User talk:Elizmr

[edit] Jimbo Wales

Just in case you might miss it, Jimbo Wales responded in two places to some of your comments on the Cole talk page today. --Ben Houston 22:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

And I just wanted to add, Elizmer, that I did not intend to hurt your feelings in any way. You are a good editor and your work on the Cole page has been valuable. It is just that we should all remain very vigilant against the creeping notion that neutrality is best achieved by warring camps. It is incumbent upon all of us, we all have a responsibility, to try to achieve balance in our writing, and the person you were responding to was absolutely right about that. I am sorry I reacted so strongly, but this is an ongoing issue, and something that we have to be particularly firm about at all times, and especially when interacting with newcomers.

Every editor has an obligation to write as neutrally as possible. We should never say "Oh, I don't like this guy, so I will only add negative information, and someone from the other side can be responsible for adding positive information." That is not the way you edit, and that's a good thing! Take pride in it!--Jimbo Wales 23:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your rfa

J--I am really sorry for opposing you. I was recently attacked by a few admins on a contentious page and I feel really nervous about admins with strong ideology. You seem like a great guy and I think the mosque article is outstanding. Elizmr 00:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Vote however you feel. joturner 00:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beyond Scope

Elizmr wrote on Talk:Juan Cole

Ben is correct. I searched Cole's blog and makes statements consistent with a liberal position in these particular areas--women's rights, gay rights, etc. I would argue against any position on Israel/Palestine being classified as liberal or conservative, right wing or left, but that is way beyond the scope of this page. Elizmr 13:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing. Anyways, with regards to the later part of the comment, I think that you may be unaware of the distribution of Israeli political parties. Left-wing parties such as Meretz Meretz-Yachad support a Palestinian state and is affiliated with Peace Now. Labor, while sometimes being a centrist party has its origins in the left, does tend to favor negotiations with Palestinians and as you know was the party of Yitzhak Rabin who was famous for trying to find a mutually agreeable solution (but was assasinated by a right-wing activist who opposed reproachment with the Palestinians.) Kadima is also a centrist party (to the right of Labor but to the left of Likud) that supports disengagement from the Palestinians -- they are no so much into a negotiated settlement. Likud is a conservative party that opposed the Oslo accords. Both Sharon and Netanyahu were Likud and supported expanding the settlements -- although Sharon in later life changed position somewhat (although those on the left would argue this change didn't come about by any increase in sympathy for the Palestinians but rather from a recognition of the implicit demographic threat brought on by a de facto binational solution forced upon Israel by the existences of the settlements.) Further to the right is National Union (Israel) who "advocates voluntary transfer of the Palestinians" according to their article. Thus I would claim that there are clear positions that can be classified as liberal or conservative, right or left on this issue. I would be curious as to where you heard that there was no left-right classification possible on this issue? --Ben Houston 18:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Israeli politics tutorial: Cole is not Israeli; he is an American. I'm not sure it makes sense to characterize his "left wing" or "right wing"-ness on Israel in terms of Israeli political parties and their position. Hamas did not much like Oslo either, by your reasoning that would align them with Likud and make them right wing. Elizmr 01:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

(old comment removed.) I was trying to simplify political opinions into a single axis -- it seems that this is conflating two dimensions into one. Hamas is high on ethnocentrism and ideology -- two characteristics shared with Likud in my opinion. Hamas does seem internally somewhat of a leftist party with respect to all the social services it organizes. Where as Likud seems more capitalist oriented. Greenberg-Jonas in their two-axis political spectrum model connect ideological rigidity with ethnocentrism and view this axis as separate from the left-right axis, see Greenberg & Jonas: Left-Right, Ideological Rigidity. --Ben Houston 04:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi again Ben, My concern is that the kind of characterization we are talking about here is and has been potentially quite dangerous, and thus should never be based on oversimplification. In any case, this discussion is off-topic to the article we have been editing. Could we table the discussion and get back to that? Elizmr 19:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for your comment on my talk page. Occasionally I'll write something like that and say, hey, that's not bad, I wonder if anyone else has ever thought of it. But thank you for the nice comment, they are few and far between around here. 6SJ7 03:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

i appreciate that more than you know....didnt realy realize that it was somewhat of a personal attack, you realy are (although i may disagree with some) doing a realy good job in keeping your arguments calm and do your best to keep them at NPOV, i could learn some from you. one thing however, of course ill be saying this but he definitely is not more educated on the subject than i am, im not saying i more than he though Mac33c 22:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Mac, I don't understand the argument you are making about the author we were talking about on the Hezbollah talk page, but thanks for the nice words. Elizmr 23:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smoking

Yeah, I have. But considering how much nicotine gum I'm going through, maybe I've just changed the delivery system ;) --Armon 15:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Nahh, "quit day" had nothing to do with it. My daughter just turned 2 and we may be having another -suddenly "live fast, die young, leave a cancerous corpse" kinda lost its charm. --Armon 01:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually Canadian so I'm sure I'd get the US context, and I do like funny, but I think I might avoid that movie for now. A film about smoking and watching people smoke is a bit like junkie porn at the moment. --Armon 15:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peace?

I'm sorry that I caused you so much stress a month ago. It wasn't my intention, but I realise that I am still responsible. Thanks for calling me a hypocrite, though I probably deserve it. Guettarda 16:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Guettarda 16:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the kind words. I must also commend you on editing in such a neutral manner in regards to all the Juan Cole issues. It's not an easy thing when there are so many sides. -- Jeff3000 14:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] juan cole

i removed fluff b/c it was self serving and added nothing to the discussion. I recall you yourself had no problem removing a large paragraph of informative innoccous biographical information b/c you said it was "fluff." Take Care! --Will314159 07:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Will--the paragraph I removed was about JC's love for science fiction, and I thought is was kind of fluff and not notable enough for an encyclopedia entry, but when you objected I suggested you put it back. You did not bother to do this. What YOU took out, on the other hand, were a couple of cites from notable, verifiable, authorative sources which constituted the only opposing POV in a paragraph on a controversial point you didn't happen to agree with. What you left in were conspiracy theories promulgated on a blog. What you took out was not fluff and did certainly add something to the discussion (although not something which supported your point of view) There is a big difference here and I am sure you are intelligent to see it; by saying you don't see it I'm afraid you discredit yourself as an editor. Elizmr 22:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AN3

Elizmr, you might want to familiarize yourself with this policy too, which you have violated or have come very close to violating. I am doing you better by following the guidelines and warning you before reporting. Take Care! --Will 00:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Please quit deleting am external link to a researched, relevant, Al-jazeera op-ed article about the Juan Cole Yale controversy which is clearly labeled as earthy and colorful. Jimbo Yales has warned you about your excessive zeal for your POV. In the Juan Cole article it is even more unfair because there are only two and somethimes three editors that are not functioning with Israeli lobby POV blinders. Your deletions in conjunction if not in concert with Isarig, Armon, and Precis tend to leave a lopsided and one sided article. Why all this focus on Juan Cole, the mild mannered Professor? Take Care! --Will 07:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Will, if you are going to attack me on my user page, you might at least get your facts straight.

• first off Jimbo Wales did not warn me about my excessive zeal for my POV (and neither did Jimbo "Yales"). Here is what he said, "Every editor has an obligation to write as neutrally as possible. We should never say "Oh, I don't like this guy, so I will only add negative information, and someone from the other side can be responsible for adding positive information." That is not the way you edit, and that's a good thing! Take pride in it!--Jimbo Wales 23:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)"

• secondly, you continue to mix up aljazeera, which is a media outlet of record with [1], which is not. The cite you add does not conform to wikipedia policies on appropriate sources. This is why I have deleted it. It has nothing to do with my POV. Elizmr 11:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Elizmr: I prefer that if you attack me that you do it on my user page and not in the discussion or talk page of various articles. Here is one example of your attacks: "Nice link, Will. The author describes Cole as a, "mild mannered middle east expert" and his critic as, "a deranged, vindictive rodent who ought to be fed to a boa constrictor." How's that for balanced commentary? I honestly don't know what motivates you to post ridiculous stuff like this as if it is informative. You like Cole, you really really like Cole; you hate Israel, you really really hate Israel, we get it, OK??? Elizmr 21:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Elizmr. I don't think you get it at all. Most of the people on this page are out to "get" Cole. I probably am the only non-Jew editing this article. I have to respect those of the faith that have the wisdom to appreciate that political NAS cheapens real AS when it comes along. I have no problem at all w/ an Israel that"ll accept the Taba or Geneva accords and accept Peace and full trade w/ its neighbors per the Beirut resolution signed by 22 Arab nations. I do have a problem w/ open ended war for the sake of continued settlements and America getting sucked into open ended war by the Israeli lobby. All this NAS stuff is another strategem to keep the Golan Heights and West Bank settlements by other means. You implicitly asked for my opinion. As far as Cole, he is a little too strident, he'd make more points if he'd pull back a bit. Take Care! --Will 23:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Elizmr Redux, This conversation would have been better placed on a user page or outside WP, but you chose the forum. I see now and reject your middle premise. You like Cole therefore you hate Israel, double double. I reject both the middle term and your vision of the necessity of a repressive, expansionist Israel. Triple, I reject America's involvement in financing and participating in it. visit www.gush-shalom.org Take Care! --Will 10:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)" Take Care! --Will 12:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Will, these comments are completely irrelevant. And I'm not sure why you presume to know other editor's religious affiliations. And I don't see any reason to debate Israel with you. My comment about the link you posted, and posted, and posted was not a personal attack--it was a critique of the cite. Elizmr 19:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cole

Are you sure that the website says that he was "born" John? I find it ambiguous - it's possible that's what it says, it's even probable, but it's by no means clear IMO - not clear enough to make that assertion in the article. (Might it be worth dropping Cole an email?) Guettarda 15:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. Not too many people post their family trees on their Web sites, and Cole does. It would seem to me that this is sufficient evidence. I had just checked in and noticed that there was a disagreement about this and was just trying to make a phrasing that sounded better. Are you in touch wth Cole at all? I guess I could email him if you're not. Elizmr 15:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I have never contacted Cole. It would be great if you did. That might (assuming he responds/has time to respond) solve the problem. Guettarda 15:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, will do and will post his reply on the Cole talk page. Elizmr 15:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal communication isn't sufficient. Cole should post a notice on his website which clarifies the situation (self published sources are okay since he is the subject) which can then be referenced from the article. That is the proper way to do things. --Ben Houston 16:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, obviously I can't make Cole post anything anywhere. He has already posted his family tree which cites his name as "John" which should probably be sufficient as a source, but I am following Guettarda's suggestion to contact him. Elizmr 23:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

They are equivalent anyhow: John is the english version of the spanish Juan. I didn't see the source until now but it says "John (Juan) Ricardo Cole" so I quoted it as such such the article. --Ben Houston 23:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, yeah, it is the Spanish equivalent, no argument, but it is not the same name nonetheless. Look, I was just trying to come up with a version that would be happier from everyone's point of view. Why don't you take this discussion back to the article page where it belongs, OK? Everytime I see a note from you on my user page I expect to be personally attacked by you again it is not a good feeling. Elizmr 23:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] two reversions on Hezbollah

Hello Elizmr.

Thank you for opening the debate. I have posted my views there, even though I think the article manages to explain the changes in Hezbollah's quite pragmatic view on Israel. Btw, take a closer look at the history and you will realize, that I only have reverted you once. Bertilvidet 21:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed tag

You put something in the lead of hezbollah and I put disputed tag on the article. Please look at [2]--Sa.vakilian 04:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

THanks for writing. I changed the sentence a bit to address your point while underlying that there are two views which are contradictory. What do you think? Elizmr 15:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I see your edition. That's rather good. But I think we should work on it more. So I moved it to introduction section until wikipedians achieve a consensus about it.--Sa.vakilian 19:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I put a comment for you in Hezbollah talk page [3].--Sa.vakilian 18:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article on terrorism

You may find the article Terrorists of Pakistani origin interesting. It may be deleted soon in perhaps a few hours.

If you have any views on having such articles on Wikipedia, please do share them at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Terrorists_of_Pakistani_origin

--Robcotton 01:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I voted to delete this racist hate-inciting pageElizmr 03:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A suitable lead

Hi,

If you mean the paragraph which was in the lead, it is too long for the lead and I wrote this viewpoint in the talk page. There is another one in the introduction part which is shorter. As you know the lead should be an abstract of the issue.--Sa.vakilian 02:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll copy your commen in the talk page and write my answer there.--Sa.vakilian 02:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I wrote my viewpoint. You can answer me in the talk page. --Sa.vakilian 03:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a first

I just wanted to say congratulations for your very first revert on Wikipedia. :) Precis 11:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hezbollah article

Thanks for your good layout/format edits to Hezbollah. We need more editors like you! ~ clearthought 00:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good work on Al-Manar

Great new info, thanks for that.Hypnosadist 10:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Hezbollah

Hi,

Please read this part and write your idea.--Sa.vakilian 02:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some disagreements

Hi,

There is some disagreement in Hezbollah article we should debate about.

The first one is POV tag. I put a comment for you.[4]

The next one is introduction. I want to revert some of your editions but I wait to tell me your idea.[5]

The last one which is important one is the structure. As talk page shows most of editors disagree wtih putting military activity above political one. So I reverty it and also invite the others to debate about the structure. Please be patient and let us debate and then change the article.--Sa.vakilian 06:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for writing. I will look. I had asked about the structure two days ago but no serious objections were raised but we should absolutely discuss. I am at work right now, so give me a little bit of time. Elizmr 15:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hezbollah

I have accepted your case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-21 Hezbollah. For ease of the discussion, what time zone are you in and what times are you most frequently on Wikipedia?

Just an update on the case. I havent had a chance to look at the discussion on the hezbollah talk page, but assume that you two are slowly making some sort of progress. I will be able to help more this weekend. I have just recently started up school again and it is taking up most of my time, so I apologize for not responding to your comments on the project page. Thanks Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 02:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem, just glad that I was able to help

[edit] Hezbollah Manifesto

As I said on my nomination at AfD, it's a source document. I don't know the copyright status, but if its copyright is acceptable, it belongs on Wikisource, where we keep source documents. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping to substitute summary for the full text and to include discussion of the manifesto, analysis, etc. It is just a work in progress now. Elizmr 22:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Working on it in your User space is probably a good idea. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't have taken the afd header off as an interested party. I can just withdraw the nomination and let somebody speedy close it. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

When the tag was there, I couldn't see the text after it went to my user space. That's why I took it off. Please go ahead and tag it again. I am not doing this for any reason; I am just not sure of how to go about this. Elizmr 09:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

mmm, there's still a huge part of the document in the version in your user space. Until we get a clarification of the copyright status, that has to come out. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC) If it is in a blockquote with a source, isn't that ok? I just don't want to have to go looking for it and bring it over again to work on it if I don't have to. Elizmr 09:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I blockquoted everything and put the tag back on the article. This makes the text go away. If you could take care of this soon without deleting my work it would be great. Elizmr 09:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Use of quoted text is covered at Wikipedia:Fair use. As far as I can tell, there is too much quoted text (too much of the original document, and too much when compared to commentary/summary) for this to qualify as fair use. The problem is that userspace pages are not extempt from the copyright law... Please, give precedence to summarizing this text. (Liberatore, 2006). 10:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Tajik synagogue 3.jpg

[edit] Please look at Hezbollah talk page

I put some comment for you. If you have time today I'm ready to work together to improve the article.--Sa.vakilian 04:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not around much today (tomorrow for me) but am happy to work together. I will look at your comments. Elizmr 05:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Are you free to speake about Hezbollah intro in the Hezbollah talk page.--Sa.vakilian 15:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually have to stop editing in a few minutes to go to work, but will take a quick look and will take a longer look later. Elizmr 15:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want to go we can discuss later. But I propose looking at other similiar articles and finding how there are written intro.--Sa.vakilian 15:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I edit intro and try to bridge my and your viewpoint and I hope it satisfies you too.--Sa.vakilian 07:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re S-protection

No worries. -- Szvest 19:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hizbullah talk page

I agree with the thrust of your remarks, and have taken, let's say, a more robust approach! Let's hope it'll work. Palmiro | Talk 23:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I moved the details from lead to intro but it should be merged.[6] I think you had told me that you agree with me about omiting repeated text in the lead, intro and body.[7] I'll be graitful if you rewrite intro.--Sa.vakilian 16:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Your comments aren't bad yourself. The disinformation has got to stop! --GHcool 00:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought you might like to check out the new project I'm working on on my user page. Thanks again for your support of truth and justice. --GHcool 05:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] and thanks for the welcome

i find my factual edits are usually not welcome at places like Palestine, Darfur, Chad and French topics. so i do appreciate the kind remark. best regards Joan-of-arc 04:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hi there

You reverted my edit removing "pogrom" from the Israel article stating that 29 riots make a pogrom. Would you mind discussing the matter further on the Talk:Israel page? I have created a section there with a link to a definition of the word "pogrom". If you can provide evidence that there was a Palestinian government sanctioning organized violence against Jews, I might be willing to accept your revert. Barring that, I am going to have to change it again because it's use wihtout such evidence is totally inaccurate. Thank you. Tiamut

[edit] Tariq Ramadan cites

Hey no problem. I'm well, but I did fall off the wagon re: smoking. Going to give it another shot very soon tho. Armon 00:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CAIR

I think considering that one of the external links being related to "jihad suspects" and another being about "legal troubles" already makes the external links neutral, without that link that you're insisting upon. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The link I want to add has well-referenced material. It is important for neutrality and balance to allow an alternate POV. This is not CAIR's own Web site, it is an article ABOUT CAIR and should conform to the NPOV policy of Wikipedia. The article overall is almost completely complimentary. What is the big deal with adding a link? Elizmr 01:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Project

Hi, you asked me on my talk page if I wanted to help merge the two The Project articles. I don't know anything about this topic, so I wouldn't likely be a good person to help merge these articles. (My edit to one of the articles consisted of putting a Proposed Deletion tag on it, back on an earlier version of the article where it was actually about a drinking game rather than a document) --Xyzzyplugh 12:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I sent a note to everyone who had done an edit on the page when I realized it was out there. Elizmr 20:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] War

I meant that we are going to enter a serious discussion on the talk page. I apologize for the slightly inconvenient choice of words (especially due to other circumstances). It wasn't meant as an attack. My apologies. --Daniel575 | (talk) 09:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Sockpuppetry Accusations by Amoruso

Dear Elizmr. The Sockpuppet is only an accusation by Amoruso and is not true. Amoruso is trying every mean to stop me from editing at wikipedia and uncovering the totally wrong edits he keep adding to sites related to al-Aqsa mosque. I have told him that he is wrongly accusing me and this is what he replied! [8] Almaqdisi 04:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Almaqdisi, Please accept my apologies if I have accused you in error. It is nothing personal, I just had strong suspictions after reading the AFD page and thought it was best to air them for the good of the Wikipedia project. Please note that Amoruso had absolutely nothing to do with the initiation of this report. Thanks for making comments on the appropriate page, and please continue to do so there and not here so all your concerns can be aired to the decision-makers. Let's let this run its course so we can get back to editing Wikipedia. OK? Have a good Friday today. Elizmr 11:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Elizmr. I accept your appology and I assume your good faith. I appreciate your determination in making WikiPedia a better place. Almaqdisi 21:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Desmond Tutu

Elizmr, be careful about going too far here; after a certain point the effect is diminished, not enhanced. IMO that basic aspect of Tutu's character can be well-established with one or two well-selected and well-placed quotes; devoting an entire paragraph to the issue will lead to attacks for POV, etc. There is also an issue of NOR that could be raised with the new lead-in. I think the most effective approach is to strive for a balanced presentation that highlights the anti-Semitic tendencies without trying to dominate that section of the article. I'd prefer to see a stability rather than voltaile edit-warring. Wouldn't you? Dasondas 17:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I had every intention of letting you finish, and no intention of warring with you. I just saw the work in progress and wanted to pass on my first thoughts. You'll note that I was the one who included the original references to anti-Semitism in the article some hours ago. This is an important aspect to be developed, and it obviously has implications in other articles that you and I have been involved with. By all means, do what you think is most effective; I'm just trying to offer a collaborating hand. Dasondas 17:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I have every intention of making this NPOV and balancing it out. I am very comitted to this principle of Wikipedia. Elizmr 17:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that your section is very-well written and balanced. Something that might help (if I have time, I'll try to do it) would be transisitional sentences at the beginning of the paragraphs; we move from Tutu the Jew-lover to Tutu the Israel-sceptic to Tutu the borderline (or, perhaps, not even borderline) anti-Semite all in three paragraphs. This paints a picture of a man who is rather conflicted with himself about his relationship to Judaism and I'd like to think about how to frame the entire section this way without falling into the OR trap. Right now, I think the new section places the entire article a bit out of balance because of its relative size, and I wouldn't be surprised to see some Tutu-defenders come along and start nitpicking. However, given how well you've written, sourced and balanced that section my inclination would be to argue that anybody who doesn't like its overall effect on the article would best find some other way to balance things out because you haven't left them much room to attack your own edits. Nice job. (As an aside, I first visited the Tutu article yesterday after becoming involved at the Apartheid circus. I was surprised that with all of the discussion surrounding him there nobody seems to have made any mention of this aspect of Tutu's character before so I made the first couple of edits to his own article. Now, when the apartheid article is unlocked I think that working some reference to Tutu's controversial history vis-à-vis Judaism would be appropriate background to offset the moral weight he purportedly carries; I want to be balanced and non-confrontational, but I don't want to pull punches that shouldn't be pulled. Perhaps you would be willing to trade notes with me on this point.) Dasondas 20:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a fair question. Anyhow, as I said, let the next editor worry about it. The section you just put together works on its own merits; if somebody has a problem he can articulate it for himself and defend his own edits. I like what you did. Dasondas 23:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please note

that what Almaqdisi has claimed here I "believe" [9] is a lie like his strange lie to say that I was the one who accused him of socket puppetry above (even though I also believe you were right on this). You can see exactly what the deal is in the talk pages. In summary, Dome of the Rock is a shrine/monument - fact. Jews probably prayed in the Dome too at the time - also a high probability/fact. Al Aqsa Mosque was built in the southern area of the temple mount/noble sanctuary - also a fact. Mark Twayne's quotes - also verified as his quotes. Amoruso 03:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New lead to "Third Holiest Site of Islam"

I'm happy enough to look at pages like this but I'm not really interested in commenting on the content. I voted to DELETE. That's because I don't feel that this page belongs in the encyclopedia (unless, possibly, it were only Muslim scholars discussing it).

At the risk of repeating myself, there is said to have been a great Christian debate on the subject of "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin" (perhaps this was in the Middle Ages? - it could equally well be a malicious story put about for the purpose of mocking Xians!).

Now, it would be amusing and reasonable to have an article in WP on this topic, covering the main protagonists, the books they wrote and the fiery speeches they gave denouncing the diabolical scriptural interpretations presented by their (Xian) opponents.

But there'd be no benefit actually holding the debate on these pages, it doesn't belong here. It would only be acceptable because this debate is long dead, otherwise Xians would have a reasonable cause to object.

Separately, of course, the likelihood is that this Wiki-page was started by non-Muslims, knowing full well that the Al-Aqsa Mosque won't survive the present policies of Israel. I'm pretty sure that Israel is doomed. Hezbollah rockets forced millions from their homes this time round (first victory against Israel), suicide bombers caused quite a serious dip in the Israeli economy in 2002 - and one day, the enemies of Israel will find a way to bring it to its knees. But in the meantime, the Zionists are determined to cause as much damage to the locality as they can. Mocking and destroying this mosque is a relatively trivial example of their evil. Let's not give them a platform.

PalestineRemembered 18:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I will place your comment on the talk page of the appropriate article. Thanks for your imput. Elizmr 19:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Acutally, never mind. YOur comments don't really address the new lead, so I'll just leave them above and comment on your user page. Elizmr 19:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

btw, Elizmr, for the record Islam is not supposed to call non muslims "infidels". In fact, Jews and Christians are called "People of the book" by Islam. Amoruso 00:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Elzimr, I find it really offending too. Who used the term infidel?? Almaqdisi 01:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

Carbonate posted an RfA here Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Israeli_POV but for some reason "forgot" to list you as an involved party Isarig 16:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you can just go to that page and edit it to add yourself, describing that you have also been an involved editor, and providing a statement. It is a wiki page like any other. Isarig 22:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United Muslim American Association

Hi, I saw you started the United Muslim American Association. Unfortunately, you may have forgotten to provide your source(s). Please provide them. Thanks, KazakhPol 19:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, please add your source(s) for the Christian Muslim Dialog article. Thanks, KazakhPol 19:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I add a ref for each of the little stubs. Sorry to have neglected that. Elizmr 20:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Muslim activist organizations

I've done my best to tidy the description you had for articles in the Category:Muslim activist organizations. I removed the bit about supporting the Palestinian cause as that is not a specifically Muslim cause, nor do all Muslims support what ever that is. KazakhPol 19:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Elizmr 19:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC) (Atho I'd challenge you to find a Muslim activist org that was not working to support the Palestinian cause). Elizmr 20:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words! --Irishpunktom\^talk 23:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arabic

Don't mention it my friend. I'll be glad to help if you need me. ↔ ANAS - Talk 16:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikistalking

Elizmr-

I've deleted cases of clear vandalism and POV editing on your part. Calling Desmond Tutu a child abuser is not constructive. I'm not "stalking," I'm simply removing vandalism. --Kitrus 01:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I DID NOT PUT THAT IN. I TOOK IT OUT. I WOULD NEVER CALL ANYONE A CHILD ABUSER, MUCH LESS A CLERIC. And you have reverted about six of my recent edits. That was what I was talking about. Elizmr 01:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

HERE IS THE DIFF WHERE I TOOK IT OUT.

• AFTER: [10]
• BEOFRE: [11]
• and here's my edit summary, "rv unsourced material slanderous"

You owe me an apology. Please consider following Wikipedia policies and WP:AGF.

YOu also owe me an explanation for going around and reverting many of my recent edits, all of which were c/w wikipedia policy. Elizmr 01:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This is how the sentence looked after you edited it: "(Desmond Tutu) criticised human rights and abuses children." So, in effect, you're saying Tutu criticizes human rights and abuses children. I assumed good faith, but then had a glance at some of your other edits. Like... this one and this one and this, as well. The first two edits are quite obvious attempts at slander and POV editing. The third one is an unwarranted and motivated deletion (You don't want Hebron to look bad). It looks like you're engaging in image management more than anything.--Kitrus 01:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please look at the diffs. [[I removed vandalism about Tutu abusing children.]] If you think my edit pattern is consistent with that kind of vandalism you are mistaken.

I defend my edits. Baruch Goldstein is fully discussed in the Hebron article already, he was someone who did not act on behalf of anyone except himself. Israel has made the party he belonged to ILLEGAL in response to the violent act he perpetuated. (they did not make him into a hero for killing innocent people). Putting him on a list of notable people is just an attempt to make Jews look bad. My other edits are just insertion of sourced relevant material that you might happen to disagree with. That is not vandalism. Elizmr 01:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Although you have had an accusation of vandalism made against you, I feel (from my personal experience) that it is unwise to return the accusation. The community has several means for resolving disputes that may be much more useful for you and for the articles concerned. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I appreciate it. THanks. Elizmr 13:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] my comments

Thanks. I have added some comments there I hope it helps in healing this issue [12]. Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 23:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cole mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Juan Cole, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

[edit] Your revert on Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict article

Hi Elizmr, recently you reverted my revert to a title change to a subsection of the Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict article which I would like to discuss with you.

1. Your edit comment was "but ambulences were not hit; it was an incident manufactured for propaganda value". Unforunately, this isn't mentioned anywhere in the section in question. It may be true (and if so, should definately be mentioned, with appropriate citations in the section to maintain NPOV), but without it even being mentioned I don't see it as a meaningful reason for a revert.
2. There isn't any evidence in the section to show that the IDF denies hitting ambulances. It's entirely possible (and I would say likely) that such evidence exists, but without a statement or citation in the section supporting this, the renaming of the section seems unfounded to me.
3. This is one of five sub-sections with similar names:
   • Allegations on ambulances
   • Attacks on convoys and road network
   • Attacks on journalists and media
   • Attacks on homes
   • Attacks on Lebanese industry

It strikes me as odd to only label one sub-section with the term "allegations". At the end of the day, if we decide to call something an "allegation", regardless of the number of references cited and counter-points (or lack thereof), then anything and everything can be called an "allegation". Without at least some counter-points this seems like an extremely POV edit.

Rather than going through and adding the term "allegation" to every section and sub-section of this article (on both sides), and in the hopes of avoiding having to revert your revert and start a revert war, I'd ask that you please update the section with citations supporting your statement and the changing of the title. Thanks. George Saliba 02:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It will take me some time to dig up so please go ahead and revert my revert and I'll work on it. Thanks for your nice tone. Elizmr 02:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, wait, I just checked the article and there is information about the staging of the photos of the ambulence attack there. I've gotta say that I think the word "alleged" should be in there. Sorry to disagree. The edit summary words were not well chosen. I apologize. Elizmr 02:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Elizmr, thanks for pointing this out. My thought is that the title "Allegations of Attacks on Ambulances" is still less accurate than "Attacks on ambulances", given than only one of the five incidents listed it referred to is associated with the allegations of photo staging. In addition, at least according to the article linked to, the allegation was made by only one man based on his reading of a blog posting by someone using the pseudonym "Zombie", and was rebuked by both the Internation Red Cross and a reporter who actually inspected the ambulance and interviewed the driver the driver the next day. While I totally agree that this should be mentioned in the section (and I'm going to clean it up to make it more accurate), I do not agree that it warrants the name change, which strikes me as being more POV-oriented than the based on the actual content of the section. Thoughts? George Saliba 04:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

OK that makes sense. Elizmr 04:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sabeel

First, let me commend you for improving the wording on your most recent edit.

That said, I still think the link is inappropriate. If you want to cite Sabeel's support for diversement, a more neutral source could surely be found. CJCurrie 11:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this source is perfectly ok. Elizmr 11:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I continue to disagree. As against which, I should let you know that I don't plan on reverting any of the other changes you've made, up to and including your 11:01 edit. Your wording has been fair and neutral, and I have no objections to raise.

As a gesture of good faith, could you return the Steinitz quote now that I've provided the context? CJCurrie 11:07, 4

December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for providing the context, but I don't think that the cite defends Tutu from charges of antisemitism. It just says he will be remembered as a freedom fighter. I think it would be more appropriate in one of the other sections of the article entirely. It is a nice comment, but it doesn't support the point made in the first sentence in the paragraph.

Any why is the NGO monitor not a good cite? Elizmr 11:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC) It looks like they have done a nice summary and a Jpost article is cited there. The link is dead for the jpost article so it makes more sense to supply a link where the reader can get more information. Elizmr 11:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The monitor is a non-neutral source in the Israel-Palestine conflict. If we're simply asserting that Sabeel supports divestment, a neutral source shouldn't be too hard to find. Why aren't we just citing Sabeel's own website, which openly endorses divestment? CJCurrie 11:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You were doing fine until your 11:23 edit. "has been criticized for its anti-Israel stance" is strongly POV, and should be removed. CJCurrie 11:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Could I suggest, "Some have accused the group of being anti-Israel" instead? CJCurrie 11:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine. Coudld you correct your tone, by the way? Saying I am "doing fine" is a bit off. Elizmr 11:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• I hadn't intended "doing fine" as an insult, but I apologize if it came off as patronizing. I actually do appreciate most of your recent edits. CJCurrie 11:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Elizmr 11:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Could I please reiterate my request that you change the final part of the Sabeel paragraph? CJCurrie 11:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I really can't. You've taken everything you don't like to the footnotes of this article. I think this NGO monitor cite is no less neutral than the Sabeel cite itself and presents an important view of the organization. Why don't you make a good faith gesture and leave something in the article for a change?

I'm not talking about the external citation. I'm referring to my request that you change the last part of the paragraph to "Some have accused the group of being anti-Israel" (see above). CJCurrie 11:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I thought you had done that already. Elizmr 12:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mohammad Taghi Mesbah Yazdi

Dear Elizmr

Thank you for your comments. Please be advised that:

1. Issuing a Fatwa can be done by a mufti or Marja only, but he is none of them. 2. Returning back to the values of the 1979 Islamic Revolution: He was not seriously backing the mentioned revolution before it and after it until the end of life of Ayatollah Khomeini. In fact it is an election propaganda made by partisans of his party to show him being revolutionary clergy, but only after the revolution! His opinions about Islamic state is completely different with the ideas of Ayatollah Khomeini. please see religious democracy. 3. Mohsen Gharavian is correct not the name mentioned in the article. 4. Decisions about use of Nukes is not in the hands of the president in Iran but it is up to decisions of Supreme Leader who is commander-in-chief according to Iranian constitution.

I regret to say that the writer of this article is in political and religious bias.

Elizmr 5:30, 06 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mohammad_Taghi_Mesbah_Yazdi"

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Juan Cole. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] Your RFM

Should yourself and the other involved parties agree, I have decided to take the case. Could you please indicate your acceptance on the mediation page? Thanks Martinp23 18:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A moment of your time, please

Elizmr,

Apologies for showing up on your talk page out of the blue, but you frequently edit Iran and History of Iran, and a cursory glance through your edits and talk page shows you to be a good editor. So I ask a favor.

My knowledge of Iran (although better than most peoples', I like to think) isn't quite enough to confirm the veracity of this unreferenced stub article. Could you take a moment and have a look at it? A search for the subject's name produced no google hits, but that isn't uncommon for people with non-Roman alphabet names. Thank you kindly, A Train ^{take the} 00:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)