User talk:Ian Pitchford/Archive 1

W. Mark Felt

Salve!
I nominated W. Mark Felt as a WP:FAC. As you commented on the article's talk page, I'd appreciate your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/W. Mark Felt/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 14:56, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

The Design Revolution

Hi Ian. Just wanted to know why you felt it necessary to delete authentic quotes from the article on The Design Revolution. Did you feel the quotes misrepresented the book? David Bergan 19:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the reply, Ian. So, what would be the point of removing it? If it's minor, who cares, no one will look for it. If it does have a noticable following, then people can search for it and read something factual and accurate... as opposed to nothing. David Bergan 19:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Ok, I can see your point about the quotes. I had written them because they were noteworthy enough to be in our Talk:Intelligent Design discussion and I wanted other users to be able to see that they were legitimate quotes without buying the book. It's hard to refer to a book in wikipedia discussions... because people want to source-check, yet they can't see the book as easily as they can click on a link. I'll leave it up to you, though. If you think it's worth it to have any of the quotes available, you can un-delete them.

By the way, what's got you interested in intelligent design? David Bergan 20:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Helen Gandy

You supported my nomination of the Mark Felt article and I wonder if I could get your support on my latest FAC, Helen Gandy, who was Hoover's secretary for five decades. PedanticallySpeaking 21:01, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Tom Brinkman

You were kind enough to support my nomination of Mark Felt as a featured article and I wonder if you would look at my newest FAC, Tom Brinkman. The voting page is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tom Brinkman/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 15:05, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Wolf Messing

Why did your remove the factual dispute warning from the article. Did you read the article by A. Nagel on the external link? Andries 22:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer on my talk page, but I disagree with your assertion that a factual accuracy dispute should only be on an article when there is a dispute between two or more authors. The factual accuracy dispute should be placed in all cases when there is good reason to assume that the facts are wrong in the article, regardless of the cause of these wrong facts. In this case, I did not have have the time yet to improve the article and noticed discrepancies between the article and Nagel's article. I re-inserted the disputed warning. Thanks. Andries 18:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Back Again

You supported my W. Mark Felt FAC nomination. I'm grateful and though it was successful. I've got another FAC now, the next congresswoman from Ohio, Jean Schmidt. The FAC page is here. I hope to get it featured by September 6, the day she will be sworn in. I'd appreciate your support. PedanticallySpeaking 17:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC) (P.S. If you are worried about the "fair use" of her picture, when she's sworn, we'll be able to replace it with a nice U.S. government public domain photo.)

Valerian

It will be nice to know what has been reason for deleting my sentence about Valerian body ? Question is from Rjecina. Thanks for your answer but I think that it is not OK. Yes I will give you point about my english but I am interested to know when has Roman Empire ( de jure East or West Roman empire has never existed ) become Byzantine. Even modern historians ( which I have been reading ) are telling that only after 640 AD you can speak about Byzantine empire. Fact is that in year 628 AD part of Roman states are all Eastern provinces, Rome, Ravenna, Carthago and evacuation of Hispania has been only in time of emperor Heraclius 610-641 AD.

gyroscopic precession

Hi Ian,

you were quite right in removing the silly 'binary theory' stuff from the precession article. I was about to do that myself. I was building up a history of discussion with Ungtss, to show as evidence of willingness to explain, should Ungtss attempt to file a Request For Arbitration, or something of that nature. i will keep watching the precession article, and I will revert any attempt to insert binary theory stuff again.

I rather overdid it: I have flooded the Talk:precession page with comments.

There is a reason for my carefullness. I am currently working hard to get solid newtonian physics incorporated in the coriolis effect article. Here is my version of the coriolis effect article, and I intend to revert to that version soon.

All the animations in the article have been manufactured by me. I would very much appreciate it if you will read it, and follow the logic through, even it if appears counterintuitive at first. My version of the coriolis effect article is based on the scientific articles that are listed in the references section of the article.

If you feel my version of the coriolis effect article presents the physics correctly, then I would really appreciate your help in defending it. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 13:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Before registering, I frequentely restored the "Binary Model etc." part on the article, and I also tried editing it several times in order to make it more NPOV and acceptable to you 2 (Cleon and you). Sadly, the article was removed, and any reference to it has been purged from the article. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and Hollow Earth as well as other equally almost non-sense theories' articles are still there, I'm thinking contacting user Ungtss and other users who and ask for the main "Binary Model" article to be restored.

Would you mind if it were restored and not linked directly from this page? Perhaps we could reach a middle ground by having that article restored and linking to "Precession", but not the opposite (no links thither from Precession). I personally find irritating the usage of ancient Vedic texts as "scientific evidence", nonetheless I found it interesting - there may be a relationship between this pseudo-scientific model and the Nemesis one, if only the "Binary Research" presented it in more "orthodox" ways...

It would be great to have the "Binary Model" with a "Criticisim" section on it, where your objections recorded in the Precession's discussion page would be placed. Yours TrollDeBatalla

Editorialization

Why do you not remove the NAS editorialization? Dan Watts 20:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote

Thanks very much for your vote of support on my Jean Schmidt article. I'm pleased to say it is today's featured article of the day. PedanticallySpeaking 16:51, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Flood Geology

Hello. Just to say that I've put a short note onto the Flood Geology discussion page re: the ongoing debate about the citation of that "academic" reference. I can see this spinning off into a flame-war (or whatever one has on Wiki), so my view is (perhaps foolishly) to compromise, and allow a short reference to the work in. Certainly something much reduced and much more NPOV than what's been proposed to date. Then it can subsequently be qualified and commented on. I'm probably giving too much ground to the creationists, but I'm very conscious of the fact that (however dubiously) the reference is published, and that allowing said creationists to cry censorship can be dangerous. --Plumbago 08:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

At it again

I'm back at it again with my Bruce Johnson article, nominated as a FAC. He's Ohio's lieutenant governor and already at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bruce Johnson are votes opposing. I hope you don't find me a pest, but I find when I don't go out and ask folks such as yourself for their votes, my FAC's invariably are defeated. So I'd be grateful if you'd put your two cents worth in. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 17:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Revert

Hello. Could you kindly take a stab at rewording the info on the school that gave David Duke his doctorate before deleting it? Something should remain in the article itself. I think the fact that the school has 30,000 students and is considered legit is notable. It is surprising to many observers, and therefore more (not less) info should be provided to the reader. ThanksDannyZz 18:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Gerwani, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Moab

I recently made extensive additions and revisions to Moab. Since you helped improve Edom after I did a similar overhaul on that article I thought you might want to know. --Briangotts (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Six Day War

The Six Day War article still needs some cleanup, but is starting to look pretty good. We may actually end up with an article on an Arab-Israeli war that is actually a history, rather than an apologetic diatribe. How long it will stay that way is another question. Brian Tvedt 19:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Mark Felt Redux

In June you voted on the featured article candidacy of W. Mark Felt, which failed. It has now been resubmitted. In the event you would like to vote on the new candidacy, it is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/W. Mark Felt/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 18:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Israeli West Bank barrier

Thanks - the problem was not particularly with the intro (which is mostly based on Zeq's paragraph) but with the "Effects on Palestinians" section. I have on numerous occasions given in to the opposing editor's demands but he apparently insists on redundancy, bad grammar, and removing balancing statements from his own UN sources which he provided. I don't see that his/her version is too different from mine, but am having a difficult time "giving and giving" instead of "giving and taking" with him/her. I have asked an Israeli editor to add to the "Effects on Israeli security" as well. Thanks for your input. Ramallite ^(talk) 15:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Ramallite

Would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Ramallite? I'm concerned with the POV expressed by some of the oppose votes. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Six Day War Edits

From my few past interactions with you I know you are a responsible and rational editor, however I strongly disagree with the new six day war article. Although you have properly cited your sources, it seems like you have downplayed the traditional reasons for the war which most historians still agree upon. I understand your desire to present the other side, but instead of being neutral the new article virtually places all the blame on Israel for the war. Would you agree to help present both sides in a way that is as neutral as possible? please respond on my talk page with your thoughts, thanks.- 10:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk)

Thanks

Thank you so much for supporting my RfA, it was a rough one but I made it through. I greatly appreciate it! Ramallite ^(talk) 03:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Pollock's Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991

Is this really a good source? From what little I've read, it appears to be overly simplified, and seems to use quite a few sterotypes as proof for his reasoning. Have you heard anything negative about it? or is it generally well regarded?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk) 03:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The section in the article 1948 Arab-Israeli War

"This phase of the war conducted during the exiting of the British from Palestine. Areas that the British evacuated became fastly to battle zone. The British withdrawal had a deeper significance regarding the development of fighting. The British evacuated their forces on specific axes of evacuation, and refused to let the sides to fight on this axes as long as they didn't evacuated forces from there. In some cases the British even forced the conquerors (Jews or Arabs) of an area to evacuate it for not to disturb to their exiting from the land. Likewise, during the British evacuation the Jews feared to make large conquests, in the faith that a British retaliation act will come. Therefore, in a substantial part of the cases, the Jewish fighting limited to military retaliation acts against the Arabs of Palestine and then retreat back. After the evacuation of Haifa which started in April 21 1948 the Jewish conception changed and the Jewish military organizations attacked Arab settlements in order to conquer them.". What is wrong in this section? I suggest that we will repair this section and put it in the article, because it is written about this issue in the Hebrew Wikipedia! Toya 06:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Your sig

Hi Ian. Your signature is causing trouble. For example at Talk:1948_Arab-Israeli_War everything from your latest sig to the end of the page is bold. The reason is that the Wiki software is changing your </b> tag into &lt;/b&gt; (hope that displays correctly). Maybe if you use the wiki bolding method of 3 apostrophes. --Zero 23:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Zero

Just out of curiousity, what do you think of Zero? do you think he is a good administrator or do you think he is overly condenscending and rude?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg User_talk:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg;(talk)]] 20:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Bizarre Conclusion?

In reply to your comment- but presumably NPOV to include this bizarre conclusion without references: "During the uprising, Arab general strikes and riots targeted both the British and Jews alike. Moderate Palestinian Arabs who were seen as collaborators were also lynched and assassinated by Arab extremists. In fact, it is possible that the number of Arabs murdered by Arabs constituted the greatest number of the victims of violence of this period." It is not my conclusion, it is merely an edited version of a passage that you deleted I added just added ambiguity to it so that it would be less controversial (it is possible that the number). So please don't be so critical of me when I didn't even do anything so bad.

Also the reason I edited so much of your new "Great Uprising" section was because it seemed like much of the material was devoted to making it seem like the revolting arabs were completly justified in every act they were engaged in, while the Jewish militias were only there to make the palestinian's lifes as miserable as possible. I also editede passages like the one describing Wingate as a "Christian Zionist" or the one that called the 1948 war "The Catastrophe", I do not think what I did was really that unjustified or controversial.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

3RR violation.

You can self revert. see talk page. Zeq 10:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

response re 1948 war

Ian, rather than respond here and on others' talk pages, I will respond on the talk page of the 1948 war article. Kriegman 15:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Jewish Settlement police

The reason I sent the message to Heptor was because I felt that many of your edits were similar to what was removed from the 1948 article that we all had previously edited. However, you are correct, it was rude of me to not talk to your first, for that I apoligize.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources

Hi Ian, all editors have to edit in accordance with the three content policies, which are WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. Both NOR and V require that we supply credible sources for our edits and anything challenged and not sourced may be removed. Likewise, they should not be removing material of yours that is properly sourced, so long as it's relevant and not a violation of NOR. I can't comment in detail because I don't know the isues, but you should try insisting that the policies be adhered to and see whether that helps. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

If you ever get to review the issue, here are the changes Ian disputes. My reasons are stated on the talk page. To sum up, the sources in question are opinions by particular authors and/or just sentences bearing little or no information. As such, they are not notable. My version of the article gives the same amount of factual information, while being considerably shorter. That said, read the talk page - if you ever get to it. --Heptor 22:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Editing issues

Hi Ian. I see you have been you have been having running into difficulties with other editors recently. If you think I can help in some way, please let me know. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I've looking at the debate on the Talk: pages, and its lengthy and complicated. I might not be able to comment intelligently on the subject today, but I will start reading. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Ian, I just wanted to let you know that you violted the three revert rule on 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Now that the page is protected, please discuss your edits. Additonally, like Jay, I'm willing to help if you need it. Thanks.--Sean|Black 03:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Zeq has approached me in the hopes that I will informally mediate the dispute at Talk:1948 Arab-Israeli War. Is that arrangement okay with you?--Sean|Black 23:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Shark energy drink

Please read up on speedy deletion criteria. "Non-notable" is a reason to put something on WP:AFD for discussion, not to speedy it. Please take a little more care with your tagging in the future. (I would still delete it under CSD criterion A1, though.- Mgm|^(talk) 10:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on a lot of my recent additions... I'm a wiki-infant and definately need some cleaning up after. (Mrfish33)

Weinmair cats

You added births and deaths categories to Karl Josef Weinmair in 2 minutes after creation. You are impressively fast! GRuban 18:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Hey Ian Pitchford! Thanks for your support on my RfA. The final outcome was an unanimous (45/0/0), so I am now an administrator. If you need help, or have a question, please don't hesitate to let me know! Again, thanks! :D --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Deandre Martin King

MLK had five kids dumb ass. his fifth kid died after 3 months. his name was Deandre. 19:44, 23 December 2005 Big Pimpin

Izehar's RfA

Hi Ian,

I would like to thank you for your kind support on my RfA. I'll do my best to be a good administrator. If you need anything or if I ever do something I shouldn't have, please, don't hesitate to drop me a line. Izehar 16:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi Ian! I so appreciate your vote. Thank you for your kind support on my RfA. -- Szvest 17:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Howcheng's RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship. I was successfully promoted with a final tally of 74/0/0. I will endeavour not to let you down. Thanks again. howcheng {chat} 07:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi

My name is Michael, And Im interested to help with the Asia project. Im interested on the suryoyo people (syriacs,arameans,assyrians,chaldeans,maronites and melkites).

Im woundering if there is any possiblity to make such topic.

Best regards Michael

war of 1948 article

Hello,

I reply about british involvment during 1948 war. I don't understand how you can conclude that British were not neutral and even pro-Hachemite from the fact that british officers would have been ordered to abandon the battle if Arab Legion would attack jewish state territory. This is not "much" to have such a claim. This is not exactly true because they attacked jewish quarters of old city of Jerusalem. More what you write implies they were british officer. If that is not an involvment, what is in an involvment ? The white book, some of their diplomatic fight against partition vote, the interdiction of immigration until 15 may with chypriot settlements, their wish and diplomatic fight to see Neguev under hachemite control, ... Historians also write in that direction (eg Pape which is rather more pro palestinian than pro zionist). All this tends to prove that British were neutral with some support for (Trans)Jordania.

???

I really find the complete article very bad. It sounds like a battle between two sides to have the opportunity to add some comments that would "blacken" the image of the other side. The chapter "background" is really badly written doesn't deserve there so much lines. This should be summarized with references to another article in wikipedia.

User:ChrisC 11:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

---

HJello Ian. Thank you for your answer on my talk page. When the dispute is settled I think it is interested to work on the article. Happy NeW Year. User:ChrisC 16:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Costa Rica

Squeakbox says the Costa Rica statement violates the NPOV i dont think it does because its just a statement people have made to about Costa Rica. XGustaX Could you please help me out. I want to end this conflict.

Category:Israeli people

Hi Ian, a happy new year! I noticed you are doing a wonderful clean-up job in many articles. I do have a question. I am somewhat puzzled about your adding the category Israeli people to Yitzhak Shamir, Yigal Amir and others. Is there a change that I missed in categorization policies, both in specific categories and underlying categories? Regards, gidonb 18:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see the answer to your answer on my talk page. gidonb 20:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Contributions

Hello Ian. I have just spent 1 hour reading different articles around 1948 conflit. Congratulation for your contributions. You really makes a nice and good job ! User:ChrisC 20:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Books

Hi! I think this discussion about naming conventions for books is interesting, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Titl(ing) books. Please participate! Cheers -- Szvest 22:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Ceramics

The ceramics page never defines what ceramics are. Dictionary.com gives this:

ce·ram·ic   Audio pronunciation of "ceramics" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (s-rmk)

n.

  1. Any of various hard, brittle, heat-resistant and corrosion-resistant materials made by shaping and then firing a nonmetallic mineral, such as clay, at a high temperature.

Is there not a more technical definition for ceramics?

Naji al-Ali

Hi Ian,

I noticed you changed the date of birth cited on this page to 1938. What is your source for that? I'm wondering because the Arabic wikipedia article, which this page started as a translation from, cites his year of birth as 1937, while a book I have about him - the one referenced in the article - cites it as 1936. What the book says in a footnote on the subject is "Sulaiman al-Shaikh - "The caricature artist Naji al-Ali" - in the Kuwaiti magazine al-`Arabi, no. 297, August 1983. Naji al-`Ali saw this date and did not raise any objection." While the book is certainly not academic, it's also worth noting that amongst those thanked by the author is Khalid al-`Ali, the artist's son.

On the other hand, on this page Naji al`Ali himself is quoted as saying "I was born where Christ was born: between Tiberias and Nazareth in the village of al-Shahra in the northern Galilee, and I was expelled from there ten years later in 1948 to `Ain al-Hilwe camp in Lebanon."

However, the same site also bases its short biography of Naji al-`Ali on the book I used, and gives the year 1936 for his birth accordingly.

Unless you have a solid source, I think we may have to leave it as unknown.

By the way, that site also shows a pretty cool PFLP poster about his assassination, I wonder could we get permission to use it...

All the best, Palmiro | Talk 23:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Not so much controversial as, it would appear, simply not known for sure. c1937 seems like a reasonable way of putting it. Palmiro | Talk 20:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Jordanian annexation of Jerusalem

Hello Ian. When Jordan annexed WB+EJ in 1950, Britian recognised it. BUT, did the British recognition exclude East Jerusalem? That's what it says in a few articles here but I can't find a source one way or the other. Do you have anything on this? Thanks. Zero 01:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that is excellent. Today just for fun I'll see if I can find it in Hansard. Cheers, --Zero 00:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is a scan. It is notable that they explicitly said that the Anglo-Jordan treaty applied to EJ. This is the exact opposite of what I read in Shlaim's "Politics of Partition". --Zero 12:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

war of 1948

Hello Ian. I went on working on the article but everybody seems to have disappeared :( Your comments are welcome :) User:ChrisC 11:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for the article from The Times. This proves the proper adjective is "jewish" and that the use of "Zionist" is a POV.

I assume you also wanted to show that Jews didn't fear a genocide threat by this ? Is this correct ? Even if I think indeed this is not the case I think the idea should deserve to be treated in the article to - as you said somewhere else - treat with NPOV the point of views of protagonists. :-)

I am very sorry by the current situation that prevents us from working properly.

I would highly appreciate your mind about the new background I suggest for the article 1948 Arab-Israeli war. If you agree I would like you suggest or add the appropriate sentence after the paragraph about Great Uprising to indicate consequences for the Arabs side.

Just one sentence please :-)... I am still fully convinced a background must describe a context giving doors towards deeper analysis. We must wear the dresses of a reader discovering the topic when we write this.

Thank you. User:ChrisC 09:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have followed the problem about Mufti since the beginning. I understand but maybe I am wrong that you want references for what Mufti said. Personnally, I would like a professional historian's mind to explain if yes or not Jews feared a genocide threath.

I have started reading Jerusalem Post. If have found this :

Palestine Post, 27 mars 1946. Mr. Shertok (…) Countering the assertion that the leader had done nothing actively to further the Nazi victory, he recalled the Mufti’s Berlin broadcasts calling on the Arab world to carry out sabotage behind the British lines and await the signal for a general rising, its organization of Palestina Arab prisoners of war for service in Germany Army units ; his propaganda tour of Moslem Bosnia ; and his part in instigation the extermination of the Jews

If the author lies or not is not the problem : that is what Jews read in the Palestine Post. Nevertheless according to me this is not enough. More I think our work is not to find by ourselves what happened but to report what historians and other consider (or claim) that happens.

User:ChrisC 19:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

There is also this -I already referred to with you- from Pappé :

a speech of Ben Gourion at Knesset on 11 october 1961 (free translation from French) : Arab left areas assigned to Jewish state... immediately after the vote of the UN resolution. And we possess explicit document testifying that they left Palestine (sic) following instructions of Arab leaders, Mufti first, who claimed at the end of the Mandate, that invading arab armies would destroy jewish state and threw jewish to sea, dead or alive.

consequences of 1936-39 according to Ben Gourion

I have found this too. It seems that Ben Gourion confirm that indeed palestinian political structure were destroyed during Great Uprising but he says Mufti is responsible :

« Mufti’s Opponents Murdered »

(Mr. Ben Gourion) pointed out that not all Arabs had taken part in the excesses of 1936-1939, some even assisting their Jewish neighbours. He went on : more Arabs than Jews were murdered by Arab terrorists. All the Arab victms of Arab terrorism were… the political opponents of the ex-Mufti. (Palestine Post, 6 July, 1947)

Hello Ian. It was not really a question from me but rather informations I wanted to tranmit to you. What I wanted to show is that the hypothesis according to which Jews would fear a genocide war is not stupid as shown by the quotes I show you. The fact that it is not stupid doesn't mean that it is real or even it deserves to be written in wiki.

From my side what I don't agree to answer to the question if it is revelant or not for war. I think that the matter is this is revelant for wikipedia if a historian or somebody with a worldwide notoriaty studied this because he considered this revelant. Whoever he is, we just have to report what he told and eventually remind who he is. An important question is to know if there is somebody else than Rabbi Dalin who claims so (and eventually Pearlman I don't have his book).

I also think this is exactly the same concerning eg "master plan". Our matter is not to know if this is propaganda or not or even true or not. Our matter is to report what historians or notorious people claim about this. We don't have to decide who deserves to see his pov reported a npov way in wikipedia. The reader will decide according to what he knows about him.

Now you can say : "what if Michael Jackson would comment that there war a genocide war in Belgium last 5 years ?". I think this should be reported in Belgium article, wouldn't it ???

Do you agree ? disagree ? or maybe what I write is not clear (my English is far from being perfect, sorry for this) ?

User:ChrisC 10:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Rfa thanks

Hello Ian! Thank you for supporting my Rfa and your kind comment :). I will try my best to be a good administrator and please ask if you need any help. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Francs2000's Bureaucratship

Thanks for your support on my request for bureaucratship.

The final outcome was (70/5/0), so I am now a bureaucrat. I seriously didn't expect so many good comments from everybody and I appreciated the constructive criticism from those that gave it. If you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as a bureaucrat then please leave me a note. -- Francs2000 22:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Ian_Pitchford

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Ian_Pitchford. William M. Connolley 18:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC).

I've blocked you for 8h for 3rr violation on Palestinian_exodus. Please reply here if you wish to contest this. William M. Connolley 19:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC).

Massive changes

Don't vanadlise the page. If you want to interduce massive amount of changes: Discuss them first in talk. You know the rules: We are in the middle of discussions and you can not make massive changes without discussion. Zeq 07:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Hi Ian. I have protected the page because of the huge revert war. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Pending case

With a case pending, I can't get involved. Fred Bauder 22:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ian. As per Fred, with a case pending I can't get involved on the Talk: page. However, if this does not turn into a case, then I will come to the page and see what I can do. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

1948 Arab-Israeli War....again

HI Ian, we're going to try this again. See Talk:1948 Arab-Israeli War.--Sean|Black 22:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Jaffa

Hi Ian, I'm about 10K miles from home and can't easily defend Jaffa which is under attack by a new know-nothing. Thought you might have nothing better to do ;-). Cheers, Zero 01:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC).

Injunction

The Arbitration Committee has passed a temporary injunction in your case. Until the conclusion of the case, you and Zeq are banned from editing Palestinian exodus and 1948 Arab-Israeli War. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq#Temporary_injunction. Dmcdevit·t 05:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Baruch Goldstein

Actually, I reverted a change that placed it in "Palestine." Aiden 17:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but there are countless others who should also be there. Either we need to have a comprehensive list or no list at all. And due to Wikipedia policy prohibiting the labelling of an individual or group as a terrorist, the category and all links to it should be removed. Aiden 19:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikiweise

Could you explain to me what this edit was about? Ben ^T/_C 17:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Jaffa

Hi Ian, the oil refinery massacre of Dec 30, 1947, was at the Haifa refinery not at Jaffa. Cheers, Zero 03:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what the "Jewish workers in a factory" claim refers to. Without a date it is too hard to check carefully. I'd suggest deleting it and asking for a citation. --Zero 15:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Haifa vs. Capture

Hi — I saw your addition to the Haifa article. I think it would be more appropriate in Capture of Haifa in 1948; my problem with the line is that it's a nonsequitur. (So if you can add more historical information — I know very little — that works, too!) --Mgreenbe 10:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

For defending Wikipedia from abuse by those in positions of responsibility,Defender of the Wiki Barnstar. Cynical 19:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

AWB Usage

Hi. In regards to this and moreso this edit, they both violated the rules for using AWB. Avoid making extremely minor edits such as adding or removing a single space or replacing an underscore in a template call with a space. Removing spaces that make no difference in the appearance of the webpage (and doesn't really make much of a change in the source either) clutters up edit histories and adds unnecessary data to the database. Clicking "Ignore" is just as easy as clicking "Save". Please be more careful in the future as edits like these can give AWB a bad reputation. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to add to this: This edit is also bad, and in fact does the opposite of what the edit summary says. The deletion category should stay with the AfD notice, so it can be easily removed when the page is kept. Please take a moment to see whether you have done this in more places and clean up by putting the category back to the AfD message where it belongs. Thank you, Kusma (討論) 21:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom

Hello Ian. Hope you are fine :-)

I don't know if this is the right place but I think this is a good start towards the right solution [1]. I leave you inform appropriate people if useful. User:ChrisC 10:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Personnaly I think it would be interesting to succeed in rulling the relevance and hierarchy in sources and it is the heart of the matter in the case.

More as I understand the different writing of Zeq I think that this is a common point between what you and Zeq requested.

I think it would be interesting if all involved parties would discuss about these rules and give their mind in ther workshop of the ArbCom. Having such rules will solve current case and could further quarrels and loss of energy.

Have a nice day. User:ChrisC 12:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

palestinian exodus

Hello once again.

I added some days ago view of Prof Gelber from Haifa University. That is something new I think. I also gathered different paragraph unders "what generated the palestinian exodus".

This made me think to this :

1. You wrote the paragraph describing Khalidi's thesis. I don't think the "master plan" theory of Khalidi can be based on the "transfer principle of Morris simply because developed this thesis after Khalidi wrote his.

2. I think "transfer principle" can nevertheless justify this thesis but it can also justify the palestinian exodus was needed for Israel.

I would suggest to avoid a war that you move the transfer paragraph at the end of the article, after absentee paragraph because it illustrate several things, eventually modifying this and that you add a summary of this as first paragraph of master plan to describe what Khalidi used from these informations in this thesis.

That will not change a lot but will stop the current quarrel and as the author, you are the only one who can do this... let's say : quietly ? ;-)

What do you think about that ?

Have a nice day. :) User:ChrisC 21:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

please take more care with semi-automated tools!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ISO/IEC_8859-11&curid=275997&diff=40019589&oldid=35074345

you doubled up the [ in the table and removed the entire text of the link for the underscore. Plugwash 16:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"Clean-up"

In what sense is changing one correct word "earnt" to another "earned" a "clean-up"? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Earnt

"Earnt" is a standard past tense of the verb "earn", used commonly in the U.K., though apparently lost to sight in the U.S. (as with "learnt" and cognates). Actually, having said that, Googling suggests otherwise (international vs U.K.); it seems to be a personal blond spot on your part, I'm afraid. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Most dictionaries don't give conjugations for verbs, though Fowler's Modern English Usage includes "earnt" in its list under the heading "-t", for which the explanatory text reads:

"A number of irregular verbs have competing past forms and past participles in -t and -ed (e.g. leapt and leaped); the most common of these are given in the table below. In some cases the length of the vowel is shortened in the -t forms (e.g. lept instead of leept for leapt). It is difficult to establish distinctions based on region or meaning, but two tendencies are discernible: (1) the form in -ed is more often preferred in AmE, and (2) in BrE there is a stronger preference for the -t form when it is used as a participial adjective, as in The cakes are burnt as distinct from We burned the cakes." (I found it on the Oxford reference Web page, which is for subscribers only, so can't give a useful link)

What's the link for the Wikipedia list of "spelling mistakes"? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the link. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hi. I've recently found a number of edit summaries on my watchlist starting with "AWB assisted ...".

Starting your edit summary with a link promoting some software makes it slower for me to scan my watchlist. It's also frustrating because I can't even run Windows software on my computer, so it feels a bit like you are spamming my watchlist (no offence intended). Would you mind setting your AWB software so that it doesn't add the promotional link to the edit summary, or at least so it puts it at the end, like "... using AWB"?

If you don't mind, would you also leave a note for the developers whether you agree with me or not, at talk:AutoWikiBrowser? Thanks, Michael Z. 2006-02-20 05:31 Z

Spelling

Regarding this edit here...[2], should the spelling on the main page be changed? --HappyCamper 13:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The changes have been made. I went with the initial spelling of the article when it was created. --HappyCamper 13:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Encarta

Oh my.. what an embarrassment. --Zero 23:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation on Talk:Amin al-Husayni

Mediation has started; please join us and have your say. --Cyde Weys 07:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

edit without discussion

I added two links of Arabic to English translations on the Arab Israeli Conflict page and it looks like you summarily discarded them without any discussion. I think they are useful sites. Why remove without discussion? I didn't think that was the way things generally worked on this site. ~~

Blank lines

Hi. I noticed your edit at Romanian nouns. Is there a rule about leaving or not leaving a blank line between a section title and the following paragraph in the source? As this has no effect on the article's appearence I think it should be left to each editor's choice. Personally I think that space makes it easier to spot a certain section in a long article. — AdiJapan ☎ 06:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

AWB question

I noticed your AWB-assisted cleanup picked up a mis-spelling in de Havilland Canada Dash 7. I ran AWB on the same page yesterday and it didn't catch it so I was wondering if I'm doing something wrong or if your AWB has additional capability. Thanks! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 01:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi. On USS Trigger (SS-237), you replaced the HTML italic tags with '', which changed

Trigger met submarine Tang (SS-306) on 14 April and exchanged information by line gun. The next day, Trigger's executive officer went on board Tang by a rubber boat, to borrow an air compressor part and to make plans for a coordinated search and attack. On 18 April, Tang's executive officer delivered spare parts for the air compressor to Trigger, and she continued on patrol.

to

Trigger met submarine Tang (SS-306) on 14 April and exchanged information by line gun. The next day, Triggers executive officer went on board Tang by a rubber boat, to borrow an air compressor part and to make plans for a coordinated search and attack. On 18 April, Tangs executive officer delivered spare parts for the air compressor to Trigger, and she continued on patrol.

The problem is that the wiki software interprets two '''s within one paragraph as the beginning and end of bold markup, rather than the end and biginning of italic markup. There are several ways of avoiding this:

(A) ''..''’, (B) <i>..</i>', and (C) ''..''<nowiki>'</nowiki>.

—wwoods 22:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

AWB cleanup problem?

Hi Ian, I noticed what may be a bug in AWB, wanted to bring it to your attention. See you edit[3] on 2006-02-24 14:53:07 at Historical Shi'a-Sunni relations; three right brackets were erroneously replaced with one at the end of an image reference. best, --Xian 22:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

AWB blank lines fomatting lost

Your AWB assisted edit picked up a spelling error and added new categories (thanks for that), however it caused also all multiple consecutive blank lines used for formatting purposes to be lost. While double blank line can often be a result of distraction, ours were carefully chosen to help readability of a long list-type article (for now up to 5 levels of indent). I am reverting, keeping usefull changes. BTW talking about List of Slovaks article. Jurohi 01:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq

This arbitration case has closed. Zeq is banned from articles he has disrupted and placed on Probation. Zeq and Heptor are cautioned regarding sources. Zeq is cautioned regarding removal of well sourced information. Others are cautioned to use the procedures in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Where applicable, these remedies are to be enforced by block. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 09:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Al Askari Mosque

Hi - I wanted to apologize for not getting to this before, apparently Zeq left a message on my page right after you did so I overlooked your message. I figured you were referring to Palmiro's entry so I responded there. My apologies. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

More AWB problems

Ian, you may want to be more careful when you are using the AutoWikiBrowser to make edits, particularly in relation to "corrections" of spelling mistakes. It is convention to use regional variations of English spelling in articles relating to that region; I had to undo this edit where you changed "honourary" to "honorary" for that reason. Also, you made this edit to Honorary degree, which in effect broke the paragraph which explains the use of different spellings. Please take more care when using AWB in the future. --bainer (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Palestinian exodus

Nice work. To be honnest : that sounds much like what I wrote in the French wikipedia. Just one point and 1 questions.

I think all Morris, Pappé and Gelber, I also read Laurens in French and most historians (following Pappé) agree that the 100,000 (Pappé says 70,000 until February) were middle and upper class palestinians. What you wrote is not clear. That could mean 100,000 left and then, "in more of that" or "a number not specified among these", were palestinian leaders, middle and upper class etc. I think the sentences are very ambiguous about that and would deserve to be corrected.

Are you sure the only --expulsion-- were the one you specify ? I noted :

• last unhabitants of Caesare and the village were destroyed
• some villages all around Jerusalem (Rifta et Romema)
• beduins villages of Mansurat al-Kheit, al Huseiniya al-Ulmaniya et Kirad al-Ghannama
• Sheikh Badr and Tabiyeh

User:ChrisC 22:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

9 and not 17 refrences

Funny. Hopefully I read palestinian exodus before... You didn't even read the text as shown by your poor comments. Here is my answer : [4] I am waiting for your apologizes for the going to trouble. User:ChrisC 23:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

List of villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war

What do you think about making it into a table (probably a table for each district)? I imagine columns like name, 1945 population (the latest available), date of depopulation, Morris' code for the main reason, plus a column for brief remarks. --Zero 11:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Morris's list is partitioned differently from ours and has no information except his single-letter codes. It is also shorter by about 40 villages (not sure why, maybe he leaves out places about which he has no information at all). Can we start with Khalidi's list, which is now the list in the article? How to partition the work between us? Do you have access to Khalidi? --Zero 11:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Is Excel a good way to start? I have it but rarely use it. Will it be simple to convert it to wiki later? Anyway, use your best judgment on that. Here is my suggestion for a plan of action: If you initialise a table (Excel or wiki) with the village names and send it to me, I will start to add data from Khalidi. I'm pretty sure that the village names in the article now match Khalidi exactly. --Zero 12:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Placing of years of birth

Could you please stop shifting years of birth to the top of category lists in articles about people? I don't think it is even possible to make any sort of sensible case that they are the most important or useful categories for a person so they should not go at the top of the list. Thank you. Osomec 22:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note Osomec. Those changes are built into the software and so I imagine they are in accordance with policy. --Ian Pitchford 09:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You may be able to get the software to do it depending on how you set it up, but it is absolutely not in accordance with categorisation policy. If you disagree, please prove it. Osomec 22:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it's set up that way. Try raising the point at WP:AWB. --Ian Pitchford 22:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

All that proves is that User:Bluemoose set it up that way. One persons preference is not a policy. Categorisation policy is to be found on the relevant policy pages, not in Bluemoose's head. Osomec 22:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That's right. It's not configurable with regard to ordering of categories. I can't see anything particularly impractical about alphabetical order in an encyclopedia though and don't have a particular view. If you think it's important raise it AWB. I'm sure they'll pay attention. --Ian Pitchford 22:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I have. It is just absurd to give more priority to the year of birth of a President of France than to the fact that he was a President of France. This is not what most human editors do. In my opinion it is as silly as using a piece of software to reorganise the paragraphs of an article in alphabetical order according to the first word. Osomec 22:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Machsom Watch

In the process of getting gang-raped. --Zero 23:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

palestinian exodus

Hello Ian. My point was that had to be done what Rudy did. I don't know what is true or not. And even if I would be highly convinced something was untrue, I have to report all relevant information given by all relevant people. Step by step we add information and only remove with the highest care. Useless to debate this ;-) User:ChrisC 11:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Links and your last copyedit of MEMRI page

Hi, Your recent copyedit of the MEMRI page introduced an extra link of Jerusalem. You also took out the language links I had added at first mention of Farsi, Arabic etc and moved them below. Also, is it necessary to link to English language in the English Wikipedia? Not sure.

I know you are very very familiar with Wiki, but reproduce quote from the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links): "The purpose of internal links is to allow readers to easily and conveniently follow their curiosity or research to other articles. These links should be included where it is most likely that a reader would want to follow them elsewhere — for example, in article introductions, the beginnings of new sections,...On the other hand, do not make too many links. An article may be considered overlinked if any of the following is true: a link is repeated in the same article (although there may be case for duplicating an important link that is distant from the previous occurrence), low value links are added without reason. "

Also, I commented out why I changed these links. Could you also comment out your changes with more than "copyedit" when you are changing stuff that was commented out?

Thanks, and enjoying collaboration. elizmr 17:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I meant comment on edit summary and not "comment out". Sorry. I would still ask you to summarize with something more relective of the change than "copyedit". For your last edit you could say something like "fix html, put back lost script" or somesuch. I will put back what I did to fix the wikilinks (ie move to first mention, remove redundant, etc. elizmr 18:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I know about "preview". I made the edits as separate on purpose, so that I could justify why I was doing them in comments and all would understand. elizmr 18:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I hear you, and don't want to junk up the database. On this very disputed page, however, I felt that it was better to err on the side of explaining more rather than less so no one would jump to unjustified conclusions. I will be very careful of this when I'm editing topics that aren't minefields. OK? elizmr 18:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, no apology necessary. As a newcomer, I very much appreciate your advice. elizmr 18:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Saudis

Incidentally, I found that abstract using "Historical Abstracts". I only recently discovered that we have a subscription, unlike what I thought. It's pretty good for articles since about 1980. --Zero 11:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

1948 Arab Israeli war

Hey Ian, its been a long time. I missed you. Anyways I remember it was originally me and you that discussed showing the initial and final troop strength of each nation involved. What seems rather odd with the info is the fact that the table shows Iraq having a final strength of 15k to 18k troops, while Syria only had 5,000 and Transjordan only had 8,000, from what I know this sounds like a somewhat odd figure especially considering the fact that the Arab Legion was based in Jordan, are you sure about these number?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

So do you think they used different prerequisites for the Iraq figures, and the one for Jordan and Syria? If this is the case do you think we should lower the figures for Iraq, or raise them for Jordan?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Citation policy

Hi, you might like to see Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#The leap-frogged citations problem. Note that I have deliberately avoided giving a real example so that the principle is not obscured by some controversial issue. --Zero 14:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

arab-israeli conflict

Why did you revert the edit I maded which added clarification that the first section presents israeli views and the second section, which already contains "arab/palestinian views" header, contains pal. views? Lokiloki 20:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Pitchford reverted your edits because the previous edit to yours was vandalism. If you compare the edit history and navigate in either direction using the "older" or "newer" links, you will see this for yourself. You may also want to familiarize yourself with the edit history. Follow the link to Help:Page history. This will also answer your question as to how to revert a page. If you are on a shared computer (or IP address), there may be further issues. —Viriditas | Talk 22:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hasan Salama

Hello, I see that you started the article on Hasan Salama. I don´t know if I´m on a completely wrong path here, but was he related/or possibly the same as Shaykh Hassan Salameh, (who was killed fighting in 1948, North of Jaffa)? Shaykh Hassan Salameh was the father of Ali Hassan Salameh. Regards, Huldra 00:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I´m trying to find out where Nabil Salameh, the father of Nadine Salameh, fits into the picture. Do you have any knowledge about this? Regards, Huldra 00:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: Ah, just read this: [5]:Nabil Salameh was a cousin of Ali Hassan Salameh.

Thanks for the good work! Regards, Huldra 06:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Patrol1948.jpeg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Patrol1948.jpeg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Pecher ^Talk 20:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Palestinian refugees

Ian, you seem to be very knowledgeable. Perhaps you could exlain a couple of questions for me, or point to a right direction:

• I know the definition of Palestinian refugees differs from the "general" definition. Are the Palestinian refugees unique in passing this status to next generations? What are other similar groups? Any details of this decision: when, who, why, etc?
• Is there a mechanism for them to "graduate" from this status, like other refugee groups do?

Thanks much. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. I decided to ask because I was switching Palestinian refugee to <refs> format and thought (and still think) that these points are vital. I think this should be described in the article. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Coism

Interested to see you comment that Coism is Pro-Life. I know no other Coists who would describe themselves as anything other than Pro-Choice. Regards. Mjefm 21:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Cheryl Rubenberg

Cheryl Rubenberg has been proposed for deletion. Please see the article for details. NickelShoe (Talk) 20:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia survey

Hi. I'm doing a survey of Wikipedia editors as part of a class research project. It's quick, anonymous, and the data will be made available to the Wikipedia community later this month. Would you like to take part? More info here. Thanks! Nonplus 00:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia survey

Hi. I'm doing a survey of Wikipedia editors as part of a class research project. It's quick, anonymous, and the data will be made available to the Wikipedia community later this month. Would you like to take part? More info here. Thanks! Nonplus 00:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

1947 UN plan

HI, Can you clear up the quote: "According to Michael Fishbach, of the land that was later covered by the 1949 Armistice Agreements the Jewish National Fund and private Jewish owners possessed under 2,000,000 dunums. The mandatory government held around 300,000-400,000 dunums and the remaining land belonged to private Arab owners (Fischbach, 2003, p. 59). " Basically what is meant "land that was later covered by the 1949 Armistice Agreements". Can you pls. look up the context of the book you quoted and clarify what land is bieng talked about here. This would be quite useful in our debate [6].Bless sins 04:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I've already explained to Bless sins that footnote 137 on that page refers to a chapter in The Jewish National Fund, which itself refers to a footnote (number 285). Jayjg ^(talk) 05:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Palestine

There is nothing controversial about it. It is you is acting against policy, as these are all well known facts.

• in contravention of the original Mandate provisions- it is well known the original mandate for a jewish homeland given to Britian included the transjordan (see British Mandate of Palestine). If you think otherwise please bring reference.
• and annexed- Jordan indeed annexed the West Bank in 1950, which was part of the mandate. See West Bank.
• From the 1960s onward- this term (referring to the Palestinian people, not the Palestine mandate) was NOT used regularly until the 1960's, when the PLO was formed.

Now please either bring evidence to the contrary, or stop reverting these edits. -Sangil 19:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

In case it isn't clear, I am referring to my first edit. In the second one I indeed removed a lot of information by mistake.

-Sangil 19:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

After carefully reading the MOS guide you directed me to, it does not seem to prohibit appropriate use of His Majesty's correct title within the article. The MOS section notes that it carefully distinguishes 3 categories: Nobles, government officials, and Royalty. This would be the 3rd category, Royalty. While it specifically discourages any "in line" usage of honorific titles for the nobility category, the category of Royalty is distinct, and only in the opening of the article is such usage discouraged. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

William Kamm entry

SILLY ME.

I see I can edit. when I tried to edit previously, it only allowed me to edit the external links. belay the request :-)

G'day Ian,

I want to correct a couple of minor things in the William Kamm entry (I see your name on the editor history, so I picked you :-) )

Broussard's ordination as "bishop" was never recognised by the Catholic Vhurch, as the "Bishop" (Schneider) who "ordained him" had no authority to do so.

Furthermore, in 2005, Broussard was defrocked as a preist ( he had his preistly faculties removed). This measure can only be done by the Pope.

William was not convicted of Aggravated sexual intercourse. It was aggravated sexual *assault*, in this case. (outstanding cases include allegations of sexual intercourse).

Thanks. If you need more, feel free to email me [email protected]

Wanglese 02:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC) wanglese http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese

William Kamm stuff : http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

War of 1948

Hello Ian. I come back to you with 2 pending questions. Could you answer them on the talk's page ?

• What do you think about cutting into 2 parts the description of the forces. In the background : what they were (number - quality - material) in Nov47 and at the end of phase 2, what they were (number - quality - material) on 15Mai48? What happens in between (and why) is also part of the war and deserves several sections in phase 1 and 2 (problem of material - internatinal policy - ...).
• To what pages of Chap.6 of Gelber do you refer precisely when you say he emphasizes on the great uprising ?

Thank you. User:ChrisC 12:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

ok for the first point.

Concerning Gelber, it concerns more the relevance matter than the reliabiliy. You wrote he emphasized on the Great Uprising. I don't see what you refer to.User:ChrisC 18:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

clean up using AWB

Please avoid the edit summary "clean up using AWB" - the tool you use is not the important part of the summary nor is the fact you describ it as "clanup". Please make sure to describe what you remove which is in many cases a relevant source material (and thus your automatic removal may be considetred vandalism). Thank you, Zeq 13:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Settlement maps

Hey Ian, why do we need both of these maps?-

What is in this map?

That isn't in this one?.

- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that you can't see anything unless you click on it, so it ends up taking up space without showing anything, I added a link to the map on the article linking to the page where you can enlarge it. What do you think?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Benny Moris quote on the 1948 Arab-Israeli war article

Honestly when I first wrote the it wasn't benny Morris I did it out of misunderstanding, I didn't see the quotation marks and actually thought the editor was claiming to be Benny Morris (Someone had just done a similar thing on another article talk page when I wrote it). So your response about Finkelstein and the JVL confused me even more (Toungue in cheek isn't always very obvious in writing anyways).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Casus Belli

Hey Ian, would support bringing back the casus belli section to the Military conflict template. I think it would be especially helpful for 17-19 century European conflicts were the cause of the war was relatively simplistic.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

What are Pop-ups?

I'm kinda embarrased to ask since I feel I should know already, but what are "pop-ups" as in when an edit summary says- "revert to x, using #### pop-ups"?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk-TINC 03:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why but that seems way too technological for me. Thanks for explaining it though.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Just another RFA thank you note

Dear Ian, I appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Che Guevara

I am emailing you to let you know that I did not edit the Che Guevara website that you said that I had. I am just informing you of this mistake. thank you, Cassie

Passed away

So "passed away" is considered bad form? In the Avro Arrow article you changed "passed away" to "died" in regards to an airplane, in the context I don't think died is really a good way to describe it. Qutezuce 19:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Ditto with Callimachus (sculptor). In this case, you altered a quoted translation by Morris Hicky Morgan. Unless we change the credit, you'd better check with Mr. Morgan (I believe he's dead) before making such changes. Please observe context when using AWB. Thanks. Chick Bowen 23:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

AWB

Damnit Ian when did you get so technolgically inclined. What is an autowikibrowser? actually don't tell me. I'm going to figure it out on my own this time:) - Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue II

The April 2006 issue of the project newsletter is now out. You may read this issue or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following the link. Thanks. Kirill Lokshin 18:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Martin Heidegger

I agreed with your view... I have tied to neutralize the negative sound this article has... Can you please revisit it and see if has been improved or be more specific on your objections... thanks H0riz0n 06:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikistalking

Ian,

It is clear from your recent edits that you are following me around in wikipedia and reverting my edit. I will ask you once to stop it. Such behaviour will not be tolerated.

Zeq 08:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you do not wikistalk me. When ever you have additional sources feel free to add them. nrg is not a blog but the web site Israel's largest newspaper (Ma'araiv) Zeq 10:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Last warning, read this policy: Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikistalking

Don't make fun of my english

Read the source I provided. It explain on nakba day and the comemoration taking place this Wednesday (Israel Idependence Day)

May 15 (1948) is the date Israel was founded. If you can not assocate between the establishment of israel to the Palestinian disaster *(Nakba) there is not much I can help you with.

You are welcome to correct the english but any attempt to delete the proven sourced maening of that day will not fly. Zeq 15:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to argue with you about when is israel independence day. Israel declared indpendence on may 15 1948 or 5 in the month of Ewyar according to hebrew calander . Nakba day is commeorated on two dates: Inside Israel, 5 in Ewyar 9the exact day israelis celebrate independece day) and outside Israel on may 15 (which is the exact date Israel decalred independece). Once every 19 years when the Hebrew calander and the gregorian calander match boh dates are on the same day.

The sources explain this is detail. Zeq 18:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Israel independence day date

Your attempts to confuse the issue will not work.

I strongly suggest you get a Hebrew speaker and go over this list of sources:

http://www.google.co.il/search?hl=en&q=+++%22%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9D+%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%A6%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%95%D7%AA%22++++++%D7%A0%D7%9B%D7%91%D7%94

all say the same Nakba day is commorated in israel on israel independence day date. Some on 5 of Ewyar (Hebrew calander) and some on may 15 (Gregorian calander) . Zeq 19:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:WalidKhalidi.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:WalidKhalidi.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

!948 Arab-Israeli war military capabilities

Wait a second I just realized that I may of misinterpreted what the passage was saying. Is "the Arab population" just the arabs of Palestine or does it include Jordan as well, because in a lot of ways Jordan alone had superior forces compared to the Jews in the beginning of the 1948 war? and is it only talking about right after world war II, or is this talking about the run-up to the war of independance? And since the source isn't available online do you think you can specify the nature of it, was it an editorial? Was the special correspondant saying things that were common knowledge at the time, or did it include his own interpretations? Maybe its just me but it seems kinda ambiguous. DO you think you can address some of these questions?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Transjordan

What's the point of this question? It doesn't really matter whether Transjordan actually entered any parts of Israel on that day; what matters is that all the mentioned states started a war on Israel. Pecher ^Talk 13:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Where did you get all of that stuff about Jordainian-Israeli agreement from? Transjordan besieged the Jewish communities in Jerusalem soon after the declaration of the Israeli independence — its shelling of Jerusalem is shown on 1948 Arab-Israeli War — and in pursuit of the capture of Jerusalem, Arab Legion attacked kibbutzim around Jerusalem — again in the first days of war. In fact, the fighting over Jerusalem was so intense that Arab Legion suffered great losses and soon needed a respite. Pecher ^Talk 13:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I understand, the Transjordan's actions were entirely unrelated to Yishuv's actions and were largely motivated by the king's desire to raise his prestige by controlling Jerusalem. The Transjordanian offensive was anyway accompanied by attacks on areas around Jerusalem. Pecher ^Talk 15:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You didn't answer where you've found all of that. Pecher ^Talk 16:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I couldn't help but noted you reverted my apparent "vandalism" to the page Telemundo. Might I inform you that these were not acts of vandalism. Everything I put on there is non-biased and factual. I don't understand how you could consider any of that vandalism. I would be grateful if you could revert the changes you have made, for I worked long hours to source the information. I'll gladly cite each fact. --72.193.35.140 21:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop edditing warring pattern

Ian,

Ever since I first ask you to use talk and convince your fellow ediotors by creating a consesnus you have not done so.

Instead of working to resolve the issues and create consensus you have engaged in a pattern of edit war for "facts" that are not even relavnt to the article itself (as they are covered elsewhere).

This is a partial list of that pattern:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nakba_Day&diff=52969370&oldid=52856031

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nakba_Day&diff=52700879&oldid=52699021

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nakba_Day&diff=52350539&oldid=52183967

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nakba_Day&diff=52127820&oldid=52118272

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nakba_Day&diff=51973533&oldid=51973236

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nakba_Day&diff=51972940&oldid=51955923

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nakba_Day&diff=51568032&oldid=51567572

I ask that you stop it and behave according to wikipedia policy. Thank You,

Zeq 08:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of well source info

Please explain this edit, you have removed well sourced info (from a reputable academic source):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amin_al-Husayni&diff=52969279&oldid=52856718

Zeq 08:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

VandalProof 1.2 Now Available

After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Disputed edit

my reply is in the article talk page. Zeq 13:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Mallmann and Cueppers

I think you are being overly strict, but the obvious solution is for someone who reads German to look at the study. Fred Bauder 13:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Violation of WP:NPA

You have remarked on my integrity. I expect an immidiate appology. Zeq 19:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue III - May 2006

The May 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —ERcheck @ 01:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

War of 1948 project

Hello Ian. Thank you very much for your proposal. As you noticed my level in English should improve. This generates 2 majors problems : what I write is not always understandable; I don't succeed in properly stating some important nuances ie be precise enough to state points of view with enough precisions. I can give a personnal translation of what I wrote in the french version for the 10 may meeting. I will write this on your talk page and leave you correct add some information and insert this in the article. I see nevertheless a major problem : on the 5 sources I used, 4 are in French (Pierre Razoux, Henri Laurens reporting Schlaïm, French version of Pappé, French version of Lapierre and Collins). I assume you noted Gelber didn't consider important to talk about this and just mention this, which sounds quite non neutral.

Concerning Mufti and antisemitism, on the French wikipedia it has been highly suggested this would become another article where all this should should developed. But the article is currently blocked due to pro israeli propagandists. If you decide to write here more about Mufti's image in the israeli historiography, I will support you. I think this is a major matter. Alithien 17:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

john prescott

why did you revert my accuraccy edits 81.79.153.58 17:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

AWB Usage

Hi. In regards to this and moreso this edit, they both violated the rules for using AWB. Avoid making extremely minor edits such as adding or removing a single space or replacing an underscore in a template call with a space. Removing spaces that make no difference in the appearance of the webpage (and doesn't really make much of a change in the source either) clutters up edit histories and adds unnecessary data to the database. Clicking "Ignore" is just as easy as clicking "Save". Please be more careful in the future as edits like these can give AWB a bad reputation. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to add to this: This edit is also bad, and in fact does the opposite of what the edit summary says. The deletion category should stay with the AfD notice, so it can be easily removed when the page is kept. Please take a moment to see whether you have done this in more places and clean up by putting the category back to the AfD message where it belongs. Thank you, Kusma (討論) 21:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit pages with AWB for the sake of editing a page with AWB. Your are responsible for all edits. You need to check all your changes when you use AWB. If you are editing the page and their is nothing for you to fix, Don't Fix it. [7] Special:Contributions/Ian_Pitchford You have done some useful edits with AWB but Remember you are responsible to check all edits. That is why we don't use fully automated Spelling Fix Bots. If you can't find a change in the edit you should just press the skip button.--E-Bod 20:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

abusing Archiving Privileges

You are abusing your Archiving Privileges

Please respond to comments and Don't Pretend they were not ever made[8]. You were warned several times To be careful how you edit using AWB and your talk page seemed suspiciously Empty so i had to Check you archive to find out you have received

You are abusing your Archiving privileges. Please respond to comments, Don't Delete them. If you are trying to Not get blocked from editing AWB Removing Warnings about your Editing AWB will make it harder for people to find your mistake and make them assume good faith when you have repeatedly done the same office over and over again. Don't make it harder for us to Make sure you aren't abusing AWB. Removing warnings without addressing them makes us suspicious. Thanks for Archiving but Archiving is for Old issues, not reoccurring ones. You have numerous warnings on your achieve. Act appropriately. You are not a new user. You will not be allowed to Edit using AWB if you continue to try to cover up your mistakes and pretend they never happened. Everybody makes mistakes. Just don't try to cover them up. Accept what you do and strive to fix it.--E-Bod 20:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)