User talk:Eleland/Archive8
For your work
[edit]Here is a little token of appreciation for upholding wikipedia policies:
Unblock
[edit]
Eleland (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
67.71.142.187 is indefinitely blocked, however, this is a pool IP address for an internet service provider which gives them out dynamically. The block is doing nothing against the intended target and hitting me instead. I will be resetting the connection to try for a new IP address, but you should probably unblock the IP anyway since the block serves no purpose. <eleland/talkedits> 18:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Unfortunately, I cannot find any record of that IP address being blocked, autoblocked or rangeblock. This request has been declined on the basis that no block currently exist for this account and the stated IP address. — nat.utoronto 19:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Thanks for fixing the malformed footer, and for suggesting a good redirect --Stephen 00:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Seeking your feedback at an RFC
[edit]Hi, I've found a historic photo that might be feature-worthy but the caption from the century-old stereoscope looks politically loaded by today's standards (Mideast issues). So I'm seeking feedback on how to craft NPOV language and move forward with a nomination. The discussion is located here. Your input would be much appreciated. Best regards, DurovaCharge! 23:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
For the reasons mentioned at that link, please remove the Hezbollah userbox from your user page, or you may be subject to the same sanctions, if any, as Noor Aalam (talk · contribs). Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am regularly offended by political sentiments expressed by "pro-Israel" editors in their userspace, such the as the Israeli Defense Force Barnstar (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive158#IDF_barnstar!? I'm sure that many other editors find such things offensive. I don't believe this type of content qualifies as "likely to bring the project into disrepute, or ... likely to give widespread offense," and in any case, I don't believe that a unilateral admin action in this case would be appropriate. The userbox says that I support armed resistance against aggression, and strongly implies that Hezbollah carries out this type of resistance. It doesn't say that I support terrorism. I don't. This is a worldwide project, the whole world doesn't think like the US and Israel, and the US-Israeli interpretation of what's offensive shouldn't hold veto power over userboxes. <eleland/talkedits> 23:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
edited to remove focus on single user, that's not really fair23:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the userbox because the consensus of editors indicates that it is unnecessarily divisive and inflammatory, and because it was based on the template {{User Hezbollah}} that has been repeatedly deleted for this reason. Such boxes are not allowed according to our rules about inappropriate user page content, and in accordance with Wikipedia not being a battleground. Please do not re-add this userbox, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia or your user page may be protected. For further information, please see the discussion at WP:ANI#Hezbollah userbox. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 08:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Your edits to User:Yahussain and User:Aisha uk
[edit]These edits may be construed as WP:POINT edits, and are restoring userboxes that were deemed inappropriate for wikipedia. You know where the discussion is taking place. Please refrain from adding divisive material to wikipedia, especially ones that have been removed multiple times in the past. Further disrupting wikipedia may result in actions being taken to protect the project. Also, please remember to remain WP:CIVIL when you discuss issues, especially those of a contentious nature. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
You (and others) might be amused to peruse this, where you'll discover that Jaakobou has managed to drive off every other interested editor (eight in total) throughout the whole 16 months of TalkPage discussion about this article!
You'll already know that none of his claims are referenced atall - only blogs and the perpetrators of the killings (of which there were 497 according to the official International figure) have called Erekat a liar. His career is long and really rather distinguished under the very difficult circumstances. There is a huge amount of interesting material that could go into this article, but this poisonous edit-war has driven off every other editor interested in improving the project.
Another thing you might find astounding is that Jaakobou had only just come back from a 3.5 day block for edit-warring (across a range of other articles) and immediately (2nd edit) set about the exact same activity, on an article where he's done so much damage for so long! PRtalk 17:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Armed resistance
[edit]Ok, so how about this, is this acceptable?
- 1. This user supports armed resistance against Eleland's aggression.
Is this is not acceptable, why would this be ok?
- 2. This user supports armed resistance against Palestinian (or Israel)'s aggression.
Or how about:
- 3. This user supports the use of guns, arms, bombs and tanks against Israel's aggression.
This is identical to the original userbox:
- 4. This user supports armed resistance against Israeli aggression.
--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Naming a particular editor would generally not be appropriate, but for reasons that have nothing to do with the discussion. Your second example would be acceptable. Your third is borderline, as it says "against...aggression" but does not specify resistance, ie, defensive warfare. However, such borderline userboxes and statements on user pages are fairly common in my experience, and generally not removed. <eleland/talkedits> 21:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- The user was I was refering to was the one who had the original user box, this one: [1]. Whats the difference between "armed resistance" and "bombs, tanks and guns"? Do you believe there's any? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Bombs, tanks, and guns may be used in many different ways. Armed resistance to aggression is one of those ways. They're different. And please stop posting on my talk page about it. You're obviously upset about this, and that's fine, but it appears that you're just badgering me at this point. <eleland/talkedits> 21:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Looking for an acceptable slogan? Here's one: "This user supports armed resistance against Bless sins' aggression". Ofcourse, for this statement to make any sense, there has to be aggression, by me, against you. Thus if anyone ever puts this slogan on their talk, I have nothing to worry about, because I know that I haven't committed acts of aggression against anyone.Bless sins (talk) 08:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Bombs, tanks, and guns may be used in many different ways. Armed resistance to aggression is one of those ways. They're different. And please stop posting on my talk page about it. You're obviously upset about this, and that's fine, but it appears that you're just badgering me at this point. <eleland/talkedits> 21:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- The user was I was refering to was the one who had the original user box, this one: [1]. Whats the difference between "armed resistance" and "bombs, tanks and guns"? Do you believe there's any? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
BTW, would any of you support a blanket ban on user boxes that are political in nature?Bless sins (talk) 08:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
article about stefanie
[edit]hello, I was a friend of stefanie rengels and just wanted to say you did well in her article. did you know her as well? sincerely, rfb
- Never heard of her until I saw yesterday's paper sitting on my desk this morning. I'm sorry for your loss. <eleland/talkedits> 21:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: Hi there
[edit]I think that edits such as removing excess whitespace, removing underscores hidden in wikilinks, and other edits which do not change how the page is rendered, are frowned upon by Wikipedia:AWB#Rules of use. <eleland/talkedits> 19:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm quite new to the software and was really just experimenting with the different funtionality, so I wasn't fully aware of that guideline - I'll keep it in mind in future though. Of course, if there's any way for the software to ignore pages that *only* require insignificant edits, I'd be interested to hear about that. --carelesshx talk 23:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Stefanie Rengel
[edit]
An article that you have been involved in editing, Stefanie Rengel, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefanie Rengel. Thank you. HookOnTheWall (talk) 06:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Minor change to userbox on talk page
[edit]Eleland, I have no problems with your userbox, per se - but I DO have an issue with the explicit endorsement of violence ("violently resist") so I made a minor change. Please tell me what you think. Eliyohub (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Eh, I don't mind the "legitimate means" qualifier, though I don't really see why "endorsing violence" in the context of self-defense against aggression should be a problem. In any case, I'm not eager to fight over it. <eleland/talkedits> 16:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter — Issue XXII (December 2007)
[edit]
 Issue XXII (December 2007) | ||
|
New featured articles:
New A-Class articles: | |
| ||
| ||
Tag & Assess 2007 is now officially over, with slightly under 68,000 articles processed. The top twenty scores are as follows:
Although the drive is officially closed, existing participants can continue tagging until January 31 if they wish, with the extra tags counting towards their tally for barnstar purposes. We'd like to see what lessons can be learned from this drive, so we've set up a feedback workshop. Comments and feedback from participants and non-participants alike are very welcome and appreciated. | ||
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | ||
Note: This newsletter was automatically delivered. Regards from the automated, Anibot (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
reply
[edit]just in case you might miss it - i replied here [2]. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Please see the above link as I have requested arbitration for a dispute that you are involved in. Feel free to contribute there. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 17:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Solomon
[edit]Nice catch there. I always find it frustrating to have to undo vandalism that's followed by good edits. I should have seen that myself. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Mediation Cabal
[edit]A case has opened in the WP:Mediation Cabal and a user has listed you as an involved party, related to edits/comments at Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The case is located at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-09 Israeli-Palestinian conflict, please feel free to comment on the article talk page. Thank you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- PS. I felt like it was time to open a mediation case, since in spite of all the contention, dissent and new proceedings curently going on, as well as edit-protections on several entries, there are actually very few active mediation efforts for any articles right now. so this is a step in hopefully a right direction. by the way, did you know that a single MedCab case can cover a few articles at once? so this seems like possibly an appropriate way to go. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
[edit]Thanks for your recent comments to ScienceApologist on the Fringe Noticeboard. TimidGuy (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Eleland, I swear I am an idiot. This was my first article on Wiki so please excuse my stupidity. It's been a while since I've done a research document like this. I Completely rewrote my own article including additional information, a little of my own knowledge and insight, and citing an additional source. It was started from scratch, is more informative, and is actually written in, what I believe to be, a more logical order than the other article. Thanks for what I believe was intended to be constructive criticism. I'll try to never make the same mistake again. Did I mention I'm an idiot?
Norman finkelstein page: I posted an ASSOCIATED PRESS quote that has norman finkelstein saying islamic terrorist group represents "hope." It was quoted hundreds of times around the world via the associated press and a DIRECT QUOTE from finkelstein, yet a talkback editor removed it from his wikipedia page, saying he "said no such thing." The editor could have taken 5 seconds to google the quote, yet didn't. Here is one URL with the AP article: "After the horror and after the shame and after the anger there still remain a hope, and I know that I can get in a lot of trouble for what I am about to say, but I think that the Hezbollah represents the hope. They are fighting to defend their homeland," the Brooklyn-born Finkelstein told reporters. The U.S. government has labeled Hezbollah a terrorist organization. - http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/942454.html I will complain to higher-up wikipedia editors if my CORRECT QUOTE is removed on account of a false reason. Thanks, keep doing the great job that you're doing, and don't hide accurate quotes. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.197.162 (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Bloggers
[edit]Calling them "crazy" may be construed as somewhat negative, but the text itself does not appear inappropriate, at least to me. -- Avi (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
[edit]For fixing that box on my user page to correctly reflect my gender. I'm quite proud of being a woman! Warm regards. Tiamut 17:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Ed O'Loughlin
[edit]The article is completely different in that every claim is now substantiated by a reliable source. I went through the article from top to bottom, and redid it, and then User:A. B. came through and made other enhancements. Regardless, the article has been substantially changed, and improved, and is what should have been done during the AfD. Oft times people who write articles bring unacceptable sources when acceptable ones exist; I don't know why. A few hours of research can usually uncover the necessary sources if they exist. I explained my decisions on the talk page, but in a nutshell, this person has been discussed vis-a-vis the perception of his biases in more than one reliable source unconnected with his work (Jerusalem Post, Jewish Political Studies Review, and the Australian arm of the Free Patriotic Movement - there are others that were removed b/c there was nothing that they added substantially, and there is no need to pile on for piling on's sake). The blogs are unused. May I ask why you feel it is only "slightly" cleaned up? Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough, and yes, thanks for fixing the JCPA piece. Is this a WP:COATRACK? I'm not certain because it is not one incident. The MSG study quoted in Fleischer did claim 107 out of 210 instances of what they claim is misrepresentation were attributed to O'Loughlin. Is he eminently notable? No. But then again, neither are the porn stars that seem to litter wikipedia. There is enough to pass WP:BIO, and I think the article now is not the hodgepodge of blog accusations it was, which was unacceptable. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Ed O'Loughlin
[edit]An article that you have been involved in editing, Ed O'Loughlin, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed O'Loughlin 2nd attempt. Thank you. A. B. (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Mediation
[edit]I have proposed a mediation on the underlying issue at New antisemitism. The request is here. It's up to you whether or not you want to participate. I am asking everyone who has been extensively involved in discussions on the talk page. *** Crotalus *** 05:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted. An uninvolved administrator, after issuing a warning, may impose sanctions including blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. The Committee shall convene a working group, composed of experienced Wikipedians in good standing, and task it with developing a comprehensive set of recommendations for resolving the pervasive problem of intractable disputes centered around national, ethnic, and cultural areas of conflict. The group shall be appointed within two weeks from the closure of this case, and shall present its recommendations to the Committee no later than six months from the date of its inception. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Saeb Erekat
[edit]My reading of the UN report is that several 100 were killed in Jenin (though not 500) in April 2002. It would add up, we have 80 in Nablus and then smaller numbers elsewhere, totalling 497 in 9 weeks (March, April and first week of May) in "Palestinian Area A". I'll grant you my "several 100" figure does not appear anywhere in the RS, but it's the "least surprising" conclusion to be drawn from all the evidence, including what Israel told us. The only different report is what appeared from the perpetrators after they'd kept all observers, medical attention etc kept out of the camp for at least 4 (perhaps 8) days while they extensively bulldozed the centre of the camp. 100s of other reports (including Israeli) say there were 100s of dead. None of them ever retract what they said (to the rage of the blogosphere!). However, I'm not actually looking to include this at Saeb Erekat, I just think the rest of it now needs writing to the RSes. PRtalk 08:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- damn it PR, that's not writing to the RSes, that's writing to your personal crackpot interpretation of the RSes. there were major battles through that period in virtually every Palestinian population centre - Nablus, Jenin, Bethlehem, Ramallah, Gaza City, Rafah, etc etc. if you really want, go through the relevant reports from B'Tselem, then match up dates & places of death. <eleland/talkedits> 09:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Request for mediation accepted
[edit]
|
A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/New antisemitism.
|
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
You said:
- I can't believe Wikipedia is still suffering through this nonsense. It's fine to discuss the Seagraves's elaboration of this tall tale, and their silly books, but we owe it to the readers to keep some distance. Enough of this "many credible historians have argued well-documented" weasel worded crap. If the Seagraves claim something, say "the Seagraves claim X" and put it in a section called "According to the Seagraves," stop with the puffery and WP:FRINGE theory pushing. <eleland/talkedits> 18:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The long and favourable review of the Seagraves' book by Chalmers Johnson, a well-known historian and former CIA consultant, in the London Review of Books is a credible source that is also used in the article. Johnson also draws on books by other people. His article can be found here: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n22/john04_.html
I don't think the claims of "nonsense", "tall tales", "silly books", "weasel words" or "fringe theories" can be justified in this instance. Grant | Talk 08:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)