User talk:ElUmmah

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello, ElUmmah! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Dlohcierekim 03:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Here to help[edit]

Glad you figured it out easy enough :D

Should you need any help, or have any questions at all, I am at your service. Cheers. --Sherif9282 (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, ElUmmah. You have new messages at talk:Yom Kippur War.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yom Kippur War!![edit]

Hi ElUmmah,
Thank's for support in YKW's article, and I will be glad to cooperate with you. Vicimanno (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ElUmmah, Please, tell me what happened in the YKW article, I was very busy and when I checked the page today, I found everything screwed up!!
And where is Sherif btw??Vicimanno (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration?[edit]

Hey ElUmmah!

I made this draft article of the Battle of the Chinese Farm, using Gawrych and Hammad. If you are interested, read the article and tell me your opinion. Feel free to edit the page if you wish. Cheers. --Sherif9282 (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The page requires copy-editing, but a fresh pair of eyes are needed for this. Just for your information, when I reference to page numbers around 300 or more, than I'm referring to Hammad. Under 100 pages, and I'm referring to Gawrych. The Battle section needs sub-sections for better readability. If you can add additional citations throughout the article from other sources for purposes of extra referencing it would be great, because the article is almost entirely based on Hammad. All that remains is an aftermath section, but Hammad isn't very helpful for that. --Sherif9282 (talk) 09:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the edits look fine. The Egyptian divisions weren't positioned on Missouri though, which was too far away. Hammad is more accurate about the exact locations and dispositions, so I'll see what he has to say. About the casualty figures. Sharon himself once stated in an interview that his division had lost 300 men killed and a 1000 wounded that night. Since only Reshef had been in action, all these losses are attributable to his brigade alone (which is what Gawrych and others say). The correct losses are given in the following paragraph, which is problematic since because we now have two conflicting figures. The 190 casualties figure should be removed in my opinion and we should stick to the figure confirmed by Sharon.
On another note. I once read Rabinovich's account and it was indeed more journalism than actual history. However I think he, and others, would be useful in such cases as providing names of particular commanders and units, as in Captain Gideon Giladi of the 40th Tank Battalion. Hammad isn't very helpful in these cases. If you could pull together an "order of battle" for Reshef's brigade, naming all seven armored and infantry battalions he went into battle with, then we could help the reader keep track of Israeli units. Rabinovich and Herzog would be useful for this I suppose. Also, do you have Dupuy or O'Ballance? --Sherif9282 (talk) 09:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem at all. Good to hear you're getting O'Ballance and Dupuy; they should come in handy and would probably make Rabinovich and Herzog completely redundant. I myself have been very inactive (as may have been apparent). University just drains my time. Good luck then, until next time. --Sherif9282 (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yom Kippur War[edit]

I have made new edits on the article and I'm expecting for answers in the talk page. In the talk page, you may watch the sections dealing with the infobox / belligerents, the infobox / result, the casualties and the aid. I hope we will finally reach a consensus in some issues. This message was sent to many editors. Megaidler (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have just breached 3rr and I will be reporting you if you do not self revert. I actually do not mind the strategy bit in with the tag applied but your wholesale reversion of multiple edits crosses the line. And you just reverted the tag. I'll give you a few minutes to self revert but than I am requesting a temporary block on your editing for violation of 3rr.Cptnono (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter if you think it is logical. 3rr is a bright line rule and you have crossed it.Cptnono (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. You have made 5 reverts in 24 hours. You will more than likely be blocked. I was wiling to ignore it with the dubious tag (even though my edit regarding the Egyptian President was not even discussed before you reverted it) and since the other editor is not obviously vandalizing (see [WP:3RR]]) you will more than likely be blocked for a short amount of time. You can fix this right now by restoring the dubious tag and you should take a second look at the president edit I made. I will be finishing up this report in a few minutes so let me know.Cptnono (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah: [1]. I thought you were removing it. You still hit 4 (over 3rr) but I am much less concerned with the tag and the other material reinstated. Read up on 3rr and I'll not be filing the report with the recent change. Hopefully we can find a solution on the talk page.Cptnono (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stop edit warring. There is a discussion that more people should be using and this article risks losing its FA status due to this garbage.Cptnono (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read his talk page? It clearly says "Don't edit war yourself though." I do have a better rapport with him than you but it doesn't mean he should edit war.Cptnono (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure didn't. He clearly understands what edit warring is and doesn't need me reminding him in detail while you were just rocking the boat a week or so ago on this page.Cptnono (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can tell him. Just because it hurts your feelings that the level of admonishment was different (even though I am not an admin) you are acting petty. Go tell him yourself. And I didn't cross 3rr. You did. And you have not used the talk page much so don't throw rocks in glass houses. Cptnono (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't have to be "one". You are both doing it. So fix it.Cptnono (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010[edit]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to 1978 South Lebanon conflict, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Charles (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010[edit]

Warning
Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at List of wars 1945–1989. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 02:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010 Wikipedia Sanctions[edit]

As a result of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to Israel, Palestine, and related conflicts. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here. These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you to note these sanctions EIUmmah. Know that the informing message must be placed by an Admin, which userJiujistu is not. Also I notice you put a "dubious" tag on userJiujistu's "Israeli Victory!" infobox addition, I don't think he should be reverting that tag as many editors have already raised concerns about his frequent similar edits to other conflicts/war infoboxes in the Israeli-Palestinian topic area (for which he was advised on the sanctions, by a real Admin). Anyway, take a deep breath, EIU, if you think another editor's actions violate the sanctions you could report them, with examples. But best if you don't get sucked into an edit war with one or more editors, maybe you should discuss more on Talk. Deep breath everyone. RomaC (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING[edit]

You have been reported here--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification[edit]

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

  • Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
  • The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
  • Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
  • Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here.

CIreland (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at List of wars 1945–1989. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. CIreland (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Garwych figures[edit]

Before I make the edits that address some of your concerns, I just want to make sure that I have it right so I don't run into problems later. Just as an aside, Garwych uses Dupuy's figures and adds that "such figure are always controversial often varying greatly from one source to another." Part of the problem stems from the fact that the Arab side never released their casualty figures.

Casualties
Egypt 5,000 KIA, 12,000 wounded
Syria 3,000 KIA, 6,000 wounded
IDF 2,800 KIA, 8,800 wounded
Aircraft losses
223 Egypt
118 Syria

On a more personal note, people on both sides of the divide have strong opinions on the matter. Hopefully, we can reach a compromise that none of us like but both of us can live with.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll include those figures. I'll also re-work the infobox in a manner that will hopefully be agreeable to all parties. It will be done in the next few days. Have a good weekend.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for the Garwych quote, it came directly from a footnote in his book.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Hope you're enjoying the weekend. I made some changes in the infobox that include Garwych's figures and will hopefully meet with your favor. I will shortly make additional edits to the "casualty" and "Results" sections that reflect your concerns. However, before I do so, please let me know if you're ok with what I did. Best regards,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Glad to see that two people from opposite sides of the spectrum can actually agree on something. Hopefully, our mutual cooperation can continue. I wasn't happy with including Garwych since, in my opinion, he tends to understate Arab losses while overstating Israeli losses but I guess, looking at it from your end, you can say the same about Herzog. Ahh, gotta love compromise :)--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I edited the casualty section incorporating Garwych's stats per your concern and I conformed it to the infobox. Please, let me know if this is okay and we'll move on to statge III, the dreaded "results" section. If there is something you object to please let me know and we'll try to fix it. Best regards,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think we're close. First off, thanks for the complement. I think that it's terrific that you and I can actually agree and compromise on very emotive issues. I think we really made substantial headway. If anyone would have asked me if this kind of cooperation was possible a month ago, I would have laughed. Hats off to you. Regarding your suggestion in connection w/ Rabinovich, I guess I can work those numbers in w/ attribution though stylistically, it may pose problems since the section is already saturated with loads of facts, figures and footnotes. Regarding the aftermath section, I agree with your point in connection with the possibility that the section may turn into the "battle of the sources" with each side bringing in sources to support their respective positions. That could possibly lead to the section overshadowing the article. However, assuming that some sources are cut out and the section is streamlined, how do you prevent others from adding sources later on? If they are RSs and relevant, they can't be reverted. In other words, you and I can come to some sort of an agreement on this but our arrangement is not binding on other editors.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I've been off line for a while but I made the change in the results section per the discussion on the talk page. Like I said it represents a compromise that we don't exactly like but one we can live with. As for extending cooperation on other I-P issues, I don't think that's possible for the following reason. Basically regarding Yom Kippur/Ramadan War, there's a lot more we agree on than disagree. For example, few can take issue with the fact that by war's end Damascus was within Israeli artillery range or that there was an Israeli intel failure or that Bar Lev line fell or the Egypt's III Army was encircled etc... As far as casualty stats, sure there's disagreement and so we get around that by quoting them all. Disagreements (the few that exist) for the most part center on political theory and motives of the respective belligerents. But the I-P topic in general is much different and laced with emotion and abstract theory mixed a touch of religion and nationalism (always an explosive combination). The I-P dispute will drag on long after we're gone. Sad but true.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for the block. You're a decent chap. If it's any consolation, we've all been there. Consider it a rite of passage ;)
  • As for the Bar-Lev line, it was neglected under Sharon and he actually closed down three forts while he was OC southern command. They were bulldozed with mounds of dirt and never re-opened. When hostilities broke, the line was defended by the Jerusalem Brigade, an undermanned reserve brigade consisting of approx 700 soldiers. There were also a total of three tanks on the Canal line and an understrength reserve division of just over 200 tanks in the rear. So I don't see how the line can be considered heavily fortified.
  • As for other I-P disputes, I didn't mean to suggest that you and I couldn't cooperate and be productive on other articles. I was referring to other editors who see Wikipedia as nothing but zero sum game. It is impossible to reconcile with them.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 08:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two contentious issues[edit]

Hey Elummah, please have a look at my comment on the discussion page and let me know if you agree with the possible suggested solution --Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. We've already addressed the casualty and infobox sections but I was referring to this edit. Garwych says that 400 were destroyed in the initial days. Meg has issues with this. What I was suggesting was that if he has a problem with that number (and frankly, I do too), rather than reverting the source, he can simply supply an alternate sourced figure alongside Garwych's. Sorry for the confusion.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does Garwych really say that the "success of the airstrike prompted cancelation of a second strike?" I looked for that quote and couldn't find even a variant of that phrasing. Please check again. I think you're mistaken--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had online access to his entire book and read the whole thing cover-to-cover. Unfortunately, for some reason, the link to the site is now dead. But I'm pretty sure that he didn't say that. Can you confirm that he did?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was the 96 version. No worries, I'll get it from the library when I have time.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the typo correction. I'll get the book and put the matter to rest--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I got Garwych's book and there's a major problem with the edit in question. As I suspected, Garwych never classified the airstrike as "successful" and certainly did not say that its success prompted cancelation of a second strike. Garwych says the following in connection with the Egyptian airstrike: “At precisely 1405, the Egyptians and Syrians began their simultaneous air and artillery attacks. On the southern front, 250 Egyptian planes – Mig- 21s, Mig-19s and Mig-17s – attacked their assigned targets in Sinai: three Israeli airbases, ten Hawk missile sites, three major command posts, and electronic jamming centers.” Nothing else is mentioned in connection with the strike. Therefore, the edit inaccurately reflects what was actually written by Garwych.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He also doesn't say anything about them flying at "very low altitudes."--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with it as long as you're sure that that's what the source says. I never read Hammad but I have read Shazly's book (an excellent read for an Egyptian perspective). I recall him mentioning limited air losses (5 sounds right) but I don't recall him saying anything about "the success of the strike prompted cancelation of a second strike." I would prefer that that part of your edit be omitted until actual verification. I have his book but I'll have to dig it up.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No disrespect intended for placing the issue on the Talk page. There are other editors who may not have understood or agreed with my edit and I had to present an explanation for it. The article has reached a certain level of stability and I didn't want to "rock the boat."--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Damn you're good :) No problem from my end.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yom kippur war[edit]

I have been trying to edit the article (the part were refuse to remove Israeli tactical victory and refuse to add Egyptian strategic and political victory). My argument is that at the end of the war after the first and second engagement Egypt held more territory and controlled the Suez Canal while israel had lost territory so its supposed to be a strategic victory for Egypt(supported by many sources). As for the casualties comparison I have many sources that claim that the Israeli sources in percentage terms was more than the Arabs. According to William Burr it was equivalent to 200,000 losses in the US army.Here are my sources all

Six Part BBC documentary which is supposed to be a neutral source clearly states that it is hard to say whose the clear victor and that Egyptian side was the side that gained the most. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XztQ28ZUXs0

Here is a link that to the national security archieve which states that the israeli 2600 soldiers in percentage was equivalent to 200,000 Americans. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB98/index.htm

an article by Pierre Tristam that describe in details The Egyptian/Syrian-Israeli Disengagement Treaties of 1974 and 1975. http://middleeast.about.com/od/arabisraeliconflict/a/me080421.htm

I tried to contact the moderator to replace Israeli tactical victory with military stalemate or at least at that Egypt strategically and politically won the war but he did not respond.--Omarello2 (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Hi El Ummah I know you are probably busy but if possible could take a look at my sources. The yom kippur is biased and has a lot of missing info and maps on the first and second disengagements on both sides. Also the term "tactical victory" will make some people draw wrong conclusions. I suggested on the discussion page for it to be changed to "tactical gains" and to balance it we add "territorial gains for Egypt". --Omarello2 (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello![edit]

Wow! A voice from the past. I was actually thinking about you in light of recent events. I hope that all is well with you and your family. Warmest regards.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peace be upon you, sir, according to Ami Ayalon, the commando commander of an Israeli who led the attack on the Green Island. He said that they incurred 40 deaths and injuries, and the goal was to occupy the Green Island, which he failed to achieve completely, and that Shatit 13 completely lost its strength after the failed raid on the Green Island, Plumos 6.[edit]

Peace be upon you, sir, according to Ami Ayalon, the commando commander of an Israeli who led the attack on the Green Island. He said that they incurred 40 deaths and injuries, and the goal was to occupy the Green Island, which he failed to achieve completely, and that Shatit 13 completely lost its strength after the failed raid on the Green Island, Plumos 6. Armies of the World (talk) 03:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ElUmmah&oldid=1086452420"