User talk:Elizmr/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Elizmr/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  gidonb 21:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Requested help

when i sign my name using four tildes, no date shows up

Hi, when you sign with three tildes, only your username will show up (and when you sign with five, only the date will show up). Hope this helps! — TheKMantalk 14:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Redirect

Your edit on Tajikistan: Jewish Community is not how to do an auto-redirect (its not see: its #REDIRECT). Just so you know for future, have a look at Wikipedia:Redirect. Thanks. Oh, I changed it for you :). --Skoorb 22:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I didn't know how to do it, but I will save this and if I have occassion to do it again will do it right! elizmr 22:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Nice article by the way. Don't hesitate to ask if you have any other questions. --Skoorb 22:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. A notice appeared saying "may require cleanup". What does this mean? elizmr 22:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It means that the editor who added the cleanup tag believes the article is in a rough state and needs to be "cleaned up". Sometimes the editor will make some remark in the edit summary or talk page as to why s/he thinks this. Anyway, I would leave the tag there for a while at least, as editors interested in working on articles that have been tagged as cleanup will be directed toward it, leading to improvements. On the other hand, if you work on it a while longer and don't feel the cleanup tag is justified, you can remove it in good conscience, as there is no indication of what is "dirty". I would recommend leaving a message on the article talk page first, to catch the eye of whomever may have left the tag, before removing the tag. --C S (Talk) 22:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I took it off before i saw this because there was no text on the "talk" page. could it have been added automatically because I made a mistake with the redirect? elizmr 22:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it. These tags aren't added unless someone does so. In any case, a cleanup tag would be inappropriate for redirect issues. A user, Grocer, is the one who added the tag. My guess is that the previous versions may have appeared more like rough drafts to him/her. Don't take this personally; remember it's not unusual for someone to create a rough draft of an article and then abandon it.
In addition, double redirects are disabled by the wiki software. So the pages that you created with the wrong titles should be deleted. The way to delete pages that you mistakenly create is to put the tag {{db-author}} on the page. This tag notifies administrators that the sole author of the page is requesting the page be deleted. This request will be generally honored unless the page looks to be valuable content (obviously not in this case). Using {{db | reason}} where "reason" is replaced by your reason for requesting a speedy deletion, will alert an administrator that the page should be speedily deleted. Of course, the reason should satisfy the criteria for speedy deletion. --C S (Talk) 03:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, sorry about that. Looks like it turned out to be a good article! --Grocer 03:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
No problem Grocer, it helps new users like me if you add something to the edit summary before you save your version so we can figure out what happened. elizmr 14:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] need help writing current events page

I want to turn an article I wrote into a current event and can't figure out how to do it. elizmr 23:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Read the criteria here: Template_talk:In_the_news and if it meets the criteria add it to the Wikipedia:In_the_news_section_on_the_Main_Page/Candidates page. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 00:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hi Elizabeth ! I just stumbled upon your userpage and found it interesting, especially the about me section where you have nicely described your connection to several countries.Dushanbe synagogue was an interesting read.Bye.--Dwaipayanc 09:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dwaipayanc ! I got the idea for describing my connection to several countries from other users---see the bottom of the flag section for the original "authors". It was fun in any case to play around with the images of the flags. You have a really interesting user page. Watch out--I might adapt some of your ideas as well, but I'll be sure to give credit where credit is due! REgards, Elizabeth elizmr 17:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi!The ideas described in my page are hardly mine,except maybe one or two.Anyway,as you might have seen in my user page, I am working in the department of Neurology in Calcutta Medical College, though I'm intersted in Internal Medicine as a whole!What's your specialty?And where do you live?I see you are an alumnus of both Cornell and Columbia university!Bye!!--Dwaipayanc 18:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I am an internist and nutritionist working in the boston area. I went to cornell for medical school, and (speaking of neurology) got to see fred plum in action during my time there. If you are ever in the area for a conference, drop me a line! elizmr 18:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Please see the article Gastric lymphoma that was recently started by me and greatly edited by Samir and it was featured on the Did You Know section on the main page.Please also visit Local gigantism.Bye!--Dwaipayanc 13:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts are minor

According to Jayjg, all reverts are minor --Irishpunktom\talk 15:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

fair enough.

I was basing my remark on the following: Wikipedia:Minor edit which states: "Whether to use this flag is somewhat a matter of personal preference. The rule of thumb is that an edit which is confined to spelling corrections, minor formatting, and minor rearrangement of text should be flagged as a "minor edit."..."Any "real" change, even if it is a single word, is a major edit." and "Reverts to a disputed page are unlikely to be minor". Of note, the MEMRI page is disputed. The Wikipedia page states that, "Marking a real change as a minor edit is considered bad behavior, and even more so if it involves the deletion of some text"

elizmr 15:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom is presenting a simplified view of a more complex issue. When an admin reverts an edit, the edit is marked "minor" by default; thus, one could say that reverts are minor by default. However, one could also argue that the revert button should only be used for cases of obvious vandalism and similar, and reversion of vandalism is a minor edit. So, it's a bit of a chicken and egg issue. Jayjg (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I would echo Jayjg's comments by saying that reverts should only be considered "minor" when reverting vandalism or some formatting issue, or something that basically no one can really dispute. Wikipedia:Minor edit is a good page and I would recommend following its suggestions. Remember, when in doubt, don't mark as "minor"! --C S (Talk) 18:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Could you guys take a moment to update Irishpunktom on marking edits as minor and commenting/discussing reverts? It looks like he is an administrator (so should know how things are supposed to be done), but he reverted me without good reason or appropriate comment and then marked as a minor edit. He didn't respond to a couple of requests to explain the reasons for his revert on his talk page; he did reply to my note that the revert should not have been marked "minor" to say that "all reverts are minor". Hard to assume good faith here. elizmr 18:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Irishpunktom is not an administrator, and he should indeed be commenting on his reverts, ideally on the Talk: page before making them. Also, his continued marking of reverts as "minor" is dubious at best. Jayjg (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


It doesn't look like Irishpunktom is an admin. See [1], which lists his user group as "user", not "admin". I'm not an admin either, BTW, although Jayjg is. It doesn't appear to me that his response justifies his actions. I would say that if he is unwilling to discuss his reasons for his revert on the talk page, feel free to revert him right back. Anybody doing a revert should be fully willing to explain and defend it; it comes with the territory, so to speak.
In general though, re-reverting should be taken as a serious step. So I would advise that before you do so, you explain what's good about your edits on the talk page of the article and ask others to comment on Irishpunktom's revert. It's better usually to take these matters to the talk page, especially if there are many other editors, rather than taking it to the user's talk page. That way if the user is unresponsive, you can at least get an idea of what the other editors think, build some consensus, and feel confident in re-reverting. I commend you on your caution, but if it turns out you have consensus support, you can be bold in reverting; those going against consensus have the burden of proof. --C S (Talk) 22:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Here's an occasion to say hi

Hi Elizmr and welcome to the project. You just joined but I am already impressed by high quality of your contributions and I find your demeanor exemplary. Hope to learn that one day... Meanwhile, I think "affiliation" is more NPOV term than "bias". OTOH, "Controversy" (currently misspelled) does not reflect that most - if not all - of the allegations were unjustified. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

Thanks for pointing that out, but it wasn't intentional. I suspect it was actually due to some kind of WP technical glitch from our edits coming so close together. I wasn't working on that part of the opening at the time. --Lee Hunter 17:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! take care. elizmr 17:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Need help. Page dissappeared!

The talk page attatched to Dushanbe synagogue has disappeared. I might have done this since I was trying to write something there. If I did this, I did not mean to. Please help!!! elizmr 18:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me Talk:Dushanbe synagogue, perhaps a temporary problem. --pgk(talk) 18:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks. elizmr 18:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MEMRI

Elizmr, every single edit by any editor requires some degree of judgement as to whether it is relevant or not. The fact that a public servant served under one administration or another is irrelevant with respect to his or her party affiliation. In other words, when government changes they don't fire all the public servants who were hired by the previous administration (with the possible exception of a few top level advisors). It is especially irrelevant in the case of Israel where governments, more often than not, are built on coalitions.

Comments on the talk page do not have to be NPOV. It's a discussion not an encyclopedia article. --Lee Hunter 13:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

reply to LeeHunter: 1) Of course I understand that comments on the talk pages do not have to be NPOV. I am making a different point. I must not have made it very effectively. Let me try again. Your comments on the talk page indicate that you have a strong strong POV on this issue. Because of your strong POV, your bias is likely to inform what you find relevant or irrelevant. It is natural. Because of this I am asking you not to take out stuff that you don't find "relevant" if it is something you haven't personally put in.

2) About the text on the main page itself, I totally accept that you find the comment about serving on two governments irrelevant, however I disagree and others disagree as well. In the context of Cole accusing Carmon of being a Likud mouthpiece, it is relevant that he served on various governments. It is accurate as a piece of info. It deserves to be there.

3) I see from your user page that you are a technical writer. I also have been an editor of a peer reviewed journal in the past. I think our professional roles can inform the way we "work" on Wiki, but Wiki is a whole different animal. It is a collaboration and not a situation where one has been hired personally to write something or fix something. We are supposed to be airing all POV on the main pages in a neutral NPOV way. I am trying to work in that spirit. If you think this is not the point of Wikipedia, I certainly stand to be corrected. elizmr 14:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether I have a POV or not doesn't change the absolute and indisputable fact that public servants are always serving governments that may or not reflect their personal beliefs. You can certainly, in another part of the article, write that Carmon served various governments but to insert it into a section where his affiliation is in question, as if this stray fact proves some kind of point is entirely inappropriate and I will certainly remove it. We're here to edit. Removing information where it doesn't fit is part of the job. --Lee Hunter 15:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
LeeHunter--Why not add something to that effect to the sentence rather than taking out the sentence? Some do consider it relevant. In the spirit of collaboration, it should stay. elizmr 15:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not you "consider it relevant" doesn't change the absolute and indisputable fact that public servants in democratic societies normally serve governments that may or not reflect their personal affiliation. The onus is on you to explain why it is relevant, not just say "oh I think it's relevant so it has to be in the article". I have explained myself over and over. I'm still waiting for you to respond. --Lee Hunter 15:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Lee, I think you are taking a very antagonistic tone. I brought this to your talk page, originally, because I observed you to be taking stuff on the basis of "relevancy". I wanted to raise the issue that you might be allowing your strong and stated POV inform your judgements as to what may be or may not be "relevant". This was not appropriate for the article discussion page. Please see the article talk page, where I have already outlined my position on this point of content. elizmr 15:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately you have not addressed my point on the talk page. Public servants in any given democracy can have a wide range of political beliefs - there is a near-total disconnect between their affiliation and whatever party happens to be in power. If you believe this to be true (and I can't see how you could possibly argue otherwise) there is absolutely no reason to talk about how Carmon serving various administrations. It has no bearing on what his affiliation was at the time of his service, and certainly not, on what his affiliation is today. --Lee Hunter 17:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Lee, I have discussed on talk. Please take this to MEMRI talk if you want to discuss content as I am not the only party who disagrees with you on this. OK? And I have to say I find your tone bullying. Please consider taking it down a notch. OK? elizmr 17:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MEMRI

Hello Elizabeth, It looks as though our edits overlapped as I didn't actively change any of the wikilinks. I was cleaning up the HTML and replacing it with wiki, fixing the Arabic and Hebrew script and correcting the spelling. BTW "commenting out" is when you use <!-- TEXT --> to stop text being displayed in an article. The term you were looking for is "edit summary". The alternative to the convenient edit summary "copyedit" would have been to have described each of these changes and I probably wouldn't have been able to get them into the box! --Ian Pitchford 17:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, BTW you can avoid making multiple minor edits by using the "preview" button. --Ian Pitchford 18:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
It's best if you can avoid maling multiple copies of the article in the database, especially when the changes are so minor, but of course it's up to you. --Ian Pitchford 18:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, of course. Please accept my apologies for barging in. I didn't mean to imply any criticism of your judgement. --Ian Pitchford 18:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

The RFC is about the article and specifically addresses the editing conflict itself, not the behaviour of any particular editor (there is a different kind of RFC which is used for complaints about editors) --Lee Hunter 21:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elizmr's Crusade to Protect MEMRI

I can't help but notice how effectively Elizmr is bullying the participants he doesn't agree with on the MEMRI talk page in order to become the gatekeeper of the article. I think it is against the consensus principles of Wikipedia and I also think it reflects negatively on the professionalism of Elizmr. --64.230.127.189 00:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC) (User:Bhouston)

There is a lot to respond to here.
1) I am not on a "crusade" to "protect MEMRI". I am trying to improve the article.
2) I am shocked to be accused of "bullying" and feel this is a personal attack. I would ask Bhouston to provide examples of any bullying behavior that he thinks I have exhibited.
3) I am not ignoring consensus. Please note that I have not deleted ANYTHING that anyone else put in the article. I have moved some stuff around to enhance clarity. I have clearly noted everything that I am doing on the talk page and have always asked for comment.
elizmr 00:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I tried discussing things with you and you could only response in hyperbolic fashion by claiming that I was trying to portray MEMRI as a "Zionist Conspiracy" (your words which in turn imply anti-Semitism.) I did not have bad intent but was trying to be accurate. Although your tactics did get me to give up on the article. You are also engaging in a practical filibuster on the talk page. During this time, the MEMRI article has actually significantly decreased in quality since you have started to edit it -- the criticism section in particular is almost unreadable now and focuses primary on the critics that are easiest to discredit / dismiss (I guess you have read about the inoculation method of persuasion [2], so I have.) Be sure to respond to me with 8 paragraphs of claims that in effect don't actually address my points and move on quickly to hide the fact that you do not seek consensus but rather domination and gatekeeping. How many non pro-MEMRI talk page participants have stoped contributing to that page since you joined that discussion. That said, I am also writing this on your talk page to expose your behavior to others that have to deal with you. --64.230.127.189 00:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC) (User:Bhouston)
B--This is really harsh. I have never said that anyone was trying to portray MEMRI as a Zionist conspiracy or that you had bad intent. Could you please please quote me directly if you are going to make that kind of accusation???
I am sorry if you find my comments on the talk page too long. Wiki asks people to use the talk pages to discuss, especially with polarized topics. I am doing that. I think it is preferable to just deleting what one doesn't like.
I am sorry you find my edits have made the article "unreadable". I worked hard on them and thought they were improvements. I added more actual text for criticisms that were published in sources which are considered more citable according to Wiki guidelines.
elizmr 00:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
(note: BHouston edited his note to me AFTER I replied to it. elizmr 01:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC))
COUNTER NOTE: the history of this talk page clearly shows that I didn't edit my reply after you replied to it unless you are talking completely out of context. But whatever, I'm out of here. --64.230.127.189 03:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
RESPONSES TO BHOUSTON PASTED FROM THE MEMRI TALK PAGE
Bhouston, I read through this page and did not find your statement representative of any discussions that were held here. As a project we gain by users who have or develop expertise in a certain topic and participate in discussions on its talk page(s), as long as they adher to Wikipedia's rules. I would like to refer you to our policies WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. gidonb 03:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Although I'm usually on the opposite side of the fence from Elizmr, I've never felt bullied in any way, shape or form. Maybe other users, on occasion, but certainly not Elizmr. --Lee Hunter 03:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
As if there were not enough, here is another voice in support of her model attitude. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
elizmr 11:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Just in case you guys didn't look at her talk page, Bhuston's abuse has gotten worse:
I tried discussing things with you and you could only response in hyperbolic fashion by claiming that I was trying to portray MEMRI as a "Zionist Conspiracy"...snip because the original is above...That said, I am also writing this on your talk page to expose your behavior to others that have to deal with you. --64.230.127.189 00:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC) (User:Bhouston)
His link is to an article on the N Korean methods of brainwashing! Is this guy for real? This junk is posted on her talk page with the explicit intent of poisoning anybody else who edits with her. I'm so disgusted by his attempt at character assassination that I think it calls for some kind of official sanction. I honestly thought I could help get this controversial article to a state where the POV tag could come off it. I know now that it is a lost cause, because if someone like Elizmr, who has always been amazingly polite, always assumed good faith, and always discussed her edits -what's supposed to be model wikipedian behaviour- has to take this kind of abuse -I just can't see how controversial topics like this will ever leave the icy grip of the axe-grinders (include me if you like -I'm sure some will). I was just about to post a bit of praise for Elizmr's recent series of edits as a much-needed global fix-up of the article because, as Lee and I have descended into arm-wrestling over single words and sentences, the article as a whole has gotten sloppy -but I didn't. Why? because by now I've become afraid that my "support" would discredit her. That's how poisonous I think things have got in here and I don't know how to fix it.
Anyway, at the very least, I'd appeal to the users who posted above, and anyone else who reads this, to check out this page: Defend Each Other and repeat your comments on her talk page to support her. ::::::Armon 13:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
(note: above pasted by me onto my talk page from the MEMRI talk page)elizmr 18:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MEMRI page (from Ronabop's talk page)

Hi Ronabop, thanks for coming to edit on the MEMRI page. The talk page on that article is overlong, so I am commenting here for clarity. I noticed that you added a sentence of criticism in the top section. It was an editorial consensus that we keep the top section free of criticism and move all the contraversial stuff to its own section. If we add that Le Monde etc have publihsed critical articles on MEMRI to the top section, then people will want to add that others have supported the org, etc, and the section gets overlong. Just letting you know why people have gone and deleted what you have added since I know that can be really frustrating. elizmr 15:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Er, what? My *only* two edits to the actual MEMRI article fixed a broken wikilink, and my only two edits to the talk page were towards the bottom, after the RFC started... perhaps you have my user ID mistaken or something? Have you edited for content, changing the wikilink? I just didn't want a broken link, I was trying to stay out of editing the live page because of content disputes. :-) Ronabop 09:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
It must have been an error then, please forgive it. elizmr 11:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reversion in I/A

I am unclear why you moved the comment. More in a sec. Lokiloki 11:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You will note that the "Arab views" include multiple counterpoints from Israeli perspectives directly in each individual "Arab views" section. It is appropriate, therefore, to also include counterpoints to Israeli assertions in each of those, from Arab perspectives. Since each side has different primary views, it is important to present the opposing side arguments in their immediate vicinity. Thanks... Lokiloki 11:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lokiloki--

You took something out from "Arab Views" previously because it was counterpointing there. You had said, "Such counterpointing rarely occurs in the "Israeli views" section". This change of yours was adding counterpointing in the Israeli section. It is totally fine and commendable to try to eliminate over counterpointing; I would just request that you apply an even hand to both sections.

I put the nicely cited little section your wrote it in the corresponding section "Arab views". If you would like to put it back, please go ahead. It will lead to more counterpointing about how Jews have been treated in Arab countries.
By the way, I did not revert. "Reverting" on Wikipedia is taking a page back to a previous version. It is really intended for vandalism.
Please take care, elizmr 11:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe I claimed you reverted, rather that you moved the data. Can you show me where I moved something from the Arab views section to the Israeli view section due to over-counterpointing? Thanks, Lokiloki 11:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Lok, I thought your title to this section on my user page, titled "Reversion in I/A" implied that there had been, well, a "Reversion".
If you want me to go back and find the exact thing you moved I will, but I've gotta go right now. Please see above or your user page for the discussion we had at the time you did that and the discussion we had at that time to jog your memory in the meantime. hou ba???
Sorry, the subtitle just meant that I had reverted back to the earlier version that included the original placement of the data. // Okay, I checked my talk page... I removed a sentence (which has been restored by tasc, so it is sorta irrelevant now anyway) because that same sentence had been stated about 3 different times in other places (the "live in peace" one). I do not necessarily disagree with counterpointing, but continual repetition of the same points over and over is somewhat tiresome and redundant. I don't think that the facts that I presented (and which you moved) had been presented elsewhere. Thanks, Lokiloki 12:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I understand and commend your efforts to combat redundancy, however earlier you had said you took something out because you felt that there was more counterpointing in one section than another and you were evening things out. All I am asking you to do is to apply the same standards to things with your point of view and things with someone else's point of view.
(The "live in peace" thing is a crux and almost universally ignored issue, by the way, and this is probably why people have felt it bears repeating in a few places). OK, I really have to go now. elizmr 12:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
If it "almost universally ignored", how is it the crux of the conflict? I would probably say that the crux of the issue is the sheer physical impossibility of suddenly moving millions of Palestinians into Israel. I think there are very, very few people who really believe that the right of return will ever occur in any significant numbers. The "live in peace" thing is obviously a component, and should be refenced, but it surely isn't the crux. Lokiloki 22:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lok, good to hear from you again. Of course crux issues can be universally ignored---if they weren't there woudn't be so many problems in the world! Although of course I share your concern that the population density of Israel is such that moving millions of Palestinians in is not going to be a physical possibility, I do not think that this is the crux of the issue since there's no historical perspective there.

Here's my take: The right of return was granted to the Palestinians by the UN, but not in the unqualified way that it is presented today. The UN General Assembly Resolution 194, Article 11 resolves that:

[The] refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.

I think there are two crux issues here. One is the condition for returning home is a "desire to live at peace with their neighbors". It seems very one sided for Palestinians to insist on the right of return to Israel BASED ON THIS RESOLUTION and at the same time to elect a leadership (including Abu Mazen/Mahmood Abbas if you read things he's actually written and said) to clearly state an intent to destroy Israel IE--A DENIAL OF THIS RESOLUTION.

In addition, the document refers to "refugees" created by the conflict (not just the Palestinian ones) and calls for compensation for those choosing not to return. It seems quite one sided for the Arab world to fixate on the issue of the Palestian refugees, their right of return and their treatment, and their compensation while ignoring the parallel rights of the Jewish refugees from Arab lands AND also ignoring their own role in the creation of the problem.

I don't blame the Palestinian people AT ALL because I'm not sure how much access to information they have and I believe that they have been fed a consciously edited version of history. I know that they have not really had good choices in leadership and have not had the opporunity to be all that well-informed of what their leadership stands for (not too dissimilar to our election choices in the US perhaps...). I do blame the leadership of the Palestian Authority and the Arab World who should take responsibility for their actions and their consequences rather than shifting the blame totally to the Israeli side. elizmr 23:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The Jews who left the Arab countries did so for a variety of reasons: some were refugees, some left voluntarily, etc. It is inexact and POV to describe them as "Jewish refugees" as though the entire populations of the Arab countries were forcibly evicted as the Palestinians were. They weren't.
Whatever the reason, the current situation on the ground is that the Jews from Arab lands are living in good conditions in Israel and other countries. The Palestinians are living in refugee camps that have roundly been criticized as very bad.
As well, the UN resolutions are to resolve the issue of the Palestinian refugees. It is not "one-sided" to fixate on this UN resolution, as there are no comparable UN resolutions for the other way, not least because many Jews were not refugees, not least because the current situation is that the Palestinians are living in squalor, and not least because UN Resolution 194 exclusively deals with Palestine and "Palestine refugees" and there are no comparable resolutions dealing with Jews leaving Arab lands.
If you feel that the issue of Arab compensation to Jews is a primary or crux issue, please provide some references to this. The only "references" that I have seen are non-cited assertions in the articles. I have seen no outside links to any verifiable or reputable sources (or even unreputable sources) that this is really considered a major and serious issue, even within Israel itself. You might consider that THAT is the reason why you rarely hear about this (except on Wikipedia). Do you have sources?
Thanks, Lokiloki 23:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, it is pure revisionism to suggest that UN 194 refers to Jewish refugees. I encourage you to read more widely on this issue. 194 refers to the Palestine situation, and refugees therein, and mentions "Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees". 194 does not refer to other Arab lands or Jews from those lands. Subsequent UN resolutions have indicated that 194 refers to "Palestine refugees". 194 is directly, immediately, and exclusively concerned with Palestine. I'm sorry, but to suggest that 194 also refers to Jewish refugees or other Arab lands is wildly incorrect and not based on any fact. Please research this topic more fully. Thanks, Lokiloki 23:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


My point is this: I have documented everything I have discussed with fact. Please do so likewise. It is one thing to talk about "Jewish refugees" and use that term to describe entire populations of Jews in Morocco and every other Arab country. It is another to provide CITATIONS to support such an extraordinary claim. Given the seriousness and controvery of the topic at hand, PLEASE provide references rather than just making assertions or doing your own original research. Lokiloki 00:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


Lok--Please understand that I was not doing edits on an article here, I was just conversing on a talk page, MY talk page in fact (ie--not even the article talk page). You asked me why I considered this a crux issue and I told you. You disagree with me. Fine. No problem. Disagreement is ok. Disagreement is good.
Your tone, however, is very not ok. I have to tell you that you are coming off to me as beligerent (even though you probably don't intend to do so). There is no need to demand references if I am not putting this material in an article. If I were putting it in an article I would surely provide them. There is especially no need to disparage my fund of knowledge, or to order me to "research more fully" or suggest that my take on the issues is a pile of crap. There is no need to end your note with a dismissive "thanks".
If you want to convince others that you are the repository of all perfect knowledge on this topic, then it might help if you posted a list of your published papers in the area and your other credentials on your user page. If you do not have such credentials (and even, actually, if you do), it would pay to be nice and to realize that we are working together on this project. We are all bringing what we bring to it. Right now, I am asking you nicely to take your thoughts and discussions on this topic back to the Arab Israeli Conflict page. OK? I realize that it is an important serious topic, but I am not of a mind right now to continue this discussion. elizmr 00:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem... Btw, the "thanks" sign-off is (was) my newly minted standard sign-off, but I guess I shall just revert to plain old... Lokiloki 00:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal membership

Membership is informal; just add your name to the Portal:Judaism/Information! Neutralitytalk 22:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

Statements about article content are not personal attacks. If I say that you have mangled or misquoted Barakat it is not a personal attack. I'm sorry that you have taken it personally, but really that is your own issue, not mine. I don't see that I've been out of line, but if you feel otherwise, by all means, take it to an RFC. And you still haven't answered my point, that the quote in the article is not even Barakat's. That was one of his main complaints about MEMRI, that they had attributed those words to him. Now you've done the same thing again. --Lee Hunter 20:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

(note: I replied to Lee about the personal attacks on his user page. I took his content remarks to where they belong, the MEMRI article talk page)elizmr 21:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hi

hello, i noticed that you're a physician. can you tell me if women have an extra muscle in the upper arm ? because the shape is different from that of men. thanks. Unixer 14:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dog image

Thank you very much for the photograph of your dog, who is delightful! The only reason I removed it, in case you're wondering, is that it was very large, but I'm going to go back later and shrink it a little, then restore it to the page. So thank you again. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)