The April 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) 00:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Your single proposed finding at th Arbcom case is outstanding, cogent, and insightful. you have summed up exactly the dynamics which need to be highlightd here. thanks very much. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:MSU-YAF Kyle Bristow.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that you are somewhat mistaken in your assumption, and there is a further explanation (of sorts) as to the way I spoke with JayVB at RfB#1. if you are interested in this issue, as opposed to opposing for another reason, you may wish to read my response there, and note that Naerii herself supports this RfB. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean, "if you are interested in this issue, as opposed to opposing for another reason?" Anyway you've now explained yourself more clearly than I've seen in the last several times it's come up, so I will probably strike my oppose. <eleland/talkedits> 18:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was uncalled for frustration, sorry. If you ever run for an RfX, please let me warn you now, they are emotionally draining experiences. Important for the community and the candidate, but not fun :}. I have responded to your questions there. -- Avi (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly it seems I'm a lot more likely to pursue a Request for Unblock than any other RfX... but anyway, yeah, your explanation is plausible and I accept it. Good luck on the RfB. <eleland/talkedits> 19:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to clarify, and for striking your oppose; I greatly appreciate it. -- Avi (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gni has since complained, but that statement ("you've no right to cry witch hunt! when you've been caught in a black pointy hat"), as a general idea, made my day. It's nice to see a little wisdom around here and I would support a WP:ESSAY along those lines. -- Kendrick7talk 02:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:MSU-YAF Kyle Bristow.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? -- lucasbfr talk 10:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See [1]. You may want to refactor the cauldron, newt, frog, etc section. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, looks like we're working on the same bit and it's getting hard to figure out who's editing what. I completely agree with you - I found that bit below in the nationalism section and was trying to keep it in while editing out the polemics and consolidating it with other repeat info (was moving the sentences around, to the section on Herodotus, etc.) I'm not a fan of deleting other people's work even if I disagree with it. But maybe you're right, this is a page called "Palestinian People" not about the term "Palestinian" there's another page for that I believe. What do you think?LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I found the same passage frustrating - I did not write it and never would write such a thing! I just didn't want to delete any possible facts it may have contained. Upon closer examination it really contains only one. I moved that fact to "Palestinian Jew" and added my own additional info. Check it out if you're interested. Best LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gotcha. Sorry for not realizing that your edits were very recent; I would have let you handle it. Some work does need to be deleted, though; on a topic like Israel-Palestine you otherwise end up with a structure of:
- (Neutral factual information from mainstream historians)
- (However, questionable partisan claim from adovcacy source)
- (It should be noted that in fact outright falsehood from propaganda source of other side)
- (Recent groundbreaking research has proven some conspiracy theory made up by the editor inserting it)
- (Back to the real world now, rinse, repeat)
- All very tiresome, as you probably know. Good luck, <eleland/talkedits> 01:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think thats its time we got moving. A couple of the points have been raised before and felt they were the foundations to the dispute:
- Firstly whether the picture can be confirmed to have been taken in the rally in San Fransisco.
- Secondly to come to an agreement on what new antisemitism is and then to decide what the image is depicting and whether it purely illustrates New Antisemitism or whether it also addresses other issues which could be confused with new antisemitism by new readers.
- If we cant confirm the those then we need to find a viable alternative.
A point i would like to raise is that at some point a lead image might need to be found if this article got to FA. The image in question is not free and couldn't be put on the main page with this article as todays FA. Although not an immediate point a long term solution might wish to be found so that this article could feature on the main page with a viable alternative.
Does anyone have access to Lexis Nexis? It might help as a search on the network could uncover something not readily available on the internet. Reliable sources that use the image would be helpful. Do you reckon that there would anyway of finding third party images that might possibly contain the poster/placard? Also i would be grateful if images of other placards at that rally could be found to find whether this was a small minority at this rally or perhaps a larger group.
Whilst that is being done i wanted to find out on what the consensus view is on what New Antisemitism is? I have read the article and the previous discussion and attempted to get a proper understanding but i wanted to ensure that this was current.
- PS any sources you find can you please post in the section at the top of the mediation talk page. Seddon69 (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Eleland.
I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. I especially wanted to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to clarify the issues that concerned you; I greatly appreciate that. Once again, thank you for your participation. -- Avi (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, I have nominated this article and the one on Diana Muir to be deleted. If the tag stays up till saturday both will probably be deleted.
- I don't know if you know, but both these articles were created by a notorious sockpuppet named Evidence based who also goes by the names American Clio and Yankee Scribe. He has been banned indefinitely and I suspect that he was an Israeli PR Man. I think both these articles were created specifically to smear people like Edward Said and Noam Chomsky. The article is pretty much entirely based on Muirs article down to the sources.
- I've said given the recent revelations of an Israeli PR campaign to bias wikipedia to the zionist perspective that both articles must be considered tainted and therefore removed. Any relevant information can be moved to the Israel Zangwill article. After all why does the Phrase "A Land Without a People for a people without land" need it's owm article. Plus who is Diana Muir and why should she be considered legitimate except to make her article seem credible.
- There is an editor named Prashanthns who is questioning why I want these articles deleted and what the other editors on the talk page think. Sense you were the only other person besides evidence base to contribute anything to the talk page I would appreciate a word of support saying you agree with me.
- I assure you I wouldn't adovcate this unless I thought it necessary, but these two articles were created with malicious intentions and they must removed.annoynmous 10:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please could you help me. I'm trying to get the article deleted. Just click on the page and then click on "articles for entry" at the top of the page on the deletion tag.
- The article I believe was part of the CAMERA propoganda campaign. You may not have known, but AMERICAN CLIO, YANKEE SCRIBE and EVIDENCE BASED were all the same person. He is now been banned.
- The article was created specifically to smear people like Edward Said and Noam Chomsky. It essentially replicates Diana Muirs article right down to her sources. It was created from the beginning with malicious intent.
- Could you please help me.annoynmous 03:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, Eleland. Maybe you can take him under your wing and educate him about canvassing? BTW, take a look at Raymond Arrit's comments about my RfB on my talk page; you may find them interesting in light of our earlier conversation :) -- Avi (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if my wing is big enough. ([2]) Anyway, I hope you see things in terms of Moreschi's comment that you're too good to waste on Bureaucrat grunt work. And I kind of regret not !voting "support" instead of just striking my oppose; at the time I was thinking that I didn't really know enough about your history either way, but then it didn't stop me from opposing the first time, so who knows.... eh, at least your conduct during the RfB reflected well on you, and they do say the third time's the charm... <eleland/talkedits> 05:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted. There's a longer reply on my talk page. :) Looking forward to your review of my analysis. Particularly any comments you have about the "Wikipedians for Palestine" group and the way it was promoted. Oboler (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You have another reply there to clarify. Also it may be work looking at Steve (Sm8900's) evidence, particularly the discussion below his edit at 15:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC) (basically the last screen full). It addresses these same questions. See [3] Oboler (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Following discussion at the mediation talk page, i would like to bring up a suggestion that until the end of the mediation to remove both images from the article. There is currently no real consensus on the images so in the interests of fairness it seems best to simply have no images. If you have any suggestions or comments then please come to the mediation talk page to be discussed. The discussion will be open for around 5 days if there are no problems. But the discussion will go on if there is ongoing discussion. ŠξÞÞøΛ talk 00:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The coordinators have decided to make it easier for copy-editors to watch the new requests by creating an own page for this purpose. On Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Logistics/Copy-editing/Requests all new and old requests are listed. Please add this page to your watchlist. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eleland, in good faith, one really cannot compare the Israeli foreign ministry, or perhaps even ZOTW with JAZ. JAZ is a fringe group, like rense.com. There is no scholarly works, there are no sources, they are known to misstate and misrepresent. The Israeli Foreign ministry, even if you personally do not like them, is an official government source. While I have not looked deeply onto ZOTW, it does appear that they have bona fide scholars, and more importantly, they cite their sources, IIRC. I understand you may not like those two groups, but I believe it is intellectually dishonest to compare them to JAZ. -- Avi (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't get me wrong, I understand frustration with the I/P impasse; I suffer from it too, albeit from a different perspective than you do. So while I may empathize with what you perceive as a double standard, I believe this case is not a double standard, and I respectfully posit that we should all be careful to restrict accusations of partiality to where it truly exists. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I appreciate your candor, and I want to say that I'm not a big fan of PR and I think the block was justifiable in principle. Comparing JAZ to a racist conspiracy site like Rense is awfully dubious , though. It's just that I've observed mirror-image behavior from the "pro-Israeli" side without a corresponding response from admins. Citing, for example, on Mohammed Amin al-Husayni, Maurice Perlmann / Moshe Waters, a Haganah Lt. Col from the 1940s who was Ben Gurion's personal spin doctor, as if he's a serious scholarly source to be used for anything other than what 1940s Haganah propagandists had to say, is just as bad as citing JAZ. <eleland/talkedits> 03:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Mere membership by an editor in some external group that has been involved in violations of policy is not actionable without evidence that the editor has some personal involvement in said violations. Sanctions previously imposed are confirmed. An amnesty is extended towards any editors who may have been involved in this external group and who have not been sanctioned for their participation in it. This is coupled with an expectation that these editors will not participate in similar efforts in the future. Members of the community who may have information regarding similar efforts by external groups to unduly influence our content are urged to forward that information to the Committee for review. Hypnosadist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished to maintain an appropriate level of professionalism at all times, and to avoid misrepresenting Wikipedia policy to other editors. For the committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 20:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given your knowledge of the article, could you please convey to me your concerns over the way that has changed lately? Maybe I could help you bring back a better weighted article. At the moment, I have no objection to the language in this article. forestPIG 04:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tonight I told forestPIG that WLU could make a great article of SRA if permitted. Unfortunately, the same pov-pushers have had a field day by tagging the skeptical section and removing the pov tag —and even changing the heading— of the "Evidence" section, renamed "Research". I admire WLU's patience. I would have exploded quite a few times in that talk page. How heroic wikipedians manage to deal with the pushers is still a psychological mystery to me... Cesar Tort 04:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The May 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) 00:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you've seen this already, but thought you should know, the Wikipedia Signpost recently linked to an article ([4]) in the Jerusalem Post which substantially mentions you and criticises your 'responses to allegations of Wikipedia's anti-Israel bias' from a pro-Israel perspective. I don't agree with the claims made - I'm not an editor in that area myself, but from what I've seen, Wikipedia does a fairly good job of maintaining neutrality on these issues, and as far as I can tell you're actually one of our better editors there. Just thought I'd pass on the link, all the same. Terraxos (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
come'on Eleland, you're the one that trolled up into the nomination article and started accusing me of being an "israel defender" and "zionist", like it's a bad thing. i was merely making an observation of the users political affiliation. one member, i think funkmunk, was discussing how Itzles (sp?) political affiliation might compromise neutrality in the article. i responded by demonstrating the political projects bless, funk, you, and roland belonged to, and that no one has complained about them. i couldn't care less if u subscribe to hateisraeli.com. as long as you follows wiki's rules of neutrality, i DONT CARE!
so leave me alone. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP has other rules, like be civil, don't attack other editors, etc. You claim that you've demonstrated political bias related to WP:ARAB, but you haven't provided any evidence for this whatsoever. You also seem to believe that I'm a member of this project... I'm not. The only Wikiprojects I'm in - and I'm barely active in them - are Military History and Canada. And if you're going to compare User:Itzse's statements that he "will not forgive the Arabs" for being "savages," and that even the good ones are going to hell anyway, to User:Bless sins' simply being a Muslim... well then we haven't very much to talk about. Anyway, I'm pretty confident you'll continue your disruption and attacks and be banned soon. Cheers. <eleland/talkedits> 04:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop putting words in my mouth. you attacked me, period. i didn't attack anybody, and neither did roland, bless sins, or funkmunk. im not gonna feed you but just so you know, i dont plan on tolerating your crap much longer. keep this up and i will be forced to get an admin. and btw, dont spam my user page. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since you seem to have experience dealing with off-wiki soliticing (I read about you in the Jerusalem Post blog), can you give me your opinion on this.Bless sins (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. In light of the fact that it is the first book the U.S. government ever went to court to censor before its publication(!), I was hoping you could help improve the The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence article as part of an effort to make it worthy of becoming a featured article candidate? --Loremaster (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Eleland! FYI, removing an AfD tag is a clear violation of the deletion policy, namely this section thereof. I won't edit-war over this (indeed, I prefer not to edit-war over anything), because the nominator, Gilabrand, seems to have forgotten to create the AfD sub-page. However, if such a page is created and the AfD tag is reinserted, please make sure not to remove it, but instead sound off at the deletion discussion, in accordance with the deletion policy. FYI, at this point I do not intend to AfD the article or make other attempts to delete it, although I may do so in the future if no secondary sources are found, per WP:N and WP:NOT. Good day! -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You brought up the article Zionism and racism allegations... is it possible to get the name of that article changed? Strongbrow (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for joining the discussion at Kansas Jayhawks, wondering what you think the best course of action is to deal with the continued edit warring. Do we let people remove information sourced with reliable third-party sources? It seems to me consensus must be formed to remove the information, consensus is not need to keep it in the article. Anyways, I've left it removed for now, I've already gotten too close to edit warring. Grey Wanderer | Talk 20:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I'm sorry. Well I guess it should be "defence" to keep with the Canadian-English spelling. I was not aware of this spelling difference >_< I'm very red now.Ceolwulf (talk) 03:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, SandyGeorgia has made a request on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Jerusalem that you have yet to fulfill. -- tariqabjotu 06:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please complete the notifications per the instrutions at the top of the WP:FAR page, thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The June 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) 18:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Eleland,
I am happy that for once we agree :
- Delete, or rather redirect to a general article on apartheid. Extended diatribes about the motives or conduct of editors, even if their content is accurate, have no bearing on the subject of this discussion, and votes (whether "keep" or "delete") based on them should be ignored by the closing admin. On point: While the individual data points used to construct this article are indeed reliably sourced, there are currently no sources provided which are actually about the topic "allegations of apartheid," ie, about the uses and abuses of the word "apartheid" in political discourse. If anybody can find a book, monograph, or even scholarly journal article which is actually about the subject (I'm mentally picturing something like a book called "The A-Word: Apartheid Rhetoric in Contemporary Ethnopolitics,") there would at least be a valid, if not necessarily convincing, case to keep this article. Absent such a source, it is clearly novel synthesis of unrelated material. <eleland/talkedits> 21:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
But, I am still unhappy with you.
Because when it refers to an alleged palestinian exodus between 1949 and 1956, you don't use these arguments.
That is a little bit easy not to support other editors when the disruptive one share some of our pov. That will not solve anything.
Ceedjee (talk) 09:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Eleland
Could you please specify your level of copyediting for the military history project here.
These are the levels:
- Copy-edit lite: basic proof-reading, spellchecking, punctuation.
- English variant conversion: for example, from American English to Commonwealth English, or vice versa.
- Naturalising: copy-edit for editors whose English is fluent but not perfect.
- FAC prose copy-edit: flow, structure, elegance.
- FAC technical copy-edit: MoS-compliance for dashes, hard spaces, numbers, measurement conversion.
Thanks a lot. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. are you aware that nishidani mentioned you specifically on his talk page? He is currently retiring from Wikipedia, and posted a closing mesage of sorts at his talk page. just wanted to let you know. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your deletion of the description of astronomer Sagan's failure on Nightline to answer Ted Koppel's question about where to look in the sky to see Comet Halley is not logical. On his TV appearances he came off as a pompous know-it-all; and in 1985 on Nightline he DID NOT know it all -- as the transcript from Nightline reproduced by Rawlins in DIO shows quite clearly. If you have not already, then I heartily suggest that you read the transcript for yourself and be a judge instead of a Sagan groupie. It is NOT just astronomer Dennis Rawlins' opinion. I vividly remember seeing Sagan and Berendzen squirming as they fumbled Koppel's simple question. This aspect of Sagan's public persona is every bit as relevant as his penchant for saying the word "billions", which features in the bio entry. Phaedrus7 (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) The proper place for all this is on the article's talk page, not mine.
- 2) What an editor "vividly remember" is no basis for writing a Wikipedia entry. That has to be based on the sources. I don't know of any sources on Sagan's life and work which even mention this appearance on Nightline; the only source provided is an article about something else, in an obscure and apparently dubious journal — and the journal article doesn't even support all of the language used in the article.
- 3) Keep your comments about "Sagan groupies" to yourself, please. <eleland/talkedits> 01:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The past few days have been rough at Jerusalem. Thanks for your response today at 1948 War - I've been feeling quite alone, raising all these various issues! At any rate, I hope it doesn't cause you any fall-out. Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested mediation of the discussion of the 1967 War at Jerusalem here and am currently alone in arguing that the term 'unification' should be paired with 'annexation'. What do you think? LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's pretty funny - I got the "new messages" box when I checked on the diff of your edit there :)
- Yes, it is of course POV to insist that only "re-unification" be used; this is half of the story, the half that the Israeli side wishes to emphasize. I'll check in at Talk:Jerusalem. <eleland/talkedits> 04:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your feedback and for checking in. I was getting as repetitive as I needed to be each time 'unification' was added back. Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Eleland, I hope you're doing well. Me, I'm losing my cool, and could use some advice. I am somewhat mystified by the fact that I have allowed myself to get entangled in arguments with several editors constantly engaged in chastising me, and "punishing" me for alleged POV-pushing by refusing to compromise on entry wording itself (as a certain quote unquote "administrator" has done), perhaps as a means of intimidating me away from wikipedia. Though I've done everything I can to avoid being nasty to anyone in particular, I've been so constantly on the defensive at Jerusalem as well as Battle of Jenin, defending myself against misrepresentations of what I wrote, and presumptions of bad faith, that I have completely stopped editing the actual articles. Sometimes it feels like this is a conscious strategy on the part of some editors (i.e to distract left editors from effective bold editing)! I've noticed that when people make false charges against you, you've generally started to ignore them. This definitely makes you look like you are taking the higher ground in most cases. I guess I am wondering if you have any tips for how to avoid tangling with unreasonable people who clearly have no intention of reaching a compromise - any advice you could render would be greatly appreciated! LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish I had some really strong answers for you. Honestly, I don't. My own WP experience has followed much the same path as yours, although I did not start out with any particular emphasis on Israel/Palestine issues. In several cases, where I raised questions about the neutrality of pages, "pro-Israel" (a nauseating phrase) editors would actually edit it to a more biased version, with the implicit threat that any more uppitiness would just make things worse for me. Ugh. Try and keep your cool, because WP seems to take an extremely hard line against "incivility" from editors perceived as pro-Palestinian. They will always portray you as a crazy extremist, so it is best to support your arguments with solid "mainstream" sources. If you raise a point that's been made in the pages of Ha'aretz then extremist can you be, right? Take this Christian Science Monitor piece, which makes substantially the same point about "unified" Jerusalem that we've been arguing for. You want to bring in as much like that as possible. I mean, when Google News brings in 9,000 hits for "Jerusalem Unified" and 90,000 hits for "Jerusalem Occupied," it's pretty damn clear that this "unified" terminology is the minority view!
- You have to be kind of single-minded, I think. Don't allow any opportunity for them to turn the discussion away from the real issues. Word your comments carefully so they cannot be twisted into some alternate interpretation to be used against you. Even when you know full well that somebody is lying, just say, "I'm afraid I can't understand how you read the source material in that way: it clearly says XYZ..." WP doesn't punish people for intellectual dishonesty, bad scholarship, or really any of the things that a "real" publication would take as gravely serious. So just try and ignore it. If you really can't, then just take a break. You can afford to leave a dispute for two or three days without the risk that it will decided in your absence.
- Honestly I haven't always followed my own advice; there is so much vicious propagandizing and thuggishness around here that one is always tempted to fight fire with fire. But it's the only approach that I've found to have even a chance of success.
- Good luck,
- <eleland/talkedits> 04:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is very helpful. I probably need to spend the time that I have been expending thusfar, repeating myself ad nauseum, looking up relevant sources and posting them. This is definitely a good approach. Also, as single-minded as I have attempted to be, it's interesting that when people make accusations against you, lack of any response seems to be interpreted by the editors, and sometimes administrators, as an admission of 'guilt.' So, as you probably know, it's very tempting to counter the accusations. However it would be a semi-tragedy to spend this many hours on wikipedia, avoiding other work, and not really accomplish anything here. So, singleminded and effective wins over scattered and vindicated, indeed. Thanks again, I really did need a re-direct before I burn out too much and get anywhere near as twisted as some of our fellow editors. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
){kind=link}
