User talk:FayssalF: Difference between revisions
m August Esperanza Newsletter |
m →Morroco |
||
| Line 306: | Line 306: | ||
If read; resolution of International Court of Justice in 1975, about Western Sahara, this court reconoce that Morroco isnt heirless of Almohades,Almoravides,Wattasides,Marinids....Moi 13:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC) <small>unsigned comment by [[User:Bokpasa]]</small> |
If read; resolution of International Court of Justice in 1975, about Western Sahara, this court reconoce that Morroco isnt heirless of Almohades,Almoravides,Wattasides,Marinids....Moi 13:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC) <small>unsigned comment by [[User:Bokpasa]]</small> |
||
Hi Hitler! ,,, vandalismo isn`t put here [[image_flag = Flag of Morocco.svg]]] , its thre , you are pro-Morroco, and hate saharawis |
|||
== Ref == |
== Ref == |
||
Revision as of 11:16, 15 August 2006
Babel
Wikipedia
Personal
Being subject to some considerable buffing and POV pushing - can you have a look please? 86.27.55.184 13:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Necesito un favorHola Svest, Necesito pedirte un favor. Hace ya tiempo subi una foto del coche de mi ex novia. Esta tarde me ha sonado el móvil y resulta que era ella para quejarse de la foto. Me parece bastante absurdo porque incluso borré la matrícula por si acaso, pero aún así no está muy convencida. El caso es que tengo demasiados dolores de cabeza ahora mismo como para tener que preocuparme también por algo así. He intentado borrar la foto pero como no soy un admin no puedo hacerlo. Te agradecería muchísimo si la pudieras borrar por mi. Ya intentaría encontrar yo una foto alternativa para el artículo luego. Saludos, E Asterion u talking to me? 23:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
FeedbackFayssalF, Do you have any feedback here[1]? we are trying to write a mannual of style. Thanks --Aminz 04:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC) POV organisationI appreciate that you've read my comments, but the organisation you have made is one that gives undue weight to Robert Fisk (who shouldn't be included at all when we are reducing citations from HRW and Amnesty, and in general creates unnecessary subsectins and confusion. Please revert and we can discuss exactly what to do, but the edit as it stands now is certainly not endorsed by me. TewfikTalk
Please look at the reinstatement of the POV organisation. He is open to discussion, but I can't do it now. TewfikTalk 19:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted historySorry for any inconvenience. The page froze, and took so long to load (despite a few attempts) that I went off and had dinner and came back later. It's back now, anyway. And by the way, before I deleted the page, it was unprotected from edits and fully protected from moves. The deletion, of course, undid all protection. I see that you've just semi-protected, so in order to respect that and to undo the effects of the deletion, I've changed it to semi-protection for edits and full protection for moves. Regards. AnnH ♫ 19:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC) 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict pollsYeah, imagine having an actual discussion and vote as the headers imply. Craziness!--Peephole 20:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC) RE: Muhammad
As far as this point is concerned, there is absolutely nothing left that needs to be discussed again — period. You tactically (mis)use the "NPOV policy" as a pretext in order to cover up the historical facts ideologically. Once again, the formulation you happen to disagree with is scientifically impeccable; so be so prudent as to refrain from becoming a real pain!--Editorius 11:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC) On Pape's Characterisation as 3 campaignsHave you read Pape's book? In it he documents 3 distinct campaigns. This is his view. I am verifiably reporting his view. Therefore, you have no right to revert the edit.
That is 3 separate campaigns, of which the incidents you mention were 2 acts. Would you kindly revert your latest edit please? Jonexsyd 11:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Per your request, I have updated with a specific, verifiable, page reference. Jonexsyd 12:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Jonexsyd's recent editsHi. I made two edits. I moved it from the Ideology section to the "Stance on the use of terrorist acts" segment because it was out of place where it was. Having done that I realised the text quoted was identical to the text quoted in the paragraph immediately above. Please review my edits carefully and tell me if you disagree? Jonexsyd 12:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC) 3RR warningYou have violated 3RR by reverting 2006 Qana airstrike 4 times in the last 24 hours. Please take a short break from editing this article, or you will be reported and blocked. Isarig 17:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
Wide dispersal pattern weaponsHi Fayssal, The HRW report about Israeli cluster bombs and Hezbollah ball-bearings was removed due to space constraints to [[Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict#Use of wide dispersal pattern weapons. While I don't think there is any reason to restore it to the main page (we really are tight on room, and there are basic HRW, Amnesty Int'l, etc statements), if it is, it should be in the vetted, NPOV form included there (which includes both issues. Let me know what you think. Cheers, TewfikTalk 17:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I apologise for the faulty link/s, take a look at this (Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict#Use of wide dispersal pattern weapons), and then maybe my comments will make more sense =D. TewfikTalk 18:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
My main issue is that the NPOV version of the HRW statement, that dealt with both Israeli and Hezbollah actions, should be used. I say NPOV, because it was up on the main page for a long time and went through many revisions to reach its current state. I'm getting the feeling we may be talking about different things. My secondary point isn't one of content (at least I don't percieve it as such =D). It is that while the human shields claim may be given undue prominence in the main, I'm not sure what distinguishes the wide-dispersal weapon critiques from the other half-dozen critiques. I think that a detailed but short summary may be in order. To that effect, general accusations of mutual war-crimes are already mentioned under UN and HRW sections. Let me know, TewfikTalk 19:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC) After you
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I meant that the facts' presentation was skewed by having a separate section for the critique on Israel, while merging Hezbollah critiques, especially as HRW saw fit to analyse the two issues (cluster-bombs, ball-bearings) under one subheading. Cheers, TewfikTalk 17:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
VS
and while I think the pilots can go either way (and don't care if the section is included or not), you end up with two section on Israel, and one section that deals with two claims on Hezbollah. If you like, I can separate the two and add more details, as there was also an HRW report dedicated only to the ball-bearings, and then we could have four medium-sized sections. But that isn't good for size, and frankly, I don't see how presenting the two (cluster & bearings) together is unbalanced, especially coming from an organisation like HRW. Let me know, TewfikTalk 18:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Thats fine, but why do you think I err? What do you think of the points I raised in the last comment? I'd much rather understand why you believe I'm wrong than merely disengage. Let me know (if you've the patience Fair enough. Happy editing, TewfikTalk 22:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC) And in returnI have no idea what I did to deserve such a pleasant surprise, but thank you 8-D. -- Avi 17:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Read3r's StarHi Fyssal, i wonder how old you have to be to learn all those languages you can use. But i won't ask there about. I've another question. Do you know alot about the pre-islamic beliefs of Morocco? ...Before I forget, this is my Star:
Read3r 17:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC) User pagesThere is no need to create other users' pages for them unless there's a significant reason for it; if users wish to have red links for their user pages, that's just as well. --Emufarmers(T/C) 19:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:QanaII.jpgThanks for uploading Image:QanaII.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy). The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 20:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Excuse meSalam Your last edition is mised because of interfere between editions. I apologize you.--Accessible 10:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Formatting for the Israel Lebanon conflict - Strikes in civilian areasI removed the headers because we're trying to keep the article as short as possible, and they don't really add anything but length. I don't think the three groups need to be separated, since they are all similar. Can I ask why you separate them out? --Iorek85 10:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
AishaI am not sure what your edit here accomplished or what was the intent. The quote that you deleted referred to her virginity, so unless you beleive she was not a virgin when the marraige was consumated it would probably be appropiate to reinsert that quote beside the citation it was attached to but left behind after your edit and now seems to be a citation for a totally different thing i.e her being 9 when she was married. I will leave it to you to fix for now.--Tigeroo 13:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Tigeroo, Well, I think the reason was clear. There were no mention that "Aisha stayed in her parents' home till she had reached puberty." Being virgin was not the point of that quote. The point was that Muhammad didn't marry with Aisha when she hadn't reached puberty; this is what the quote was supposed to say. Putting it in that context in front of what critics say was not a good idea in my mind. I think FayssalF was right in removing the quote from where it was, but it was much better if he could have moved it to somewhere else. --Aminz 06:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC) Unspecified source for Image:X-chair.gifThanks for uploading Image:X-chair.gif. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify 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 file 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 meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may 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. Nv8200p talk 20:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC) IslamofascismYes, I do. I moved it to Islamofascism (term) to make sure it was only the term that was discussed, but sadly it didn't stay that way. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Care to comment?There is a discussion on Roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict talkpage about the inclusion of detail for Israel. I am of the view that Israel should be included but the detail is being continually removed by User:Tewfik. Tewfik's argument is what he considers the illegality of Hezbollah under UN 1559 as the reason he removed the detail. However, Tewfik has not removed recent requests of arms sales to Israel such as jet fuel and GBU-28's. I believe he is pushing the POV that aid to Israel is only in response to the current crisis or the illegality of Hezbollah under 1559. US aid to Israel is in fact a long standing agreement responsible for the size and makeup of the IDF. Without the aid they would not have a military capable of engaging in conflict. If you can take a look and support my position (was working under 82.29.227.171) that would be great. RandomGalen 11:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC) Robert Fisk referencesI don't see the problem: I used the same reference for both statements (the general one about hate mail and the one about the Malkovich incident). This is fine; references could be reused. Not to say that perhaps those statements couldn't be better written, but that's a different kettle of fisk. So I didn't actually remove anything; that second reference was the same as the one I inserted as a proper {{cite web}} reference. OK? +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC) Speedy deletion without any given reasonAccording to what speedy deletion criterion did you speedily delete Arabic sandwich after a mere 27 minutes of AFD discussion? Neither your deletion summary nor the closure notice that you added to the AFD discussion say. Uncle G 00:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC) HagarismWhy did you lock this Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World? There is a healthy debate going on regarding this article , but no reason to lock the page , as demonstrated by the fact thgat there was not edits for 16 hours until tigeroo came along making his own edits then asking you to lock the page, which you did and to his version. --CltFn 00:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC) The edits before I came along flat out look like a revert war to me. I've been the following "discussion" for a while without interfering, but the sudden flurry of rv's and disputed edits made me step in and refer it. if the others agree it was only a healthy discussion we can open it back up, I have no issues, but maybe that discussion should be take up there?--Tigeroo 12:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) AfD closuresAre you an administrator? If yes, could I ask why you're not deleting pages you're closing as speedy deleted? If not, could I ask why you're doing the closures in the first place? It's quite misleading to see a closed AfD that hasn't been deleted. Thanks. theProject 01:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
And how does one talk to youSeems like you are trying to quite ppl down if their views dont match yours??? And how do i get to talk to you? unsigned comment by User:DE1 I noticed you were the one who reverted the AfD tag on Daniel Brandt, although, its already made it to AfD. I've requested a speedy keep, and I'd like to know if you wouldnt mind closing. SynergeticMaggot 01:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC) Hardee67's blockWhy did you choose to limit it to 48 hours?? He might come back, nomination more unnecessary Afd nominations. Georgia guy 01:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC) If you wouldn't mind cleaning up the mess you left after blocking this user and removing all of the AfD tags he left behind, otherwise a lot of users are going to be engaging in fruitless AfD discussions. Peyna 02:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC) Copyright Violation on MuhammadMaterial has been copied from http://experts.about.com/e/m/mu/Muhammad.htm.
Hi FayssalF, I just want to let you know that I've just re-inserted the illustration you just removed from the article, as I feel it's a very good illustration to what has been going on - if you know what I mean. I've just completed a major re-edit of the article, although the introduction needs a bit more work (it's very poor at the moment), and perhaps the article would do with a better name eventually, as it's mainly about the calls for ceasefire and piece, rather than the negotiations. Regards Thomas Blomberg 02:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC) MorrocoHi!, I`m write because , you always reverts my changes:
If read; resolution of International Court of Justice in 1975, about Western Sahara, this court reconoce that Morroco isnt heirless of Almohades,Almoravides,Wattasides,Marinids....Moi 13:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC) unsigned comment by User:Bokpasa
RefI think you mistakenly reverted an inserted ref. If I'm missing something, let me know. TewfikTalk 16:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC) God vs AllahBecause of your previous activity with regard to your topic, I thought I'd let you know that there is a poll going on at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)/God vs Allah. It'd be great if you could vote. Thanks! Starwarp2k2 04:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) August Esperanza Newsletter
|
_-_Google_Art_Project_-_edited.jpg){kind=small}
