User talk:Thrylos000

Welcome!

Hello, Thrylos000, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work

... on the Gaza casualty statistics. Thank you. NSH001 (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, unfortunately the Article page does not take the info I presented into account.Thrylos000 (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you haven't seen it

The Vanity Fair article's finally had its denouement, with an international plan to reinstall Fatah in the south, presumably as a mop-up force which will be swept into doing the ground-work the efficient Israelis cannot do (they haven't really entered anywhere). Provoke a civil war in the Gaza strip. (Un)intended consequence, strengthen sympathy for Hamas in the West Bank, so that as Fatah wages war, with outside help in Gaza, Hamas will start to assassinate Fatah leaders in the West Bank; which in turn will elicit Fatah repression in their own backyard, extending the Gaza crisis back into the one pacified area, assisted by outside arms, and a general impression in the world's media that everywhere, the Palestinians are in ruins. Divide et impera, divide the Palestinians and rule the dividends. With Dennis Ross now re-appointed by Hillary Clinton, it has all the clarity of formal logic and is, definitively, checkmate.Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very sad indeed. Thank you for the article. It's so surprising that people fail to see clearly what is going on. All this has a long precedent that which I'm most familiar being the US's foreign policy during the cold war, especially in South and Central America. People fail to see outside interference and manipulations and fail to take a critical stance on justifications for military aggression. This leads to placing the blame on the most proximal, though rarely most in control, and of course of supporting war after war founded on false premises and manipulated representations. You mentioned you live in Italy, what part would that be? Thrylos000 (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, more often live in Italy than elsewhere. Rome. By the way, I see you need some authorization for the graph, is it? That edit, which I found fascinating, will almost certainly be elided when the dust drops, when a number of regulars will come in, fully armed with the wiki rule book in its most stringent and narrowest interpretation, to pull out anything they dislike. It has one weakpoint. It is subject to a charge of a violation of WP:OR, though I think it merely says what the graph statistics say. On the positive side, the Kanwisher, Biletski, Haushofer paper is being peer-reviewed and will be published in a few months, apparently. regards Nishidani (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I lived in Viterbo for a year some time ago. I really enjoyed my time there. My italian is deteriorating rapidly unfortunately. My graph is simply a stacking of two graphs provided in the report I cite. The IMFA provided separate graphs for rocket and mortar attacks and I collapsed that into a single chart with stacked bar graphs for an economy of presentation and the fact that the aggregate of the two is probably most interesting to people. I'm quite surprised that someone who appears to be pro-Palestine is arguing against its inclusion in the Talk page and I can only understand this in terms of them misreading the significance of the chart. Thrylos000 (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most pressing problem is copyright: you should add some kind of licence to your graph, as is suggested above, otherwise the graph will be deleted on 15 January. cojoco (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the graphic itself is mine, made in excel, so I added the GFDL-self tag to the image page, which I think is what is appropriate. I'm not a very experienced editor however. Thrylos000 (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Thrylos may not be familiar with the rules on this,cojoco. Neither am I. Could some kind person please try, if this is the case, to check the situation?. Thrylos, if you don't know how to go about it, ask around. NS100 up top of your page may have a clue.

Italy is deteriorating quite rapidly, so don't worry. Actually its whole history is one of deteriorating, only less rapidly. It doesn't seem to change things. As to the chart, I strongly support its retention, and I think you are on solid grounds there. It is the language, and the inferences that pro-Israelis will probably attack. A lot of weird games are played in wiki. But generally, I think, irrespective of personal beliefs, and I'm somewhere to the left of Karl Marx, one should look at the merits of the arguments, and not expect a pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli line-up or face off. There are some technicalities that just blur things. I've had to sacrifice stuff because I see a strong POV warrior from Israeli is right in some technical call. That doesn't trouble me. It's the bad faith that does. So, when that happens, one just has to try harder, or plug away at redoing things so the point gets across, in complete harmony with wiki procedures (which are not those, exactly, of academia, since they are written for 16 year olds, and presume editors are dumb or generally in bad faith). Nishidani (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that licence seemed to do the trick. cojoco (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]