User talk:Nielswik/Archive

Welcome!

Hello, Nielswik, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, 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! Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 07:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multilanguange editing

does an account only apply to a language? for example, can I login on Malaysian language version of wikipedia? Thanks.Nielswik 16:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and Welcome to WP! Login names are good for only one language edition of Wikipedia; for instance, if I wanted to edit the Latin Wikipedia, I would have to register there. Happy editing! -- Merope 17:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chart

That was a very good modification you made to the image tag on the casualties of the 2006 conflict page. Thank you. 70.73.235.202 18:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah numbers

Hello Nielswik,

I think the problem is due to the ambiguity of the source that you are presenting. While we know how many Hezbollah active, available, and reserve fighters there are, we do not know how many participated in the hostilities, since Hezbollah has not published any such numbers. Perhaps we can find a way of relaying this ambiguity in the article without choosing a specific number (unless of course we do find a source of that nature)? Let me know, Tewfik^Talk 22:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put it into discussion. Thanks Nielswik 14:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support

Hi Nielswik, thank you for objecting Leifern's baseless accusations. It seems that he didn't even bother to look into what I have done. I guess he will not rest reverting the article to the lower-quality version, so I would appreciate your help. Kosmopolis (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I for one...

Would appreciate any balance al-Manar or related reporting would have to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict article. Just try to follow WP:CITE guidelines. -- Kendrick7 08:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Manar isn't an WP:RS

Please review the policy about reliable sources: Widely acknowledged extremist or even terrorist groups, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources, that is to say they may be used in articles discussing the opinions of that organization. Even then they should be used with great caution, and should be supported by other sources.

Even if some country considered Haaretz or Yediot to be terrorist organisations (and none do as far as I know), they would still not be widely acknowledged as such. Hezbollah and Al-Manar are. Tewfik^Talk 15:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many reliable sources, including several governments, have designated Hezbollah as terrorist. If you could show that a significant number of sources or governments has done the same for Haaretz or Yediot, then they would not be RS either. Tewfik^Talk 15:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Pekanbaruhaze.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pekanbaruhaze.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Korean War

I reverted your changes back to simply "ceasefire" since that indicates the countries are still at war, with a temporary stop in hostilities. SkerHawx 12:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the word ceasefire, inherent in its definition, says that the countries are indeed still at war ... it's more of a stylistic preference (saying something in one word is often preferred to saying it in more), so I wouldn't necessarily object if you want to change it back. It's just important to remember that ceasefire doesn't mean the same thing as truce. If you'd like to call it out more specifically, another option would be to expand the section under the section Stalemate to more clearly state the countries are still technically at war, but the article seems to make that reasonably clear. Thanks! SkerHawx 12:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Runways

They are 180 degrees from each other. So if your runway is 02 then it would be 02/20. If it's an airport in the US then it would drop the leading 0 and be listed as 2/20. If you have the airport code then World Aero Data is the best place to look. If, based on where you are from, you are creating a airport in Indonesia, then this is the direct link to airports in Indonesia. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't very clear there. The runway heading is always rounded to the nearest 10 degrees. In this case the actual heading is 002/182 and is then reported as 18/36 as the lower number is always listed first. Of course an angle of 00 is not reported but changed to 36 (360) just to make things more confusing. Normally I would just use the main information version and not go to the actual runway listing as there is too much detail in that. If you have any more questions let me know. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Bali bombing and edit summaries

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. Andjam 07:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cerebral Warrior

I am fairly new to Wikipedia, but I do believe that "Userpages" belong to the users themselves and hence should not be edited by others. Hence, I ask that you please refrain from deleting text form my userpage, even if your Moslem sentiments are hurt by them. Cerebral Warrior 08:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC) PS-Remember, we live in a free world, not a dhimmi! :-)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Battle of Tabouk; Beirut Summit; I Honestly Love You; Kiryat Shmona massacre; Pallywood; Battle of Magersfontein; Farid Suleman; Litani River; Battle of Aishiya; Good Fence; Battle of the Trench; Islam and Slavery; Israeli MIAs; Gush Dan; Nick Cassavetes; Israeli Northern Command; Seven Ancient Wonders; Office of Legal Counsel; Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines

Cleanup: Muhammad as a warrior; Status of religious freedom in Sri Lanka; List of the UN resolutions concerning Israel and Palestine
Merge: Paul Thomas; Sar-El; List of countries by size of armed forces
Add Sources: Purple Line (border); War on Terrorism - Theaters of operation; List of war crimes
Wikify: Status of religious freedom in Sudan; Chris Romanelli; Archduke Eugen of Austria
Expand: Netrokona District; Aishiya; Straits of Tiran

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 02:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your move of Kiryat Shmona massacre to "assault"

Was not justified and was reverted. Next time please use talk page. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC) It looks especially bad in the light of these edits of yours: [1] [2] which I reverted for you as well. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have also reverted your additions of Category:Massacres, but please see my comment at Talk:Kiryat Shmona massacre. – Smyth\^talk 15:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Islam

Hi Nielswik. Yes, that is how you join WikiProject Islam. :) MP (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creating Babel templates

In case you did not get an answer:

Yes, I believe you can. Go to the page with the alphabetical list of templates. Edit -> copy another list of template links (e.g. English en). Paste at the appropriate place (alphabetical), change link names etc., then preview, then save when good. Now the links (red) to your template pages exist. Go to each, e.g. English template, edit -> copy the code, go to your template page, paste. Translate the message into your language, then save. Do for each template for each Babel level. Nov ialiste 16:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carry over from Hezollah-Israel page.

Verse 9:29 of the Coran states Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued., and is followed by And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!, then muhammad says kill any Jew who falls into your power. So please, stop criticising other faiths when your own religion is widely regarded as highly fundamental. Anyway, as I have mentioned, I am not Jewish so ranting against the Torah won't affect me. It will, however, make you look like a Nazi and reinforce the belief that Moslems (and remember you are one) are racist and genocidal. Cerebral Warrior 11:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there has been a communication gap between us. I did not call you genocidal or racist. I said that some of your comments could be considered genocidal and racist in nature, and thus reflected badly on you. Thus, what I said is obviously in keeping with the NPA policy. Also, the jizya tax was a tax that non-Moslems were forced to pay on account of their not being Moslems. That is, in my opinion, racial discrimination and is in no way comparable to "normal" taxes which everyone has to pay for the purpose of improving the nation, not because they are non-Moslem. Do you appreciate the difference between the two? Cerebral Warrior 16:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and how do you explain the "feel themselves subdued" phrase?

Non-muslim pays jizya, and muslims pay zakat. Non-muslim doesn't loss anything. No discrimination. Why have different taxes for the two anyway? That itself is discrimination. Also, you still haven't explained why non-Moslems must be made to "feel themselves subdued". Cerebral Warrior 14:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't explained the feel themselves subdued part of the quote. Cerebral Warrior 11:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cerebral Warrior's page

I'm not going to make a statement on that. What I DO know, however, is that you do not edit war about anything. Make a statement on the admin noticeboard, but do not edit war. --Golbez 19:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahlan w Sahlan

The userboxes on Cerebral Warriors page were disgusting. I think he must be a 12 year old. I see you are interested in Chemistry. I was supposed to evaluate a virtual chemistry lab and never got around to it. I paid a thousand dollars for an online biochem course, got the DVD's and never completed them. I got a B.S. in physics in 1975 but never took biochem. I was a couple of courses from a B.S. in Chem too. then I went into electrical engineering and later in law. Thanks for the help with juan Cole. Call on me for assistance or email should you need it. I'm thinking of changing the name to Will173. Only a man of science would realize the significance Take Care. Will314159 02:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

email me hwanganloa@hotmail.com cheers Will314159 14:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Efraim Karsh

If you have an argument why the disputed Juan Cole section needs to be in the article, please partcipate in th edeate on talk. Blindly reverting sections w/o explanation is unaccpetable. Isarig 16:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO AS Isarig says not as as does. Cheers. Will314159 19:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Deif

I'm glad you prought up the Wp definition of assassinate. I'm sure you noticed, in the very first paragraph th epart where it says " Assassination, along with terms such as terrorist and freedom fighter, is often considered to be a loaded term." We do not use loaded terms on WP. Just like we don't call Hamas or the PLO a terrorist organization, even though their actions (e.g: suicide bombing of a pizza parlor or disco) by any definition, we don't call these actions an assassination, when they could just as well be called a military operation. We use3 the neutral term 'kill'. Isarig 20:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Assassination

On the discussion page you asked:

"why the soldiers that found booth set fire in the barn? I guess it is wiser to try to break the door Nielswik(talk) 17:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)"

The answer is that Booth was armed, and the soldiers probably did not wish to endanger their lives. --YankeeDoodle14 23:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Violation

Your last edit on Casualties of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is your 4th revert in less than 24 hours, and as such, is a violation of WP:3RR. Please self-revert your last change, or you may be reported and blocked from further editing. Isarig 03:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al Manar

If you missed me edit, please note this well: almost any reliable article from Al-Manar ends up going out to the wires hours later. Next time just hold your fire, wait for the version of the story you like to pop up on google news, and save the trouble of antagozing Isarig. Thnx -- Kendrick7 04:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

I don't think you have edited maliciously, however I think I should let you know a thing or two.

1) It makes no difference if you call YNet "Israeli media". We take out the facts from it. Besides that, one cannot call it pro-Israel, at all. Personally, I have read a variety of sites. Al Jazeera is EXTREMELY biased, which is well-known and part of the reason it has been banned in many countries. Yahoo! News often publishes the same incident multiple times with different writers. Are you going to tell me that Fox or CNN is pro-American on all instances? Of course not. Personal view can sometimes sneak in, but it is minimized, and you cannot call them pro-American because they are "American media." Same with Ynet. I have read many articles from it. They publish opinion articles everyday, many of them written by Palestinian Arabs. Others are written by Israelis, Americans, or others who also often criticize certain policies of the government. THIS IS HOW A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY WORKS. There are conservatives and liberals and moderates... Israel, in fact, has ranked quite highly in terms of news and press, much higher than Indonesia, and much higher than the PA. They have the most freedom of the press in the Middle East, the only one that would be comparable to Europe and America. This was all from a Reporters Without Borders annual report.

2) Please stop removing the very short cause of death of the civilians. It is the only appropriate place for it to be. Before, it had been written only for the Israeli civilians, now it is both.

--Shamir1 22:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AN User:Cerebral Warrior

Hello a notice been submitted in the Administrators Noticeboard concerning the behavior of user User:Cerebral Warrior as I lack direct involvement in the affair the involvement of a user that has been involved in the incident would be valued. Thank you Freepsbane 21:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give your opinion at [3]? Thanks. yandman 07:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation on Mossad

Hello, you have violated WP:3RR on the Mossad article by 5 reverts now. Amoruso 02:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of them count as revert Nielswik_(talk) 03:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[4] made on October 27 2006 to Mossad

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 08:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Moslem

I can add pretty much what I want to my userpage, since I agreed to the disclaimer. If you have a problem with my choice of quotes, please just avoid my userpage. Cerebral Warrior 01:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem

Re anti-chinese legislation, while i don't agree it should be deleted, you are certainly correct in identifying it as a poor article in need of major improvement. Actually, some of the info is very good - it actually shows the legislation - but it's presentation is poor (as you say, it makes it seem like it is still current), largely unreferenced. Actually, according to the article, some laws still apply. If the article could be made CLEAR and we can be sure it is ACCURATE with some good references then it is OK. You were right to flag it as an issue.

As for Abu Bakar - he he - I agree the article needs to be rewritten a bit. It needs more background about who he is, and what he did before he was arrested. You probably realised I don't like him, but not really because of the bombing issue. Rather I intensely dislike his ideas for Indonesia's future. They are completely the opposite for the reasonable Indonesia and Indonesians I love. As for the issue of bias in the media, it is actually his comments in the Al Jezeera interview that make me the most worried! Also, some of that ABC articles on the internet (look for Lateline show) are actually a lot more balanced than some of the cheap tabloid shows and papers.

regards --Merbabu 12:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I just noted your edit summary on "I have no idea why I doubted he called for Sharia" (or something similar. Well, it's quite simple, I don't doubt it, but I want to see Wikipedia be the best quality it can be, that means it must be based on well-sourced reliable facts. It wasn't about doubt or POV, a statement like that needs quotations. Personally, if no cite is available right now, i think it is better to tag such places, rather than "pretend" it is fine without. Let's cooperate to make wikipedia based on facts. (by the way, nice work on Iftar - i did some copy edit). Happy editing --Merbabu 13:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re edits to Indonesia related pages, it is my very great pleasure :-) --Merbabu 14:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re basa indonesia, aku agak goblok nulis, tapi hanya ada satu solusi: saya nulis id terus. Dulu aku pintar waktu kuliah, tapi sekarang pelannyaaaaaaaaa aku! Mungkin kapan2 aku berlatih di Wiki ID. he he --Merbabu 14:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Block

Though a complex case, it is my belief that of the 6 listed 'reverts', at least 4 and possibly 5 were reverts to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, under the definitions at WP:3RR. You have already been blocked under this rule - and so should be familiar with it. A second 24 hour block. Please in future remember this rule; its designed to avoid edit wars. --Robdurbar 09:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Nielswik (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i didnt violate the 3RR rules. see the section below

Decline reason:

Perhaps you might consider keeping a cool head, discussing changes, and dispute resolution instead of edit warring. Feel free to request page protection if edit wars become problematic. 3RR is not a rule which should be "gamed," much less so in light of your very recent block over the same behavior. -- Luna Santin 15:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Why I didnt violate 3RR

this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN3#User:Nielswik_reported_by_User:Tewfik_.28Result:24_hour_block.29 is the report. let us see:

Previous version reverted to: 17:06:32

i didnt revert to this page Nielswik_(talk) 12:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1st revert: 13:04:02

I didnt revert anything. I added npov tag, and it didnt revert to any old page. Nielswik_(talk) 12:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2nd revert: 15:15:25 (restored disputed source/numbers - per his edit summary)

neither is this one. I was just adding a sourced statement Nielswik_(talk) 12:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rd revert: 16:28:07 (RVed numbers and background + POV tag)

this is the 1st revert Nielswik_(talk) 12:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4th revert: 22:30:54 (restored same disputed source/numbers)

this is a revert Nielswik_(talk) 12:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5th revert: 11:35:04 (again RVed numbers and background)

this is a revert Nielswik_(talk) 12:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6th revert: 16:39:14 (yet again RVed numbers and background)

this is a revert but it was made more than 24 hours after the 1st revert. so i didnt violate 3RR rule Nielswik_(talk) 12:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My blocker is Robdurbar

Comment see WP:3RR - it states that you cannot make a fourth reversion just outside the 24 hour period and expect to 'get away with it'. The 3RR is not a right to revert 3 times every 24 hours; it aims to stop edit wars. Robdurbar 14:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me exactly which part of WP:3RR did I breach that made you block me? see this for example how admin treated 4th revert slightly outside 24hrs. Please be fair and treat all editors equally Nielswik_(talk) 14:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and also this to show you that not all edits are reverts Nielswik_(talk) 14:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is up to an administrator's discretion when enforcing policy. If you had not previously been banned under the rule, for example, then I wouldn't have blocked you. There are many other factors involved in the case you link to; in paticular, this was a case reported some 48 hours after its occurance. Also, the blocking admin notes that if the final revert had been closer to the 24 hours, then he would have reconsidered; let's not forget that your fourth revert (if we exclude 1 and 2) was only 11 minutes over the allotted 24 hours.

I understand the policy, thank you, and understand that not all edits are reverts, such as the second one listed (I agree that's not a revert). Furthermore, the first edit listed IS a revert. Specifically, you revert this edit by Shmair1. --Robdurbar 15:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So i'm blocked because i added a break. thanks anyway, at least i can enjoy a day off wikipedia :) Have a nice day! Nielswik_(talk) 15:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]