| Revision as of 16:04, 16 August 2006 editRandomGalen (talk | contribs)171 edits →Ambulances← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:16, 16 August 2006 edit undoTewfik (talk | contribs)15,543 edits unjustified vandalism, AGF, unsupported by sourcesNext edit → | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| :Well you removed the word "attack" and you also took time to mention that there were no casualties. Thats fine, although largely redundant considering the article is about an IDF attack on a 675 vehicle convoy with seven killed, thirty-six wounded. I saw no evidence of good faith Tewfik, you removed the sub-section without talking, you removed it a second time without talking, you were warned, you removed it again, and now after discussion the subsection appears. Your edits appear not to have been motivated by "good faith" hence the warning issued. ] 16:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | :Well you removed the word "attack" and you also took time to mention that there were no casualties. Thats fine, although largely redundant considering the article is about an IDF attack on a 675 vehicle convoy with seven killed, thirty-six wounded. I saw no evidence of good faith Tewfik, you removed the sub-section without talking, you removed it a second time without talking, you were warned, you removed it again, and now after discussion the subsection appears. Your edits appear not to have been motivated by "good faith" hence the warning issued. ] 16:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Considering the original passage was unsupported by the sources, I would say that the questions should be posed to its author. And as for Talk, my edit summary was clear, as opposed to your repeated, unjustified invoking of ''vandalism''. You were out of line to "warn" me, and your reposting of the unsourced claims doesn't say much about your dedication to the sources. In addition to getting a clearer definition of what constitutes vandalism, you may also want to review "]." Good day, <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 16:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:16, 16 August 2006
Ambulances
Ynet gives one attack on "Red Cross and civil defense vehicles," but specifically says there is no knowledge of casualties. Easy Bourse talks about an ambulance hit near Tibnin, but not in relation to the Marj Ayoun convoy. ICRC report clarifies that the Tibnin attack happened before the convoy attack, and it does not explicitly say the IDF was responsible or even suspected (there have been a number of accidental/intentional attacks from Hezbollah). Cheers, Tewfik 15:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- So instead of correcting an inaccuracy you remove the entire section? I left a vandalism notice on your talk page. Try not to vandalise articles please.
- And in fact you are wrong in what you stated, the ICRC press realease says that the attacks on the convoy caused the Red Cross fatality- try reading what it says again: "Among the dead was one LRC first-aid volunteer, Mikhael Jbayleh, who was killed while assisting a wounded person. The ICRC and the LRC are deeply shocked by the loss of their colleague."
- Plus there are no record, in that article or the article on attacks on civilian areas, that indicate Hezbollah attacking the Red Cross. That is an IDF activity. RandomGalen 15:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The only supported statement is that an LRC first-aid volunteer, Mikhael Jbayleh, was killed at the Marj Ayoun convoy. There is no sourcing for any other ambulances being attacked. In any event, the other attacks do not say who carried them out. Additionally, it extremely poor form to label another user's good-faith edits as vandalism. Tewfik 15:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well you claimed to have inspected the sources- I took that on good faith. Unfortunately you appear not to have noticed the Aid worker killed at the scene until I pointed it out to you. Neither do you appear aware of what YNet said in their article: "Daher said there was a second attack on Red Cross and civil defense vehicles rushing the aid of the stricken convoy. It was not known, he said, if any rescuers were hurt."
- Daher, as you will have learned from the article, was "Associated Press photographer Lutfallah Daher" who was with the convoy. While the report in YNet doesnt say the IDF attacked the ambulance I think its safe to assume they did considering they were attacking everywhere else in the area. I'm reverting again. RandomGalen 15:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Posting a vandalism template on my user Talk is hardly evidence of you good faith. And I again remind you that vandalism has a very specific definition, and it is extremely improper to label a content-dispute as a reversion of vandalism. In any event, I put the passage in line with the references. Tewfik 15:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well you removed the word "attack" and you also took time to mention that there were no casualties. Thats fine, although largely redundant considering the article is about an IDF attack on a 675 vehicle convoy with seven killed, thirty-six wounded. I saw no evidence of good faith Tewfik, you removed the sub-section without talking, you removed it a second time without talking, you were warned, you removed it again, and now after discussion the subsection appears. Your edits appear not to have been motivated by "good faith" hence the warning issued. RandomGalen 16:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Considering the original passage was unsupported by the sources, I would say that the questions should be posed to its author. And as for Talk, my edit summary was clear, as opposed to your repeated, unjustified invoking of vandalism. You were out of line to "warn" me, and your reposting of the unsourced claims doesn't say much about your dedication to the sources. In addition to getting a clearer definition of what constitutes vandalism, you may also want to review "assume good faith." Good day, Tewfik 16:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)