Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:50, 18 August 2006

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- ] 09:59, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup

You're right, it's usually a good idea to have someone else remove the tag. (Perhaps best, by the person, who placed it in the first place.) I'll do some minor edits, and fixes before removing it. ] 10:53, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Formatting

Please note the following:

1. You should mention the article title in bold so code: '''Martyn Bennett''' instead of ].
2. Also Grit probably doesn't link to his music, so link to ] or ] by using a pipe "|" like this ] you can name a link what you want but still link to the correct article.
3. Use the preview button to make sure all formatting works.
   

Have fun editing. ] 11:15, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Taking stuff off your talk page

As previous discussions can be useful in the future, it's wikipedia policy to not delete talk pages. Instead create a link like User talk:Paraphelion/Archive 1 or something and archive topics by copy/pasting them into the new page. This way your talk page doesn't get cluttered, but it leaves earlier conversation available to be looked up. Hope I've been helpful. :) ] 22:07, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

spam and such

Hey, it turns out that the bot does represent a certain fraction of Misplaced Pages's server load and Misplaced Pages bot owners have been in discussion this week with the system administrators to come up with a system that works for everyone. I've personally chosen not to use any bot until some of the server problems can be resolved, as per the informal request. I just thought that maybe you'd like to know about the update that occurred after my comment where I told you there was no delay (I had not received an update from a sys admin in some time). As for multi-licensing, it is not only useful for articles with only one user editing them. It is always useful for any article revision created just by multi-licensors (of which there should be many), but even if there are some by non-multi-licensors, portions of the article can still be useful. This is ok for situations like sharing with WikiTravel where they would not want the entire article anyway, but only a summary or small portions of them for usage in their travel brochures. Nothing needs to be done with any sort of disclaimer. If someone wants to multi-license, it is up to them to do all of the work, relieving the multi-licensor from having to do any work other than grant permission. Essentially you just agree that your personal copyrighted contributions can be used in CC-by-sa projects in addition to GFDL projects. – Ram-Man ] 14:12, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Redirect question

Hi! Just click on the part at the top of the page that the redirect takes you to, the one that says "redirected from (article)." It'll take you directly to the redirect itself. - Lucky 6.9 20:18, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

amending categories

Hey, I saw that you edited the Martyn Bennett article. What does the change you made do? Thanks --Paraphelion 03:52, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's just a matter of sorting Category entries in alphabetical order by surname. Bornintheguz 14:56, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ethnic sterotypes

Hiya.. I don't really have any strong feelings about that List of ethnic stereotypes article. It's a pretty crappy article, and when I was implementing the VfD vote, there was definitely a majority in favour of deletion. But it was not such a strong one that I felt comfortable calling it consensus and deleting - maybe 60/40 in favour. Anyway, I trust those who wanted to keep and cleanup will do something with it. Meanwhile, I encourage you to have at it and rip out the racial slurs, leaving it as an actual list of ethnic stereotypes.

Given the closeness of the vote, and the number of people voting Keep who said it needed cleaning up, it should probably be relisted in a couple of months if nothing good is done with it. --Stormie 07:12, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Anon block

Searching the block log (Special:Log/block) for my username (), I find:

• 20:32, 5 Jan 2005 Hyacinth blocked "User:155.84.57.253" with an expiry time of (vandalism to List of sexual slurs ())

Hyacinth 22:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I myself was only aware of the existance of the log and had to look it up.

As you can see, I did not have the will to "police" the page beyond the above action, and I created the page. Hyacinth 03:15, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Peer review

No, I guess peer review wasn't the right place, and I see from Stormie above that it's not a good time to VfD. Too bad. I don't really see the point of Cleanup, either, since the problem is the page is always going to deteriorate again real fast, even if you do temporarily make it a little "nicer". I sure wouldn't wish on anybody the job of trying to permanently nurse such a misconceived article. Best wishes, Bishonen, tall, blond, attractive, sexy, neutral in international conflicts, depressed, high suicide rate, busy making depressing, confusing, or overly maudlin movies/films, alcoholic, promiscuous, adulterous, just going to have me some tasteless food and tasteless weak beer right now. 23:09, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Other editors

I see that you have also worked with User:155.84.57.253. It appears to me that that user is employing sock puppets in the Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/List of ethnic stereotypes 2. See my note on User talk:Christiaan. -Willmcw 11:15, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

José Limón

Hi, I've answered on page Talk:José Limón. Regards --Roland2 09:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Columbine and all that

Thanks for the note. I'll keep an eye on the RfA. With respect to mediation, that can only happen if both parties are willing, and with Miskin apparently unwilling ("I'll revert this until we get an RfC", possibly paraphrased slightly), I didn't take that any further. As to a ban, I certainly think you (both) were in violation of bits of policy, which could get you banned. Whether it actually will is a different question; I suspect a reminder and possibly parole is more likely, but then I'm not ArbCom, so don't worry too much about what I think :-) Cheers --Pak21 09:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Unicode

No, I didn't mess up the Unicode. I converted it. It works, your browser just doesn't support the lanugage. Look at the interwikis for Unicode. K1Bond007 17:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. K1Bond007 04:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Angel Oak

Hi Paraphelion - the diameter dimensions you'd cited were unfortunately inaccurate, I suspect they referred to girth (circumference), not diameter. I've copied across the figures from the Southern Live Oak page, but don't have a figure for the branch diameter - MPF 14:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Grenades.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Grenades.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 Misplaced Pages because of copyright law (see Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

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. *drew 02:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

User:JStevenson123

With the understanding that some editing by some users can be frustrating, may I note that edit summaries like "remove stupid link" tend to reflect poorly on those who make them? Thanks. :) RadioKirk talk to me 16:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis

Hello,

Just wanted make a note about your edit summaries. In general, you should always Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith about other editors' intentions. Happy editing, Tewfik 15:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

Which Hebrew link were you referring to? I would be glad to read it over. Cheers, Tewfik 08:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Got it, and don't worry. Keep up the good work. Tewfik 08:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Referring to your message (10:30, 17 July 2006 Paraphelion (Talk | contribs) m (→Attacks on Israel - wikicode problem - not sure if I caused it, refs section is messed up) on the talk-page for the 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis-article. That was me messing up the ref-section. I forgot to add the </ref> Rsmelt 11:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Paraphelion, please discuss cusuality numbers on the talk page of 2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict I'm reverting your edit for the resons I put there before removing the casuality figures. If there is a good reason to put them back say so on the talk page and I'll be in favour if there is. Regards IanOfNorwich

Sorry for using your user page rather than it's discussion - mistake on my part. I agree entirely with your comment - "I have written about the 500 Israeli injury figure elsewhere here. I don't think it's fair to have an injury figure for Lebanon and not one for Israel when we have sources for both.--Paraphelion" IanOfNorwich

"Why is it ok to use fatality figures but not the injuries, even when they are from the same article cited?--Paraphelion 16:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)"

Because, as I said in the talk page; It is clear what we mean when we say that someone is dead but injured could mean shock - in which case I should perhaps be included in the casuality firgures even though I'm a thousand miles away and safe but 'shocked' at the violence. Basically can you be sure that Isreal and Lebanon are counting the same things? I think that someone in Beruit with a few scratches and having witnessed something awfull would not be wisked off hospital and counted, in Haifa they might?

On that basis I think it gives a false impression when people compare the figures. I'm only after the truth. I'm afraid that I'm loosing faith with Wikipedians as the injury figures have been put back in again. I'll not touch them again though unless you agree - an edit war is a waste of time. Please let me know your thoughts, or even better remove the figures.

Hello fellow Charlestonian!

Hi, it's good to know that there are other Misplaced Pages editors in our fine city. I found you via the spam about the Charlestonwiki that we both received! Nice to meet you :)--Kungfu Adam 13:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

NCIS

Thank you for experimenting with the page NCIS (TV series) on Misplaced Pages. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. — RevRagnarok 18:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

re: Greenpoint in early June

Paraphelion,

Just wanted to thank you for restoring my edit ("working class") on Greenpoint, Brooklyn in early June. I didn't have the energy to defend the edit myself, but am firmly convinced of it being right. My proof/backup? I lived there for almost two years and speak Polish at a native-speaker level thanks to my Mother's family bringing me up in the language....The gentrifying/middle-class American aspect of the neighborhood is in large part a very recent phenomenon and constitutes a small (but growing) proportion of the populace in any case.--longlivefolkmusic 01:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah/BBC passage

Is there a reason for the direct quoting from the BBC article? I haven't seen anything about it on talk, and it seems extremely awkward. Cheers, Tewfik 05:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Very well. Tewfik 05:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Civilian casualties

This source doesn't state a number of civilians - same problem as before. Tewfik 18:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to hide anything. While the title may seem to say that, the article does not. Cheers, Tewfik 18:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That's true, but nowhere in the article does it tie a specific number with a qualification. Tewfik 18:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, what does "mostly civilians" translate to. If you want to write mostly civilians, that may be okay, but we cannot attach "civilians" to a number. Tewfik 19:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that the Israeli numbers are distinguished. If you'd like to formulate the Lebanese numbers differently, in line with sources, go ahead. A few days ago I had a number in the 280s of Lebanese civilians and we said so outright, but someone removed that citation and the numbers have changed. You can check the diffs and write that at least that # are civilians if you like. Tewfik 19:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Mangled edits for 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict talk page

Aarrrrgh; I was afraid this might happen. I can only tell you that I did not intend to remove any text that was removed in that edit; my only intent was to fold the indented text into the comment above it, as it was screwing up the numbering of that section. Somehow, the database got extremely fucked up, not suprising what with edits coming in every few milliseconds. Hopefully, someone restored the mangled edits. I haven't even looked at that page yet today. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 20:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for investigation processed

Hello Paraphelion. Please note that your recent request for investigation concerning Werto has been processed. The administrator commented "Werto was indefinitely blocked for blatant vandalism shortly after registration". Thank you. // Pathoschild (/_map) 04:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

2006 Page O Fun

yeah, it was a quick fix, i was going to restore any edits that got messed up. you're welcome to help with that - there are only six or seven. ObsidianOrder 05:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hend-held counter

I'm terribly sorry, but unless you're here, you have no right to criticize what I said about the fleeing Israelis. Of course, you don't see Israeli press as a source so I can't quote any of it. I live in Haifa, and the city is empty. A few days ago, A tent city of 5,000 was erected in the Nitzanim area and filled up within a day. A 7 km queue of cars was waiting at the entrance to Eilat two days ago. All hotels and any sort of rented accomodations Natanya and south are completely full and hundreds of families are hosting families that ran away from the bombarded north, and still there are constant requests on TV and radio to host families that ran away from the north. Unfortunately, AP and Reuters have no report of this so I guess it doesn't count. Only the poor Lebanonis who are so well covered by a manipulative and bias media count, I guess. Shame on you.

Talk page 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

Yes, it was a mistake. Sorry. --Deenoe 12:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

After check-up, I honeslty don't think that I erased or screwed up the Talk page. --Deenoe 13:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that's a serious What-The-F*** right there... The only comment I did is in Iran Comabatant? There's part that have been replace or added on that edit that I did not even touch. And It's really not my way of writing or spelling. This is really confusing... --Deenoe 13:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well... If you look the edit I have supposivly done, that would of been a long preview to check. And What really bothers me is I clicked Edit on the section... not Edit This Page.. And some sections added under that edit REALLY don't look like it's me that put it there.. --Deenoe 13:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Following your link, if you go Down down down down... you'll see red markings of apparently stuff I said or changed. Which I didn't say or changed. And I wasn't drunk yesterday. --Deenoe 13:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this is REALLY weird, because the edit log says that I put (on that edit) a part about Counter Battery Fire. I don't even know anything about Counter Battery Fire.. --Deenoe 13:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It's official... I really don't think I made this edit myself. What do you think I should do to clear this out. Contact Admin? --Deenoe 13:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I know it has been reverted. The thing is I suspect intrusion into my Wiki account. --Deenoe 13:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I actually made the picture, thats why I answered. --Deenoe 18:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

If we put the two sides in a composite image it just cant be considered as biased. --Deenoe 18:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I know that, I'm saying that, IF someone has pictures I could use, they can tell me. --Deenoe 19:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I didn't

whine to anyone. Just posting my ideas on the discussion page. While there some kind of war on the neutrality of this article since it was started, it hardly seems encyclopedic yet. Way too much POV, and it has nothing with crocodile tears. Where are you from anyway to express anything? What the hell do you know about the Arab-Israel conflict? In fact, I might say that anyone who hasn't experienced it in some way for himself has no right to even say anything about it. All you get is completely bias media reports and have no first-hand knowledge whatesoever. Stop being a baby. I appreciate your feeble attempts to say anything to me but I really can't understand you. Try to be under terrorist attacks for your entire life and then come up with something to say....

Okay man

Sorry, but sarcasm doesn't translate very well over internet pages. And BTW, I wasn't attacking you personally - I've been trying to help this article be as neutral and informative as possible without starting to erase any single sentence or word that I didn't like. I thought that might work at first, but quickly understood that to hell with it, I'll just put what I think on the discussion page. If anyone finds it important enough, they'll do something about it. Your comment on the discussion page, what was it for? To show me what? That comment, actually, did pass the sarcasm you were trying to pass..... The fact is, I didn't write in anything in the article itself but rather put it up for discussion. Thank you for putting up some quoted information on it (didn't see that you were the one until you noted it). Oh, and even if you don't believe me - I'm from Haifa, Israel, and have spent the last week in Petah-Tikva (central Israel). I know what I see, and tell it like it is. And all I'm trying to do here is keep this article from being transformed into a one-sided pro-arab article as it somehow turns to be every time I look at it and someone has added (or removed) something. Sadly(though this may seem one-sided as well), there is a strong Anti-Israeli/Anti-Jewish (I wouldn't say antisemitic since that would include arabs as well)/pro-Arab media/Internet lobby which constantly uses the media/internet to turn Israel into this terrible, war-mongering, innocent-civilian-murdering country, and they're doing pretty well at it. Again, this may seem one-sided to you, but my opinion (and the general opinion here) is that the Arab world has always used Israel as a dart-board while turning their citizens' minds away from the hardships in their own countries caused by Fundamentalist dictatorships, turning Israel into the "big enemy" which is responsible for all their woes. It's very easy. Find an enemy and keep your citizens blind (and away from revolt). They allow themselves to say anything, lie about everything, and make it look all so terrible. Israel, on the other hand, is a democratic in which the lies will not pass. We cannot flat out manipulate the media to say whatever it is we might want to lie about, to make ourselves seem like the poor victim, because it will not pass in an enlightened democratic country where there is freedom of speech. I can go on like this for hundreds of pages, but I think my point is clear. I apologize for "calling you names" on your talk page and mt harsh initial reactions, but i hope that you understand that we both want the same thing - A good, clean article, which tells the truth, and doesn't look like an opinion column as often as it does.

Right now I'm too busy studying for university exams which I might/might not have (due to the situation), but I'll get back to the article later and see if I can find anything I don't like. Thank you for your responses.

Civilian casualties

I mentioned on talk that this was not ideal, however the sources do not tie these numbers with "civilian." If you can find a source that ties a specific number, even an "at least" number, to the "civilian" qualification, then we should by all means include that. I'm not trying to push any POV as has been alluded to, rather we cannot report information which the entirety of the international media could not verify. I again note that in the past there was a number in the 280s that was specifically confirmed; find the dif and include that citation with that number if you like. Otherwise, find another method of reporting the number in line with the articles (something like 355, mostly civilians). The 300 number is also not tied to "civilians." Despite the misleading headline, the article says: the Lebanese death toll passed 300, almost all civilians. It never ties a specific number to civilians. CNN says: At least 266 Lebanese people have been killed, according to Lebanese officials. BBC says: More than 350 Lebanese have been killed in the 11 days of violence, many of them civilians. Instead of trying to force the number issue, let's think of a creative manner of conveying what the consensus is - that around 300 people have been killed in Lebanon, and many or most are civilians. While I don't mind a response on my talk, we are probably better served by discussing on the page's talk. Cheers, Tewfik 05:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"Targeted"

Hello Paraphelion,

While the source does use that word, they use it imprecisely, and make no claims of information that the ambulances had been specifically targeted. We haven't used "abduct" in relation to the soldiers' capture despite that term's extensive use in the press, and we shouldn't use this, rather use the facts to present NPOV. Let me know what you think, Tewfik 04:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Tewfik 05:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need commentary re. the ambulance situation, except perhaps to note that, if deliberate, this violates the laws of war. When the Israelis or anyone else makes a statement, we can add that; until then, let the readers make up their own minds. (I think the photo and the references speak for themselves; Occam's Razor says the Israelis did this deliberately, to demonstrate the sincerity of their position — in the same way that they deliberately targeted UNIFIL. Feel free to disagree here, on my talk page or even on one of the article's several talk pages, but the article itself is no place for such debate.) &#0151; JEREMY 07:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be OR of me to state this in the article, but it seems clear from reading the reports that the ambulances were targeted. The quote is representative: it's not just one reporter using the term. I'm not really happy about applying what would amount to undue weight in this circumstance; if it later turns out Israel hit ten clearly-marked ambulances accidentally, you can be sure the article will say that. &#0151; JEREMY 07:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if anyone newsworthy makes any statements about the ambulance strikes we should probably add it (within reason, unless it becomes its own article-worthy issue). &#0151; JEREMY 07:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Re Excuse me... on 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict Talk page

Sorry, my mistake. Anyway, that entire section has been removed. Every time I add comments to the talk page that the capture/abduction/kidnapping happened in Israel, the comments (or entire section) are removed. Some people seem unable to cope with the truth. Cymruisrael 09:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I found it and corrected the indentation. Cymruisrael 10:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Breaking down casualties?

mm, I don't know what are you talking about... :( --TheFEARgod 22:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

International reaction

I was wondering if you can look at talk this and provide some advice/resolution. I believe its someone trolling as the edit history/attitude appears a little juvenile , but it also possible that the user Comrade438 thinks I am making a connection between H.R. 921 and AIPAC. It is actually the other way around- AIPAC made a connection with H.R. 291 when it issued the press release. I will also ask on Tewfik's page as you both seem most active in the discussions. Thanks 82.29.227.171 09:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention I previously highlighted the problems on wikipedian noticeboard 82.29.227.171 09:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I do care

The POV tag was off the article page, so I took it off the discussion page. Keep your talk calm? That is obvious. I wanted it more user friendly to read. I'm sorry, please don't take away editing. I keep reverting a few of the Cubs pages...because I've seen people purposely vandalize it. I have nothing if I can't use wikipedia I'll have a lot less to od. You don't understand how pathetic I am. So don't take away one of the few things that keep me occupied.--Jerluvsthecubs 10:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect link to ratification

Hello.

That is to the incorrect protocol.

Here is the link to protocol 3: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=515&ps=P

Israel is abesent. This is more specific than the other link, and as such, demonstrates that Israel did not sign this, and as such it should be removed. -- Avi 00:52, 10 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)

Thank you, I read your post and we agree on reason for the inclusion of the detail entirely (you just expressed it more succinctly than I have been able). Thanks. RandomGalen 18:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil on Misplaced Pages

Your comment on Kaustuv's talk page, calling all editors who work on Warcraft articles for hot cock wow assholes is uncalled for and childish. Please respect follow editors on Misplaced Pages, and get to know WP:CIVIL. Thank you. Havok (T/C/c) 12:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Move

I moved the section, expanded the material, and provided citations. The material I removed was a link to a commentary piece whose importance has not been established. Tewfik 02:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I am extremely puzzled as to why you think I am intentionally trying to mislead anyone. I think I explained my actions in both places that you brought this up. Read what I had to say, and if you still feel I did something wrong, let me know. Tewfik 04:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you read my answers on the relevant pages, so I'll briefly repeat them: On the section move I don't feel I did anything controversial, and while I didn't explicitly note all my changes and I'll surely make an effort too in the future, I was definitely not hiding anything. Except for removing the Arens quote, I didn't remove anything, but rather rewrote the US military report, which seemed to be the most relevant part, to be more accurate to the source, more encyclopedic in style, and of course to include a full citation. When Will asked me why I did what I did, I explained in full. And if my summary was lacking there, that certainly isn't the case on the "Military" page, where I simply restored the passage that Cerejota deleted due to lack of reference, with a reference. Again, while I will certainly try to be clearer in my edit summaries, I'd like to think that I've always played fair, and I'm sorry that you think I was trying to hide anything. Tewfik 15:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)