User talk:Constantine Adraktas/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

1 Enfield 8000
2 Duplicate images uploaded
3 License tagging for Image:SIGNING DAY FOR THE- ELECTRICITY COUNCIL CONTRACT.JPG
4 Duplicate images uploaded
5 Image:"WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR - The film" In addition to the above the Oil companies can bribe by helping somebody out of a crisis but at a PRICE. This is what happenned with the E8000ECC after the 1973 Oil crisis.jpg
6 July 2007
7 Your edits to Enfield 8000
8 Blocked
9 COI
10 Catching Up
11 What works as a source?
12 SUMMARY
13 Answering a quesiton. . . and a comment on formatting.

Enfield 8000

I've removed your comments again. I'm afraid that if you wish to add to the article, your additions must be (a) encyclopedic, (b) neutral, and (c) verifiable. Please read WP:IS, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. Thanks. EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:CHAIRMAN OF ELECTRICITY COUNCIL - CONTRACT SIGNING DAY.JPG. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:CHAIRMAN OF EC - CONTRACT SIGNING DAY.JPG. The copy called Image:CHAIRMAN OF EC - CONTRACT SIGNING DAY.JPG has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 15:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:SIGNING DAY FOR THE- ELECTRICITY COUNCIL CONTRACT.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:SIGNING DAY FOR THE- ELECTRICITY COUNCIL CONTRACT.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Constantine Adraktas and on his right the financier of Enfield Automotive.JPG. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Constantine Adraktas and on his right the financier of Enfiekd Automotive.JPG. The copy called Image:Constantine Adraktas and on his right the financier of Enfiekd Automotive.JPG has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

Image:"WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR - The film" In addition to the above the Oil companies can bribe by helping somebody out of a crisis but at a PRICE. This is what happenned with the E8000ECC after the 1973 Oil crisis.jpg

WP:NOT a sopabox - You would do better uploading this image on commons. Sfan00 IMG 16:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

SoApbox? Like in Speakers Corner in Hyde Park, London?

You are using strong words !!!
Pity, as you are not looking at the OVERALL picture and how its parts tie up together: 
The ENFIELD 8000 ELECTRIC CITY CAR ( E8000ECC ) 
Electric Cars in general,
and the Environment ( Clean Air, Global Warming )
See how the current Mayor of London, Mr. Livingstone, is looking at the OVERALL picture
(a) With Electric sockets on Parking meters, for Electric Cars to charge their batteries
(b) and with excepting Electric Cars from the Central London Levy every internal combustion car has to pay
One might say, however, that this is because he is closer to Shakespeare than others!!!

Constantine Adraktas 07:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

July 2007

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Enfield 8000, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

and you must always:
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 12:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read our COI policies before editing this article. If you want to make changes, suggest them on the talk page, found at Talk:Enfield 8000. Also, notes about the article should also be placed on the talk page, not on the article itself. If you place notes of what you want to add on the talk page, I will happily put the content in the article for you. Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you are in need of arbitration, I would recommend WP:MED or WP:MEDCAB, however being involved in the articles subject while editing is against policy, and therefore the case may not qualify for mediation. If you want to proceed, I will set up a case etc. The easiest way to proceed is to simply ask on the articles talk page to make a change, and someone will come along and do the change. I'll watch the page and make any changes you want, as long as they are following policy (so far, your contributions are good, just the COI issues, which will be fixed by asking others to do the editing). Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Enfield 8000, you will be blocked from editing. Andy^reply 22:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Enfield 8000

Please read the advice you have been given by the above editors, and read the pages WP:COI, WP:IS and WP:NPOV. If you continue to add such material to Wikipedia you are risking being blocked. Thankyou. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 22:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 31 hours from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Jmlk 1 7 02:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

COI

Please read the WP:COI policy! Your content can still be included, and will be, just please ask on the talk page first. If you don't follow this policy, and continue to add the content yourself, you will be blocked again. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for posting on the talk page, I will read through now and merge it in. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, i'll ask other users to, as I am sort of involved in this dispute as well. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I started to edit Enfield 8000 tonight in the hopes of helping you Mr. Adraktas, but was stymied pretty quickly when I began to go through the talk page. Aside from the WP:COI issues, there's also plenty of WP:OR issues as far as I'm concerned. I have been watching this and would like to help merge 'some' of the information. But with all due respect, Mr. Adraktas, a good deal of what you have written about the vehicle historically is baldly slanted based on your first-person knowledge and experience with the project. Think of your position as being a political candidate writing their own press coverage, if you will. I doubt that the Encyclopedia Britanica consults Lee Iacocca about the history of the Chrysler Corporation or Bill Ford, Jr. about the history of the Ford Corporation. It would be simply impossible for them to write as reliable sources. That said, your technical knowledge of the vehicle (to me) wouldn't be as impacted by NPOV concerns. If you're willing to provide concise information about the vehicle (not the political history surrounding it), I'll be glad to step in and blend it into the article for you. This means actually communicating with other editors and not making declamatory statements. Be forewarned, though, the article will be far shorter than the information you've provided (as I envision it). And though I find all the photographs interesting, there are too many of them and some of them do not belong in the article. I hope that this helps. Let me know if you'd like for me to step in on your behalf and we can work together to get something going. Douglasmtaylor ^T/

'C 02:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your "offer" to "help me out" with my limited work on this article: It seems obvious that you are using this article as a soapbox from which you can spout your views about the rise and fall of this automobile and the company. But Wikipedia is not the place for that sort of thing. It is an encyclopedia. If you're looking for a way to get your side of the story out, I suggest you start a web site and/or blog of your own, where you can post pretty much whatever you want. Your views may have merit, but Wikipedia is simply not the place to express them. That is not Wikipedia's mission. It is apparent that you cannot contribute to this article with a clear-eyed, objective view, simply because you're too close to the subject. Douglasmtaylor summed it up quite nicely in his message above. I suggest you take it to heart. Realkyhick 03:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear COI Sirs,

Thank you for taking the time to make the above contributions.

Please allow me, however, to abstain from directly addressing comments like "you are using this article as a SOAPBOX from which you can SPOUT your views about the rise and fall of this automobile and the company", "It is apparent that you cannot contribute to this article with a CLEAR - EYED, OBLECTIVE view", "a good deal of what you have written about the vehicle HISTORICALLY is BALDLY (BADDLY?) SLANTED based on your first-person knowledge and experience with the project" etc and ask you to kindly address points 1 and 2 below.

Please bear in mind, that despite my MIT, SRI etc background (see my brief CV in my page), I learned how to use a computer only a year ago and editing is definitely not one of my strong points. Also, I cannot pretend that I fully understand the delicate points of the contents of sites like WP-COI, WP-OR, WP-V, WP-NOT etc.

In a nutshell, I do not know how to use effectively WIKIPEDIA except as a reader who has, also, used WIKIPEDIA articles as one of the bases for advising my clients worldwide. "With closed eyes" so far, I should add.

(1) - I would very much like to understand HOW the ENFIELD 8000 article found its way into WIKIPEDIA considering:

(A) - THAT it is anchored on (a) a Commercial brochure, in Greek, about a car (the Bikini) which never moved from a prototype stage to a selling stage, according to the English text which is provided to the left of the said brochure (b) a set of links, like "United Kingdom","Greek" (for Greece behind it), "Piraeus" and "Syros"!

(B) - THAT it does not provide any other sources about the ENFIELD 8000 except for the ones in A above

(C) - THAT the Greek Commercial brochure claims a Range for the open top Bikini of 120 to 140 kilometres (one can identify the figures without knowledge of the Greek language), that is 75 to 87 Miles, while in the English text on the left of the said brochure it is stated that the Range of the ENFIELD 8000 (the open top Bikini or the closed top E8000ECC?) is only 35 to 40 Miles. That is a discrepancy of 215 percent between the Greek text and the English text.

What would have been your comments if the ENFIELD 8000 article were to appear for the first time today. From were you stand (WP sites, your comments about my contributions etc) and you had to "approve" it.

Your answers to all above will give me the opportunity to understand not only the comments you make about my contributions but also WIKIPEDIA ("It is an encyclopedia" - Encyclopaedia) and the application of its WP principles.

I re-read the Conflict Of Interest WP and I would like to raise a point and ask couple of questions.

(i) - There are Conflicts Of Information, to say the least, in the current ENFIELD 8000 article of WIKIPEDIA. See point (C), above (to be allowed?)

(ii) - You state or imply that I have a Conflict Of Interest with the ENFIELD 8000 facts and story as it appears on WIKIPEDIA. Do the contents of the information I have provided have a Conflict of Interest with the contents of the information included in the current ENFIELD 8000 article or, to put it differently, are the contents of the information I have provided in conflict with the information contained in the current ENFIELD 8000 article?

Upon careful examination and due diligence you will discover that the answer is NO but I stand to be corrected.

When it comes to facts and figures, one can see that I was trying to add what is missing in the ENFIELD 8000 article. Facts and figures about the core car of the ENFIELD 8000 family, namely the ENFIELD 8000ECC ELECTRIC CITY CAT ( the E8000ECC ) and NOT about the Bikini. Consequently, I have been sticking to the very title of the article.

The facts and figures I have provided are SUPPLEMENTARY to the facts and figures provided by the 7 lines of the current ENFIELD 8000 article and they are not in conflict with or are not contradicting the facts and figures in the current ENFIELD 8000 article. The contradictions are WITHIN the current ENFIELD 8000 article, as stated above.

There is, however, an area which if it is not read closely and carefully can lead to misunderstandings and misconstrues. The current ENFIELD 8000 article states that the Enfield 8000 could not have been produced in Greece because "no permit was issued for its mass production, due to tax categorization issues connected with its electric power".

Be as it may, the E8000ECC could have been produced, however, in the United Kingdom and in other countries like the United States of America (the current ENFIELD 8000 article does NOT dispute this point) but it was not, for the reasons I have stated (see, also, what the owner told me recently, below).

The same applies to the Photographs I have been trying to provide. They stayed in WIKIPEDIA for a brief interval before they were removed. That interval, however, was long enough for my receiving calls from ex Enfield employees and ex Electricity Council members who do not have copies of the E8000ECC in action around London, being tested on the pave road of MIRA, with the then Chairman of the Electricity Council etc etc etc. Most of them did not even know about the letter sent by Lord Rothschild, Head of the Think Tank of the United Kingdom Cabinet Office.

Was this goldmine of images in conflict with the Bikini Commercial brochure? NOT AT ALL.

The articles I read in WIKIPEDIA are not anaemic but rather meaty. One might say that I was trying to add the spine, the meat and the flesh onto the disparate bones of the ENFIELD 8000 article in WIKIPEDIA.

(2) - Additionally, I would find myself in a privileged position in obtaining an even more comprehensive understanding of
      WIKIPEDIA  and its principles if you were kind enough to apply the said principles to the individual parts of the text
      below.

THE ENFIELD 8000 ELECTRIC CITY CAR

This contribution is based on:

(A) The Electricity Council – Enfield Automotive contract signed in January 1973 after the E8000ECC passed rigorous tests at MIRA (the Motor Industry Research Association) including crash tests, was aerodynamically tested in a Farnborough wind tunnel and was driven around Chester for 5 days by relevant Electricity Council members.

(B) Articles from the United Kingdom and press (Financial Times, Time magazine, the Evening Standard etc).

To start with, the E8000ECC could have been produced in the UK or any other country with proper Motor Industry infrastructure (like the USA - see below - or Japan), with a genuine "Greek island experiment" on the side.

(1) - The range of the E8000ECC was 60 to 90 miles, depending on driving conditions (number of stops and starts, slopes, number of passengers etc)

The E8000ECC has been driven in London (between Mayfair and the City, visiting friends and going to restaurants – every aspect of a daily life routine) for 4 consecutive years and its range was logged daily.

The practical range of the E8000ECC was substantially greater than the one quoted above by being simly “plugged in” during the day anywhere one would park and a simple electricity socket was available (the car had a built–in on-board charger).

(2) - The top speed of the E8000ECC was 70mph and 80mph (depending on level of battery charge, number of passengers), on level ground.

A speed of over 60mph was achieved by Lord Weistock, the creator and Chairman of GEC (General Electric Company, UK), as he was attempting to get the first speeding ticket for the E8000ECC, in Park Lane, Mayfair, London. A police car accosted him with the policemen looking in curiously, as the E8000ECC was silent as well. No speeding ticket was issued!

(3) – The Enfield 8000 was a 2 + 2 seater car, for 2 people in the front individual seats and 2 more on the bench seat at the back.

(4) - The "Bikini" was an E8000ECC with a body composed of simple and flat panels. It did not have a Certificate of Roadworthines as it was never tested at MIRA.

(5) – The reason for the elimination of the Enfield 8000 is not that “no permit was issued for its mass production, due to tax categorization issues connected with its electric power” for it to having been produced in Syros, Greece.

Those were the days of the Greek Military Junta which was very keen to issue any permits whatsoever that would give them worldwide visibility, like having the first ever mass production of an Electric Car in the world in Greece. Furthermore the Junta was very close to the London based Greek owners of Enfield Automotive, Enfield - Neorion, Neorion and N.J.Goulandris (the latter being the source for all the other companies). As a matter of fact, one of the top Greek Junta members, Mr.Constandopoulos, became the Managing Director of Enfield - Neorion.

The E8000ECC had passed all the necessary tests for production in the United Kingdom and was on its way to be produced in the United States of America. The latter courtesy of President Reagan, then Governor of California, who sent a cargo plane to have three E8000ECCs be moved to California in support of his Clean Air legislation.

Prior to the 1973 Oil crisis, the Oil companies supported by the Car companies were doing their best to have the E8000ECC (and other Electric Passenger Cars) eliminated. Especially after the Electricity Council – Enfield Automotive contract was signed in January 1973 and that contract was followed by many other contracts around the world (example: from Lead producers in Australia, from a new town developer in Catalina, California etc ).

Their opportunity arrived with the Oil crisis of 1973 which, in a very short period, saw that a “parking lot” of Tankers stretched from the port of Piraeus to the Isthmus of Corinth. At that point the Enfield 8000 moved away from United Kingdom (would a link help?), a “car producing – car components producing – relevant labour availability” country to a Greek island with none of the above.

None of the Group's 60 Tankers joined the above mentioned “parking lot”. The Enfield 8000 was removed from UK and not only as numerous attempts by European and American companies and investors to buy the E8000ECC design or the E8000ECC design and Enfield Automotive / Enfield-Neorion together were met with silence.

So the Oil and Car lobby versus the Enfield 8000 confrontation was won by the said lobby. A confrontation on the lines of the film "Who killed the Electric Car?. (www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/electric.html)

After a few years and once the Enfield 8000 was unceremoniously buried in Syros and the Greek Military Junta collapsed, the 1969 to 1975 Chairman of Enfield Automotive met with Constantine Caramanlis, the Greek Prime Minister. to discuss ways of resurrecting the Enfield 8000, if not by its owner at least by the European and American companies and investors who were standing by. In vain, as the owners would not (and by that time, probably, could not) break their undertaking with the Oil companies, an undertaking that provided them with long term Oil Transportation contracts in exchange for them eliminating of the Enfield 8000 from the face of the earth.

(6) - Additional characteristics of the E8000ECC and its direct derivatives.

(6.1) Aluminium body – Rolls Royce standards and against corrosion.

(6.2) Rolls Royce interior standards (leather etc).

(6.3) Turning circle same as the traditional London cab.

(6.4) Although more Aerodynamic than the Porsche (confirmed by relevant above mentioned test), it had the same ease of “going in – coming out” as that of a London cab.

The Aerodynamics of the E8000ECC were not based in traditional Motor Industry principles and ideas but, rather, were based on Aerospace principles and ideas.

(6.5) It was based on Commercially available components and parts, for easy maintenance and worldwide replacement availability.

(6.6) No gear lever – Automatic with the reverse via a simple switch.

(6.7) A built-in on – board charger.

The photographs on the right hand side of this page are courtesy of the Electricity Council and you can find more photographs, worldwide E8000ECC user messages etc in a Yahoo Groups site of the Enfield Electric Cars fans. ("autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/enfieldelectriccars").

THE ENFIELD 8000 ELECTRIC CITY CAR - THE ELECTRICITY COUNCIL CONTRACT

If you wish to receive electronically a copy of the Electricity Council - Enfield Automotive January 1973 contract, you could e-mail to "Constantine.Adraktas@MIT-Partners.eu", the 1969 - 1975 Chairman, Managing and Technical Director of Enfield Automotive

FINALLY

Let me point out, for your further evaluation, that I an not expressing opinions, as I am accused of. It is a benefit and not a handicap that I was very close indeed to the owner of Enfield Automotive (only recently he told me how stupid he was not finding a diplomatic way out for the E8000ECC) and all and every morsel of information about the ENFIELD 8000. Furthermore, I have all the relevant Archives (References and Sources I presume in your vocabulary) in my possession and I draw the information I provide you with from them.

On the basis of the paragraph above, please allow me to differ, if not disagree, with your statements like:

"you are using this article as a SOAPBOX from which you can SPOUT your views about the rise and fall of this automobile and the company",

"It is apparent that you cannot contribute to this article with a CLEAR - EYED, OBLECTIVE view",

"a good deal of what you have written about the vehicle HISTORICALLY is BALDLY (BADDLY?) SLANTED based on your first-person knowledge and experience with the project"

Maybe as Editors, very far removed from the History and Facts of the ENFIELD 8000, you are "right", as you cannot act as investigating reporters and find, not just seek, the Truth (Watergate). I, on the other hand, would like the Truth to come out and if, you care to take a quick look at my CV, you will understand that I do not need an electronic or otherwise soapbox etc

A QUESTION

I understand that WIKIPEDIA editors have the right to remove contributions made on WIKIPEDIA articles.

Do they, also, have the right to remove parts from the User Talk pages (like mine, for example). I do not believe so but just in case and for whatever it is worth I have saved the file and have made a Word document of it.

Dear Realkyhick,

Following the above, I discovered that you have removed from the ENFIELD AUTOMOTIVE site (until recently vacant) the two Galleries of Images I attempted to contribute.

In doing so you have removed not only Photographs of the E8000ECC in action (a lot of people do not believe that Electric Cars have been used in daily action, others would not like to believe it and a third category wants them out of the way) but also:

(1) The letter sent by Lord Rothschild, Head of the Think Tank of the United Kingdom Cabinet Office.

(2) The E8000ECC cutting from THE FINANCIAL TIMES of 30 January 1973

(3) The E8000ECC cutting from THE LONDON TIMES of 30 January 1973

(4) The E8000ECC cutting from THE LONDON EVENING STANDARD of 19 February 1971

Please be kind enough to provide a reason or reasons for the above mentioned action of yours.

You might want to know that the current Mayor of London, Mr. Livingstone, has placed electric sockets in many of the Parking Meters in London and, additionally, he has excluded Electric Cars from paying an "entrance levy" upon entering Central London (all other types of cars DO).

It would be interesting to:

Know something about you 3 guys above.Like:

(1) Which city are you from and were are you now

(2) Where did you study

(3) What is your work / job

After all you already know a lot about me if you have read my brief CV in my User page

Insert at 01.40 hrs GMT
Dear The Fear - ow

Before I address your comments below, please let me know if you intended them to be at this spot or somewhere else.

The content was only removed because you are involved in the subject. That's the only reason - almost all your other contributions are valid. What I would recommend is rewriting the article at User:Constantine Adraktas/Sandbox, then we can copy it across, and others can improve it etc. We all have the rights to remove content that is in violation of policy, but it is against policy to remove others talk page comments etc unnecessarily, or unless archiving. All contributions are also kept in the page history, even for deleted pages. So archives are unnecessary, but worthwhile incase something happens. Lastly, I would like to point out that we do not seek the truth - we can only report things posted by reliable soources such as news sites, books, and other sites with a tighter editorial review. That's how we maintain our accuracy. Granted, it's not always perfect, but it works. I do agree it is great that you are involved in the project, and have a great deal of information - the problem is, by that same policy, that you cannot directly edit it. Creating it on the sandbox page above bypasses that policy, then it can be merged by editors such as myself. Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 20:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear The Fear - ow

With all due respect your comment "The content was only removed because you are involved in the subject" is an answer that is "economical with the truth", if not, evasive.

Please be specific in addressing my query, if it was you and not Realkyhick who removed the images I am referring to, namely:

Following the above, I discovered that you have removed from the ENFIELD AUTOMOTIVE site (until recently vacant) the two Galleries of Images I attempted to contribute.

(1) The letter sent by Lord Rothschild, Head of the Think Tank of the United Kingdom Cabinet Office.

(2) The E8000ECC cutting from THE FINANCIAL TIMES of 30 January 1973

(3) The E8000ECC cutting from THE LONDON TIMES of 30 January 1973

(4) The E8000ECC cutting from THE LONDON EVENING STANDARD of 19 February 1971

Please be kind enough to provide a reason or reasons for the above mentioned action of yours.

I see, also, that you are abstaining, all be temporarily, in addressing:

It would be interesting to:

Know something about you 3 guys above.Like:

(1) Which city are you from and were are you now

(2) Where did you study

(3) What is your work / job

After all you already know a lot about me if you have read my brief CV in my User page

Dear The Fear - ow

Please see my comment above (Insert, 01.40 hrs GMT)

The reasons for removing the content is because of what you said, it appears you were related to Enfield Automotive. (per the line "Chairman, Managing and Technical Director of Enfield Automotive." in your CV. Part of our policy is people who are or were related in the subject of an article (in this case, the Enfield 8000, and Enfield Automotive) may not edit the article - this is one of the ways we try to keep the encyclopedia in an encyclopediac format and tone. That is the main reason we have been reverting additions. Regarding me, I am from Whangarei, New Zealand. I study at NorthTec, for several computing-related diplomas/degrees. I don't currently work. Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 06:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Matt/Fearow (your real name?)

While I am waiting for you, DouglasmTaylor and Realkyhick to address the INDIVIDUAL points above (and I hope you guys will), let me just touch npon the point you mention above.

(1) You, basically, state that WIKIPEDIA is an Encyclopaedia and its format and tone must be kept Encuclopaewdic.

(2) You, basically, state that for the above to be achieved Creators of New Products (in this case of a product for Clean Air and against Global Warming, that is very Encyclopaedic topics) are EXCLUDED from making contributions to WIKIPWDIA.

(3)Considering that "An encyclopedia, encyclopaedia or (traditionally) encyclopædia[1] is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of Knowledge or a PARTICULAR BRANCH OF KNOWLEDGE (from wikipedia), the contribution EXCLUSION mentioned in (2) above , the EXCLUSION of the KNOWLEDGE of a Creator of a New Product, is against the very definition of "Encyclopaedia" as given by WIKIPEDIA and "a stopper" for spreading KNOWLEDGE.

(4) What you are, basically, stating in (2) also leads to the following.

I could have transferred the Facts and Figures and Images of E8000ECC to a friend (somebody a bit more computer literate than  
me, at the same time) and ask him to make the contribution to / augmentation of the current ENFIELD 8000 article himself!

In such a case your argument "The reasons for removing the content is because of what you said, it appears you were related to Enfield Automotive. (per the line "Chairman, Managing and Technical Director of Enfield Automotive." in your CV. Part of our policy is people who are or were related in the subject of an article (in this case, the Enfield 8000, and Enfield Automotive)" would collapse. Correct?

(5) And with all due respect (and not withstanding character defamatory wordings used, like "you are using this article as a SOAPBOX from which you can SPOUT your views" etc), please try to explain why Images like

(1) The letter sent by Lord Rothschild, Head of the Think Tank of the United Kingdom Cabinet Office.

(2) The E8000ECC cutting from THE FINANCIAL TIMES of 30 January 1973

(3) The E8000ECC cutting from THE LONDON TIMES of 30 January 1973

(4) The E8000ECC cutting from THE LONDON EVENING STANDARD of 19 February 1971

were removed?

The sources are neutral and I wonder on what Encyclopaedic basis you WIKIPAEDIA editors "threw them out" while you have allowed a Commercial brochure, geographical links supporting it (!) and serious discrepancies of 215 per cent WITHIN the current ENFIELD 8000 article to survive your Encyclopaedic and otherwise scrutiny.

As a corollary, it seems to me that once you are into WIKIPEDIA with whatever, even something wrong, inaccurate or self-contradicting, you are there for life.

(5) I see that none of you have addressed, among other points I have raised above, one of the points which is very closely related to your Encyclopaedia argument above. Namely:

(1) - I would very much like to understand HOW the ENFIELD 8000 article found its way into WIKIPEDIA considering:

(B) - THAT it does not provide any other sources about the ENFIELD 8000 except for the ones in A above

I am asking now, consequent to your point about WIKIPEDIA being an Encyclopeadia and the definition of Encyclopaedia according 
to WKIPREDIA, how do the above fit into WIKIPEDIA being an Encyclopeadia and the definition of Encyclopaedia according to
WKIPREDIA - ()?

Thank you and regards

FOR MATT/THE FEARAOW, DOUGLASMTAYLOR, REALKYHICK
ON SATURDAY, 28 JULY 2007
PLEASE ADDRESS THE INDIVIDUAL POINTS I SENT YOU YESTERDAY, FRIDAY, 27 JULY 2007
AND, ALSO, THE ONES I RAISED IMMEDIATELY ABOVE IN ADDRESSING MATT/THE FEAROWS'S POINTS

I AM MAKING A LIST OF REFERENCES EXTRACTED FROM THE WIKIPEDIA SITE ON "ENCYCLOPAEDIA", IN CASE THEY PROVE TO BE HANDY

(1) "An encyclopedia, encyclopaedia or (traditionally) encyclopædia[1] is a COMPREHENSIVE written compendium that 
contains information on all branches of Knowledge or a PARTICULAR BRANCH OF KNOWLEDGE" (Top of the main page)

(2) “both encyclopedias and dictionaries have been researched and written by WELL-EDUCATED, WELL-INFORMED content experts"
    (Characteristics section)

(3)

THE ABOVE DO NOT SUPPORT IN ANYWAY WHATSOEVER THE VIEW, THAT A WELL EDUCATED AND WELL INFORMED INVENTOR WHO, FURTHERMORE, 
SUPPLIES THROUGH IMAGES THIRD PARTY INFORMATION ABOUT HIS INVENTION , ITS USE AND ITS HISTORY, MUST BE SUMMARARILY EXCLUDED
FROM BEING A DIRECT SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE FOR AN ENCYCLOPAEDIA.

Catching Up

Mr. Adraktas -

Pardon my delay in response, I was out of town over the weekend. I respectfully withdraw my offer of assistance with regard to Enfield 8000. That said, I will answer some of the questions you have asked above:

Dear Mr. Taylor,

Very civil of you to take the time and provide me with the comments below.
I regret you are withdrawing your offer of assistance with regard to Enfield 8000. Any particular reason for your change of 
mind? Did I offend you in any way?

1.  Who am I, where do I live, where did I study?

Private information, not likely to be responded to by most Wikipedians in this format. As you admit that you are very new to computers, I will tell you that I am neither new to them, nor to internet culture. These are not the sort of questions that generally get answered in a public format such as this. Safe to assume that, yes, my name is Doug. I have a business/finance background. Hopefully that will suffice.

Apologies. I asked about were you are located and what University you have attended so that I can understand you better.

2. It is important to understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative. As an academic (a label I hope that you will not mind), I would hope that you would take the time to read the articles that have been referenced time and again for your edification. Explore, learn. If you have questions about Wikipedia, I'll be happy to answer them or at the least to point you in the right direction.

I do not mind you referring to me as an academic. It is a flattering term but I am not an academic, as you can see from my 
brief CV.
I do have questions about WIKIPEDIA and I thank you for you kind offer to answer them or at least to point me in the right
direction.

3. You asked: "Do they, also have the right to remove parts from the User Talk pages (like mine, for example)." For guidelines regarding talk pages, please read these articles:

I will certainly read them. I am keen to understand the difference between a User and an Editor of WIKIPEDIA.

A user and an editor are usually the same. On wikipedia all users are editors, so there is no particular difference. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

4. As for your questions about the application of Enfield 8000 in general, I'll address some of your questions here:

"I would very much like to understand HOW the ENFIELD 8000 article found its way into WIKIPEDIA considering..."

That is a question for KJBracey, who appears to have created the article on November 19, 2005.

On the basis of what, if I may ask.
The Enfield Automotive archives?
The Electricity Council archives?
The Enfield Automotive - Electricity Council contract of 1973?
Genuine photographs of the Enfield being tested and in daily action?
Press cuttings from the Financial Times, The Times and the Evening Standard of London?
Letter from the Cabinet Office of the British Government?

User Skartsis uploaded the brochure. On his talk page, he claims to have authored a book called Made In Greece. He uploaded the image on January 20, 2007.

And nobody noticed the discrepancies between the Commercial brochure (of a car that had no Sales) and the text of KJCBracey? 
Well, it helps to know inside - out a new product, its use and history!
In any case,please see below. I am, really, asking a question about the application of the WKIPEDIA principles and rules, 
using the current ENFIELD 8000 article as an example.

"What would have been your comments if the ENFIELD 8000 article were to appear for the first time today. From were you stand (WP sites, your comments about my contributions etc) and you had to "approve" it."

We do not approve articles. Wikipedia is a collaborative. There are guidelines, styles, formats and rules that govern it, but there is no article approval per se. Administrators have the ability to delete articles once they are created. All editors have the ability to propose articles for deletion. But to answer your hypothetical, if your version of the article had appeared today, I would have tagged it as WP:NPOV/WP:COI and perhaps suggested it for deletion, but the latter doesn't seem likely to me.

In it's current state (the version it is sitting at now) it is a perfectly acceptable article. It's not the biggest, but it's decent. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 08:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

As I have pointed out, the current version of the ENFIELD 8000 article is based (a) on a Commercial brochure for a car that
was never sold and (b) on links that are purely geographical links.
Furthermore, the current ENFIELD 8000 article provides two figures for the Range of the car which are 215 per cent apart.
The question, for ANY Editor of WIKIPEDIA, is whether or not the current ENFIELD 8000 article satisfies the WIKIPEDIA 
principles and rules

It appears to fit most rules, it could do with some fixing up, but compared to probably 40-50% of current articles, its fantastic. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"There are Conflicts Of Information, to say the least, in the current ENFIELD 8000 article of WIKIPEDIA. See point (C), above (to be allowed?)"

No one seems to be disagreeing with you on this point.

But how does this ("No one seems to be disagreeing with you on this point") relates to the the question immediately above?
If no one seems to be disagreeing with me on this point, then is it Encyclopaedic that the above mentioned 215 per cent
discrepancy-confusion be left untouched?

"You state or imply that I have a Conflict Of Interest with the ENFIELD 8000..."

Conflict of Interest. Matt has repeatedly tried to explain to you how to avoid this and get your information included. He doesn't seem to doubt (I cannot and am not trying to speak for him) you and I really don't either. Your formatting is frankly very challenged, but that's easily enough worked around. For references on sourcing, please see: Verifiability. I have not compared your individual facts against policy.

BUT, if instead of me, somebody else, totally unrelated to the Enfield 8000 or Enfield Automotive, were to have sent, for
example, the same Images (as I have sent) as an augmenting contribution to the current ENFIELD 8000 article, would they (HIS
Images) have been deleted by the Editors of WIKIPEDIA.
This question is not a question for Matt only but for any Editor of WIKIPEDIA.

That is true, however the images etc weren't the main issue. It was the content. The issue of writing about things you are related to is our neutral point of view policies - it is very hard to write about yourself from a neutral viewpoint. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 08:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

On the Content rather than the Images.
Please allow me to refer you and any Editor of WIKIPEDIA to:
1. My question immediately above.
2. AND, also, to the following points I have raised in COI.
   Namely:
   Since WIKIPAEDIA is an Encyclopaedia and WIKIPEDIA itself states under ENCYCLOPAEDIA:
  (2a) "An encyclopedia, encyclopaedia or (traditionally) encyclopædia[1] is a COMPREHENSIVE written compendium tha
         contains information on all branches of Knowledge or a PARTICULAR BRANCH OF KNOWLEDGE" (Top of the main page)
  (2b) “both encyclopedias and dictionaries have been researched and written by WELL-EDUCATED, WELL-INFORMED content experts"
        (Characteristics section)
  How then:
  A WELL EDUCATED AND WELL INFORMED INVENTOR WHO, FURTHERMORE, SUPPLIES THROUGH IMAGES THIRD PARTY INFORMATION ABOUT HIS
  INVENTION , ITS USE AND ITS HISTORY, MUST BE SUMMARARILY EXCLUDED FROM BEING A DIRECT SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE FOR AN
  ENCYCLOPAEDIA.

I believe you should not be excluded as a source, just not as a direct writer. It's the same as something like Brittanica, you wouldn't expect the article on Ford to be written by a member of the company. It would be great to have you as a source, as you do have a lot of valuable information. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

5. Regarding the removal of images . . .

As I can't speak for Matt, I can't speak for Reallyhick either. However, looking at the panorama of images you added to the page, to me it is simply too many images. And I also question the relevance of some of them. Remember that the article is about the car, not about the company. Please see Chevrolet Chevette, Ford Mustang or Honda Civic for some decently formatted articles with on-point images as references. See also: Manual of style.

Please see the issue I raise above. It is a general and not an issue restricted to Realkyhick,Matt you etc.
I cannot comment on the number of Images before I look at a number of WIKIPEDIA articles, for comparison.
As for the relevance of some of them (the article is about the car, not about the company) I beg to differ with you. 
The Enfield 8000 was a new type of car unlike the cars people are used to (Electric versus Gasoline) and the Enfield 8000 was
developed by a new / unknown company, namely Enfield Automotive and not well known companies, like Ford, GM, Honda etc.

Regarding the number of images, a usual guide is one image per section max, or one per three paragraphs max. It avoids cluttering up of the article, and keeps the balance correct. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully this satisfies some of your questions. I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors. Oh, and I did mean baldly, not badly. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 00:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, once more.
I would be extremely interested if you were to address the issues I have raised above (they were, also,included in COI)

By the way, how do you create (a) letters in Bold and (b)Bullets in a WIKIPEDIA text? (like you have done in yours )

There is a guide to formatting at this page, however the basics are: To make bold, surround your text in three apostrophees ('). E.g.: Bold text ('''Bold text'''). To make bullet points, start your lines with a *. You can make an auto-numbering list in a similair way, using # instead of *. Hopefully that helps! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 06:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I have answered some points above, hopefully this helps. If you have any further questions, just ask. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 08:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I would be extremely interested if you were, also, to address the issues I have raised above (they were, also, included in COI)

Hopefully now i've answered most of your questions, if you have any more, add them below this line, as it makes it a bit easier to see exactly what you are asking. Thanks!

TUESDAY, 31 JULY 2007 - OK, I AM ADDING / SUMMARISING  BELOW WITHOUT CREATING A NEW SUMMARY SECTION.

In the text that follows:

The sections are number as X.0.
The 1st part of each section (X.1) repeats some of my previous comments, above.
The 2nd part of each section (X.2) repeats the your latest reactions, above.
The 3rd part of each section (X.3) covers my further reactions (labelled with the date they are entered) to your latest
reactions.

1.0 THE CURRENT ENFIELD 8000 ARTICLE

1.1 PREVIOUS COMMENTS OF MINE

On the basis of what, if I may ask.
The Enfield Automotive archives?
The Electricity Council archives?
The Enfield Automotive - Electricity Council contract of 1973?
Genuine photographs of the Enfield being tested and in daily action?
Press cuttings from the Financial Times, The Times and the Evening Standard of London?
Letter from the Cabinet Office of the British Government?

And nobody noticed the discrepancies between the Commercial brochure (of a car that had no Sales) and the text of KJCBracey? 
Well, it helps to know inside - out a new product, its use and history!
In any case,please see below. I am, really, asking a question about the application of the WKIPEDIA principles and rules, 
using the current ENFIELD 8000 article as an example.

I was not referring to "my" ("your" version) contributions to the current ENFIELD 8000 article but, rather to "the current
ENFIELD 8000" article.
In doing so I was trying to find out how you would apply the WIKIPEDIA principles and rules to the "current ENFIELD 8000"
if it were to appear in front of you TODAY for first time editing.

As I have pointed out, the current version of the ENFIELD 8000 article is based (a) on a Commercial brochure for a car that
was never sold and (b) on links that are purely geographical links.
Furthermore, the current ENFIELD 8000 article provides two figures for the Range of the car which are 215 per cent apart.
The question, for ANY Editor of WIKIPEDIA, is whether or not the current ENFIELD 8000 article satisfies the WIKIPEDIA 
principles and rules

But how does this ("No one seems to be disagreeing with you on this point") relates to the the question immediately above?
If no one seems to be disagreeing with me on this point, then is it Encyclopaedic that the above mentioned 215 per cent
discrepancy-confusion be left untouched?

1.2 YOUR LATEST REACTIONS TO 1.1

1.2.1 MATT

In it's current state (the version it is sitting at now) it is a perfectly acceptable article. It's not the biggest, but it's
decent. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs)
(Bot) 08:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears to fit most rules, it could do with some fixing up, but compared to probably 40-50% of current articles, its 
fantastic. Matt/TheFearow [[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)](Contribs)
(Bot) 21:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The figures are incorrect, and if you provide me with some accurate figures I will go and fix that up myself. 
Also, if you can find a source for the information, that is valid under my reply at the bottom of this section, 
I will happily place it in. Also, sadly, the more minor articles that are not paid enough attention, often get some 
inaccuracies. Usually, these end up getting fixed, but there are still a large number of articles without this. 
There are over 1.9 million articles, so it is a lot of work to check them all. It's an ongoing project. 
Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) 
(Bot) 21:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

1.2.2 DOUG

1.2.3 REALKYHICK

1.3 MY FURTHER REACTIONS TO 1.2

1.3.1 MATT

ON 31 JULY 2007
I find your reactions above (1.2.1) surprising. 
There is a WIKIPEDIA article with 
(a) Wrong figures on the Range of the car
(b) 215 per cent contradictions on the Range of the car, within the article itself!!!
(c) No source or reference is given,
    except a Commercial brochure for a car which was never sold (see article's own admission) 
    and a number of geographical links
AND you think, as far as WIKIPEDIA is concerned, that it is a FANTASTIC and PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE article?
I am shuttered Matt because if your position reflects the WIKIPEDIA position, then I have to double check the credibility
of any WIKIPEDIA article I read, let alone use a reference source. I hope you are wrong and that you meant something 
else.

The figures are incorrect, and if you provide me with some accurate figures I will go and fix that up myself. Also, if you can find a source for the information, that is valid under my reply at the bottom of this section, I will happily place it in. Also, sadly, the more minor articles that are not paid enough attention, often get some inaccuracies. Usually, these end up getting fixed, but there are still a large number of articles without this. There are over 1.9 million articles, so it is a lot of work to check them all. It's an ongoing project. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC).

The correct figures for the ENFIELD 8000 ELECTRIC CITY CAR ( E8000ECC ) are as I have stated in my text before
RANGE: Between 50 and 90 Miles ( 80 to 145 Kilometres )
MAXIMUM SPEED: Between 60 and 80 Miles per Hour ( 97 to 129 Kilometres per Hour )
The variation in the RANGE and MAXIMUM SPEED figures above has to do with factors like the number of passengers,
the state of the batteries, the ground gradient, the number of stops and starts etc
Actually
The RANGE figure of 140 Kilometres ( 87 Miles ) given by the Commercial brochure of the current ENFIELD 8000 article
( a brochure ACCEPTED  by WIKIPEDIA )
falls into the spectrum of the RANGE I am providing you with above
However
The brochure is wrong, in so far that the Bikini they are advertising (!) did not have such a RANGE.
The Bikini had a high Aerodynamic coefficient ( see picture of it )
while the E8000ECC had a very low Aerodynamic coefficient, even lower than that of the PORSCHE
AND
The RANGE and MAXIMUM SPEED of Electric Cars is very dependent on Aerodynamics
( My MIT degrees in Aerospace and my work on the Apollo program became very handy
  when I started designing the E8000ECC )
The RANGE and MAXIMUM SPEED figures in the actual text of the current ENFIELD 8000 article
look more like the RANGE and MAXIMUM SPEED figures for the Bikini (Aerodynamics !!! )
They, definitely, have nothing to do with the E8000ECC

1.3.2 DOUG

1.3.3 REAKYHICK

2.0 ON THE IMAGES AND CONTENT OF MY CONTRIBUTIONS

2.1 PREVIOUS COMMENTS OF MINE

I could have transferred the Facts and Figures and Images of E8000ECC to a friend (somebody a bit more computer literate than  
me, at the same time) and ask him to make the contribution to / augmentation of the current ENFIELD 8000 article himself!

BUT, if instead of me, somebody else, totally unrelated to the Enfield 8000 or Enfield Automotive, were to have sent, for
example, the same Images (as I have sent) as an augmenting contribution to the current ENFIELD 8000 article, would they (HIS
Images) have been deleted by the Editors of WIKIPEDIA.
This question is not a question for Matt only but for any Editor of WIKIPEDIA.

Please see the issue I raise above. It is a general and not an issue restricted to Realkyhick,Matt you etc.
I cannot comment on the number of Images before I look at a number of WIKIPEDIA articles, for comparison.
As for the relevance of some of them (the article is about the car, not about the company) I beg to differ with you. 
The Enfield 8000 was a new type of car unlike the cars people are used to (Electric versus Gasoline) and the Enfield 8000 was
developed by a new / unknown company, namely Enfield Automotive and not well known companies, like Ford, GM, Honda etc.

Following the above, I discovered that you have removed from the ENFIELD AUTOMOTIVE site (until recently vacant) the two 
Galleries of Images I attempted to contribute.
In doing so you have removed not only Photographs of the E8000ECC in action (a lot of people do not believe that Electric Cars 
have been used in daily action, others would not like to believe it and a third category wants them out of the way) but also:
(1) The letter sent by Lord Rothschild, Head of the Think Tank of the United Kingdom Cabinet Office.
(2) The E8000ECC cutting from THE FINANCIAL TIMES of 30 January 1973
(3) The E8000ECC cutting from THE LONDON TIMES of 30 January 1973
(4) The E8000ECC cutting from THE LONDON EVENING STANDARD of 19 February 1971
Please be kind enough to provide a reason or reasons for the above mentioned action of yours.
You might want to know that the current Mayor of London, Mr. Livingstone, has placed electric sockets in many of the Parking 
Meters in London and, additionally, he has excluded Electric Cars from paying an "entrance levy" upon entering Central London 
(all other types of cars D

On the Content rather than the Images.
Please allow me to refer you and any Editor of WIKIPEDIA to:
1. My question immediately above.
2. AND, also, to the following points I have raised in COI.
   Namely:
   Since WIKIPAEDIA is an Encyclopaedia and WIKIPEDIA itself states under ENCYCLOPAEDIA:
  (2a) "An encyclopedia, encyclopaedia or (traditionally) encyclopædia[1] is a COMPREHENSIVE written compendium tha
         contains information on all branches of Knowledge or a PARTICULAR BRANCH OF KNOWLEDGE" (Top of the main page)
  (2b) “both encyclopedias and dictionaries have been researched and written by WELL-EDUCATED, WELL-INFORMED content experts"
        (Characteristics section)
  How then:
  A WELL EDUCATED AND WELL INFORMED INVENTOR WHO, FURTHERMORE, SUPPLIES THROUGH IMAGES THIRD PARTY INFORMATION ABOUT HIS
  INVENTION , ITS USE AND ITS HISTORY, MUST BE SUMMARARILY EXCLUDED FROM BEING A DIRECT SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE FOR AN
  ENCYCLOPAEDIA.

2.2 YOUR LATEST REACTIONS TO 2.1

2.2.1 MATT

I believe you should not be excluded as a source, just not as a direct writer. It's the same as something like Brittanica, you 
wouldn't expect the article on Ford to be written by a member of the company. It would be great to have you as a source, as you
do have a lot of valuable information. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) 
(Contribs) (Bot) 21:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, the main reason for images etc to be removed was because there were too many. I believe I addressed this above, but
incase you miss it, I will restate it here. Usually, more than 1 image per two paragraphs (or one in each section if its a 
small section) is the ideal. Matt/TheFearow (Talk)
(Contribs) (Bot) 21:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If someone else were to add the material, it would likely to be kept, and simply reformatted. It's not the ideal method however, and simply working on it in a seperate location like I propsed now in 3.2.1. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

2.2.2 DOUG

2.2.3 REALKYHICK

2.3 MY FURTHER REACTIONS TO 2.2

2.3.1 MATT

ON 31 JULY 2007
Could you please address the 1st two frames in 2.1, namely

I could have transferred the Facts and Figures and Images of E8000ECC to a friend (somebody a bit more computer literate
than me, at the same time) and ask him to make the contribution to / augmentation of the current ENFIELD 8000 article
 himself!

BUT, if instead of me, somebody else, totally unrelated to the Enfield 8000 or Enfield Automotive, were to have sent,
 for example, the same Images (as I have sent) as an augmenting contribution to the current ENFIELD 8000 article,
would they (HIS Images) have been deleted by the Editors of WIKIPEDIA ?
This question is not a question for Matt only but for any Editor of WIKIPEDIA.

The main reason for images etc to be removed was because there were too many. I believe I addressed this above, but incase you miss it, I will restate it here. Usually, more than 1 image per two paragraphs (or one in each section if its a small section) is the ideal. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC).

And why THE EDITORS did not, then, keep some of the Images ?

I believe THE EDITORS were objecting to the fact that I was too close to the the development of the car
and because "I was using the article as a SOAPBOX from which I can SPOUT my views about the rise and fall of this 
automobile and the company"
Both above arguments of THE EDITORS would not have been valid if a "neutral" and "non-Hyde Park Speakers Corner"
person would add to the current ENFIELD 8000 article or create a new one, like the ex-vacant ENFIELD automotive one
So ..... what do you have to say on that ?

2.3.2 DOUG

2.3.3 REALKYHICK

3.0 WIKIPEDIA is an Encyclopedia

3.1 PREVIOUS COMMENTS OF MINE

Please allow me to refer you and any Editor of WIKIPEDIA to:
1. My question immediately above.
2. AND, also, to the following points I have raised in COI.
   Namely:
   Since WIKIPAEDIA is an Encyclopaedia and WIKIPEDIA itself states under ENCYCLOPAEDIA:
  (2a) "An encyclopedia, encyclopaedia or (traditionally) encyclopædia[1] is a COMPREHENSIVE written compendium tha
         contains information on all branches of Knowledge or a PARTICULAR BRANCH OF KNOWLEDGE" (Top of the main page)
  (2b) “both encyclopedias and dictionaries have been researched and written by WELL-EDUCATED, WELL-INFORMED content experts"
        (Characteristics section)
  How then:
  A WELL EDUCATED AND WELL INFORMED INVENTOR WHO, FURTHERMORE, SUPPLIES THROUGH IMAGES THIRD PARTY INFORMATION ABOUT HIS
  INVENTION , ITS USE AND ITS HISTORY, MUST BE SUMMARARILY EXCLUDED FROM BEING A DIRECT SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE FOR AN
  ENCYCLOPAEDIA.

3.2 YOUR LATEST REACTIONS TO 3.1

3.2.1 MATT

I believe you should not be excluded as a source, just not as a direct writer. It's the same as something like Brittanica, 
you wouldn't expect the article on Ford to be written by a member of the company. It would be great to have you as a source, 
as you do have a lot of valuable information. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) 
(Contribs) (Bot) 21:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have a solution to the editing etc, and the contributions. I am going to create another page, at User:TheFearow/Enfield 8000, as a copy of the article. Because that is not directly in the main article space, you can contribute freely within the policies. I will then merge it over into the main article when it is of an acceptable standard. That should work. Just edit that one, and once it's good ill move it across. Regarding the editors - normally no, constructing is the best. But due to the COI policies, we have to revert your changes, so that is why I am proposing this method. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

3.2.2 DOUG

3.2.3 REALKYHICK

3.3 MY FURTHER REACTION TO 3.2

3.3.1 MATT

I will go along with you
BUT
please explain to me why you WIKIPEDIA Editors 
(a) Have ELIMINATED the text I entered INSTEAD of editing it and posting it and
(b) Have ELIMINATED all the Images I have entered INSTEAD of allowing at least some of them,
to the benefit of the WIKIPEDIA readers. 
    You (the WIKIPEDIA Editors) could have left in Images like the E8000ECC parked in Mayfair (near mymy flat), 
    in front of the Electricity Council, in MIRA, in action in London, in front of 10 Downing Street (the traditional
    residence of all British Prime Ministers, the letter by Lord Rothschild from the Cabinet Office of the British
Government, to name some of them.
Are some of the WIKIPEDIA Editors bent more on eliminating rather than of constructing ?

It is OK by me if you think that is the way to move forwarD
WHY NOT, HOWEVER, THROUGH THE EX-VACANT "ENFIELD AUTOMOTIVE" ARTICLE ?
I still do not have, however, COMPREHENSIVE answers as to why
(a) The current ENFIELD 8000 article was posted, despite the fact that it is misleading the WIKIPEDIA readers
    with all the errors and its internal 215 per cent RANGE discrepancy
    and the total absence of credible sources
    ( The above despite the fact that you consider it FANTASTIC, unless you mean it is FANTASTIC how it got there !)
(b) The ex-vacant ENFIELD AUTOMOTIVE article, to which I tried to give "life" to, did not have the same fate
    as the current ENFIELD 8000 article. Maybe, it is NOT FANTASTIC, as it is based on FACTS and not FANTASY!

3.3.2 DOUG

3.3.3 REALKYHICK

NOTE: THE ABOVE WERE POSTED:

(A) 1.0 and 2.0 - On 31 July   2007
(B) 3.0         - On 02 August 2007

Is anybody RWA to address 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 above ?

Matt: Are you RWA to address 1.3.1, 2.3.1 and 3.3,1 above ?

I have answered some, if there are any I missed please point them out to me. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I have been looking at 1.3.1 , 2.3.1 and 3.3.1 for your "further comments"
I found them in other sections and I have duplicated your "further comments" under my "further comments"
That is, under 1.3.1 , 2.3.1 and 3.3.1 (x.x.1 is you, Matt
Please continue there: in 1.3.1 , 2.3.1 and 3.3.1

Points 1.3.1, 2.3.1 and 3.3.1 ABOVE, if you do not mind, please!

Also, the point in bold in the section below ("What works as a source ?")

I have responded to the ones above, and I believe my response to 3.2.1 should be able to overcome any major problems. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been looking at 1.3.1 , 2.3.1 and 3.3.1 for your "further comments"
I found them in other sections and I have duplicated your "further comments" under my "further comments"
That is, under 1.3.1 , 2.3.1 and 3.3.1 (x.x.1 is you, Matt
Please continue there: in 1.3.1 , 2.3.1 and 3.3.1

I still do not know how to sign as you do!!!

What works as a source?

I have added pictures, and just a couple of minutes ago some newspaper clippings, that are hard facts of this articles originality. What makes a good source? A link to an html page? I am not much of a computers person and on this subject all my sources are taken from the original archives. They are scanned. Does this not count as a valid enough source? Please help me understand what is needed so that Wikipedia will accept my article. I would really appreciate your help as I am confused. All my ORIGINAL items seem to not be enough. Thank you in advance. Constantine Adraktas 21:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

   Newspaper or magazine stories will work just fine, even if they aren't found online. The FT, Time and the Guardian are
   superbly credible sources. You should try to give the name of the publication, date, author (if shown), and page number. 
   (It works the same way you used to do on term papers in school. Yeah, I hated those, too.) If the source is available
   online somewhere, that's even better because you can include the link that others can click on and go straight to the story.
   There's a template called "cite news" where you just fill in the blanks. Also see [section on how to insert footnotes]. In 
   fact, you would do well to read the whole article at "Citations".

   The photos are another problem. If those photos were from a copyrighted source, then they probably can't be used at all 
   because of copyright laws. There are lot of other editors and admins here at Wikipedia that get pretty worked up about 
   photos that may not be free to use, sometimes a little too worked up for my taste. But if the photos were part of a 
   government publication, they are probably free to use — that's the case here in the States, and I think it's that way in 
   the UK too.

   The subject of the article is clearly notable (and interesting). Just rough in the information and sources as best as you 
   can and we'll worry about the aesthetics later. You can contact me on my user talk page if you need more help. Realkyhick 
   03:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

       Update: Mr. Adraktas, it is apparent that you are using this article, and related ones, to promote your particular
       point of view about the company's history. Because of your confrontational editing, you have been blocked and will
       likely continue to be given your course of action. Under these circumstances, I can't be much help. Realkyhick 00:08,
       27 July 2007 (UTC)

TUESDAY, 31 JULY 2007

DEAR REALKYHICK

1. ON THE FT, TIMES AND EVENING STANDARD

The Images I posted are scannings of the very articles. The articles appeared in 1971 and 1973 and, unfortunately, the above 
mentioned Newspapers do not go that far back on-line.

2. THE PHOTOS

The photos are mine and, consequently, if there is a question of copyright, then that is my copyright.
I gave a lot of my photos to Newsspapers, The Electricity Council etc
See the photos of the VDL 856K in parked in Mayfair. The VDL 856K was my car, the car I was driving in London for 4 years, and
I took the photos near my flat (I live in 59 South Audley Street in Mayfair)

3. CONTACTING YOU (It seems I have managed it)

I do not know how to add in the User page of somebody else!

4. PROMOTING MY VIEWS

With all due respect, you are 100 per cent wrong.
I am only trying:
(a) To restore the truth
(b) Give the WIKIPEDIA readers Facts and Figures a variety of photos so that "they can feel as if they were there 
   when when it was all happening"

SINCSERELY

CONSTANTINE ADRAKTAS

You might want to read this page. It contains some information on what is valid as a source. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 10:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Matt: I read it

However, could you, please, specify the relevant parts of the site you ask me to read
and, more important, their APPLICABILITY to:
(a) FIRSTLY, the current ENFIELD 8000 article 
    AND THEN to:
(b) My attempted contributions to the current ENFIELD 8000 article
(c) The formerly vacant ENFIELD AUTOMOTIVE site I tried to put some life into

Also,
Please address 1.3.1 and 2.3.1, in the CATCHING UP section

The relevant parts regarding sources are the following:

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view.

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

OK Matt!
   Show me, then, how a WIKIPEDIA Editor would apply the above to the current ENFIELD 8000 article !!!

A quick introduction:

Each statement that is not common knowledge for the majority of people should be referenced. The simplest way to reference is to include text like the following directly after the statement:

<ref>Where the information can be found (the reference), such as a web address [http://www.example.com example.com] or book reference An Example Book by John Smith; published 2007.</ref>

Then, at the bottom of the page, you include a references section with the text:

<references/>

This will show the text of all references in the format above. Each individual reference text will be replaced with text similair to this: ^[1], with the number different for each, and coresponding to the one at the bottom of the document, where the original text is displayed. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

So, what happens when you apply the above to the current ENFIELD 800N article ? What do you get ?

I'll now work on answering the above questions. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 20:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions answered ( I AM AFRAID NOT - SEE 1.3.1 ,2.3.1 and 3.3.1 IN THE "CATCHING UP SECTION ). Also, when leaving messages on othere talk pages, and talk pages in general, sign your posts with ~~~~ (four tildes), and it produces something similiar to my one at the end of this comment ( THANK YOU. I WILL DO THAT. Oops!, I DO NOT SEE THAT SYMBOL ON MY KEYBOARD ). Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It's usually in the top left, above the ` key. Often to the left of the 1. If you do not have the symbol, you can click the button with the picture of a signature found above the editing box. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

SUMMARY

BUT TODAY I CANNOT CREATE THE "FRAMES" APPROACH I WAS USING ABOVE, NOT EVEN TO PUT A NEW LINE UNDER ANOTHER ONE WHENEVER I WANT. I DO NOT KNOW WHY. SO LET ME TRY TO USE A NEW SECTION ENTITLED "SUMMARY" AND SEE IF IT WORKS.

Well, it does not work! Ikeep getting a continuous text.

I messed something up in my post, now fixed. I'll comment in a second Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 06:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my fault, I forgot a > character in my post when demonstrating. I have fixed it now, and it is working. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 06:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

OK MATT. I CONTINUE, THEN, ABOVE.

Answering a quesiton. . . and a comment on formatting.

Mr. Adraktas, you asked at some point whether you offended me. Of course not. Blatant vandals are about the only thing that offend me here and even that's only marginal (just a part of life in a project like this). There are a couple reasons why I won't help with Enfield 8000, but I choose not to elaborate on them, because I don't see anything productive coming from it. I strongly suggest (as Matt did before) that you write the article as you want it in your user space here: User:Constantine Adraktas/Enfield 8000 draft and then let Matt and/or some other editors clean it up for you and post it to/merge it with the article itself. Also, a footnote. I am still watching this discussion because I see my best contribution to you, if any, to be to help you become a better editor. That in mind and, again recognizing that you're new to computers, I hope you will not take it poorly when I say that you have made this talk page very difficult to read. Editing my comments earlier to a format that you prefer is (in my opinion) bad form. I'm not all that proprietary, though and that's not what I'm talking about. More, I'm concerned that (to me) you're making the cohesive reading of this page and your discussions very difficult to follow. By going back and editing others comments, placing responses inline with their comments, not signing your posts, etc, the "conversation" loses its linear quality and becomes a jumbled mass of communication where to really distinguish things, people will have to go back and filter through the edit history to figure out who said what when. Generally speaking, you should place responses to comments directly below the person's comment and indent your comment with a colon (or two colons, or three colons, etc). I'm not sure I understand your use of boxes. I realize that this is a user page and that you can format it as you like. This isn't a rule, it's just a suggestion; you'll find that if you start entering discussions in the article space, folks won't take kindly to your boxes, bold font and inline editing of their comments. See my talk page for examples. Let me know if you have questions. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 12:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I just saw your text above and I will address it as per below before I read it in its entity

(1) "You asked at some point ... a project like THIS" -No comment

(2) "There are couple of reasons ... productive coming out of it" - No comment

(3) "I strongly suggest ... the article itself"

    (3a) OK, but I would dearly like to see you VENTURING in addressing comprehensively the points I raise
         in "MY FURTHER REACTIONS" section above. Spaces have been pre-allocated for that
         in 1.3.2 DOUG, 2.3.2 DOUG and 3.3.2 DOUG.

    (3b) I have seen my write up, together with the images that accompanied it, somewhere in my User page
         I will try to find it.

(4) "Also a footnote ... very difficult to read" - I think my answer, indirectly, will appear further down

(5) "Editing my comments ... what I am talking about"
    I am not editing your comments!!!
    I am, simply, extracting segments I wish to emphasize without MOLESTING the original and proprietary text.!
    A perfectly acceptable practice in the Multinational Boardroom Environments I operate in.

(6) "More I am concerned ... three colons" - Let me wait: Maybe, my answer will come, indirectly, from the other points.

(7) "I am not sure ... editing their comments"
    Boxes, Bullets and various other visual aids are part and parcel of the environment I mentioned in (5) above.
    They are used, among other things, in presentation SLIDES, in order to achieve CLARITY and FOCUSSING.
    Obviously, other people prefer continuous text without paragraphs, indentations, bullets, boxes and other Clarity
    and Focussing visual techniques. Senior-most executives that I have to address hate one line after another etc.

I trust that my text above will not be branded "Editing of a proprietary text" because of "abc ... xyz" and that its
format will not confuse or upset any editor. Sorry but this the best I can do, considering.

P.S. This page is getting very long. I suggest archiving the portions of it that are no longer applicable. For help with archiving, let me know and I'll point you to the appropriate article or, alternatively, archive it for you myself. Just let me know. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 12:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that perhaps you misunderstood me or I was not clear. I am not saying you edited my proprietary text, I'm saying that you broke my post to your talk page into various sections and pieces and that upsets (in my eyes) the chronology of the discussion. Nothing more, nothing less. As I said, I'm not particularly proprietary (and shouldn't be on Wikipedia), I'm more trying to guide you. I also work in a corporate world and I understand the flow that you are trying to impose. But this isn't a board room and the style of communication is much different on Wikipedia. That's all. If you don't want to use it on your talk page, I certainly can't compel you to. As for your questions about Wikipedia policy in general, I am deferring to Matt on that for a couple reasons. First, he's going to help you with the article. Second, he's more experienced than I am. And, lastly, a clarification because I think it might have been ambiguous . . . when I said "a project such as this", I was referring to Wikipedia, not to you. I don't think vandalism is inherent to dealing with you at all. If that was unclear, I apologize. You should also sign your posts with four tildes like so: ~~~~. I'm guessing you don't have a U.S. keyboard, so I don't know where they are. But you can always copy and paste them. Best wishes to you. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 21:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the above note.

Which of the following definitions would you choose for the word IMPOSE you are using?. WIKIPEDIA wise or corporate wise.

im·pose  (m-pz)
v. im·posed, im·pos·ing, im·pos·es
1. To establish or apply as compulsory; levy: impose a tax.
2. To apply or make prevail by or as if by authority: impose a peace settlement. See Synonyms at dictate.
3. To obtrude or force (oneself, for example) on another or others.
4. Printing To arrange (type or plates) on an imposing stone.
5. To offer or circulate fraudulently; pass off: imposed a fraud on consumers.

Constantine Adraktas 06:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Categories: User archives

User talk:Constantine Adraktas/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Enfield 8000

Duplicate images uploaded

License tagging for Image:SIGNING DAY FOR THE- ELECTRICITY COUNCIL CONTRACT.JPG

Duplicate images uploaded

Image:"WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR - The film" In addition to the above the Oil companies can bribe by helping somebody out of a crisis but at a PRICE. This is what happenned with the E8000ECC after the 1973 Oil crisis.jpg

July 2007

Your edits to Enfield 8000

Blocked

COI

Catching Up

What works as a source?

SUMMARY

Answering a quesiton. . . and a comment on formatting.

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search