User talk:Eleland/Archive5


no need to be a jerk

If you keep going through life making pointless threats, you will find it difficult to maintain friendships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.158.226 (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 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 09:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Talk:Battle of Jenin

Greetings. You asked just now: "how do you feel about the prospects for moving into mediation?" Not sure if you noticed, but I put up a long post with 4 numbered questions -- in the next section. I think this will tell you how I feel about the prospects myself. Perhaps you could look at the q's and maybe respond? Or let me know if you still want me to comment on mediation prospects. BTW, please don't get distracted by the other responses to my 4 q's, that way you can help keep the thread on topic! Thanks very much. Ciao, HG | Talk 02:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hopefully we'll get constructive responses from others, too. Ciao. HG | Talk 02:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Hi! If you felt those Suroyo TV entries made for plausible redirects, you didn't have to contest the speedy deletion. The notice isn't binding. I've gone ahead and removed the notices. Thanks for the help! --PMDrive1061 01:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know a thing about the topic, but even though it was by a spammy COI account the articles seem to be useful redirects, and I think that's what he was trying to do originally. I forgot that speedy tags can be removed by people who didn't create the article. Thanks for the note. <eleland/talkedits> 01:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Template

wut do u mean by this vandulism 131.123.48.150 23:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Vandalism; this certainly qualifies. <eleland/talkedits> 23:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RPP

For future reference, whenever you request page protection, put the request at the top of the list so that the bot will not accidentally move it down with the completed ones above it. I have moved it there for you this time. Regards, Jéské(v^_^v) 21:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your notice

What's that Hey, this is a spam note to anyone who has ever moved... spam with that line over it included? It looks so inappropriate. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 18:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's my idea of a joke, I guess. Don't worry about it. <eleland/talkedits> 18:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<snip> per WP:NPA HG | Talk 13:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your short but sweet editor review comment. Feel free to add more, positive or negative, as you wish. Bye for now, HG | Talk 00:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation 101 castlist

Can I ask you to step back and consider why you are so intent on including a giant bulleted list in the article? I am really at a loss for why this should be a major issue. Other WP articles on films do not list 30-40 cast members in this fashion. <eleland/talkedits> 00:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I moved your comment here to keep the thread in one location. To avoid duplication I prefer to discuss this on the article talk page. I will keep this thread here watchlisted also in case there is anything you feel can't be discussed on the article talk page. But I request that you please try to discuss things there. --Timeshifter 00:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah

I dont know if you were talking about my edit as an excessive revert but I thought that I should explain that the removal of the HG20Ak02 citation was by accident. I had removed the other sentence because I could not find the words "legitimate" or "occupation." That was what I had been looking for, and it was not there. --Shamir1 03:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply

replied here. JaakobouChalk Talk 18:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Class interest vs. Social class

Although related, theses are not identical. The former is better know, as it was and is a widely used expression. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 21:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's now a deletion review

I'm alerting all of the editors that took part in the the deletion debate for the article Adult-child sex that it is now a deletion review, as seen in this link. I felt that you may want to lend your voice about this topic in its deletion review as well. More on what may happen concerning this topic is discussed here. After reading that, I'm sure that I won't have to tell you to watch for it being put up for deletion again, if this deletion review doesn't come out as Overturn and delete. I'll see you around. Flyer22 20:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: censorpedia

I appreciate your taking time to comment and make suggestions. I have a preliminary question before dicussing anything else: Is there any way to communicate with editors privately? For example, I would like to get some advice (and couldn't find answers in the help pages) but I don't think it's of interest to the whole world. Why doesn't Wikipedia offer a private Wikiaccount - through which I could contact an editor? Of course, there would be a "block user" feature to use against s/o abusing this method. For me, this is a make or break issue. i believe I can contribute significantly to Wikipedia (and mostly w/o any edit wars) but I simply can't stand a situation where i'm forced to make every communication public. Thanks for your advice. Firstamend 03:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback

... on my mediating ruminations would be most welcome -- because you're level-headed and maybe can help find a better resolution on Talk:Battle of Jenin. (Or am I asking only because I like how you agreed with most of my points?! Well, you disagreed w/pt H5, which is important.) Thank muchly. HG | Talk 16:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eleland. It would be helpful, even a favor to me, if you could comment on the recent proposal at Talk:Battle of Jenin. It looks like G-Dett, Tewfik and Armon are pretty positive about the suggested wording for the lead. I would like to move forward with it, but I respect your opinion and so far I'm only assuming that you'd be comfortable with it too. Thanks HG | Talk 17:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Responded on article talk page. I appreciate your concern for all involved parties. <eleland/talkedits> 17:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Eleland. Would you please do me a favor? At your earliest possible convenience, please chat with PR about his comment on the proposed wording. He posted in both at article Talk and my Talk. You can see my responses at my and his Talk -- both times I suggested he discuss this with you, so it won't come as a surprise to him that I'm asking you here. Plus, given our history, I think he'll realize that I'm trying to deal with it this way in his own best interest. Thanks. HG | Talk 14:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B'Tselem and Jenin

Oh, and I checked up on the B'Tselem numbers. They recorded 53 deaths, not 49. You excluded deaths of non-residents of Jenin who were killed in Jenin. (And Mr Erekat never said more than 500. He said that according to his information, the total could reach 500 for the entire West Bank. He was widely misquoted, but nobody has ever said where and when he allegedly made this "500 in Jenin" statement.) <eleland/talkedits> 00:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, not sure if I'm missed something, but where do Btselem list deaths for Jenin? They're not mentioned at Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces in the Occupied Territories, which is the category that appears to fit the case, but the list there only has the names of only a few people who were killed in Jenin in April 2002, nothing approaching an overall estimate that I can see. PRtalk 12:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They don't list those deaths specifically. DBwikis went through the entire casualties list and picked out everybody listed killed in Jenin from 1-11 April, but he (I think) missed four non-residents of Jenin who were killed in Jenin. Also, as I've said already, the B'Tselem numbers are not intended to be a count of Jenin deaths specifically, in the same way that HRW and AI are. <eleland/talkedits> 15:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hezbollah revert

Regarding your revert of the Hezbollah article, besides the fact that I am already skeptical of a tertiary source that is an editorial and does not use quotations, the cited source cites this source. And that source cites this, which says that Christopher Ross made those comments. --Shamir1 19:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 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 13:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Poll

Hello. I have decided to start a poll to get a better idea of what the consensus is on the hezbollah article. The poll is on the Hezbollah articles talk page. Thought you might want to know so you could include yourself in it. Cheers!--I wish you a happy Veterans Day 22:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]