User talk:Sceptic Ashdod/Archive 1

Archive 1

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 11:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

suggestions

Hi Sceptic, just a couple of general tips. It makes it much easier for others to find your comments if you use the Edit section link rather than the edit page function. When you use the edit section method your summary will already include a link to the section. Also, I saw you had some trouble with line breaks not showing up properly. What you can do is use <br> to insert a line break but retain your indent. An example is below.
::Line 1 with 2 indents<br>Line 3 after a break no added indent but retains indent will show up like this

Line 1 with 2 indents
Line 3 after a break no added indent but retains indent will show up like this

Happy editing, Nableezy (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I was born and raised in the states, grew up in Chicago, my parents come from Egypt though (and I still have a lot of family back there). And I appreciate your attitude as well. Any other wiki-general questions feel free to give me a shout, I will help if I can, or at least point you in the direction of somebody who can. Peace and happiness, Nableezy (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ill restore it, my point wasnt the 'suicide attacks' its the specific mention of 2 women. I dont think we need to go into that great a detail, especially when we have no idea how many women combatants are included. But you should really feel free to be bold and revert if you feel it is necessary. But keep in mind (a guideline, not a policy) WP:BRD. I'll take my concerns to talk. Nableezy (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

a couple of notes regarding this edit. Terrorism-info is not a RS, but it is a notable source so you can use them but say 'according to, ...'. Not sure about rightsidenews, but they dont seem to meet RS criteria, any way you can find another source for that stuff? Also, and I havent read all the sources you used, do the sources explicitly call whatever it is you added 'propaganda' or 'psychological warfare'? If not, it shouldnt go in that section, if so then it should. Nableezy (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. 1. Attributed quotations to Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center where appropriate.

2. This http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e048.htm is entitled 'The battle for hearts and minds'.

3. This http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/4077764/Hamas-threatens-black-destiny-if-Israeli-soldiers-enter-Gaza.html has a headline 'Hamas threatens 'black destiny' if Israeli soldiers enter Gaza', and later 'In Damascus, the exiled Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal warned Israel that it faced a “black destiny” if it decided to launch a ground offensive. He also threatened that militants in Gaza could attempt to seize Israeli troops as hostages, as they did two years ago when the young soldier Gilad Shalit was kidnapped. "If you commit a foolish act by raiding Gaza, who knows, we may have a second or a third or a fourth Shalit," said Meshaal. "If you commit the stupidity of launching a ground offensive then a black destiny awaits you," the Syria-based Meshaal said in a pre-taped speech aired on Al-Jazeera television. "You will soon find out that Gaza is the wrath of the God." Sounds 'psychological' enough for me.

4. This http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1103314/Israel-rolls-tanks-Gaza-storm-Hamas-rocket-bases.html cites the following: 'Meanwhile, Hamas threatened to turn Gaza into a "graveyard" for Israeli forces. 'You entered like rats,' Hamas spokesman Ismail Radwan told Israeli soldiers in a statement on Hamas' Al Aqsa TV. 'Gaza will be a graveyard for you, God willing,' he said. Again, sounds 'psychological' enough for me.

5. This http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5429904.ece says 'Hamas also stepped up its own psychological warfare, sending messages in Hebrew to Israeli citizens' mobile phones warning: “Rockets on all cities, shelters will not protect you.”

6. Finally, rightsidenews simply copy-pasted one of the reports of, again, IICT, it is reproduced in the headline. Simply wanted to diversify a little... and one of its subsections goes like 'Constructing the Myth of Victory: Hamas Manipulations, Propaganda and Psychological Warfare'.

Hope I addressed all the issues. I would improve shortly citing the sources, simply didn't have time to make it as it should. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I really think the sources need to explicitly say 'propaganda' or 'psychological warfare' to be placed in that section. I'm not going to bother too much though, that page is getting to hostile again (if you look at the beginning archives you can see why I say 'again') and I really dont feel like dealing with it. Peace and happiness Sceptic, Nableezy (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

One more suggestion, when you see somebody leave a comment that is no longer indented with something like (od) or (oda) or the arrow, start indenting from that. Done for readability so we dont end up with single character columns. Off to bed, will converse more in the morning (or the late afternoon for you) Nableezy (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Greetings back

I'm also new here. I only started editing in general in December and in the IP stuff in the beginning of April, and I'm only watching 3-4 of those right now.
I'll try to let you know I'm around if I see something we're in agreement on, and anyway feel free to leave me a note on my talk page if you want my opinion on anything. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I doubt terrorism-info is considered a RS. If you can find similar claims from somewhere more reliable, then you should certainly put it somewhere near the PCHR numbers, which seem to inflate the amount of non-combatants killed by the IDF.
As for Kemp, I think you're going to have to work on getting him in, but it should be possible. That Kaufman guy certainly has no specific expertise that should get him in the article, but like I said I'm also new here, and I'm not sure what exact rules apply in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by No More Mr Nice Guy (talk • contribs) 13:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree about cremonezi. I think Nableezy and I reached a reasonable compromise about what should get in the article from the stuff he published. I noticed someone put it back in today after it was reverted yesterday. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course you may

If you like. Its just a leftover from the Israeli apartheid page that got removed long ago which I have kept for fun and posterity. Happy editing. Tiamut^talk 22:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hamas military activity

Yes, I think it is important to give a clear explanation of what international law says about police forces in general (assumed non-combatant), and about Hamas fighters who are police officers (combatant). This not only helps explain explain this particular incident, it will help set the record straight for future incidents. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. I think that's important too. The psy-war and intimidation against civilians are important issues that are hardly mentioned in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, welcome to Wiki

Hope you don't stay for too long!

If somehow you someday become dis chanted about Wiki, I hope you find great pleasure in knowing that I did voodoo for it to happen. Don't be mad at me, it was the responsible thing to do. Why don't you make your visit short in I/Ps articles? Thanks, have a so-so day. Cryptonio (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Gaza War

Hey. I've removed your requests for third opinions on this page, on the grounds that there are more than five editors currently active on that page. Per the 3O guideline, a request is for "a dispute between two editors." There are plenty of editors there that will offer their opinions. If you're looking for further dispute resolution and a way to garner consensus, you might want to try WP:RFC. Having said that, that page looks big enough that you might have to take it to higher channels in WP:DR. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, this was most helpful! --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sceptic Ashdod. You have new messages at Nableezy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nableezy (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you dont mind some more unsolicited advice; try to edit some articles far far away from the I/P conflict. You really risk getting burned out dealing with this topic exclusively, and as with anything that you do in your free time this should be at least somewhat enjoyable. Dont worry about Cryptonio's message above, I personally think you are doing a fine job (even though we are most certainly on opposite sides of the POV spectrum in the real world). But I would advise you to look through other articles that interest you and help bring those up to par as well, it makes dealing with these articles slightly more bearable. Peace and happiness, Nableezy (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone is working on the talk page problem. Wanted to follow-up on Nableezy's comment. It is excellent advice. I found a uncontentious article in a nice little corner of Wikipedia to work on. It has improved my knowledge of standards and been a surprisingly fun hobby while drinking a beer or two on a Tuesday night.Cptnono (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm from the Pacific Northwest so we have some good beer (Hales, Pyramid, Redhook). Maybe that will be my next project!

Bug

Wasn't sure if it was just me! It is still viewable in the edit function for whatever reason.Cptnono (talk) Nableezy knows a good amount about Wikipedia. He might know if this is a known server issue or if there is a weird html tag on the edit page screwing it up.Cptnono (talk) 07:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

attempt to cite a book

The view in Israel in the first half of 1967 was that Egypt, was unlikely to embark on a full-scale war. This opinion rested upon a fact that as long as Egypt's elite forces, eight brigades in all, were still involved in the civil war in Yemen, he would not dare to attack Israel.ISBN 9780415214681

no more compromises

Regarding the edit summary in this edit, you really shouldnt be saying 'no more explanations or compromises'. I agree that the information should be in the article, pretty much as you put it (you did keep the minor changes I made once upon a time right?) and the back and forth with Crytponio is probably the main reason I am planning on taking a prolonged (perhaps permanent) break from the article. But just remember, everybody who has that page in their watchlist sees those edit summaries (a number of admins included) and it would be wise not to seem combative. Keep well, Nableezy (talk) 04:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

one more thing, with your attempt to cite a book, install a gadget called refTools, it makes it much easier to do these things. You can install it by going in to 'My Preferences', click on Gadgets and check refTools. That will add a "cite" button in the toolbar on an edit page. Then you select the type of citation and fill in the information. The documentation is User:Mr.Z-man/refToolbar. And if you havent poked around your preferences I have some suggestions for you beyond this. Nableezy (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Yes I did keep your changes, they were fine with me. 2. Anyway, thanks for support. 3. As you see (I hope you see), I am biased pro-Israeli editor, but that doesn't mean I am unable or unwilling to cooperate - on the contrary. 4. What I meant in that edit summary, and I regret I didn't emphasize it enough, was no more explanations or compromises with Cryptonio. And I think you know why. It didn't mean I can't converse with anybody else on the issue. 5. As you wish, but showing weekeness to hooligan wouldn't make him stop, but will only inflame him more. It must be confronted. Too bad you'll go, sometimes I have the feeling I am talking to myself or to Cryptonio. But then again, if it is your decision - I'll respect it. 6. Thanks for the tip, I'll try it later. 7. Be well. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I know what you meant and I know why you would be frustrated, but to anybody who just sees that it looks bad. That was my point, not that you are wrong, but just that it looks bad. Nableezy (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject

You are invited to join WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build and maintain an extensive and neutral database of Israel related articles on Wikipedia. To join, simply add your name to the members section of WikiProject Israel.

Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

My user page

I took your suggestions seriously, however, in the future, I would prefer you leave a note on my talk page rather than on my user page. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, couldn't hold myself. You can be sure that if I spent more than 2 min. there, I would be pointing out more. BTW, pay attention - according to IntLaw, since British Mandate' goal was to assist in establishing national home for Jews in Palestine (that was divided for the first time in 1922, after the establishment of the mandate and even after its formal approval by League of Nations, when 75% of the Palestine was cut to form TransJordan, a national home of Palestine Arabs - that transformed to state of Jordan in 1947) and since Arabs rejected the recommendation for the 2nd division of Palestine (they already rejected the division plan of 1937 - Peel comission) and since Jordan and Egypt occupied unlawfully the parts of Palestine in the course of 1948-1949 - state of Israel has a better title for the entire Palestine (the rejection of its division means that the only valid status is the terms and goals of the mandate). Regards. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

image problem

Hi Sceptic, you tagged File:Nizar Rayyan 2 08-05-2009.jpg as a free image, however I found that this image is actually a copyrighted image, the original is an AP photo (you can see this here). The image needs to be deleted as a non-free image without a fair use rationale (it is too high res for us to claim fair-use for it). Let me know if you have any questions and if you want me to request it be deleted or if you want to do that. Nableezy (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I know what and how to do it... I would appreciate if you would take care of whatever you think is appropriate - I comply. thanks. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

japan

about the WWII articles dealing with civilian casualties in Japan, I think those articles are extremely poor in that regard, specifically this one. I think that article is a pretty good example of systematic bias (check that link out, it is pretty interesting reading) Nableezy (talk) 07:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I can agree with you about this specific one, but I meant one and only WWII article - in a single night Brits and Americans killed more German civilians than Germans killed British and American civilians, so? As for systematic bias, it is indeed interesting. I for one fall within 9 out of 10 descriptions of a typical editor. At least, I am not interested in astronomy, so no one in Southern hemisphere would be hurt. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 13:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Kate Raphael Bender and Trader Joes

Someone is trying to censor sourced information on an anti-Israel protest attempted this past weekend. Feel free to comment here. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

lull

I reverted your edit. It already has a better source (due respect but I think HRW trumps ITIC) saying "Human Rights Watch reported that while Hamas security forces demonstrated an ability to curb rocket fire, some people detained for firing rockets were summarily released without explanation." so that covers the first part of not cracking down on others, the second part was using terrorism-info as a RS itself, it isnt and shouldnt be used to report facts. Let me know if you disagree, but I do think they are not needed, and the language (terrorist groups is generally considered a no-no) was needlessly POVish. Nableezy (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, I have been thinking about this for a while, and I still have concerns with Shalit being included in the international law section. My thinking on including the phrase "during and prior to the conflict" was for including the causus belli of each side, namely the blockade (collective punishment) and the rockets (indiscriminate attacks on civilians). My thinking is Shalit doesnt really fall under that as to present it neutrally you have to present the justification from Hamas for holding him, the prisoners being held by Israel. I would prefer to come to an agreement though and not just remove it, I just see including it as opening the door to including many, many more things that are not directly related to this conflict on each side. We already have mention of Shalit in the ceasefire section with a link so the story can be told in that article with a more complete perspective. Let me know what you think, Nableezy (talk) 03:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your fairness, but I only partially agree on the first issue and disagree on the secon one. It would be easier to continue on the talk page. I'll add a sentence there why I decided to make the additions about the lull; as for Shalit, I'm ready to start a new section on the matter and try to explain once again the rationale. But you have to reread that subsection first. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Will do, but it is late out here and I have work in the morning, so will get back to anything on the talk page in the morning (my morning). Nableezy (talk) 06:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

HRW and the Saudi's

It seems NGO isn't that full of crap after all. Wall Street Journal - Human Rights Watch Goes to Saudi Arabia. Just thought you might be interested. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice. Most interesting part though - comments. Thanks. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious, Wikifan, where are you from? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather not say, but not anywhere near Israel. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Only anti-Israel?

I am not going to lower myself into your remarkable way of discussing. The war was built up in such a way so after the war, Israel could just lay back and ask everyone to provide sources. That's your style as well. When a Palestinian says a tank shot at their school which has a only 3 walls left, Israel would just say "hey, did anyone see us do that? no, Palestinians are just trying to make us look bad. Please provide us with sources" - oh wait, no one honest was officially allowed in Gaza strip during the war. There were images leaked from Gaza strip however that don't lie. Fortunately for you, I just don't feel like looking them up, because then I will satisfy you: you know of course, that the school is just the downright truth. I don't like Hamas, I don't want missiles flying towards my home as well. The difference is that Israel should have been a good nation, it rose out of the second World War where many atrocaties have been commited. Israel should know better, instead they lock the Palestinians out of their country, which was their country as well. Israel is trying to deprive the Palestinians from the hope of their own nation. Any country that does that to one other is horrible, yes. I don't like the bombings around the world either. The difference why Israel is getting so much venom is because it defies the world by destroying a people and then saying as one that the Palestinians had it coming for shooting missiles at them. Or whatever excuse you seem fit. Hamas fires missiles? Sure, go in and eliminate those missile sites, but why lay an entire region in ashes? You can't possibly argue there are missiles or troops in every destroyed house. The footage of crowded hospitals partly filled with infants. Come on. Or did Hamas do that to it's own people? The same in east Beirut. Total disproportion. And just laughing at the world for not taking any action. It's not about Isreali or Palestinian. It's about war crimes. Russia is the same as Israel and China. The only difference is that they fight for integrity and you fight to protect yourselves. For some reason Europe finds integrity of borders more important than a normal and calm life for everyone, they can't decide in Israel-Palestine who deserves more calm. I don't have a clue why the US don't stop the madness. I was angry when Europe said Georgia was not to blame for the war but I was angry at Russia as well for overreacting. That blew any chances the autonomous regions could have had of international recognition. I've been to the Balkan after the war was over with a friend of mine. We went to her hometown. Some people there wanted to talk then about what has happened to their families. I couldn't believe a person can really hate another so much. Now I know that the Balkan wasn't the only place where this happened. I was very happy when Karadzic was captured, but somewhat dissappointed when Milosovic died. People must be punished for crimes. That is why they are called crimes. I've done work for Tibet, every time I saw these Han beat up demonstrations there was a tear to my eyes. Now with the Uygurs exactly the same thing. It is good they don't bow to the Chinese, because at least a man can know what kind of animal China is. Please do not stray from the subject by asking about other countries because you are always shifting the attention. That is very nasty trait. The reason I spit venom to you is not because I am pro-Palestinian (but perhaps have come to see them as underdogs in this game that you make it), but I am anti-crimes if you will. With all due respect to the Palestinians, but Israel is the one that should know better in all this. The Palestinians are desperate, but have no real means. Israel is desperate as well, why else should you start a war? Israel has the means however which bring a large responsibility. That responsibility is something it can't handle. That is where Israel should be punished for. It's not about Palestinian or Israeli. Hamas is also mentioned in Amnesty's report and when things start rolling, the rolling thunder should also strike Hamas. Today however, it is Gaza that lies in ruins and Europe gets to pay for it (yay Israeli economy, yay a new invasion) and it is Israel that goes on as it was. Blamage. Mallerd (talk) 09:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You were asked a simple question. 'tank shot at school full of women and children' - where do you get the information from? You heard it somewhere? You read it somewhere? Be a man and stand behind you words. Otherwise these are worthless libel accusations. Despite the restriction on journalist's access from Israel (why nobody complained about the access ban from Egypt side of the Gaza border), there were reporters other than Al-Jazeera. here, here, here, here and here. A piece of advice - before making antisemitic remarks and writing lengthy messy posts, learn the subject you have no idea about. Ah, better go to Al-Fakhura school incident article and read that several witnesses confirmed there were Hamas fighters near the school and IDF returned fire to a location near, not inside, the school. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Boring words. I didn't say there were no reporters. I don't believe we are talking about the same school, I have seen it on ÉénVandaag (damn it, I succumbed), feel free to search their archives because you can keep feigning a good discussion and hammering my manhood for no reason other than shifting attention. In the end, we both know who's right. Did I spot the good ol' fashioned antisemitic argument? Excellent. Go on with your life, I know now that you are nothing but an attention shifting Israel supporter. Typical. Your kind is the one kind that doesn't has the guts to back its actions up, instead you just point to others. Very sad. Before creating accounts solely intended for the Gaza War discussion page and coming up with messy lengthy arguments, please learn to respect human life and truth. Mallerd (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

check this out, Mallerd: New antisemitism. Sceptic, the above post defines Wikipedia:Uncivil. If this has become systematic I will gladly ship it over to ANI. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Wikifan, it has not. Yet. However, if you missed the beginning, check out the latest posts in "Breaking the Silence" section of a talk page. I'll bear in pride the belonging to "the most ridiculous nation in the world". Btw, if you are familiar with anyone who knows Dutch, let me know. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you need to translate a page? Wikipedia has a language portal I think. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it's more complicated. I'm simply curious when this Dutch TV supposedly reported of 'tank shot at school full of women and children'. From a date of a report we could deduce about the actual incident. Because, as you know, out of notable incidents, there's no such thing, and I can think of only two that have some resemblance. Can you imagine what would have been the outcry all over the world if such thing did occur? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

From Operation Defensive Shield, Muhammad al-Durrah, Gaza beach explosion (2006), and the endless-array of quality journalism leaves no doubt that the world will always find excuses to express "outcry." Do you have a video link or reference for this alleged-incident? I remember watching a news report from a French tv station that spoke of an artillery shell blowing up a UNRWA school but it said nothing about women and children inside. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No, this is what our new friend Mallerd writes: "I have seen it on ÉénVandaag (damn it, I succumbed), feel free to search their archives...". --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

All I could find was Break the silence report from their archives. I created a dutch google search with keywords "Gaza + women children". I can't read much of it though. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

...from 17-10-06 :) Nevermind,let's just forget this. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Haha I tried. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Iran trained unit

Thanks for the info! I did see the unit that was trained by Iran. I think it is interesting and probably note worthy enough for inclusion. My concern is others' concerns with undue weight. I assume putting it in will start a discussion and the best way to make it appropriate would be to limit it. In all reality , it isn't important enough for several lines but at least some mention that the unique(?) force was targeted and destroyed should go in. Any other source on this by the way?Cptnono (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think too this piece is extraordinary, and deserves a sentence somewhere in the ground phase. I'm not aware of other sources, but maybe proper search would produce good result. But I definitely remember I heard it during the war (too bad I'm not a RS yet). Anyway, I say let's give it a try, and if others will have problem - we'll discuss it. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking in the Israel ground attack section but was looking for a little more info to get it tight. Also, do you have any thoughts on the Naval stuff? It looks we have about two lines of info (from the Aviation Week source) but it doesn't fit in chronologically with the current layout.Cptnono (talk) 07:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Curious - a few personal questions

Haha no I am not but I have distant Arab relatives who live in Nazareth. I also have other family across the Middle East but some fled during the Jewish exodus. So if you don't mind me asking, are you from Israel? Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Ashdod, former Isdud. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I should have noticed that. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

How to design bad software

Saw your 'see also' confusion. It's all explained here. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Sean. That thing drove me crazy. The funniest thing is that I used exactly the same template that Nableezy did when fixing a link to WP article - Gaza war section. There it worked... --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

But Nableezy is a Jedi. nableezy - 16:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, Master Nableezy! --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think template designers use weighting factors that control the probability of a template working on any particular occasion based on the location of a user. It's an example of the influence of the pro-Illinois-anti-Levant Lobby, a seldom discussed but highly influential movement in the wikitemplatosphere. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Eco-Grenades

I'm pretty bored with Wikipedia these days and the Gaza War article in particular. But I was travelling and away from WP when you last responded in the medicine bottle grenade discussion and I saw that it was since removed from the talk page. I didn't want you to think that it was unfinished business. So since nobody else seemed to care about it, I'm happy with whatever you decide to do.

I'll probably be back at Gaza War at some point. Unless Gaza War II starts first. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hope you enjoyed your travel. The discussion was not removed, you know, simply transferred to archive. Since nobody cares too much, I moved on to more important issues there. When you feel comfortable to resume your activities in the article in general and in eco-grenades in particular - you're always welcome. Best. --Sceptic from Ashdod 07:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

sig

Hi Sceptic, this is in regards to your new signature. Nothing wrong with the content, but the rules say you should include a link to either your user page or user talk page in the signature. This is just to make it easier to communicate. Would you mind linking your sig to one of those pages? Thanks, nableezy - 18:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've already noticed that something wrong with my sig, and fixed it. No problem. Just to remind, there's still an unresolved discussion regarding Hamas reply to rocket attacks as means to sow terror. Cryptonio and myself are waiting to somebody pulling us out of the ditch. --Sceptic from Ashdod 03:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait a second... I thought I fixed it... I'll take care of it. --Sceptic from Ashdod 03:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed? --Sceptic <small>from</small> Ashdod (talk) 04:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I shouldn't have messed up with it. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You can keep the "from" small if you check the box "use raw signature" in your preferences. The code should read as follows
[[User:Sceptic Ashdod|Sceptic <small>from</small> Ashdod]] _{([[User talk:Sceptic Ashdod|talk]])}
which will output as
Sceptic from Ashdod _(talk)
(you can leave out the _{([[User talk:Sceptic Ashdod|talk]])} if you dont want the link to talk, or leave out the sub if you want it as the same height as the rest. all sorts of things you can do if you want to) nableezy - 06:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's see: --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 06:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Damn it! --Sceptic from Ashdod _(talk) 06:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that on your own talk page the talk link will just be bold because it is a self-reference to the current page. But anywhere else you sign it will be a link. nableezy - 06:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

May the Force be with you, Master! --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 06:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad to be of service (but really, no more "Master", you have to understand that where I grew up there is a lot of bad history intrinsically connected with that word, and while I know why are writing that, and believe me I really do appreciate it, it just reads wrong to me based on that history I spent a decent amount of time in school studying) Any questions you have of a somewhat technical nature (lets say you wanted to make your sig a random color every time you signed), you know where to find me ;) nableezy - 07:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

How about 'The One Who Is the Closest To Be Friend' around here? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 11:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, lets just shorten it to the One. nableezy - 16:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You've been smoking too much, Mr. Anderson. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 04:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Al-Fakhura school

It is all fixed now. The IP was concerned that the source in the line was something of the lines of "militants ALLEGEDLY fired... IDF RETURNED fire" It would have been just as easy to rework the sentence but he put in that the school itself was directly attacked. I instantly reverted and began modifying an edit when he reverted back. Through two more edits it is now "allegedly... IDF fired upon targets" which will do. Possible changes include dropping "allegedly" all together if it has been confirmed that the IDF was fired upon from near the school or breaking up the line into two/reworking the current line's structure.Cptnono (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

will do. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 04:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

translation request

Hi Sceptic, was wondering if you could help me out and translate this source to English for me. Google translate stops working after #69 for some reason. If you dont have time let me know, already asked somebody else too. Thanks in advance, nableezy - 22:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

never mind, I think I got it, thanks anyway nableezy - 03:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

oh my. you know my translation wouldn't be considered RS. If you'll have difficulty with any particular line, let me know. Btw, do you find time to work on Jews in Egypt too? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 04:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Your translation would be fine, happens all the time. We aren't restricted to English sources, but it is preferred, so there are times a foreign language source will be used and a translation provided. And do you mean the article History of the Jews in Egypt? Sorry to say I have not. Would be an interesting topic to research. I am familiar with the modern history, but not to the point I would feel comfortable contributing to an encyclopedia article on it. Maybe one day. nableezy - 05:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

well my google translation is still pretty crappy, but it has helped us to figure out what sections of the document are relevant. Would you mind translating for me the following:

"יום האדמה" - מארס 1976

117. האירועים פרצו לאחר שממשלת ישראל הודיעה על הפקעת כ-20,000 דונם לשם הרחבת יישובים בגליל - 80% מהם יישובים יהודיים. הקרקעות היו בחלקן קרקעות מדינה ובחלקן קרקעות פרטיות - כ-6,300 דונם מהן בבעלות פרטית ערבית (כ-4,400 ד' היו בבעלות יהודית). ביישובים הערביים הוקמו ועדות פעולה למחות נגד ההפקעות, ונגד עצם העקרון של "ייהוד הגליל", ושביתה כללית הוכרזה ליום השלושים במארס. כבר בערבו של אותו יום פרצו התנגשויות בין מאות מפגינים לבין כוחות הבטחון בסח'נין, בעראבה ובדיר חנא - כפרים שהיו בין הנפגעים מן ההפקעות. אישי ציבור ערבים ניסו להגביל את ההפגנות אך איבדו שליטה על המתרחש. המפגינים הבעירו צמיגים, חסמו דרכים ויידו אבנים ובקבוקי תבערה. כוחות הביטחון, ובהם גם יחידה צה"לית, נכנסו לכפרים והטילו עוצר. בהתנגשויות אלה נהרג תושב עראבה ונפצעו אחדים מאש חיה של כוחות הביטחון. למחרת, ביום השביתה, התפשטו ההפגנות ליישובים ערביים רבים בגליל ובמשולש. התנגשויות קשות נמשכו כל אותו יום ומאש אנשי ביטחון נהרגו חמישה אנשים נוספים. כן נפצעו רבים, משני הצדדים.

לאירועים אלה היתה תהודה רבה בארץ ומחוצה לה והם היוו אבן דרך בתולדות המיעוט הערבי בישראל. היתה זו הפעם הראשונה בה התארגנו אזרחים ערבים להגיב על צעד ממשלתי בהתנגדות אלימה שבמהלכה גם נפלו קרבנות. עבור רבים במיעוט הערבי היתה זו התנסות מעצבת וחוויה מכוננת. האירוע התמקד בנושא הכאוב ביותר למגזר הערבי, האדמה, והוא היה לסמלו של אידיאל העמידה הנחושה. מכאן ואילך צוין "יום האדמה" מדי שנה בעצרות ובהפגנות, שהתרחשו ברמות שונות של הפרות סדר. בכך הפך דגם המחאה של מארס 1976, דהיינו הפגנה המידרדרת לאלימות ומביאה להתנגשויות עם המשטרה, למופת שנתן השראה לאירועי מחאה במגזר הערבי בשנים שלאחר מכן.

and

131. יום האדמה - מארס 2000. ועדת המעקב החליטה לרכז את הפגנות המחאה ביום האדמה ה-24 בחמישה מקומות, ובראשם אלה המסמלים את המאבק על האדמות - סח'נין, מועאוויה-אל-רוחה, וכפרי בדווים בלתי-מוכרים בנגב. דוברי הוועדה הדגישו במסיבת עיתונאים, כי האירוע יעמוד בסימן "השבת האדמות שהופקעו ולא רק הגנה על מה שנותר מהן". יום השביתה הכללית והתהלוכות ב-30 במארס עברו בשקט יחסי, מלבד בסח'נין, שם נעו מאות צעירים, אשר השתתפו בעצרת ההמונית שנערכה במקום, לעבר המיתקן הצבאי המשיק לבתי הכפר ממערב, עקרו את הגדרות, חדרו למחנה והניפו בו דגל פלסטיני. אנשי הציבור (אשר מחלק מהם נמנע לשאת דברם בשל התפרעות זו) ניסו להשיב את המתפרעים לאחור, אך הם נדחו בחרפות ובמכות. כוח מג"ב שהגיע לתגבר את מגיני המחנה נתקבל במטר אבנים ומספר רעולי פנים הציתו את החורשה במקום. כוחות המשטרה הפעילו גז מדמיע וגלילוני גומי והצליחו, לאחר מאבק קשה, להדוף את המתפרעים, אך ההתנגשויות נמשכו עוד זמן רב על הכביש הראשי. בין הפצועים בעימותים אלה היה ראש ועדת המעקב העליונה מוחמד זידאן. ועדת המעקב טענה, כי תושבת סח'נין בת 72 שנפטרה בבית חולים נפגעה משאיפת גז

If this isnt copied correctly and looks like it is backwards, the sections in the original are numbers 117 and 131. Let me know if you can have time to deal with this. Thanks, nableezy - 20:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is backwards! This is a challenge, a serious one and first of its kind for me. I don't recall translating directly text from one language to another. This is much harder than copy-paste sentence from JPost. I'll partition it to two parts. I guess some sentences are translated awfully and awkwardly. See the 1st bullet and tell me whether this is any better than the Google translator. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 09:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Done. I guess the wording needs improvement, but I think the general idea is understandable. One more thing. Noticing that YNHockey is an interested party, I informed him too. I am not familiar with the artcile and even didn't bother to look at the talk page to see who are there and what are you fighting about. I hope though that you'll remain calm. Best. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Land Day, March 1976:

117. The incidents broke out after Israeli Government announced that some 20,000 dunam will be expropriated for the purpose of expanding the settlements in the Galilee, 80% of which are Jewish settlements. The lands (about to be expropriated) were partially State Lands and partially private lands – about 6,300 dunam were in private Arab ownership (about 4,400 dunam were in Jewish ownership). Action committees in the Arab settlements were established, to protest against the expropriation and against the very principle of "jewification of Galilee"; general strike was announced to take place on the 3rd of March. Collisions between hundreds of protesters and security forces took place in the evening of that day already, in Sakchnin, in Ar'aba and in Dir Hanna – villages that were among the harmed from the expropriation. Arab public figures tried to restrict the demonstrations, but lost control over the occurrences. The protesters set tires on fire, blocked roads and threw stones and Molotov cocktails. Security forces, including the IDF unit, entered the villages and imposed a curfew. Ar'aba resident was killed in the clashes and several were injured from live ammunition of security forces. On the next day, the strike day, the demonstrations spread out and took place in numerous Arab settlements in the Galilee and "the Triangle". Violent collisions lasted throughout the whole day and five more were killed from the security forces' fire. Many protesters and security forces' men were wounded as well.

These occurrences had a large resonance in and outside Israel, and they constituted an (important) milestone in the history of the Arab minority in Israel. It was the first time when Arab citizens organized to react to the governmental proceeding in violent resistance, in the course of which there were victims. For many in the Arab minority, it was shaping occurrence and awareness-awakening experience. The event focused on the most painful matter to the Arab sector, the land, and it became a symbol of adamant standing for the ideal. From now on, "The Land Day" was marked yearly, by assemblies and demonstrations that occurred with varying levels of violations of public order. Thus, pattern of March 1976, i.e. demonstration that deteriorated into violence and clashes with the police, transformed into a model that provided inspiration for sequential protest events.

131. The Land Day – March 2000. The follow-up committee decided to concentrate (coordinate) the protest demonstrations on the 24th Land Day in 5 places, primarily in those that symbolize the struggle for the lands – Sakhnin, Mouaviya-Al-Rucha and unrecognized Bedouin villages in the Negev. The committee spokespersons stressed in the press-conference that the event's agenda will be "restoration of the confiscated lands and not merely preserving what's left of them". The day of the general strike and the processions on March 30th proceeded relatively calmly, excluding Sakhnin, where hundreds of youngsters who participated in the massive gathering that was held there moved on towards military base adjacent to the village houses in the west, uprooted the fences, penetrated into the base and waved there the Palestinian flag. Public figures (some of who were deprived from making a speech because of this unrest) attempted to retract the rioters, but were warded off in disgrace and with beatings. Border police forces that arrived to reinforce the base defenders were received with rain of stones and several veiled persons set the woods there on fire. Police forces started using tear gas and rubber rounds and following hard fighting succeeded in pushing the rioters away, but the collisions continued for prolonged time on the main road. Muhammad Zidan, the Head of the Superior Follow-up Council, was among the wounded in the clashes. The Follow-up committee claimed that 72-year old woman, resident of Sakhnin, who deceased in the hospital, was injured from inhaling the (tear)gas.

Thanks a lot Sceptic, very much appreciated. And this is many times better than google, you can see how nonsensical the output from that was here. nableezy - 13:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

?

The Falklands are an integral part of the UK? nableezy - 13:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Are they not? The last time I checked it out they were under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. Any update? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 17:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Its the "integral" part of the sentence I questioned. It is a part of the UK, but it is just effectively a colony. Not an integral part of it like Scotland or Northern Ireland (though I wouldnt even say Northern Ireland is an integral part of the UK) nableezy - 18:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Not that this is so important, maybe just pure semantics, but tell me what is the difference between overseas territories under UK sovereignty and Hawaii islands under US sovereignty? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 04:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hawaii is one of the few states that retains a large "native" population whereas the Falklands are now majority Brit-descended. But there isn't a huge difference, American and European involvement in the overthrow of the government of a sovereign state, followed by annexation. But there was and continues to be overwhelming support for statehood among Hawaiians. There are definitely issues with Hawaii became a part of the US but it aint quite the same as the UK holding on to the last remnants of the British Empire. Also, Hawaii has full statehood. nableezy - 05:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

'Hawaii became a part of the US' but 'Hawaii has full statehood' - reads like a contradiction to me. Maybe you mean Hawaii has an autonomous rule, but each of the 50 states has its own government (and so does Falkland). --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 05:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No, Hawaii had been a sovereign state. The story is long, but the shortened version goes something like this: overthrow of the monarchy, largely as a result of American and Europeans, followed by a request to the US for annexation by those who overthrew the prior government. Hawaii then becomes a US territory, followed much later (1959) by full statehood, meaning a state in the United States, not a sovereign state, not a territory like Puerto Rico currently is (maybe you should have asked me about that one, or the occupation of the Philippines in times past) nableezy - 14:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

British overseas territoriesCptnono (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan

You may want to comment here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Wikifan12345.27s_personal_attacks_on_Talk:List_of_terrorist_incidents.2C_2009. I'm not in favour of a topic ban personally but I don't have time to explain why in detail over there right now. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for notification. I guess it is slightly late now, seems like he's doomed. Besides, I wouldn't know what to say as I've encountered him in one article only - I don't recall him making personal attacks in our talk page, but that says nothing about his behavior in general. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 10:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

#1

Uri Avnery. But you should actually remove the comment, not strike it out. BLP violative text needs to be removed, personal attacks on wikipedia editors can be removed though many favor striking to retain both the initial attack and the withdrawal. nableezy - 04:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I should have guessed. Which comes as no surprise, since you are a peaceful man and apparently support a peaceful dissolution of Israel. At least, this is is not Neturei Karta section, that endorse violent destruction. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 09:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I dont know if I would say I support the dissolution of Israel (peaceful or otherwise), nor do I think either Levy or Avnery favor the same. nableezy - 14:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfair

I think that line of argument: "... aren't you being tired of endless discussions about least significant matters ..." is unfair. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Argument? No, dear Agada, it was not a line of argument. It was a genuine, though maybe tactless, plea to stop endless disputes over least significant matters. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 05:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, no problem. It was kind of rude, but certainly you're entitled to your opinion. Live long and prosper. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Got interested (again) in least significant matters? It's OK, though I might join Sean's recommendation about mirrors... Still love you, institute on Carmel tech-mate ;) My personal opinion is that this article is a fixation with us going round and round in endless conic section paths around it. To they point of your remark, please see 1 2 3: Politburo decides, PM + brigade react/execute/implement and 3 is just a background about Soviet-like politburo political model. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

My only interest, Agada, was to terminate it as quickly as possible. Admitting you have a point, I still fail to grasp the value of that discussion. Nevermind. Pleased that you still love me, despite everything. Also pleased that you follow the discussions even when you do not participate in them directly. If I may, 2 personal requests: do not take advices from someone raised on BBC too seriously; your colorful imagination and multiple usage of distant analogies and beautiful images sometimes hinders (instead of assisting) others to understand you, so please try to reduce it a little. That said, you have a nice and unique personality of your own, so take no offence. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 05:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:GazaWar double affiliation.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:GazaWar double affiliation.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sherool (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. This image and the one below were taken from this report by Israeli Government. As User: Nableezy noted in Talk:Gaza War#Factual and legal aspects, "the pictures are free as a publication of the Israeli government and thus in the public domain per the Israeli Copyright Act of 2007". Can you please help, because I understand absolutely nothing in this image matters? Thank you. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 14:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm no expert on Israeli copyright law but based on both the PDF linked to above and Commons:Licensing#Israel government works are copyrighted for 50 years after publication, only exception beeing "(...) statutes, regulations, Knesset Protocols and judicial decisions of the courts or of any other government entities having judicial authority(...)", these images are neither of those. Besides this first one is aparently from a Hamas forum of some kind, not a work of the Israeli government (unless there is a law on the books somewhere that allow the state to assume the rights to works made by it's enemies or some such). You may want to check on with Wikipedia:Media copyright questions for a second opinion just in case, but looks to me like these have to be considered non-free, meaning they have to abide by the rules of Wikipedia:Non-free content. --Sherool (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Gilad Shalit Tweet4Shalit

SA, sorry for the late reply, but I was on a short vacation. I left a reply on my talk page. Igor Berger (talk) 10:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am not getting the permission to join you on the article, so please do the edit without me. Thank you. Igor Berger (talk) 06:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank u, Igor. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 09:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I hope you don't mind me interjecting on your behalf on the gaza war talk page, but this is not the first time I saw sean.hoyland of all people telling you to be neutral, and that just rubbed me the wrong way.

Anyway, if you want some more international law stuff for your user page, check out my additions here.No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Nizar Rayyan 1 03-06-2009.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Nizar Rayyan 1 03-06-2009.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, 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, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. B (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Responsed on my talk. Tiamut^talk 11:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI: problem with citation at Roof knocking

Please note that there is a problem with the citation in your last edit at Roof knocking. It results in an error message in the reference list. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Bob, fixed it. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 19:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Well done. Could you put in the citation, the page number where the relevant information can be found? --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, p. 100 of the report (not the PDF file). --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 21:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I made some changes and I'm interested in your thoughts. Does it work for you? Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. Btw, this issue recurs twice in the IMFA report, so I added ref. to the 2nd spot and inserted 2 words that it would be clear that (at least according to the IDF) those attacks were constantly watched.

Not within the scope of this article, but according to the report p. 141-142, Rayan was not a target at all: "Ri’an was a senior Hamas operative, but he was not the target of the attack...Instead, the operational goal of the strike was to destroy Hamas’ central compound in the Jabaliya refugee camp. The compound included several buildings that served as storage sites for large quantity of sophisticated weapons. The IDF limited the planned attack to the weapons storage site and did not seek to injure or harm Ri’an or, of course, any members of his family...specific phone calls to the residents of the targeted buildings, notifying them of the planned strike and warning them to evacuate the premises. The IDF also fired two separate rounds of preliminary warning shots with light weapons, 13 minutes and 9 minutes before the strike, providing sufficient time for residents to evacuate. The residents evidently understood these early warnings, as a group of them did leave the building, a fact confirmed by IDF surveillance before proceeding with the strike. The IDF observed this group evacuation and drew the reasonable conclusion that the buildings (including Ri’an’s house) were empty. Only then did the IDF launch the strike". I took care to insert couple of sentences from this description to Rayan article. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 14:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that part about Ri'an too and I thought it was interesting. The part about warning shots with light weapons is new to me and is a little unclear. Does it mean small caliber bullets rather than the large caliber bullets that are usually used by attacking planes? Were the planes modified to carry small caliber bullets? The only warning shots that are mentioned in the wiki are from nonexplosive missles and sound bombs.--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The strike occured on Jan 1, before ground phase. The only logical conclusion is that these are nonexplosive missiles, developed specifically to deal with this matter. Unclear why such description was used, we can only speculate. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 18:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)