User talk:Looslion

Welcome!

Hello, Looslion, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Union of Good, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard. Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! ╟─Treasury Tag►Woolsack─╢ 20:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Union of Good[edit]

A tag has been placed on Union of Good requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ╟─Treasury Tag►Woolsack─╢ 20:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV at Gaza flotilla raid[edit]

This edit and this edit are a real cause for concern. If you haven't already, please read Wikipedia's policy on neutral points of view. The article - indeed, all articles - should not present a pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian or pro-anyone viewpoint. Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting one political point of view.

Cheers, TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 11:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

San Remo Manual[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of San Remo Manual, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/7694fe2016f347e1c125641f002d49ce. 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. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

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) 17:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010[edit]

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles. There is a Manual of Style that should be followed. Thank you. WP:ELNO Cptnono (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

neutrality sourcing[edit]

Hello, please read WP:RS. You cannot insert your own analyses into articles as you just did in Lehi (group) and O Jerusalem. Zero^talk 10:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given your criticism, I would eliminate my sentence about "fighting valiantly." However, the main change was a reference to the historical investigation by Professor Uri Milstein that no massacre occured. The quotes I give are those of the authors of O Jerusalem. The authors themselves acknowledge that collecting data about this event is problematic. To quote the authors seems fair since this is an article on O Jerusalem!. Looslion (talk) 11:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)LoosLion[reply]

The opinion of Milstein is given in detail at Deir Yassin massacre. As far as I can tell, he does not mention the book O Jerusalem at all in his article. Criticisms have to come directly from the source to the target, you can't yourself construct them. Zero^talk 11:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty of determining the truth applies to Milstein as well as to Collins&Lapierre. Again, this is something that you brought and claimed it undermines the book. It is your criticism, but you can't put it here. Zero^talk 11:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. You don't comment about using the authors opinions to suggest that though they did extensive research they give a disclaimer that their work is definitive. Therefore, I will reenter their opinion, and cite the source of their remarks.

2. The section that we are commenting under is called historical significance. The claim is made, "This precise perspective gives justice to some of the most compelling factors of the conflict." Now this statement uses the word "some." However, since Deir Yassin is mentioned in this article, it is fair to assume that the reader will think that this is one of the topics that is meant in this statement. Therefore, it is important for neutrality to state that the historical significance of this issue is understood differently than described in Jerusalem by documented eyewitness accounts that were cross checked with historical events by Professor Milstein. I agree that to go into the details is not relevant for this section. However, for neutrality it is critical to link to Blood Libel at Deir Yassin. Looslion (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)LoosLion[reply]

I have taken ZeroOOOO points into consideration, and made a simple change to the synopsis section. Since the synopsis section is meant to be brief, I put the reference quotation in the footnote section.

Nomination of Dr. Michael Klein for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dr. Michael Klein is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Michael Klein until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 02:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lazarus[edit]

Because it strikes me as unnecessary and heavy-handed given the context. Anyone who is interested in her heritage is likely to conclude correctly that she was Jewish given the content of the paragraph. To add the adjective in that setting smacks of both overemphasis and a reductive understanding of the inspiration behind "The New Colossus." For those few readers who want to satisfy themselves conclusively as to whether she was Jewish, of course the link to her article is immediately at hand. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American Jewish poet I request that you reconsider: Lazarus' sister Annie was also concerned about a tendency to over emphasize the Hebraic strain of her [Emma Lazarus'] work. Annie had a bias; she chose to reject her Jewish background, and actively did what she could to destroy traces of her sister's Jewishness, including not publishing posthumously Emma's writings that revealed her Jewishness. But it is not accidental that The New Colossus was written by a Jew. Emma Lazarus was born into a 4th generation American family who intended on becoming an integral part of upper class American society. But since they were Jewish, this meant converting to Christianity. Many of Lazarus' older friends were on the 1867 Quaker City Ship excursion to Palestine; Lazarus was aware that Anglo-American Christian activity was making claim on Palestine. The New Colossus was written at a decidedly unwelcoming time for immigrants as evidenced by the passing of the Immigration Act of 1882 and The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

  Why did Lazarus feel so passionately welcoming to immigrants?

In 1881, Emma Lazarus saw her counterparts arriving on the shores of the US. As a Jew, she identified with them. Her family had taught her that she had to shed her Jewishness to truly be American. If so, was America a secure homeland for her? (I think that this experience was even deeper: Amongst the masses of Russian Jews were Russian Jewish intellectuals from wealthy homes whose fortunes were overturned by anti-Semites after Czar Alexander II was assassinated. They arrived to America wretched and in need of a homeland.) Suddenly with the arrival of the Russian Jews, Lazarus' writing takes a Jewish focus. She champions a Jewish homeland in Palestine (two decades before Herzl's Zionist formulation), she dedicates herself to helping the Russian Jewish immigrants get settled in the U.S., and she learns Hebrew. "Therefore, love you the stranger; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt." Deuteronomy 10:19. The United States must not be Russia. In America all persons - regardless of religion, race, or wealth - can feel that they belong; for America glows world-wide welcome. America will be Emma Lazarus' homeland - no conversion necessary. It makes a difference for the reader of this section on the Statue of Liberty to know that Emma Lazarus was a Jew.Looslion (talk) 03:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Looslion[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Honi HaMe'agel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samuel Klein. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honi HaMe'agel[edit]

Please review your recent contributions at Honi HaMe'agel, which were problematic and have been tagged with various tags indication the issues that need resolving. Debresser (talk) 08:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]