New section re Erekat |
|||
Line 165: | Line 165: | ||
I know as they say it was a "slight understatement", but honestly, I orginally used it in good faith in a bid to avoid anything kicking off around it! --[[User:Nickhh|Nickhh]] ([[User talk:Nickhh|talk]]) 20:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC) |
I know as they say it was a "slight understatement", but honestly, I orginally used it in good faith in a bid to avoid anything kicking off around it! --[[User:Nickhh|Nickhh]] ([[User talk:Nickhh|talk]]) 20:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC) |
||
:Ha, ha. I figured that was Jaakobou or something interpreting "neutrality" as "whitewash." I really wanted to write "assault '''''on''''' Jenin," but I wasn't willing to fight for that. "Incursion" is technically correct, in the same way that "martyrdom operation" is technically correct. Maybe "operation" would be better. <[[User:Eleland|<b>el</b>eland]]/[[User talk:Eleland|<b>talk</b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|edits]]> 20:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:26, 15 April 2008
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Middle East Textbooks Invitation
Update on Funding Evil
You commented a few days ago on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funding Evil concerning the article Funding Evil. I've completely rewritten and expanded the article now; you may wish to review the revised article and your comments in the deletion discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
sunscreen
Hi, When I wrote vandalism I was mainly refering to the unsubstantiated tags from Wshalwshall. I wrote an apology for calling all the reverts vandalism in the discussion of sunscreen page. I think the article now says that there is a dispute about the safety of sunscreen. This is what can be found in the scientific literature. The fact that there is a dispute should not be tagged with a "factual accuracy" tag, because the reader percives it as if there is wrong information in the article. This is not the case. Thanks for considering these arguments. Gerriet42 (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Debunking the Canadians
Hi :)
Thanks you very much for forcing me to learn some more wikipedia rules. I probably wouldn't do it without You.
I feel I owe You, so I'll pay You back with teaching You some things :
We 'can use non-english sources. See here.
Have a nice day. :)
--Ante Perkovic (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- You call pages of Canadian army a Croatian propaganda! Brilliant reasoning. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/scondva/engraph/270498_e.asp is canadian army page. Which part of this sentence you didn't understand? --Ante Perkovic (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- You're talking nonsense. Of course it's a Canadian army page. It doesn't support the wild and paranoid claims you're making in the article. You can't just post a long rant, slap on a .gc.ca citation somewhere in the middle, and expect people to let it slide. Kindly take your nationalist propaganda campaign elsewhere. <eleland/talkedits> 16:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I believe you have to much prejudices about my people. Medak pocket battle was isolated battle, there were no fighting for months before and after. You can't really hide 27 dead people from your ranks in that situation. If 27 people really died, their names would pop-up sooner or later. There were many battles that included high casualties on croatian side and all this casualties of them poped-up shortly after end of the war in 1995, when it was safe to disclose that information. The sole exception is this "battle" with Canadians. Looks like noone noticed that 27 people is missing. Don't just rant "propaganda, propaganda...". Use commons sense for a change. BTW, where do You come from? I feel like this has some personal meaning for You. do You come from Serbia or Canada maybe. I just ask, no harm intended :). --Ante Perkovic (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have no idea whether 27 Croatian soldiers died. However, you are claiming that 0 Croatian soldiers were killed and 0 wounded, and that there was no battle whatsoever. Casualty estimates from battles are often highly unreliable, however, this is a totally different thing from saying that there was no battle at all. <eleland/talkedits> 16:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Could I have some backup here? I'm trying to deal with a POV-pushing newbie who's obviously ignorant of basic NPOV requirements, but it's an uphill struggle. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
West Bank occupation
Eleland, I was mistaken not to negotiate your argument in the related talk page. I had the impression that you had POV and I have mistakenly forgotten that I had a very neutral experience with you in Talk:Human_rights_in_Israel. I apologize for that. Imad marie (talk) 11:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Just thought you might like to know... Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 28.03.2008 09:09
Response to comments at WP:AE
I didn't comment about the Palestina redirect - as it happens making a change that is obviously going to be reverted isn't especially clever. Nor did I say the removal of content from the biography was a WP:BLP removal - I don't think Jaakobou should have gone over 3RR. However, they were reasonable edits, and I think describing good faith removal of what could be considered sensationalist quotes from a BLP isn't going on the rampage. I've protected the page in what by definition is always the wrong version. PhilKnight (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
im not m1rth so stfu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.205.23 (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Heya Eleland.
I would first like to apologise on behalf of the Mediation Committee for the delay in this case being dealt with, which is due to a shortage of available mediators. I have expressed interest in taking this case to help with the backlog and to assess my nomination to join the committee. As i am not currently a member it is common practice to for the involved parties to consent to mediation of an RfM from a non-committee member. To give your consent for me to act as mediator for this case please sign as you have for the acceptance of the case on the case page. I look forward to working with you and finding a solution to the dispute.
Seddon69 (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hey Eleland, i was wondering whether youd be able to let me know on whether you wanna carry on with this mediation and whether you accept me as a mediator. Im hoping to start the case soon but i want to make sure the parties are happy to continue to help solve this dispute. Seddon69 (talk) 09:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Careful
Hi. Remember this? Your behavior is being somewhat uncivil again; I'd just as soon not have to hear about this. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)
The March 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) 01:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Garfield minus Garfield
What I said was that the section looks like advertising because all it does is mention a blog, and doesn't have any sources to prove that the blog is notable. There are dozens of blogs/sites that make fun of Garfield, why is that one in particular notable, and why does it warrant its own section? -- Scorpion0422 00:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, I looked at it again, and although I still have doubts about the source used, I merged it into the internet section. -- Scorpion0422 00:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Absinthe kits
You are wrong about the misuse of "to drink." The verb form is correct. Check your dictionary.
The admonition is there for the purposes of recapitulation and emphasis. It is not redundant. If you do not revert, I will. Morris K. (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: Your comment on the Chrono Trigger TalkPage
Your comment was quite unnecessary, articles about Video Games have just as much right to be featured on the main page as any other article. Wiki is an encyclopedic tool designed to include and provide information on all facets of society and like it or not entertainment media is a huge part of the world we live in (and has been for centuries). While i've never played the game itself I do know Chrono Trigger is held in very high regard by those involved in the Video Game industry, regularly heralded as one of the best games ever made. Its development brought together some of the most respected artist and music composers of its era, the equivilant of bringing together the best actors, directors and cinematographers together to make a film (or if you prefer to keep away from pop-culture, bringing together the world's best architects to make a building). The article reflects the high-standing of this game and this has rightly been recognised by the FAC.
While I wouldn't dare directly compare Chrono Trigger, and Video Games on general, to Shakespeare (different media, different eras), dismissing them as an embarrassment is akin to dismissing some of Will's works as 'irelevant' and 'pandering to the masses'. In principal at least. Darrek Attilla (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Mediation Update
Just to let you all know, the case has been started. I have created a little navbox for you to navigate between pages and will be expanded as the case goes on so that its easier for you to navigate. The first page you need to visit in this case is here so you can give youre opening statement. There i have left a few questions for you all to answer. For those that have been busy and unable to confirm their participation in the mediation, they are welcome to join the mediation at any stage.
I can be contacted in several ways in the event you need to. I am normally present on the wikipedia-en, wikipedia-medcab and wiki-hurricanes IRC channels at some point between 15:00 UTC and as late 02:00 UTC depending on college and real life commitments. To find these channels and instructions on how to access IRC go to WP:IRC. Throughout the day, even when i am in college, feel free to email me using the email tool or by emailing the email address on my user page or both to make sure. You can also leave a message on my talk page which again ill do my upmost to reply to as soon as i can. Seddon69 (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Trolling?
Next time you accuse someone of trolling, please have evidence on the matter. Are we clear? --Caravato (talk) 01:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
ALex Jones edits
On July 25, 2001 Jones called on all of his listeners to call the White House hotline and prevent the impending false flag event that later materialised as the 9/11 attacks. He predicted the blame being placed on Osama Bin Laden and has been a champion of the 9/11 Truth movement ever since.
This is a fact heard by many thousands of people and the video feed was posted on several online video sites. The " edits" are blantantly erasing a massive volume of the life work of this man. This audio is repeated on a fairly regular basis.
I do not agree with evrything that this man says, but he DID make a plea to listeners several weeks before the event.
WOLFSERPENTCROWRAT —Preceding unsigned comment added by WOLFSERPENTCROWRAT (talk • contribs) 03:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Cited Sources
Ok, I understand the need for reliability. I will make a concerted effort to dig up another source. That being said almost all 9/11 references have been scooped out of his wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WOLFSERPENTCROWRAT (talk • contribs) 04:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
From one wiki page to another
I have made a more suitable contribution.
Alex Jones claims to have predicted the attacks in July 2001, on his syndicated radio show at infowars.com, even mentioning the World Trade Centre as a potential target and that Bin Laden, the known CIA asset, might be used as a ‘patsy’. He launched a campaign to try to stop the attacks, which he called “Operation Expose The Government Terrorists”. Jones has been referred to as the progenitor of the movement.
As opposed to:
On July 25, 2001 Jones called on all of his listeners to call the White House hotline and prevent the impending false flag event that later materialised as the 9/11 attacks. He predicted the blame being placed on Osama Bin Laden and has been a champion of the 9/11 Truth movement ever since.
--WOLFSERPENTCROWRAT (talk) 05:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I know as they say it was a "slight understatement", but honestly, I orginally used it in good faith in a bid to avoid anything kicking off around it! --Nickhh (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ha, ha. I figured that was Jaakobou or something interpreting "neutrality" as "whitewash." I really wanted to write "assault on Jenin," but I wasn't willing to fight for that. "Incursion" is technically correct, in the same way that "martyrdom operation" is technically correct. Maybe "operation" would be better. <eleland/talkedits> 20:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)