User talk:Eleland

Archives

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

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]

RfC

Very nice RfC – succinct, restrained, etc. Not my chief strengths as a writer – good thing you wrote it and not me :). I think we don't write Wikipedia articles to a valid case is missing a word, probably 'prove'. But I don't want to presume to edit it...--G-Dett 23:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presume, presume, presume away. Although it's ironic that I come off as the more restrained of us two, since usually I get the opposite impression :-) <eleland/talkedits> 23:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saw a recent post with possibly more heat than might be necessary/fair, see my talk page, which has recently gone from red to blue. When I get my reply together, we can watch what happens. Hope we are talking the same RfC; I only have one. And, I just saw the subject of the item immediately below this, which interests me no end., Eh.CasualObserver'48 (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions

Eleland, I don't mean to bother you, but I'm not sure if you have seen what I have been entering on the CAMERA page, but I have some questions that I'd appreciate if you could answer. Could you please go there and respond? David Sher 18:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mike Sokolowiski (or, however it's spelt)

Good call on that revert. On first glance, the addition of a seemingly random name by an anonymous editor who'd never touched the article before looked an awful lot like vandalism. I reverted sort of as a knee-jerk response. I am glad that you reverted me. A reference, though, would help. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CltFn

You may comment on User_talk:CltFn#Conditional unblock? if you wish William M. Connolley (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have mail. Gatoclass (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Memories of AOL... <eleland/talkedits> 02:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no experience of AOL, which is probably just as well :) Gatoclass (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yamashita's gold

I noticed you were active in adding to the Yamashita’s gold article. That article is now protected and limited to discussion only. Please drop back by and leave a comment, if inclined. Jim (talk) 01:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi Eleland, thanks for reverting a spammed attack on my talk page.

FWIW, We Canajans do help each other, even if they are from Ontariario. [:¬∆ Bzuk (talk) 04:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Likewise thanks for your message (re. particle accelerators) just now on dealing with vandalism. I will try reverting at the first promising opportunity. I am puzzled though in that the latest revert by ClueBot looks almost the same as the pre-25 October article, but its length is about the same as after I added my stuff (about 10 KB). Is this a vandal's trick to obscure the trouble spot? I know I can use the diff function to find the latest intact version. Also, does one report an unregistered vandal just by their IP address? Thanks again! Wwheaton (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for resolving, and restoring! Wwheaton (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ICAHD

I was hoping you could respond to my statement on the ICAHD page, if you don't mind. David Sher (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read your response, but it didn't answer the question. I've made my point very clear on the page now, please take a look. David Sher (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision of history

For future reference, keep in mind the exact figure is 6,042,783; the other 4-5 millions can be discounted. --victor falk 11:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

question

[1] Ceedjee (talk) 10:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

notice

per this diff [2] - i request you try to keep it civil. we don't want these type of threads [3] to reappear. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merges

Hi. I don't quite see the point of merging a 27kB article into another one of 144kB size. The opposite is true. We should be creating new articles. See also WP:SIZE. —Viriditas | Talk 03:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]