User talk:Eleland/Archive7

Indef block

Yes, indef may be too long - I think I'll downgrade to a year, but all the edits seem to be on topic so it may be a static IP. I'll send it to a checkuser type to sort out. Carlossuarez46 00:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 01:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed O'Loughlin

Your deletion of verifiable cited sources seems arbitrary. If you want to balance the article with evidence to the contrary please cite your evidence, but please don't just delete. It would have been inappropriate to have written that the evidence suggests that O'Loughlin is a propagandist without citing it. Unfortunately this is the reality and as such it is important that it be included in his biography.

There is not a biography for all Fairfax correspondents. The reason O'Loughlin is in Wikipedia is partly due to the nature of his reportage.

The article as it stands is all concerning O'Loughlin. Studies pertaining to him are as relevant and integral to the article as his date of birth.

To attempt to suppress this information is to introduce bias 124.191.92.25 08:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ed O'Loughlin. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Editors who delete such material may be warned and blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.92.25 (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please

please stop with the "wastes everybody's time" [1] tantrums. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your recent edit summary -- "rv: not your blog, jaakobou" -- to a more than legitimate edit, is in breach of WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rashid Khalidi

The Washington Times is reliable, even if you may not like the author of the piece. Shall we throw out all of Said and Khalidi's work because other's do not like them? Nice job on your other edits so far, by the way. -- Avi (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's reliable enough for opinion purposes. Thank you for the compliment otherwise. <eleland/talkedits> 01:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The USAAF bombing Dresden

Please see Talk:List of war crimes#The USAAF bombing Dresden. IMO the edit you restored to Allied war crimes during World War II‎ does not carry a citation the passes WP:PROVEIT. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

question

Discussion removed as more and more trolling from User:Jaakobou. <eleland/talkedits> 04:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetarianism

In your edit of of 02:47 7 December to Allegations of Israeli apartheid, you made the comment: we should add a critique of hitler to vegetarianism. I note that you have not done this yet. I hope that you will find time to do this soon. Maybe if Hitler had eaten a proper balanced diet, he would not have been so mad as to think that murdering millions of Jews and Eastern European people was a good idea. I am a great admirer of Linda McCartney, who sold great nutritious vegetarian products to millions of people. It was a great pity that it got out that these products contained meat; better by far to feed vegetarians meat without their knowing. ;)--Toddy1 (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

civility

"do what I say, not what I do"

Guy, who do you think you are !
After throwing to people personnal attacks ones after the others you dare to complain to be answered.
Be civil yourself and you will receive construcvite answers ! Ceedjee (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Is somebody on a campaign here?" - personnal attack by Eleland.
"besides the fact that you don't like al-Husayni. Or Palestinians generally?" Personnal attack by Eleland that would deserve a blockade of several days. Ceedjee (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop edit warring

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at NATO bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

If you can point to any article where I am edit warring, please do so. Otherwise, cease your baseless allegations. You are edit warring on multiple article, and this behavior has to stop. Isarig (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of notable spoken word performers

I have nominated List of notable spoken word performers, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable spoken word performers. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. meshach (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary usage

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Saeb Erekat has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to resolve this issue

Referring to my work as "your bloggish bloated idiotic version" is uncivil, [2], [3] and suggesting I am a troll is a personal attack.[4] I would appreciate it if you would stop making personal comments of this nature. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

personal attack

"covering hadanah"

you don't know anything about this topic. Read books about the topic and then come and discuss ! Ceedjee (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sra mediation

I just wanted to let you know, that if you want me to mediate in the dispute about satanic ritual abuse, I will be pleased to do so. It would be helpful though if you could describe exactly what the core of the disputes are. Furthermore I would like to point out that I have much knowledge about the discussion in the Netherlands and the United States and some knowledge about the situation in Belgium and Germany, but that I do not know a thing about the situation in other countries. But I guess, that it is possible to be of help in disputes about these countries too, because the arguments of believers and non believers are almost always very similar.

The most important thing with mediation though is that you acknowledge the expertise of the mediator and that you trust his or her findings. My experiences on Wikipedia with regard to my article about the situation in the Netherlands are not very positive. Although I have tried to explain that all my sources were genuine, reliable and scientific, editors continuously blocked my neutral article and replaced it with a biased and a factually incorrect paragraph. The main reson that they blocked my page was that they did not know the sources and that they could not read Dutch. The fact that someone cannot read Dutch and therefore cannot control the content of an article, is no reason to block it. If there are doubts about the content of my article, it would be a good idea to contact some of the people I mention in the article. If you want addresses or telephone numbers, I can give them to you. There is a world outside Wikipedia, where allegations and facts can be checked.

Therefore when people ask me to mediate and I use e.g. Dutch or German sources in the solution of the dispute, you will have to trust me that the sources are genuine, reliable and scientific. Otherwise the mediation will fail.

Criminologist1963 (talk) 12:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eleland (and Criminologist1963 if you see this).

Just take a look at my most recent post in SRA talk page about what the Encyclopædia Britannica says on the subject.

The article as it stands is a clear violation of the due weight policy and must be reverted to, say, an October incarnation of the article.

Something must be done immediatly so as not to deceive the wiki readership with preposterous claims. Maybe the first thing to do is to place a POV tag?

Cesar Tort 06:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no problem. your reply shows a great deal of respect and civility [not kidding here, as I hope you realize]. thanks for replying. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 03:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 07:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

CfD: Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict issues

Hi. please help! The category Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict issues has been nominated for deletion. this is a category which is meant to be simply a conveneient non-partisan gathering-place for all entries which are general overviews of various issues, as opposed to being related to a specific event or location.

The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 21#Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict issues. This category is beneficial to all of us who habitually edit these articles, regardless of whether we may be more affiliated with Israeli concerns or Palestinian concerns. The category's deletion is being advocated by editors who rarely edit any articles on this topic, and have little involvement in this topic at Wikipedia.

Your help would be greatly appreciated. please go to this category's discussion entry, and express your opinion. Hopefully, you will be willing to advocate keeping this category. thanks for your help. Thanks, Sm8900 --207.10.186.39 (talk) 14:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WR

Do be aware that Wikipedia Review actively review their logs, your IP address will be known to them and they will not be averse to using it to track your whereabouts and possibly your employer if you use a company proxy server. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rfm

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Palestinian people, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Eleland.

The SRA True Believers may not be willing to submit themselves to a process in which they may lose. What about "Mediation cabal"? As far as I know (I may be wrong!) you don't need the approval of every party in Mediation cabal.

I am so busy in my own writing that I am almost quitting Wikipedia; or maybe I will edit it only once in a while. After spending enormous amounts of time and energy in an ArbCom process last year, I realized that I cannot afford anymore to invest the proper time in the talk pages.

Yes: ArbCom does not rule on content. But I think there are lots of skeptical editors about the paranormal in Wikiland (or skeptics about demonic interpretations of witch-hunts, such as the Salem trial). They may help us.

BTW, do you know what happened to user:Antaeus Feldspar, who was involved in this article the previous years?

—Cesar Tort 20:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You make a reasonable point. However, it sems to me to be somewhat sensible to at least wait until the end of the 7-day period to see what happens. right now, it's possible everyone will agree to mediation. If they don't, then I agree, we can always go to Medcab at that point. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting a week is very reasonable. Oh yes: when I referred to user:Antaeus Feldspar I had in mind the SRA article. We need someone like him :) Cesar Tort 02:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I received a note that request of mediation was not accepted. Next step...? You are much more knowable of wikilawyering than I do. —Cesar Tort 03:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to win the SRA debate

An idea has occurred to me.

Recently an editor, in my opinion misinterpreting NPOV’s due weight policy, removed lots of well-sourced sentences in Biopsychiatry controversy arguing that the authors, even though they are scholars with academic posts, represented the minority view within academia.

If an editor can remove sentences from well-recognized academics (an erroneous interpretation of NPOV as I said above), why can’t we just remove the paragraphs from the books and texts by the lunatic fringe who are the sources of those now editing the SRA article??

We may simply appeal to the WP policy “extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources”. The 1980s and 90’s SRA were indeed extraordinary claims: a kind of 17 century Salem witch-hunt. As I have iterated elsewhere, the SRA article must convey the view of mainstraim academics, criminologists and sociologists (not of pop psychologists and credulous therapists). We can use all the force of NPOV’s due weight and the extraordinary sources policies to win this battle.

There’s no question about it.

—Cesar Tort 06:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minority views belong in Wikipedia, unless they're the views of a tiny fringe. While guys like Finkelhor, Noblitt, etc. are plainly nuts, they do have qualifications and academic standing, and they've published. Their claims can and should be included in the SRA article. The problem comes when we write an entire article to the Roland Summit position and systematically exclude or marginalize mainstream views. Biao in particular has been playing a shell game, coming up with a dozen different reasons to exclude analysis of SRA as a social phenomenon, and only allowing a "skepticism" section which rushes through the entire corpus of SRA moral panic literature, slowing down only to dote on those views that Biao can use as a strawman, such as a highly obscure paper connecting "temporal lobe epilepsy" to SRA allegations.

Two weeks ago I thought this would be hammered out in mediation. Now I'm less sure; I'll try again on an RfM after the new year, in case editors are on holiday. After that, I now believe ArbCom would take this. There's a line where POV-pushing and tendentiousness moves from a humble content dispute into outright abuse of Wikipedia, and I believe some editors have crossed that line. In fact, I'll go and informally ask some arbitrators where they think that line is drawn now, so I have a better idea of how to proceed. Stay tuned. <eleland/talkedits> 16:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Summit is such a crank that he stated that several US government agencies were involved in SRA conspiracies. Please read the John Earl long article about the “dark tunnels” of McMartin. It pretty much demonstrates the level of lunacy of Summmit and other conspiracy theorists.

I had planned to take another wiki-break but this is a serious subject. As you know, I write about child abuse. Summit et al are a major embarrassment for our child-protection movement.

If they do indeed take this case, let me know if I have to say something to ArbCom.

Cesar Tort 01:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3rr

It appears Jaakobou has violated 3rr on House demolition.Bless sins (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I have reported him/her.[5]

Bless sins (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops =)

Re: "Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/Socialese". Sorry for not catching that; sometimes the templates don't tell me what's going on and I didn't catch the un-capitalised title. I archived the page because I thought the deleting admin was referring to that page. It's taken care of now. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA

Please avoid resorting to personal attacks. If you have a gripe with another editor, there are many things you can do but attacking him in edit summaries is not one of them. Yonatan ^talk 21:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]