User talk:LamaLoLeshLa

Welcome all kind people

Thank you to all who visit my talk page and find ways to express your thoughts and sentiments with a sense of common human respect and dignity. Sometimes it can get difficult to do so and I applaud your efforts!

A note to the uncivil: To those of the bullying disposition: I started out this process pretty patient, but now feel compelled to warn, while I can tolerate opposing interpretations of facts, I will not tolerate incivility - be aware that all accusations and namecalling will be promptly deleted and ignored except in rare cases. Consider what the anti-diplomat, William Appleman Williams said: "Self-righteousness is the hallmark of inner guilt."

Those with warm hearts, welcome, welcome....

Hello!
Just spotted your user page going up in the recent changes log. I'd just like to say, your perspective sounds pleasantly uplifting! - Vianello (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. RolandR (talk) 07:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi RolandR, I guess I made a mistake, or two, I see. Sorry, refcahman. I will restore the comments.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for your response. Just to correct a misassumption -- the spurious warning on my talk page from Amoruso, who has just been blocked for two months for "very abusive sockpuppetry", had nothing to do with my reversion of your edits. In general, unless they are extremely offensive or defamatory, you should not edit other editors talk page comments, even if they are incorrect or superseded by later developments.
 * I like your pattern of editing, and look forward to cooperating with you in future. RolandR (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Bakri additions
No problem! I wanted to thank you earlier for expanding the article (more than doubling it in size), but I guess I got caught up in other things. Anyway, thank you very much for your work, I'm going to add a tiny segment (maybe two-three sentences) on his family life in the article now. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the recent edit you made to Jenin, Jenin has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. - Icewedge (talk) 08:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Please explain, I don't know what you mean - the neutrality box I added? What's unconstructive about that? Or do you mean the 'synopsis needed' box?LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 08:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry about that. Please accept my heartfelt apologies, I am using an automated script to patrol the recent changes and I must have hit the revert key on accident. Sorry. - Icewedge (talk) 08:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No worriesLamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Arab Citizens of Israel
Thanks for the reminder. Cgingold (talk) 09:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Where do I give my opinion? --Al Ameer son (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Beit Amrin
Of course it's "worthy of note", all Palestinian towns and villages are. As a matter of fact, and please believe me, I was searching google for any info on the "Beit" towns of the Nablus Governorate, including Beit Imrin or Beit Amrin. If you have any info on the town feel free to create the article, I'll gladly make additions to it - Palestinian localities are my mainspace here on Wikipedia. --Al Ameer son (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing
Hello LamaLoLeshLa! FYI, messaging users to ask them to vote in certain straw polls, also called canvassing, is considered very bad conduct on Wikipedia and violates the etiquette of Wikipedia. Please refrain from doing this in the future. Thanks, Ynhockey (Talk) 20:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not know, will not do so in the future. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

To clarify a bit further: the only person who had not already written something here was Al Ameer son. I had been in new contact with him about a different recent entry and thought he'd be interested in this discussion so I brought this talk page to his attention. I did not request he or anyone else vote a certain way. I also wrote to two others who came here of their own accord before I had even visited the page, and left a note saying: 'Are you going to visit the page again to leave your vote?' I did not say anything else, i.e. encouraging them to vote any particular way. However if that is considered canvassing and thus bad practice, I will certainly not do it again. Best -LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply
Replies given here: User_talk:Jaakobou.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  07:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied to both issues.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  08:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia
I would just like to inform you policies on using two accounts, it is not allowed. I'm not accusing you of it, I'm just letting you know. Good day. Epson291 (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Haifa
Yes, but there still needs to be more info on the Arab presence in Haifa, both historically and currently as well as in terms of culture. I know the Kul al-Arab and Arabesque Press operate from Haifa. I brought these points up in the GA review among others, but nothing was added. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Operation Defensive Shield damage
PR, I was the one who wrote that sentence: ""the Palestinian Authority did not manage to fully address damaged infrastructure for approximately two years after the invasions." Note that I did not say 'failed,' but rather, 'did not manage.' My intent there was not to imply that the PA did not try to fix the damage (sometimes it tried and sometimes it did not, depending on the town, the state of finances, the interests of the PA members, etc.)but rather that the damage was so extensive that, in light of the lack of a tax base, the PA couldn't fully address the damage for two years. As there is no citable evidence saying that the PA was incapable of repairing the extent of the damage, I tried to write it in such a way that it could be interpreted however one likes. Regardless of one's political orientation and interpretations, the fact remains that the damage took years to address. Is it possible you are jumping to conclusions, assuming bad faith, too quickly? Or do you think it's unclearly written/recommend I go in an edit is so the message is more overt? I would be happy to. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel that this treatment of the situation is misleading. The PA was virtually wiped out as a functioning administration, throughout the West Bank, with all records destroyed and everything smashed. Rebuilding of the refugee camps was hampered by several further incursions and a large number of killings of UN workers, including the British head of UNWRA reconstruction, shot dead inside a UN compound in Jenin. An allegation included with the UN report alleged that this camp was mined by the departing Israelis, and the EU reported that bomb-disposal teams were refused entry, during which time at least two more people were killed. UN investigators were never able to visit.
 * I can't be sure whether the time-scale of this article on the Operation needs or should extend to the aftermath of re-building, but I am concerned at an impression left that Israeli interference ceased and that the PA was somehow left in control. PRtalk 21:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you raise a good set of points, and if you can cite the above assertions, should definitely include them. I think that what you argue here makes it even clearer to me that, yes, the rebuilding should be mentioned. If there is a paragraph on the violence leading up to the operation (all of it currently about attacks on Israelis) then certainly one would think that a short section on the aftermath would be relevant. After all, the physical damage was considerable; it is thus a major aspect of the operation.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Women's rights
Hi, LamaLoLeshLa. I came across your concern for the Western bias in Women's rights. There are crazier battles being waged to rescue even basic information on Wikipedia, but global perspective is important, especially for English speakers to see. The template below might help. It can be placed anywhere it's seriously needed:

Found here: Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup and saved here: Template:Globalize

Use it judiciously; I'd recommend picking out specific sections rather than entire articles whenever you can, it may help editors focus. Happy editing, Yamara ✉  16:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

unref
Regarding this edit. Please reserve unref for articles that do not cantain a single reference. There are other tags more appropriate for requesting more or better sources.-- Birgitte SB  13:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-upLamaLoLeshLa (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

shulapa
Hello LamaLoLeshLa,

I've read your contributions to the aritcle about the Palestinian people and found it as one of the most informative in what can be a tricky subject to handle (especially in this political situation).

I am doing a work for uni about the the origins of the palestinian nationalty as they are presented by the palestinian themself and wanted to see if I could recieve some help from you on this subject which you seem to have similar interest:

1. In the article you write "Some modern Palestinians claim ancestral and cultural connections to the ancient populations that dwelled in Palestine, particularly the Canaanites, an issue of contention within the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." - can you direct me into such claims made or citation from politicale/intelctual leader?.

2. In footnote 39 you give a citation reference to "Khalidi, W., 1984, p. 32" - I couldn't find from where was this taken can you help?

3. Can you think about more directions where to find information about where do the palestinians find there national origins which part from the panarbic history - including if do they make the connection to the 1830 revolts against muhamad ali's conscirpts or other revolts against the empire.

I would appriciate all the you could provide - Eyal

shulapa2002@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.55.123 (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Eyal, I hope you make it back to my page, because I'm not in the habit of emailing people personally. I would suggest creating your own user page and this way you can communicate with people here easily. The edits I made were actually more to the flow of the article - i.e. someone else wrote them and I was moving them from elsewhere or changing their structure. I would suggest asking Nishidani or Al Ameer son. They seem to be very informed on these matters. Best of luck to you!LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Formatting articles
Hi LamaLoLeshLa! I have noticed that practically all articles you have written have serious formatting issues. I'm not trying to criticize you, just raise your attention to this issue, because most users will not be willing to spend precious time formatting articles. Please review WP:MOS and all its sub-sections for more information. Also, it appears from the articles that you might be using MSOffice (or similar) to write them - please don't do this and use a text editor, or an automated Wiki editor, if possible. Thanks, Ynhockey (Talk) 18:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not using MSOffice but I am not able to use the Wiki editor. You're right; and usually I am the one who goes in later and makes the citation changes once I am on a computer where I can do so more easily. I'm assuming that's mostly what you're referring to, right - citations?LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I'm talking in general. Here are a few issues I have noticed in your article 'unrecognized villages', and I haven't even read half:
 * 1. Using MSOffice 'smart quotes' (“”), instead of regular quotes (""), same for single quotes. MOS says:
 * The exclusive use of straight quotes and apostrophes is recommended. They are easier to type in reliably, and to edit. Mixed use interferes with searching (a search for Korsakoff's syndrome could fail to find Korsakoff’s syndrome and vice versa).
 * 2. Using quotes where they are not needed, like with links, for example 'Green Patrol', as well as using them in a differently style, like, They founded the 'Green Patrol.' - both not recommended in the MOS.
 * 3. The title of the page should always be in bold (e.g. unrecognized villages), and not in quotes.
 * 4. Avoiding disambiguation - Arad, not Arad.
 * 5. Quotes should generally be in templates, like the quote by Moshe Dayan (there are a few, like Quote, Cquote, etc.)
 * 6. Usage of triple-periods as single characters is not recommended in the MOS:
 * Pre-composed ellipsis character (…); generated with the &hellip; character entity, or by insertion from the set below the edit window. This is harder to input and edit, and too small in some fonts. Not recommended.
 * 7. As you said yourself, most sources are improperly formatted, but I'm sure you know about that.
 * Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 18:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I should clarify that the unrecognized villages entry is a cut-paste from an entry written by someone else, which was deleted from the entry, Bedouin. I made a range of edits, but am still working on it. Some of your comments are new to me, but others are specifically only true with the entry you mentioned, which as I said, I did not originally write.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your formatting of Wadi Salib. One question - why are bolded headings always worse than subheadings? I have chosen to insert bolded headings consciously, when it seemed to me that they did not need to stand on their own necessarily. In this case, it doesn't make a huge difference either way, but I wanted to ask your opinion on this at any rate. Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * About bolded headings - they are simply not useful because they are not scalable and do not contribute to the structure of the page. Although it is, again, not recommended, some Wikiepdians (I think yourself included) have used lower-tier headings (five = signs, for instance) to create the illusion of bolded headings, but still make them part of the article's structure. However, it's just non-standard on Wikipedia and probably should not be done without very good reason. If you have a problem with some headings appearing on the table of contents which you don't want, you can always use TOClimit. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 02:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That helps. Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Silwan
Great job with Silwan! Sorry, I couldn't provide much :( I'm not a great researcher and have been a little busy helping Hulrda with Bayt Jibrin lately. At least there's more background there. Again, nice job and I just got you're user name (very clever). --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Negev Bedouins
Hi LamaLoLeshLa! I would really like to collaborate with you on this topic, but my knowledge is based only on personal experience (which, by the way, dates back to my life in Arad, much earlier than the army), and I don't really have reliable sources for any of that. If I have time, I'll do some research, although as you said yourself, the crime element is taboo (as in, it's never talked about), so I doubt that there are many books (if at all) detailing the subject. I'll try to look up some statistics and Israel Police statements, although statistics alone cannot make a good article.

You are incorrect in that Israel Beitenu is anti-Bedouin. It is mostly anti-people-who-don't-serve-in-the-army-or-do-national-service, which happens to be most Bedouins, unfortunately. My experience with Negev Bedouins who do serve in the army has mostly been negative as well (Negev Bedouins are much more aggressive and undisciplined than their Galilee counterparts), although considering I ran a detention center, I guess it's non-representative. In any case, I am not racist and have an open mind about this issue, although admittedly my sympathy for the Negev Bedouins' plight went from high (before the army) to extremely low today. That, however, is for a discussion forum. I'll see what I can do with the article in due time.

Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 16:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Recognition
Wow! a barnstar! That means I really and truly have been avoiding my other work far too much, far too obsessively, far too passionately. Thanks much, RolandR, you put a proud little, embarassed little smile on my face:)LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism
Get Twinkle. Or you can go to the last good version, and click on "Restore this version". RolandR (talk) 00:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Beit Guvrin
I haven't really researched Beit Guvrin, all I could obtain from that article was that it was 20,000 dunams and a part of the Yoav Regional Council. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Tourist place for the caverns and archaeological digs.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Template display
Eek, you display a template so that other people can see a template by adding nowiki tags, or using the tl template. Otherwise you are actually putting the template on the talk page. Good luck! -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Blueprint Negev
The article is great and very informative (I learned something new ;-). The only thing I see that you could cut-down right now is background on the JNF. The first paragraph and the first half of the second paragraph specifically. The wikilink to the JNF takes care of all the explanation. I haven't read the entire article yet, just a basic scan. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no excuse at all. I am terribly sorry :( Listen, if you need any help in another article in the Palestine topic, please ask. I'll try to what I can. By the way someone started the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions article. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Award
You and I don't agree on much, but you have handled all our disagreements in a civil, open minded way - and have created great articles in the process. Here's to you!

Wikiproject Palestine
--SJP (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * When you edit articles on this topic its good to appear to be neutral;-) I have very strong opinions on Israel, but I try not to let them bleed into my edits:-) I hope to see you around!-- SJP Chat  23:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem FAR
Jerusalem has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 21:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

PGFTU
Actually, I wasn't familiar with the history of this organization until I started doing research for the article. I have access to some online newspaper archives, and I combed them for sources ... I also found some relevant works on JSTOR, as well as a few online articles. I'm worried that what I've written may not give a completely comprehensive picture of the group's early history, though I'm confident that what I've written is both accurate and encyclopedic. (Frankly, it's not easy to find reliable information about this union in English ... I'm glad that someone who can read Arabic has gotten involved with the article.)

And it's actually quite pleasant to be involved with an Israel/Palestine-themed article that hasn't degenerated into the usual partisan bickering. CJCurrie (talk) 04:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem and building permits
I have some sympathy for what you are working on in the post-1967 section, but I fear that a separate section on building permits will be seen as unduly weighty. I think an argument along those lines (i.e., to remove such a section) would probably win in the end. cheers, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

F. Scott Fitzgerald
Lede. Last line. Finest regards Nishidani (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ring

 * Good Day, Thanks for your words of support. Fortunately, I don't think it is as simple as right-wing and left-wing agendas or viewpoints. To me, the viewpoint of the international community is absolutely essential for a foundation of facts and as a central sort of Dominant/prevailing POV, and any attempts to censor it are very serious IMO. I am very well aware of Gilabrand, and though I have been rather noticably absent as of late, if you feel yourself too angry/close to a topic to look at it, please feel free to let me take a look at it, and in return, i will do the same. I sure know there are times my blood gets boiling, and I am probably better off waiting, and cooling off a bit. Cheers. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 12:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
thank you for your advice, I do appreciate that. --Aaronshavit (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian Nazis
you might be interested to have a look at this. --Soman (talk) 08:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Jerus as capital
No problem, I just removed it.Joeycfc (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Unrecognized villages
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Unrecognized villages, 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. Guy0307 (talk) 12:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The brief talk around POV, and my responses to Guy are posted here.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

re: Jerusalem
I've responded on my talk page, so let's continue the discussion there. -- Nudve (talk) 07:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

POV edits
>Hi there, I like your wording re: POV tag cleanup - do you mind if I quote it, crediting you?

Hi, Lama. 1st - no I don't mind if you use my wording, but I would rather you didn't credit me, nor is it necessary. 2nd - I don't mind if you use the passage, as I said, but I'd suggest you tread carefully and perhaps read through some of the postings and go to the links on the topics of POV off of my talk page. I was chastised for being heavy handed, which I accept, though I still don't agree with some of the policies displayed. In any case, you are welcome to the text, I just don't want to be thought of as promoting the behaviour I refer to above. Good Luck....Thanks, Jjdon (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I used it once only and deleted mention of your name. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you in the midst of editing?
I see you deleted the "1967 War" heading, and now all info is consolidated under "Division." was that intentional? LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was in the midst of editing... --  tariq abjotu  21:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Jenin
Thought I'd drop you a quick note about this as you've been involved there recently as well. It was one of the first I-P pages I stumbled across about a year ago and after making a few changes and engaging in talk page debate, I ended up on the end of a barrage of accusations, eg of being a terrorist sympathiser etc. Nothing has really changed in terms of the atmosphere since then. For some reason it seems to be a hyper-sensitive subject for certain Israeli editors (and others), more so than other pages that you might think would be more controversial. The same issues as well seem to just go round and round in circles there - I'm surprised I even bother popping in again occasionally after all this time. Having said that, I think parts of the main article are better than they were twelve months ago and do at least show a bit more balance and nuance. --Nickhh (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: WP policy
While I agree with you in theory, I have seem too many examples on Wikipedia of content additions being as harmful (or even more harmful) than deletions (even though I'm personally an inclusionist). Some editors just insist on adding gigantic amounts of text with tons of refs in each edit, and this discourages other editors from analyzing their edits properly (who has time for that?) That, coupled with no discussion and poor edit summaries, creates additions which may stay for a long time even though they're extremely harmful. A particular editor comes to mind who has been blocked at least twice for just that, although I won't provide the name (sorry).

Ultimately, major edits in controversial articles (even if the content additions themselves don't seem to violate any policies) should only be done after discussion IMO, because there is a slew of policies which could be violated even if the edit itself was fine. Undue weight, balance (NPOV) and WP:SYNTH, just to name the most common ones.

Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 21:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It sometimes seems as if some of these edits are based on IDONTLIKEIT. The objections raised to including information at Battle of Jenin appear to be based on no policy whatsoever. I'm also a little disturbed, since our listing is an attempt to find points requiring mediation, it's not intended for people to pre-empt the arguments that are to follow.
 * Have you asked for a mediator on this matter? It may prove difficult to find an acceptable person, I was particularly disturbed by the result of the this mediation. PRtalk 16:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Torture
In that article you wrote "The one exception worldwide was the case of Israel". Are you sure Israel is the only democratic country ever to have exercised torture? -- Nudve (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No, of course not - I am sure that every democratic country does in some way or another - it's a sad fact of life. I made some edits clarifying: Israel is the only democratic country to legalize, and define the limits of, torture. The government also admitted that it went beyond its own self-defined limits. As far as I know these two phenomenon were unprecedented within a liberal democracy. Whereas other governments simply cover up their actions, in Israel, its somewhat out in the open (although as noted in my edit, they did not call it torture, they called it "physical pressure"). LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Israel is not just just the only country in the world to have legalised terrorism, its supporters actively promote it. I don't like the way Norman Finkelstein sometimes conflates Israel with Jews - but here he is in "Beyond Chutzpah", p.47: The poisoning of public discourse on human rights by apologists for Israel is not confined to the United States. The most appalling and shameful example is Germany. Michael Wolffsohn, a staunch German-Jewish "supporter" of Israel and professor at the University of the German Armed Forces, maintained on German television, "As a means against terrorists, I do consider torture, or the threat of torture, legitimate, yes I do." He subsequently cited Dershowitz, whose support of torture has been widely reported in Germany, as one of his inspirations. When the German minister of defense rebuked him (as did many others), Wolffsohn, as well as the main spokesman for German Jews, alleged that he was the victim of anti-Semitism. ... the main lesson of The Holocaust for Germans was "never again to be a perpetrator," the main lesson for Jews is "never again to be a victim," which for Jews signifies that any means is legitimate in the name of self-defense.
 * The UK tortured (hooding, stress positions) 14 suspected IRA terrorists in 1972. They were sued by the ECHR for it and swore not to do it again. In 2005 they affirmed this absolute prohibition, and have (tried, occasionally succeeding) to prosecute soldiers serving in Iraq for torturing suspects. PRtalk 21:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyright
Hi LamaLoLeshLa! I'm concerned about the image you uploaded, Image:Unrecognized villages map english.JPG. What is its copyright status? You have not specified a source for the image (Regional Council of Unrecognized Villages? You mean Abu Basma? Can you post a link with a copyright notice?), and it's clearly from an external source and was not made exclusively for Wikipedia. Because of the Oxfam notice at the bottom, I am also inclined to believe that the image is non-free. Please specify the source of the image and a link clarifying its copyright status if it's from an external source.

Moreover, if the image is indeed free (this is important), please modify it to remove all potentially problematic elements. Firstly, the logo at the top-right is almost certainly non-free. Secondly, the commercial note at the bottom. And last but not least, please note that images must also comply with WP:NPOV, therefore the partisan notices at the top and left of the image should certainly be removed. Also other minor elements like the exclamation marks in the legend.

Before the second paragraph though, please absolutely make sure and let others know that the image is free, otherwise it should be deleted immediately. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 07:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * On a related note, the rcuv.com site, where the map is supposedly from, no longer exists, so I'm not sure how it's possible to know if the image is free. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 07:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: copyright: Yeah, I wonder why the rcuv website is down - I know someone who works there and will check with him and ask about the copyright issue. Here's a web link that is reachable, though when you click on the map, nothing happens: http://www.rcuv.net/en/sub1.asp?sub_id=20 LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears that the site isn't down at all, they just got it wrong on the map. The domain is rcuv.net, not rcuv.com. In any case, the website seems to be 'under construction' in both English and Hebrew, and doesn't seem to have any copyright information whatsoever. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

So, this is what I got from my friend, though I don't know if it will suffice. I may have to ask for more permission: Copyrights are of the RCUV (2006). Of course you can put this map on wikipedia and this is very important for us. THanks." LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * " עלי אבו סביח 	to me:

Shalom!
Dear LLLL, this is just to say that it appears we have some topics of mutual interest, and perhaps can collaborate productively in the future. For now, greetings, and keep up the good work! -- Deborahjay (talk) 04:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

My "highly suspect" list
I have responded to your comment at Administrators' noticeboard. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin
This talk page section is about you, so I'm hoping that you'll respond. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin -- controversial edit
Hi:

I have started a discussion in the Palin talk page to find a place for the edit you desire. Please understand that there has been alot of discussion on the talk page about other aspects of this section (Personal) and your edit tossed into that disrupts that consensus (IMO). If you look at WP:BRD you will see that since your edit has been reverted, it is time to talk it out with other editors.

One possibility is to add a new section directly related to religious discussion. The section that you have added it to is not for discussion of her religious beliefs, and such. It does mention facts about her personal life, such as her marriage, having kids, hobbies as well as the churches she has attended. That does not open the door to open ended citations about anything and everything related to those topics. We want to keep that section as tight and clean as possible.

WHat do you think about a section following this one called "Religious Perspective"? You could add your desired edit, as well as other religious perspective to that section where the topic would be appropriate?

Thanks, Atom (talk) 04:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the new section. I am sorry to have removed some of it because it was not peertinent. If it had not been me, someone else would have come along and deleted all of it. My vision for the new section is that it will be a landing place for any religious perspective that people find that Palin has offered. Not just the topics you have brought into it.

I would like to leave the section in the person section related to what church she went to, etc, as that was negotiated carefully on the talk page. Also, without that, the personal section seems incomplete. Atom (talk) 05:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR on Sarah Palin
You should be very mindful of the 3RR rule on the article Sarah Palin. "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period..." and especially "A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." Hobartimus (talk) 06:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, for example you made some clear reverts  (if someone deletes "fundemental Christian" and you add it again it's a clear revert of the user who deleted it) but even edits like these  fit the letter of the definition, undoing the actions in whole or part the action of other editors. When someone writes "Religious Viewpoints" and you delete it and write something else you undo the original action of writing "Religious Viewpoints". Now this is not why you should be careful. You should be extra careful because you made a huge number of edits to the article and it's hard to keep track how many were reverts and how many were simple edits. When you make say 30 edits to an article you can break 3RR even if you try to be careful and you mistake your own edits only 10% of the time. Hobartimus (talk) 06:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The 3RR rule is per article, if you make 5000 edits a day to 5000 articles that still only 1 edit per article. When you make 100 edit to a single article then it can be a problem if you revert other editors frequently. But best if you read the whole page on it it's very informative, I linked it above. Hobartimus (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In a single day? where? I checked your edits and you don't have seem to have 300 edits in a single day ever let alone to a single article in a single day. Hobartimus (talk) 07:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that you continue to revert on the article Sarah Palin  . Please understand that you cannot dominate this important article by mass edits and mass reverts of other editors. It's very unfair to other editors who play within the rules that your version/philosophy whatever would become dominant in the article due to this. I'm writing this because you seemed completely unfamiliar with the 3RR rule and seemed not to understand what it was about. You need to stop editing the article in a fashion you currently do in order to comply with the rules of the wiki. Hobartimus (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The above is untrue. I have never violated 3RR. You have accused many of the editors you disagree with of the same. Please stop.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin
Hi, please see talk there - a few things I'd be interested in your view. Most pressingly, about the complete duplication of her religious history in two paras. I'd remove it myself, but don't want to give anyone the wrong impression. Thanks, Kaisershatner (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello LLLL. I'm happy to see, you're interested in adding non-controversial material, aswell as controversial material, to the Palin article (gives ya a NPOV aura). Anyways, as for Palin's qualification for the Presidency & Vice Presidency, that's answered by the US Constitution. Everything else on that topic is pure opinons. Same with Barack Obama, under the Constitution, he's qualified for the Presidency. GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

time out?
I've reverted back to your version (with Clinton). You didn't like my compromise attempt - and you knew I would not like yours. I suggest we both leave it for 24 hours and see who else chimes in with an opinion. I hope by leaving it at a version, which you know I don't like, I'm showing a willingness to hold back here. Consensus, whatever it might turn out to be, is more than the opinions of the three of us who are currently commenting.--Troikoalogo (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE PROOF READ
For the sake of every other editor at Sarah Palin, please use the "show preview" box before you save. THEN is when you will catch the little mistakes...not afterward. We all inadvertantly "pull the save trigger" a bit quickly. It just seems that you do it to excess. It makes the process of keeping up with the expanded conversations much harder. Civility comes in many forms. I know this is not the first request. Other editors have pointed this out. Thank you.--Buster7 (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, no one has EVER pointed it out before, please check your facts before assuming bad faith. Actually, yesterday I observed this about myself on someone else's talk page. The problem is that I have a terrible internet connection and lose my work unless I save every few seconds. I realize this can make it hard to track my work, and I'm sorry about that. I am trying to find a way to save a little less often, but I don't know what else I can do. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I hear 'ya, bro! Take care, no harm meant. Just tryin' to make it easier for everyone involved.--Buster7 (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing
Please stop canvassing for votes. See WP:Canvassing.

It appears that you have been cautioned about this before.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Not the same issue, unless I misunderstood. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:Summary style
You are inserting stuff into a main article that is not in the article that is being summarized. Please stop. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Please try and write more accurate edit summaries. This is pretty pathetic.  Grsz  talk  23:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, i didnt realize it was in the political positions section.  Grsz  talk  23:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

IfD for Image:Unrecognized villages map english.JPG
Hi LLLL!

I have nominated this image for deletion on Commons, per our discussion back in the day. If I have time, I could try to make a similar map (which will also comply with WP:NPOV), but it's not one of my top priorities. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 01:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words
LLLL, I notice that some of your edit summaries say that you're removing or improving "weasel words." However, your edits seem somewhat different. Please see WP:Weasel: "Weasel words are small phrases attached to the beginning of a statement, such as 'some argue that...' or 'critics say...', etc."

Generally speaking, Wikipedia editors don't like being called "weasels", so I'd urge you to only use that terminology where appropriate. Your edits may be justified for other reasons, but please try to describe those other reasons, instead of just saying "weasel." Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * LLLL, the term "weasel words" has a specific technical emaning at Wikipedia. See WP:Weasel: "There are different variations on weasel wording, with the general principle of introducing some proposition without attributing it to any concrete source."


 * You are correct that the term "weasel words" has a different broader meaning in general use, but here at Wikipedia it has a specific technical meaning as I've described.


 * You're certainly entitled to go beyond the Wikipedia meaning, but people here will likely be confused by it, and you will also be antagonizing people. I often see what I think are sucky and stupid edits at Wikipedia, but I never say so in edit summaries.  Please try to only call people weasels when they fail to attribute, okay?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Content changes
LLLL, I see that you're making significant content changes at the Sarah Palin article. For example, you have removed the info about Monegan's successor resigning due to sexual harassment charges in his previous job. I don't think that's very relevant either, but PLEASE put it back in. It was the result of a lengthy discussion and consensus process at the talk page. Generally speaking, if you could be very careful of changing the content, it would be much appreciated, because there may have been very lengthy discussions at the talk page. It's always best to examine the talk page and archives before changing things around. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Palin wiki editing
I have already commented in the talk page of the user. I feel it would be biased. Also, I haven't done any work in any Sarah Palin articles, and I don't think it would be fair to start editing the article with such a controversial topic. Could you do it yourself?--Jaimevelasco (talk) 09:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Monegan successor information
By this edit you removed a sentence about Monegan's successor. Your ES appears to refer to a prior discussion that I'm not aware of. There was a prior discussion in which I participated, the outcome of which was to reduce the information below what I thought merited inclusion, but to leave in one sentence. You'll find it at Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 23. In sum, the point is that the resignation of an appointed commissioner under scandalous circumstances after only two weeks is an important event in Palin's governorship, which should be mentioned. Because the commissioner who resigned was Monegan's replacement, the section on the Public Safety Commissioner seems like the logical place to put it, as opposed to creating a separate section for it. I think that the current language (which I restored), referring to "charges" of sexual harassment, is slanted. The more accurate statement, which Palin supporters wouldn't accept, was that he resigned after it was revealed that he'd been reprimanded for sexual harassment in his previous job. The whole thing is of course overshadowed by Troopergate, but if Monegan had simply retired to work on his stamp collection, then Palin's inadequate vetting of Kopp would be getting much more attention. JamesMLane t c 06:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary
Do not use the edit summary (as in Wasilla, Alaska) to make provoking statements (not to mention ones that are directed to no one in particular as in I don't have an opinion about the detail itself, but I want to see such an edit justified in the edit summary. it was not. and not a city, please stop misleading readers). Your edit summary should state the change being made not your opinion. The talk page is the place to ask about the article. Thank you. davumaya 21:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

1. A perfectly good bit of info was deleted without explanation. I was commenting that it needed to be explained (while clarifying that the detail itself mattered little to me personally). 2. There was a consensus that a town of 8,000 is just that, a town, and not a city. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Public image of Sarah Palin
Hi LLLL, I wanted to let you know that the article Public_image_and_reception_of_Sarah_Palin was redirected to the above title and about 80% of the content was removed. Please let me know what you think about this. IP75 (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh?
What are you talking about? --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright thanks. I may have to read the article first though, so I may take some time in posting my opinion. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

re Requests for Arbitration#Attack Sites
I have reverted your edits to the above ArbCom. I would draw your attention to the fact that the previous edit to that page was just over a year ago and the ArbCom, in which I participated, has long been since closed. You may wish to revisit the page and link to the decision page, with the various findings and conclusions.

I would like to stress that you certainly have not done anything wrong, and even my use of the word "inappropriate" in the edit summary is - on reflection - overly harsh; you made a heartfelt and good faith edit recording your opinion. Only that the case is closed and everyone else has taken it off their watchlist means nobody will see your comments; I suggest that you link to them on your userpage or create a sub-page and copy them there. Thank you for your obvious passion regarding this subject, and it is certainly no fault of yours that the case closed before you had the opportunity to contribute. All the best. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Help with a 3RR violation
Hi, sorry for the delayed reply, I didn't get to access the site during my work-day today. In future, you are likely to get a faster response if you post to the administrators' 3RR noticeboard. I've been trying to get up to speed with what's been going on at the article, and it seems to me that arguing over a tag has distracted everyone from working to resolve the real disputes. However, I don't think that throwing blocks around at this point is going to be very helpful. If the contributing editors of the article can't resolve the disputes amongst themselves, I suggest making a request for comment to bring other editors to the article. —Jeremy (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Powell and Palin...
Please comply with consensus on talk and remove the Powell quote from the Palin article. There was consensus that his opinion and/or endorsement is no more notable than any number of others Americans supporting or not supporting her. More importantly, the statement is pure POV. Finally, why would Facts707 point to your page for discussion? Is this just an alternate account? Fcreid (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Fcreid got the wrong guy. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I might support your POV tag on Palin...
but, and I apologize for asking, I would ask you to state on the talk page, as succinctly as possible, what specific things you think are POV-pushing: just listen them 1, 2, 3. I know you've done this before but it's in old archives and I haven't seen it clearly labeled. Just write whatever:

1) Rape kit 2) "Fundamentalist Christian"

Whatever you want, perhaps with sources. I know it's a pain to redo this. But I really think this would help your argument go a long way and might even resolve the issues so we can remove the tag without mediation/arbitration. You may find, for example, that some editors support you on one issue and not another, while others suggest compromises.

Just my two cents.GreekParadise (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

My error...
When I went to his/her talk, I saw a statement "post about POV on 4L talk" or something. I thought you were directing people from that account to yours, but since I've learned it was something you put across a lot of people's talk pages during some issue (but not mine). Anyway, my confusion... Fcreid (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Full Protection of Candidate's Bios
Hi LLLL, Please express your opinion in the discussion at "Should the election bios stay fully protected through the election": [] Thanks, IP75 (talk) 08:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for User:Aaronshavit/Zionism and racism
An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Aaronshavit/Zionism and racism. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Aaronshavit (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Civility in edit summaries.
This was a rather uncivil edit summary. I see the notice on the top of this page that you expect civility from others. Good; you're well within your rights to expect it. Please reciprocate by assuming good faith in those who may disagree with you. Jclemens (talk) 08:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right. It was very uncivil. Phew, what a relief though to express the thought that: Only an idiot would (repeatedly) change Wasilla, pop 9,000, from a town to a city;) LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Madison Community Cooperative
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Madison Community Cooperative, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * only primary sources are offered, and not many

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.  LOL thulu  16:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-Conference New York Update: 3 weeks to go
For those of you who signed up early, Wiki-Conference New York has been confirmed for the weekend of July 25-26 at New York University, and we have Jimmy Wales signed on as a keynote speaker.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)
Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict...please fill out my survey?
Hello :) I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article. For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done. I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 8 August 2021.

Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project. Thanks so much,

Sarah Sanbar

Sarabnas I'm researching Wikipedia Questions? 20:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)