User talk:Eleland/Archive14

Yom Kippur War
Hi Eleland. I see you have had some involvements with articles on Arab-Israeli Conflicts. I have begun to make some improvements to the Yom Kippur article by adding information Egyptian sources, and making it less biased, so that the article is not simply an excerpt from Rabinovich. There is still a lot to do though, and I was hoping you could help me with that. Sherif9282 (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:RebuildTheWall-06-Mother(30s).ogg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:RebuildTheWall-06-Mother(30s).ogg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the 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. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Lituya Bay pic
If you're not the same Eleland who has that username in Wikimedia Commons this won't make any sense to you; if you are the same person, could your description maybe include what the peaks visible are? The picture would be useful for illustrating their pages....I think the one on the right maybe is Mount Crillon? Dn't have the topos handy...at the very least it can be used to illustrate Fairweather Range although whether or not that's an article yet I don't know.Skookum1 (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Jayjg
You might not know this, but users are allowed to remove pretty much anything they want from their talk pages except templates before the duration of a block expires and confirmed  templates. This edit could be considered less than appropriate. N.B. I'm not commenting on the substance of the discussion at all. Toddst1 (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's why I only restored it once. (There was another comment there, too, not just the restoral of the previous one.) However, I think it should be noted that just as Jay has the right to remove such questions about his conduct from his page, others have the right to draw inferences about the validity of his conduct from the fact that he removes discussion of it. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 01:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the only thing that you can infer about removing info from one's talk page is that they've seen it. Toddst1 (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)
The October 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) 23:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

lone poor IP user

 * User talk:89.2.243.42 Thank you for your "Nice work" and "thanks".89.2.243.42 (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)
The November 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) 16:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Brain Sex
Dear Eleland, thank you for your eagle-eyed edit at Brain Sex. Although I have seen the JSM quote associated with Brain Sex as a review, I found myself agreeing with you, that without more context, it looked more like a precis of the book's case. Indeed, that is precisely what the words are, and were intended to be in their original context. Before deciding to move on to other things, or maybe simply congratulate you on such brilliant specific deletion, I thought I'd check the JSM official site for more information. You can retrace my steps by seeking pages 81-82 of the March 2006 serial, here atTable of Contents. Aksam A. Yassin's review of Brain Sex is listed there, with the full title. His own prefered language is "Brain Gender" as the quoted section itself betrays a little. The version of the abstract of his review demonstrates that the referee(s) did not trouble themselves with copy-editing tell-tale ESL markers in his prose, nor does he seem to have passed his work to a copy-editor. He reviewed the work as a specialist paediotrician and urologist. The review is important for the Wiki article, because the publishers cite it as independent third party expert opinion regarding the medical accuracy of the book (certainly not for English expression!)

I would be very gratified if you would do readers and Wiki the service of considering the above and making the judgment to self-revert the deletion, perhaps adding an explanitory footnote like. Cut and paste this if you feel comfortable it is both verifiable and verified. I have sighted the publishers citations (if you will forgive the assonance).

Best regards, Alastair Haines (talk) 11:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I just worked with the web-accessible version of the citation available. If you can verify the full quote in context as part of an actual review then of course go ahead and restore it. Sandwiched between the unsourced Daily Mail quote and the review in the National Alliance (probably the world's largest outright neo-Nazi organization) I might have been a little biased in how far I trusted the citation. I don't know exactly what a medical doctor, expert in urology, would have to do with reviewing a book about neurology, or why we should necessarily take his opinion seriously, but whatever, that's really not my concern. If it's a verifiable review, and you can personally verify it, then just go ahead and revert my edit (you don't need permission! :) &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 01:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty dumb. I can't imagine the publisher using a Vanguard review. I can't have checked who they were when I must have found them for myself. Now I am also doubting myself whether I got JSM from the book I borrowed. Yassin does refer to Moir and Jessel by name in his article, Google picks up text I can't access directly. But there is room for ambiguity in what I suggested above. My confidence came from knowing my methods, checking the history, though, it appears I did add JMS last. I'm going to delete both reviews now. There are plenty of others to be found without question marks. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Brigitte Gabriel
Which editor do you think has the COI? This might be best reported to WP:AN/COI. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIV and WP:NPA vios
I have reported you here. I would like to discuss your substantive points, but cannot until this is resolved. IronDuke 03:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Eleland, I agree that the civility issues in your recent edits are a concern. Would you please consider refactoring your posts to a more civil and collegial tone?  Thanks, --Elonka 04:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Civility
No matter how strongly you feel that my changes to the Eurabia article are mistaken, implying that they are vandalism, by suggesting WP:RBI, seems to raise civility issues. Please review WP:assume good faith, WP:Civility, and WP:no personal attacks. Good faith edits should never be called vandalism. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, propaganda
Gimme a break. You're well aware that it's not necessarily what you say, but how you say it. And in your recent edits, an agenda is subtly, yet clealy, emergent, and that is not cool. Rabend (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

On difference between neutral and "neutral" POVs, or subtle joy of quotes placement
Regarding one of your edits in Free Gaza Movement: placing of quotes for anti-terror NGO Shurat HaDin. You are certainly entitled to your opinion of said NGO and you can provide substantiated information to the point in respective article, however your innuendo to the perceived character of this NGO called by you "anti-terror" in article on Free Gaza Movement seems to be misplaced and (in my view) betrays "objective" rather than objective approach. Suggesting to unquote the "anti-terror" applied to Shurat HaDin in Free Gaza Movement; then please feel free to get to the substance in Shurat HaDin article. DBWikis (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

On tautology, or equivalence of "claiming assertion" and "assertion" when applied to legal statement.
Regarding one of your edits in Shebaa farms: your suggested wording of Israeli "claimed annexation" as compared to "annexation". Indeed any "claim of fact" is different from "fact" when applied to say material object, or matter that pertains to objective property, e.g. your "claim of objectivity" is not same as your objectivity since it can be perceived and assessed by external parties; however if the point in question is subjective or legal per definition then "claim of entering a state" means simply "entering a state", e.g. your "claim of feeling frustrated" should mean you are feeling frustrated. Likewise, "claim of annexation" means annexation de-jure. It can be unrecognized (as in case of Golan) and condemned, but as of today it exists both de-jure and de-facto. Your point of underscoring the disputed character of said annexation is understood and taken, however your proposed substitution of word "annexed" by wording "claimed as annexed" is simply tautological. DBWikis (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)
The December 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) 02:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Some Info for WikiProject Palestine
The recent changes that I made to the UN Partition Plan for Palestine did quote solid academic sources. Oddly enough the 'Arab' propaganda that got deleted was written by the Jewish Agency's advisors on international law, or other Jewish jurists.

You might find some useful information in my notes:

User talk:Harlan wilkerson/UN Partition Plan

User talk:Harlan wilkerson/Non-Sovereign States

harlan (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Civility
I suggest you consider well the civility that each editor ought to extend to each other, and avoid provocative comments on talk pages and edit summaries which are not used for the purpose intended. You'll do better here. Just a suggestion.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * How about this: fuck off. Just a suggestion. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 00:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice block log you got there. Five priors, and edit warring and 2x incivility.  Hmmmm.  Of course, I wouldn't block you myself, not proper, but jeez, keep it up on I-P articles, and you'll be having plenty of spare time.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Eleland, you know that's not okay. I started a thread at Wiquette here. IronDuke  00:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Eleland? Wow, look at how blatantly uncivil Wehwalt's tauting is!  He came here to provoke a blockable response from Eleland and it looks like he succeeded.  He even broadly hinted that some other admin should jump in and do the dirty deed.  Amazing. Spotfixer (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Now at AN/I
FYI, discussion now on AN/I --Onorem♠Dil 02:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below.

Oh God! What the hell is the matter with people here? Admins go around violating BLP for months with no consequences, while those who lose patience with them and tell them where to go get blocked? Everywhere in the world it seems the law fucks the poor, weak and marginalized and supports the already rich and powerful. One would have thought a people's encyclopedia would be different.

I see Wehwalt has removed the BLP notice from his talk page. It seems that he enjoys patrolling the pages of pro-Palestinian activists (see Rachel Corrie for another example of where his ownsership tendencies are quite clear). I voted against his admin nom a couple of months ago because I was concerned by his edits there. It seems my concerns and those of NSH001 were well placed, though ignored by others afraid of being sucked into I-P issues. Oh well.

Anyway Eleland, I hope you don't get discouraged. I was blocked four times for 3RR before learning how not to let the edit-warring bad faith socks before me draw me into those kinds of battles. In the future, when you feel the need to vent, I recommend my User talk:Tiamut/Archive 9 where Nishidani and I share our neuroses and plaints so as to be able to get on with editing without getting sucked into the penalty box.

Be well my friend.  T i a m u t talk 14:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't the first bogus block Sandstein has been involved in. He even had a cameo role in some of mine.  These things happen; don't let it get you down.  And next time you tell someone what to do with themselves, say it politely and with a smile.  That's how admins do it. Spotfixer (talk) 02:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with Sandstein on much but if he hadn't made this block, I suspect that some totally uninvolved admin would have. Maybe the duration would have been different, but it's a subjective call. Who cares. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 02:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You're probably right. I'm sure that, if Wehwalt could have gotten away with doing the block himself, it would have been much longer.  In any case, you have the right attitude: who cares? Petty tyrants have no more power over you than you grant them.  That's what makes them petty.
 * See you in a couple of weeks, and if you want some interesting reading (mixed in with lots of crazy ranting and whining), I suggest you spend your enforced downtime as I did: reading Wikipedia Review. You are not the first, nor the last.  And you are not alone. Spotfixer (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been on WR for a good while. There's some useful critique, there's some entertaining rambling, there's some outright nonsense, and there's some despicable bile. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 02:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, that's WR. I only found out about it after my first, blatantly bogus block, but I'm a lurker, not a ranter.  I did get (dis)honorable mention by an observant contributor there, which was jumped all over by a WP admin here as proof that I'm part of an evil, anti-WP conspiracy.
 * Speaking of which, what's I-P? Spotfixer (talk) 02:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Israel-Palestine. WR holds limited appeal for me. You've heard of "inside baseball," yes? Well, WR is "outside baseball" - just as esoteric, even less consequential. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 02:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh. Oh!  That explains a lot.  Especially after all I've read about people like SV, and some of the odder so-called cabals.  Yes, as topics go, I'd be hard pressed to think of a more controversial one, and half of my edits involve abortion.
 * But, sure, I understand what you're saying about WR. After all, there's a reason I only lurk.  There are some pretty messed up people on there; not everyone who's abused by admins here is an innocent, and some innocents were corrupted by their victimization.
 * I guess the big take-home value from WR is learning that this is a systemic problem, not personal persecution. That and the fact that the game is rigged.  I know that if I edit with integrity, it's only a matter of time before I get banned for good, but I'm ok with that. Spotfixer (talk) 03:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (r to my favorite editor, started before Spotfixer commented:)
 * Not months, years. He'd been shoveling that shit on Shapiro since 2006. Anyway, thanks for the kind words - coming from one in your time and place it's especially touching that you'd be aggrieved over my two week time out from a website.
 * I often despair of ever getting anything done here. The most basic, obvious, and straightforward applications of policy often take many man-hours, and even a victory never establishes any kind of precedent - the same discredited arguments are just brought to a new forum. Outright deceit goes unpunished; editors say X=100, citing a source that says X=-5, and get away with it. I mean, look at my own block log, for example.
 * The first time I was blocked, it was because a devotedly Jewish and obsessively Zionist admin baited me until he ran out of his 3 reverts - he actually put "rv#1, rv#2, rv#3..." in his edit summaries - then, literally five minutes later, a notorious "kamikaze edit warrior" with a laser-like focus on Israeli-Palestinian articles shows up to make his first ever edit to the article, I revert him, and then I've crossed the magic 3RR trip wire and I'm blocked. Ffs, even the guy that blocked me - who incidentally was a United States Air Force reservist with a combat record over Afghanistan - ended up scolding Humus Sapiens for his actions. But no sanctions, of course - that's reserved for people who say "fuck" or click "undo" four times instead of three, not for deranged ethno-nationalists who conspire in secret. Those types get admin bits instead, in honour of all the vandalism they've cleansed from articles about Pokemon.
 * The second time I was blocked, it was because I lost my temper with a semi-literate buffoon, who quoted in boldface "huge numbers of Palestinians were also driven out of their homes by their own leaders and/or by Arab military forces" claiming it supported his text, "the vast majority of Palestinians fled of their own accord." He quoted this triumphantly, as if he had convincingly refuted my argument and exposed me as a liar. The microcephale in question now appears to be on track to becoming an admin. He'll be in good company.
 * This is not an anomaly. Just prior to my block, I was working on the lede of our article on the 2008 Gaza war, which for some reason still bears a euphemistic title "Israeli-Gazan conflict" or some such nonsense. The lede claimed that "other Palestinian estimates differ" from the "Hamas-run" Gazan hospital system; the only relevant article cited, a piece in the conservative "home team" Israeli newspaper Jerusalem Post, actually noted a very close correlation between Ministry of Health estimates, endorsed by the World Health Organization, independent estimates, and even the Israeli estimate of overall fatalities (although IDF insists that the number of combatants was far greater, but only off the record and without specifics.) Two separate editors reverted my correction. I mean, how can we stand for this? Who the fuck cares about "incivility" and "personal attacks" when editors are lying about the content of sources and getting away with it? These people didn't read the sources. They didn't care about the sources. They just knew, because they wanted it to be true, that Palestinian casualty counts were all lies, so they edited the article to say so. I am sick of dealing with this kind of bullshit. What can I say, my patience is not unlimited.
 * I don't mean to make this out as if every editor who has a pro-Israel point of view is some kind of Satanic monster. I respect Steve/sm8900. I respect Avraham. I respect Ceedjee (and I still don't know where he stands except that he's downright mean to anybody who doesn't stand with him!) Hell, I even respect JayJG in my own twisted way, at least he's entertaining, if only in the fashion of a heel. But this endless stream of nonsense wears one down. I genuinely enjoy reasoned debate on talk pages, ok? But when people lie, cheat, dissemble, and filibuster, I'm going eventually to blow up. Deal with it.

(I note with irony my own advice to a newbie: 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. [...] 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.Oh well, can't say I didn't warn.... me..... &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 03:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm much tempted to join you. Much of this is indeed futile. The problem is the herd niggling away is perfectly aware that a tactic of attrition towards exhaustive futility is the best way to rid the place of serious content editors, and that wiki has no remedy, since its own procedures encourage endless litigation, and the suspension of all obvious understanding of the games and psychological devices people play in power relations. I'm perfectly aware that this is almost a total waste of time, since the numbers game, and the off-line organization (there can be no doubt of that) means one is reduced to pushing crap up hill with slippy fingers just to get to the summit for some fresh air and light. I've decided to rephrase your remarks as 'the Eleland commendation', and have already used it once of obnoxious posters. The only reason one doesn't call a spade a fucking spade is that, as we all know, it's irresponsible to allow oneself to get consistently banned and leave Tiamut, al-Ameer son and a few others, exemplary editors with a real personal stake in getting these articles balanced, alone against a hydra-headed brigade of tendentious hasbara recruits.Nishidani (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * p.s.Apropos hasbara, here's the Israeli PM's former media adviser saying that Israeli reportage was less balanced than that of both Western and the Arab mainstream media.Nishidani (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Can I just say that I love you guys? I love your commitment to intellectual honesty, to humanity, to scholarship, to fair play, to representing all significant viewpoints in an article and not just those of my people, but all people. I love your passionate defense of these principles. I love your stubborn refusals to let people play dishonest games here, even though its so fucking time consuming to probe into this quagmire, figure out what's going on, and to correct. I just really truly love you. Please, if (god forbid) you ever do go away from Wiki forever, you have to make sure to send me an email giving me your real life contact info so that we never lose touch. Big hugs and kisses.  T i a m u t talk 16:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. Eleland, the Supreme Court has since overturned the Knesset decision to ban the Arab parties. But the Knesset is going to propose new legislation that might make it much harder for Arab parties to run. Also, polls show that 61% of Israelis support banning Arab parties to the Knesset. So yes, its hard times. But when I see the genocide in Gaza, I feel like my complaints are seriously bourgeois in comparison. At least for now. The future though looks increasingly bleak. Thanks for caring my friend.  T i a m u t talk 16:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have only just noticed this. For what it's worth, I agree that your block is entirely excessive, and probably unjustified. Looking into the background, I see that Wehwalt's contentious edit is identical to one by a sockpuppet (as confirmed by checkuser) of the Runtshit vandal, editing from a now-blocked ip registered to Haifa University. See Checkuser report. This confoems to a pattern of systematic abuse of anti-Zionist Jews, and vandalism of related articles. Maybe a case for a further CU request? RolandR (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)
The January 2009 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) 03:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

A Land Without a People Cherrypicked debate

 * Could you help me with this on talk page. An editor named historist is deleting the Cherrypicked tag from the top the article. I feel this tag is important to inform the reader that the article was created and edited primarily by a sock working for CAMERA.


 * I am currently engaged in an argument at the contras article and frankly don't have the strenght to argue two articles at the same time. Could you please try and argue for the tag with this historist guy. I would really appreciate the help.annoynmous 14:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for Har Homa
G'day, just wanted to say a quick thanks for keeping your eye on those pushing the Israeli government line, and as you so potently highlighted, nobody elses on the Har Homa page. If i could work out how, or was even sure i could give you somne kind of award, i totally would. But im a wikinewb here still. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
The February 2009 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) 22:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

A land without a people article cherry picked tags

 * Sorry to bother you again with this, but I am currently engaged in an argument on the talk page with historicist on whether or not to keep the neutrality and cherrypicked tags. You made a very elegant case for having these tags last year, could you please come to the talk page and help me out with this a little bit. I would much appreciate it.annoynmous 20:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to bother you again with this, but I wonder if you could come to the talk page and make the case for the tags sense you were the one who added them in the first place. Historicist has added some window dressing, but the article is still primarily based on muirs article. Historicist and I are in a back in forth battle right now and he is recruiting several people to help him by leaving messages on there talk pages.


 * I understand if you don't want to get involved and if you don't could you help me find anyone else at wikipedia who you think could help me argue my case. annoynmous 00:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't push back with the same tactics. Instead, I suggest posting as neutral a summary as you can to a noticeboard that is broadly monitored; perhaps the WP:ECCN. Cheers. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 01:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I hate to bother you with this again, but I would like it if you could give one more comment at the talk page in repsonse to historicist and Jaygys arguments. After this I promise I won't bother you with this again. annoynmous 02:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have given up trying to preserve the tags. I just don't have the strength right know to soldier on. Historicist and jayjg have built an impenetrable wall that I don't see me breaking right now on my own. So the Tags are down and unless someone else comes along and makes a strong argument for them they are not going back up. If you think you can make a better case than I have please go ahead. I need a break from the madness. annoynmous 13:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)