Talk:2004 Israeli operation in the northern Gaza Strip

message: I don't think Israeli civilians should be listed as I.D.F. Nor should Palestinian civilians be listed as H.A.M.A.S., although I suppose they are harder to distinquish.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Sham (talk • contribs) 13:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civilians 

message: Xed, in Wiki's "NPOV" rules, you either have to delete the statement "considered illegal by the UN (general assembly)", or add the other side of it which is that it is NOT considered illegal by Israel or the UN Security Council, both of which have much greater power than the UN General Assembly.  The wording is weird if you include the other side, so just delete all references to it, since it doesn't make a difference anyways, unless you want to blame the victim here for her death (which I suspect some want to do, but I'll assume the best about you).
For your request to "give a source", I can't prove a negative (since the UNSC doesn't think it's illegal, there is no "affirming" source).  However, the overriding UNSC document is Security Council Resolution 242, which is the source of most of the confusion here.  Read below
[].  Note the lack of any supporting evidence for illegality of settlements.
Terrapin 20:36, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you can't provide a source, I think it's probably best if you leave these sorts of articles alone as you can't seem to control your bias. Thanks -- Xed 21:02, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  What are you talking about?  There is NO source that says the UN Security Council and United States thinks that the settlements are ILLEGAL, because they DON'T think they are illegal.  That's the point (and the source provided, the main source in UNSC, intentionally says NOTHING about it, because it's NOT illegal).  Unless you have a source that says these entities think it is illegal, then, to them, it is NOT.  Basic reading comprehension.  Anyone?  Anyone?  Am I wrong?  Terrapin 21:09, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If the UNSC doesn't mention them, them why should this article mention UNSC's non-position, unless for reasons of partisanship? Please note that personal attacks and threatening remarks are not allowed on Wikipedia. - Xed 21:25, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Mustafaa, you are trying to convince thieves and mass murderers that they should be law-abiding citizens. Good luck! --Alberuni 22:19, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your antisemitic and flaming comments are unacceptable here. If you can't behave like a civilized humen being, then go. This is not the place for hatred-crazed Hamas terrorists nor their hatred-crazed supporters. MathKnight 08:48, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: This discussion was on the legality of the settlements, and my point was that what the UNGA feels is irrelevant to International Law and thus the legality of the settlements. Jayjg 22:48, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israeli settlement "illegality" in Israel woman's death 

message: In my last edit put Hamas-affiliated website (as noted by CSmonitor) statement into context by addig "both side claimed victory..."  and added IDF Jacob Delal statement (as queted bt CSmonitor) to balance. I think it resolves the differences. Please comment here before starting another edit-war. MathKnight 20:17, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In Hebrew the name is "Yemey Teshuva" where "Teshuva" is literally means "answer" or a "reply". To "return in Teshuva" is to become an adherent religious Jew after you been a secular Jew. "Repentence" can also be valid translation but all the English-speaking news networks use the term "Days of Penitence". MathKnight 14:23, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Events - Oct 18 dispute 

message: What is the issue with them? Jayjg 02:28, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What range of estimates? The death toll is crystal clear. Every fatality is listed by name, age and village on the [[Operation Days of Penitence Fatalities|page] that you and your friends voted to delete. You play games with the numbers to inflate the body count of militants to justify another Israeli atrocity in a long series. Your motives are also crystal clear. Alberuni 04:40, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The end of the article lists different estimates from 4 sources, Reuters, Associated Press, the Al Mezan Center, and Israel.  Why is the Al Mezan's tally the only correct one, and everyone else's (including that of Palestinian medics) suppressed? Jayjg 15:29, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different estimates of death tolls provided 

message: Why is the quote of the widow notable?  Why does it belong in an encyclopedia article? Jayjg 02:29, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote of widow non-notable 

message: The quote from Anan on Oct 3 is already in the timeline; why duplicate it in the summary? Jayjg 02:34, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote from Anan 

message: Please note the time of my comments above, they were all before 2:38 except my response to your 2:38 comment.  You didn't even respond to the first 3 of my comments. Jayjg 03:16, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alberuni (2:38 revert was before your 2:40 comments, perhaps you should learn to read the time) 

message: Alberuni, now you've duplicated the entire article, including events and timeline, and insisted on reverting to that several times!  The article has suddently doubled in size, with no new information.  What is the point of doing this? Jayjg 15:31, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for noticing the glitch. --Alberuni 22:07, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entire article duplicated! 

message: User Terrapin seems to think that the violent and bloody death of more than 130 people is something that you Laugh Your Fucking Ass Off about. Personally, I think this shows he is incapable of maintain a NPOV on this subject, and he would be best off joining the army or becoming a successful serial killer. - Xed 15:34, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if I wasn't clear.  I was laughing at the assertion that inserting "bloody invasion" is a NEUTRAL POV (NPOV) statement.  Casualties are listed, there is no confirmation of just how "bloody" anything was, it's just baiting material. I think you might need to take a break from Wiki for awhile. Terrapin 15:39, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So 130 deaths is not bloody? What would you describe as - peaceful? - Xed 15:55, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here's some adjectives you can use instead of "bloody" (which was chosen only because its the most "visceral" and baiting adjective you can find, outside of maybe "bloodthirsty").  If you want, you can make the edit.  Here they are:  "violent, destructive, damaging,".  There are others less obnoxious and baiting than "bloody". Use your head and enthrall me with your writing skills! Terrapin 16:01, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Also, the quote implied that analysts from both sides described it as a "bloody invasion". Jayjg 15:42, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: For examples of insanity, it would be best for you to consult a nearby mirror. Please get to work changing all the articles below - as your arguments suggest this is the only course open to you. -- Xed 16:22, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  * O.K., I will! POV statements in other articles doesn't validate the POV statement in THIS article.  I will change them.  Do I have to do them in alphabetical order, or can I start with this one? Operation Days of Penitence.  I'll start with this one and work my way through some of these over time.  I take it I don't have to change article titles like "bloody mary". ;-)  Terrapin 16:27, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Come back to this article once you're done- Xed 16:32, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now your argument is that I have to do them in alphabetical order, or in the order you require?  How does finishing a job that would take weeks justify your position? Is your position now that you are indeed wrong, and now are just trying to buy time?  It would appear so, because you've dropped any coherent argument in favor of creating weird "edit rules".  Are you O.K.?  I'm serious.  People who are unable to maintain a clear focus in arguments can sometimes be helped by either an MAOI or Serotonin reuptake inhibitor. Terrapin 16:41, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Personal attacks are against the rules of Wikipedia. You can edit the articles in any order you prefer. Come back when you are finished. - Xed 16:56, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rules which you have violated as well. 2 wrongs does not make a right.--Josiah 18:38, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text:  Thank you for allowing me to pick the order.  I start on THIS one. Terrapin 18:08, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text:  Oh, and I HAVE changed some of them, too!  I've started with some of the more pro-islam/pro-palestine articles (they're usually way more POV).  Your brothers in arms thank you. Terrapin 16:45, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting that you start on those. "no one will question the POV of this user" - Xed 16:56, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Exactly; POV in other articles doesn't justify POV here. Define "bloody". Jayjg 16:30, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: ""Laughing My Fucking Ass Off"

message: See below.  Terrapin 16:13, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: For examples of insanity, it would be best for you to consult a nearby mirror. Please get to work changing all the articles below - as your arguments suggest this is the only course open to you. -- Xed 16:22, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  * O.K., I will! POV statements in other articles doesn't validate the POV statement in THIS article.  I will change them.  Do I have to do them in alphabetical order, or can I start with this one? Operation Days of Penitence.  I'll start with this one and work my way through some of these over time.  I take it I don't have to change article titles like "bloody mary". ;-)  Terrapin 16:27, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Come back to this article once you're done- Xed 16:32, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now your argument is that I have to do them in alphabetical order, or in the order you require?  How does finishing a job that would take weeks justify your position? Is your position now that you are indeed wrong, and now are just trying to buy time?  It would appear so, because you've dropped any coherent argument in favor of creating weird "edit rules".  Are you O.K.?  I'm serious.  People who are unable to maintain a clear focus in arguments can sometimes be helped by either an MAOI or Serotonin reuptake inhibitor. Terrapin 16:41, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Personal attacks are against the rules of Wikipedia. You can edit the articles in any order you prefer. Come back when you are finished. - Xed 16:56, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rules which you have violated as well. 2 wrongs does not make a right.--Josiah 18:38, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text:  Thank you for allowing me to pick the order.  I start on THIS one. Terrapin 18:08, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text:  Oh, and I HAVE changed some of them, too!  I've started with some of the more pro-islam/pro-palestine articles (they're usually way more POV).  Your brothers in arms thank you. Terrapin 16:45, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting that you start on those. "no one will question the POV of this user" - Xed 16:56, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Exactly; POV in other articles doesn't justify POV here. Define "bloody". Jayjg 16:30, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Xed just go insane? 

message: A brief list of articles which use the word "bloody". It seems that in all other conflicts the word bloody can be used, with no one complaining. But when Palestinians die, it can NEVER be bloody. How odd. I expect you to change all these articles to remove the bloody, or leave the bloody in this article - Xed 16:08, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Bloody

message: Here is the place to propose significant changes to this page.  Please proceed. Jayjg 16:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes to this page 

message: This page apppeared in a list of markup errors at User:Nickj/Wiki_Syntax/00002, but I can't fix it because the page is protected.  In the last sentence of the first bullet point under "October 5", the following link is incorrect:
:: [(ABC News)
: should be:
:: (ABC News)
:—AlanBarrett 07:57, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. MathKnight 10:10, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Markup error - please fix after unprotection 

message: Under October 15, point 6, as part of the Wiki Syntax Project, can the extra square bracket before the web link please be deleted when this page is unprotected:
Unopened or unclosed [[ and ] : On line that starts with: * In Rafah, two soldiers are lightly injured from an anti-tank missile. [(Haaretz)
All the best, Nickj 06:38, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Markup error 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Operation Days of Penitence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121203123542/http://www.mezan.org/en/details.php?id=2092&ddname=Incursion&id_dept=9&id2=9&p=center to http://www.mezan.org/en/details.php?id=2092&ddname=Incursion&id_dept=9&id2=9&p=center
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Operation Autumn Clouds which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 18:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress