User talk:Eleland/Archive3

Caterpillar

Thanks for the edits & comments on the Caterpillar talk page, I was waiting for someone else to do the reverts. After arguing the issue there several times it would have looked capricious if I had done it.--Hooperbloob 18:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


Re:Talk:Caterpillar, Inc.

How many times are you going to post to my talk page? I have already expressed what I think of the inclusion which is not to include it. Unless it goes across the board for all companies (which it isn't because of the reasons already stated), it should not be included in the article. You should get a more broad POVs from people, I am not going to change how I view the information. Please, from now on, only give me one notice and don't post it again on my talk page.--Kranar drogin 20:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Its alright, just gets frustering to get the same messages. Anyways, I have tagged the discussion and think this should provide you with a wider POV from those who watch that template. I hope the issue can be resolved and will continue to monitor it.--Kranar drogin 20:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


Battle of Jenin

I've just re-written the "Kurdi Bear" entry and I put both links in before you suggested it. However, I'm not sure why, since there's no debate about the accuracy of the English version. There is a debate over whether non-Hebrew speakers are entitled to "Verifiability", however, some suggestion that "all readers" doesn't include monoglot English speakers. Oh, well. PalestineRemembered 20:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it's makes no practical difference, is an effective olive branch, and prevents tendentious editors from muddying the water with accusations of removal. Eleland 20:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's a very good argument! Wikipedia has policies, they're generally not bad, and we should stick to them. Allowing other languages into references is bad news, it enables people to drive a cart-and-horses through [[WP:V| Verifiability], supposedly one of the key principals of WP. However, I've discovered over the ArbCom[1] that people with better brains than mine seem to be curiously reluctant to apply them to the problem of integrity in articles. Oh, well. PalestineRemembered 21:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 03:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the reminder

Thanks for kicking out my amendment to the 'troll' page. A welcome reminder not to contribute to Wikipedia!

My experience of Wikipedia, too often, was (a) that I would spend 20, 30, 40 minutes, an hour, maybe, amending something on a page; (b) that I would come back three or four hours later and the changes would have been removed. I do the detailed drafting work and spend the time; someone else comes along and presses a button (no effort involved there!) and, lo and behold, the stuff is in the bin. Par for the course. Then if I (a 21-years qualified lawyer, no less) look at who did the policing, as often as not it's some schoolkid who is still wet behind the ears who kicked my stuff out.

No business would manage its human resources as crappily as Wikipedia does. You have excellent people coming to Wikipedia and giving their free time but just being treated so casually and with contempt for it. There is no manager, no organisation of who amends what, no decision about who amends what, it is just a chaotic mess.

The truth is that Wikipedia has the luxury of being able to treat the contributing world like shit (if you will pardon my French) because it doesn't have to pay for people's time. If someone spends an hour or two contributing something, it's not Wikipedia's loss. God knows how many millions of hours of human time have been wasted unnecessarily already by the way Wikipedia is set up.

Unfortunately, in the medium and long-term, Wikipedia is throwing away huge amounts of human resource by organising itself so badly and treating people with contempt. In my case, I had already decided not to amend anything ever again, because it isn't worth bothering: your changes will just get kicked out, as likely as not, so why bother doing the detailed drafting? I amended something yesterday, in contravention of my Rule, and it wasn't a surprise to come back and find it in the bin. Such is Wikipedia. The effect is that you could have good contributions from a lot of people but those people no longer bother because the "system" (if one pretends there is a system!) says they are wasting their time by trying to contribute.

Too many cooks spoil the broth is the best maxim one could apply to the shabby editorial process of Wikipedia.

These comments aren't aimed at you, so don't take them personally. I just thought I would point out a few things to you.

Have a nice life. Me out.

89.243.238.176

Your unilateral decision to delete content and impose a new rule on the addition of content to the list of examples of conspiracy theory is not helpful. You have unilaterally removed content because you don't like it. Further, your reasons for doing so have been discussed, back and forth, on the discussion page. Your opinion of what is and is not a "conspiracy theory" does not have a neutral point of view. Your opinion of what a "theory" is, is flawed. It is the policy of wikipedia to discuss major changes or deletions of content before removing other people's contributions. You have unilaterally imposed a new rule for others to follow. Who the hell do you think you are?Michael J Swassing 16:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


Reflexology edit

Your recent edit to the reflexology article was not helpful as I'm sure you know. The article could use a lot of work and a real attempt to make it better would be welcome. If you can't do that please keep your wit to the talk pages. Thanks. -- SiobhanHansa 23:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


ADL and non-Israeli sufferings

Thought you might be amused to check out this http://www.jewcy.com/feature/2007-07-09/fire_foxman - ADL's chief seeks not to recognise the Armenian genocide. Hard to imagine HRW or genuinally concerned people anywhere having that attitude! PalestineRemembered 16:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Kirill 01:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


Talk:Battle_of_Jenin#previously_referred_to_as_the_Jenin_Massacre

please consider to either leave a comment on the talk page about your latest edit[2] and/or make the needed adjustments/additions to the article, or revert your change. JaakobouChalk Talk 18:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

offtopic

you'll excuse me if i start ignoring these polemics and dedicate myself to moving forward the evidence finding. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


Please re-register

Hello, Eleland! You are receiving this notice because the Cleanup Taskforce has been inactive, as a result of this all active taskforce members are being asked to re-register.

For more information see: Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce/Not Dead Yet

If you do not re-register here within 15 days of receiving this notice your name will be removed from the membership list (if you were unable to reply to this notice in time, you can just add you name back).

RJFJR 01:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

RE:AGF reminder re Gundam AfD

Please, I said it because he/she got a history of ignoring what the series is before holding up AfDs, look at his talk page, and look at the comment on top of mine. The page he nominated is not even from a comic, and he just seemed to have linked to a bunch of other pages that is not quite directly related and said they are similar, when they are not. It is very hard to AGF on this one. MythSearchertalk 15:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, I am right now really mad due to the pass serial bad faith nomination of the said articles and 9 times out of 10 the nom seemed to have never read the article and just put them up for Afd upon seeing the title(not even the first sentence) without actually coming back and reply. It is just like I surf around and got to a Star Trek article and tag an Afd on it just because I do not like the series and it seems like a possible deletable fictional article. (just a random example, I actually quite like the series) MythSearchertalk 15:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


Image:Konono No.1-Group Photo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Konono No.1-Group Photo.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. ShadowHalo 02:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Anderson's Cinemas - "delete comment (moving to proper place)"

LOL thanks for doing that. Talkin' about a blonde moment - I don't know what I was thinking!! :-D —gorgan_almighty 16:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, I've done much the same thing myself. And then one of the participants in the discussion (a really nasty ethnic Jews-on-Palestinians slug-fight actually) started replying to everything I said with "YOU POSTED IN THE WRONG PLACE NOOB" even though I was trying to agree with him. It happens. Eleland 16:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


Bustitution!

Hi Eleland! I figured that it was better to take collaborative article-creating talk off AfD. The article you sent me seems to be more about the history of the physical locomotives themselves than social ramifications-type stuff. I figure we can look for a better article to put it in, or start one ourselves. What do you think? Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 17:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I notice it's listed at Rail terminology, that's a start. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 17:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, and Bus rapid transit's controversy section looks like a good place to add. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 17:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I just listed it at Rail terminology :) I actually know nothing about the subject, and I live in an area where rail transit is fairly spare. It does look like a lot of the "history of rail" type articles are written by trainspotters for trainspotters, rather than from a general-interest or sociological viewpoint. I guess since it's called BUStitution, the main section should be on a bus article. Eleland 18:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


Regent Cinemas

How come you didn't put the Regent Cinemas article up for AfD? I agree with your assessment that it's adspam. Did you decide not to AfD it after all? Or have you not got around to it yet? —gorgan_almighty 12:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, too caught up in silly politics. I'm gonna do it now. Eleland 20:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
There we go. Eleland 21:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


PR

Read user:PalestineRemembered's talk page. I do not see a good reason to plaster this notice about, any more than I would plaster the notice of, for example, User:HOTR being indefblocked. It serves no purpose other than to stir up emotion in areas which are delicate to begin with. The socks will not be coming back. Counting coup only serves to inflame negative emotion, not calm it. -- Avi 00:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it your intention to stir up negativity? I hope not; that is counterproductive to wikipedia. If it is not your intention to do such, may I ask you what you think the purpose of plastering such a warning is? -- Avi 00:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a non-standard practice which may well be unjustified, but deletion of Talk comments is an extremely sensitive issue. I believe the appropriate actions are to reply, and possibly to seek dispute resolution, rather than to revert. PalestineRemembered is a good faith editor who believes that Wikipedia is besieged by hasbara and beholden to a sinister pro-Israeli clique. I have no doubt that he posted those messages out of a belief that other editors deserved to know, and that their knowledge would encourage an NPOV rewriting of the relevant articles. One may, of course, dispute these premises, but this should be accomplished by adding to the discussion rather than subtracting from it. Eleland 00:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand your perspective, but I still feel that it is better to add to the discussion, while simultaneously removing the elements that will prevent such discussion from reaching its full potential. -- Avi 03:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I find Avi's objection very strange, since reminding people of past infractions goes on all the time. How much more important it is to inform people that there are current cases under review (eg in User:Isarig's case we don't even know how many other sock-puppets he has). People informed of his behaviour get an opportunity to check for other sock-puppets - and learn that this behaviour is a big no-no. People who have contributed to articles and then had their work edit-warred out deserve to know that they've been cheated, there wasn't any consensus against their edits after all. If we believe in integrity in the encyclopedia, then a breach as major as this needs to be brought at least to the attention of everyone who has suffered from the actions. Some of those people will possibly have abandoned some forms of editing convinced that the community wanted distortions in articles. PalestineRemembered 14:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


Jenin dispute tag

talk started on page of User:Jaakobou by Eleland.

Please stop removing {{TotallyDispted}} tags from Battle of Jenin. These issues have been discussed extensively and nothing approaching a resolution has been reached. There is no requirement for a certain number of postings per day in order to indicate a dispute. You've been very prolific on talk and you've managed to address, partially, a tiny fraction of the issues (which IIRC are not the same issues that led to the tag adding anyway). You've also managed to wear down and drive away other contributors with your sheer intransigence. Good for you. Don't confuse exasperation with consensus. Eleland 12:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

start the desired subsections on talk and we'll see if i'm convinced that these problems require such an intrusive tag... obviously, there are always points for conflict, but this article most certainly has it's body well established as factual (is there anything that's unreferenced?) and that tag is inappropriate. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I have posted an extensive summary of the problems with one paragraph, to indicate how severe the problems are. Just showing how badly distorted and counterfactual this paragraph is took a very long talk page post. Please don't focus laser-like on one or two ancillary issues, post until we're sick of arguing with you, and then claim that the issues are resolved. This is an example of the problems which permeate the entire article. Eleland 13:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
sometimes focus is needed to resolve things. btw, i find your "call" about sickness amusing considering some of the things i've had to put up with on said article.[3] JaakobouChalk Talk 13:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm genuinely sorry that this has become so heated; and I believe I have never quite apologized for implying you were an "incompetent hasbara-pusher" whose "broken English and manifest ignorance of policy make you look silly". In retrospect, this kind of behavior is a prime reason for the "circular discussion" which I now decry. I'm sorry. It was stupid, uncalled for, and violated WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Eleland 13:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Awards

Hello, Eleland. I know somebody that I think deserves an award, such as a barnstar because of their hard work on a particular article. I noticed that you gave another Wikipedian an award, and I wondered how you were able to do this. Am I allowed to give a hard-working fellow Wikipedian an award due to his excellent work on a particular article? If so, how do I do this?

Thank you,

Loghead1 04:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia awards are completely arbitrary, they require no official sanction, and they have no official status. You are not only allowed to do this, you are encouraged. The customary method is simply to post {{subst:The Original Barnstar|message ~~~~}} on the user's talk page. In that specific case, I decided to create a unique award, so I created & uploaded the file myself; but this is not necessary. See WP:BARNSTAR for a better explanation. Eleland 04:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for replying! It is much appreciated!

Loghead1 04:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


Stalking

I don't appreciate your following me around. If my objections are so outrageous, then someone neutral will let me know of it. Wikistalking is bad form and could be construed as harrassment, and is certainly inappropriate in a case where you are in a heated content dispute. TewfikTalk 18:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it so hard to believe that I have ANI on my watchlist? I saw a posting, read it, and responded to it. I'm sure we both know that I watch an AfD which I nominated, and an article which I've been discussing and editing extensively for some two months now. I am in no way stalking you and would appreciate a little good faith in future. Eleland 18:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Whether it is on your watchlist or not, responding to me there when you've made yourself party to the content dispute has the same effect and is equally bad form. Consider the amount of accusations you've made towards me and the dearth of replies on my part when you request a 'little good faith'. TewfikTalk 18:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)