User talk:Eleland/Archive4

Article listed for deletion

My article on automatic link exchange at it's last modification contained only one mention of related service by a word, not link, and you listed it for deletion. Ok, then what is this: reciprocal link? Can you see some HARD SPAM at the bootom of the page? May be you'll take a look at russian version of my article written by someone else ( http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80 ) ? As you can see those articles are FULL of spam links. My article has no links, only the name of the best service in the area that is described in the article. Why wikipedia contains an article about google? Because it is the best of search engines. Why do i put a word about specific resource? Because it is the best in it's niche. So i think you are a little bit wrong about your severe behaviour in regarding to my article. Did you investigated what i was writing about before such declarations? Can you point me out to something better or more reliable than the service i was mentioning as an example? I am sure you can not. Savweb 17:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia contains an article about Google because it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage from reliable published sources independent of the subject. Speaking of Google, Google News searches of "automated link exchange" and "automatic link exchange" return several press releases and one trivial mention from a probably unreliable source. Also, new talk page sections go at the bottom. Eleland 17:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Please Block This Vandaliser

Hello, I've given the same message to many, many people, but no one seems to be helping me out at all. The person with the IP address 68.32.50.29 has been causing much trouble. He/her gave a disturbing edit to South Philadalphia, and many people saw that and gave him/her a last warning. But, no one but me saw his/her outrageous edit to Donald Trump's article. To see more, go to Pairadox's talk page, as I contacted him/her because he/her was the one who gave 68.32.50.29 their last warning. Please block this person. No one I've sent messages to has helped me.

Thanks!

Loghead1 03:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

So I won't report this guy, because like you said, he/she was only on for fifteen minutes. Thanks for giving me the tip about the Administrators.

Thanks again!

Loghead1 16:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Croatia

Why is possible that in Bosnian war casus beli is independence of Bosnia and this is not possible in Croatian war ?? Must important thing is that casus beli it is not independence of Croatia but change of constitution. From article it is clear that Serbs of Croatia has revolted after Croatia has started to change constitution !? Look part of article under name 1990 Electoral and constitutional moves or article Log Revolution. Timeline of war is Log Revolution, Plitvice Lakes incident, secession of Republic of Serbian Krajina from Croatia. Only after that has been declared independence of CroatiaRjecina 12:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Your advice

Thank you for pointing me to WP:CSN. I have started a discussion there. Italia^vivi 21:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see that is you I was responding to there already. ^_^ Edit: And I do see where you are coming from on mentorship etc., and would normally support that, I just feel that this user's long-term campaign is beyond that point. I feel that WP:CSN is exactly where Isarig should be right now. Italia^vivi 21:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Eleland I have made some edit revisions at [1]should you be able to spare any time at all, your review and comments would be appreciatedBobV01 16:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Jenin refrigerator trucks

Hey, on the specific issue of refrigerator trucks, that of course tripped my "conspiracy theory" alert at the time, but in fact, it's true. The Israeli Army Radio station reported that they were bringing in fridge trucks in order to whisk away bodies of "terrorists" to military-controlled cemeteries in the Jordan Valley (which is, by the way, just about the most militarized and inaccessible area Israel controls). The plan was later abandoned under pressure, but the damage had been done. The trucks were ultimately used for IDF guys to cool down in, although local residents may have mistaken the sleeping soldiers for stacked Palestinian corpses. Eleland 20:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have sources for these radio reports? PalestineRemembered 20:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw an article in Jerusalem Post or somewhere that laid the whole story out; I'll try to find it again. Meantime we have UK Daily Telegraph [2]: "While prominent figures in Yasser Arafat's crumbling Palestinian Authority undoubtedly encouraged the inflation of the estimated body count, the Israeli authorities unwisely contributed to the confusion by announcing that terrorists killed in the camp were to be spirited away in refrigerated trucks for burial at a military cemetery in the remotest corner of the Jordan Valley." And here's FOX News confirming the Jordan Valley story, though without mention of the trucks.

Oh, there we go, and it was Ha'aretz, mirrored at Tel Aviv University. According to Ze'ev Schiff, "the most respected military analyst in Israel", "Toward the end of the fighting, the army sent three large refrigerator trucks into the city. Reservists decided to sleep in them for their air conditioning. Some Palestinians saw dozens of covered bodies lying in the trucks and rumors spread the Jews had filled trucks full of Palestinian bodies." And it might even be in the Jaffee Centre conference report that Battle of Jenin cites but completely contradicts in favor of the rantings of American editorial writers about false cries of massacre. If you haven't read through that report, I strongly urge you to. It contains senior IDF figures basically demolishing the convenient myth of a media duped by malicious Palestinian lies. They report that the excessive claims were a result of an extremely poor media strategy on their part. Eleland 20:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Helicopters in Popular Culture

My warning was not redundant. The article was deleted after your warning, but he recreated it yet again. --Finngall ^talk 21:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I intended the warning to be for the re-re-creation, in line with WP:AGF. I don't really think a "final warning" is justified when he may just not have understood what was going on, but I'll leave it to you. Eleland 21:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, my mistake. I'll leave it alone unless he tries again. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 21:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

priceless advice

Hah, if you know the Nirvana song, also know that I'm kidding with this title. I've been around the block a few times. As a regular gambler, I know when someone is trying to push me off a hand. -- 146.115.58.152 03:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Lead

Thanks for cleaning that up. Kyaa the Catlord 19:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Autoblock?

You should not be hit by an autoblock unless you are editting while logged out. I'm sorry, but I really do not want to lift the block. I've been dealing with someone on the range who's been repeatedly vandalizing the same articles.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring Talk at Battle of Jenin

I penned the following for adding to Archival of young thread apparently for POV reasons. But I'm concerned that User:Jaakobou already announced in his defense that he considers me a non-trustworthy editor (and has elsewhere accused me of harrassing him). Would you be able to use anything I've written here? It's fine by me if you simply transfer the whole lot to the AN page, which I'm sure is where it belongs!

The aggressive ownership going on in this article is clear to see - as is the refusal of a particular editor to answer questions on potential conflict of interest, something that 3 editors have now expressed an interest in hearing about.

It is not a bit clear that refactoring of Talk was necessary to this article - and very strange you should consider yourself suitable to do so. There are huge problems with this article and a range of good, literate, well informed editors have left in frustration because of the road-blocks they've faced. "Archiving" Talk contributions after just 4.5 days looks like part of the problem, it's certainly not part of the solution. A one-liner over your signature, directing us only to 3 foreign language sources, remains in Talk after over 90 days - so what is really going on here?

Uninvolved (but almost certainly sympathetic to your case) editor User:HG was attempting to do a "conflict resolution" on this article, creating a clarify Jenin editing battle page. Wouldn't it make more sense to use HG's services, and participate on that page, rather than strike out on your own?

Another user (PR) made an excellent start of defining just a few of the most serious problems with this article on HG's "clarify" page - why are you not taking part in this proposed (but now scuppered) clarification/mediation? Is it your intention to comply with the ground-rules that HG set for participation on this page he set up for our benefit?

I think it would be a good thing to answer the pertinent questions put to you on this occasion. PalestineRemembered 09:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution, and you are correct that WP:OWNish behavior is a prime problem here. The possible COI issue is also relevant; I understand Jaakobou's desire not to answer a "have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife" type question, but he also declines to make a simple and neutral statement like, "I was not involved in the events described in this article." This being said, I believe that ANI postings are most effective when tightly focused. Once we include something tendentious or speculative (especially the COI question, which is not to my knowledge based on any evidence whatsoever) we open ourselves up to having it rebutted, and then the original issue gets lost in the clutter and it just looks to passing admins like a bunch of partisans taking a crap on ANI for no good reason. I've fallen into the trap, on other articles, of raising strong policy-based objections in conjunction with a general statement like, "Palestinians have the right to national self-determination, and military self-defense against armed attacks" which allows the usual suspects to generate enough flak about "pro-Hamas soapboxing" to evade the policy issues.

This being said, the "deafening silence" in response to suggestions of mediation (Talk:Battle of Jenin#Discussing Mediation, Talk:Battle of Jenin#Now that we're all on enforced break..., etc) the bitter and lengthy nature of this dispute, the fallout on WP:CSN, WP:ANI, WP:WQA, WP:SSP, the article protection, all point to the likelihood that a request for arbitration would be taken up even if mediation were refused. I don't really understand the arbitration process, and they deal with user conduct rather than deciding content disputes. I'm also forced to point out that they might well impose sanctions on you, PR.

I have been working on an exhaustive - and exhausting - summary of issues to be taken to mediation; I believe it will fairly demolish any notion that this article isn't extensively and severely out of line. I'm going to go finish that and post in on HG's sandbox, and we can take it from there. Eleland 13:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN/I#PalestineRemembered_IV

Per WP:AN/I#PalestineRemembered_IV are you prepared to accept me as PalestineRemembered's mentor?Geni 01:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

comment

i understand to why you've archived this section however, i note to you that archiving backwards is not something you should do (you've archived into archive no.2 instead of the currently open archive 5. please remember that in the future. i also wish to note you that i am personally not finished with the subject but will allow other subjects to progress before reintroducing the material. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Valuable comment on Battle of Jenin

Much of the discussion is based on who called it a massacre and when. This is not really relevant to an encyclopaedia article on a battle, which should focus on current knowledge of strategies used and casualties; as a method of defusing tension, I strongly suggest you all take a break and consider creating a sub-article on the earlier controversies about body count. That is certainly more in line with the expectations from the encyclopaedia; the media battle and the real-world battle were two different things. If nothing else, I find that focusing on too many things at once on a talkpage can lead to extra frustration. Hornplease 20:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought this comment was really good - is there some way we can use this idea to move forwards? PalestineRemembered 09:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Turned your table into a template

I turned the table you created at Battle of Jenin into a template that can be linked to from the article. If you think that's a good idea then you might wish to blank the copy in "Discussion" to avoid confusion.

I'm disturbed to see an "I don't like it" argument appearing at that discussion - along with edits removing rather good information such as "known as Jenin Massacre in most of the world" and the "Kurdi Bear" interview. I'm not sure what we need to do to get good information into the article! PalestineRemembered 21:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Satanic ritual abuse

I hope you will also help edit Satanic ritual abuse. I have recused myself, since I wrote the bulk of the McMartin article. The editors strategy so far has been to call the authors of mainstream theories as "pedophiles". I have removed the slanderous accusations from McMartin, but he has switched to Satanic ritual abuse, and possibly switched names. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Interfada Karameh Transjordan Eyad El-Sarraj Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research Idlib Hanadi Jaradat Brit Tzedek v'Shalom Mona Juul Political status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip Israel Defense Forces checkpoint Middle East Quarterly Bat Shalom Tanzim American Airlines Flight 63 Dalal Mughrabi Hassan Nasrallah Bernard Lewis Yitzhak Shamir

Cleanup Jaffa riots Faisal-Weizmann Agreement Gush Shalom Merge Hierarchical organization United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 Palestinian homeland Add Sources Matza restaurant massacre Palestinian National Council Tempo (chess) Wikify International Correspondence Chess Federation The Bridges at Toko-Ri G-suit Expand Binational solution Jewish state Geneva Accord

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 04:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)

Another user has made assertions about your conduct at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance). Perhaps you could add some clarity to the discussion, but please try to tread lightly in this sensitive situation. Perhaps some neutral parties can help resolve the conflict between the two of you. --Kevin Murray 19:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)