User talk:Eleland/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

T-34

As one of the editors on this page I would like to comment just a bit. The T-34 and the M-4 can be compared and should be, further the M-26, Il2, and the Panther, were in the same weight class and again both in WW2. Further the M-4 fought beside the T-34 as both types were used by the USSR. Even further to the point they fought against each other in Korea were in actual combat they proved to be a dead match.

Cheers Tirronan 16:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I find this pretty hard to swallow, I'm afraid. The Sherman was much less mobile and its high-mounted petrol tank had a nasty tendency to burst into flames. The Sherman's armor was kinda squareish unlike the famously sloped T-34 armor. Their armament was comparable if you count the Sherman Firefly against the T-34/85 but then the Americans never adopted the Firefly as I recall.
I'd be interested to see a source on the Korean tank duels, but of course that doesn't mean much because combat depends enormously on the circumstances, doctrine, training, maintenance, etc etc.
Oh yeah, I forgot the most important part: the T-34 came into service considerably earlier.
Eleland 19:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You'd be suprised, the Sherman had a tendency to burst into flame because of its ammunition storage not the gas engine. The Aberdine link on the T-34 gives the American engineers view of the machine which was dim at best. The gun on later Shermans was the 76mm and its penetration was very good with HVAP rounds. In mobility I would have given the Sherman better marks and it was used in perferance to Pershings due to its better hp to weight ratio. Interestingly both tanks had 60 degree armour of the same thickness on the front. That is also in the article. The earlier version of the M4 was the M3 Lee. BTW the Sherman was so bad it was used in the Arab/Israil wars equipped with a 105mm and continued to win. The Sherman was always a better tank from the soft aspects of being easier to drive and easier to fight. Its not nearly as clear cut as you seem to think. I spent 3 weeks adding sources to the T-34 article so I learned a lot more than I ever thought I would and came to some interesting conclusions.

76 mm gun M1

(snip table which was unreadable -- eleland)

Tirronan 23:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Scrambled eggs

I just wanted to note that as the preparation sections are more-or-less hints of proper production than they are recipes, I do not think they fall underneath the topic of recipe deletion for placement in the Wiki Cookbook. I could be wrong though and would welcome you discourse as you made the comment and I believe it is better to address it ASAP than to just let it go.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 00:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

You've defined the conflict far too narrowly, and too one-sidedly. You've been reverted by Humus Sapiens as well, and Bless sins has been reverting on your side. In addition, the Mediation Committee is official, the Mediation Cabal is not. Jayjg (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I've responded already, here. You need to involve all the participants, and you need to use the Mediation Committee, not the Mediation Cabal. Jayjg (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism removal

No worries, anyone would have done the same. I spotted it while checking his contributions list to remove the earlier vandalism. No doubt he'll be back in 72 hours and we can enjoy his company on Wikipedia once again. Euryalus 02:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)

The June 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 13:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Isarig has reported you for 3RR [1]. I would advise you to speedily self revert, before they block you. Good luck ابو علي (Abu Ali) 19:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, nice try anyway. I didn't realize that 3RR applied even when the other side makes no attempt to explain or discuss their edits, and just insults those he disagrees with. Eleland 20:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for violating the Three Reverts Rule on the article Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You may resume editing after the block expires, but continued edit warring may result in longer blocks without further warning. Edit summaries are for edit summaries, not for arguments; discussion should take place on the appropriate talk page, not as punctuation after each revert. You can avoid further problems in the future by discussing instead of reverting. Remember - there are no emergencies on Wikipedia. Kafziel Talk 19:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I did discuss my edits, extensively, on the talk page. Sorry about the edit summaries; it was foolish to respond in kind to Isarig.
I realize that you're only implementing a long established policy, but I do not see how it's helpful to block somebody making well explained edits because he does it too many times, when a "tag-team" of opponents who blatantly violate AGF and make no attempt to justify their edits can go on its merry way.
Eleland 20:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand your problem, which is why the block is only 24 hours. I'm watching the situation now and don't worry: I don't let tag-teams game the system. But more importantly, keep in mind that it should never have gotten that far to begin with: if you get reverted, let it go. Everything will work out eventually, and edit warring is only going to make the situation worse. Just be patient, leave the other guy's version in place, and keep discussing it as long as it takes. There are options for mediation if you need them, but revert warring will only make your side look bad. Kafziel Talk 20:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the sensible advice. I have other things to do with my time, anyway. I mean, presumably... ;) Eleland 20:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Grasping for straws?

I reject your conceited "warnings": again, your problem is not with me, but with facts. You seem to be unable or unwilling to approach the subject from NPOV. Regarding a particular charge that this was a misleading edit summary: indeed, I "rewrote this section as a summary of material relevant to the subject". ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


see text

The use fall under "fair use" Zeq 17:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


Please refer to definition of "fair use"

Fair use is very specific and apply when the image was loaded. I did not loaded the image. Please discuss with who ever loaded it and together decide if the image can be used in wiki or not.

Best, Zeq 18:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

SRA

Hi Eleland,

You were right: I archived some threads in the SRA page prematurely.

I see in your user page that you play chess. I'm just curious: do you have FIDE rating? Mine is 2109.

Please continue doing the good work.

Cesar Tort 17:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Six Day War/pre-emptive

Just wanted to acknowledge the fact that you were the only other editor - other of course than the person who originally started that section of the talk page - to back up my argument. At least I don't feel totally alone! However as I said, it's a pretty futile task dealing with a whole group of people who think Michael Oren is the sole and supreme authority on all matters Israeli-Palestinian (check out how often they say "it's interesting what Michael Oren has to say about this ..." or "Michael Oren has pretty much debunked this argument"). Those same editors have even removed at least one reference in the article to some of the available quotes I was talking about, and then group-congratulated themselves on having done so (a pretty clear comment by Menachem Begin that Israel had a choice, and made it in favour of launching a war). At the end of the day I don't want to be on the receiving end of some of the nonsense I've noticed that you've had to put up with from one particular editor on talk pages, who - to my astonishment - appears to be an administrator. I'm glad you have more dedication than I do. --Nickhh 09:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Ty for the compliment, but, I really don't feel it's deserved. I've been involved in three consecutive "battles" over Israel-related Wikipedia articles, and in every case, the result was that the articles became more biased. Check the histories on Israel and weapons of mass destruction, Template:Israel-Palestinian peace process and Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and you'll see what I mean. Despite the noble idea of reaching consensus on talk page, invariably certain editors will refuse to engage except by repeating barely coherent arguments ad nauseum. The administrator you mention is the worst example I've ever run into, but there's another admin who doesn't quite go so far, but nonetheless is constantly rude, mocking, and dismissive of anything he doesn't agree with, no matter how well explained or sourced.
Ultimately, the 'pedia is edited by well-educated people with above-average income, especially those who feel passionately about a particular issue. The better educated you are, and the wealthier you are, the more conservative you tend to be. And that's laying aside the special factor of American Jews who identify strongly with the far-right of Israeli politics -- notice that in these edit wars, actual Israelis rarely show up, and when they do it's more often than not to express their disbelief at the positions being pushed by Americans on their behalf. Oh well, as usual, you just have to do what you can.
Eleland 18:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
On Oren's book see Norman Finkelstein's review, 'Abba Eban With Footnotes:A critical review of Michael Oren’s Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East' (2002) Nishidani 13:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)