User talk:Emmanuelm/archives1

Israel, Palestine and the United Nations
I think a better title would be United Nations and the Arab-Israeli conflict (similar to Soviet Union and the Arab-Israeli conflict, etc.) As you know, Palestine means different things to different people, and this term is especially ambiguous in the UN context. I will read the article later - sorry, I am short on time these days. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Humus, I like your idea. I am only starting to digest the NOR and NPOV policies at Wikipedia and need to rewrite the whole thing again, so a blank page would be best. Emmanuelm 13:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Emmanuelm, I left this msg on the current article Talk: I should have mentioned this before. WP Policy asks that you not put drafts into the main article space. Instead, I suggest you create a subpage, e.g. of your user page, while working on the draft. The draft page can then be deleted (you can ask for a speedy delete). Better to do this yourself than let the mere existence of the draft become an issue. Thanks. HG | Talk 13:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've done some changes to section the early years of the article. Since this is your page you are at liberty to do what you like with them.
 * Wow, NPOV all over! I've been scolded by others for this sin, I will not refrain from doing so to you! Thanks for your interest, but please wait until I post this article in the open. In intend to do it by replacing the current article bit by bit.Emmanuelm 20:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any listing or reference to all the UN resolutions that have condemned Israel for human rights abuses and aggression on its neighbours. It might be worth putting these into templates and linking them from the text (otherwise they'd over-power the narrative). PRtalk(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 20:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right. I'll take care of that. Emmanuelm 20:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I can see serious flaws in the article as it stands eg "The idea of a Jewish state in Palestine received its first international support within the 1922 text of the creation of the British mandate of Palestine by the League of nations". The idea of a "Jewish state" never received any international support (that I'm aware of) until 1947. Certainly not from the British, who made it very clear that there'd be no "state as Jewish as England was English", and by 1939 realised that the immigration was disastrous and must stop. (I'm sorry to hear that the behaviour of Israel had such a disastrous effect on your life in your native land). PRtalk 19:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This comment pasted and answered in Talk:Israel, Palestine and the United Nations. Emmanuelm 17:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Why the blanket revert of a couple of hours of my work? I'm glad that you found some if it "interesting" Dont you think it's a little bit rude to just blanket revert the whole lot? 83.245.19.149 05:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear 83.245.19.149, I see you knew exactly how to recover your work and re-introduce it in the article. I suspect you are not new to Wikipedia, only sneaky. And, on the subject of rudeness, there is nothing more rude than anonymous edits. See you at the article. Emmanuelm 19:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Pathology
Hey. I only just noted that you were editing again! Welcome back etc etc. I see you are spending more time in a topic I'm trying to avoid with all my might (Israel/Palestinians). Will you be gracing pathology articles with your presence? Are you approachable for pathology-related questions? JFW | T@lk  22:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello JF, I find the conflict in Palestine more challenging -- there are no serious controversies are left in Pathology! I keep all the pathology pages on my watchlist but I'll let others do the hard work. One interesting new project is the List of cancer types. This could provide the first detailed answer to "how many different cancers are there?", a question often asked by junior Pathology and Oncology residents. I will probably contribute to this page later this year. Emmanuelm 12:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me to the Pathology Group. I am a retired general pathologist who still gives a few lectures and maintains an interest in a strange infection which occurs in the area where I worked - the "Bairnsdale" or "Buruli Ulcer" - Mycobacterium ulcerans infection. I have added my name to the user list - please check that I have done this correctly. I have a lifetime collection of slides (as do many retired pathologists) and would like them to find a home before I go, as I know once I am gone they will go straight into the Trash. I am slowly sorting slides, putting them into Commons, and then adding these to relevant articles. Please monitor my contributions and advise as to whether they are appropriate.(Recent addition was to Diverticulum)

I would like to see a section on Pathology History John Hayman
 * Your welcomed John. About history, the Pathology already has a paragraph about this. You may want to read it and start from there. Be bold!. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Distorted map of Palestine
Thanks for your note about Image:UN-Partition Plan For Palestine 1947.png. As you say the current version is a distorted misrepresentation and it's not the version I uploaded, which was a correct piece of the University of Texas image. I'll see if I still have the version I originally produced from that and then compare it to the current one and give my view on whether it's better to change the links or upload a replacement image. Jamesday 16:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Re. Deletion of Image:Cancer vs crab.jpg
I created this image in Aug 2006 to illustrate why Hippocrates used the word "crab" to describe cancer. I never saw a similar image before but all anatomical pathologists know what he meant. I thought this would be a cool contribution to Wikipedia. I specifically chose a Flickr image of a crab because this allowed me to inform the author via a comment to the picture. He never answered; I took this as consent. It was, however, not enough to the WP copyright police. User:Cecil deleted the image today.

I am disgusted by their attitude. I tried to contribute useful content to WP and my work was tossed like dirt over a technicality. Did they create a new image to replace this one? Did they warn me of this deletion in this page? Of course not. They do not really care about WP's content or usefulness. They are nothing but delete robots. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Copyright violations are no useful contributions, never and under no circumstances. If you think so, please refrain from ever contributing at Commons again. The author at flickr explicitly states "All rights reserved". That was his answer even before you took his work and selected a licence of your liking. He licenced it under a licence where you were not allowed to act like you did. -- CecilK (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * CecilK, I admire the level of certainty you have attained in your beliefs. We simple mortals are filled with doubts. Our hesitations, imperfect knowledge and idiotic assumptions lead us to commit childish errors. O, the unattainable perfection of WP editors! Emmanuelm (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note
Interesting article, thanks for your note. Jayjg (talk) 03:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Neoplasia and Tumor
I agree with you that content overlap is not a good thing. However, in this case I think the overlap should be addressed by going in the other direction: remove text from Cancer and merge it into Neoplasia and Tumor (and other articles;  Cancer is really bloated). Another editor has reverted your edits to Neoplasia and I am about to do the same to Tumor, unless someone else does it first. --Una Smith (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's discuss this here. --Una Smith (talk) 03:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Maabarah children.jpg
I tagged this image has having no source, which is a serious problem because sourcing is required to make a fair dealing claim in many countries. A notice was added everywhere this image was used to attract attention to this problem. The original uploader, Humus sapiens, was notified. Humus sapiens added the source information two days later, so no harm done. Merry Christmas! —Remember the dot (talk) 04:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

User Eleland
a nasty piece of work needs to be brought down by a concerted effort of all those his supercilious edits have harrmed124.191.88.235 (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you mean. I have lots of respect for Eleland. Our current argument at Talk:Israel, Palestinians and the United Nations is constructive and I think the article will be improved by it. Oh, and please register. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Morgellons images

 * See here . I would be very interested to hear your take on these images. There is some rebuttal here  Herd of Swine (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Pasted & answered there. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Nodular fasciitis
Emmanuelm, I ran across this article stub on Nodular fasciitis during an assessment run. It's in pretty bad shape, and it struck me that you'd probably know the information off the top of your head. If you aren't busy with other things, would you consider taking a look at it? Also, I don't know what makes sense for the importance parameter, so if you have an opinion, I'd be happy to see that field filled in. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No Duplication
I think the proposal of no duplication is dead. Personally, I think this is because Wikipedia is about quantity rather than quality, and that Wikipedia is for the amusement of the editors and is not for people to read. To prevent a Wikipedia collapse, order must eventually be brought to the chaos. As such, there could be value in the writing of an essay (an article) on the virtue of non-duplication and how order is better than chaos. Someday someone may find it of interest. It could possibly become an unofficial policy of a workgroup. BradMajors (talk) 06:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. I think the issue here is freedom, including freedom to write unreadable articles. I've decided to give up for now. Thanks for the support, it was fun while it lasted. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Microphotos
Hi Emmanuel. Are you normally in the business of uploading microphotos of pathology slides? I am looking for images for two of my recent articles (rhabdomyolysis and Henoch-Schönlein purpura) but I have no idea if there are any PD/GFDL pathology images available anywhere on the web. JFW | T@lk  06:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't help with rhabdomyolysis (no one ever biopsies it). I'll see what I have for HSP. Emmanuelm (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Emmanuelm (talk) 16:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely brilliant! I hope you realise that I will be making similar requests in the future... JFW | T@lk  22:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Colon Cancer
Hi Emmanuel. I have seen the picture of cancerous colon that you've uploaded. It's pretty amazing and scary. Could you tell me at what progression stage is the cancer. Is it a T4?Logitech999 (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, T3, the most common stage at the time of resection. T4 means another organ has to be removed with the colon (bladder, uterus, muscle, etc). I wish you well, and tell everyone to eat their veggies. Emmanuelm (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

where is the tumor?
Hi Emmanuel, (I luv that name btw). In this pic that u loaded: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bone_metastasis.jpg ; what part is the tumor? The bump on top? Or the white in the lower middle btwn the 2 blood spots? Thx. 70.108.92.126 (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Its at the center of the photo, the whitish blob with the bloody middle. The blood at the bottom is normal bone marrow, the rounded top is the normal cartilage at the end of the bone. Keep asking questions! Emmanuelm (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

For some reason I feel like the pic is of the head & not of an arm. Does it look like that 2 u? Ok so the tumour is right in the ctr btwn the 2 blood spoots. Since its metastasized I thought it would look big. U know when 1 bumps their body and a bump protrudes?; that is what I expected. Does this tumor not look big b\c 1/2 of it is cut away for this pic? Thx. 70.108.92.126 (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with chatspeak, so I did not understand all you wrote. This tumor is about the size of a small plum. As cancer goes, this is big. The patient wanted the humerus, and hence the whole arm, removed because of excrutiating pain; all other treatment options were tried and failed. Does this make it clearer? Emmanuelm (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You support Israeli and Palestinian states? Good. Now for the hard part.
Emmanuelm, you strike me as a good, clever person - really. So I am very interested to hear your position on what the final settlement will need to look like regarding (a) Jerusalem (control of the Old City in particular), and (b) Palestinian Refugees (water, borders, and airspace aside). If you don't have a good answer to both of these questions, then I think you will agree that there is no point even mentioning the abstract notion of a (already declared, though not formally recognized [by the important states]) Palestinian State. Please, please, please don't respond that both of these issues will need to be discussed/agreed upon later.

Sorry that my response to your initial question is indirect, but I am far more interested in discussing the issues, than myself. I hope you will be too. ElPax (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * ElPax, you start with you strike me as a good, clever person. You got this from my user page. You strike me as a secretive person. I got this from your user page (blank, as of today).
 * As for your question about Palestine, the answer is not hard at all, it is very simple. So far, Israel signed two peace treaties with two previous Arab enemies. Both treaties are so far unviolated, a truly remarkable achievement that is not discussed enough. Two conclusions emerge from this. First, both Jews and Arabs are indeed capable of achieving peace in Palestine. Second, peace treaties must be negotiated between two parties, no external pressure, no US, no EU, no UN, no quartet, no Arab league, no OIC, no journalists, just two governments who understand that enough is enough.
 * Unfortunately, the Palestinian people is used by the Arab league as a political peon and will not be given that opportunity any time soon. That's my personal opinion, posted in my user page. Please write yours, and please write it in your user page for all to read. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Greater Israel map.jpg
This debate was moved to the talk page of the map, at Image talk:Greater Israel map.jpg.

Courreges ZOOOP
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Courreges ZOOOP, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.gizmag.com/go/5844. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Cancer
Thanks for uploading those macroscopic specimen images. Before I do anything, could I have your opinion on moving them down a bit? Firstly, the page now has lots of images at the top and none at the remainder. Secondly, some of them may be a bit hard to stomach for laypeople who are just having a slice of pizza while looking up Uncle George's newly diagnosed disease (particularly the mastectomy sample!) Yes, I know Wikipedia is not censored... JFW | T@lk  18:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I like to put all the images at the top of an article for visual impact, but I agree it may be too much for some. Go ahead, move them around. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I just followed your link to the cancer article and was floored by the ductal breast carcinoma. I work in the pathology dept of a large metropolitan hospital and when I see things such as that it never ceases to amaze me that people walk around like that for so long...I mean really, it didn't pop out overnight. We had a penis not too long ago, completely black with cancer. Do you find that these people are generally insane? Are you the surgeon or the grossing PA? Just curious. Love your pics!Kalokairi1018 (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)kalokairi1018


 * I'm the pathologist. As for what goes on in peoples mind as their tumor grows, one could write a book about it. In brief, a slow-growing tumor is often ignored because our memory is short. Emmanuelm (talk) 01:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Indoor bonsai/lead
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Indoor bonsai/lead, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? ninety:one 13:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not a bot :p! the reason it was submitted was because we don't transduce sections of articles. if you understand why i'm doing it, i will re-add it for deletion. any questions, ask away ninety:one 14:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ninetyone, you are wrong. Read my new section in Transclusion about transcluding parts of article, then discuss it in that talk page. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * don't be so confrontational please :) even if i was totally wrong, it's not very civil to say so like that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Subpages#Articles_do_not_have_sub-pages_.28main_namespace.29


 * very nice, but i'm not sure one should be creating pages in the main article namespace for that, because they don't act like subpages elsewhere. maybe create it off the talk page instead? ninety:one 14:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Trademark symbols
Please see WP:MOSTM. They're almost never necessary, and they're ugly and disrupt reading flow.

By the way, it's not a bot, actually. It's just me being obsessive. AWB is a mass-editing tool, but it still requires me to look at every edit before committing.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  15:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Subpages
You may want to see Wikipedia talk:Subpages in particular my comment and the comment before that. As I mentioned Derry/Londonderry name dispute & Derry shows that subpages don't actually work properly (because they are disabled) on the main space Nil Einne (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert, all I know is that last week I created a subpage, worked fine until an admin deleted it. Emmanuelm (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to help here - and I presume you refer to the Bonsai one - it wasn't actually a subpage but a normal page with a / in it. ninety:one 20:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have tremendous respect for any editor who says "I was wrong" about any issue. I've watchlisted WP:Transclusion and will help out when I get time (end of the week probably, if I don't get to it today). Geometry guy 20:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

History of pathology
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of History of pathology, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Pathology. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Damn bot! Emmanuelm (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiDragon
You may want to add your userpage to Category:Wikipedian WikiDragons if you wish to have your name displayed on that page with other WikiDragons. Note that even though the link is red, the names are still displayed. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Appendix cancer
There's a note at Talk:Appendix cancer that I don't feel qualified to agree or disagree with. I thought you might like to have a look. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Answered Hovea, but I have not time for now to rewrite the article. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Colon cancer 2.jpg
Relax, the deletion will not mean that your image is gone forever. It simply means that it has been moved to the Commons, the image and media repository, where it can be used in any Wikimedia project. You can see it. You are still credited as the author of the image.  bibliomaniac 1  5  03:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Summary style: keep summary and main synchronized
Hi Emmanuel, I reverted, but only because I don't see any evidence that any trial projects have started or that we have the results from them yet...do we? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A "trial project"? The Pathology summary was a trial by me and, in my opinion, it works well. What is a trial project? What constitutes the "results" of a trial project? Emmanuelm (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion is moved to Wikipedia Talk:Summary style. 

Reorganization of Pathology
Hi Emmanuelm. I've been away from WP for a while (residency and all), and just saw your reorganization of this page. You obviously put quite a bit of effort into it, but to be honest, I'm very dissatisfied with the result. I feel that before your changes, the page was a appropriately encyclopedic yet concise summary of a very expansive topic, and now it is little more than a skeleton. While I understand that the text is still available on a series of linked pages, I think the reader experience is degraded rather than improved by all that splitting. I and others spent a great deal of time turning that page from bare bones to a reviewed GA article a year ago, and my hope was that it would be eventually improved to FA status, rather than chopped into a series of links. Obviously this may be a matter of personal taste, but I'd hope we could have a discussion with other interested contributors on how this information could be best presented. Thanks. RustavoTalk/Contribs 05:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussion moved to Talk:Pathology. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The question of Palestinian refugees
Coming rather late in the debate, I feel you guys are taking the wrong route. Wikipedia, as stated in the WP:NOR and WP:VER guidelines, is merely a guide to published authors & their opinions, not an exercise in diplomacy. This text should ideally consist of a series of quotes on the subject, attempting to portray all the significant opinions. In other words, the exact wording of the debate does not belong to Wikipedians, it belongs to the actual players (primary source) or to commentators (secondary source, preferred in Wikipedia). Emmanuelm (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I fear that your understanding of policy wording is fine, but that in practise we don't quite work like this. Excessive quoting is seen as a weakness in articles, and can lead to them being stigmatised as a "quote-farm". In addition, over a long period, the project has come to prefer secondary sources in all cases. PRtalk 18:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Muslims supporting Zionism
BrandonYusufToropov has again raised the issue of the appropriateness of noting Muslims who support for Zionism in the Zionism article. As you have commented on this issue before, I am notifying you of this, in case you wish to follow the new discussion, which you can find here. Jayjg (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Comment
If I did that, it was an accident. Sorry. Sposer (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)