Archives

September 2006 - May 2007 June 2007 - July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007-

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Sorry Eleland, I swear I am an idiot. This was my first article on Wiki so please excuse my stupidity. It's been a while since I've done a research document like this. I Completely rewrote my own article including additional information, a little of my own knowledge and insight, and citing an additional source. It was started from scratch, is more informative, and is actually written in, what I believe to be, a more logical order than the other article. Thanks for what I believe was intended to be constructive criticism. I'll try to never make the same mistake again. Did I mention I'm an idiot?

I just wanted to let you know, that if you want me to mediate in the dispute about satanic ritual abuse, I will be pleased to do so. It would be helpful though if you could describe exactly what the core of the disputes are. Furthermore I would like to point out that I have much knowledge about the discussion in the Netherlands and the United States and some knowledge about the situation in Belgium and Germany, but that I do not know a thing about the situation in other countries. But I guess, that it is possible to be of help in disputes about these countries too, because the arguments of believers and non believers are almost always very similar.

The most important thing with mediation though is that you acknowledge the expertise of the mediator and that you trust his or her findings. My experiences on Wikipedia with regard to my article about the situation in the Netherlands are not very positive. Although I have tried to explain that all my sources were genuine, reliable and scientific, editors continuously blocked my neutral article and replaced it with a biased and a factually incorrect paragraph. The main reson that they blocked my page was that they did not know the sources and that they could not read Dutch. The fact that someone cannot read Dutch and therefore cannot control the content of an article, is no reason to block it. If there are doubts about the content of my article, it would be a good idea to contact some of the people I mention in the article. If you want addresses or telephone numbers, I can give them to you. There is a world outside Wikipedia, where allegations and facts can be checked.

Therefore when people ask me to mediate and I use e.g. Dutch or German sources in the solution of the dispute, you will have to trust me that the sources are genuine, reliable and scientific. Otherwise the mediation will fail.

Criminologist1963 (talk) 12:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eleland (and Criminologist1963 if you see this).

Just take a look at my most recent post in SRA talk page about what the Encyclopædia Britannica says on the subject.

The article as it stands is a clear violation of the due weight policy and must be reverted to, say, an October incarnation of the article.

Something must be done immediatly so as not to deceive the wiki readership with preposterous claims. Maybe the first thing to do is to place a POV tag?

Cesar Tort 06:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no problem. your reply shows a great deal of respect and civility [not kidding here, as I hope you realize]. thanks for replying. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 03:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 07:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. please help! The category Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict issues has been nominated for deletion. this is a category which is meant to be simply a conveneient non-partisan gathering-place for all entries which are general overviews of various issues, as opposed to being related to a specific event or location.

The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 21#Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict issues. This category is beneficial to all of us who habitually edit these articles, regardless of whether we may be more affiliated with Israeli concerns or Palestinian concerns. The category's deletion is being advocated by editors who rarely edit any articles on this topic, and have little involvement in this topic at Wikipedia.

Your help would be greatly appreciated. please go to this category's discussion entry, and express your opinion. Hopefully, you will be willing to advocate keeping this category. thanks for your help. Thanks, Sm8900 --207.10.186.39 (talk) 14:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do be aware that Wikipedia Review actively review their logs, your IP address will be known to them and they will not be averse to using it to track your whereabouts and possibly your employer if you use a company proxy server. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Palestinian people, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Eleland.

The SRA True Believers may not be willing to submit themselves to a process in which they may lose. What about "Mediation cabal"? As far as I know (I may be wrong!) you don't need the approval of every party in Mediation cabal.

I am so busy in my own writing that I am almost quitting Wikipedia; or maybe I will edit it only once in a while. After spending enormous amounts of time and energy in an ArbCom process last year, I realized that I cannot afford anymore to invest the proper time in the talk pages.

Yes: ArbCom does not rule on content. But I think there are lots of skeptical editors about the paranormal in Wikiland (or skeptics about demonic interpretations of witch-hunts, such as the Salem trial). They may help us.

BTW, do you know what happened to user:Antaeus Feldspar, who was involved in this article the previous years?

—Cesar Tort 20:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You make a reasonable point. However, it sems to me to be somewhat sensible to at least wait until the end of the 7-day period to see what happens. right now, it's possible everyone will agree to mediation. If they don't, then I agree, we can always go to Medcab at that point. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting a week is very reasonable. Oh yes: when I referred to user:Antaeus Feldspar I had in mind the SRA article. We need someone like him :) Cesar Tort 02:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I received a note that request of mediation was not accepted. Next step...? You are much more knowable of wikilawyering than I do. —Cesar Tort 03:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An idea has occurred to me.

Recently an editor, in my opinion misinterpreting NPOV’s due weight policy, removed lots of well-sourced sentences in Biopsychiatry controversy arguing that the authors, even though they are scholars with academic posts, represented the minority view within academia.

If an editor can remove sentences from well-recognized academics (an erroneous interpretation of NPOV as I said above), why can’t we just remove the paragraphs from the books and texts by the lunatic fringe who are the sources of those now editing the SRA article??

We may simply appeal to the WP policy “extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources”. The 1980s and 90’s SRA were indeed extraordinary claims: a kind of 17 century Salem witch-hunt. As I have iterated elsewhere, the SRA article must convey the view of mainstraim academics, criminologists and sociologists (not of pop psychologists and credulous therapists). We can use all the force of NPOV’s due weight and the extraordinary sources policies to win this battle.

There’s no question about it.

—Cesar Tort 06:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minority views belong in Wikipedia, unless they're the views of a tiny fringe. While guys like Finkelhor, Noblitt, etc. are plainly nuts, they do have qualifications and academic standing, and they've published. Their claims can and should be included in the SRA article. The problem comes when we write an entire article to the Roland Summit position and systematically exclude or marginalize mainstream views. Biao in particular has been playing a shell game, coming up with a dozen different reasons to exclude analysis of SRA as a social phenomenon, and only allowing a "skepticism" section which rushes through the entire corpus of SRA moral panic literature, slowing down only to dote on those views that Biao can use as a strawman, such as a highly obscure paper connecting "temporal lobe epilepsy" to SRA allegations.

Two weeks ago I thought this would be hammered out in mediation. Now I'm less sure; I'll try again on an RfM after the new year, in case editors are on holiday. After that, I now believe ArbCom would take this. There's a line where POV-pushing and tendentiousness moves from a humble content dispute into outright abuse of Wikipedia, and I believe some editors have crossed that line. In fact, I'll go and informally ask some arbitrators where they think that line is drawn now, so I have a better idea of how to proceed. Stay tuned. <eleland/talkedits> 16:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Summit is such a crank that he stated that several US government agencies were involved in SRA conspiracies. Please read the John Earl long article about the “dark tunnels” of McMartin. It pretty much demonstrates the level of lunacy of Summmit and other conspiracy theorists.

I had planned to take another wiki-break but this is a serious subject. As you know, I write about child abuse. Summit et al are a major embarrassment for our child-protection movement.

If they do indeed take this case, let me know if I have to say something to ArbCom.

Cesar Tort 01:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears Jaakobou has violated 3rr on House demolition.Bless sins (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I have reported him/her.[1]

Bless sins (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/Socialese". Sorry for not catching that; sometimes the templates don't tell me what's going on and I didn't catch the un-capitalised title. I archived the page because I thought the deleting admin was referring to that page. It's taken care of now. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid resorting to personal attacks. If you have a gripe with another editor, there are many things you can do but attacking him in edit summaries is not one of them. Yonatan ^talk 21:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a little token of appreciation for upholding wikipedia policies:

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Eleland (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

67.71.142.187 is indefinitely blocked, however, this is a pool IP address for an internet service provider which gives them out dynamically. The block is doing nothing against the intended target and hitting me instead. I will be resetting the connection to try for a new IP address, but you should probably unblock the IP anyway since the block serves no purpose. <eleland/talkedits> 18:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Unfortunately, I cannot find any record of that IP address being blocked, autoblocked or rangeblock. This request has been declined on the basis that no block currently exist for this account and the stated IP address. — nat.utoronto 19:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thanks for fixing the malformed footer, and for suggesting a good redirect --Stephen 00:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've found a historic photo that might be feature-worthy but the caption from the century-old stereoscope looks politically loaded by today's standards (Mideast issues). So I'm seeking feedback on how to craft NPOV language and move forward with a nomination. The discussion is located here. Your input would be much appreciated. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 23:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons mentioned at that link, please remove the Hezbollah userbox from your user page, or you may be subject to the same sanctions, if any, as Noor Aalam (talk · contribs). Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am regularly offended by political sentiments expressed by "pro-Israel" editors in their userspace, such the as the Israeli Defense Force Barnstar (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive158#IDF_barnstar!? I'm sure that many other editors find such things offensive. I don't believe this type of content qualifies as "likely to bring the project into disrepute, or ... likely to give widespread offense," and in any case, I don't believe that a unilateral admin action in this case would be appropriate. The userbox says that I support armed resistance against aggression, and strongly implies that Hezbollah carries out this type of resistance. It doesn't say that I support terrorism. I don't. This is a worldwide project, the whole world doesn't think like the US and Israel, and the US-Israeli interpretation of what's offensive shouldn't hold veto power over userboxes. <eleland/talkedits> 23:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edited to remove focus on single user, that's not really fair23:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the userbox because the consensus of editors indicates that it is unnecessarily divisive and inflammatory, and because it was based on the template {{User Hezbollah}} that has been repeatedly deleted for this reason. Such boxes are not allowed according to our rules about inappropriate user page content, and in accordance with Wikipedia not being a battleground. Please do not re-add this userbox, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia or your user page may be protected. For further information, please see the discussion at WP:ANI#Hezbollah userbox. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 08:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These edits may be construed as WP:POINT edits, and are restoring userboxes that were deemed inappropriate for wikipedia. You know where the discussion is taking place. Please refrain from adding divisive material to wikipedia, especially ones that have been removed multiple times in the past. Further disrupting wikipedia may result in actions being taken to protect the project. Also, please remember to remain WP:CIVIL when you discuss issues, especially those of a contentious nature. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You (and others) might be amused to peruse this, where you'll discover that Jaakobou has managed to drive off every other interested editor (eight in total) throughout the whole 16 months of TalkPage discussion about this article!

You'll already know that none of his claims are referenced atall - only blogs and the perpetrators of the killings (of which there were 497 according to the official International figure) have called Erekat a liar. His career is long and really rather distinguished under the very difficult circumstances. There is a huge amount of interesting material that could go into this article, but this poisonous edit-war has driven off every other editor interested in improving the project.

Another thing you might find astounding is that Jaakobou had only just come back from a 3.5 day block for edit-warring (across a range of other articles) and immediately (2nd edit) set about the exact same activity, on an article where he's done so much damage for so long! PR^talk 17:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so how about this, is this acceptable?

1. This user supports armed resistance against Eleland's aggression.

Is this is not acceptable, why would this be ok?

2. This user supports armed resistance against Palestinian (or Israel)'s aggression.

Or how about:

3. This user supports the use of guns, arms, bombs and tanks against Israel's aggression.

This is identical to the original userbox:

4. This user supports armed resistance against Israeli aggression.

--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naming a particular editor would generally not be appropriate, but for reasons that have nothing to do with the discussion. Your second example would be acceptable. Your third is borderline, as it says "against...aggression" but does not specify resistance, ie, defensive warfare. However, such borderline userboxes and statements on user pages are fairly common in my experience, and generally not removed. <eleland/talkedits> 21:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user was I was refering to was the one who had the original user box, this one: [2]. Whats the difference between "armed resistance" and "bombs, tanks and guns"? Do you believe there's any? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bombs, tanks, and guns may be used in many different ways. Armed resistance to aggression is one of those ways. They're different. And please stop posting on my talk page about it. You're obviously upset about this, and that's fine, but it appears that you're just badgering me at this point. <eleland/talkedits> 21:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for an acceptable slogan? Here's one: "This user supports armed resistance against Bless sins' aggression". Ofcourse, for this statement to make any sense, there has to be aggression, by me, against you. Thus if anyone ever puts this slogan on their talk, I have nothing to worry about, because I know that I haven't committed acts of aggression against anyone.Bless sins (talk) 08:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, would any of you support a blanket ban on user boxes that are political in nature?Bless sins (talk) 08:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hello, I was a friend of stefanie rengels and just wanted to say you did well in her article. did you know her as well? sincerely, rfb

Never heard of her until I saw yesterday's paper sitting on my desk this morning. I'm sorry for your loss. <eleland/talkedits> 21:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that edits such as removing excess whitespace, removing underscores hidden in wikilinks, and other edits which do not change how the page is rendered, are frowned upon by Wikipedia:AWB#Rules of use. <eleland/talkedits> 19:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite new to the software and was really just experimenting with the different funtionality, so I wasn't fully aware of that guideline - I'll keep it in mind in future though. Of course, if there's any way for the software to ignore pages that *only* require insignificant edits, I'd be interested to hear about that. --carelesshx _talk 23:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Stefanie Rengel, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefanie Rengel. Thank you. HookOnTheWall (talk) 06:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eleland, I have no problems with your userbox, per se - but I DO have an issue with the explicit endorsement of violence ("violently resist") so I made a minor change. Please tell me what you think. Eliyohub (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I don't mind the "legitimate means" qualifier, though I don't really see why "endorsing violence" in the context of self-defense against aggression should be a problem. In any case, I'm not eager to fight over it. <eleland/talkedits> 16:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue XXII (December 2007)
Project news The Intelligence task force has been created. The contest department has completed its ninth month of competition. The top scorer this month is Blnguyen, with 22 points, followed by Dreamafter, with 8 points, and Redmarkviolinist, with 6 points. Blnguyen also remains the overall leader, with 162 points in total. All project members are encouraged to submit the articles they're working on as entries. Help with converting deprecated infoboxes is needed; any assistance is welcome! {{WPMILHIST}} now supports an explicit tag (class=DAB) for marking disambiguation pages.	Articles of note New featured articles: Battle of Albuera Battle of Dyrrhachium (1081) Battle of the Gebora Constantine II of Scotland Francis Harvey Vasa (ship) Wulfhere of Mercia New A-Class articles: 1962 South Vietnamese Presidential Palace bombing Evacuation of East Prussia
Current proposals and discussions A discussion about minimizing terminological ambiguity has begun.
Awards and honors Blnguyen has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his efforts in improving the quality of articles related to Vietnamese military history, including the creation of numerous A-Class articles. Woodym555 has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his outstanding work on topics related to the Victoria Cross, notably including the creation of featured articles, featured lists, and a featured topic. For their outstanding efforts as part of Tag & Assess 2007, Bedford, TomStar81, and Parsival74 have been awarded the gold, silver, and bronze Wikis, respectively.
Tag & Assess 2007 Tag & Assess 2007 is now officially over, with slightly under 68,000 articles processed. The top twenty scores are as follows: 1. Bedford — 7,600 2. TomStar81 — 5,500 3. Parsival74 — 5,200 4. FayssalF — 3,500 5. Roger Davies — 3,000 6. Ouro — 2600 7. Kateshortforbob — 2250 8. Cromdog — 2,200 9. BrokenSphere — 2000 9. Jacksinterweb — 2,000 9. Maralia — 2,000 12. MBK004 — 1,340 13. JKBrooks85 — 1,250 14. Sniperz11 — 1100 15. Burzmali — 1000 15. Cplakidas — 1000 15. Gimme danger — 1000 15. Raoulduke471000 15. TicketMan — 1000 15. Welsh — 1000 15. Blnguyen — 1000 Although the drive is officially closed, existing participants can continue tagging until January 31 if they wish, with the extra tags counting towards their tally for barnstar purposes. We'd like to see what lessons can be learned from this drive, so we've set up a feedback workshop. Comments and feedback from participants and non-participants alike are very welcome and appreciated.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

Note: This newsletter was automatically delivered. Regards from the automated, Anibot (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

just in case you might miss it - i replied here [3]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the above link as I have requested arbitration for a dispute that you are involved in. Feel free to contribute there. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 17:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]