User talk:Eleland/Archive9

note on edits.

eleland, i always enjoy your comments, and find you very insightful. I would like to humbly ask that you not continue the discussion of jewish genes. there is no basis for making any conclusions from such data about the relevance or validity of the jewish people or any other group, even if findings might appear to be in any way conclusive. if the world accepts the jewish people, or any other religious, cultural, social, political, or ethnic group, then all we can do as an encyclopedia is accept and report that basic fact. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your last comment was really great. I hope you'll think of restoring at least part of it. Of course, it's completely up to you. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. i just responded to you, at Talk:Palestinian right of return. look forward to further discussion. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 03:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed ahmed dirir hewalbin: No assertion of notability?

See User_talk:Anthony_Appleyard#Mohamed ahmed dirir hewalbin: No assertion of notability?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 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 (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone

The "Rolling Stone" magazine of 7/2/1970 notes that there was "an unmistakeable orange flash at the end of his pistol". This refers to Hunter's pistol. The writer notes that the orange flash appeared "before" Hunter was stabbed.

Angels

Barger and the Hells Angels generally say that Hunter fired his gun. Presumably, they do not count as a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 09:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, don't go telling me about it. Instead edit the article to say that, and be sure to add the text

<ref>Lastname, Firstname. 'Name of media report.' ''Rolling Stone'' 7 Feb 1970</ref>

so we know where you got it. The Hells Angel's claim can also be mentioned and attributed. <eleland/talkedits> 09:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also please make your comments in one piece, its impossible to reply when i keep getting edit conflicts. Signing would be nice, too (put ~~~~ at the end, you get the ~ from shift+key @ top left of kbd) <eleland/talkedits> 09:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article in the "Rolling Stone" of 1970 is already mentioned in the External Links in the article on Hunter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 09:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please start signing your comments, and please read and cite your sources properly. It actually says,

In one frame, just before [Hunter] is jumped, there is an unmistakable orange flash at the end of the pistol, Bibb adds. It lasts only for this one frame. Bibb is not saying this is a gunshot, and he's not saying it's not. It might be, say, a reflection off someone's watch or glasses. "The Angels say there was a shot fired," says Bibb. "I can't tell you. It's impossible, really, to tell what it is. None of us heard a shot."

So Rolling Stone reported that somebody said there was a flash, but that he couldn't tell whether it was a gunshot, and you want to use that as proof of a gunshot as reported by Rolling Stone? Uhm, no. <eleland/talkedits> 09:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The orange flash is visible to any one looking at the "frame", not to one man only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring as combative language

Eleland, hi. I'm not entirely sure, but when you describe the AoIA reverts as "edit warring" you are maybe too quickly making an accusation. If WP:BRD applies, then after their initial revert you should then move to discussion and not revert back. Right? Anyway, couldn't you use another phrase or omit that, and just go to your well-sourced substantive discussion? And thanks for noting and follwing 1RR, kudos to you. HG | Talk 15:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1948 Palestine War

Hi Eleland,
You suggested that summaries of other articles be written in this one. For their size, you suggested 2-3 paragraph.
I agreed but I am embarrassed... I had already written a "summary" of the first of the article about the dec47-May48 period and it is more longer. Do you think this could be even more summarized in keeping NPov ?
Thank you for your comments :-) Ceedjee (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Read and heed — Rlevse • Talk • 21:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Aamer Alfar.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Aamer Alfar.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Aamer Alfar.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Aamer Alfar.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Chavez Your name was the last on the page so I am hoping you can assist me. Please fix the following things on the article if you can.

Citation There is a request for a citation under Early Life, the sentence can be sourced to The Observer, May 7th 2006, The new kid in the barrio. I do not seem to be able to put this in the article, or know how. Please include if possible. There is a link I found on the internet to the article http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2006/may/07/featuresreview.review

Delete Can someone also delete the last thing added to the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez&diff=190976084&oldid=190271538 —Preceding unsigned comment added by N4GMiraflores (talk • contribs) 20:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

User: "Abuse truth"

Hi,

I have just noticed something odd that I'd like to share with you: this.

In the edit summary of the Revision as of 22:00, 10 February 2008 of talk:Satanic ritual abuse, you can see that it was an entry by Abuse truth in the section "Professional, peer-reviewed evidence". However, the comment was signed thus: Biaothanatoi (talk) 06:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curious, isn’t it? Seems he cut and pasted an old signature. Note that the timing: 22:00, 10 February 2008 greatly differs from 06:25 of December 2007)!

And it's also curious that Biao just showed up after a vacation in the moment when all of us are voting :)

—Cesar Tort 06:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he did list this under the header "a comment from a previous editor on this talk page." Still, I agree that the timing of Biao's return is very suspicious. Both seem to be SPAs devoted to pushing conspiracy theories about ritual abuse, recovered memory, and other pseudoscientific topics. There was another SPA, User:West world, who was involved in the same kind of thing, but (thankfully) is dormant. I think there's a possibility of either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. *** Crotalus *** 06:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- It is not terribly suspicious, the original comment can be found at Talk:Satanic ritual abuse/Archive 4#POV tag badly needed —mediation also needed! and AT simply copied it. I doubt they're actually the same person. Abuse Truth tends to plead and is not terribly literate. Biao is abusive and denigrating (in the guise of condemning everyone else as abusive and denigrating) but literate. <eleland/talkedits> 08:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right guys: I didn’t pay due attention to AT’s heading before the quotation!

Changing subjects, we don’t need consensus to create Ritualized child abuse. I have been recently involved in a lengthy discussion in talk:Psychohistorical views on infanticide and some people more knowledgeable of WP policies than me believe that the subject lacks notability to merit an article of its own.

I could just move Psychohistorical views on infanticide to Ritualized child abuse: a subject that nobody would dispute that it’s not notable enough. Of course, Lloyd deMause’s theories could be maintained in a section within the article far from the lead called, for example, “Psychological explanations” of ritualized child abuse (just as the infanticide article has such section).

However if I move the page I would need a good lead and also some content totally unrelated to deMause’s theories to justify the moving (I could fix by myself the many articles’ redirects though).

Once Ritualized child abuse is created as a legitimate WP article, there would be no reason to impede us the moving of the legitimate cases of child ritual abuse to the moved article. We can even do it before the SRA page is unlocked. This strategy would comply with WP’s due weight policy by vindicating the majority view in history and sociology that the subjects are distinct (RCA is about actual forensic evidence, while SRA is about a 1980s and 90’s moral panic more analogous with witch-hunts than with ritual crime).

I’ll leave this message in Crot’s talk page as well.

—Cesar Tort 20:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.

I'm having second thoughts. Instead of messing up with the controversial Psychohistorical views on infanticide, I am willing to start from scratch Ritualized child abuse tonight. Nothing in WP policies impedes me from doing it, right?

—Cesar Tort 23:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S.

Done! —Cesar Tort 11:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Eleland,

I must concur with other editors that AT's reverting without consensus has gone on long enough. Like you I want an arbitration case and want these sort of pov pushers banned from Wikipedia. But Rubin is not sure about which specific step we might to take on this sort of behavior.

When the SRA page is unlocked, guys like AT will make that the page gets locked immediately afterwards.

Presently, it's easier to handle Biao. It has become increasingly obvious that he is sitting on a mountain of un-RS for his PhD (just the strategy used by fringe conspiracy theorists Noblitt and Perskin in their "scholarly" book). It's easy to beat Biao with the WP policy that extraordinary claims require extraordinary (ie, peer-reviewed journals) sources.

But AT keeps on reverting in so many articles that an action must be taken if the SRA page is going to finally settle down.

What would you recommend?

—Cesar Tort 06:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Occupation Forces

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Israeli Occupation Forces, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

guidelines for the naming of articles

Like too many other editors who have contributed to the current renaming debate at 9/11 conspiracy theories, you claimed that what "reliable sources" call something is a consideration in choosing names for articles, despite the fact that it had already been pointed out that this was not the case. Please do not misrepresent wikipedia policy and guidelines in this way because it causes a lot of confusion. ireneshusband (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You've been blocked for 48 hours for this edit, which I find violates both standard wiki civility policy and arbcom rulings on Mideast articles. Referring to someone's edits as "idiocy" and "garbage" is not the best way to handle things. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it's fine to misrepresent your sources, but calling someone on it is block-worthy. Lovely. <eleland/talkedits> 16:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eleland, it depends on how you call someone on it. You can use {{unblock}} to appeal the block, but please remember that being civil is just as strong a policy on wikipedia as is verifiability. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|Okay, I've given myself a few hours now to cool off, and yes, referring to anothers' edits as "idiocy" and "garbage" is inexcusable. I apologize for the insulting language. Something like "difficult to understand" and "seemingly at wide variance with the cited sources" would have got the job done better and without acrimony. My uncivil comments stemmed from a recent flare-up in a series of long-term disputes that I and multiple other editors, from varying POVs, have with User:Jaakobou. I believe, and I am prepared, given a little time, to show that he is a seriously, serially, tendentious editor. Much of it was already covered at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Evidence. However, article talk was the wrong place to bring this up, and insulting language is not appropriate anywhere. I will not again allow this conflict to spill over into article talk pages, which are about collaborating to improve articles, not attack one another. I will also pledge not to edit Palestinian right of return or the corresponding talk page for seven days starting today. I will refrain from any direct communication with Jaakobou for the same period. <eleland/talkedits> 00:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)}}[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Sounds fair to me.

Request handled by: jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eleland. Just saw your pout (or frown) at WP:IPCOLL/BATTLE, actually made me smile wryly (?) to see you add your name yourself, and I wanted to encourage you to move forward (albeit with less invective ink spilled). Regards, HG | Talk 17:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MIlitary history WikiProject coordinator election

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Special Barnstar for a Special Editor

		The Special Barnstar
		For passionately pursuing WP:NPOV and for admitting when that passion has gotten the better of you, I hereby award you this special barnstar. May you always continue in your passionate pursuits. Tiamut^talk 14:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awwww... thanks Tiamut. <eleland/talkedits> 19:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I had been meaning to give you one for some time now. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if a I gave you another one, more directly related to your solid contributions some time very soon. Your editing work here is deeply appreciated. Tiamut^talk 09:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your block at WP:AE

The words were unnecessary. Always take a deep breath from now on. If someone says you mis-stated a citation intentionally, take a deep breath and ask for an explanation. If one is not forthcoming, then the other person is guilty of assuming bad faith. All you did -in what I'm sure was an impatient moment - was to obscure the issue. Relata refero (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding CltFn

See User_talk:FT2#Question_about_Archtransit for details on this situation. I suspected that CltFn might have been an Archtransit sock because (1) Archtransit inexplicably unblocked him against consensus, and (2) Archtransit is now known to have unblocked his proven sockpuppets. However, according to User:Thatcher, CltFn came back unrelated. Still, CltFn remains community banned for repeated tendentious editing. This includes violations of WP:BLP; in fact, he was trying to insert such material into Barack Obama when he was finally blocked by User:Jersey Devil for disruption. No matter who CltFn actually is, I definitely agree that his contributions need to be carefully checked. Book reviews consisting solely of reiteration of the contents should be trimmed down. I tried to {{prod}} a couple of these not too long ago, but the tags were removed. If no reliable third-party sources (reviews, etc.) can be found, then these articles should be nominated for deletion. *** Crotalus *** 02:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eleland, I don't know what this is all about, but your last comment on IPCOLL seems inappropriate. I don't even understand what the comment is trying to do. If it's about dealing with an individual, then it doesn't belong there. If it's something else, then I'd ask that you rethink it. Maybe send me a draft before posting? Meanwhile, could you either remove it, or let me remove it? Thanks. HG | Talk 03:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Well, rereading the above post, are you looking for help in trying to check out and (as needed) remove edits by a banned editor who temporarily got thru the "security" screen? If so, I'd ask that you word the post on IPCOLL differently. The heading might be something like "Help wanted" and the text, I don't know, maybe A banned user temporarily got onto Wikipedia and made approx ## edits. Given this user's track record, the edits need to be examined. Would anyone like to volunteer and help check these edits? If I've totally missed the point here, I'm sorry. In any case, I appreciate your responsiveness to my request. Be well, HG | Talk 04:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was my intent, but it was probably expressed badly. The intent was not to "diss" anyone, or to gloat over the block, but to solicit help in repairing any damaging edits. I've posted to the WP:BLPN on the issue and to an individual user directly, it'll get taken care of eventually. <eleland/talkedits> 23:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

medcab

Hey. I know this is a very contentious issue, and looking over the archive it doesn't look so great. But give this a chance. I don't want any self-fulfilling prophecies on my hands ;) Xavexgoem (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably clarify that. "though I'm not entirely thrilled by the odds of resolving this" is what I'm worried about. I don't know what your thoughts are about this at the moment, but I'm afraid of people jumping on that possible bandwagon, or just staying there at the side of the road acting all cynical (which I understand). Up to you :) Xavexgoem (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Israeli-Palestinian_conflict#core_issues_section.2C_intro

Hi there, I am trying to coordinate some editors to help me rewrite the intro of the article. Your thoughts/additions would be appreciated. Suicup (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Collective_punishment#Needs_more_information

I'm playing devil's advocate (If you see my discussion with Master of Puppets and Mastcell, you'll see I prefer excising the Israel/Palestine section from this article entirely as it appears to me to be an unfortunate attempt at soapboxing by people trying to push a POV from one side or the other).

But still, I see where there is definite concern regarding how "neutral" agencies like HRW/Amnesty International actually are in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. While these agencies are generally reliable, they may have bias and not qualify in regard to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict articles. M1rth (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IDF

the reason i deleted the section was because it was a bias article anyone reading it will immediately get the idea that the IDF is a terrible evil army, and i will delete again until it is rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Star-of-David92 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MINOR

Please note that the following recent edits [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] do not fall under change that do not affect the meaning of an article and are therefore not WP:MINOR. With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should report it to admins. In fact, no, I urge you to report it. They're just dying to hear more from you, Jaakobou. The last two or three baseless reports weren't nearly enough.

My marking of those edits as minor is in fact an atrocious abuse of the Wikipedia. It's no exaggeration to say that the future of the project, indeed, the future of Western civlization itself, depends on those edits being acknowledged as NOT MINOR.

Sigh. The sad thing is, I know quite well that these spurious "warnings" of which you're so enamored are a blatant, deliberate provocation — and yet I'm provoked, all the same. Go away, Jaakobou. You're becoming an embarrassment. <eleland/talkedits> 20:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing overly serious with this issue but it is worthy enough that I mention it to you. I wasn't aware, esp. after you've left a notice on my page [10], that if I raise any concern, that an immediate bad faith assumption would follow. It's also unpleasant when snippy and uncivil comments are being made, I've not meant to offend or provoke you and phrases like "You're becoming an embarrassment" are off topic and just wrong. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CIA and libelous comments=

Your comments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1948_Arab-Israeli_War#CIA are baseless slander and the removal of the CIA report is unprofessional. You can verify the report at the CIA Web site: http://www.foia.cia.gov/browse_docs.asp It is designated as NARA # NN3-263-92-005, 24-AUG-92. If you search for "Palestine 1947" you will find it. Are you claiming that CIA are not a reliable source for CIA reports? I could not give a link to them because their queries do not work that way. You have no basis for your personal slander of me or other editors of zionism-israel.com. If you find an error, you report it, and if it is really an error, we fix it. See our fairness and accuracy policy. http://www.zionism-israel.com/Policy.htm That is better than wikipedia, where people like you remove references to CIA documents because they don't fit your prejudices. Your own commitment to reliability and accuracy is demonstrated by your removal of the reference. Mewnews (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What in the heck are you on about? If the CIA report is available online from a reliable source, cite it directly. Wikipedia has guidelines about what constitutes a reliable source. Zionism-Israel.com doesn't pass those guidelines. It has nothing to do with the quality of the website itself. As I explicitly said (and this conversation was a month and a half ago,) "Even if every single thing ever said on their site was strictly accurate, it's the reputation for accuracy that matters, not the accuracy itself." Your accusations of libel and slander are baseless, and you should know that use of Wikipedia to transit legal threats is not allowed.

Back to the article itself, it's clear that the CIA report was very badly misquoted. The text said,

Earlier, a CIA report had predicted that it was unlikely that the Jews could hold out against the Arabs of Palestine without extensive outside help, because a war would disrupt the economy for too long. The CIA did not believe that Arab states would intervene.

However, the reference is actually discussing foreign Arabs rather than "the Arabs of Palestine," it says the Jews could "hold out" for two years, and it expected the Arab states to intervene extensively. Furthermore, the Wikipedia text tried to contrast the CIA assessment with Morris's as if they were contradictory, which is foolish. Morris was very clearly discussing the weakness of the local, Palestinian Arab forces, and how they were incapable of beating the Zionist forces without outside help. The CIA was anticipating the results of that outside help. <eleland/talkedits> 15:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well-poisoning

The introductory section of an article on charges of human rights violation is typically context-setting. In this case, the most important piece of context is that Israel is a liberal democracy in which minorities are protected, just like, say Norway, or Sweden. To state that human rights are a matter of ongoing discussion is a) self-evident, and b) begs the question and therefore constitutes well-poisoning. Correcting bias is not hostile. --Leifern (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review of Category:Wikipedians who support Hezbollah

Hi. I noticed you took part in the debate at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Hezbollah userbox and I was wondering if you might want to participate in a debate I have started at deletion review of this category and accompanying userboxes here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: Human rights in Israel

Hello Eleland , Thank you for your advice, I will try to stay cool and be less reverting in the future. As you can see in the debate okedem refused to be rational and rejected any content I added on the basis that "HRW is not reliable" or giving his personal opinions about the war, and we were not going anyway with this discussion. Thank you for the mediation you are doing now. Imad marie (talk) 07:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is going around in circles, and I don't know what would convince okedem, he is just refusing to be rational. I will not be able to participate in the discussion for the next couple of days as I will be out of town. Imad marie (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Elelan, This is my first time filing an RFC here, did I do it right? Imad marie (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re your note, w/apologies for my tardiness

Hi Eleland, I'm really sorry to be so slow in responding. I've been mulling over your suggestion. In general, yes, I do think it would be helpful to gather together examples of some of the tactical partisan approaches to policy. I don't have a lot of enthusiasm for an RfC on the editor in question, but could I suppose be persuaded. The main reason for my reluctance is that I do not think it would lead to much; Arbcom, for whatever reason, does not appear willing to be firm with this particular editor's excesses and abuses. What could be useful, however, would be to set up a project page to deal with the application of core policy to this area of Wikipedia; it could be a valuable reference for anyone bedeviled by talk-page sophistries of the sort you and I know so well.--G-Dett (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Council on American-Islamic Relations

I'm really shouldn't have to tell you this but edit summaries like "Israel lobby" aren't civil and are more likely to get you ignored, if not blocked. Please try to be calm and use the talk page appropriately. I have commented there about the issues with the article, so please add civil, reasoned comments there if you wish. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that calling the ADL and the WINEP part of the "Israel lobby" is going to get me blocked? This is a perfectly neutral and factual description. You'd have to block Mearsheimer and Walt by the same standard. Ludicrous. <eleland/talkedits> 09:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFC - Human rights in Israel

I have filed an RFC here, you might be interested. Imad marie (talk) 13:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

article note

Hio. we might as well talk directly about this. It seems that Abbas probably did use the word "Holocaust." i don't care about this specific issue, as it seems of little significance. However, I figured I'd just follow up and clarify. is theere an article confirming that Abbas did not use the English word "Holocaust"? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aw heck, I think you're right here. I thought Abbas had said "shoah" but I don't think that's correct. He was speaking to foreign reporters, presumably in English. Sorry. I still maintain that we should translate Vilnai's words as "holocaust," since that's what any of a thousand sources, including Israeli papers like Yediot Ahranoth and Ha'aretz did. <eleland/talkedits> 16:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your aw heck, as this is out of proportion. i'm not sure it needs to be in the entry permanently. However, i aprpeciate the clarification about this; I do understand the initial issue and doubt about the phrase used, as I had the same unclearness, so i appreciate your open answer about this. thanks.

you and I probably see this whole issue somewhat similarly. I am open to suggestions. as another suggestion, we can step aside for a bit just to allow other editors to weigh in, and to allow the issue to subside somewhat, in my opinion. however, at some point, the covergae here of this would need to be trimmed, as this small verbal exchange is not worth including in a general overview entry. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most of this stuff will probably be excised once the furor dies down. I tend to stay away from our series of "200x Israel-Gaza conflict" articles since they're almost unreadable, but that's probably where this stuff belongs. <eleland/talkedits> 16:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 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 (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regards

I tend to gabble airily from the elevator, watching with a comfortable admiration, when not caught up in my own rather ineffectual words, the shifts coming to and fro. It's the men and women at the rockface like yourself and a dozen others, Stakhanovites one and all, who merit recognition. I've long wanted to say that to each and all, but have refrained, because I know compliments embarrass. Finest regards Nishidani (talk) 09:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Way out of line?

The article said that "some pro-Israeli" people use the term, as if they are the only ones who use it. The reference was to an article in the Jerusalem Post (which I suspect you wouldn't accept as an RS for any other purpose) that made this point in regards to a specific evidence. The difference between what you wrote and what could be substantiated in the source is so vast that it barely passes resemblance. --Leifern (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RfB

I wanted to personally thank you, eleland, for your participation in my recent RfB. I am sorry that you feel that once incident, in which I was a passive participant, and over which I had no control was enough to outweigh 30+ months and 21K+ edits, and I am gratified that other people who share your opinions vis-a-vis certain geopolitical issues on wikipedia nevertheless saw fit to either support my request, or oppose for technical and not fundamental reasons. Regardless, if you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli-Palestine conflict

I'm not sure if you were trying to defend me or not (if you were - thanks!), but where have i "all but demanded" that that you step off this article? cheersSuicup (talk) 05:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I interpreted "How about everyone stops this stupid arguing, and try to fix other key holes in the History section. You people make me sick, the most of the article (esp the history section) is a shambles, and all you are interested in is petty semantic disputes" in that manner. <eleland/talkedits> 05:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chomsky image

Care to clarify on the speedy deletion tag that you so sanctimoniously placed on it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grunge6910 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I don't see how it could be "simply" to illustrate the article subject; that's the whole point of images in a Wikipedia article. Secondly, it's unique in that it's (1) the most recent image of him that I am aware of as I stated in the replaceability field, and (2) it's him lecturing on linguistics; it's probably the only lecture of him on linguistics on the internet. Thirdly, I don't see how it could be non-free; it's a screenshot of a non-copyrighted video filmed by university students placed on a host-site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grunge6910 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grunge6910 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Dude

An editor has nominated Dude, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dude and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you haven't caught this

An article that touches for once on the problems of language which we are required to struggle endlessly over with our co-editors. Yonatan Mendel, 'Never Write "Murder" or "Palestine",’ Counterpunch, March 12, 2008 Perhaps, in the long term, one could create a page listing examples of this linguistic dissonance. Best Regards Nishidani (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughts on the RfC at Second Intifada

Would be appreciated. I normally wouldn't contact anyone, but having noticed that Michael Safyan (talk · contribs) alerted five editors to the its existence, I have decided to respond in kind. Tiamut^talk 00:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I'm being stupid. Don't bother responding to this request and I'm sorry for even asking. I don't want a war, just an honest RfC process. That can still happen as long as it's noted which users were canvassed by the other editor. Thanks for tolerating my inanity. Tiamut^talk 02:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will stay out of the discussion, but the first source I sought to check was the Mitchell Report, which describes the intifada as an uprising three times. Sharon accepted the content of the report on behalf of the Israeli government. Good luck with the honest RfC process, you'll need it. <eleland/talkedits> 04:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eurabia

Map? Why on earth? Relata refero (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't make up my mind if I approve of it as looking suitably loony or disapprove of it as giving the theory too much credence. (Or, for that matter, being vaguely intimidating. Europe is covered in Saracenic green! Help!) Relata refero (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, go ahead and re-add it. That green swathe is definitely disturbing, though. I just spent a moment wondering whether I should add it to pages watched by Unionists and caption it "The IRA's planned Republican Empire." Relata refero (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]