Good day to you
I have couple of points I am trying to make here. 1- Referring to the correction of me using Jules Jammal "was or is" , point that he was a person who lived and died, nothing more than that, using the term is said make it sound that his born and death was not true, what we are trying to clarify his action and not his death and life and if it his death and life then he should not be on Wikipedia page, so it will be more reasonable to speak about his action as "it is said"
2- not sure about the source of the information about his death date being on Oct 29/1956, what I have information about is that he was a naval officer and that the naval fight started as documented by Michael H. Coles in his "A Successful Naval Operation Compromised by Inept Political Leadership from his NAVAL WAR COLLEGE REVIEW" on page 108, started on the night of Oct 31 1956
3- using the term activated suicidal bomb, is based on what source of information link 4 is not working at all, the only information available is that he was an officer in the Navy who died in war. so how did we get the information about suicidal bomb and why a Navy officer will use a suicidal bomb on a boat????? please provide with the source of that information and if there is no evidence for this information please edit to present what is known not what is speculated!
4- this file is full with historical mistakes example is the name of the French Battleship is "Jean Bart" which is documented in Coles book that I referred to above.
5- adding the point about the Moufti speech and using that to confirm incorrect information (suicidal bomb) does not help as his speech is not a verifying, or validation point, it represent a personal opinion and it is not supported by a respectable evidence yet, but creates more confusion about the person referred too in this article.
I hope this will help start the conversation and clarify my edit point reasons.
please provide me with the respectable published source for the information in this article. I hope I hear from you and we clarify the points I am arguing about here and update the article with what represent real information and not speculation thanks 06:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jules Jammal (talk • contribs)
- Hi, thanks for responding. I'm going to copy this to Talk:Jules Jammal so that we can continue discussion there. 07:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
thanks for the response the following link http://www.syrianhistory.com/ar/photos/1021?search=%D8%AC%D9%88%D9%84+%D8%AC%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%84 as for the above link then is what is written in Arabic and I provided below the exact translation word to word.
وُلِد جول جمال (1932-1956) في مدينة اللاذقية وتلقى علومه الأساسية وأتم فيها المرحلة الثانوية عام 1952. التحق بالكلية البحرية في أيلول 1953، وأُرسل في بعثة عسكرية إلى مصر لإكمال دراسته في الكلية البحرية في الإسكندرية، وتخرج برتبة ملازم بحار في أيار 1956. في 29 تشرين الأول 1956 بدأ العدوان الثلاثي على مصر، وأعطيت الأوامر للقوات البحرية المصرية بالتصدي للقطع البحرية الفرنسية والإنكليزية والإسرائيلية المهاجمة، واستثني ضباط البعثة السورية من المشاركة في هذه العمليات حفاظاً عليهم. غير أن جول جمال تقدم بطلب خطي للسماح له بالمشاركة في هذه المهمة، و قوبل الطلب بالرفض أول الأمر، ثم تمت الموافقة عليه بناء على إلحاحه، وتم إلحاقه بمجموعة من ثلاثة زوارق طوربيد كلفت اعتراض السفن الحربية المعادية في مياه بحيرة البُرُلّس شمالي الدلتا، وتمكنت هذه المجموعة من إصابة المدمرة الفرنسية جان دارك وتعطيلها، غير أن الطائرات المعادية تمكنت من إغراق الزوارق الثلاثة، واستشهد أكثر بحارتها و منهم الملازم أول جول جمال في الرابع من تشرين الثاني عام1956 -
"Jules Jammal was born (1932-1956) in Latakia and received his education and finished high school in 1952. in Sep 1953 he enlisted in the Syrian Naval academy, he was sent by the Syrian Navy to Egypt to complete his study in the Naval Academy in Alexandria and graduated as first lieutenant in May 1956. In Oct 29/1956 the Tripartite Aggression. Orders was given to the Egyptian naval forced to engage the French, English, and Israeli naval forces, Syrian students were excluded from the operation as they were not Egyptian. Except Jules Jammal requested that he participate in the Naval force operation , which was rejected first , and then was accepted after his persistent request, he was assigned to one of three motor torpedo boats to fight in the Burullus lake north of the Delta, the group was able to hit the French Destroyer Jean D’Arc and sabotage it, except that the attacking flights was able to sink the three motor torpedo boats, and most participating sailors where killed and one of them was the first lieutenant Jules Jammal on Nov 4/1956 "
there is couple of points here. 1- there is no mention for Suicide bomb, so again please provide with respectful source that support that. 2- even in that peace there is another error as I am not sure if there was a ship called Jean D'arc in the French navy, one of the ship that participated in the war was the French fast fifteen-inch-gun battleship Jean Bart, which make me wonder was it a pronunciation error in the Arab media.
again let us have information supported by evidence and not just speculation.
thanks again for your kind respond. I hope you find this helpful to clarify the confusion and remove any information in this article that is not passed on respectable reference.
- Hi, please keep discussion focused on Talk:Jules Jammal. I'll respond there later. Please take a look at Help: Talk pages to understand how we use talk pages. 13:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, forgot about that. Will reply. 16:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Question/request about climate change discretionary sanctions
Hello - I blog about climate change. Earlier today I was looking something up on Wikipedia and came upon this page . I was kind of shocked at how far Wikipedia goes to be fair and balanced when dealing with (what appears to be) climate change deniers. And I mean that in a good way. I have very little patience with them, personally. Wikipedia seemingly goes to insane lengths to be inclusive.
I was wondering if there was anyone I could direct questions to, either by phone, email or however, about how your climate change topics compare to other pages Wikipedia publishes in regard to sanctions, enforcement actions, and other interventions deemed necessary by the editors. Thank you --SchatziesEarthProject (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm not the person you want to talk to. The decisions you refer to were made by Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee. You can find out who they are and how to contact them at WP:ARBCOM. 17:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Deletion of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Generalized_quaternion_interpolation
Hello, the page specified in the title was deleted. The reasons the reviewers were not compelling and the citations one of the referees invoked might not have corresponded to any of the original Wikipedia article or the cited work. Although I do not have the proper resources to initiate a full blown re-edit of this page, the algorithm described in that deleted article is not incorrect. The only negative is aspect is that for a person lacking the specific background, the details are not easy to grasp and the correctness can also be doubted. It is with the intention of protecting a small piece of Science that I kindly ask of you to point me towards a list of procedures that need to be initiated in order to restore that page. As for the mathematical argumentation, the algorithm is merely a particular case of the Mean Shift method (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_shift) on a manifold (in this case, the unit sphere of the quaternion space). I also kindly ask the original reviewers to reconsider their decision and to argue against the correctness of this method of generalized quaternion interpolation. Disclaimers: I am neither the author of the article, nor an expert mathematician, but I used to refer to this page each time I was asked to give an example where the Mean Shift algorithm could be generalized on non-Euclidean spaces. Best wishes, 126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Teodor Cioaca
- OK, I believe you, but I'm merely the administrator who closed the discussion and not a mathematician myself. What this would need is reliable sources to establish notability as described in WP:N, and an experienced editor familiar with mathematics to rewrite the article. If you can find both, you're in business. You might ask the other editors who contributed to the discussion. 20:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Slightly random question
This is not a comment on any actions you made, just a general question. On the AfD for Carnism that you closed as no consensus, the previous nomination was closed as "delete". So wouldn't it be reverted to the last consensus, which was delete? Once again I have no invested interest in this outcome, I'm just curious. Cheers. Kharkiv07 (T) 03:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- No, that consensus concerned a previous version of the article. Policy is such that if there is no consensus to delete, the article is kept by default, but can be renominated. 07:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Your assistance please...
You closed the AFD that resulted in the deletion of the article on Soufian Abar Huwari.
CNN, The Guardian, Reuters and various other sources are reporting that two former Guantanamo captives were arrested in Belgium. They report one was "an Algerian identified as Soufiane A." Without looking at the articles on Soufian Abar Huwari and Sufyian Barhoumi I can't determine which of these two individuals. I am going to request userification on both of them. Since you closed Soufian Abar Huwari I am making my request for userification to you. Talk page too please. Geo Swan (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- The Guardian says "Fewer details were given for Soufiane A, whose last name was not released, but Thoreau said he is suspected of having travelled to Syria". That's not enough to BLP-compliantly identify him as Soufian Abar Huwari, I suppose, and the deleted versions of that article don't seem to help much; it identifies him as an Algerian and ends with him being supposedly "repatriated to Algeria on 10 November 2008". The other article you already have at User:Geo Swan/review/Sufyian Barhoumi. 19:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Just to be explicit here, are you declining to userify the article?
- You write: "...the deleted versions of that article don't seem to help much". Well, I have spent over ten thousand hours studying the Guantanamo situation, so I think I am in a better position to judge whether the userified history of the document is or isn't going to help me, than you are. If you think you are helping making sure I don't waste my time, I would prefer you didn't do that favor for me.
- As with most of the Guantanamo articles, if you confined your examination to the most recent revisions, there is a good chance you were looking at revisions that had been gutted by my most devoted wikistalker, Iqinn. The individuals behind the Iqinn ID devoted over 15,000 edits to reverting my efforts to bring the Guantanamo articles up to the wikipedia's current standards, before they were indefinitedly blocked for edit-warring. Geo Swan (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm not userfying the article because I don't see an indication that the subject could become notable enough for an article (unless he is the now arrested person, for which we have no confirmation). Older versions of the article contained copious extracts from US government documents which should still be available outside Wikipedia. 14:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, your replies, so far, are phrased as if your decision to decline was a reasonable policy based decision. We are all volunteers. Some administrators reply to requests for userification with replies that boil down to, "No, I don't feel like helping you. Go ask someone else." Or, "I am too busy to help you. Go ask someone else."
- Your reply, abov,e is phrased as if userification's sole object is always the eventual restoration of a deleted article back to article space. I suggest, if you think about it, you will acknowledge that an individual whose notability didn't measure up to the 2015 notability criteria to justify a whole article of their own, could nevertheless be notable enough to merit a sentence, or a paragraph, or several paragraphs, in a larger article that described some phenomenon that individual share with other individuals?
- US Security officials have been making broad and largely unsubstantiated claims as to what percentage of the individuals formerly held in Guantanamo were "Guantanamo recidivists".
- You could userify the article, in order for me weigh whether his arrest merited a paragraph of coverage in "Guantanamo recidivists"
- Userification of deleted material is not requested solely so attempts to restore deleted articles to article space can be made.
- I have never seen an administrator get sanctioned, for responding to a request by telling the questioner to look elsewhere. I responded to your decision not to userify the article, because you justified that decision with an explanation that seemed to be policy based, and I think that explanation overlooked something important. Geo Swan (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I would like to reopen a merge debate
…the one very recently closed on the PBC Foundation. I believe the proponent of keeping the article separate was inexperienced at WP, and therefore did not understand how to argue his case and build a consensus. I believe, however, whatever mistakes he might have made, that he is correct that the article should have remained separate. (There are many foundations with less exposure and mention, and we cannot be biased against organizations just because they are in English speaking parts of the world other than the U.S.) Bottom line, as a retired American biomed faculty scientist, I believe the subject to be independent of the disease condition, and notable as an organization, and the deletion case, which closed quickly, should be reopened. How can I accomplish this review? Cheer. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Can you please link to that discussion?
16:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, in a moment. See following. (Look for link to appear as a wikilink in the paragraph above. See also Talk page, there.)
- * Quoted by Cambridge University as authority regarding its research publication, see 
- * Organization as agent relied upon to identify and recruit PBC patients for an HRQOL study, see , accessed 28 July 2015.
- * Organization as agent relied upon to identify and recruit PBC patients for a study of risk factors in the U.K., see  and  accessed 28 July 2015.
- * Quoted by Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute as authority regarding its research publication, see  and , accessed 28 July 2015.
- * As host of Scottish and broader PBC fundraising events in the U.K, see , accessed 28 July 2015.
- * As a significant contributor to the UK-PBC National Study, see , accessed 28 July 2015.
- * As a principle mover in the ongoing name change, recognized by scholarly organizations, see , accessed 28 July 2015.
- Search foundation in each of these preliminary citations. The fact that it is a stub article in need of improvement does not mean it is not a notable subject. Far poorer articles exist broadly at this encyclopedia. Finally, apart from ethnocentricity, that fact that it is not as notable as the ACS in America, to Americans, does not mean it is not sufficiently notable for an English language encyclopedia. Jrfw's earlier inexperience notwithstanding, the citations I provided here are more than enough to get the renewed page going. Bottom line, keep it, and keep it separate. Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I still don't see a wikilink to a merger discussion in the above. You mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PBC Foundation? 17:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Apologies. I Wikilinked to the article whose banner says deletion discussion resolved with intent to merge. I figured if I, as a Wikitech limited editor knew this, you would go straight there as well (via the banner, and after reviewing the Talk page). Here is the direct link you request, . Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Right. So we have a consensus to merge in that discussion. That's an editorial decision. If you go to Talk:Primary biliary cirrhosis and convince the editors there to form consensus that it should not be merged, or unmerged, you're good. Otherwise I can't help you. 17:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)