User talk:JobsElihu
Welcome!
Hello, JobsElihu, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Newyorkbrad 01:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Your recent edits...[edit]
Hi, Jobs. I notice you have edited the Winter Soldier Investigation article and deleted a source citation by Richard Stacewicz, along with punctuation in the citations. You have also inserted adjectives such as "allegedly" and "allegations" without providing a source citation. Could you please explain these deletions and the adjectives? Thanks much! Xenophrenic 22:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- The deletion, if I did it, of the citation by Stacewicz was a mistake and the same applies to the punctuation. However, the words "allegedly" and "allegations" must be added to the article. Wikipedia does not take sides. None of the things alleged have been proven. --JobsElihu 06:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the response. I will replace the citations and punctuation; I assumed that might have been a mistake. As for adding "alleged" words to the article, that is fine if the sources provided also contain those words. We don't want to form our own conclusions about what is fact and what is only "alleged," lest we violate Wikipedia original research rules. You are 100% correct when you say Wikipedia does not take sides, but remember that goes for all sides -- including the side that claims the testimony was not factual, but allegation. Go ahead and add the "allege" words if they are appropriate, but please make sure they are accompanied by source citations.
- By the way, your claim that "None of the things alleged have been proven" is not correct. The Detroit Free Press verified many of the claims as true while the event was still ongoing. Many of the claims were obvious and didn't need proof, such as those concerning racism, body counts, fragging, and other already acknowledged problems. Did General William Westmoreland issue direct orders prohibiting cutting ears or fingers off the bodies of the dead because it wasn't happening? Another editor points out on the WSI Talk page that even more of the claims have been proven since the recent declassification of military documents [1]. Much of the testimony has been substantiated, and to my knowledge, none disproven. Xenophrenic 08:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is NOT a place to argue politics. In your comments above you are arguing politics. The fact that you believe that "none" of the information has been "disproven" indicates that you have taken sides. I am only a causal Wikipedia user and I don't have time to investigate all of the information in the article but let me just point out that just because the Detroit News says something is true DOES NOT mean it is true. Newspaper reporters are wrong all the time and I'm sure that their tons of misinformation in the article that you are attempting to dominate. For example, on the website for the Eastern Arizona Courier, right now, there is an article by Pam Crandall that quotes Mr. Jesse MacBeth about war crimes that were supposed committed in Iraq by him and other soldiers. There is no questioning of MacBeth's motives or accuracy--just word for word repetition of MacBeth's claims. ALL of the claims/allegations in the article are damn lies. How do I know this? Well, there was investigations done on MacBeth's claims and it turns out that only served in the military for 44 days and did not even make it through bootcamp before he was booted out of the Army for being "unfit." He was Stateside the whole time and he has never been to Iraq and he has never, ever been in a warzone, so therefore all of his claims are lies. Now, there is clearly some of that going on here and you have no evidence to prove that none of the claims in the Winter Soldier situation are not "disproven." Your comments are incorrect and they belie your bias and your attempts to engage in POV.--JobsElihu 14:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is NOT a place to argue politics. In your comments above you are arguing politics. The fact that you believe that "none" of the information has been "disproven" indicates that you have taken sides ... Your comments are incorrect and they belie your bias and your attempts to engage in POV..--JobsElihu 14:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is NOT a place to argue politics. In your comments above you are arguing politics. The fact that you believe that "none" of the information has been "disproven" indicates that you have taken sides. I am only a causal Wikipedia user and I don't have time to investigate all of the information in the article but let me just point out that just because the Detroit News says something is true DOES NOT mean it is true. Newspaper reporters are wrong all the time and I'm sure that their tons of misinformation in the article that you are attempting to dominate. For example, on the website for the Eastern Arizona Courier, right now, there is an article by Pam Crandall that quotes Mr. Jesse MacBeth about war crimes that were supposed committed in Iraq by him and other soldiers. There is no questioning of MacBeth's motives or accuracy--just word for word repetition of MacBeth's claims. ALL of the claims/allegations in the article are damn lies. How do I know this? Well, there was investigations done on MacBeth's claims and it turns out that only served in the military for 44 days and did not even make it through bootcamp before he was booted out of the Army for being "unfit." He was Stateside the whole time and he has never been to Iraq and he has never, ever been in a warzone, so therefore all of his claims are lies. Now, there is clearly some of that going on here and you have no evidence to prove that none of the claims in the Winter Soldier situation are not "disproven." Your comments are incorrect and they belie your bias and your attempts to engage in POV.--JobsElihu 14:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- I am biased and arguing politics when I say claims haven't been disproven? Then what of you when you said this above:
- "None of the things alleged have been proven. --JobsElihu 06:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. I will be moving this conversation to the Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation if you wish to continue. Xenophrenic 17:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- I am biased and arguing politics when I say claims haven't been disproven? Then what of you when you said this above:
Your misdirected comment[edit]
I received your message regarding uncivil comments. Please review the edit summary again and you'll see I was commenting on the hypocritics I was reading, and not the writers of them. An easy mistake to make. Xenophrenic 17:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Edit Summary need to describe the edits[edit]
Hi, JobsElihu. Would you please review the recent edit you have made to the Winter Soldier Investigation article? You have made numerous changes that are not explained by your edit summary, and are not explained on the talk page. For example, why did you delete this citation: <ref>Andrew E. Hunt; The Turning: A History of Vietnam Veterans Against the War; New York University Press, 1999; page 67</ref>? If you have significant changes to make, you are invited to join the ongoing discussions on the article talk page. Xenophrenic 18:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
ArbCom[edit]
TDC has inferred that I am a great number of editors, including but not limited to "Anon", Reddi, Robbie, and various IP addresses from the Earthlink ISP (a provider I do sometimes use). I've never been involved in the ArbComs TDC has claimed, but I think the one you are looking for is here. Xenophrenic 00:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Comments[edit]
I have never edited your comments. I have quoted some of them, excerpted them and moved some of them to your Talk page. You are correct that I do not own article pages or talk pages. Wikipedia does. And Wikipedia has rules and policies. Among them:
- Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. Also, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. There are a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate. Wikipedians who wish to hold casual discussions with fellow Wikipedians can use the IRC channels, such as #wikipedia. Note that this is an IRC channel, not a message board. [2]
Keep the clutter on your user talk page, or feel free to use mine. Let's keep the lectures off the article talk page and just stick to article-specific editing issues there, shall we? Thanks in advance, Xenophrenic 03:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- No. Let me explain how things are going to go. I have attempted to work with you in a good faith manner. However, you have demeaned, belittled, and mocked every comment that I have made. You have twisted my comments. You have edited my comments. You revert every change to the article that I make. You revert every change that TDC has made. You are NOT operating in good faith. If you comment on the WSI article on my talk page then I will take it to the WSI talk page. That will be the way that works. Got it? Thanks in advance.--JobsElihu 03:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- (the below comment was removed from the article talk page per instructions at WP:CIV
- Just in case you missed it above, I am not going to railroaded by you. Go ahead. Rearrange the talk page all you want. Follow me to whatever other article I go to. Mock, belittle, and slam every comment that I make. Keep the article locked until the end of time, as you have threatened to do. This is not the way to concensus.--JobsElihu 09:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Jobs, this is getting out of hand. There is no reason for the hostility being generated here, so I'm making another attempt at resolving our differences. In your two comments above, you make several remarks that I believe are unfair. Let me explain my take on them.
- You claim you have attempted to work with me in good faith. I disagree. In all of your comments prior to last night, you have made no attempt to address the article at all, except to say that you were going to paste the word "allegation" all over the article. Even on that point, you offered no further input. When I ask you about specific edits you made in the past, you refuse to answer, except to say you won't be "railroaded." It is my belief that asking someone to explain an edit is not "railroading." I don't see this as a good faith effort.
- You claim that I slam, demean or belittle your comments. I disagree here, as well. I have disagreed with some of your comments, but have done so in a civil manner. I may come off as incredulous sometimes, like when you said the MacBeth case was full of lies and clearly there was some of that going on in the WSI case, but I was civil about it. If I have been uncivil in any instance, please provide a link to my edit here and I will most likely apologize, since I know it wasn't my intent.
- You claim I threatened to keep the article protected "until the end of time," which is a clear misrepresentation. I said I was the one that requested the protection to end the edit warring until we could reach consensus. I also said I would request that the protection be extended if we still haven't reached consensus by expiry time. This does not translate to "until the end of time." You have been repeatedly encouraged to help us reach consensus on the outstanding issues.
- You claim I follow you to whatever article you go to. Not true. You made that claim to Blacketer when I commented on a post you made there. Wasn't it you that previously followed Badagnani to my Talk page and "butted in" to the private conversation with me, claiming we didn't think you were watching that page? No one is following you to whatever article you go to. I've checked your Contribs a couple times while we've been butting heads over the WSI thing. (Seen some great edits, by the way.) No offense was meant.
- You claim that I have reverted every change that you or TDC has made to WSI, and that is simply wrong. I've been waiting to discuss changes with you for days on the WSI talk page, but it appears you have been distracted with other issues. TDC and I have had many productive discussions, and he has made good changes and additions that stand today.
- I'd like to wipe the slate clean and give this a fresh start, Jobs. Our difference of opinions could be used to make that article stronger, if we don't let them generate hostility and pettiness. Let me know what you think. Xenophrenic 21:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Look, your comments are disingenuous. You have constantly mocked my comments. I make points that are valid and then you take my comments rearrange the names and throw back my comments at me. That is mocking and belittling and demeaning. I pointed that Badagnani's comment to TDC was that TDC's comment makes him look bad or something or other. You know the comment. It was out of line. There are example after example in Wikipedia where that type of comment has been pointed out to be unacceptable. Yet you turned right around and said the same thing to me. You have not apologized. You have lectured me about how I should not have butted in between TDC and Badg (which is not true) and you told me to keep my mouth shut. I'm not going to do that. Yeah, you are trying to railroad me. Just like this phony commentary about how you haven't done anything wrong. Horse hockey. And you attitude now is that you want to discuss the edits. Why weren't you doing that days ago?? I know why. You thought that I would be a easy push over. You thought that if you mocked my comments, you edit my comments, you force me to discuss everything on your terms (on your talk page or my talk, lord knows NOT on the talk page of article, heck no, not there), that I would just tire of fighting with you and I would concede defeat and move on to another article. You look at editing in Wikipedia as a battlefield. That is the way that you look at it. Even this conversation is bogus. You start out with "one more try." Like you are the poor innocent who has been trying to get me to cooperate but I just won't. What horse hockey. You are shameful in your disingenious. I asked you over and over again to stop violating the rules of civility. But you kept doing it and you had the temerity to lecture me about how I just needed to shut up and I needed to limit the length of my response and I needed to stop talking about civility on the talk page of the article. The gall that you have is unbelievable. TDC is correct. You are the anon editor that was engaged in an edit war with TDC about a year ago and you come back to Wikipedia in a new form. I reviewed the editing patterns of the anon editor from a year ago and you match them perfectly. The repetition of other people's comments and throwing them back at the commentator. The constant reverting of other edits. The swarmy way that you state that you never do anything wrong. The way that you tell people to quit focusing on civility. Of course you don't want anyone to ever speak about civility because being uncivil is one of your ways taking control of the discussion and the article. The way that you just flat tell people that they are going to stop such and such. For example, you tell me all the time to quit writing so much. Why do you care? You just don't want anyone to focus on civility so that you can engage in uncivil behavior and use that uncivil behavior to control the dominate the article. I'm not falling for your most recent re-incarnation of today. Today, you are the guy that didn't do anything wrong, but you are willing to reach out a hand to a mean ole soar puss like me and just try, try, try to get me to cooperate with you because God knows that you have been so cooperative and I have been uncooperative. What a load of hog wash! Wikipedia for you is a game where you dominate articles (the same two or three articles I might add) and you use every manipulative trick you can find to take and hold the upper hand. You are an example of what is wrong with Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a horrible weakness and it only works in a perfect world, which this one isn't, because in a perfect world there would not be editors who are so manipulative. I don't buy what you selling today because I have asked day after day to stop the mocking comments. I have asked you to stop editing my comments. I have asked you to stop moving around comments. I have asked you to stop making mass reversals of others edits. And your response to all of this is that you don't make mocking comments, you don't make mass edits, you don't move comments around, you don't do anything, in your mind, wrong. And your other round of responses is that other needs to stop talking about civility. Other edits just need to shut up and stop talking about cooperation. Other editors just need to stop talking about how newspaper sources might not get the story right. Other editors are just crazy if they think that an article---oh my God!--in a newspaper might just be full of lies, such as the article in the Eastern Arizona Courier. If other editors demand that sources be provided for allegations and claims then those editors are idiots who don't believe that the Vietnam War happened. If other editors demand that reliable sources be provided for allegations and claims then those editors are fools that think that there was no war crimes committed in Vietnam War! It is just silly, silly responses that I get from you in the two weeks of attempting to work with you. You have been blocked several times because you just revert and revert and revert and revert. It is waste of time.--JobsElihu 23:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- So... I take it that's a no? I tried. 90% of your assertions above are way off base, by the way. However, I won't be arguing them with you anymore. Xenophrenic 02:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Look, your comments are disingenuous. You have constantly mocked my comments. I make points that are valid and then you take my comments rearrange the names and throw back my comments at me. That is mocking and belittling and demeaning. I pointed that Badagnani's comment to TDC was that TDC's comment makes him look bad or something or other. You know the comment. It was out of line. There are example after example in Wikipedia where that type of comment has been pointed out to be unacceptable. Yet you turned right around and said the same thing to me. You have not apologized. You have lectured me about how I should not have butted in between TDC and Badg (which is not true) and you told me to keep my mouth shut. I'm not going to do that. Yeah, you are trying to railroad me. Just like this phony commentary about how you haven't done anything wrong. Horse hockey. And you attitude now is that you want to discuss the edits. Why weren't you doing that days ago?? I know why. You thought that I would be a easy push over. You thought that if you mocked my comments, you edit my comments, you force me to discuss everything on your terms (on your talk page or my talk, lord knows NOT on the talk page of article, heck no, not there), that I would just tire of fighting with you and I would concede defeat and move on to another article. You look at editing in Wikipedia as a battlefield. That is the way that you look at it. Even this conversation is bogus. You start out with "one more try." Like you are the poor innocent who has been trying to get me to cooperate but I just won't. What horse hockey. You are shameful in your disingenious. I asked you over and over again to stop violating the rules of civility. But you kept doing it and you had the temerity to lecture me about how I just needed to shut up and I needed to limit the length of my response and I needed to stop talking about civility on the talk page of the article. The gall that you have is unbelievable. TDC is correct. You are the anon editor that was engaged in an edit war with TDC about a year ago and you come back to Wikipedia in a new form. I reviewed the editing patterns of the anon editor from a year ago and you match them perfectly. The repetition of other people's comments and throwing them back at the commentator. The constant reverting of other edits. The swarmy way that you state that you never do anything wrong. The way that you tell people to quit focusing on civility. Of course you don't want anyone to ever speak about civility because being uncivil is one of your ways taking control of the discussion and the article. The way that you just flat tell people that they are going to stop such and such. For example, you tell me all the time to quit writing so much. Why do you care? You just don't want anyone to focus on civility so that you can engage in uncivil behavior and use that uncivil behavior to control the dominate the article. I'm not falling for your most recent re-incarnation of today. Today, you are the guy that didn't do anything wrong, but you are willing to reach out a hand to a mean ole soar puss like me and just try, try, try to get me to cooperate with you because God knows that you have been so cooperative and I have been uncooperative. What a load of hog wash! Wikipedia for you is a game where you dominate articles (the same two or three articles I might add) and you use every manipulative trick you can find to take and hold the upper hand. You are an example of what is wrong with Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a horrible weakness and it only works in a perfect world, which this one isn't, because in a perfect world there would not be editors who are so manipulative. I don't buy what you selling today because I have asked day after day to stop the mocking comments. I have asked you to stop editing my comments. I have asked you to stop moving around comments. I have asked you to stop making mass reversals of others edits. And your response to all of this is that you don't make mocking comments, you don't make mass edits, you don't move comments around, you don't do anything, in your mind, wrong. And your other round of responses is that other needs to stop talking about civility. Other edits just need to shut up and stop talking about cooperation. Other editors just need to stop talking about how newspaper sources might not get the story right. Other editors are just crazy if they think that an article---oh my God!--in a newspaper might just be full of lies, such as the article in the Eastern Arizona Courier. If other editors demand that sources be provided for allegations and claims then those editors are idiots who don't believe that the Vietnam War happened. If other editors demand that reliable sources be provided for allegations and claims then those editors are fools that think that there was no war crimes committed in Vietnam War! It is just silly, silly responses that I get from you in the two weeks of attempting to work with you. You have been blocked several times because you just revert and revert and revert and revert. It is waste of time.--JobsElihu 23:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Jobs, this is getting out of hand. There is no reason for the hostility being generated here, so I'm making another attempt at resolving our differences. In your two comments above, you make several remarks that I believe are unfair. Let me explain my take on them.
Drama sucks[edit]
Regarding this edit, if you feel someone is stalking your or attacking you, take steps to have the problem resolved by asking for help, either on AIV or WP:AN/I or whichever means are needed. Dramatic proclamations like what you wrote in the link above don't do anything to fix the problem, and the passive-aggressive traits it resembles are considered ineffective and poor form. Take control, be assertive, and work to have a problem fixed. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I didn't read anything on your page that indicates that you are a psychologist and since you have never met me and know next to zero about me your amatuer and unwelcome comment that my comment was "passive-aggressive" was inappropriate, incorrect, and unnecessary. However, I do take your other comments at face value and I agree with them. I was attempting to deal with a difficult editor who is screwing with me. I was hoping to avoid AIV or AN/I, but I guess I have no other choice. I will "take control," as you say and move the direction of AIV or AN/I. But once again, in an effort to "take control" and "be assertive" I would encourage you strongly not to engage in any more amatuer, inappropriate, incorrect, and unnecessary attempts at deep psychological analysis because when you consider how very, very, very little you really know about 99.9999% of the other Wikipedians your amatuer psychological analysis is not only annoying, but clearly violates civility and quite possibly falls under personal attack Really keep a lid on it. But as I stated the other comments are on target and I will follow up on those constructive comments. Have a good day!--JobsElihu 16:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- If you feel I made a personal attack, I strongly urge you to seek remediation. If an admin was making personal attacks on a user, then it's your duty to Wikipedia to make sure that problem is resolved. Unless, of course, you're throwing the accusation around as a tactic of some sort, in which case I could see why you wouldn't want more eyeballs on it and would hope this would sorta just 'go away'. It's up to you. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I didn't read anything on your page that indicates that you are a psychologist and since you have never met me and know next to zero about me your amatuer and unwelcome comment that my comment was "passive-aggressive" was inappropriate, incorrect, and unnecessary. However, I do take your other comments at face value and I agree with them. I was attempting to deal with a difficult editor who is screwing with me. I was hoping to avoid AIV or AN/I, but I guess I have no other choice. I will "take control," as you say and move the direction of AIV or AN/I. But once again, in an effort to "take control" and "be assertive" I would encourage you strongly not to engage in any more amatuer, inappropriate, incorrect, and unnecessary attempts at deep psychological analysis because when you consider how very, very, very little you really know about 99.9999% of the other Wikipedians your amatuer psychological analysis is not only annoying, but clearly violates civility and quite possibly falls under personal attack Really keep a lid on it. But as I stated the other comments are on target and I will follow up on those constructive comments. Have a good day!--JobsElihu 16:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The difficult user is NOT an admin. No, it is not a tactic. I was just working through the options as Wikipedia suggests. The first thing on the list is to attempt to work it out with the offender directly because, yes, I was hoping that it "would sorta just 'go away'". Obviously, that has not worked. I will take it to the next step. Take care.--JobsElihu 17:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Accusations of vandalism[edit]
You are not going to make it very far on wikipedia when you accuse other editors who add a welcome note and funny background on WSI, of vandalism.[3] I can see by your agressive attitude above that you are already making enemies.Travb (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Do want to be the pot or the kettle? I guess you don't have an aggressive attitude. Have a good day!--JobsElihu 17:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Discussion Notice[edit]
Hello JobsElihu. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI regarding Civility and Disruption issues. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you.
--Xenophrenic 10:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Getaway[edit]
Are you still editing under the above name, or are you abandoning that one, like you did with "Keetoowah?" I just want to have things straight for the RfA. Thanks! --Eleemosynary 13:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Was this the reason you started the new account? Because it seems you're being ten times more uncivil with this one. Let me know when you have a chance. Thx! --Eleemosynary 13:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you are talking about.--JobsElihu 16:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Should I run an RFCU? Let me know. --Eleemosynary 01:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)