User talk:Constantine Adraktas/Archive

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Constantine Adraktas. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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.

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 14:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

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).

(C) The Enfield Automotive files, still in the possession of its 1969 - 1975 Chairman.

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: