09:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

... a conviction by the government accused of persecution isn't helpful. Giladi is entitled to his views, and you to yours, but there is no indication that "a malicious Zionist conspiracy" is at all accepted in the mainstream. Tewfik^Talk 10:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A conviction for the bombing means it's not a "Fringe Theory". Giladi was an Iraqi Jew and Zionist who was there when it all happened (he knows a lot about persecution and racial discrimination - it didn't happen in Iraq, it happened in Israel). Mendes (who appears to be even-handed) lists us 7 more good sources for this claim, Nishidani gave us two and there are others. This is a "major view" and of course it belongs in the article. PR^talk 10:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, a "conviction" in 1940s Iraq proves nothing. Mendes is listing sources for the anti-Zionist beliefs, not sources "proving" that there was indeed a conspiracy. Nishidani's sources as well are controversial, and haven't been checked. If it was mainstream, it would be very easy to show that from some news piece etc. Tewfik^Talk 11:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to tell us that anti-Zionism is also a "Fringe Theory"? How about the number of times Israel has been condemned by UN resolutions, or is in actual breach of UN resolutions - or is that just a "minority view" too? Most people would think that a conviction in Iraq, under the British-instituted system of justice operating, was a lot more credible than still more denials from bombing specialists. The whole business of the bombings and the Zionist involvement was published in Ha'olam Haze in April-June 1966 and re-published by the Black Panther journal in November 1972, defying the threats of Ben-Porat to sue them. Giladi says there were 11 caches of weapons found in Baghdad, 33 sub-machine guns, 97 cartridges for sub-machine guns, 436 British-made grenades, 25,000 rounds for submachine guns and tens of thousands of rounds for handguns, along with the charges and hundreds of detonators and delay switches. He believes there were at least 30 such caches at a time when very strict control was being exerted to prevent leakage from the army and police. Giladi wonders what an Israeli court would do if Israeli Arabs were found with such material. Two Jews were executed - it was Ben-Porat's determination to memorialise them in Or Yehuda on 15th June 1966 that led to the scandal breaking in Israel. PR^talk 12:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik and I are, often, poles apart on key issues, PR: but despite that, I take him as an editor whose scruples over factualness in material offered by someone who sees things differently from him, are salutary. They prod one to be precise, and more meticulous (I only wish he would fine-tune that keen gaze to many passages on pages which represent a far from factual lay of the land, written by 'pro-Zionist' (sorry, T) hands. When I have come up with sure evidence for a position he thought controversial, unlike many editors, he immediately accepted the point, and that bespeaks honesty. I will put in here that I don't think the matter raised by Giladi is resolved (I know the details of the Lavon Affair far more intimately, and naturally that and several other things influence my judgement, but not all possible analogies are, by that appearance of resemblance, such that evidence for one proves suspicions about the other). But, if I may intervene, there is a large literature on this incident, and, if you are interested in the subject, it may be worth glancing at. Indications can be found for that historical controversy on the relevant Iraqi Jews wiki page. One testimony is not sufficient. Tewfik's challenge is a valid one, even if one doesn't share the view he's coming from. Nishidani 19:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

your work on article

Hi. just want to say thanks for all your work at Battle of Jenin. you have my full support. sorry that you have been doing it all yourself. I'm not as familiar with this issue as you, so I have not tried to participate much more. however, you have my full support. if at any point you need another editor to speak up, just to make clear that you have some support, please feel free to let me know. you're doing a great job. keep it up.

By the way, i would suggest that anyone else who reads these comments, please add the article Battle of Jenin to your watch list. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Holy Land

Tewfik. I wonder if I could prevail upon you, with your fluency in Arabic, to glance at the Palestine page, and check the latest edit (and anything else of course!) on the 'Holy Land' (لأرض المقدسة) in the Quran. That 'several' did look very iffy, but the new edit, by an anonymous one time poster perhaps should be checked. The passage as it stands is, at least t me, incomprehensivble, since the 'holy land' is not in the Qu'ran, and then is quoted at Surah 5:2. Surely a quick look at a relevant book source will get the right figure (once? twice?) for the phrase in Arabic, as it appears in the Quran? Regards, with apologies for the bother Nishidani 18:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Times slips by, Altzeimar gets the better of me, watched pages mount and this dodderer misses things. I just caught your note and hasten to thank you (before the heavy hand of a 3RR decision falls on my blundering fingers!). Thanks for the advice re the Quran quote, and, as to the Iraqi business, it's far too complex for me to meddle with. I've done some deeper research on other pages dealing with the Jewish diaspora, in Egypt, for example, so for that I'll hold off from annoying the page. Thodah rabah/Thanks again,and laila tov.Nishidani 21:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Abasan

You're correct, according to PCBS, Abasan is two different (although adjacent) towns. --Al Ameer son 01:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Religious Israeli settlements

Yes, apologies, but I did change my mind. Whilst I originally agreed with merging them into one big category, BrownHairedGirl's statement made me see the logic - having something that defines settlements by religion is quite good, as it is an important issue in many of them. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian locality infobox temp

Hi Tewfik, the infobox for Palestinian localities that you created has been in most cases replaced by another. I prefer the one you created. I will reestablish it and if it is replaced I'll notify you. --Al Ameer son 02:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well its great that a map will be added to it, I'm currently reinstating the infobox on all Palestinian locality articles. --Al Ameer son 19:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Did you get any info on Abasan yet? Its very confusing, the PCBS lists it as two different entities[3], yet on Gaza Strip maps it is one. There are other sources that support both sides, however, I think the PCBS is the more preferable choice. Actually these maps do[4][5] What do you think? --Al Ameer son 19:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive317

Hi, Tewfik. I come here to ask about the recent achieving AN/Incident. As you acknowlege, I filed a report regarding User:Sennen goroshi's abusive behaviors and racial slurs. That case is still not done yet, and I've not got any notice from any admins. Do you know why the sysop, User:Misza13 move my report and the discussion [6] to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive317. It is not fair and unreasonable. Were there any decision reached without any notice to me, or removed by accident? Please give me a reason and if there is no plausible explanation, please restore it to the incident page. And the sysop, Anthony were very quick to judge my 3rr violation as soon as Sennen goroshi reported, but my report has not been decided yet whether Sennen goroshi get a block and punishment or not. I want to know why. That seems unfair to me. Thanks. --Appletrees 13:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Communal cities, towns and villages in Israel

Would you support a name change to Category:Communal Israeli cities, towns and villages in line with Category:Religious Israeli communities, as it appears that a significant number of the ones in there are now settlements and not "in Israel", and I can't see the point in dividing this into Category:Communal Israeli settlements as was done with the religion thing. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)