User talk:One last pharaoh/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, One last pharaoh, 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 and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

Image source problem with Image:2446520 261c6af028 o.jpg[edit]

Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:2446520 261c6af028 o.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Denniss (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt[edit]

can u make sure the arabs don't vandalize the identity part in the egypt page [1]? It's locked so i can't reverse it. thanx. :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.59.33.80 (talk • contribs)

I shall do what i can. Thanx for trusting me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by One last pharaoh (talk • contribs)

Wikimania[edit]

Hi One las pharaoh. It's good to know there are more eyes on the section because it's a sensitive topic. As far as Wikimania, would you like to volunteer [2]?. You can contact any of the existing coordinators for more details. I suggest dropping Meno a note on his talk page. Here's where you can add your name by the way [3]. Cheers, — Zerida ☥ 19:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eftekasat[edit]

Hi there, what's up?! Look, i wanted to ask you if you can state your opinion on this matter. Also please do visit those two pages, Eftekasat and Mouled Sidi El-Latini, to obtain a better understanding of the band! Thanks for your help. :) Maged M. Mahfouz (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thanks Pharaoh for the kind words and the barnstar :-) I try to do my part. Cheers, — Zerida ☥ 05:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia Masry[edit]

I have put a proposal and started an active project for ويكيبيديا مصرى wikipedia Masry. If this may interest you , I would be very grateful for any help you can offer in this project, many thanks.

Thanx for telling me that, may god bless Egypt. One last pharaoh (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

Wikipedia Masry currently have

  • 59 articles, categories, templates, and talk pages;
  • 5 redirects;
  • 7 editors (including any with at least one edit);
  • 298 revisions (including 30 minor edits).

More editors are welcome to add to wikipedia Masry as this will only enrich it , many thanks .Ghaly (talk) 13:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am writing to ask for your valued contributions to the ويكيبيديا مصرى wikipedia Masry project , there are currently 24 articles providing a point to start from and you are welcome to add more, as you might be aware this will add a momentum to the proposal and will increase the chances of its acceptance. Ghaly (talk) 10:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i shall see what i can do. i am a little bit aware of the military stuff, and politics. but i think it's very early to include politics in our growing up wikipedia. i shall do at least some five article about weaponry, and defence equipments. hope me good luck. One last pharaoh (talk) 10:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Many thanks for your interest in the wikipedia Masry, if you would like to start an article you can press any of the red links on this page and when the new page opens press edit on the top , translate the contents about the same person on the English wikipedia , write only one or two lines and press save, I will keep an eye on the articles and formate them after you start them

Your edits does not have to be in creating new articles you can add to an existing one like the same page I mentioned by translating from its English version on wikipedia English , this is a collaborative work and we should complement each others work ,best of luck with editing on wikipedia Masri, many thanks. Ghaly (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thearatically, i added 3 articles, but non of them is an article.... One last pharaoh (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your edits , I have added the category and interwiki for all three, these are just stubs and they are available for you, me or anyone else to edit, hope that you will continue editing and creating more articles and to see more of your valuable edits. 16:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


    • Many thanks for your efforts on wikipedia Masry , I am very happy that you are sharing in the editing and I hope this will continue, please feel free to change , edit and/or add any of the pages you would like and I hope I will be able to continue what we started.

As for the arguments , I hope it will not distract me from the project and I that will be able to continue going forward with the it.

I am very happy the project is attracting many editors and each one is adding a lot of value to it. Ghaly (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia Masry approved[edit]

  • I am pleased to let you know that Wikipedia Masry proposal has been accepted on Meta, looking forward to your valuable contributions iin it. Ghaly (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits[edit]

Don't keep reverting my edits. Look, I'm Egyptian, but the Egyptian Air Force is much smaller than the Israeli Air Force. This is recent only because, as you might know, they ordered 100 F-16I Sufa's from the US and they have a little over 70 already delivered to them. This makes their F-16 force larger than Egypt's by over 100 F-16's. This is not mentioning the several squadrons of F-15's they have. The gap was further augmented when Egypt retired its old MiG-21's.

I don't mean to make Egypt look weak, but when you make bad information in the Egyptian Air force page, it makes it look stupid. That's why we need to put accurate information while writing about Egypt's victories in the air in 1973. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wb555 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i know u donot mean to make egypt look weak, i knew that since i saw ur edits of images in the article; but i donot know why are u talking about the 73 war since neither me nor u have changed the current status of the sub-article. their sufa's are under order, but also we have a nice MiG-29SMT order under delivery. i have already count the aircraft inventory of each article, and i found that ours is bigger. if u looked at the military sub-article in egypt's main page, u would find that they are saying that we have the same number of western air crafts as the do. while their inventory is made up of only western, and western-based air crafts, we have a numerical advantage counting the eastern origin air crafts. weather ours is stronger or not is a matter of debate, but being bigger is a matter of fact. and about the MiG-21's, we didnot retire all of them, but as much as i know, they retired their phantoms, and nashers, and talking about that, they attacked with some 160 of them at the mansourah air battle while we had only 62 MiG's to scramble, and guess what, we won. One last pharaoh (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on Camp David Accords[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

EdJohnston (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Air Force[edit]

Dear One Last Pharaoh David's remark on the discussion page of the Egyptian Air Force is correct. I like you would like to believe that the Egyptian Air Force had Air Supremacy during the war but, that was not the case. let me add for the following reasons:

  • 1) Air Supremacy is not only defined over the battlefield, but over the entire theater of operations, which include deep penetration to enemy territories to inflict severe distruction of its ecom\nomic infrastructure and or to keep the opposing Air Force at bay, meaning unable to approach the battle filed successfully. This was not the case at all as you know and the Israeli Air Force was only handicapped to reach behind the missile wall and only at severe cost.
  • 2) To achieve air supremacy, an Air Force need to have at least medium to long range multi role fighters and fighter bombers, which was not the case with the Egyptian Air Force then. The only few times that the TU-16 were used were for a quick run and drop of bombs at very high altitude over radar and electroni jammers stations in the midst of Sinai and only at the very beginning of the War, thus using the element of surprise which was eleminated afterwards.
  • 3) Due to reduced air training simulations and the lack of ground simulators at that time, which was maily the result of lack of appropriate expenditure for that very costly kind of training and also for its lack of availability too. Shortage of spare parts , adequate training for the Egyptian pilots was not on pars with their Israeli counterpart, added to the more advanced capabilities of the Israeli fighters in every aspect: range, weapon payloads, ECM equipement and availability of air refueling if need be, teamed with the fact that the Israeli pilots were more experience and well trained and lacked nothing of what the Egyptians pilots did, all of that was unfortunately in favor of the Israeli Air Force. Now inspiute of all that, what the Egyptian pilots did with the limited resources of all what I just mentioned, teamed with their zealousness to achieve at least equality and attempt to keep the Israeli Air Force at bay and to avoid what happened in 1967, I think their achievement was outstanding.

So, lets be realist and more factual and not overzealous, which by the way is good, but not effective and may seem to others as opstinance and ignorance. So accept what was written by David and also remove the statement that the Egyptian Air Force is the strongest in the Middle East, because this is not true either with quantity or quality of weaponery or plans or even with the level of training (which by the way is not due to inability to know how, it is rather shortness of expenditure on training vis a vis the Turkish or the Israeli Air Force. You can say it is the strongest in Africa, but it is third after the Israeli and the Turkish Air Forces so far. Perhaps one day, it could be on pars with one or both. I would like you to be subject to the 3RR again as mentioned above my note to you, so be reasonable and careful Orthopraxia (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Orthopraxia[reply]

Dear Orthopraxia, maybe i agree with u about the air supermacy in 73 after what have u mentioned, but not about the current status. i have explained why the egyptian air force is the biggest in the middle east, simply becuase the israeli counterpart have retired it's phantoms, and skyhawks, at the other hand the egyptian one have not retired all of the MiG's, beside increasing the number of Mirages to exceeding one hundered, and also recieving phantoms, and sky hawks. i think that IAF is currently having the same number of aircrafts as it had in 73, or even less. maybe they gave their same pilots more advanced training to fly F-15s inteed of older aircrafts, or some thing? i donot know. but in the matter of quantitative analysis, the EAF is bigger. in the matter of qualitative analysis, i did not hear that an israeli pilot have shot down a generation-ahead air craft either in training or in an actual compat. but i have seen a photograph for an american F-18 shot down by an Egyptian MiG-21 during bright star operation 85, or maybe another year. the IAF did not participat in such operations as huge as Bright star operation counting either the wuantity and quality of participating forces, or the number of training operations. maybe the EAF pilots in general are not better than the IAF'S -however i strongly doupt that-, but surely, they are in a no way worth. i wrote that it is amongest the best in the middle east so that we can avoid an endless dicussion. call it the third if u want, but the statment is still the best. let's continue that discussion in the articles own dictussion page; by the way, i donot know weather to consider ur last lines a threatining or what? so maybe i should consider it a good faith, right?. One last pharaoh (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear One Last Pharaoh, thank you for your response and no my last statement was not a threat, it was just an observation of what happenned to you from an administrator. Now returning back to the matter of the strongest Air Force, here are few tips for you to consider:

  • 1) The strength of an Air Force is never judged or considered based on the number of fighters in the inventory, especially after the Korean War era and onward.
  • 2) The quality of the fighters in the Egyptian Air Force inventory is far less comparred to the Israeli Air Force and let me explain why and how:
    • In matter of quality and quantity of the F-16, it is more or less comparable, but with the ongoing acquisition of the F-16I, which is a specially conformed for Israeli requirement and are even superior to the F-16E (block 60), because of its electronics and weaponery. Once the total number of these fighters is acquired by 2009, the superiority of the F-16 fleet will tip towards the Israeli Air Force, although the number of F-16 apart from this specialised version is greater in the Israeli Air Force inventory, but not by much, so we will consider them even though the differnce in numbers.
    • Forget about the F-7B and the Mig-21PF/PFM, as they are already obsolete, they are kept just a numerical deterent and until they are replaced by, probably the Mig-29SMT, although I hope that the Mig-35 would be offered.
    • Inasmuch the Israeli Air Force has put their F-4E (although modernized to Kurmass 2000 standard), which is electronically almost a match to the F-16/F-18 and their Kfir C-7 and their Skyhawks A-4, but still they realized that these are already obsolete and the same goes to the Egyptian F-4E.
    • The Mirage V in the Egyptian Air Force inventory are also obsolete and they are only good for basic ground attack sorties and limited air defence under the umbrella of ground radars since they lack advanced radars and ECM suites and IFF systems.
    • the few Mirage 2000 that Egypt has are good but lack the numbers
    • Any other secondary plans like the L-59 or the Alpha Jet are for COIN duties and basic ground attack.
  • 3) There is nothing in the Egyptian Air Force inventory to compare with the F-15A/C and the F-15I that the Israeli Air Force has and these are deep penetration, Air Superiority long range fighter bombers that cannot be stopped with the current inventory of the Egyptian Air Force. Only the Patriot and the recently acquired SA-17 could that if they could overcome the ECCM that these plans have to counter the ECM of the SAMs ground radars.
  • 4) Coming back to the combat readiness and war fighting experience and adequate training:
    • The Israeli pilots have had hands on experience and practice with the ongoing involvement with the Syrian Air Force over Lebanon during the 80s and 90s and even the beginning of the 21 st century, which gave them an unmached experience compared to the Egyptian pilots which had none and which I am not, by the way, downgrading at all.
    • The Israeli military industry is far more developed and produces and invent more advanced weapon systems, electronic suites, ECM equipment and other support products than what the Egyptian Air Force have through either purchased under scrutany of the USA and the West in general or what is manufactured or assembled under license or even designed by the Egyptian military manufacturing infrastructure.
    • The Israeli pilots have more training in every aspect, whether simulated or real in flight or real war experience as I mentioned above and the budged spent on them is far more that what the Egyptian pilots are getting, so the result is obvious.
    • Those joint military manouvers, like the Bright Star, which by the way is completely funded by the American Government and which coinsidently allow the Egyptian Armed Forces in all its branches a chance unmatched to get involved in military manouvers and training far more than what the Egyptian Military can ever afford in a given situation, are made partly as an agreement form a political stand point and also to test the progress and the ability of the Egyptian Armed Forces in conditions that are not often presented due to monetary constrainsts as I mentioned above. What we know about that shot of a F-18 kill is one of many shots, unfortunately we willl never know all the details of all shots taken and what was permissible to be released to the media due to political consideration and that you should be aware of it, even if you subconsciensly you would like to deny it (and so do I, by the way), so it should not be simgled out as a standard or a proof of anything unless you have the entire statistics untouched available.
    • As part of real life events, look up what transpired between fighters in the 1990s and the early 21 st century wars, you can find it under 4th generation fighter aircraft wikipedia page and other related pages, so go and check it out and see what was the result of air to air combat between these fighters.
  • So in short, its the quality of the fighters coupled with the training and experience and added with technologically advanced independent military industry that will make an absolute factor in determining air superiority of any Air Force and accordingly the strongest in that respect. Orthopraxia (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Orthopraxia[reply]

thanx Orthopraxia. i think it should take me some time to respond to that, some thing i donot have now. maybe we can continue tomorrow in the article's own discussion page incase other editors are interrested in participating. One last pharaoh (talk) 00:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Egyptian Air Force. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are u sure u have taken the step of going to the talk page to see what have i written? i have even notified the "unknown user" of revert wars, and asked him not to make it so. that warning is so unfair, and unnecessary; please remove it. One last pharaoh (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what your reasons were, you almost violated 3RR so I gave you a warning. I'm not saying that I'm on anyone's side - I gave him the warning too, as he did actually break 3RR - whereas you only came close. You can remove it yourself if you so wish. Also, I know English isn't your first language, but could you be a little tidier when you type? Remembering capital letters on nouns, "I", at the start of sentences and so on. Thanks. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 16:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
so u gave both of us the same warning because he DID violate the rule, while i came close to!
WOW. well, i were aware of the rule, and was not planning to violate it. when i said that it is not fair, i did not mean that it's se because, i had a reason to do some thing wrong; i said so because, i did not even do some thing wrong.
BTW, i know: traditional arabic, english, learning french, and speak Masry as a mother language, so when u can "read" arabic, and "speak" Mary, ask me to "be a little more tidier when typing", because i am, when writing an official article, but i do not tend to be so when having a simple discussion.
And about the warning, do u really think that i needed ur approval to remove it my self? i asked u in a friendly way -which u do not appear to be preferring to follow, when discussing with me- to remove it, since i felt it's some kindda wrong to remove it my self, because i do care.
Thanx for reading. One last pharaoh (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why I revert your edits[edit]

Hello.

I just wanted to tell you why I revert your edits. I revert them because I believe that what you're trying to do is not only improve the quality of information about Egypt on Wikipedia, but also delete sourced or unsourced material that makes Egypt look bad. The best example is your recent edit of the BMP-1 article: You deleted only the Egyptian losses while saying that they're unsourced. Why didn't you delete the Syrian loses? Were those loses sourced? Is it because you have a source that you don't even mention to us? Or is it because you don't concern yourself with anything else but making Egypt look better by deliberately deleting pieces of information that make it look bad.

This place saw such practices in the past, for example when US army was using anonymous accounts to delete unwanted information, and I'm not going to allow it to happen again.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So i am UA Army, and u are USSR? ok then, we all know how won in the long term. it is very strange reverting my edit when i delete outsourced information as some kind of a punishment. i donot have to clean the whole article. do that if u want to but donot assume, that i have to delete all outsourced informations, if i want to delete one. we all know that syria -unlike egypt- lost the war, and that butfore the arabs helping it, perhaps israel would have been having borders with turkey by the time we speak now. that's why i would believe it if an article tells me that the izzies destroyed any number of syrian equipment unless i have a sources that proves that wrong. Thanx for reading One last pharaoh (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all I'm not a Russian. Second, it's true that you don't have to delete all the unsourced information but it's pretty weird that you read only a half of the sentence since both numbers were in the same sentence. It's logical to assume that a person who wants to improve the article would delete the whole sentence, not only a half of it. Also I'm having a lot of trouble to understand from your gibberish what you meant... You mean that by losing a war Syria prevented Israel from having a bother with Turkey? When did Israel ever wanted to invade the Arab countries? All it wants is to keep their soil. And the Arab countries were the aggressors. And what does it have to do with anything?
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it really shows that u donot know whatta-heck are u talking about. i donot want to bother my self arguing with u about israel and the arabs or israel and egypt. the point is that there is nothing wrong with what i did, so read what i wrote again if u need to, but for ur own sack, donot revert my edit again. One last pharaoh (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you to stop threating me and stop being a nationalist her Wikipedia. It may work in your country but here we tend to leave our nationality and political preferences/believes/views behind.This is the place for truth not opinions.
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I admit i am surprised that u actually donot , or acting as if u donot understand me. i did not threaten u by any kind of a way. deleting outsourced informations is not nationalism, it's anti-vandalism. here is my point very simply, if u think that i am removing some outsourced infrmations while leaving others, and that that is some how wrong, u are free the remove the other outsourced information that i did not remove. however, reverting my removal of outsourced information is considered vandalism. Thanx in advance One last pharaoh (talk) 08:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Six Day War[edit]

Next time please look into the issue yourself before deleting content. You have selectivly removed correct information regarding Eygpt numerous times, claiming to require proof, but it is clear that you are attempting to remove info that protrays Eygpt in a less than stellar light under the guise of requesting "proof." That really isn't going to work here, this isn't the place for nationalism. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 08:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also signing under this complaint. I said it before, I'll say it again. Stop being a nationalist when editing Wikipedia. - SuperTank17 (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i see nationalism, politics, and religion influence articles in wikipedia all the time, and i did not delete them just for one reason, which is that they do not obligate wikipedia rules. assign me to nationalistic influence during editing, and i would complain ur annoying to the administration. i do not, did not, and am not welling to break wikipedia rules. as long as i am doing it legal, u have no thing against me.

Thanx for reading. One last pharaoh (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you are doing is disruptive and I am warning you as an admin. If you wish to improving sourcing on issues relating to Egypt please do so, but do not remove selectively remove items that portray Egypt poorly under the transparent guise of seeking proof. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
can u state one rule that prohibits deleting outsourced informations? or more likely a source that prohibits removing unsources informations if not removing them all?

Thanx in advance. One last pharaoh (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your problem is that you don't get the point. The point is you're doing this not solely because they're unsourced (like I pointed out to you before) but because the info that you delete is portraying Egypt in a bad way (and I think that I don't have to give you examples as some of your recent edits have done it already). Also from what I can see, in the six day war article you deleted sourced information. So stop hiding behind an excuse "I'm just removing unsourced information" because it's pointless. - SuperTank17 (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
they are not sourced!!!!
and i am not hiding behind an excuse because i dont need one. i am not doing any thing illegal. i did not refuse that some one delete the other outsourced informations, and u bet i did understand the point, but u apparently did not get mine. One last pharaoh (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First the word you are looking for is "unsourced" outsourced has another meaning. The rule you are violating is WP:DISRUPT particularly the third criteria, please stop. You are being told by two unbiased editors that your edits are disruptive. On a tangential note, the info you just added to the Egyptian Air force page, is a copyright violation as it is copied directly from the source word for word. Please reword it as copyrighted material cannot be used. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, u statement ur looking for is: "Firstly, the word that you are looking for is "unsourced". ".
Secondly, i am not a native speaker of english, but i did not find "unsourced" in the dictionary.
Finally, i really donot get it how come that i am the one who is keeping explaining to u while ur the admin. read the summary of the rule, u didnot discuss it with me in the article's discussion page, i did not delete outsourced informations, and finally i did not revert editing sourced informations. for the mansourah stuff, i really did read about it from ACIG, and other sites, and i know that that is not a word for word editing; actually, it is a word for word edit taken from the MiG-21 page.
I always try to keep a good relation with other editor, and that does not mean that i am making it personal, but i feel that u do make it personal. One last pharaoh (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright we can drop the grammar issue, outsourced is not the right word, it means something else, take a look at the link. Unsourced is a neologism used on Wikipedia. This is nothing personal, I am giving you advice in order to help you continue editing productively. What you are doing is called Wikilawyering and doesn't help anyone, you can argue all you want about how your behavior doesn't fit the exact wording of the policy, but this isn't a bureaucracy. You can either follow the advice SuperTank and I give you and stop selectively deleting content, or you can continue to behave as you have been, it is your choice. However you have been warned and continued disruption (even if you don't see it that way) will probably lead to another block. I have been around here for a while and have seen this exact behavior before and no how things turn out. Finally the info you added to the Egyptian Air force page is a word for word copy (I am not making this up) from [4] about 3/4 down the page, if it is present on the MiG-21 page it should be reworded there as well. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know i am not doing any thing wrong, but i already deleted other "unsourced" informations in the BMP-1 article directly before u sent me the last message. my previous blocking was actually a surprise for me since i wanot fully aware of 3RR -the guy reported me after i gave him the last warning to stop, and reverted his edit, some thing i did not know is that i should not have given him another chance, and directly report him so that not both of use get blocked, which is what happened-. Thanx for the "advice" but i really am not considering violating wikipedia policies.
as to as not violating the imaginary rule, i deleted a large part of the article which was not sourced "Neither out nor un, LOL.".
BTW, i am some one who prefers grammar on vocabulary, since the school -at least the one with good grammar wont have such a problem, when he is in a situation, and cannot find he right word.-. One last pharaoh (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your grammar is worse than your vocabulary. Capital letters at the start of sentences, spelling, punctuation, no "txtspk" etc. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR[edit]

This is to warn you that your editing of List of military occupations is in danger of breaching the Wikipedia's three-revert rule. Please read the policy carefully as you could already be considered to be in breach of the policy. I suggest that you talk through you concerns on the talk page and reach a consensus before continuing to edit war. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that i did not make more than 3 reverts in a 24 hours period so fare, even if i made another right now, it is not supposed to be violating the rule. i think that u should revert ur own last edit. the sentence is not sourced nor even mentioned in the article of The Multinational Force and Observers. replacing that phrase with the official tasks of the Multinational Force and Observers, is far better than just re-including it in the article. One last pharaoh (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, I've been taking a look at the page as an uninvolved admin. Some of your edits are fine, others are not. To be clear: You are usually within your rights to remove unsourced information, though usually it's better to request a source first, with a {{fact}} tag. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability. However, if information is sourced, you should not remove the information unless you have a very good reason, preferably via consensus at the talkpage. Also, please be aware that this article falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles case, which means that uninvolved administrators have wide latitude in terms of discretionary sanctions. So the "3RR" rule may be tightened up, and we can even go as far as 0RR (no reverts at all). I am not placing any additional restrictions at this time, but did want to alert you that the area is under increased supervision. Let me know if you have any questions, --Elonka 21:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two actually, 1- Is it sourced? where?
2- Why would a war that did not involve more than 4 nations, in which non of them is Palestine, be within the scope of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles case? One last pharaoh (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a URL next to the information, or a listed book/journal, or something within "ref" tags, then that's a source. As long as it's a plausible reliable source, you can potentially challenge the source and its applicability on the talkpage, but you shouldn't just delete it. As for the scope of the case, pretty much any article that mentions Israel, or is engaged in a conflict about what Israel did or didn't do, would probably apply. See "area of conflict" --Elonka 16:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i know that, but it did not cite any source when it was deleted. see the history to make sure of that ur self. One last pharaoh (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is false. The following are two instances of you removing items that cite sources:[5] and [6]. Please don't remove well-sourced material again, thanks. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are actually talking about the second link in which not a single source was mentioned to support the claim. prove it ur self if u want, but it was never sourced any time i deleted it. For the first link, take a better look at wikipedia policies to know that even constructive members may do some mistakes, in which shouldn't be considered vandalism. One last pharaoh (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are u now sure that it was never sourced, Elonka? One last pharaoh (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Military history project[edit]

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Woody (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of MBTs by generation talk page.[edit]

What I deleted was a clear misunderstanding done by you who or some strange and unexplained reason didn't add your answer in the end of the discussion. That's why I took Michael's answer for yours. Please stop acting like you're some kind of a Police officer to tell people what they should or shouldn't do since you yourself should understand the circumstance.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And who do u describe what are u doing right now?
It's not a matter of "who is the boss", it's a matter of constructive edits, and discussions that have no thing to do with the editors in person. Sorry, if u do not take it as such, but that's the way it is.
I believe that the civil, and gentle action to do assuming that what are u saying is right, is to delete ur own conscription, and ask me to delete mine. I hope that u did not revert my revert, because i told u that that is a high level of vandalism, and asked u to stop. One last pharaoh (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't understand the circumstances than please stand aside and let the people who do understand them take care of things. Also you should spend more time learning English than editing Wikipedia.
Also if you state the things this way than I won't ask you to delete your own contribution. And you want to know why? Because they're your own business just as my contributions are my business.
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because i am a civil editor who sees wikipedia as a free encyclopedia, i think it's enough this time to warn u slightly in my own talk page. U are not being civil in ur discussion with me, when u start insulating me even if that is mocking my english. Wikipedia is not a place for personal disputes.
Try to be friendly, please. I am trying to be so with u, while u apparently are not taking our discussion as a friendly one. I think that u are acting as if the discussion is worthless, and that u have to do any thing to avoid agreeing with me, or letting me edit freely.
The way i stated "the things" was a friendly way - I could have just reported ur beautiful vandalism - to let u know that wikipedia is not a place were u may consider me as some kinda enemy, or refuse to obey me as a boss, and that every one is free to edit in wikipedia, where no one is another's boss.
If u think that u should not have asked me to delete my own conscription, i find it very weird that u delete it ur self.
Do not take it as an offense, but i am some one who study in english in the college, learning french currently, as to as studying in it a matter of years, practicing Kung-Fu since the preparatory school, after practicing Taikon-du while in the primary school, made the design of the work that was put on the gate of an arts exhibit, while in the secondary school, worked in PC engineering, currently working in another field, and going on in a project to establish probably the first egyptian computer-animated film making company, being the chief designer. In another word, i am very happy of who i am, and do not need u to tell me to go, and improve my english, since i speak english, traditional arabic, Masry, and learning french. who many languages do u speak? One last pharaoh (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)[edit]

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

⳿ⲪⲂⲓⲕⲓⲡⲏ̇ⲋⲏ[edit]

Thank you for your contributions. If you are interested in the Coptic Wikisource (⳿ⲪⲂⲓⲕⲓⲡⲏ̇ⲋⲏ) Proposal, please don't hesitate to help out. Regards, ~ Troy (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)[edit]

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Army[edit]

We have had miscommunication in the passed so I want to say this a simply and clearly as possible. In order to state that Egypt is one of the strongest armies in the middle east you will need a good unbiased source saying that Egypt is one of the strongest armies in the Middle East. On a totally separate issue, Egypt is not the first Arab country to launch a spy satellite, the source you provided says that Iran launched the Sinah-1 in 2005. Please go over the sources carefully and try to understand what I am saying so that we do not have more problems with communication because of language difficulties. --Leivick (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And who in the land of god said that iran was an arab country ?!!
Let's discuss the other issue in the article's own talk page, please. One last pharaoh (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The satellite issue was already sourced, and the other statement is not some thing new that i have just written, it was there in the article along time ago, and u, fellow editor are the one who wants to change the article here. One last pharaoh (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It really doesn't matter who wrote that Egypt has one of the strongest armies in the Middle East, it still needs a source as it is certainly arguable considering the other military powers in the area (depending on how one defines it) like Turkey, Iran, Israel, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. As for the satellite, it would be best to have a source saying that Egypt is the only Arab country with a spy satelite, but I wouldn't be strongly opposed to saying that it is the only country in the Arab speaking world with a satelite, although in my opinion it would be best to just say that Eygpt launched its first spy sat. in 2007 and let the reader see where that fits in with other countries around the world. If you want to bring this up on the talk page, I will discuss it there. --Leivick (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try to mention what have u just written there, please. One last pharaoh (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptians[edit]

There is a content dispute in the talk page of the above article. The second- and third-last sections are currently active for discussion. You are invited to have your say and make meaningful contributions, but please note that a consensus has not been reached yet. Best regards, ~ Troy (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

Since you continue you disrupt our articles despite previous warnings, consider this a final warning -- if you do it again, you're getting blocked. Raul654 (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

congratulations ! u actually did care about some body else's contributions in an article...,whatta progress huh?!
Look, dear Raul, the neutrality is disputed in the talk page, and believe it or not, it's not solved yet!
As an admin, would u please highlight to me how can an administrator get disqualified?
Thanx in advance, dear admin. One last pharaoh (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)[edit]

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ramadan War[edit]

One Last Pharaoh, I have made an addition to the article on the Ramadan War, and I have brought up some new sources, you can see the talk page of that article for more details. I hope you will be able to continue your contributions to this article. On my part, I will try to get my hands on as many Egyptian sources as I can, and in particular Abdel Ghani el-Gammasy's book on the war. Sherif9282 (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MISR (firearm)[edit]

Hi One last Pharaoh, I would like you to follow up what is happening in the above -mentioned page. There are two wikipedian that are addament to erase this page. They have their arguments and I have mine. Read all notes in all Talk pages involved in this crisis, even those who responded with positive and calming responses. I added the information of the page in question in the AKM page as I am fed up with this ridiculous ridiculing attitude of these two wikipedian. They started the negative comments, they made fun of my ancestry and they were the one to initiate a the eradication of an existinbg page. I just wanted you to be aware. Orthopraxia (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there; by the time i noticed your massege on my talk page the MISR firearm has already been redirected to the AKM article; However, i have created a new article, the Misr assault rifle. Please add your valuable edits there, and this time, i think i shall be there if some one vandalized -including non wikipedia identified vandalism-. I have to say that i am not in my best editorial activity these days thanks to being bussy with the college, however i am doing what i can. One last pharaoh (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)[edit]

The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:N6866230637 7609-1-.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:N6866230637 7609-1-.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leopard 2 is a Cold War tank[edit]

It entered service in 1979. —Michael Z. 2008-10-15 18:59 z

WP:Egypt is up and running[edit]

Wikipedia:EGYPT is up and running and we need lots of Collaboration. We are currently working on Cairo Metro as a Collaboration article and need as much help as possible. If u could come by and help out we would be greatly thankful. Please also collaborate online on #wikipedia-Egypt, where we can actively collaborate and discuss issues.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)[edit]

The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rheinmetall gun[edit]

Hey, I was wondering if you could comment on the article's A-class review. It's stagnated at two supports, and I need a third. Some comments would be great. Thank you! JonCatalán(Talk) 00:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)[edit]

The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Battle of Abu-Ageila (1967). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --VS talk 01:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare[edit]

Regarding this edit; Wikipedia has guidelines for what is and isn't a reliable source (see WP:RS), and - unless it's been written by a recognised authority - a personal weblog doesn't meet the criteria. We shouldn't be taking an anonymous blogger's word that the game maps definitely represent an Egyptian city, and we need a much stronger source to be able to say that "Egyptians showed negative reactions/feelings about the game".

If there genuinely has been a wider reaction from the Egyptian public or press, then it should be possible to track down a newspaper article or authoritative games blog that's written about it. --McGeddon (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:One_last_pharaoh/Archive_1&oldid=1145298698"