User talk:ElComandanteChe

Skip to bottom

Welcome

Hello, ElComandanteChe, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Arbiteroftruth 05:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


helpme

HELP! Somehow the AT-14_Kornet#References are duplicated. --Super.zhid 21:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page looks fine to me. --pgk(talk) 21:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User_talk:Pgk#AT-14_Kornet.23References_-_helpme --Super.zhid 08:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Solved by WP:PURGE --Super.zhid 08:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swiftsure class submarine

As a matter of interest, why have you added a link from Swiftsure class submarine for HMS Swiftsure, but not for the other individual boats where they are named in the text? They are, of course, all linked through the class box at the foot of the page, and through the Category for the class, which is presumably why individual links from the text weren't previously deemed necessary. David Biddulph (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While reading the article by myself, the first thing I was looking for was the leading ship of the class. The link in the bottom of the page is not so visible or easy to find for a noob like me. Anyway, if I'm broking a convention or just make the article less readable/pretty/whatever, you are welcome to revert or suggest a change. Super.zhid (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two years later, in-text links to all the submarines has been added for the sake of readability. Super.zhid (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --213.6.11.49 (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

discuss

this is to let you know that i have answered you at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --213.6.11.49 (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I'll get to work on replacing the link right now. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

My first barnstar! Although after a few good bocks my proposition for compromise might not be too coherent ;)Sol (talk) 03:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what POV???

whats wrong with you???

what POV did I do????????????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.6.36.81 (talk) 08:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


and why did u change from jordan and israel occupation to management??? that is misleading!!! and very biased!

even they recognize it as occupation!--213.6.36.81 (talk) 09:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


never mind. i did not realize that it was copy righted, my bad. even though i got it from their newsletter and not their website.--213.6.36.81 (talk) 09:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So ?

[1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering your summary of agadaurbanit, what are the names for the region used by the "major international players" he brought up? What names does Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel and China use for Golan? Did he bring any sources for this? And how is the UN as relevant as China, Jordan, Lebanon? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's clear to me. Replied there. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you reply to this?: [2] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I did, but I'll repeat it here: any additional name can and will be discussed on it's own, anyway that's how it works here, isn't it? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ElComandanteChe, Agada is not replying at GH talkpage. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asked ([3]). --ElComandanteChe (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please take a look at Agadas latest post and see how we can move forward? [4] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment

That you for your input, however I am confused the other party started this not me. How do I deal with someone who is violating the rules?Unicorn76 (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars for all!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For outstanding patience and diplomacy in the Golan Heights article. Sol (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you, Sol :) --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wear This with Well-Deserved Pride. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He he, thanks --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPI notifications

Hello ElComandanteChe. There is no requirement that a user be notified when an SPI is opened and in fact WP:SPI specifically says "Notification is not mandatory, and may, in some instances, lead to further disruption or provide a sockpuppeteer with guidance on how to avoid detection." If I dont notify somebody of an SPI it is for a reason and I respectfully ask that you not involve yourself. You are of course free to disregard this message, but I ask that you consider it. Thank you. nableezy - 04:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation, I'll keep it in mind. Next time (if and when) I'll first ask the reporter for the reason of not notifying the suspected user. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 08:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OMG

what pure vandalism r u talking about?

u can NOT say that the israel was managing the west bank, while it was MILITARY OCCUPYING THE WEST BANK!

seriously, do u think people are stupid and do NOT know the difference?--213.6.0.225 (talk) 08:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are refusing to register an account, and your IP isn't static, I'm leaving this message here instead of your talk page. This is a blatant POV pushing, and you have been blocked for it multiple times as different IPs. Not-NPOV edits are not acceptable, after being blocked ~10 times you should know this. Let me give you a friendly advise: don't test the community patience. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it's not ur business if i want to create account or not, and i have not been blocked 10 times as ur excellency falsely claim!

i asked a question, and i expect to get a respectful and objective answer! otherwise, we can call ur edits r false and biased!--213.6.0.225 (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

any logical, objective and respectful answer?--213.6.0.225 (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on the respectful part of it. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Who? And I dont ask that anybody assume I act in good faith, I dont care if somebody thinks I am evil. I dont know why you think I want AGF "applied" to me or why that matters. I want users to not force garbage into encyclopedia articles while rejecting well sourced material. I dont think that is unreasonable. If I am not nice it is the result of years of dealing with the same nonsense over and over. Unlike some other1 editors, all my blocks are in my one block log. My attitude is the result of several years spent trying to get basic things corrected and being met with a variety of dishonesty, gamesmanship, and filibustering. nableezy - 05:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking it here. May I ask if you wrote it to explain yourself, to understand my position or to see if I have anything useful to suggest? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 09:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first question was for you to answer, the rest was a response to your line that "AGF is not applied to me". nableezy - 13:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not going to discuss other users here. Anyway, the list of the victims of your temper should be obvious to you (in most cases). --ElComandanteChe (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see, you like to make accusations and not back them up. Thanks, that puts your comments in the proper perspective. Bye. nableezy - 15:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for yet another example of your charming style. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Im more concerned with accuracy than I am with collegiality. Some people place style over substance. Im not one of those people. But, oh by the way, making accusations and not providing evidence for them is remarkably uncivil. Good thing I dont care about such things. nableezy - 15:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This conversation is pointless. If you have a comprehensible question, please ask (politely, if you don't mind). If you came to fight - thank you, I'm not interested. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I came to ask you to back up your unsubstantiated accusation. You declined, leaving the accusation unsubstantiated. If you would like to rectify the fact that you made an unsubstantiated accusation you are free to do so. Until that time, the conversation is indeed pointless, as are most conversations with people who make unfounded assertions. Ill be on my merry way now, but if you ever do wish to actually back up an accusation you made in a public forum, please let me know. nableezy - 16:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And again, thank you! --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ElComandanteChe. You have new messages at Carwil's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

"sorted bordering entities per border length"

[5] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answered there. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

WikiProject Jupiter proposal

Hello! Would you be interested in forming WikiProject Jupiter? If so, please show your support by clicking on the link above!--Novus Orator 04:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this link work for you? [6] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, it didn't work before for me, now it does. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I clicked it once, it was dead. I pushed the refresh button and it was alive. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent revert

I apologize, but I have gone ahead and reverted your revert here. The info is not that important to the article, so if the author requests it be removed there isn't really a strong reason to refuse.AerobicFox (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Itamar

I inadvertently edited over changes you made to the Itamar page, not realizing until afterwards that you restored User:Namiba's deleted content. It appeared to me that your only change was adding the boilerplate to the lead, but later I saw your changes further down. Forgive my oversight.—Biosketch (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian Christians

these same two IPs (sometimes under two different, but very similar IPs) keep reverting. i see you have warned them, etc. here is something from the recent past which might be of interest as well. thanks. Soosim (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported them to WP:AN/I here, please feel free to add this link too. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Here: [7]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, answered there. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

Hi. I've declined your speedy deletion request for the redirect Israel Occupation Forces, as I don't think it is clear that it falls within the remit of CSD:A10. That category is for blatant and unambiguous attacks, and is generally used for articles aimed at individuals or with some biographical connotation. This one has clear political overtones - some would agree with it, while some would not, and I think deleting it as a CSD would be too close to taking a political side. It does seem unnecessarily provocative, perhaps, so I'd suggest you take it to RfD for a community decision. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks for the explanation. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
nominated for RfD --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Major and linkspam

Hello Pdfpdf! I don't really care if the link stays or goes, but I don't want someone trying to abuse Wikipedia to achieve his wish. Would you mind to share your thoughts? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Talk:Major#WP:SPAMLINK. A well presented, well argued and convincing line of reasoning. OK. I agree. Pdfpdf (talk) 01:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words, you've made my day :) --ElComandanteChe (talk) 12:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome - I'm pleased you're happy. However, it isn't anything you didn't deserve. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help us improve!

Hello ElComandanteChe,

For a few months now, Hmring and Realpolitikz have been working on the Gun violence and gun control in Texas article and would like you to help us improve it. Please feel free to make any comments or edits into the article as we try to further improve it.

Thanks for your time and effort!

--Realpolitikz (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]



How was I vandalizing wikipedia? Sir Stanly Maude was from British India, take a look at your own freaking page. -Doomei —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.18.201 (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was a British commander. Please sign your messages. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 07:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UNOSAT

re: this edit, what makes you think it's imagery over Dahiya suburb ? I haven't looked at the coordinates and I may have missed something. If it is Dahiya I'll load up the UNOSAT damage assessment to commons. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Visual comparison of this image to another known image. You are welcome to verify the coordinates, or I'll do it later today. By the way, I'm not sure UNITAR license is compatible with WP fair use policies. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 08:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm...that UNITAR legal page is not something UNOSAT used to have at their unosat-maps.web.cern.ch site. Not quite sure what to make of that. My understanding was that if it has a UN logo on it, it's in the public domain per this and this. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After re-reading the UNITAR legal statement and the relevant WP policies, I think the images above are quite close to CC BY-NC-SA or to GPL licenses (which are not good for WP, if I'm not mistaken), but fair use rationale can be established for it's use in en:WP per WP:NFCC, can it? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think fair use would be okay although we already have File:Haret Hreik Before After 22 July 2006.png so perhaps it's not necessary but my main concern really is the existing UNOSAT imagery in commons with PD-UN licensing. I loaded 2 a couple of years ago and I don't know how many more there are over there. I'll try to ask over at commons when I get a chance. It would be a real shame to lose their imagery. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CN on Hebron Trash photo

Can you explain why you added a CN on the photo? I took the photo in 2009, it was in the Palestinian sector of the Old City and the net is clearly serving a purpose of collecting rubbish thrown down by settlers. -asad (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll happily take you word for the fact of the net existence and location, but its purpose, as described by the caption, is a subject of WP:OR, and WP:OI in particular. I'm not going to make a big deal of it, but please, do some research and look for sources. Any confirmation in RS of the garbage throwing (especially if certain location is mentioned) would be enough. Otherwise it's just your personal knowledge... the diff on the discussion --ElComandanteChe (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, added. I hope that should do. -asad (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry

I'm sorry that I made an unhelpful edit. I actually meant to make the article shorter and I was summarizing the article, but somehow, I messed up and did that. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80 Calo (talk • contribs) 02:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem and welcome! --ElComandanteChe (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Mount 'Hermon', Israel.

'Controlled' is much more loyal to the truth, it is as occupied as Alsace and Lorraine in France, and these Are French with no doubt. It is under complete governing of the state of Israel. That is not a political view. Moreover, the town of Neve Ativ is not a settlement in any case. The term 'Israely settelment' refers to now only the Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria under the authority of the Palestinian authority. This has nothing to do with mount Hermon and Neve Ativ - and putting the two under the same definition is an illegitimate expression of an nonobjective political opinion. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.159.218.172 (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion repeats itself from time to time. Please take a look into the latest part of it. Feel free to share your thoughts there, but please don't forget to sign your comments with four tildes (~) --ElComandanteChe (talk) 11:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where to put what information

Hello,

I found your responses interesting and you seem to be very experienced here. I have a question regarding where what information goes:

A piece of general information regarding East Jerusalem is put in the Silwan article. It doesn't seem to be wrong, but it is general information. It seems there are lots of pieces of general information that could be pasted, but then it wouldn't be specifically about Silwan anymore. Also, I could see how paying more attention to one detail or another could unbalance the objectivity of the article.

Also the way it is presented does not seem to be objective.

Thank you for any explanation you can offer.

Aslbsl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aslbsl (talk • contribs) 10:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added my 5 cent to the discussion --ElComandanteChe (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AHAVA

Just noticed your comment on Talk page, 4 August 2011 (UTC) re my recent revert violates 1RR - my mistake, it was a new day for me here, and I was carelessly thinking in terms of "days" rather than "24 hour periods". My apology, you didn't need to call on the big guns, I don't intentionally violate rules am happy for anyone to let me know when I have made a mistake but no worries. And re "Please don't forget to sign your comments." mea culpa - I wish I could remember each time, And finally, would appreciate your assistance in encouraging a better standard of referencing - see my comment on Discussion page of a few minutes ago. 220.239.169.163 (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your post on my talk page: "...you have broken WP:1RR once again with this edits: [8], [9]." Surely these changes were made well outside the 24 hour period within which a revert is prohibited? I do not think that is the case? Please let me know if I am wrong? Or is it some other rule that I need to be aware of? Regards Floccinauci (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please carefully read the three-revert rule. One-revert rule is exactly the same, but instead of three we are limited to one revert, meaning we can undo others work in certain article only once in any period of 24 hours. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is what I thought. I realise I did this on 4th August, but I do not think I have done it again since. I have been monitoring in UTC time instead of just thinking "now its tomorrow its ok" and could not find any instances of having violated the rule since that first mistake? But it applies only to the same paragraph/section does it not? It does not mean only one edit per 24 hour period? Thanks for the advice. Floccinauci (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It applies to whole article. The two edits linked above were made in the interval less than 24 hours, and each of them restored content - meaning, each of them undone someone else work. Regarding timing, you may add clock gadget (my preferences -> gadgets), but it's better to simply avoid editing until consensus is reached on the talk page. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ElComandanteChe. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Mentorship

The answer is yes Shrike (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But it's over in three weeks, isn't it? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but there is indefenite revert restrictionShrike (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Juliancolton agreed to take the task, what happen to him? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Though he initially agreed he wasn't too happy to do the job--Shrike (talk) 10:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I'll happily take it. There is one thing you shall take into consideration and two conditions:
  • Consideration: Please consider my possible delays of 1-2 days.
  • Condition 1: you will strike your comments, self-revert, or apologize to people if I say so, even without explanation or if the explanation does not satisfy you.
  • Condition 2: Since I'm not too experienced editor, it's up to Tim to decide if I fit.
--ElComandanteChe (talk) 12:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me.Could you please write to Tim that we agreed.--Shrike (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then we start at 1.09.Thank you very much for agreeing--Shrike (talk) 06:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I made few edits.Do you think they ok?Should I change something?--Shrike (talk) 06:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into them tonight. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 09:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are doing fine. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 09:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say...

...thanks for the kind words over at Shrike's talk page. It might interest you to know that my attempt to reason with the IP was directly as a result of the advice you once gave me about coming on too strong with a new user a while ago. It didn't work this time but it was sound advice nevertheless. I saw the AN3 report when it was posted. I think Shrike has just misunderstood the rules in good faith and isn't very familiar with the nature of disruption here by people using dynamic IPs (hence the IP exclusion clause in ARBPIA). No harm done. The scientist in me is happy to just watch what happens Anne Corwin style. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that I never answered you. It was, at least, rude. I'm glad that Shrike decided to withdraw the report and saved the needless wikilawyering session to the community. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead sea scrolls dating BCE/CE or BC/AD

Goodness me, within seconds my change was reverted by you as you state that it hasn't yet been accepted. By whom? As I mentioned to another reverter, if you look to the reference given after the dating you will see the author makes frequent use of the BC/AD system. Surely we have a duty to maintain continuity with the authors work rather than introduce our own views? And I think there is a Wiki policy of keeping true to references. However in the spirit of compromise I see no harm in using wording that supports the authors work without referencing the contentious issue of whether to use BCE/CE or BC/AD? Failing that I'm afraid the matter needs to be elevated up the Wiki dispute resolution chain. But I would like to hear your views first.--Cfimei (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep this discussion to one page, namely Talk:Dead_Sea_Scrolls. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I try but reverters won't respond.--Cfimei (talk) 22:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...for your contribution to the article NXIVM. Could you do the same to all "GoCubs" edits to Keith Raniere? Please feel free to browse the large collection of WP:RSs on the corresponding talk page to verify how they describe both it and him. Chrisrus (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Is there a particular reason why you are not interested in doing it? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't rollback, for one, but yes there is another reason. They know where I live. Chrisrus (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEGALITY

On 3 July an editor made this edit at Elmatan. #1, the English is messed up, but presumably that was uninentional. #2, the source referenced doesn't say anything about outposts, hence it doesn't say anything about Israel disputing the international community's consideration of them as illegal. Is there a consensus for how to apply the WP:Legality of Israeli settlements boilerplate to outposts? Their status vis-a-vis Israeli law, after all, is somewhat different.—Biosketch (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess WP:Legality of Israeli settlements consensus is about all kinds of settlements. From other side, the question of how GCIV#49 applies to the people who willingly and illegally run for hills is interesting. I don't remember it was addressed in depth. My be Sean or Nableezy have better memory. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
You deserve it! Shrike (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thank you! --ElComandanteChe (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A little help

I want to include this article [10] as source of bias in Reuters and maybe in article Media_coverage_of_the_Arab–Israeli_conflict.I think its very good source as it academic research paper. What is the best way to do it most NPOV way?Thank you in advance--Shrike (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Shrike, I'm completely out of time till the weekend. Will look into this then. Again, sorry. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you take a look?--Shrike (talk) 13:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will do tonight. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The paper looks serious, so it's ok to use it as a source, I guess. Run some background search on the author to verify that he is not a well-known weirdo, and on the institution to verify its neutrality. Don't base massive amounts of text on this article, doing that will violate wp:undue. I'd use it to support claims by mainstream media or to bring up some numbers. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wgfinley has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

--WGFinley (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm, thanks --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Netanyahu

My edit on Benjamin Netanyahu was NOT a joke.

Israeli public media debates extensively lately over PM Netanyahu's claims of being the "first to identify the magnitude of the Carmel Forest Fire". The statement was made by anchorman Dan Caner at the request of Netanyahu's PR personnel, at the memorial service for the casualties.

This incident arose further debate regarding the PM and his PR's tendency to make unverified and improbable claims, such as Netanyahu's 180 IQ, his childhood experiences with British Mandate police (he was actually born long after the mandate ended), the personal impact he had on the retrieval of Gilad Shalit, his personal contribution to the robustness of Israel's economy, and more.

I was surprised to see that this whole aspect of his public persona wasn't dealt with in the Wikipedia article, so I added it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.143.147.134 (talk) 09:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answered here. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated

Not only your greetings, but what little I've observed (I actually don't follow that many pages) of your general counsel and work round there. Very best Nishidani (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, my dear kaffir gentile, and Happy New Year. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem Naming Conventions

Hi, I've put up a proposal re: Naming Conventions for Locations in Jerusalem here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues#Naming_Conventions_for_Locations_in_Jerusalem) and would very much appreciate any comments you have on this issue. BothHandsBlack (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BHB

Hi. BHB has claimed on his Talk page that he made edits at numerous articles as an IP prior to the creation of his account but that he would prefer not to make these edits public out of concern for his physical safety. By any chance, did he send you a list of these edits? You're of course not being asked to make the list public; but I'm wondering if in going over the list, assuming he sent one to you, you didn't happen to notice anything unusual that might be pertinent to the SPI report.—Biosketch (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I received a list of several diffs, all kosher. I can add one thing: the edits are 3 months old and from the same IP pool. The pool is coherent with other information I received from BHB. -- ElComandanteCheταλκ 15:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Biosketch, I think you should probably notify Unomi‎ because he is a long term editor currently in good standing as far as I know. He may be able to add information to the report. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza War

Hey, I see you undid my revision for Gaza war claiming "unusual source interpretation". The source in question was published on the 7th February 2009, nearly a month after the end of the war. The source quotes the Health Ministry as saying

"After Israel ended its aggression in the Gaza Strip, the Health Ministry was surprised that Hamas militants returned to their old behavior, expelling medical staff and using medical centers as detention centers, and for torture and interrogation,"

Note:"After Israel ended its aggression in the Gaza Strip". The source does also mention that Hamas were "returning to old their old behavior", but it does not mention when Hamas behaved like this previously, there is no indication that it was during the conflict.

I have an Israeli source which backs up my interpretation: http://www.haaretz.com/news/palestinian-authority-hamas-used-gaza-hospitals-as-detention-centers-1.269614

Haaretz, reporting the same statement on the same day as the source in question states

"After Israel stopped 23 days of aerial and ground attacks in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip last month, "Hamas unfortunately used several facilities, mainly a large number of hospitals, as stations for summons, interrogation, torture and detention," the Ramallah-based ministry said in a statement."

Neither the Haaretz report or the Ma'an news agency report is there any indication of that these practices were taking place during the conflict. I propose deleting the statement as it is not supported by the source. Dlv999 (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Looking into the sources again I can see you are right, my apologies. -- ElComandanteCheταλκ 12:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks

I saw you replied to my favicons search. Even before I start checking them, let me say you a great "thank you". I do keep up with this. I have almost 8,000 favicons now in my collection. Debresser (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome. Soon over 9000! -- ElComandanteCheταλκ 23:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How did you find them? Debresser (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5, 21, 22, and 25 are perfect matches. 10 and 19 I consider a match also, just that I can't prove it. Debresser (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Step 1: convert to png or jpeg. Step 2: Google Images "search by image" function. -- ElComandanteCheταλκ 00:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you do all of them, or should I check the other ones myself? Debresser (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I run all through google images. You may want to try another similar service. -- ElComandanteCheταλκ 00:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made .jpg images of all the favicons left. But the tineye site said the images are too small to work with. Debresser (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, ElComandanteChe. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, ElComandanteChe. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]