User talk:Iorek85/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Iorek85/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! , SqueakBox 03:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict: external links

as per WP:EL, the reason for including the news sources is : 4. On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. (For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view – in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight.) ...but I agree that the number of overall links should be cut. I got to it a few minutes after you on the talk page. Please come discuss on the talk page. Thanks for your help. -Preposterous 00:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fall Out Boy

I was just curious as to the nature of your edits, removing falloutboy.jpg from the Fall Out Boy page, and commenting it as reverting vandalism. Was this intentional? —Akrabbim^talk 23:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image for me showed up as the 'reminder' image (you're a homo) or, as a distorted picture. I know you're not a vandal, but I assumed someone has vandalised the image in its raw form without you realising. I didn't when I first reverted the image after someone else removed it.

P.S - I see it was edited to the 'homo' by Stepp-Wolf, then you changed it back. Iorek85 00:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's vandalism to the image, which you can also correct. It's actually a lot easier, as you can just click "rev" next to the image version you want to revert to. I just wasn't sure what you were doing at first. As for Stepp-Wolf, I hope it's not just Spartanpass under a new username. They're vandalism modi operandi seems similar. Anyway, thanks for the help in fighting anti-FOB vandalism. —Akrabbim^talk 00:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for that. I'll try using that next time instead of removing the image. Cheers.Iorek85 01:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/DNA

Re:Your support for FP. There have been raised some concerns about the quality of the illustration - do you agree with those concerns? Jens Nielsen 13:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the rainbow pattern, it doesn't particularily bother me. At the moment, I can't see anything wrong with it, the strands are easy to differentiate. But if it will make them clearer, maybe they should be changed. The rest of the concerns seem centered on the biomechanics of it, of which I have no idea. The edges around the smaller molecules could be thinner, perhaps, but otherwise, I still maintain my (non expert) support. Iorek85 23:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One way to include templates and not get categorized

Use "subst" to place the template into your page, then delete the categories. For example, I'll place the "disputed" template here with {{subst:disputed}}, save the page, then edit out the categories.

The factual accuracy of this article is disputed.
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.

- Nunh-huh 07:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Hi lorek. I saw your comment on Wikipedia:Peer review/Goldfish/archive1 and I was wondering if you knew how to make the in-line citations because I have no idea how to do so. QuizQuick 02:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings

Please be a bit more careful with your ratings of the importance of articles. Among those you've tagged as "of low importance" include the founder of the Coles shopping empire and the act which legally declared Australia independent from the United Kingdom. I've reset the former to mid importance, but I've reset the latter to high importance. Rebecca 12:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you consider my articles 1982 Commonwealth Games and Anzac Square, Brisbane, to be of such low quality, value and importance. Also please explain the exact criterion you are using to rate the articles and why you consider yourself to be expert and important enough to be able to make such decisions. Figaro 13:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria are at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australia/Assessment. I think the problem is partly the terminology. "Stub", "Start" and "B-Class" are all rather unflattering terms, but these are the only tags that Iorek85 is at liberty to use, since the next level up is "Good article", which has its own nomination process. Iorek85, I think you're making a pretty good fist of a difficult job. Keep up the good work. Snottygobble 00:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The terms that you mentioned, and also the term 'low importance', make one feel that it is not really worthwhile contributing to Wikipedia any longer. For instance, the term 'low importance' means that the article is considered not even good enough to rate a 'clean-up tag'. It is very disheartening when one has tried to do their best to make a good article for Wikipedia, for their work to be dismissed in such a fashion.

With regard to the 1982 Commonwealth Games, I have been responsible for the major part of the article (and its related articles), for which I have had to rely upon mostly from memory (I personally attended the Opening Ceremony of the 1982 Commonwealth Games) – which happened many years prior to both Wikipedia and the internet being established) — whereas, with regard to the 2000 Summer Olympics and the 2006 Commonwealth Games, these articles have had the benefit of Wikipedia, so that people have been able to imput information immediately as results etc. came to hand for both these Games. I am hoping to do further work on the 1982 Commonwealth Games article when (and if) I am able to find information about what sports were held on which days etc.

With regard to Anzac Square, Brisbane, the square holds the Shrine of Remembrance, and many statues commemorating Australia's war dead, so the term 'low importance' makes it appear that Australian war dead are deemed to be too unimportant for a Wikipedia article. I do not know what else I can do, or what else I can add to the article, to try to improve on the ratings which Iorek85 has given to the article.

Apart from the comments which I have made above, there is also a danger that the 'low importance' rating might also lead to the deletion of articles which are given such a rating. Figaro 08:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misunderstood the intended meaning of "importance" in this context. Which is understandable really, since no-one has really bothered to explain it properly. The terms originate with the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, whose aim is "to work toward a set of articles suitable for release in print, CD, DVD, or some combination". Thus, "importance" in the context of WikiProject Australia really means "How important is it for this article to be included in a print, CD or DVD release of Australia-related related Wikipedia articles?" I would have to say that a good 90% of my contributions would have low importance by that criterion. For instance Alas Poor Yagan, one of my finest articles, was rated "low importance" by Iorek85, and I would have to agree with that assessment, because hardly anyone would care or even notice if it got left out of a distribution of Australia-related articles. My personal opinion is that Anzac Square, Brisbane is also of low importance by that criterion, although personally I would rate the 1982 Commonwealth Games as mid-importance.

Regarding your question about what else you can do to the article, I'm afraid there's really nothing you can do re: the importance scale, because the importance scale measures the significance of the subject of the article, rather than the article itself. Lake Barlee will have low importance no matter how wonderful I make the article, and Australia will have top importance even if it gets rewritten into a pile of utter garbage. My advice is to ignore peoples' (subjective) assessments of the importance of the topic, and focus on getting the quality up.

Snottygobble 11:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Snottygobble. I'm sorry, Figaro, if you think my assessments denigrate your work, but I honestly don't feel they do. They are in no danger of being deleted, nor does anyone think they are worthless. It's just in the grand scheme of things, Anzac Square is not as important as, say, the Constitution. Surely you can see that.--Iorek85 02:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heheh, I see I am in esteemed company here, I have responded to some of your rail "low importance" ratings on the arts talk pages, and will pursue the issue later either in the article talk pages, and remain astonished at the level of POV in categorisation of articles.SatuSuro 13:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arts in satusuro speak means articles :) SatuSuro 09:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pic

What was the previous pic on the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict infobox? Tewfik^Talk 06:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tewfik^Talk 06:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't upload copyrighted pictures"

The dicussion on my page is about another picture, the picture you refer to is free in use. Thank you for your concern. ArmanJan 09:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it, I meant Fair use, sorry. I know this source is allowed since I have uploaded images from this source for the past year now. ArmanJan 10:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Small note about warnings

Thanks for the reminder about substitutions. In terms of replacement, as illogical as it may seem, I believe the appropriate etiquette is to replace the template, though I forget where I read that. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 04:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

revert dispute International reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

Hi, There is an dispute in International reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. The dispute is over inclusion of the AIPAC reaction to a US House of Representatives Resolution expressing support for Israel. Various accusations are being thrown around by Comrade438 eg. im being accused of trying to paint a "zionist conspiracy".

Comrade438 has made few silly edits, and comments, along with what might be a threat. It degenerated to Comrade438 blocking the page without consulting WP:RPP, then reverting last changes. I am trying to alert other users who have edited the article to this dispute as I believe the detail should be included. Is it possible you can look and see if you agree that AIPAC's reaction should be included in the article? I dont believe its a content issue and is possible trolling. I previously highlighted the problems on wikipedian noticeboard [1] 82.29.227.171 21:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is a nice compromise. However the AIPAC reaction to the vote is mentioned before the vote takes place in the article- what Comrade438 failed to understand is that its only possible to present AIPAC's reaction in terms of the vote having happened already. Aside from that I like that their reaction is now mentioned- it is relevant and noteworthy. I will also try to include details on Christian Right reaction- particularly John Hagee [2] as these things do have a bearing on the body politic in USA.

Someone did unprotected the page soon after he took that route I chose not to because it was not going to be resolved by a edit war. Thanks I am considering an account and thank you for your involvement. 82.29.227.171 23:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi is it possible something can be done about Comrade438? He has removed the AIPAC detail again [3]. This was a 4/5th removal, without responding to the arguments for the inclusion of the text, after you came up with a 'compromise' inclusion, after another user supported its inclusion, and user Tewfik left word on his/her talkpage indicating WP:Point [4] but admittedly it was before I added further evidence for inclusion on the talk page:

"They [Congress] were given a resolution by AIPAC," said former Carter Administration National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, who addressed the House Democratic Caucus on July 19. "They didn't prepare one." [5]

Like I said- its common knowledge, also note the article points out the pressure that is exercised on the admin via the 2 resolutions. I will prepare a small section detailing reaction of AIPAC and Christian Right Religious Lobby groups.

I noticed Comrade438 had removed the text again when I went looking to rearrange the USA section into subsections- its now entangled. Comrade438 isnt putting forth any arguments against, isn't discussing, isn't taking notice of others, and appears to just be interested in another edit war. Can you suggest a solution to this? Thanks 82.29.227.171 10:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Discussion Page on Lebanon Israel conflict

I did not vandalize...How dare you say I vandalize...I didn't adversely affect the page, are you some greater authority than me?? to say I'm not good enough to make it cleaner and eaiser to read..--Jerluvsthecubs 08:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight

You recently contributed to Australian constitutional crisis of 1975 which has been nominated for Wikipedia:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight. Vote for it now. Todd661 04:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airstrike on Taybe

Hello, I notice you removed this from the article- if you read the cnn report it says it actually breaks the "rules" of the cessation. Just a heads up. 82.29.227.171 14:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, again. I noticed your edit [6] that 07/31 strikes werent a violation of IDF's own cessation.

statement 07/30: "Israel has, of course, reserved the right to take action against targets preparing attacks against it. Only targets that are about to attack Israeli targets will be hit, and this will be the case until the full IDF inquiry is concluded."

"But the Israeli army said Monday's strikes near the Lebanese village of Tayba were meant to protect ground forces operating in the border area and were not aimed at specific targets." [7]

Thanks. 82.29.227.171 10:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

Hi, you were listed as a proponant in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, but have not yet made any statement in support, or oposition, of anything being discussed there. Would you like to write a statement? --Barberio 16:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War crimes

And why it is not a war crimes in Lebanon? Killerman2 07:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 July 30

Hi, could you chime in on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 July 30 to try and avoid the Template:Unverifiable-external-links tag being deleted. --Barberio 15:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-Warring

There is currently what seems like a concerted effort to remove a paragraph from the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict page, possibly including WP:Socks. I reverted once, perhaps you could revert as well. Tewfik^Talk 06:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for citation tips

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction! For some reason, I've had a lot of trouble navigating the Wikipedia help areas, so instead whenever I need to do something new I just copy it from another article :) But the citation and reference stuff was a little complicated to figure out form context alone. Those pages will help a lot! Thanks!! --Jaysweet 12:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties table change in 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

I noticed you added "class wikitable" to the table in the casualties section. I'm not terribly good with tables, so I have no idea how to do this - could you possibly align the "entity" column to the left, as centred looks wrong, and allow the table to hover in the centre of that section? Thanks. --Iorek85 05:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. :) --Oblivious 17:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Text on the leaflet statement

I re-emphasised it. The leaflet image is a point of view violation without the image of the hezbollah texts. Nor is there any other area of the text that describes the policy of targeting vehicles preventing escape, no description of any reason why the civilians left in those areas wouldnt be considered "a terrorist" per justice ministers statements. Not declaring those reasons or the entire context and examples of attacks appearing on the 'targeting civilians page' and instead implying "oh they were warned- its their fault" with the use of IDF propaganda is not good enough for an article aiming for neutrality. 82.29.227.171 03:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haifa Photos

No problem and thanks. Jokeofanarticle 04:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah capabilities in 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

On what basis did you erase information regarding Hezbollah's capabilities and Iranian and Syrian support during the conflict?

Thanks,

Guy Montag 04:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The page about non combatant roles mostly covers Israel's funding and has almost nothing about Hezbollah. Secondly, I do not think that the purpose is to keep articles short, but to provide the relevent information to understand the context of the conflict. Adding one paragraph on Hezbollah funding and capabilites and Hezbollah support in the conflict lets people understand that this is not a small militia but a well funded army. Guy Montag 19:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Casualty figures - Israel-Lebanon

I'm certainly in favor of ranges or changing the qualification, but merely stating the highest number mentioned by the Lebanese Government is not appropriate. Beyond that, just having a range is misleading, as even the lowest number out there (CNN: "683 Lebanese, mostly civilians") doesn't provide a lower limit to the range, so at the very least, one of the 500 numbers (I forget which, though 577 would also work) should be the lower range. And I'm also not comfortable with the upper range being a number which isn't limited to 'civilians.' Keep in mind that the Israeli numbers are all precisely cited, and while we needn't minimise the fact that many people have been killed in Lebanon, we should only say what is verifiable. While it is not the best option, if there is no qualifying number, perhaps we should consider changing the qualification (that Lebanon is in a chaotic state of war that makes precise numbers difficult to come by could/should be noted). I apologise if I've repeated something or somehow contradicted myself ( , but confess that I don't recall where on Talk we discussed this or what the precise conclusion was, so feel free to point that out to me. Let me know... Tewfik^Talk 06:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The questioning of official Lebanese numbers stems from their practical inability to record reliable casualty counts (due to being subject to a degree of "total war"), which is reflected in the diversity of numbers in mainstream media. And thus while the official Lebanese number says civilians, when media list counts they quote a Lebanese official's count and/or list a much lower number without the 'civilian' qualification (again, like CNN's "683 Lebanese, mostly civilians"). I don't think we can list a definitive civilian qualified number if it isn't cited as such in mainstream media, you are right that we should try to find a number which best reflects obvious civilian deaths like Qaa (which is what sparked Paraphelion's "calculations," though I share the reservations using them entails). Perhaps I misunderstand you? Let me know what you think. Tewfik^Talk 07:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My main problem with that is the great difference between the official Lebanese number and what reliable media are willing to report (which are mixed numbers, meaning the civilian count is even less). We have to fairly portray the Lebanese casualties without falling into major inflation of the numbers. Let me know, Tewfik^Talk 07:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And re: your edit summary, "oh, okay." :-) Tewfik^Talk 07:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(You can copy this into Talk when you work your magic there, but I'm done here for now) You're right that its low, and that a problem. You could try Paraphelion's approach, though it is extremely time consuming and borderline OR. (Perhaps this is helpful: I've found that the media sources are quite consistent on where they sit on the number range CBS<CNN<BBC<Guardian<=Al Jazeera) Good luck, Tewfik^Talk 08:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yesha council

Why dit you delete that statement made by the well known and influential Yesha Council on the attack? 62.163.161.226 12:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iran-Syria support of Hezbollah

I couldn't find any of the references to this on the Talk. Perhaps you could locate them, as they are sorely needed on Roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict (and in general, any contribution you could make to that page would be appreciated). Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 03:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tewfik^Talk 04:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the talk page

Hi,

Please look at the talk page and write your idea about the suitable place for "Allegations of using civilians as Human Shields".--Sa.vakilian 07:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unverifiable-external-links up for TFD again

One of the people wanting the template deleted has demanded another shot at getting their way, and the template is up for deletion again.

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 7 --Barberio 19:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration

Based on the fact that this mediation process has been ignored and mocked, I have requested arbitration on the censorship of links and images that satisfy Wikipedia policies WP:EL and others. Please see the page Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Deletion_of_WP:EL-compliant_links_and_images_from_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict. AdamKesher 16:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Israel-Lebanon

Thanks for the note Iorek85. I've been in WP for enough time and this is the first time i hear excuses about the lenght of an article. Targeting civilians is the main controversial point in this conflict. If we have to keep the article short than there are many other sections that can be cut but not this one. You can arrange the sub-sections but we must respect the info inside of them. I dunno if you have any precise layout to suggest. -- Szvest 10:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point Iorek. I may suggest that you read my convo w/ Tefik yesterday at the talk page. I disagree as the info (as well as the refusnik) concern the main section which is called Strikes in civilian areas. It shouldn't be out of it. -- Szvest 10:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration - do we need it?

After some good sleep, I've looked at our ArbCom case from another perspective. It's, in fact, a war about a couple of links. Well, the arbitration will start in 20 hours, but I'd like to suggest the last proposal: every participant recuses himself from editing the links in questioned pages for a few months, and we just leave that to other editors. The ArbCom will accept the case, but, well, a peaceful solution might be better. I've posted more on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#A different view. Just think about that and about whether you really need arbitration; and, if you agree with that, just sign there. It's the last chance for a peaceful resolution. Thanks in advance! CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 21:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 18:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enviroment sections, etc.

I made these sections during copyediting today. I like bulleted sections in acticles because they make things easy to navigate from the table of contents (TOC). I'm not sure what you meant by article size, but I think navigatability for people using the TOC is a fair trade off with the scrollers.

As far as the size of the oil slick, I don't think I would have appreciated that its so serious if not for the comparision with the Valdez spill; otherwise 100,000 barrels or whatever doesn't mean much to me. I'm not a big fan of the open ended nature as to how big the spill is or is going to get.

The other thing you might mean by "article size" is the size in bytes. One character is one, maybe these days two bytes. So that pic of the fireman and the oil slick together are probably 100 times the size of this whole Enviroment section. I see from your user page that you like photos; I like text. I don't think bytes size is too important.

If you just mean brevity, I'm cool with that. But something saying that it's a third the size of the Valdez spill is an interesting fact. Also, if you are going to delete this from the main article, you should at least move them to the see-also article so we don't lose the information.

You also missed a space between the paragraphs when you removed the sections.

Oh, and you do have a good point that the majority of dead (and suffering) were Lebonese. Maybe I was trying to be too diplomatic. I'm really not sure what the best way that section should go is. -- Kendrick7 06:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I didn't know about the size policy, but I figure for an article on Wiki's front page for a month 20k over isn't doing so bad. Reworked it with the brevity and moved the superfluous sections to the sub article. Later, -- Kendrick7 23:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now studied that contents of Article size thoroughly. Sorry about that last comment; I obviously didn't just tell you. Wouldya belive I was intenting the "royal you"?

I really think the problem is in the clarity of the Article Size article, or even the clarity of that little error message that pops up everytime an article with total size > 32Kb gets edited. This is a technical limitation of very old web browsers, and many current web-capable cells phones. But I think it is misleading and very much puts the scare into people.

Article size goes on to say, 32kb is about the longest length of readable text you'd want a good article anyway, but the scary message is counting everything, most of which, the wiki markups and the footnotes for example, are never going to be actually "read" by most readers. And Article size says this in a sort of round about way -- but that is how I measured the size, by that article's standards, and I promise you I came up with 30kb (3150 bytes, IIRC, 1024 bytes = 1 kb.

I feel the need to explain this to you in some detail, because of what you said about broadband having trouble handling a 70kb page of data. At a minimally defined 256 kilo-bits per second, that's 32Kb per second, so the page takes two seconds to load at 70kb (not counting images). That's equivalent to eight-ten seconds for modern dial up. DSL, though, is 8 Mbit/s. (The fact that only modems count anything in bits any more started as a marketing ploy and somehow got out of control, IMHO) My speedtest tells me my broadband is a 2.1 Megabits, which is more than 250kb per second. I presume that's pretty typical. -- Kendrick7 07:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I hadn't though about upload -- but that is another good thing about sections is that each section can be edited and uploaded individually. Except, oddly, for the lead "section" which can only be changed by editing the whole article. Another thing that needs to be fixed around here.

The longest article by total size (that isn't a list) seems to be on the Plame Affair, a minor US political scandal tangentally related the the Iraq invasion. Which is pretty bizarre, but current events are just going to get more eyeballs. That's a boon to future historians, though I'm sure that's what the folks at the Library of Alexandria said.... Maybe half those ancient scrolls were just local canoe races scores? -- Kendrick7 08:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Yorker

Of course you must realise that being the master refactor, you are our own man behind the curtain, and we are all at your mercy . Keep up the good work, Tewfik^Talk 00:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

good work

good work you've done in cleaning up the lebanon israel war article Rm uk 10:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Userpage

Np; i only figured it out my self awhile ago :-D! thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 11:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of The O.C. episodes

Hey Iorek85, I just want your opinion on season 4 details added to the List of The O.C. episodes. I feel they shouldn't be there, they just sound absurd. billybill 17:04, 26 August 2006

Two things froggy

Hi Iorek,

I noticed on your user page, that you are a photographer in Australia, and an environmentalist! I was wondering whether you have any photos of native Australian frogs? I am currently trying to get as many species represented as possible, but of course there are too many! South eastern Queensland frogs are pretty well represented on Wikipedia, but there are still quite a few species missing. Do you have any photos of frogs not represented which you are willing to upload? I can create the article if you have the photo, and if you can't identify it, I am happy to help.

Also, you graded Amphibians of Australia a while back. Just wondering whether there is any information you think is missing that I could add. I have writers block! Thanks --liquidGhoul 08:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the help. That is just a green tree frog (glad to see you still have them), so there isn't a great need for it. I have read your suggestions for the article, thanks for that. I aprreciate it. --liquidGhoul 11:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I only now just noticed the barnstar you awarded me, and I greatly thank you for it. It means very much coming from you; with the amount of critical responses I've been met with, I often second-guess whether I really am faithful to the principles of WP (after all, how could so many people be wrong? Of course, I welcome any critique you may want to share). The impartiality that you've displayed has been outstanding (not to mention your tireless custodianship of the Talk pages), and I've been quite jealous that Cerejota got you the barnstar first =D. Thanks again for letting me know that I spend faaar too much of my time on the 'pedia, Tewfik^Talk 04:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi lorek85, thanks for the quick response on the rating of Burra, South Australia ! - Peripitus (Talk) 08:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambulance hoax?

Hi Iorek, What do you propose we do about the ambulance hoax theory. While we aren't a collection of blog reported conspiracy theories, I thought that Downer's position would make this at least as notable as the phosphorus, vacuum, and DU claims. Let me know what you think, Tewfik^Talk 20:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't feel that I've fallen prey to a crazy conspiracy

, but I would still appreciate your feedback on this matter. Thanks, Tewfik^Talk 04:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Arabs

Hi Iorek85

On 23:19, 3 September 2006 in the article "2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict", where the number of Israeli civilian casualties is given, you deleted the information "(incl. 19 Israeli Arabs)", explaining your deletion: "the fact that they are arabs is entirely irrelavent".

Although in most armed conflicts I would agree that the ethnicity of the casualties is irrelevant, this is an exception: the high percentage of Israeli Arabs that were directly affected by this war played an important role in the political and military developments during the war.

This information is therefore highly informative as to the complexity of this war’s dynamics. It reveals a tragically ironic aspect of this conflict & is probably of great interest to those who seek a better understanding of it.

Dan Pelleg 00:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(you wrote:) I agree with you that its tragic and ironic, and it's quite true that war kills irrespective of race. Still, it's not really relevent to the conflict - a nice piece of trivia, sure, but not for the infobox at the head of the article. Iorek85 08:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Iorek85 – I suppose sometimes one's forced to agree to disagree, and I don't want to start a massive debate about this. But to me this issue isn't trivial, so before you wave this away, please consider this:

You'd never claim it is irrelevant to separate the numbers of Israeli and Lebanese casualties. That's the whole point of that specific table. We want to be informed how many casualties each combating party in this conflict suffered.

If you were informed as to the history and nature of the State of Israel you would know that indeed, under Israeli law the Israeli Arabs are citizens of Israel, but for most of them themselves the question of national affiliation poses a grave dilemma and many of them openly define themselves as non-Israelis (Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians etc.).

This issue is therefore not only highly relevant to this conflict - it is basic and central to the history and politics of the Israeli Arab conflict in general and of course to this conflict as well and is anything but trivial.

I'll sum it up: The infobox does not list the overall number of all casualties of both combating sides, it separates them to Lebanese and Israelis. Since the problematic issue of Israeli Arab's national affiliation is of central importance to the understanding of the Israeli Arab conflict in general and of this war specifically, mentioning how many of Israel's casualties were Israeli Arabs is (except for offering additional understanding and insight into this war) a natural informative extension to the casualties' categorization to Lebanese and Israel. Dan Pelleg 00:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]