User talk:Tkalisky

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Welcome!

Hello, Tkalisky, 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! -- Kendrick7^talk 04:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

article on the Comparison of Israel and South African apartheid

Greetings. I've replied to your recent comment on the Talk page. Thanks. HG | Talk 02:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of racist epithets Using degratory names for islamic terrorist militant organizations

Tkalisky, You made this edit to the page on Samir Kuntar, and in your edit summary you stated "Since when killing a policeman not murder? maybe in the Zballa-land it is a great deed but in most of the world it is not." Please do not use racist epithets against any ethnic or religious group. This kind of anti-Semitic hate speech has no place on Wikipedia. Thanks. --Tirpse77 (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my friend !!

There is no need to take things personally. My statement above was directed at the hizballa - an organization which honors the murder of Israeli children [1][2][3]. I am sure you would never even think of supporting such a thing (am I right?) so I cannot understand why you have taken personal offence. Furthermore, if you can find me one single hizballa member who is willing to denounce Samir Kuntar and condemn the killing of Eliyahu Shahar, Danny Haran, and little 4 year old Einat [4], I will be glad to apologize to him.

Thank you for your efforts to eliminate hate and antisemitism from the world !!

With love and friendship,

Tkalisky (talk) 03:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. You accidentally forgot that hizballa is neither an "ethnic group" nor a "religious group", rather it is a militant organization that takes a very extreme and, let’s say, quite controversial interpretation of Islam [5][6][7]. I am sure you just got carried away in the heat of debate, so don't worry !! I perfectly understand and I forgive you.

Something you may be interested in...

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#PalestineRemembered permanent link which includes most of the discussion, I'd imagine. Enigma ^message 03:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Tkalisky (talk) 05:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Einat Haran

I see that you added some important link to the article, would you mind taking a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Einat_Haran Thanks On.Elpeleg (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I inserted my comment there. Hope you agree with me. Also, thanks for inserting the picture of the Haran family. HAZAK VEEMATZ !! Tkalisky (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the article and photos: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Einat_Haran&oldid=233071040 Let me know what I can help withOn.Elpeleg (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to Hezbollah

Hi, you added a {{citation needed}} tag to the statement "However neither the original publication of the manifesto, nor those found on Hezbollah's website, include the statement." At the same time, you removed the existing source for this statement, which states:

"This paragraph did not appear in the original translation published by the Jerusalem Quarterly. It is possible that this ommision is due to the fact that the source (al-Safir) for the translation did not include this text, which appears in the original Hizballah Program. The original Program was published on 16 February 1985. The organization's spokesman, Sheikh Ibrahim al-Amin read the Program at the al-Ouzai Mosque in west Beirut and afterwards it was published as an open letter "to all the Opressed in Lebanon and the World". It should be emphasised that none of Hizballah's web sites have published the full text of the organization's program, and they prefer to publish the 1996 electoraral program which was intended for the specific propoganda campaign before the Lebanese Parliamentary elections in 1996."

What about the existing source was insufficient to support the statement, such that the citation was removed? Just to clarify (in case theres some confusion with the ambiguous wording), the "original Program... published on 16 February 1985" does, in fact, refer to the as-Safir publication. Note the second footnote in this paper. ← George^[talk] 20:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I will look into it. If you think I am wrong just revert me. Best Tkalisky (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haran Photos

http://yes.as/haran/yael_and_einat.jpg
http://yes.as/haran/danny.jpg
http://yes.as/haran/yael.jpg

All the above 3 photos were provided for free distribution by any media by Smadar Haran (the mother), she has taken those photos.The Haran family photo that was removed was also taken by her and was provided by her to all media around the world, the very same day that her family was murdered, you can use a duplicate from http://www.samirkuntar.net (which was taken from the Israei TV).
On.Elpeleg (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Tkalisky (talk) 03:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sections

I don't think you should create sections in the casualty section. I really don't think that it is in accordance with wikipedia policies to create a section consisting of only one line. Under Wikipedia:Layout, it says "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit its flow". Currently there is not enough info to divide the section, at least not according to nationality.VR _talk 00:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for the feedback. I just think we need to discern somehow between all parties involved since now it is a big mess. If you can think of any other way to tidy things up then please go ahead. Best Tkalisky (talk)

I agree we need to discern. That is why they were already in different paragraphs. I just feel this article has too many sections (just take a look at the humanitarian crisis section). Also, I wanted to lump together all of Hamas' claims, which can't really be trusted at all, so as to show the other side of the story without giving it credibility.VR _talk 01:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see you point. Go ahead and change as you think it should be. Best Tkalisky (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restore

Hi. In this edit you seem to be trying to restore "1,000 christian worshipers led by Bishop Carlton Brown pray for Israel. Israel's consul-general in New York reads out Gilad Shalit's children's story." I have restored it here.

But in your edit, you seemingly deleted the entire humanitarian aid section. Please be careful not to do that next time. Cheers,VR _talk 16:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops. That was not intentional and I apologize. טעות לעולם חוזר. Thanks for restoring my edits. Best Tkalisky (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stalk much? Spooky allegations of genocide stalking - and a free English lesson ...

Funny you should notice I've started a Request for Arbitration... In the meantime, please fix the grammatical aberration you inserted into Baraka.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 25.02.2009 15:33

From WP:HOUND: "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles". I wonder why you did not invite me to your arbitration.

Thanks though for the feedback regarding Baraka. Can you give more details on the grammatical aberration? I will be happy to fix it. Love Tkalisky (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should quote the exact same passage as User:NoCal100 did recently on WP:AE (now archived here), a discussion in which you also participated. As User:Black Kite pointed out to him/her, it is a completely bogus argument and threatened to block User:NoCal100 if he/she persisted. To quote him/her in full:

You are wrong. "Fixing errors" means fixing obvious errors, such as spelling, hoaxes, or obvious misinformation, not information that is contentious. In other words, if you think it's an error, but others don't, then it isn't an "obvious error". It's edit-warring. Don't do it. (And that applies to all "sides", clearly). Yes, the rationale is a content dispute, and irrelevant here. Black Kite 15:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

i.e. you are edit-warring. As for your grammar on Baraka, there is no "the Samaria". If you can't catch those yourself, you should not be editing in English.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 25.02.2009 15:51

P.S. (edit conflict) I didn't invite you because you only showed up to edit-war without discussion, i.e. you had nothing to do with the initial dispute.

Actually, my friend, the person who referred [8] me to this very interesting debate was ... you !!

That was so very nice of you, so I really cannot understand why you do not wish me to contribute to the discussion as I have done already in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 20 and in User talk:Jayjg. Surely you would welcome the opportunity of having a civilized discussion with editors who think differently from you.

Thanks again for your gentle and constructive feedback - and for generously teaching me English !!!

Love,

Tkalisky (talk) 05:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi, Swastika References Being Purged from Syrian Social Nationalist Party

Would you mind having a look at the problem of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party's Nazi history and swastika flag being systematically deleted/vandalized? This removes an important aspect of neutrality from the article. References from many reliable sources are provided. See its talk page. The edits are being done by users with IP addresses from very similar domains. Thanks, Histopher Critchens (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I do not know much about the subject, but it seems to me that you are doing a good job on that article. As long as you edit professionally (e.g. include multiple sources, state who says what in case of controversy, and above all stay calm and civil) you should really have no problem. However at first glance it seems to me that you are doing this already. If there is anything else I can help with please do not hesitate to contact me. Best. Tkalisky (talk) 06:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 04:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Israeli settlements

Hi! I figured it best to write to you here, since the talk pages of those articles are a bit cluttered. Anyways, the points in my edits were that the Israeli "explanation" shouldn't be given as much space as the position of the overwhelming majority position, since that would be WP:UNDUE (the flat Earth example in that page fits this case excellently). Also, my point about the "controversy" remains, since there isn't any controversy. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that this is your point of view my friend, but the sources the article is based upon present both sides of the issue and so should we. Love. Tkalisky (talk) 05:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sentence and links

Could you tell me why you have made these two edits?[9]

The claim made there is that Salah al-Aruri claim was doubted by experts, other Hamas officials and the Israeli intelligence services.All this is related and sourced from a Guardian article which is dated 21st August 2014. In that article it states that, and I quote "Claim by Saleh al-Arouri, a founder of Hamas's military wing, is doubted by experts and not supported by other Hamas sources". It also states "His claim has not been supported by any other member of Hamas." It further states "Hugh Lovatt, Israel and Palestine coordinator at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said that while al-Arouri was a significant Hamas figure – serving as the group's most prominent representative in Turkey – the former militant could have an ulterior motive for making his claim.

"Given the timing I would be very suspicious about his claim. I still don't believe Hamas as an organisation and its upper echelons sanctioned the kidnappings – something that Israeli intelligence also believes," he said.

That covers the statement that I put in that article. You have no reason whatsoever to delete it as it is sourced and up to date.Would you care to explain yourself? GGranddad (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you inquiry my friend. If you read a bit more in the Guardian article you mentioned [10] you will find the following: "Lovatt said that al-Arouri may be trying to claim credit for the actions of others in an attempt to demonstrate his own continued sway in the West Bank and Hamas's ability to hit Israel after failing to secure significant concessions after six weeks of violence in Gaza. A second, more remote possibility, is that al-Arouri is telling the truth ...". In other words - your addition to the introduction was based on one possibility speculated by Hugh Lovatt, while his other speculation says the exact opposite. I have no objection if you want to insert both of Hugh Lovatt's speculations later on in the main text - but please insert both speculations and don't be selective. Love Tkalisky (talk) 12:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but that does not explain why you deleted the sentence when it was actually backed up by what was in the Guardian article and up to date as I have already explained.I am happy to put Lovatt's opinions in. GGranddad (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead, but please insert in the appropriate place in main text (not the introduction), and please put both speculations ,not only the first one. Love Tkalisky (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but obviously it needs to be in the introduction because the sentence that you deleted is countering the statement made before it.Therefore it has balance.You have still failed to tell me why you deleted a sourced sentence?You seem to be dodging that.GGranddad (talk) 12:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No Dear. Only well sourced facts go into the intro. You cannot pick your favorite speculation and insert it into the introduction. Love Tkalisky (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you are calling the Guardian not well sourced? No problem, I will take it up the chain of command. Thanks. GGranddad (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian article [11] brought two contradicting speculations - you selectively chose your favorite one and are now insisting to insert it into the introduction. I don't think the community will see that as professional of you. If you want to take it to arbitration please go ahead. Love Tkalisky (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I will take it further. BTW, I did not include any one sided piece in my sentence at all.I wrote this, Salah al-Aruri claim was doubted by experts, other Hamas officials and the Israeli intelligence services, which was backed up by the Guardian article, you just deleted it for no good reason.It brought balance to the statement before it. That all I have to say on the matter with you. Have a nice day. GGranddad (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Guardian article [12] everything you wrote was one speculation by Hugh Lovatt, who also raised another possibility that this was false. Like I said before, if you want to write about the various speculations about who did it you are free to do this in the body of the article, but not the intro. Be well. Tkalisky (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Al Fateh

The article Al Fateh has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article overwhelmingly relies on uncited web pages of the Anti-Defamation League, a potentially partial source regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict (WP:RSPADL), and other generally unreliable sources such as MEMRI TV (WP:RSP). No sources that are unaffiliated with and/or non-supportive of Israel are cited, failing WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE. Its subject is not notable on its own and fails WP:N criteria; references to it on the internet consist entirely of biased sources, the reliability of which have not been established by WP:RSP, and no references in written sources exist; hence, no improvements to the article via additional references are possible. The article consists, barring the lede, exclusively of a 'Criticism' section, failing WP:CRIT. The only generally-reliable source cited, ADL, has since removed all references to the magazine from their website. Therefore, the existence of the magazine itself is unverifiable, and potentially a hoax (WP:HOAX).

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. yaguzi (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Al Fateh for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Al Fateh, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Fateh (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]