User talk:El C/generic sub-page

This page is 990 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size.

Image:Meow2.jpg

Hi there! Thanks for adding the image Image:Meow2.jpg. It currently doesn't have an image copyright tag, and I was hoping that you would add one as untagged images may be deleted eventually. (You can use {{gfdl}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) Thanks! --Diberri | Talk 23:45, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

I conveyed your request to the copyright owner, my cat, and he responded with: Meow2. Not Meow, not Meow1 or 3 — Meow2! I attempted to obtain further details, but was ignored (he just started licking). How would you suggest I proceed? :-] El_C

Nazism and Religion

El_C, could you also take a look at mysticism in Nazi Germany ? Thanks Andries 19:04, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Andries, please see my response in your user page's [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andries#Responding_to_the_comment_you_have_adressed_to_me_at_Talk:Nazism discussion field]. El_C

Nothing really

Hello,

You talk page has an interesting setup. Anyway, thanks for fixing "an saying" in Nothing comes from nothing. I do have one question. Why do you say it relates to the law of conservation of energy? It my experience it's generally used as an analogy for the Law of conservation of mass (e.g. matter can neither be created nor destroyed).

Thanks,

Acegikmo1 20:36, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

P.S. Does your username have anything to do with El Cid?

My talk page is mostly comprised right now of my current big project, a draft for (the ~70 year history of) the Southern Rhodesia article rewrite; though I haven't added anything to it in quite a while, the plan is to afterwards move to a rewrite the Central African Federation, and then Rhodesia article(s). Empedocles speaks of the transformation of something into something else, so the emphasis was placed on the energy rather than mass area of mass-energy. But on second thought, mass could be similarly applicable to that notion, so I retract (at least partially). Since NCFN is so unrefined in relation to both theories (and their grasp of mass-energy), perhaps the article will benefit from having both accounted for. So point taken on that front, let me know what you think of the revision. My username is only related to El Cid in that it sounds very much like it, minus the dh.

Yours sincerely,

El_C

Greetings (from) 172!

Hi,

I first ran across you work about a month ago on Efraín Ríos Montt, when you added that excellent list of recommend readings. Since then, I've been meaning to thank for elevating the research, writing, and standards of Wikipedia. After devoting so much time to the site myself, I cannot praise you enough for your acting as a force for scholarly standards and adding a wealth of content on the 'developing world', even though that is certainly not always the path of least resistance around here. Best regards, 172 08:02, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Greetings! Thank you so much, 172! I have also noticed your work quite some time ago (how could I not? I primarily write about history). Your own contributions to a great multitude of important articles are nothing less than prodigious, and of an exceptionally high quality. As well, your tireless and dedicated efforts as an Admin did not go unnoticed. You are truly a driving force in this groundbreaking encyclopedia. This is why your extremely generous praise means so much to me.

Cordially & sincerely yours,

El_C.

Thanks for the comments, though I haven't been too active lately while leaving quite a large number of unfinished articles... On that note I won't be able to keep track of the mess on Communist state. Could you please take a look at that article? A professional historian is needed there to make sure that the coverage stays relevant and on topic. Thanks, 172 01:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I will look into it, but it is a somewhat considerable project for me to commit to at this point as, at least for the immediate future, I am rather pressed for time. Also, I would like to put another dent towards the Rhodesia project — untouched for quite some time. But I'll certainly give it a cursory glance soon. All the best, El_C

Images (Copyright)

I have added a number of your pictures to Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#October_10 if you would like to explain your reasoning for using them there. A couple I listed I suspect could be used as "fair use". Rmhermen 19:19, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, Rmhermen, and welcome once again to my talk page. I am afraid that at this point I cannot expend the time — though perhaps I will revisit the discrpencies you cite in the future. El_C

European National Socialism RfD

- Please see Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/European_National_Socialism and consider voting AndyL 16:04, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi AndyL. I presume you deleted your comment here since the dispute was concluded. Though I have not read the aforementioned article, having read the VfD, I am satisfied with the outcome (we already have Nazism -and- Nazi Germany), and I support the course of action you have taken. Addendum: a brief glance (google cache), confirmed to me everything said above. Best wishes, El_C

Neocolonialism

I don't really know what that comment meant, or indeed who wrote it. Feel free to add yourself to the list of participants on WP:Bias --Xed 11:24, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please see my response in your talk page, Xed. Thanks. El_C

'White Pride'

The discussion between Sam [[htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new Spade] and myself has become increasingly lengthy. I, therefore, moved it to a newly-created User talk:El C/White Pride. El_C

Karl Marx

I give up with that page.--198 03:11, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have not been around for a few days, I will need to catch up with the discussion as well as the article's revision history prior to making any comments. I am hopeful that I will get the opportunity to do so in the near future. Thanks. El_C

From Palestine-info

Hi. Thanks for the support! I wasn't about to leave Israel, I've spent *WAY* to much time trying to correct its faults to do that. But if I had the chance to go back in time two weeks, I probably wouldn't have done the original changes which seem to have risen so much controversy. Also thank you for your original comment. I was about to reply to it when I had answered all the other points above but it took to much time. Yes I know I shouldn't mention other authors by their name and if Jayjg got pissed I'm very sorry. However, I do believe there was some truth to what I said. It's like GW Bush and John Kerrey debating and neither of them can end the debate before they both agree fully to everything. That like doesn't. Palestine-info 07:15, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hello. Certainly, I think you have made and can continue to make useful and productive contributions to the Israel et al. articles, though I will admit that your username causes me to have some (instinctive) misgivings due to its Hamas connotations, possibly (the palestine-info.org/.net/etc. domains, that is). Now that you are in my talk page, I can afford to forgo with some of the formalism that I normally feel compelled to exhibit in articles' talk pages, so on this front I should say that I am staunchly opposed to Hamas' method of waging armed struggle (it is not a people's armed struggle, it is Islamist and, as such, reactionary). It is not a progressive organization, and never was (it never sold out because it never sold in). Of course, I also oppose Israeli State Terror. My sympathies are extended towards both ordinary Israelis and Palestinians, and I value the life of each ordinary Palestinian or Israeli absolutely equally — I value the life of each ordinary human being the same: whether one is Tanzanian or Japanese or Bolivian, etc., it's all the same to me as my sympathies are with the masses, wherever. It is in virtue of this internationalism and universalism on my part (the sacredness of all human life), that I feel my role in the Israel et al. article has been to balance out both you and Jayjg. Not that I don't have my own biases, I do, these are just not as pronounced in being affiliated with either side. I oppose all injustice and I view both the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority (which I am not implying you support; nor Hamas, that is just the mental association brought by your username) as inflicting great injustice on their own (and the other's) populations. This is all, of course, not so relevant to wikipedia articles, and at the same time, it is very relevant. I find that there is a strong pro-Zionist imbalance in wikipedia, but I also find the manner in which it is challenged (it should: objectivity is key), to be often questionable. I do not wish for it to be supplumented with 'pro-Palestinian' views, but rather, supplanted with NPOV ones. This is something these articles often lack notwithstanding their quasi-NPOV. The same is true for many other articles that I contribute to though. Sorry, for the lengthy diatribe, it goes beyond the scope for which wikipedia is intended and you are, of course, under no obligation to respond to anything said above. El_C

Wheeler and fascism

Well, I wasn't putting forth a serious argument on Wheeler's talk page. I was really just trying to use his own arguments against him to make a point (actually to have some fun). AndyL 20:09, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Heh. That much I have gathered. I meant your position as stated elsewhere, also. Yes, I found it somewhat amusing as well, but I don't think he viewed it (remotely) with humour. I was not accusing you of misconduct though, not even close.

Best regards, El_C

I didn't think you were. Just thought you were accusing me of making a bad argument. AndyL 01:44, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, AndyL, I missed your above comment. For the record, I was not accusing you of making a bad argument — on the contrary, I agree with it. Best regards, El_C

Ludo Martens

Hi, Comrade,

Thanks for your message. It's reassuring to see someone else here, in this cesspool of right-wing bias, who thinks that Martens's book on Stalin should be treated seriously, not dismissed out of hand for differing from the received Western "wisdom". I have found it to be the best work on the subject. As you know, Martens is a serious historian who specialises in sub-Saharan Africa. The red-baiters here who conclude without reading him that he is a propagandist for Stalin are, as usual, off the beam.

Thanks also for your contributions to Collectivism and various other articles, which are of uniformly high quality.

Shorne 12:28, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Comrade, and allow me to extend the same sentiments. As you know (I saw you correct some sp. errors), I am the (sole) author of The Destruction of the European Jews article, and on that note, it is very pertinent to observe how long it took to compile the records. The argument that we cannot make (similar) approximations with respect to the USSR — more specifically than the tens of millions — is not longer tenable. The records have been released and they are not as difficult to demystify. It is an insult to the historical profession and the social sciences that we are still without an authoritative, scientific account, and that people such as Solzhenitsyn are allowed to inflate the tentative figures themsleves ten-fold and still be taken seriously. El_C

I agree, Comrade. If I had a fat grant, I'd travel to Moscow myself and do the research. Unfortunately, I expect that it will be some time to come before this work is done. There's no money to be made from a scientific account of the Stalinist era, so one probably won't be written any time soon. There is, however, money to be made from propaganda that villainizes Stalin and blames him for fictitious millions of deaths.

I appreciate your article The Destruction of the European Jews. I hadn't been aware that Arendt, who built her career on labelling communism "totalitarian", had tried to suppress the book. I guess I'm not surprised.

By the way, thanks for deleting that rubbishy message from my talk page. Shorne 09:48, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is crucial to note, Comrade, that the supression is not only limited to the right, but is just as vehement within the left and those who consider themselves Marxist-Leninist — most of all, the Trotskyites, for whom it is ideologically central. Now, I respect the work done by many Trotskyites — I highly recommend Alan Woods and Ted Grant's [htp://www.marxist.com/rircontents.asp Reason in Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science] (the book, dedicated to the Marxist Nobel Prize winner phyicist and founder of Plasma cosmology, Hannes Alfven, to which the authors were assitants) — but I consider their position on this front to be dogmatism par excellence. So, I do not expect to see Ludo Martens works featured in marxists.org, for ex., any time soon. El_C

Well said, Comrade. I agree with every word. The Trotskyites are, if anything, more pernicious than the right-wingers, for they lend "left"-wing credibility to the anti-Stalinist orthodoxy that claims (I think this is the latest estimate) 724.34819374892 septillion deaths caused by Stalin. Of course Stalin made mistakes, like any other leader, and of course he ought to be criticised for them—but fairly and scientifically, not merely because he was ideologically unpalatable to capitalists and many self-styled Marxists. It is indeed extremely dogmatic and, I might add, opportunistic of Trotskyists and others supposedly on the left to embrace the lies of Solzhenitsyn, Conquest et Cie. and even to outdo these scoundrels in shrill accusations of "mass murder" and the like. They need to read a book on materialism. Placing subjective theory ahead of objective reality may be good Christianity, but it is lousy Marxism.

By the way, thanks for the reference. I'll have a look at that book when I get a chance. Shorne 22:50, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Image:BAHA-apartheid-signage.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BAHA-apartheid-signage.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 15:58, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

I am emberassed to say that I do not remember. I will try to attend to it when I get a chance, but very recently I got a new machine, so I am afraid that is my (rather lame) excuse for the disarray on that front. My apologies. Regards, El_C

Who's calling whom names now?

Thanks for trying to avert a cataclysm at user talk:Xed. I wish I had never alluded to the idea that "not all Muslims are terrorists, however, sadly we say that the majority of terrorists in the world are Muslims." ([htp://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/1941.cfm Abd al-Rahman al-Rashid]) --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 17:16, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

It is my pleasure. While I do not shy from conflict (and at the same time, nor do I seek it), I take exceptional delight in diffusing conflict when it is unncessary. As for the definition, I did say I disagreed with you, but that had more to do with the conventional notions of terrorism. If we are to use this narrow definition, then I actually agree with you. But are paramilitary deathsquads in the Democratic Republic of Congo (esp. their genocide of the Pygmies) be defined as terrorist? I argue that yes. What about Maoist rebels in Nepal? I argue that no. I view terrorists most of all as particularly targetting (unarmed) civilian viz. (armed) military targets, so for me, this is their most prominent charactaristic. Regards, El_C

Our discourse is over, 198

I will revert until Doomsday.--198 05:48, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I refuse to engage in discourse with sophomoric trolls. Please do not address me in the future, especially in my talk page. You have earned my contempt, El_C

I will revert until Doomsday.--198 05:48, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That is, the Ultimate fate of the Universe, if you don't subscribe to religious dogma. Keep on keepin' on, El C. Timbo

Roger that. El_C

You might want to start Wikipedia:Requests for comment/198. Just a thought. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment for info. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 14:06, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I will certainly consider doing so if the circumstances warrant this. Nevertheless, this can only happen once 198 decides — for the very first time — to explain why he is in favour of the addition both 172 and myself object to. Then and only then can such a process be considered sound. El_C

In view of the intransigence of 198, you may wish to go straight to mediation. I must warn you that the administration is dreadfully slow (not to mention biased), so don't expect to see any action for a couple of months. But you may as well start your complaint right away, since anyone with the hardihood to aver that he "will revert until Doomsday" is most unlikely to turn into a human being without an administrative boot judiciously applied. Shorne 17:12, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely, I am confident that the mediators and/or arbitrators will side in favour of 172 and myself on this dispute. As his obstrcution continues to shift closer towards vandalism, this will reflect very poorly on him. It already does. El_C

Trying to avoid endless conflict: On the KM page, first paragraph: would you object to ending it with a paranthetical (see also Marxism)? My point is that the phrase "so-called" is inappropriate, but there is no harm in having a link to another article. Might this be a succesfull compromise? If you think so, I suggest you try it out and ask that other number-guy to be satisfied with it as a compromise. Slrubenstein

The conflict will not be endless, I am confident it will prove short-lived no matter how many (procedural and otherwise) channels we may end up exhausting. I am unwilling to compromise with accuracy without, at the very least, seeing an argument being posed for it. No one has anwered why we need another synonym to confuse the reader with in the op. sentence: Marx is most well known for Communist theory, so this is what we mention — Marxist/ Scientific Socialist/ Dialectical Materialist/ Historical Materialist/ etc., are all inappropriate to mention at that stage of the article. I am concerned with clarity and I refuse to allow it to be obsctructed by the intellectual peculairities of un-responsive editors. What makes 198 so special that his additions are somehow beyond reproach and outside normal discussion. At any event, it will set a terrible precedence to reward misconduct with comrpomise, so I strongly object to a comrpomise on these grounds alone. I have expended efforts into explaining my position to the other editors, if he refuses to do the same then he is forfeiting his argument. El_C

I agree completely. It is entirely inappropriate to talk about compromise when one side does not even engage in discussion. Tactics such as those of 198 and VeryVerily must not be tolerated; the site would degenerate into chaos if they were much more widely practised. No "compromise" with 198 (as if any were possible) will get my support at this time. Shorne 05:28, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

recent edit summary on Racism page

I'm puzzled by your prolix comment in the edit summary. All you really did, as far as I can see, is change the way a dash or two was indicated. But your edit summary made it look like the act of the Simbian Revolutionary Front or something. Why? There is enough senseless conflict around here without faking more of it. Grumpily yours, P0M 04:02, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I wanted to see how it would feel to be an obstructionist, but I just could not carry it through. So now that I know my own limitations on this front, cheer up, it's in the past and will not reoccur. Whimsically yours and in mild amusement, El_C

Ludo Martens article

Fraternal greetings, Comrade,

I've started an article Ludo Martens. Please feel free to edit it. At least keep an eye on it if you can; I'm sure the acolytes of Goebbels and J Edgar Hoover will be around any minute to ruin it.

Venceremos, Shorne 17:48, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dear Comrade,

I commend you for the new article on Ludo Martens. At this point, I do not think the 'critics' have much to work with — this because they would actually need to first do some serious research (as opposed to the anectodal, primary kind), as to his works, his own critics, etc. I have taken the liberty to change the format of the works by him listed in the article, primarily Anglicanizing the titles. Yours, El_C

Reply to Question Re: Hegel

I have no quarrel with the archiving of my material on the Karl Marx talk page. I won't be making any more changes in the article proper until I have a chance to do some necessary spade work -- and that (as always) is contingent upon events in the rest of my life. I added my recent derogation of Lenin's grasp of empirio-criticism in a mischevious spirit, I admit. It wasn't meant to signal new article changes. (I might put something to that effect in Lenin's article, but that's another matter!) --Christofurio 16:35, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC) By the way -- vast as our differences of POV appear to be, we have some things in common. We share an interest in fractals and chaos theory. I use the Mandelbrot set as my computer wallpaper. --Christofurio 16:42, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Nice! I just let me machine work overnight on 130-zoom fractal movie of the Mandelbrot set using a programme called [htp://www.cygnus-software.com/ Fractal eXtreme] and all I have to say is wow – it would have taken me days to do with my old machine. Would you know of any other similar programmes that are worthwhile? I am fascinated by Chaos Theory, Complexity theory, Fractal geometry, etc., I only wish I had more background in advanced mathematics so that I could better understand the science behidnd these. Yes, I did not think your comments meant anything which pertains to the article, but merely a discussion of philosophy – but it appears I needed to make that clear to some people (who I am inclined to think did not read our aforementioend discussion closely) since it was suspected that I had some sort of agenda by archiving which is entirely false. As an aside, the full title for Lenin's work is, in fact, Materialism and Empirio-criticism: Critical comments on a reactionary philosophy, and it is a 400-page book, not an essay. El_C

Date on Oubangui-Chari map?

Say, do you know the date of the map at Image:Oubangui-Chari.jpg? It has some interesting differences with The Stamp Atlas, which I use for philatelic geography and is supposedly authoritative, but is giving me doubts - for instance it mentions a "Fort Possel", while your map clearly shows it as "Fort de Rossel". Also seems odd that Bangui is not shown. Stan 18:50, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am afraid don't recall, and the information is not available to me at the momemnt (I got an entirely new machine and was not yet able to retrieve everything successfully). That is really odd, I don't know how to account for this. I wish I could be of more help, but in fact, I am not that familliar with the colony's history, I only contributed to the article because at the time it was a pitiful [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Oubangui-Chari&diff=5225693&oldid=5134236 substub.]So, by all means, feel free to remove it if you feel its accuracy is not up to par. El_C

Contemporary maps are often revealing in interesting ways, and I've caught the stamp atlas in mistakes before, so all kinds of possible explanations, too soon to conclude anything. In researching things for WP, I've frequently run across garbled secondary sources (see Matryoshka doll for a recent victory in sorting out conflicting stories). I'm sure there's an account of French colonial Africa that clears all this up, even the smallish UNLV library has multiple books. (I'm falling behind! - finished Mervyn Brown's Madagascar book weeks ago, but have yet to make use of it...) Stan 21:37, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sir Mervyn Brown's A History of Madagaskar, I have heard of it but have yet to read it. How did you find it? As for your first comment, that's interesting, and yes, I agree, it likely can be made explicable without too extensive a reserach. El_C

I liked it! Seemed at its best in the initial dealings with the Europeans - one can feel the kingdom just a hair's-breadth away from survival a la Thailand - but I found it somewhat more wooden for recent years, as if maybe trying too hard not to offend anyone. Stan 07:09, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, he is Chairman of the Anglo-Malagasy Society (not to mention former British Ambassador), I'm sure he had to be accordingly diplomatic – which perhaps why you were most fond of the initial (i.e. least controversial) parts. The book certainly seems to have set a precedence for (an holistic) English-language history of the island. I am looking forward to reading it at some point; in the context of Africa, that island has a fascinating and unique history. Thanks for reminding me of it, I am encouraged to learn that you found it worthwhile. El_C

Hi! Thanks for uploading Image:Oubangui-Chari.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, Edwinstearns 21:06, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I responded to your comment [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Edwinstearns here]. El_C

For what it's worth, it's "Fort de Possel". The map may be in error or it may just be an unhelpful stray river. — LlywelynII 10:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It had nothing to do with being off topic.

I as relaxed as anybody about occasional strays off topic, on the article discussion pages, they are part of community building. What I object to is you two holding a discussion in public on the discussion page, and then once you are done taking it to a more isolated place prematurely, just because you two are done. If you wanted it to be private, and not retain it as part of the recent culture of the article, you should have discussed it on your talk pages, people respect each users right to control the contents there, but discussions in the public wiki area, should remain public until they have naturally gone stale.--Silverback 01:25, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Considering the actual situation, I find that to be a fairly nonesensical claim, and your continued assumptions as to my motives, preplexing. People had a chance to respond to that lengthy discussion, and no one did throughout. It provoked less interest (only myself and him), so I chose to archive it over the Hegelian Dialectic section which had many people involved. I continue to take exception to your insinuations. It dosen't matter, I think I can accomodate you easily enough. El_C

Images

Hello. I replied to your question about image uses on User talk:Infrogmation. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 17:01, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks for taking the time. Regards, El_C

Images querry, revisited

Hi. I responded to your question on my own talk page. Did the removal of images take you by surprise? Hm, notifying users on their talk page about listing on Wikipedia:Copyright problems is not official policy; perhaps it should be. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 22:13, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Apperently not noted closely enough on my part. Responded [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Infrogmation#Images_querry.2C_revisited here]. El_C

Zimbabwe

Warm greetings, Comrade,

I was unable to find your material on the Land Apportionment Act in "Rhodesia". Would you mind pointing me to the right article?

On another note, I have essentially stopped editing articles on Wikipedia, as it is simply impossible to accomplish much under the corrupt (mal)administration that exists. See, for example, Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily.

Thanks, Shorne 20:32, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dear Comrade,

I sectioned (previously only large fonts) the LAA section in my SR draft for easier linking – it is available [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:El_C/Southern_Rhodesia#Land_Apportionment_Act here]. Yes, I have gathered and I have been attempting to follow that RfA, but what a convoluted mess. I am in the midst of preparing a response for it on your talk page, though note that is is based on a very curosry overview. Anything I can do to help, don't hesitate to ask. I urge you though to exhibit utmost restraint so as to not defeat your own case. Yours always, El_C

Dear Comrade,

Thanks for the link to your article. Why not simply publish it in the main article on Southern "Rhodesia"? It's too good to leave in a place where people can't find it. By the way, sorry for making a few small corrections; I couldn't resist. I have a bad case of cacoëthes corrigendi.

Thanks also for your comments on this case before the "arbitrators". (How dare they call themselves "arbitrators" when they refuse even to speak to the people involved in a case?) I'm aware that my aggressive pointing up of their shameful behaviour did nothing to endear me to them. If I defeat my own case, so be it. The kangaroo court and those who make it possible have already ruined the site and made it all but impossible to achieve anything resembling a fair article on a political subject. Pointing out the fatal flaws in Wikipedia is probably the best thing that I can do at this point. Let them ban me. It'll be their problem, not mine.

Yours, Shorne 22:38, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, I need you here, Comrade! To start with, whom else will I be able to call Comrade? I have not met a single-person here besides you that qualifies. I will be very saddned to see you go and it is something I very much wish to prevent. Please, remember that it is, has, and always will be a double-standard based on class aliegences, and that we who politically align ourselves with the toiling masses of the world are on the wrong end of the barrel. This is why, for us, intellectual honesty is so paramount, for our own credibility. Don't get upset over procedural (and otherwise) injustices – rather, expect and predict these (you do not need to be a prophet for this). But all that said, we must give everyone the benefit of the doubt – inspite of everything, wait till the Committee submits its conclusions, it is senseless to anatagonize them in the interim (though protesting any discapencies you encounter is, of course, desirable; but not in this manner). I assure you that if I find their conclusions to be grossly unfair, I will take every measure available, even resigning in protest. Cacoëthes loquendi-ly yours, El_C

Shorne,

I totally concur with the statements by El C above. Please reconsider your decision to stop editing articles on Wikipedia. There are still a number of general users and admins, including Slrubenstein, AndyL, Mirv, Everyking, Mihnea, et al., who may not be willing to get involved in the arbitration case, but will defend your edits based on the merits of the evidence and arguments. It's still worth the fight. Please don't go. Regards, 172 00:34, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As I predicted, they are proceeding to ban me without even pretending to take into account the reams of evidence that I have presented or my arguments against their corrupt practices: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Proposed decision, Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Proposed decision. The administration is thoroughly and manifestly corrupt and biased. I'm afraid it is not worth the fight, 172, any more than it's worth the fight to discuss anything rationally with the Ku Klux Klan, the Nazis, or the Christians. Shorne 18:49, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards

I have drafted a proposal for a new voluntary association on Wikipedia (joining groups like the Wikipedia:The Business and Economics Forum and the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club) to promote discussion of a sort of system of expert review on Wiki. Please take a look and add your ideas. 172 02:49, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I will, it sounds interesting. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, 172.

Cordially & sincerely yours,

El_C

Note

I'm afraid we haven't met or collaborated, but I'd just like to note that I was impressed by the advice you gave Shorne. I fear that I may be one of those reactionaries you describe (at least by your standards), but we reactionaries have feelings too, and I would find it much easier to work with Shorne, despite our obvious ideological divide, if he didn't treat me as some kind of blackguard fool. I hope to see you over at Wikipedia:Forum_for_Encyclopedic_Standards, we could use your voice. Best, Mackensen (talk) 02:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've already apologised for the offence caused by my tone, which, I admit, is sometimes acerbic. I'd find it much easier to talk with you if you didn't come bounding in with a less-than-original generality about capitalism and communism and expect me to regard it as something novel that I had not considered before. Shorne 03:08, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Frankly, I can't say I find your arguments original either. If I sound like everyone else, that might be because my point-of-view is widely shared, and you're in the sound minority. I added my voice because I felt compelled too (and given all the abuse I've gained for my trouble, sometimes I wish I hadn't). I accept your apology in this case, but on the understanding that in the future our conversation will be marked by civility of tone, on both sides. Best, Mackensen (talk) 03:18, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Internationally I'm in the majority. Sure, I'm in a tiny minority in decadent imperialist countries that go around invading the Third World and voting for Bush and Blair, but that's as it should be. I couldn't live with myself if I were in the majority in those countries. Perish the thought! Anyway, I'm in many a minority. So what? Capitalists were a small minority until recent times; in the southeastern US, they were a distinct minority less than 150 years ago. Shorne 03:33, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Mackensen, for the kind words. It is always appreciated and gratifying to see one's efforts acknowleged. All of us should, of course, aim for collegial polemics. We largely already know the position of the various political doctrines out there with respect to important theoretical questions. And while each of us, inexorably, project our own biases, I believe we all have the capacity for objective analyses and syntheses; we all attempt to follow a logical, rational, scientific, etc., mode of thought. That is, then, my ultimate modus operandi here.

All the best, El_C

See User talk:El C/Racialism

Sorry, I really am. Goodbye. Sam Spade 00:22, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I see..., I think. So long.

No, I don't see. Please do not vandalize Racialism. This reflects poorly on you as a candidate for the ArbCom. If you persist, I will consider other channels. El_C

cultural and historical context of Jesus

I'd appreciate your help. Cultural and historical background of Jesus This page was recently unprotected. FT2 revised it, then I revised it considerably, mostly adding information. CheeseDreams just reverted it and threatens to revert any work I do. Please compare my version to the previous one (FT2) and comment. Thanks Slrubenstein

I have compared the two versions, Slrubenstein, and I found your version to be clearly (and markedly) superior, and this is what I noted in the article's talk page. Any additional help you might requiere, by all means, do not hesitate to ask.

Cordially & sincerely yours, El_C

Thank you. I appreciate your judgement in general. I especially appreciate your attention, given the problems I have had with CheeseDreams (and so far, there is no mediator, alas), Slrubenstein

It is my pleasure. Your work in the Encylopedia is considerable (understatement) and of consistently high-quality, so I value very much your kind words. El_C

Removing your opposition of me

I'm not sure if I should put this here or on the sub page above - but if I did that you wouldn't get the new messages note, so I plumped for here. Anyway I just wanted to say thank you, I appreciate your gesture very much. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 08:52, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are most welcome, Theresa knott. I should have done so sooner, but I overlooked that section of the discussion. Well, better late than never. El_C

Thoughts and sentiments

Thanks for your comments! I actually used those two books you mentioned as my sources. I hope you come back to contribute. Danny 00:55, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is my pleasure, Danny. The Carretta compilation, encompassing both works, is undoubtedly the best and most recent of its kind, and should prove most useful to the reader and prsopective researcher. Keep up the good work! El_C

From Herschelkrustofsky, Re: Neocolonialism

I cannot provide you with references as to the Soviet Union being accused of neo-colonialism, as distinct from imperialism. In my mind, the two concepts are synonymous. Feel free to revert that edit; I was mainly trying to correct a POV problem, the suggestion that neocolonialism is a merely construct by which leftists criticize capitalism.

With regard to Mr. Adam Carr, he is probably the most brazen POV editor that I have encountered at Wikipedia, and I would not take his criticisms or personal attacks too seriously. I believe that he actually may support neocolonialism, possibly seeing it as a divine right of Anglo-Saxons. In his edits of this article, of course, he tried to depict it as a myth. -- Herschelkrustofsky 07:53, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I hope you will approve of my new edits to the article. I would enjoy hearing from you a relatively concise explication of the distinction between Imperialism and Neocolonialism. In my view, the modern paradigm for both would be the British and Dutch East India Companies, which were private cartels, but could call upon the military resources of Britain or Holland if necessary. That seems to be the model for latter-day practice. BTW, are you aware of the new book by John Perkins, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man? --H.K. 21:54, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I support LaRouche, but that is not my "sole or primary purpose in editing Wikipedia." As stated upon my user page, I have taken it upon myself to combat demonization of LaRouche and other targets of the Anglo-American press cartels. SlimVirgin opposes LaRouche, but denies that he opposes LaRouche. Why do you suppose that is? As far as the Ralph Gibbons business, that is a rather desperate and disingenuous tactic in SlimVirgin's POV warfare.
Sorry, I will have to revisit all of this (the Neo_C article and Carr dispute) later as I am simply too busy at the moment. El_C

Charges against A. Carr are unacceptable, argues Slim

That attack on Adam Carr cannot be allowed to stand. Herschelkrustofsky is a self-confessed activist on behalf of the Lyndon LaRouche organization, which is widely regarded as a fascist cult. His sole or primary purpose in editing Wikipedia is to insert propaganda that he deems favorable to LaRouche. He posts elsewhere as Ralph Gibbons. You can read some of Gibbons' posts here [htp://groups.google.ca/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22ralph+gibbons%22+larouche&btnG=Search] Slim 22:33, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate you bringing this to my attention as I have just now asked him whether he would like to engage in further discussion. I find the allegation you make troubling, and I will certainly look at the evidence you submitted here as well as ask Herschelkrustofsky for a response on this. But not now as I am writing in haste. I will say, though, sir, in the most polite terms, I have a rather negative impression of you viz. your involvement in the Racialism article and recent changes to it by Sam Spade; one which I view at best, as complacency, and at worse, complicity. This is why, I will be honest, I take your comment here with some measure of skepticism, more so I would others'; which is not to say that I do not take it seriously. And I do thank you for your comment. El_C

I had no involvement in the article on Racialism, except to make some minor copy edits, and to respond to a Request for Comment from Sam Spade, at which point I offered the opinion that I had not been involved in the debate and therefore felt unable to comment, but that I felt it was hard to distinguish racism from racialism. There ended my involvement with that page. I did not offer the information about Herschelkrustofsky in order to dissuade you from debating with him -- debate away -- but in order to place in context his criticisms of Adam Carr. Dr. Carr is a good editor, the sort that Wikipedia needs to keep, not alienate, in my view. I just wanted to clarify that. I won't take up any more of your time. Slim 23:39, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough, yes, and articulately stated. I suppose what I am attempting to get accross was that I expected your involvement – at that point in time of the dispute – to entail a certain commitment, or not to take place at all. But that is just my own expectation, it is not formal policy. As well, you remained silent when Sam Spade tactically archived material twice in one day without consensus; and you made no comments on the two version with respects to grammar, logical flow, NPOV, etc. Perhaps you never ventured that far or did not notice those things, but that, again, bring up my expectation of editorial commeitment, which is to say, being one of two other editors to make comments during the dispute (I find the other one's approach lacking, too; though also had good points). But in all fairness to you, though not to actually negate anything I said above, I was the one who pulled out the article (for reasons not related to it by any means), and I bear a lot of the responsibility for its current sorry state, as well. Don't worry about my time, you made time for me. To reiterate, I give your thoughts above due weight, based on how you have chosen to conduct yourself here, creditably so.

As for Mr. Carr, yes, he is responsible, as I said elsewehere, to a staggering volume of contributions, and I will add, a great many of which I consider productive, and these are most certainly to his credit. But, significantly, I maintain to his discredit, also many that I do not find up to par with respect to balance, accuracy, etc. (as for the actual writing, yes it tends to be decent, but that is to be expected from any academician). The same goes for his conduct and inter-editorial interactions. So, as for 'alienating' Mr. Carr, and as an historian who also feels highly alienated, such is not my intention, though I am sticking to these aforementioned criticisms of him on my part here (and elsewhere). H. Krustofsky's comment on Mr. Carr, which I should add does strike me as quite inflammatory, is based on his experience (again, my own experience with Mr. Carr and my own experience seeing him interact with others, was far too brief, is far too limited for me to make such sweeping statements – of him being not only a brazen pov warrior but also, of that kind, is indeed quite the indictment). Therefore, time will tell whether I will allow it to stand as such, or take H. Krustofsky to task over it. And the same goes if another editor comes along as states that 'Hey-hey! SlimVirgin's attack of H. Krustofsky cannot stand,' etc.

Again, I am, foremost, professing ignorance; I will have to familliarize myself with the facts (see? Now I'm committed, not to a mental institution, hopefuly!), though I am rather pressed for time, as always, so it may take me some time.

Thanks again, sir, for yours.

El_C

Just a brief reply: to be honest, I agree with you about my response to the Racialism page. I stumbled on it, did a quick copy edit, then realized it needed a lot of work, a huge time commitment, and that I didn't understand what its thesis was. I'm not sure the authors made a convincing argument that the words "racism" and "racialism" have different meanings. Because I had done a quick copy edit, when a dispute arose, I was asked to comment, and so I made a brief comment, not wanting to commit myself to having to re-write the article, or possibly even argue that it shouldn't be an article. So yes, you are right, I wandered in, then wandered off again, and for that I apologize.

I must also say how much I love your photographs. They gladden the eye. Slim 02:35, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Apology accepted, gladly. I really do appreciate the honest introspection on your part; it reflects well on you. And allow me to also say how pleased I am to find that I have misjudged you, I no longer have a negative impression of you – it has now been supplanted by a positive one. It is these sorts of responses, it is this sort of self-critical approach which really helps restore my faith in the encylopedia (but I won't go too far, it does not nearly happen as often as I would like). So, thank you for that. I am also pleased you are fond of the pictures I selected.

Cordially & sincerely yours,

El_C

help?

Hey, I could really use your help. I ma running into major edit conflicts with Stirling Newberry at three articles: Postmodernism, Postmodernity, and Political economy. My changes in each article are to the introduction. I believe my versions are more accurate, NPOV, and sourced. He simply reverts anything I have done. I also find it hard to communicate with him. I know this is a lot to ask but I'd appreciate it if you could look at the edit histories from the past two days, compare my version of the intro to his, and also look at the talk pages and make any comment you feel justified. (actually, he seems to have relented somewhat in the postmodernity article) Thanks, Slrubenstein 17:35, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Greetings, I really wish to be of (some appreciable) help, but I am currently abstaining from all article contributions (this includes article talk pages) and that has been my modus operendi here for several weeks now. I am undecided at the moment whether to reverse this or kick it into high gear (an indefinite suspension from all WP activities and protection of my user pages). I will gladly look at the material (though the response will be limited to user talk pages, or other channels such as Peer Review, RfC, etc.); however, it will have to be after the weekend as I have been commissioned to write an article on Côte d’Ivory (which my abysmal grasp of French is making all the more difficult), and this is seemingly absorbing all the energy I can expend at the moment on such fronts. All the best, El_C

Revisited

The person I have had problems with is for the moment inactive. I'll contact you again if I feel I still need help. And 198 -- sheesh! Slrubenstein 04:01, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good luck to you, on both fronts. El_C 04:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Interesting

There is a request for arbitration against Slrubenstein for exactly this sort of behaviour. I might add this instance to it as well. CheeseDreams 21:21, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not following you. What sort of behaviour are you refering to? And which RfA? El_C

Lady Tara

Please, if you see her make another personal attack like that, I would like you to let me know with the diff because I'm going to block her for a week if I see it again. I have absolutely no time for personal attacks that inflame situations and cause problems on Wikipedia. And User:Lady Tara has been warned. There are no more warnings. Next time I block. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:10, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sure, though I should note that this was the first time I encountered said user, and also, to my knowledge, I am univolved with –and unsured of– as per the respective dispute(s). Perhaps CD (or someone else) can better enlighten me. With respect to CD, I found the comment s/he left on my talk page to be rather cyrptic; honestly, I don't have the time to sift through diffs and read whole talk pages to find what my alleged role is supposed to represent in this respect. And not to mention, the principal theoretical principles that (both?) sides contest. El_C

CD has been involved in quite a bit of controversial editing. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/CheeseDreams. However, Lady Tara has inflamed the situation. I figured that you've been watching what was going on here, if not then it's cool. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:02, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It better be cool, because not it has been. I have only been watching somewhat since yesterday, following CD's aforementioned cryptic comment (when that page was added to my watchlist), one which s/he has thus far chosen not to address. El_C

Self-suspension from article contributions

In sympathy with Comrade Shorne's seemingly-sealed predicament, I am suspending myself from all article contributions until further notice. Out. El_C

2005 Addendum

I am hereby lifting total self-suspension. I feel uneasy that my original (Aug) Rhodesia series has been long overdue. Henceforth, I will begin contributing to Rhodesia-related articles only. Namely, continuing with writing the current draft (or additional one) for the rewrite(s); acquainting myself with the existing articles and its forumaltion/ediotrial histories, and seeing how best these can be combined/integrated. As always, I welcome and encourage feedback on all these fronts (esp. the draft/s). Slightly in. El_C 02:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now also continuing work on The Destruction of the European Jews. El_C

Article Licensing

Moved to User talk:El C/Article Licensing. El_C

Oubangui-Chari map again

You may be amused by the results of my investigation, recorded at Image talk:Oubangui-Chari.jpg. Who needs state archives when you've got ephemera collectors! :-) Stan 17:54, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That is hysterical! I certainly did not expect the source to be that (of all things). Well done, Stan, I really appreciate your efforts (and the good chuckle!). El_C

Aprt-YStar.JPG

Dear sir(?), I am wondering whether you still have the original photograph used in the abovementioned collage on the left-hand side? I am wishing to translate the English 'apartheid' article into Afrikaans (which the lower half of the sign just visible is written in), and it would be most wonderful if I could use the whole sign. Thank you for your time and consideration. Dewet 15:08, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hello sir/madam, [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dewet#Here_you_go here you go]. I wish you a productive and engaging translation.

Regards,

El_C 10:23, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Again, my heartfelt thanks! I am indeed in Cape Town, but haven't yet expended the energy to visit said District Six museum. You have, however, provided the inspiration needed to do just that! Dewet 11:09, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I never let you know, but I corrected the perspective and lighting somewhat on that picture, and uploaded it to both the commons and en.wp; I hope that is OK... Thanks again!

With regards to your query on Sir Godfrey Martin Huggins, I'm unable to help; I've consulted my sources, but cannot find a picture reference. Sorry! Dewet 09:03, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I understand, t'was worth a shot. I will find a picture of him yet, mark my words! El_C

Smiling

Just a quick note, El C, to say how much I enjoy your posts when I see them. I've just spotted your entry in an edit history "I'm disendorsing Raul & Blankfaze's disendorsments, though not negating the negation," which I got a lot of pleasure from, and I have fond memories of a correction you made to one editor's angry insult of another (I paraphrase), "in hopes of seeing gramatically correct personal attacks." That one still brings a smile to my face. :-) Slim 14:12, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Slim, for the very kind words! I think the reason I'm still here, despite all the ideological constraints I percieve (and protests thereof), is that there are, nonetheless, interesting, engaging people (and note that I have a fairly short attention span and get bored very easily) here editing the eyncyclopedia, irrespective of ideology. You can count yourself among these. In the few months I have been contributing to WP, I have gotten some very enocuraging feedback from several reputable editors (such as yourself), and I just wanted to note, in this extension, that I greatly value these responses and it is, in fact, a pivotal reason as to why I am still here. Thanks again! Cordially & sincerely yours, El_C

172's courageous ArbCom candidacy

It took a lot of courage for you to run under the current political climate, 172. A belated thanks! I just saw the message. I must've overlooked it earlier. It was more foolishness than courage, though... 172 04:26, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Heh, perhaps. Either way, I view it as a highly creditable effort on your part and I sympathize with what, in turn, you had to endure from certain opponents. El_C

Apocalypse

I appreciate the note, I will look into it more. I think more than anything else it reveals how cosmopolitan Hellenistic Near East was, Slrubenstein 17:57, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My pleasure. I hope it proves useful. El_C

Happy New Year to you

I hope 2005's a good one for you, El C! All the best, Slim 03:51, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Slim! I hope it turns out to be a good one for you, too! Best regards, El_C

Fair and Balanced

Thanks for the humorous anecdote. I needed it... After all, this should be a humorous affair. My work on Russia, such as on History of post-Soviet Russia is consistently loaded with citations from leading Western think-tanks dominated by neoliberals and/or neoconservatives, such as the Carnegie Center, Jamestown Foundation, and Brookings. I refer to notable Cold Warriors like Paul Gregory and Anders ?slund. Shorne and Ruy Lopez should be the ones forcing me to abide by NPOV! They should be ones challenging my sources! But judging by my experiences over the past two years, I suspect that Libertas will convince a number of users that I 'exclusively use Marxist sources' (as if he even understands the role of Marxism in academia). The most active, vocal, and vitriolic on Wikipedia are the ones heard in the end... I don't know how long I can deal with this. I'm rapidly losing patience for this project. Happy New Year. 172 12:01, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Happy New Year! You have my sympathies for being forced to endure such brutish and crude (and humorless) neoliberal political agitation, with all the personal attacks which such a campaign always entails. From the left, we have lost Shorne, it seems; and now from the moderate left, we face losing you. Make no mistakes though, driving you out is exactly what these agitators wish for – not only that, they will prey on the moderate right, also. Their aim is to have their POV dominanting (they are largely successful) for a Fair and Balanced WP. El_C 

 
 Father forgive us for we have sinned
 we traded our soul for just a little powedered gold
 just one of many sins
 we stood by and let the wicked and the greedy win
 we enslaved women
 we cut the forests of millions
 we imprisoned the free in cages
 slaughtered the animals
 Daddy we killed the world some more
 for my selfishness and greed
 cannibal

User:GrazingshipIV

All of my interactions with GrazingshipIV were favorable, perhaps leaving me biased. But I try to judge users and act as an admin on a case-by-case basis. I favor cutting slack to users of all stripes that are knowledgeable and contribute factual content. For example, I stated support for TDC a few times. [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/TDC] During the Arbcom race, I also spoke out against sanctions against both VeryVerily and Shorne. So I don't know if it's fair to call me an inclusionist of the left. 172 16:55, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I wasn't questioning that aspect, actually. I did not, in fact, intended on employing the term 'inclusionist' beyond that (aforementioned) type of interaction, but I should have better qualified this. I responded on User talk:GrazingshipIV, I hope it helps to better elucidate my point. Cordially & sincerely yours, El_C

Voting in progress

Please express your opinion at Talk:Israeli violence against Palestinian children#Article title (poll). Thanks. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:38, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Done. What a saga, sheesh. Thank you for informing me of this vote, likely I would have missed it otherwise. Regards, El_C 23:57, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Great, because I hesitated to bother many people. You may want to include WP:RFC, WP:CS, WP:CFD, WP:VFD, WP:RM into your watchlist. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 04:57, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked your response. Feel free to 'bother' me anytime, though I am afraid my watchlist is cluttered as it is and adding these items to it might overload some circuits in my fragile mind. Regards, El_C 12:17, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why was "violence against" dropped?

We've had long discussions, and (I thought) reached consensus. "Violence against" inherently means "intentional", which is highly POV and needs proof. When 95% of Palestinian fatalities are male but the article focuses on children, it smells like old blood libel. BTW, I also moved Palestinian violence against Israeli children. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 11:32, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the really prompt response, Humus sapiens. I applaud the merger (I have for long argued for it), and am pleased to see it take place. I responded with greater detail on your user talk page. El_C 12:10, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The missing U

Thanks for the tip about the "u" in the e-mail address, El C. I had, in fact, already sent it, but it seemed to arrive, albeit u-less. They must have some sort of redirect arrangement so that those spelling Ohio correctly are redirected to the ones in charge, who refuse to do likewise. Hope you are wellu. Best, SlimVirgin 06:11, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Heh, you made me chuckle, you! All the best, El_C 08:00, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Names of God

RE: your comments in Peer Review for Names of God in Judaism.

Thank you for the comments. Feel free to come around and do some edits as per your comments. Just please keep the Ref and Biblio separated as it is customary (Refs are that: referred in the article, Biblio is generic stuff that is supportive of the text.) --Zappaz 06:03, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's my pleasure, Zappaz, I hope it proves useful. Sorry, writing in haste. I'll return with more substantive thoughts soon. Thanks. El_C 12:31, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppets are requested not to get above themselves

El C, your bitterness at being named as 172's sockpuppet, as opposed to 172 being named as yours, is most unbecoming. Your chance to control a sockpuppet of your own will come one day soon, I am sure, when others judge you worthy of it. In the meantime, a little humility would be most appreciated. I thank you. SlimVirgin 23:04, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Wise, balanced and most unironic words from one of –my– sockpuppets! (I'm not schizophrenic, and neither am I! Nor am I paranoid, it's just that everybody's out to get me!). Cordially & sincerely yours, El_C 00:51, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you want me as a sockpuppet you can have me, but I will get you into lots of trouble. :-) SlimVirgin 01:04, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'm out for consultations (with myself!) :p El_C 01:59, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Conflict

I am afraid I don't understand your question on my talk page! Slrubenstein 18:06, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, sweet! El_C 01:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still do not follow you. Yes, I said that the material that I deleted from the Marx article on "conflict theory" should be in its own article -- I hadn't checked to see the actual conflict theory article, and I appreciate your pointing it out, but my main point was that the description of conflict theory didn't belong in the Marx article.

So we are agreed, that I said that the material on conflict theory belongs in its own article.

But when you ask "Who said that" I do not know what the "that refers to (since you know what I said, it can't refer to something I said. But what does it refer to?) Slrubenstein 16:36, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We are agreed. You encapsulated that point well in your comment at the article's talk page. The thing with inexplicable humour is that, unlike wit, slapstick, etc., it is often lost on the respective audience because it does not make sense! El_C

Sorry -- I don't mean to be such a dunderhead. I am cold and tired, and am glad you tried some levity, Slrubenstein 23:06, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. Sleep well, keep warm. All the best, El_C 23:42, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Today marks the 60th anniversary for the liberation of Auschwitz

Re: I don't know how you do it... It's thanks in very large measure to your support. Thank you so much for following my page. 172 21:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(Section self-authored) You are most welcome. I am really quite taken aback by Fred Bauder's comment – I recall you have told him a few months ago about your family's horrific tragedies and murder during the Holocaust, and of all days he picks today to continue with such repugnent statements (ones, which as I noted, are not even key to the issue at hand and are stated rather as innuendo, innuendo which he well knows will upset you). He should know better –and he does– so considering all this, I view his comment with an especial severity and contempt.

Yours always,

El_C 22:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you one again. Fred definitely knows what he is doing. He has been making similar statements for around two years, ever since I started contributing to this site. I may have to request arbitration against him sooner or later. 172 22:32, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For two years?(!) I would have requested arbitration a lot sooner, though I could see how it would be extremely difficult to undertake considering he is so frimly part of the Establishment in the Wikipedia hierarchy (in itself, a sad testament to the state of the Wikipedia powers-that-be). Perhaps, then, it would be best to wait until he is no longer a member of the Committee – for better chances of a more fair (and less Fair & Balanced) arbitration. El_C 22:48, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Contd.

Fred's been up to some more red baiting on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Rather than take him to arbitration, I decided to annouce that I focus entirely on the Russia-related articles from now on. I expect that to be the most fitting form of protest to his behavior. 172 07:52, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(Section self-titled) Sorry, 172, I overlooked your comment. Yes, I actually read some of that in the day where I stalked your contributions as opposed to just your userpage as normal (with some, as you may have noticed, eventfulness ensuing). It saddens me to say that I'm not surprised. Let me know if there is anything I could do to help. Best regards, El_C 11:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Same goes to you. 172 16:08, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm Sorry

Hi "El_C" I noticed this edit you made [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:El_C&diff=9562179&oldid=9552008], and in responce i wish to say sorry to you for my past actions, my temper and general headstrongness gets in the way sometimes...--198 05:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that, 198. El_C 05:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jewish ethnocentrism

Thank you for your most helpful message. I'm not sure what to do now. The article is such nonsense, and it used to be even worse, that I feel it ought to be deleted, but not if it's a legitimate subject. I'll have a closer look around tomorrow. Yours, whether ethnically or not, ;-)

Anytime, Slim. Best of luck with your research. Cordially & sincerely yours, El_C

You're finding good stuff, El C. If this page is not deleted (I still hope it will be, because it's target practice), I wonder whether you'd want to try doing a rewrite. Not a nice job, but if an editor of goodwill were to tackle it, it would look very different. SlimVirgin 03:26, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Hah! Thanks, I appreciate that, but I expected to find more definitive material, actually. I think I overstated my abilities on that front. As for (counterfactually, in case it isn't deleted) leading a rewrite, I simply don't think I can produce a quality piece with such poor access to pertinent Israeli scholarship. Obviously, though, I'm in agreement with you that the article needs to undergo –drastic– change, one way or the other, and that its current form is unacceptable and insidious. El_C

Still laughing

You had me in stitches again with "why are you calling me surely?" though sadly the recipient didn't get it and gave you an English lesson. LOL Also laughing at your observation, sadly true, that the LaRouche editors are discussed more on Wikipedia than countries containing millions of people. They also cause more trouble than countries containing millions of people.  ;-) We are going through arbitration with them in case you're not aware of it. I was incredulous when you wrote that English isn't your first language, because it is perfect. Of course, I should have guessed from that alone. When have I ever met a native English speaker with as much control over the vocabulary as you? Not often. Apart your confusion over surely and surly, that is. LOL SlimVirgin 03:39, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Nice! It is really quite refreshing to see that I'm not the only one here who likes Gladiator movies (except, of course, for that movie, Gladiator, boo!)

Yes, I noticed that arbitration case, though I can't say that I have read all the pertinent materials in even remotely comprehensive way. Still, I think the evidence speaks for itself. It is certainly a peculiar form of political agitation, but I can see the rational behind it in terms of the aforementioned impact it has had thus far: unencyclopedic, overrepresentative exposure. I think this is the bottom line; the respective contributors are not idiots, they knew gross distortions would be ironed out eventually, but in the midst of that (and how long it takes) makes all the difference, is really the underlying gains behind that tactic. At any rate, I applaud your considerable efforts to methodically and systemically account for this campaign – it isn't something I would want to be doing, it seems like a relatively thankless, frustrating, oftentimes tedius, and an incredibly time-consuming undertaking. Goodluck and best wishes for an expedited solution with that saga.

Lastly, thanks for the very kind words on my English skills! I do try, of course, but it is, significantly, an intuitive thing (otherwise, it would take me a really, really long time to think –and I do think in English whenever engaged in it– and write in it). So, it's a hit & miss oftentimes, much like my nonsensical sense of humor (read: mostly lame).

All the best,

El_C 05:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

thanks

I just saw your Blazing Saddles joke on the VfD for Jewish ethnocentrism. I haven't laughed so much in weeks. Thanks! Slrubenstein 23:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Two nights in a row you make me laugh! God bless!
I don't even know what I did now! Sadly, you're likely mistaking a serious comment/edit as an attempt at humor. ;) El_C 03:18, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sweet! I'm not quite sure why, but that's actually my favourite line in the whole movie. The look on his face when he says that – pure comedy gold! El_C

Yeah, but there are so many brilliant lines -- the "hold it or the nigga gets it" is one of the most brilliant moments in any movie, ever -- it seems to say almost everything one needs to say about racial politics. Still, I have a real fondness for the time Gene Wilder explains that he's the Waco Kid, Cleavon Little mocks him, Wilder explains the test with the chesspiece, Little says something like, that's ridiculous, and Wilder just says, "yeah, well, anyway ..." (maybe the only moment of understatement in the film) Slrubenstein 23:53, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think it's time for me to rewatch Blazing Saddles for umpth-teen time! El_C
File:Gene wilder.jpg
Gene Wilder

Jokes run amok

I see you're having to explain one of your jokes again. It's not the fault of the jokes, though, El C, just the company they (sometimes) keep. SlimVirgin 05:02, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

(Section self-titled) Poor jokes, all they wanted to do was be their friend. I mean, no comment! Hi! :) El_C 07:09, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, I have read Jon Lee Anderson's work

Yeah, I haven't read that particular biography, but I have heard of it. It's generally considered the best one, though I can't tell you if that's from a leftist perspective. I would read it with a skeptical eye, and maybe ask Leftists who've read it before who can give you better guidance on its strengths and weaknesses. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful. --Che y Marijuana 09:05, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

(Section self-titled) Oh, you appear to have misread me, I wasn't asking for help. I have read it, as I said, recently. More on that at your user talk page. El_C

Oh... sorry. I was very sleepy at the time of reading your post. It was very late. I just may pick up a copy then, thanks :)--Che y Marijuana 20:05, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Not at all, it's my pleasure. El_C 04:14, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Conscious evolution

You may be interested to know that User:Dnagod, one of our Stormfront friends, has created an article on Conscious evolution, which has been proposed for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Conscious evolution. Best, SlimVirgin 04:45, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, Slim. All the best, El_C

npov tag

Hello El C, the edits on Afrocentrism looks much better now thanx a lot :) I'll probably add more stuff when the midterms are over. As for the previous POV version, I guess you gotta take whatever deeceevoice edits with a grain of salt, particularly on matters pertaining to African history. I remember having arguments with him/her on the same thing a couple months ago, on human migration and out of africa stuff. This guy equates everyone who's described as "dark" as "african" and claims it wouldn't be illogical for africans to have founded chinese, greek and indian civilization. ex: black chinese, black pythagoras, black buddha, black Beethoven, black Moors...you get the drift. I was advised by Guettarda not to bother arguing with him. I think I was finally labelled a racist by deeceevoice before he broke off arguing with me. Wareware 06:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the really positive response to my changes, Wareware, I am pleased you approve of them, and you being so graceful in not calling attention to my hitherto incompetence is certainly to your credit. I have yet to engage in any discourse with that editor, so perhaps it would be best if I refrain from making any comments on this front, but I thank you for bringing these concerns to my attention. Best of luck to you with your midterms. El_C 07:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wigdor...

Unless we get more encyclopedically notable material in the body of the article, we should reduce the number of links to the most pertinent ones (strictly for the page's appearence). Cake-me!

Not strictly according to Hoyle use of the edit summary box, but: yes, what you said, in spades. If you could do anything at all to clarify the peer-review/critical assessment/notability issue, I'd be much obliged to you. Trying to hold the ring between Bleedy and 24-dot-dot-dot is a little... well, trying. Some outside input would be much appreciated. Cheers, Alai 07:07, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Heh, I agree, cake is, indeed, quite deliciousness! Slightly more substantive thoughts on your talk page [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alai#Wigdor here]. Regards, El_C 07:18, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, that's exactly what it sounds like, factional bunfight. If someone were to come up with someone (themselves 'notable'!) to say he's important/unimportant, a surrealist/not-a-surrealist, good/bad, etc, etc, or better yet, one of each of all the above, in some context it'd be appropriate and feasible to quote and reference, I'd be a much happier man. (And it'd be a much happier article, IMO.) Alai 07:24, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I tend to think that those exist (just from having skimmed the lengthy talk page). By holding both the Anon editors equally accoutable, and noting this intent to both of them explitly and clearly, let's hope for goodfaith, and progress that will meaningfuly improve the article; I'm optimistic. El_C 07:38, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm glad to see you're still looking in on Keith Wigdor, sorry sight that it is. If nothing else because hopefully it means there's at least a sane second party if it comes to it, and it becomes necessary to RfC the... persons concerned. Alai 01:02, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ta again. Easy editting, really... Just hard on the blood pressure. I doubt we've heard the last of it, though. Alai 05:17, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

condescension

I thank you for forgiving me, ElC, and my apology was indeed directed at you. I still don't see my remark as particularly unfriendly, but it appears that it was mistaken anyway, so I withdrew it with apologies to you. I also agree that VfD says the redirect should be deleted. I simply don't see the harm of redirecting instead of deleting (but I see it has been deleted now, anyway). Your attitude seems rather belligerent, too, since you appeared to jump all over me for a tangential remark I made. It is important to assume as well as exerting good faith. No harm done at all, but you'll understand that I can't be bothered to follow this issue any further. dab (ᛏ) 16:19, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The [i]t seems this noticeboard is more and more becoming a replacement for both Village Pump and RfC which directly followed my comment, was an unfriendly statement which comes across as territorial and elitist. How am I supposed to respond to that, on the first day that I posted on the noticeboard, ever? 'Gee, dab, thanks for being so gracious, but my comment/s were very topical on the non-content front (unlike yours).' Well, that's pretty much what I said. I don't care about the issue so much as a seeming willingness on your part to ignor ordinary editors (such as myself and SlimVirgin) no matter what they say and instead only look at what the 'Administrators' or the 'official' postings are saying. This is how you are coming across to me, and your explantions are doing little to combat this impression. If you believe this isn't the case, you have the floor. Otherwise, I will not be told what to understand, but I will view your (non-procedural) admin capacity discreditably. El_C 17:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's back, still redirecting to Culture of Critique. The democracy is alive and well, I see. SlimVirgin 19:03, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
FYI [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Complaint_about_abuse_of_admin_power] SlimVirgin 21:37, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
well, I am sorry I came across this way, and I assure you this kind of 'class thinking' is very foreign to me. If at all, I judge editors by their attitude, not by their 'rank', and I was not aware, at the time of your posting, whether or not you are an admin (there are 400 of them. I don't know them all). I have also never thrown my weight around as an admin, and at no time have I used my privileges controversially. You are still free to dislike me of course, and I'm not going to lose any sleep over that. dab (ᛏ) 09:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am noting these developments (and in general Admin misconduct and territoriality – see above) with grave concerns. Thank you for bringing these issues to my attention. Please keep me posted about the situation (I will try my best to follow its outcomes). I will soon be undergoing certain medical procedures that will likely impact my participation here dramatically; so expect my presence here to be both intermittent and, erm, spaced-out (more so than normally).

All the best, El_C 01:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that, and hope it's nothing serious or scary, and that you'll be back in full working order very soon. The spaced-outedness sounds interesting, though . . . You'll be able to make outrageous edits but then beg community forgiveness on grounds of lack of capacity. Please let me know how you things go for you. SlimVirgin 02:07, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that very much. I hope it will turn out fine (though surgery does seem inevitable), I think it will, it look very likely (I hope I didn't just jingse myself though: corssing my fingers). Yes, clearly, that is one benefit which I overlooked. :) I will keep you posted. Thanks again for your concerns and kind words. I am having a tremendously difficult time with my life right now, and this encouragment really does make a big difference. Cordially & sincerely yours, El_C

I just tried to e-mail you but you haven't left an address, so this is just to say feel free to e-mail me if you ever want to chat. Just click on "e-mail this user" on the lefthand side of my user page, but of course don't feel obliged. I'm crossing my fingers too on your behalf. Yours, SlimVirgin 04:35, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say I'm thinking of you and hoping all is okay. Regarding Bernard, I saw you had added something but in fact I have not checked it out. I had to force myself to drop Bernard because I was in danger of developing an ownership attitude toward him, so I promised I wouldn't look at any changes for a couple of weeks. But I will look very soon. I see Mel made some changes too. So I'll have lots of reverting to do. (No, it's a joke). Best, SlimVirgin 06:14, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Very glad to hear it. Yes, you may say whatever you wish, as you have medical dispensation. SlimVirgin 07:34, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Yay! What the fuck was I talking about though? El_C 07:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As polite as always

We were on good terms at one point. I feel you made a conscious decision to change that [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Racialism&diff=7600146&oldid=7598836 here] and [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEl_C&diff=7627117&oldid=7626323 here]. If you regret that, make the necessary internal progress. If not, don't bother complaining about it to me. I am now, and shall ever be, as polite as always. Sincerely, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 19:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I feel that my response to the above will be better communicated through the aid of an advocate. I have submitted such a request for assistance [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance#User:El_C_vs._User:Sam_Spade here]. I am, therefore, refraining from making comments pending the outcome of that request. El_C 01:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK. For the sake of propriety I think I ought to inform you that there are as few as 2, and possibly as many as 4 or 5 (both numbers including myself) AMA advocates available. You may wish to contact them directly. If your concern would entail a request for mediation, I am likely to accept. Do not feel obligated to respond. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:32, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

AMA Request for Assistance

El C, thanks for your note. If you'd like, I'd be happy to accept duties advocating for you or, alternatively, assist you to find another advocate that suits you. Sam has indicated he'd be willing to try mediation; are you amenable as well?

Also, if you could send me links to relevant exchanges, I'd be grateful. Thanks! Wally 18:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am pleased to have you as my advocate, Wally. The exchanges will be compliled soon, but in the meantime, you should read the contents (and glance at the revision history) of Talk:Racialism, beginning chronologically with the archives. Thanks. El_C 07:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okey dokey, will do. I do have to mention, however (and I am sorry I did not do so before hand) that I will be away from this Friday through next Tuesday at the least and likely Wednesday as well. If you'd like, I could ask a second advocate to join this case and he or she can begin dealing with some of these issues immediately.

Also, bravo to you on your mainpage quote. Dante was a brilliant man — not to mention good with a phrase! :) Wally 04:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A giant; lyrical and poetic genius so masterful, with such immense depth and poignancy, it truly defies comprehension! So, yes, 'good with a phrase!' (as good as you seem to be with understatements! :p). To be honest, I actually wrote that under a narcotically-induced fit of rage; erm, I mean, 'intellectual' rage, of course (this should explain the jump from Inferno to Paradiso -- but the key is in the combination). Still, absolutely incredible passages; and I just did not have the heart to cite a translation for what, unarguably, no translation can do justice for. What were we talking about again? Ah, yes, the plan. I am actually very comfortable with your forthcoming absence; it is ideal, in fact. On Fri. I have to undergo a medical procedure that will leave me drugged-up again (I am now, and have been so since yesterday). For those reasons, I actually want to wait till next Thurs., and this provides a perfect excuse for that. So, no rush from these quarters: it all, then, depends on whether Sam Spade is amicable and is willing to reciprocate by withdrawing from editing those articles and talk pages in which we are both involved (and every indication I have suggests that he is, and so we can proceed along this time frame). Sorry for being so longwhinded (more so than usual) I am pretty out of it. Thanks again, Wally! El_C 09:16, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Sam seems to have indicated that he will avoid conflict for the time being until a settlement is reached; that said, I think it would be good if for at least some time you refrained from editing any articles that might bring you into conflict with Sam. I've already asked him, on your behalf, to do the same.

Also, I agree with you about the translations. As a matter of fact I don't think any poetry can truly be felt in a translated text; a mother tongue carries with it so much more than mere words. Same is very much true for novels, but I suppose in a less significant way; the novels lose something, while the verse loses everything. Wally 20:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Downsides_of_being_Spacedout

I strongly advise you to avoid conflict, particularly while in a state of less than optimal mental alacrity. I have taken note that our differences are not the only ones you've had in the last couple of days, and may be willing to place that in perspective if you back off from editing, or at least from interpersonal shenanigans until your medical issues have been resolved. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 08:32, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade's advise is a sound one, but the reader should note that I have no choice but to respond to charges he continues to make against my article revisions, and since I view his editorial practices as a prominent issue (in that specific article, at least), my responses follow. I would like to take a break from these (common articles, or at the moment, article), but I fear that an absence while ongoing comments by him persist, would work against my best interests. So, I have no choice but to take the obvious risks cited above. El_C

Actually, I made no such charges. It would appear you misunderstood my comment [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARacialism&diff=10252809&oldid=10251725 here]. In any case, I am not out to crucify you, but I warn you once again, back off from interpersonal conflict. Wait until you are healthy and clear headed, and reappraise the situation. If you must edit between now and then, stay well away from places like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Socialism and Racialism, and focus rather on obscure and uncontroversial pages. We both know that is in your best interest. As a gesture of wikipedia:truce, I will avoid contact and communication with you for a time. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 09:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But he will he continue to edit Racialism and address my contributions directly, all the while I'm expected to remain silent and concede to outright falsehoods (?).

At any rate, dear readres, bitter foes, and well-wishers, Let the record state that, in fact, I could not give a flying fuck about what is in my best interests right now.

A pleasure :-)

I don't have any time for Nazis. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A well earned image macro award, Ta bu shi da yu. I'm comforted knowing you're out there, promoting peace with vigilance. El_C 12:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Except that it was done because of his opinion. I'm quite a fan of Che myself, and I'll quote him one what I believe: [...] Iconoclast 00:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) [omitted: I appreciate that you are a fan, but I don't wish to have Che cited for this end on my talk page. El_C 05:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)]

Maybe so. We're all entitled to our opinions, and I stand by my own. El_C

Thinking of you

Just a quickie to say I'm thinking of you for tomorrow. Toes and fingers crossed; and healing thoughts being sent your way. SlimVirgin 22:56, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! It's nice to be in someone's thoughts. I'm a little nervous and apprehensive, but it should end up fine, *knock on cat* El_C

Very pleased to hear it! I had a very clear (positive) sense of you this morning (Feb 19) at what would have been 13:00 hrs UTC/GMT. I wondered if you had woken up feeling better or something (yes, I do believe in that stuff). I'm glad to have you back. SlimVirgin 00:36, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

I was sleeping then. Slept for many, many hours. Had some vivid, colourful dreams – perhaps a glimpse of these entered your intuitition, though, of course, I don't believe in those things. ;) Still hurting, but speedy recovery seems very likely, *knock on cat*, again (not that I believe in that either, but so much fun!). El_C 00:54, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

hey,

if you have time could you look at today's discussion at talk:capitalism concerning the introduction, and comment? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:11, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hey, see your talk page, I'll see if I can get to the article talk page later, but I'm still recovering from my ordeal (see above) and this entails keeping stress levels down ;) El_C 00:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your lengthy response. Personally, I agree with you. The problem is, our view is only one of many. In order to avoid an edit war in the intro, my idea is to have a very general description of things people use the word "capitalism" to refer to (hence the bullet points), and then a detailed discussion of the different views of capitalism in the body. When you have the enregy, please look at RJII's comments on the talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I hope you are doing better. If so, I'd still appreciate it if you could look at that talk page and engage RJII directly. See this edit [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capitalism&curid=5416&diff=0&oldid=0] -- My point is (1) not everyone will agree with this definition, and (2) given disagreements of definition, we shouldn't open with a definition but rather discuss different definitions in the body. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:38, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am, much better, thank you, SlR. I responded on the article talk page, I hope you approve of my approach towards the editorial dispute in question. El_C

capitalism

I thought your comment on the talk page was constructive, although I still feel that these issues should be worked out in the body of the article rathe than the introduction. Look, I think there are three issues here:

  1. the definition of capitalism -- this is RJII's main concern but I think it is a red-herring. What an article needs is not a definition (definitions are of words, not things, and this is a word that is used in so many different ways) but a description of capitalism and I think any description reflects a theoretical or political position (whether acknowledged or not). To try to come up with one definition, no matter how clever or popular, is a diversion.
  2. the structure of the article -- I think encyclopedia articles should be organized differently from dictionary entries or newspaper articles. Dictionaries present the most popular definition first, and progress towards the arcane; newspaper articles begin with the major point, and progress to the minor. I think an encyclopedia article should be more complex (especially when dealing with a complex topic). The introduction of an article should introduce the whole article by foreshadowing (or signaling) what is to come (and I think the current introduction does this quite well.) Maybe in this you and I disagree?
  3. basic principles of Wikipedia like no original research and cite sources. It seems to me from the talk page that RJII has some strong personal feelings about what capitalism is, but has not actually done any rigorous research into it. He thinks coming up with a definition is easy because "everyone" knows what capitalism is. I think there is almost no point to an encyclopedia article that is about what "everyone" knows -- it should cover things people do not know, and do so based on real research. RJII's ideological reading of Smith -- and his claim that his points are not supported by any citable passage of the book, but rather "the whole book" -- tells me he hasn't done any serious research, and may not even know how to.

I fear that these three different points keep getting mixed up, which doesn't help clear the air. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:03, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, it might be tricky to touch on these in the intro, but I still think a very broad outline (along the lines I proposed at RDII's talk page) is possible, certainly desirable. To address your points more specifically:

  1. I tend to agree that it is proving to be a red-herring, but I still think it is paramount to start with the statement that capitalism is an economic system. This is something that all the ideologies (Left, Moderate Left, Moderate Right, Right) acknowledge. Of course, Smith only saw glimpses of capitalism since he was living under, sort to speak, the last stage of feudalism. He never had a chance to see (industrial) capitalism, so this needs to be carfeuly qualified (more on that bellow).
  2. This, in fact, was one of the areas of disagreement I myself had with RDII: arguing to him/her that the article needs to be expansive and that it cannot resmeble Simple Wikipedia, or Wikitictionary (and I'll add now: even Britanica, Encarta, etc., for that matter). S/he did not, however, seem to strongly object to this when I insisted on the centrality of this.
  3. Back to Smith, I tend to agree with that, too. While I don't wish to 'pick sides,' certainly there is a need for him/her to cite passages from Smith's WoN or his ToMS in this extension (esp. when requested).

I hope I will be able to effectively encapsulate to him my opinion on these (and that my above explanation can lead into that). The discussion does seem to have gotten confusing, with several key areas getting mixed, which I agree, is not facilitative of clarity. Hopefuly, then, I can offset his concerns with yours, but I am fairly strict about citing sources and providing propper referncial evidence (a cursory glimpse into any of the articles I authored reveals this), so this is one area I intend to stress and elaborate on to him. In the case s/he ends up seeking my services with this, that is. El_C 00:33, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your response. Regardless of what RJII wants, I think you should be as active in improving the article as you have time for, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:46, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate that, but, while I often tread in waters deep, I probably should tread lightly with this one. It can easily consume me – and I mean, literally, as caloric intake! El_C 09:38, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm Back

Hey there, C. I've returned from my trip. Any developments since I've been away? Also, I'd like to get with you to begin discussing how you'd like to proceed with the case. Feel free to e-mail me at Paintball5320–at–aol.com (both corny and AOL, I know, but I'm far too lazy to change the eight year-old account). Wally 23:40, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back, Wally! I hope your trip involved some painball activities and was otherwise a positive experience. No, no developments to report on on this front. I will email you (probably tommorow) with more substantive thoughts. El_C

Hey C, I'm back as well.

I've been working on the Rhodesian Military History/Special Warfare article for the past few months when I have the free time as we discussed awhile back and things are progressing at a slow but steady pace. Since the last time we discussed it I've obtained permission to use information and some pertinent imagery from a very good website that's devoted to the Selous Scouts and as a result, that section of the article's just about finished. Since we were going to incorporate the military history/special warfare section that i'm writing into the SR article, I'd like your thoughts on the preliminary draft of that section. I'll get it out to you sometime today or tomorrow depending on how hectic things are around here. Sorry it's taken awhile to get everything together but with going back to College and all my schedule's become pretty insane.

Again, my humble apologies for the delay.

Scuzz138 09:38, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Down with bullets!

I don't like the bullet thing either, unless there are multiple definitions of capitalism ..then you would need to put each definition in a bullet. But, yes all three bullets, as they were, seemed like they were just trying to skirt around and hint at capitalism instead of actually defining it. It looks like a cop-out to me from someone who is afraid to define it, or avoiding it for some mysterious reason.

As far as saying it's "currently the dominant economic system on the planet"..I think that that is POV. Many people disagree and would say, rather, that the major economies are "mixed economy", each having it's own skew toward capitalism, socialism, or whatever. A good definition of capitalism should be able to stand on it's own as a concept. Whether any particular system in existence accords with that definition is where judgement comes in. I think all we need to do is define the system called capitalism. I think the first bullet there now is ridiculous. RJII

[Section self-titled] Thanks for your response, RJII. I am pleased to learn that you are also down with Down with bullets! You make some goodpoints here which I adress at some length (but hoepfuly not too much longwindedness) at your own talk page's [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RJII#Down_with_bullets.21 Down with bullets!] section (also self-titled by yours truly). El_C

Yes, I agree with what you are saying there. The only thing I would advise is that the very definition of capitalism should only take one or two sentences. I don't really oppose a statement that the world economies have moved toward capitalism in the intro, just as long as it doesn't leave the impression that it's part of the actual definition. So, I think we are on the same level here. I'm against the bullets. So, one of us needs to get rid of them and then get ready for a bit of conflict if that's what it takes. Feel free if I don't get to it first. RJII 16:06, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Roger that! More (again, sigh: lengthy) thoughts on your user talk page. El_C

Yes Slr and i are getting into distracting disputes. We know what his position is ..he doesn't want capitalism to be defined in the intro. It's obvious that his objective is to disrupt any progress in doing so, naturally. So I'm not going to play into his distractions anymore. If you have a definition feel free to stick it in the intro. Those of us who want a definition in the intro will edit amongst ourselves, while experiencing intermittent reversions by SlR who wants to keep definitions out of the intro. It's the only way I know to do it. RJII 00:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked your comment earlier, RJII. I responded (for once, not so longwindedly) on your talk page. Thanks. El_C 09:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you wanted, you could work on a marxist type definition. My understanding is that capitalism has two definitions ..the marxist-influenced one, and the more common one found in dictionaries. Then we can put them both in the intro. Let me know what you think. RJII 23:26, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

New Webster's Dictionary (print)

Well, I certainly agree very strongly that within the broadest Right-Left generaliztion, the Marxists had the most influence among the Left. Also, RJII, I want you to note and address the (one-sentence) definition by The New Webster Dictionary for English Languages (print; p. 146) : n. Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are privately owned and operated for profit (definition cited in its entirety; bold is my emphasis)

That's one of the two main definitions of capitalism..perfect example. (This is the definition of capitalism I always hear from Marxists, but of course it doesn't have to be labeled as such). The other definition goes beyond that and notes the "free market" aspect ..the private autonomy, which you'll find in the Merriam-Webster dictionary and most other sources. I really think it's important that this distinction is made from the outset in the intro. RJII 01:05, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Again, RJII, I can see the utility in limiting the intro to the Right (as seen by 'Classical' Liberals) and the Left (as seen most prominently by Marxists), but I don't know to what extent it is tenable (in being sufficiently inclusive), nor, to be honest, even desirable. But, of course, I remain open to persuasion and am looking forward to your thoughts. El_C 23:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I put together a bullet-free intro: "While various definition of capitalism exist they typically fall under two categories. The most common set of definitions that abound denote the private ownership of capital, the private nature of economic decision-making, and most often mention the existence of a free market. The other, somewhat prevalant, set of definitions do not refer to the nature of economic decisions or methods of pricing and distribution but, instead, define capitalism as the private ownership of capital. Most of the practices that are considered to comprise capitalism became institutionalized in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries, especially involving the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as "legal persons" (or corporations) to buy and sell capital goods such as land, labor, and money (see finance and credit), in a free market (see trade), and relying on the protection by the state of private property rights and the adjudication by the state of explicit and implicit contractual obligations rather than feudal obligations." RJII 15:36, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User_talk:Sam_Spade#skinhead

Thanks for what I assume was a friendly gesture, but I prefer to respond to such questions directly. I am responding here rather than thru your advocate both because I assume you are in better health, and because I hope your edit to my talk page is suggestive of some progress, however minor. Regardless, where are we @, and where are we trying to go? Is there a best case scenario which we are striving towards? Even if we can't be friends, we can at least avoid each other, or agree to disagree. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:18, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I thank Sam Spade for his comment. The deletion of the comment left on his user talk page which ended with Zeig Heil, was not so much a gesture (not friendly nor unfriednly), no more so than [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Wikipedia2&curid=1545513&diff=0&oldid=0 this], rather, it was an action against a personal attack that I noticed on my watchlist. The objection to the deletion is noted and I will refrain from similar future actions. Avoiding each other as much as possible certainly strikes me as a sound suggestion, but whenever discourse becomes unavoidable, I see a best case scenario consisting of professional courtesy (as in professional encyclopedia editors), namely, with Sam Spade adhering to WP:Civility, avoiding deriding chat room exclamations (i.e. "WTF," "LOL," "BS," etc.) and otherwise unecessary emotionalisms (snide rhetorical questions, sarcastic nuances, et cetera, etc.). If there is anywhere to go beyond this, frankly, I do not have the time or energy to expend on such an affair at this time.

I request that Sam Spade continues to refer to my advocate until an agreement or detente is reached, though I should stress that I do not view him contacting me directly –in this instance– discreditably. I am confident that Sam Spade can see the benefit in and will be able to conduct himself in accordance with (and the same goes for myself, of course) the terms I set out above (my advocate can provide further details on these). This whole dispute, therefore, should be concluded expediently. Simply because Sam Spade makes me 'personally' uncomfortable is no grounds for editorial collaboration becoming impossible. It does, however, suggest taking professional courtesy in our discourse to the utmost extreme: limiting it to a technical, humorless, and matter-of-fact exchanges. Again, I thank Sam Spade for his comment, and I refer him to my advocate for any further questions. Based on his response here, I see no reason why this dispute shouldn't be concluded in the very near-future. El_C

Your E-Mail

I'm going ahead (a bit belatedly) and posting your requests to Sam's page, reworded a bit but the same in substance. I'm also posting a request for mediation. Might I request, until then, that you two not argue on my talk page? It clutters things up. Wally 01:50, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you might. ;) Sorry, Wally. And thanks. El_C 04:40, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi! I left a message on S.S.'s page relating to his latest dig at you, but he deleted it very quickly ([htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASam_Spade&diff=10671621&oldid=10670509]) — I've mentioned it to Wally. I'd have e-mailed you directly, as I don't want to discuss details in public, but it seems you've not set up your e-mail address. If you want to contact me, mine's set up on my User page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Moved to User talk:El C/Article Licensing. El_C

Oubangui-Chari map again

You may be amused by the results of my investigation, recorded at Image talk:Oubangui-Chari.jpg. Who needs state archives when you've got ephemera collectors! :-) Stan 17:54, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That is hysterical! I certainly did not expect the source to be that (of all things). Well done, Stan, I really appreciate your efforts (and the good chuckle!). El_C

Aprt-YStar.JPG

Dear sir(?), I am wondering whether you still have the original photograph used in the abovementioned collage on the left-hand side? I am wishing to translate the English 'apartheid' article into Afrikaans (which the lower half of the sign just visible is written in), and it would be most wonderful if I could use the whole sign. Thank you for your time and consideration. Dewet 15:08, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hello sir/madam, [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dewet#Here_you_go here you go]. I wish you a productive and engaging translation.

Regards,

El_C 10:23, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Again, my heartfelt thanks! I am indeed in Cape Town, but haven't yet expended the energy to visit said District Six museum. You have, however, provided the inspiration needed to do just that! Dewet 11:09, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I never let you know, but I corrected the perspective and lighting somewhat on that picture, and uploaded it to both the commons and en.wp; I hope that is OK... Thanks again!

With regards to your query on Sir Godfrey Martin Huggins, I'm unable to help; I've consulted my sources, but cannot find a picture reference. Sorry! Dewet 09:03, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I understand, t'was worth a shot. I will find a picture of him yet, mark my words! El_C

Smiling

Just a quick note, El C, to say how much I enjoy your posts when I see them. I've just spotted your entry in an edit history "I'm disendorsing Raul & Blankfaze's disendorsments, though not negating the negation," which I got a lot of pleasure from, and I have fond memories of a correction you made to one editor's angry insult of another (I paraphrase), "in hopes of seeing gramatically correct personal attacks." That one still brings a smile to my face. :-) Slim 14:12, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Slim, for the very kind words! I think the reason I'm still here, despite all the ideological constraints I percieve (and protests thereof), is that there are, nonetheless, interesting, engaging people (and note that I have a fairly short attention span and get bored very easily) here editing the eyncyclopedia, irrespective of ideology. You can count yourself among these. In the few months I have been contributing to WP, I have gotten some very enocuraging feedback from several reputable editors (such as yourself), and I just wanted to note, in this extension, that I greatly value these responses and it is, in fact, a pivotal reason as to why I am still here. Thanks again! Cordially & sincerely yours, El_C

172's courageous ArbCom candidacy

It took a lot of courage for you to run under the current political climate, 172. A belated thanks! I just saw the message. I must've overlooked it earlier. It was more foolishness than courage, though... 172 04:26, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Heh, perhaps. Either way, I view it as a highly creditable effort on your part and I sympathize with what, in turn, you had to endure from certain opponents. El_C

Apocalypse

I appreciate the note, I will look into it more. I think more than anything else it reveals how cosmopolitan Hellenistic Near East was, Slrubenstein 17:57, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My pleasure. I hope it proves useful. El_C

Happy New Year to you

I hope 2005's a good one for you, El C! All the best, Slim 03:51, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Slim! I hope it turns out to be a good one for you, too! Best regards, El_C

Fair and Balanced

Thanks for the humorous anecdote. I needed it... After all, this should be a humorous affair. My work on Russia, such as on History of post-Soviet Russia is consistently loaded with citations from leading Western think-tanks dominated by neoliberals and/or neoconservatives, such as the Carnegie Center, Jamestown Foundation, and Brookings. I refer to notable Cold Warriors like Paul Gregory and Anders ?slund. Shorne and Ruy Lopez should be the ones forcing me to abide by NPOV! They should be ones challenging my sources! But judging by my experiences over the past two years, I suspect that Libertas will convince a number of users that I 'exclusively use Marxist sources' (as if he even understands the role of Marxism in academia). The most active, vocal, and vitriolic on Wikipedia are the ones heard in the end... I don't know how long I can deal with this. I'm rapidly losing patience for this project. Happy New Year. 172 12:01, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Happy New Year! You have my sympathies for being forced to endure such brutish and crude (and humorless) neoliberal political agitation, with all the personal attacks which such a campaign always entails. From the left, we have lost Shorne, it seems; and now from the moderate left, we face losing you. Make no mistakes though, driving you out is exactly what these agitators wish for – not only that, they will prey on the moderate right, also. Their aim is to have their POV dominanting (they are largely successful) for a Fair and Balanced WP. El_C 

 
 Father forgive us for we have sinned
 we traded our soul for just a little powedered gold
 just one of many sins
 we stood by and let the wicked and the greedy win
 we enslaved women
 we cut the forests of millions
 we imprisoned the free in cages
 slaughtered the animals
 Daddy we killed the world some more
 for my selfishness and greed
 cannibal

User:GrazingshipIV

All of my interactions with GrazingshipIV were favorable, perhaps leaving me biased. But I try to judge users and act as an admin on a case-by-case basis. I favor cutting slack to users of all stripes that are knowledgeable and contribute factual content. For example, I stated support for TDC a few times. [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/TDC] During the Arbcom race, I also spoke out against sanctions against both VeryVerily and Shorne. So I don't know if it's fair to call me an inclusionist of the left. 172 16:55, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I wasn't questioning that aspect, actually. I did not, in fact, intended on employing the term 'inclusionist' beyond that (aforementioned) type of interaction, but I should have better qualified this. I responded on User talk:GrazingshipIV, I hope it helps to better elucidate my point. Cordially & sincerely yours, El_C

Voting in progress

Please express your opinion at Talk:Israeli violence against Palestinian children#Article title (poll). Thanks. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:38, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Done. What a saga, sheesh. Thank you for informing me of this vote, likely I would have missed it otherwise. Regards, El_C 23:57, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Great, because I hesitated to bother many people. You may want to include WP:RFC, WP:CS, WP:CFD, WP:VFD, WP:RM into your watchlist. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 04:57, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked your response. Feel free to 'bother' me anytime, though I am afraid my watchlist is cluttered as it is and adding these items to it might overload some circuits in my fragile mind. Regards, El_C 12:17, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why was "violence against" dropped?

We've had long discussions, and (I thought) reached consensus. "Violence against" inherently means "intentional", which is highly POV and needs proof. When 95% of Palestinian fatalities are male but the article focuses on children, it smells like old blood libel. BTW, I also moved Palestinian violence against Israeli children. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 11:32, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the really prompt response, Humus sapiens. I applaud the merger (I have for long argued for it), and am pleased to see it take place. I responded with greater detail on your user talk page. El_C 12:10, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The missing U

Thanks for the tip about the "u" in the e-mail address, El C. I had, in fact, already sent it, but it seemed to arrive, albeit u-less. They must have some sort of redirect arrangement so that those spelling Ohio correctly are redirected to the ones in charge, who refuse to do likewise. Hope you are wellu. Best, SlimVirgin 06:11, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Heh, you made me chuckle, you! All the best, El_C 08:00, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Names of God

RE: your comments in Peer Review for Names of God in Judaism.

Thank you for the comments. Feel free to come around and do some edits as per your comments. Just please keep the Ref and Biblio separated as it is customary (Refs are that: referred in the article, Biblio is generic stuff that is supportive of the text.) --Zappaz 06:03, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's my pleasure, Zappaz, I hope it proves useful. Sorry, writing in haste. I'll return with more substantive thoughts soon. Thanks. El_C 12:31, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppets are requested not to get above themselves

El C, your bitterness at being named as 172's sockpuppet, as opposed to 172 being named as yours, is most unbecoming. Your chance to control a sockpuppet of your own will come one day soon, I am sure, when others judge you worthy of it. In the meantime, a little humility would be most appreciated. I thank you. SlimVirgin 23:04, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Wise, balanced and most unironic words from one of –my– sockpuppets! (I'm not schizophrenic, and neither am I! Nor am I paranoid, it's just that everybody's out to get me!). Cordially & sincerely yours, El_C 00:51, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you want me as a sockpuppet you can have me, but I will get you into lots of trouble. :-) SlimVirgin 01:04, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'm out for consultations (with myself!) :p El_C 01:59, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Conflict

I am afraid I don't understand your question on my talk page! Slrubenstein 18:06, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, sweet! El_C 01:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still do not follow you. Yes, I said that the material that I deleted from the Marx article on "conflict theory" should be in its own article -- I hadn't checked to see the actual conflict theory article, and I appreciate your pointing it out, but my main point was that the description of conflict theory didn't belong in the Marx article.

So we are agreed, that I said that the material on conflict theory belongs in its own article.

But when you ask "Who said that" I do not know what the "that refers to (since you know what I said, it can't refer to something I said. But what does it refer to?) Slrubenstein 16:36, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We are agreed. You encapsulated that point well in your comment at the article's talk page. The thing with inexplicable humour is that, unlike wit, slapstick, etc., it is often lost on the respective audience because it does not make sense! El_C

Sorry -- I don't mean to be such a dunderhead. I am cold and tired, and am glad you tried some levity, Slrubenstein 23:06, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. Sleep well, keep warm. All the best, El_C 23:42, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Today marks the 60th anniversary for the liberation of Auschwitz

Re: I don't know how you do it... It's thanks in very large measure to your support. Thank you so much for following my page. 172 21:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(Section self-authored) You are most welcome. I am really quite taken aback by Fred Bauder's comment – I recall you have told him a few months ago about your family's horrific tragedies and murder during the Holocaust, and of all days he picks today to continue with such repugnent statements (ones, which as I noted, are not even key to the issue at hand and are stated rather as innuendo, innuendo which he well knows will upset you). He should know better –and he does– so considering all this, I view his comment with an especial severity and contempt.

Yours always,

El_C 22:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you one again. Fred definitely knows what he is doing. He has been making similar statements for around two years, ever since I started contributing to this site. I may have to request arbitration against him sooner or later. 172 22:32, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For two years?(!) I would have requested arbitration a lot sooner, though I could see how it would be extremely difficult to undertake considering he is so frimly part of the Establishment in the Wikipedia hierarchy (in itself, a sad testament to the state of the Wikipedia powers-that-be). Perhaps, then, it would be best to wait until he is no longer a member of the Committee – for better chances of a more fair (and less Fair & Balanced) arbitration. El_C 22:48, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Contd.

Fred's been up to some more red baiting on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Rather than take him to arbitration, I decided to annouce that I focus entirely on the Russia-related articles from now on. I expect that to be the most fitting form of protest to his behavior. 172 07:52, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(Section self-titled) Sorry, 172, I overlooked your comment. Yes, I actually read some of that in the day where I stalked your contributions as opposed to just your userpage as normal (with some, as you may have noticed, eventfulness ensuing). It saddens me to say that I'm not surprised. Let me know if there is anything I could do to help. Best regards, El_C 11:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Same goes to you. 172 16:08, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm Sorry

Hi "El_C" I noticed this edit you made [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:El_C&diff=9562179&oldid=9552008], and in responce i wish to say sorry to you for my past actions, my temper and general headstrongness gets in the way sometimes...--198 05:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that, 198. El_C 05:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jewish ethnocentrism

Thank you for your most helpful message. I'm not sure what to do now. The article is such nonsense, and it used to be even worse, that I feel it ought to be deleted, but not if it's a legitimate subject. I'll have a closer look around tomorrow. Yours, whether ethnically or not, ;-)

Anytime, Slim. Best of luck with your research. Cordially & sincerely yours, El_C

You're finding good stuff, El C. If this page is not deleted (I still hope it will be, because it's target practice), I wonder whether you'd want to try doing a rewrite. Not a nice job, but if an editor of goodwill were to tackle it, it would look very different. SlimVirgin 03:26, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Hah! Thanks, I appreciate that, but I expected to find more definitive material, actually. I think I overstated my abilities on that front. As for (counterfactually, in case it isn't deleted) leading a rewrite, I simply don't think I can produce a quality piece with such poor access to pertinent Israeli scholarship. Obviously, though, I'm in agreement with you that the article needs to undergo –drastic– change, one way or the other, and that its current form is unacceptable and insidious. El_C

Still laughing

You had me in stitches again with "why are you calling me surely?" though sadly the recipient didn't get it and gave you an English lesson. LOL Also laughing at your observation, sadly true, that the LaRouche editors are discussed more on Wikipedia than countries containing millions of people. They also cause more trouble than countries containing millions of people.  ;-) We are going through arbitration with them in case you're not aware of it. I was incredulous when you wrote that English isn't your first language, because it is perfect. Of course, I should have guessed from that alone. When have I ever met a native English speaker with as much control over the vocabulary as you? Not often. Apart your confusion over surely and surly, that is. LOL SlimVirgin 03:39, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Nice! It is really quite refreshing to see that I'm not the only one here who likes Gladiator movies (except, of course, for that movie, Gladiator, boo!)

Yes, I noticed that arbitration case, though I can't say that I have read all the pertinent materials in even remotely comprehensive way. Still, I think the evidence speaks for itself. It is certainly a peculiar form of political agitation, but I can see the rational behind it in terms of the aforementioned impact it has had thus far: unencyclopedic, overrepresentative exposure. I think this is the bottom line; the respective contributors are not idiots, they knew gross distortions would be ironed out eventually, but in the midst of that (and how long it takes) makes all the difference, is really the underlying gains behind that tactic. At any rate, I applaud your considerable efforts to methodically and systemically account for this campaign – it isn't something I would want to be doing, it seems like a relatively thankless, frustrating, oftentimes tedius, and an incredibly time-consuming undertaking. Goodluck and best wishes for an expedited solution with that saga.

Lastly, thanks for the very kind words on my English skills! I do try, of course, but it is, significantly, an intuitive thing (otherwise, it would take me a really, really long time to think –and I do think in English whenever engaged in it– and write in it). So, it's a hit & miss oftentimes, much like my nonsensical sense of humor (read: mostly lame).

All the best,

El_C 05:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

thanks

I just saw your Blazing Saddles joke on the VfD for Jewish ethnocentrism. I haven't laughed so much in weeks. Thanks! Slrubenstein 23:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Two nights in a row you make me laugh! God bless!
I don't even know what I did now! Sadly, you're likely mistaking a serious comment/edit as an attempt at humor. ;) El_C 03:18, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sweet! I'm not quite sure why, but that's actually my favourite line in the whole movie. The look on his face when he says that – pure comedy gold! El_C

Yeah, but there are so many brilliant lines -- the "hold it or the nigga gets it" is one of the most brilliant moments in any movie, ever -- it seems to say almost everything one needs to say about racial politics. Still, I have a real fondness for the time Gene Wilder explains that he's the Waco Kid, Cleavon Little mocks him, Wilder explains the test with the chesspiece, Little says something like, that's ridiculous, and Wilder just says, "yeah, well, anyway ..." (maybe the only moment of understatement in the film) Slrubenstein 23:53, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think it's time for me to rewatch Blazing Saddles for umpth-teen time! El_C
File:Gene wilder.jpg
Gene Wilder

Jokes run amok

I see you're having to explain one of your jokes again. It's not the fault of the jokes, though, El C, just the company they (sometimes) keep. SlimVirgin 05:02, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

(Section self-titled) Poor jokes, all they wanted to do was be their friend. I mean, no comment! Hi! :) El_C 07:09, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, I have read Jon Lee Anderson's work

Yeah, I haven't read that particular biography, but I have heard of it. It's generally considered the best one, though I can't tell you if that's from a leftist perspective. I would read it with a skeptical eye, and maybe ask Leftists who've read it before who can give you better guidance on its strengths and weaknesses. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful. --Che y Marijuana 09:05, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

(Section self-titled) Oh, you appear to have misread me, I wasn't asking for help. I have read it, as I said, recently. More on that at your user talk page. El_C

Oh... sorry. I was very sleepy at the time of reading your post. It was very late. I just may pick up a copy then, thanks :)--Che y Marijuana 20:05, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Not at all, it's my pleasure. El_C 04:14, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Conscious evolution

You may be interested to know that User:Dnagod, one of our Stormfront friends, has created an article on Conscious evolution, which has been proposed for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Conscious evolution. Best, SlimVirgin 04:45, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, Slim. All the best, El_C

npov tag

Hello El C, the edits on Afrocentrism looks much better now thanx a lot :) I'll probably add more stuff when the midterms are over. As for the previous POV version, I guess you gotta take whatever deeceevoice edits with a grain of salt, particularly on matters pertaining to African history. I remember having arguments with him/her on the same thing a couple months ago, on human migration and out of africa stuff. This guy equates everyone who's described as "dark" as "african" and claims it wouldn't be illogical for africans to have founded chinese, greek and indian civilization. ex: black chinese, black pythagoras, black buddha, black Beethoven, black Moors...you get the drift. I was advised by Guettarda not to bother arguing with him. I think I was finally labelled a racist by deeceevoice before he broke off arguing with me. Wareware 06:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the really positive response to my changes, Wareware, I am pleased you approve of them, and you being so graceful in not calling attention to my hitherto incompetence is certainly to your credit. I have yet to engage in any discourse with that editor, so perhaps it would be best if I refrain from making any comments on this front, but I thank you for bringing these concerns to my attention. Best of luck to you with your midterms. El_C 07:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wigdor...

Unless we get more encyclopedically notable material in the body of the article, we should reduce the number of links to the most pertinent ones (strictly for the page's appearence). Cake-me!

Not strictly according to Hoyle use of the edit summary box, but: yes, what you said, in spades. If you could do anything at all to clarify the peer-review/critical assessment/notability issue, I'd be much obliged to you. Trying to hold the ring between Bleedy and 24-dot-dot-dot is a little... well, trying. Some outside input would be much appreciated. Cheers, Alai 07:07, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Heh, I agree, cake is, indeed, quite deliciousness! Slightly more substantive thoughts on your talk page [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alai#Wigdor here]. Regards, El_C 07:18, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, that's exactly what it sounds like, factional bunfight. If someone were to come up with someone (themselves 'notable'!) to say he's important/unimportant, a surrealist/not-a-surrealist, good/bad, etc, etc, or better yet, one of each of all the above, in some context it'd be appropriate and feasible to quote and reference, I'd be a much happier man. (And it'd be a much happier article, IMO.) Alai 07:24, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I tend to think that those exist (just from having skimmed the lengthy talk page). By holding both the Anon editors equally accoutable, and noting this intent to both of them explitly and clearly, let's hope for goodfaith, and progress that will meaningfuly improve the article; I'm optimistic. El_C 07:38, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm glad to see you're still looking in on Keith Wigdor, sorry sight that it is. If nothing else because hopefully it means there's at least a sane second party if it comes to it, and it becomes necessary to RfC the... persons concerned. Alai 01:02, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ta again. Easy editting, really... Just hard on the blood pressure. I doubt we've heard the last of it, though. Alai 05:17, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

condescension

I thank you for forgiving me, ElC, and my apology was indeed directed at you. I still don't see my remark as particularly unfriendly, but it appears that it was mistaken anyway, so I withdrew it with apologies to you. I also agree that VfD says the redirect should be deleted. I simply don't see the harm of redirecting instead of deleting (but I see it has been deleted now, anyway). Your attitude seems rather belligerent, too, since you appeared to jump all over me for a tangential remark I made. It is important to assume as well as exerting good faith. No harm done at all, but you'll understand that I can't be bothered to follow this issue any further. dab (ᛏ) 16:19, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The [i]t seems this noticeboard is more and more becoming a replacement for both Village Pump and RfC which directly followed my comment, was an unfriendly statement which comes across as territorial and elitist. How am I supposed to respond to that, on the first day that I posted on the noticeboard, ever? 'Gee, dab, thanks for being so gracious, but my comment/s were very topical on the non-content front (unlike yours).' Well, that's pretty much what I said. I don't care about the issue so much as a seeming willingness on your part to ignor ordinary editors (such as myself and SlimVirgin) no matter what they say and instead only look at what the 'Administrators' or the 'official' postings are saying. This is how you are coming across to me, and your explantions are doing little to combat this impression. If you believe this isn't the case, you have the floor. Otherwise, I will not be told what to understand, but I will view your (non-procedural) admin capacity discreditably. El_C 17:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's back, still redirecting to Culture of Critique. The democracy is alive and well, I see. SlimVirgin 19:03, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
FYI [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Complaint_about_abuse_of_admin_power] SlimVirgin 21:37, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
well, I am sorry I came across this way, and I assure you this kind of 'class thinking' is very foreign to me. If at all, I judge editors by their attitude, not by their 'rank', and I was not aware, at the time of your posting, whether or not you are an admin (there are 400 of them. I don't know them all). I have also never thrown my weight around as an admin, and at no time have I used my privileges controversially. You are still free to dislike me of course, and I'm not going to lose any sleep over that. dab (ᛏ) 09:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am noting these developments (and in general Admin misconduct and territoriality – see above) with grave concerns. Thank you for bringing these issues to my attention. Please keep me posted about the situation (I will try my best to follow its outcomes). I will soon be undergoing certain medical procedures that will likely impact my participation here dramatically; so expect my presence here to be both intermittent and, erm, spaced-out (more so than normally).

All the best, El_C 01:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that, and hope it's nothing serious or scary, and that you'll be back in full working order very soon. The spaced-outedness sounds interesting, though . . . You'll be able to make outrageous edits but then beg community forgiveness on grounds of lack of capacity. Please let me know how you things go for you. SlimVirgin 02:07, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that very much. I hope it will turn out fine (though surgery does seem inevitable), I think it will, it look very likely (I hope I didn't just jingse myself though: corssing my fingers). Yes, clearly, that is one benefit which I overlooked. :) I will keep you posted. Thanks again for your concerns and kind words. I am having a tremendously difficult time with my life right now, and this encouragment really does make a big difference. Cordially & sincerely yours, El_C

I just tried to e-mail you but you haven't left an address, so this is just to say feel free to e-mail me if you ever want to chat. Just click on "e-mail this user" on the lefthand side of my user page, but of course don't feel obliged. I'm crossing my fingers too on your behalf. Yours, SlimVirgin 04:35, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say I'm thinking of you and hoping all is okay. Regarding Bernard, I saw you had added something but in fact I have not checked it out. I had to force myself to drop Bernard because I was in danger of developing an ownership attitude toward him, so I promised I wouldn't look at any changes for a couple of weeks. But I will look very soon. I see Mel made some changes too. So I'll have lots of reverting to do. (No, it's a joke). Best, SlimVirgin 06:14, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Very glad to hear it. Yes, you may say whatever you wish, as you have medical dispensation. SlimVirgin 07:34, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Yay! What the fuck was I talking about though? El_C 07:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As polite as always

We were on good terms at one point. I feel you made a conscious decision to change that [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Racialism&diff=7600146&oldid=7598836 here] and [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEl_C&diff=7627117&oldid=7626323 here]. If you regret that, make the necessary internal progress. If not, don't bother complaining about it to me. I am now, and shall ever be, as polite as always. Sincerely, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 19:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I feel that my response to the above will be better communicated through the aid of an advocate. I have submitted such a request for assistance [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance#User:El_C_vs._User:Sam_Spade here]. I am, therefore, refraining from making comments pending the outcome of that request. El_C 01:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK. For the sake of propriety I think I ought to inform you that there are as few as 2, and possibly as many as 4 or 5 (both numbers including myself) AMA advocates available. You may wish to contact them directly. If your concern would entail a request for mediation, I am likely to accept. Do not feel obligated to respond. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:32, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

AMA Request for Assistance

El C, thanks for your note. If you'd like, I'd be happy to accept duties advocating for you or, alternatively, assist you to find another advocate that suits you. Sam has indicated he'd be willing to try mediation; are you amenable as well?

Also, if you could send me links to relevant exchanges, I'd be grateful. Thanks! Wally 18:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am pleased to have you as my advocate, Wally. The exchanges will be compliled soon, but in the meantime, you should read the contents (and glance at the revision history) of Talk:Racialism, beginning chronologically with the archives. Thanks. El_C 07:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okey dokey, will do. I do have to mention, however (and I am sorry I did not do so before hand) that I will be away from this Friday through next Tuesday at the least and likely Wednesday as well. If you'd like, I could ask a second advocate to join this case and he or she can begin dealing with some of these issues immediately.

Also, bravo to you on your mainpage quote. Dante was a brilliant man — not to mention good with a phrase! :) Wally 04:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A giant; lyrical and poetic genius so masterful, with such immense depth and poignancy, it truly defies comprehension! So, yes, 'good with a phrase!' (as good as you seem to be with understatements! :p). To be honest, I actually wrote that under a narcotically-induced fit of rage; erm, I mean, 'intellectual' rage, of course (this should explain the jump from Inferno to Paradiso -- but the key is in the combination). Still, absolutely incredible passages; and I just did not have the heart to cite a translation for what, unarguably, no translation can do justice for. What were we talking about again? Ah, yes, the plan. I am actually very comfortable with your forthcoming absence; it is ideal, in fact. On Fri. I have to undergo a medical procedure that will leave me drugged-up again (I am now, and have been so since yesterday). For those reasons, I actually want to wait till next Thurs., and this provides a perfect excuse for that. So, no rush from these quarters: it all, then, depends on whether Sam Spade is amicable and is willing to reciprocate by withdrawing from editing those articles and talk pages in which we are both involved (and every indication I have suggests that he is, and so we can proceed along this time frame). Sorry for being so longwhinded (more so than usual) I am pretty out of it. Thanks again, Wally! El_C 09:16, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Sam seems to have indicated that he will avoid conflict for the time being until a settlement is reached; that said, I think it would be good if for at least some time you refrained from editing any articles that might bring you into conflict with Sam. I've already asked him, on your behalf, to do the same.

Also, I agree with you about the translations. As a matter of fact I don't think any poetry can truly be felt in a translated text; a mother tongue carries with it so much more than mere words. Same is very much true for novels, but I suppose in a less significant way; the novels lose something, while the verse loses everything. Wally 20:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Downsides_of_being_Spacedout

I strongly advise you to avoid conflict, particularly while in a state of less than optimal mental alacrity. I have taken note that our differences are not the only ones you've had in the last couple of days, and may be willing to place that in perspective if you back off from editing, or at least from interpersonal shenanigans until your medical issues have been resolved. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 08:32, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade's advise is a sound one, but the reader should note that I have no choice but to respond to charges he continues to make against my article revisions, and since I view his editorial practices as a prominent issue (in that specific article, at least), my responses follow. I would like to take a break from these (common articles, or at the moment, article), but I fear that an absence while ongoing comments by him persist, would work against my best interests. So, I have no choice but to take the obvious risks cited above. El_C

Actually, I made no such charges. It would appear you misunderstood my comment [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARacialism&diff=10252809&oldid=10251725 here]. In any case, I am not out to crucify you, but I warn you once again, back off from interpersonal conflict. Wait until you are healthy and clear headed, and reappraise the situation. If you must edit between now and then, stay well away from places like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Socialism and Racialism, and focus rather on obscure and uncontroversial pages. We both know that is in your best interest. As a gesture of wikipedia:truce, I will avoid contact and communication with you for a time. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 09:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But he will he continue to edit Racialism and address my contributions directly, all the while I'm expected to remain silent and concede to outright falsehoods (?).

At any rate, dear readres, bitter foes, and well-wishers, Let the record state that, in fact, I could not give a flying fuck about what is in my best interests right now.

A pleasure :-)

I don't have any time for Nazis. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A well earned image macro award, Ta bu shi da yu. I'm comforted knowing you're out there, promoting peace with vigilance. El_C 12:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Except that it was done because of his opinion. I'm quite a fan of Che myself, and I'll quote him one what I believe: [...] Iconoclast 00:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) [omitted: I appreciate that you are a fan, but I don't wish to have Che cited for this end on my talk page. El_C 05:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)]

Maybe so. We're all entitled to our opinions, and I stand by my own. El_C

Thinking of you

Just a quickie to say I'm thinking of you for tomorrow. Toes and fingers crossed; and healing thoughts being sent your way. SlimVirgin 22:56, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! It's nice to be in someone's thoughts. I'm a little nervous and apprehensive, but it should end up fine, *knock on cat* El_C

Very pleased to hear it! I had a very clear (positive) sense of you this morning (Feb 19) at what would have been 13:00 hrs UTC/GMT. I wondered if you had woken up feeling better or something (yes, I do believe in that stuff). I'm glad to have you back. SlimVirgin 00:36, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

I was sleeping then. Slept for many, many hours. Had some vivid, colourful dreams – perhaps a glimpse of these entered your intuitition, though, of course, I don't believe in those things. ;) Still hurting, but speedy recovery seems very likely, *knock on cat*, again (not that I believe in that either, but so much fun!). El_C 00:54, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

hey,

if you have time could you look at today's discussion at talk:capitalism concerning the introduction, and comment? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:11, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hey, see your talk page, I'll see if I can get to the article talk page later, but I'm still recovering from my ordeal (see above) and this entails keeping stress levels down ;) El_C 00:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your lengthy response. Personally, I agree with you. The problem is, our view is only one of many. In order to avoid an edit war in the intro, my idea is to have a very general description of things people use the word "capitalism" to refer to (hence the bullet points), and then a detailed discussion of the different views of capitalism in the body. When you have the enregy, please look at RJII's comments on the talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I hope you are doing better. If so, I'd still appreciate it if you could look at that talk page and engage RJII directly. See this edit [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capitalism&curid=5416&diff=0&oldid=0] -- My point is (1) not everyone will agree with this definition, and (2) given disagreements of definition, we shouldn't open with a definition but rather discuss different definitions in the body. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:38, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am, much better, thank you, SlR. I responded on the article talk page, I hope you approve of my approach towards the editorial dispute in question. El_C

capitalism

I thought your comment on the talk page was constructive, although I still feel that these issues should be worked out in the body of the article rathe than the introduction. Look, I think there are three issues here:

  1. the definition of capitalism -- this is RJII's main concern but I think it is a red-herring. What an article needs is not a definition (definitions are of words, not things, and this is a word that is used in so many different ways) but a description of capitalism and I think any description reflects a theoretical or political position (whether acknowledged or not). To try to come up with one definition, no matter how clever or popular, is a diversion.
  2. the structure of the article -- I think encyclopedia articles should be organized differently from dictionary entries or newspaper articles. Dictionaries present the most popular definition first, and progress towards the arcane; newspaper articles begin with the major point, and progress to the minor. I think an encyclopedia article should be more complex (especially when dealing with a complex topic). The introduction of an article should introduce the whole article by foreshadowing (or signaling) what is to come (and I think the current introduction does this quite well.) Maybe in this you and I disagree?
  3. basic principles of Wikipedia like no original research and cite sources. It seems to me from the talk page that RJII has some strong personal feelings about what capitalism is, but has not actually done any rigorous research into it. He thinks coming up with a definition is easy because "everyone" knows what capitalism is. I think there is almost no point to an encyclopedia article that is about what "everyone" knows -- it should cover things people do not know, and do so based on real research. RJII's ideological reading of Smith -- and his claim that his points are not supported by any citable passage of the book, but rather "the whole book" -- tells me he hasn't done any serious research, and may not even know how to.

I fear that these three different points keep getting mixed up, which doesn't help clear the air. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:03, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, it might be tricky to touch on these in the intro, but I still think a very broad outline (along the lines I proposed at RDII's talk page) is possible, certainly desirable. To address your points more specifically:

  1. I tend to agree that it is proving to be a red-herring, but I still think it is paramount to start with the statement that capitalism is an economic system. This is something that all the ideologies (Left, Moderate Left, Moderate Right, Right) acknowledge. Of course, Smith only saw glimpses of capitalism since he was living under, sort to speak, the last stage of feudalism. He never had a chance to see (industrial) capitalism, so this needs to be carfeuly qualified (more on that bellow).
  2. This, in fact, was one of the areas of disagreement I myself had with RDII: arguing to him/her that the article needs to be expansive and that it cannot resmeble Simple Wikipedia, or Wikitictionary (and I'll add now: even Britanica, Encarta, etc., for that matter). S/he did not, however, seem to strongly object to this when I insisted on the centrality of this.
  3. Back to Smith, I tend to agree with that, too. While I don't wish to 'pick sides,' certainly there is a need for him/her to cite passages from Smith's WoN or his ToMS in this extension (esp. when requested).

I hope I will be able to effectively encapsulate to him my opinion on these (and that my above explanation can lead into that). The discussion does seem to have gotten confusing, with several key areas getting mixed, which I agree, is not facilitative of clarity. Hopefuly, then, I can offset his concerns with yours, but I am fairly strict about citing sources and providing propper referncial evidence (a cursory glimpse into any of the articles I authored reveals this), so this is one area I intend to stress and elaborate on to him. In the case s/he ends up seeking my services with this, that is. El_C 00:33, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your response. Regardless of what RJII wants, I think you should be as active in improving the article as you have time for, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:46, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate that, but, while I often tread in waters deep, I probably should tread lightly with this one. It can easily consume me – and I mean, literally, as caloric intake! El_C 09:38, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm Back

Hey there, C. I've returned from my trip. Any developments since I've been away? Also, I'd like to get with you to begin discussing how you'd like to proceed with the case. Feel free to e-mail me at Paintball5320–at–aol.com (both corny and AOL, I know, but I'm far too lazy to change the eight year-old account). Wally 23:40, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back, Wally! I hope your trip involved some painball activities and was otherwise a positive experience. No, no developments to report on on this front. I will email you (probably tommorow) with more substantive thoughts. El_C

Hey C, I'm back as well.

I've been working on the Rhodesian Military History/Special Warfare article for the past few months when I have the free time as we discussed awhile back and things are progressing at a slow but steady pace. Since the last time we discussed it I've obtained permission to use information and some pertinent imagery from a very good website that's devoted to the Selous Scouts and as a result, that section of the article's just about finished. Since we were going to incorporate the military history/special warfare section that i'm writing into the SR article, I'd like your thoughts on the preliminary draft of that section. I'll get it out to you sometime today or tomorrow depending on how hectic things are around here. Sorry it's taken awhile to get everything together but with going back to College and all my schedule's become pretty insane.

Again, my humble apologies for the delay.

Scuzz138 09:38, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Down with bullets!

I don't like the bullet thing either, unless there are multiple definitions of capitalism ..then you would need to put each definition in a bullet. But, yes all three bullets, as they were, seemed like they were just trying to skirt around and hint at capitalism instead of actually defining it. It looks like a cop-out to me from someone who is afraid to define it, or avoiding it for some mysterious reason.

As far as saying it's "currently the dominant economic system on the planet"..I think that that is POV. Many people disagree and would say, rather, that the major economies are "mixed economy", each having it's own skew toward capitalism, socialism, or whatever. A good definition of capitalism should be able to stand on it's own as a concept. Whether any particular system in existence accords with that definition is where judgement comes in. I think all we need to do is define the system called capitalism. I think the first bullet there now is ridiculous. RJII

[Section self-titled] Thanks for your response, RJII. I am pleased to learn that you are also down with Down with bullets! You make some goodpoints here which I adress at some length (but hoepfuly not too much longwindedness) at your own talk page's [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RJII#Down_with_bullets.21 Down with bullets!] section (also self-titled by yours truly). El_C

Yes, I agree with what you are saying there. The only thing I would advise is that the very definition of capitalism should only take one or two sentences. I don't really oppose a statement that the world economies have moved toward capitalism in the intro, just as long as it doesn't leave the impression that it's part of the actual definition. So, I think we are on the same level here. I'm against the bullets. So, one of us needs to get rid of them and then get ready for a bit of conflict if that's what it takes. Feel free if I don't get to it first. RJII 16:06, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Roger that! More (again, sigh: lengthy) thoughts on your user talk page. El_C

Yes Slr and i are getting into distracting disputes. We know what his position is ..he doesn't want capitalism to be defined in the intro. It's obvious that his objective is to disrupt any progress in doing so, naturally. So I'm not going to play into his distractions anymore. If you have a definition feel free to stick it in the intro. Those of us who want a definition in the intro will edit amongst ourselves, while experiencing intermittent reversions by SlR who wants to keep definitions out of the intro. It's the only way I know to do it. RJII 00:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked your comment earlier, RJII. I responded (for once, not so longwindedly) on your talk page. Thanks. El_C 09:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you wanted, you could work on a marxist type definition. My understanding is that capitalism has two definitions ..the marxist-influenced one, and the more common one found in dictionaries. Then we can put them both in the intro. Let me know what you think. RJII 23:26, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

New Webster's Dictionary (print)

Well, I certainly agree very strongly that within the broadest Right-Left generaliztion, the Marxists had the most influence among the Left. Also, RJII, I want you to note and address the (one-sentence) definition by The New Webster Dictionary for English Languages (print; p. 146) : n. Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are privately owned and operated for profit (definition cited in its entirety; bold is my emphasis)

That's one of the two main definitions of capitalism..perfect example. (This is the definition of capitalism I always hear from Marxists, but of course it doesn't have to be labeled as such). The other definition goes beyond that and notes the "free market" aspect ..the private autonomy, which you'll find in the Merriam-Webster dictionary and most other sources. I really think it's important that this distinction is made from the outset in the intro. RJII 01:05, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Again, RJII, I can see the utility in limiting the intro to the Right (as seen by 'Classical' Liberals) and the Left (as seen most prominently by Marxists), but I don't know to what extent it is tenable (in being sufficiently inclusive), nor, to be honest, even desirable. But, of course, I remain open to persuasion and am looking forward to your thoughts. El_C 23:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I put together a bullet-free intro: "While various definition of capitalism exist they typically fall under two categories. The most common set of definitions that abound denote the private ownership of capital, the private nature of economic decision-making, and most often mention the existence of a free market. The other, somewhat prevalant, set of definitions do not refer to the nature of economic decisions or methods of pricing and distribution but, instead, define capitalism as the private ownership of capital. Most of the practices that are considered to comprise capitalism became institutionalized in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries, especially involving the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as "legal persons" (or corporations) to buy and sell capital goods such as land, labor, and money (see finance and credit), in a free market (see trade), and relying on the protection by the state of private property rights and the adjudication by the state of explicit and implicit contractual obligations rather than feudal obligations." RJII 15:36, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So you're back. Well, I've come to the conclusion that all we can do is start editing ..kicking stuff around and see what happens. Rubenstein and Ultramarine appear to be beyond reasoning with and seem intent to vigilantly guard the intro as if it's great. I recommend that we just start editing and explaining along the way. Talking and debating has little value if no action is taken. The bullets can easily be deleted by removing "one or more of the following" out of the intro sentence. Then for the remaining two bullets: "Capitalism is also used to refer to theories..etc" Rubenstein just loves those bullets even at the cost of intro making no sense. RJII 18:33, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


User_talk:Sam_Spade#skinhead

Thanks for what I assume was a friendly gesture, but I prefer to respond to such questions directly. I am responding here rather than thru your advocate both because I assume you are in better health, and because I hope your edit to my talk page is suggestive of some progress, however minor. Regardless, where are we @, and where are we trying to go? Is there a best case scenario which we are striving towards? Even if we can't be friends, we can at least avoid each other, or agree to disagree. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:18, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I thank Sam Spade for his comment. The deletion of the comment left on his user talk page which ended with Zeig Heil, was not so much a gesture (not friendly nor unfriednly), no more so than [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Wikipedia2&curid=1545513&diff=0&oldid=0 this], rather, it was an action against a personal attack that I noticed on my watchlist. The objection to the deletion is noted and I will refrain from similar future actions. Avoiding each other as much as possible certainly strikes me as a sound suggestion, but whenever discourse becomes unavoidable, I see a best case scenario consisting of professional courtesy (as in professional encyclopedia editors), namely, with Sam Spade adhering to WP:Civility, avoiding deriding chat room exclamations (i.e. "WTF," "LOL," "BS," etc.) and otherwise unecessary emotionalisms (snide rhetorical questions, sarcastic nuances, et cetera, etc.). If there is anywhere to go beyond this, frankly, I do not have the time or energy to expend on such an affair at this time.

I request that Sam Spade continues to refer to my advocate until an agreement or detente is reached, though I should stress that I do not view him contacting me directly –in this instance– discreditably. I am confident that Sam Spade can see the benefit in and will be able to conduct himself in accordance with (and the same goes for myself, of course) the terms I set out above (my advocate can provide further details on these). This whole dispute, therefore, should be concluded expediently. Simply because Sam Spade makes me 'personally' uncomfortable is no grounds for editorial collaboration becoming impossible. It does, however, suggest taking professional courtesy in our discourse to the utmost extreme: limiting it to a technical, humorless, and matter-of-fact exchanges. Again, I thank Sam Spade for his comment, and I refer him to my advocate for any further questions. Based on his response here, I see no reason why this dispute shouldn't be concluded in the very near-future. El_C

Your E-Mail

I'm going ahead (a bit belatedly) and posting your requests to Sam's page, reworded a bit but the same in substance. I'm also posting a request for mediation. Might I request, until then, that you two not argue on my talk page? It clutters things up. Wally 01:50, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you might. ;) Sorry, Wally. And thanks. El_C 04:40, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi! I left a message on S.S.'s page relating to his latest dig at you, but he deleted it very quickly ([htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASam_Spade&diff=10671621&oldid=10670509]) — I've mentioned it to Wally. I'd have e-mailed you directly, as I don't want to discuss details in public, but it seems you've not set up your e-mail address. If you want to contact me, mine's set up on my User page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just checking in

Have sent you a couple of e-mails, and after no reply, checked here and see you haven't made an edit for three days, so I'm beginning to wonder if you're okay. Let me know how you're doing when you can. If you've been off trying to have a life outside Wikipedia, you know that's not allowed. Big Sister may have to send out her thought police. SlimVirgin 22:38, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Sam Spade has asked me to mediate between you and him. I do not even know what the case is about. However, I am willing to give it a go, if you are willing to accept me as a mediator. Please answer on my page. Danny 02:08, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back

Needless to day, you're always welcome to the capitalism discussion. RJII now seems to be claiming that "private ownership of capital" is the marxist definition of capitalism. Ultramarine created a new article, Definitions of capitalism and I added a few definitions, including Marx's, as best I understand it. Well, I can understand why you'd rather stay away. I am sure we have other things to talk about (have you followed the lengthy discussions on the list-serve involving "abusive editors," and "Rules, expertise, and encyclopedic standards?" It is a lot to go through -- but I am sure your view of the matter would be helpful, Slrubenstein | Talk 21:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I have some thoughts as to that (and will look at the definitions), but, yes, later (which is to say, hopefuly soon!). Indeed, I have somewhat been following the discussion in these (w-l) threads. Lastnight, esp., I gave it a more thorough read. I find your thoughts (esp.) therein to be very reasonable: at this point I can say that I certainly share and support the thrust of your argument. I will comment on this once I'm become better aquianted with the pertinent discussions. El_C 21:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hey, you're more than welcome and thank you for the Bowie gif, which I will treasure! I used to love him. Can't say when without betraying age considerations. Welcome home. ;-) SlimVirgin 21:09, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
Nice! I just love how the animated gif pauses him (in deep thought) only to be followed by...partying hard! :D El_C 21:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Glad that everything seems to have gone well. I assume that it all goes on behind closed doors (as it were), or is there a public record? Mel Etitis 23:34, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No, it didn't, yet. Sorry, it was just a belated response to your last comment. Nothing has yet to happen beyond what you see. I have no problem whatsoever with a record being made (and/or this taking place in) public though — in fact, I encourage it (though I do not insist). El_C

African philosophy

Thanks for your comment. I think, though, that there is a (huge) difference between ideology and philosophy. An ideology is essentially just a collection of ideas; even if that definition is expanded a little, it's worlds apart from philosophy, which is a distinctive way of tackling (primarily abstract) issues through analysis, questioning, and argument. Philosophy might lead to an ideology, of course. I'll look again at what I've got so far, and see how it can be made clearer on this point (and on others). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Clearly. My contention, though, is that 'a special way of reasoning' is an somewhat epistemologically oblique way of phrasing it. An ideology states that this or that represents its philosophical outlook on this and that, and these, then, in part, are the ideas, whose relationality the text seems to neglect in highlighting as a contradistinction rather than as dictinction, sort to speak). El_C

But I'm not sure what a 'philosophical outlook' is (as distinct from an outlook). If you mean that an ideology is a set of ideas reached philosophically (as opposed to a set of ideas reached in some other way), then I'm not sure why; couldn't there be an ideology reached in some other way? But in any case, such a definition still distinguishes between the product and the process (which is one of the main issues in the debate concerning the nature of African philosophy). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:27, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That notion, though, if I'm correctly following you, seems to superimpose rather than explain through abstractions. The manner in which the meaning behind philosophical and theoretical have changed, especially throughout the last century, warrants especial and careful attention as to their depiction. More scattred thoughts on your [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mel_Etitis&curid=1423414&diff=0&oldid=0 talk page]. El_C 02:56, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Soory not to get back to you immediately; a new User is (completely innocently) making a bit of a mess of things, including deleting other people's messages from my Talk page, and in the confusion I missed your message. You said:

I seem to be failing articulating myself, likely if I had your skills with languages I would not be having such a difficult time. Being the interdesciplinary that I am, I'm still bothered by the formal catgorization in the last sentence, especially 'a special way of reasoning.' Is sociological theory, political theory, anthropological theory, etc., not a special way of reasoning, too? Can all these et ceteras, and the philosophical, through certain vantage points, not be considered ideological, and vice versa?

I should probably point out that what I'm saying here (and in the African philosophy article) isn't my personal view (well, it is) but a standard view found in most introductions to philosophy, dictionaries of philosophy, and in much of the literature directly concerning African philosophy. The biggest problem, though (and again, one that's mentioned in most introductory sources and courses) is that the nature of philosophy can't easily be explained — it's something that one learns by doing. Once one has – well, not mastered it, but – got to grips with it, one can tell the difference between philosophy and other disciplines, but explaining it to others is no easier than grasping it from explanations.

As Antony Flew recounts in the Preface to his Dictionary of Philosophy: when G.E. Moore was asked 'What is philosophy?', his response “was to gesture towards his bookshelves: 'It is what all these are about.'”

I suppose that the point here is in two interlocking parts: philosophy is distinguished by its aims and subject matter (very roughly: the meaning and truth of claims about the world at the most abstract level) and its methodology (roughly; rigorous analysis, questioning, and argument). What you referred to as ideology might sometimes involve the same subject matter, but it's a set of ideas, not a process of reasoning; the disciplines that you gave as examples – “sociological theory, political theory, anthropological theory, etc.” – might sometimes involve some of the same methods of reasoning, but involve different aims and subject matter.

To give a crude example — approaches to religion: the sociologist is concerned with the relationship between society and relgion, perhaps with religion as social; the historian is concerned with the development of religion as belief-system and social structure, etc.; the psychologist is concerned with the effect of religion on the individual, etc.; the philosopher is concerned with whether religious claims are true (and with whether they make sense).

This has all been a bit rushed (I'm supposed to be preparing a talk I'm giving in Cambridge on Thursday(!), so I can't expound at the length I'd like to), but does it help to answer your question? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:15, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the very thoughtful and well thought out comment, Professor. I enjoyed reading it very much. I responded, to it [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mel_Etitis&curid=1423414&diff=0&oldid=0 here]. Sorry it is relatively brief, I'm writing somewhat in haste, too. All the best, El_C 13:52, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(The talk is a defence of mind-body substance dualism, to what I expect to be an amicably hostile audience.)

The point about philosophy is that, unlike the other disciplines, it is reflexive¹. That is, one can philosophically question the nature of philosophy (which is in part what I take you to be doing); moreover, philosophers do philosophise about philosophy (that's one of the values of the long-running debate concerning the nature of African philosophy). That makes it, if not immune to ideology, then at least protected against long-term ill-effects. Note also that the claim that ideology inflences philosophy is either an empirical claim (and thus requires empirical evidence), or is itself a philosophical claim (and seems to be influenced by a certain ideology — something lime post-modernism or the like?).

(¹ That's slightly misleading, of course; one can think historically about the doings of historians, for example, but that won't in itself help one to reach any further insight into how history ought to be done, or what it ought to be.)

Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. How did it go? Remember, Philosophers have always tried to interpret the world, the point is to change it. :-) I will get back to you with a more suitable response soon. Thanks again for your substantive and (as always) carefully thought out comment. El_C 22:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

third party opinion

hiya El C, third party opinion needed (RfC) on melanin. I'm engaged in a revert war with the Afrocentrist, so you know how it goes. It might not be your specialty but any help is appreciated. Thanx Wareware 19:10, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Greetings, Wareware. I am not an expert, but I will be pleased to look into for you. Before I do, though, could you briefly summarize for me the dispute in informal terms? El_C 03:02, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good faith

You are wonderfully patient. But I will repeat an old aphorism of cybercommunications: don't feed the troll. Some discussions go nowhere on purpose. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Cheers, -Willmcw 10:06, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

My patience has been exhausted, and point taken (goodfaith and the benefit of the doubt can be a harsh mistress). Thanks for the kind words, and for your contributions to the project (which I have noticed prior, credibly so). Best, El_C 13:52, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

E-mail?

Hi El C. I hope this is the right place to post on your Talk: page. Could you possibly e-mail me? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 19:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jay. Yes, pretty much anywhere on this talk is fine. I will email you momentarily. All the best, El_C 22:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Human

El C, in the event that you have several hours to spare every day, seven days a week, for the next six months, at least, you are heartily invited to Talk:Human, and in particular to this section [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human#Intro_continued], where a number of editors, including Mel and Felonious Monk, are struggling to defend an introduction that does not mention souls, Adam, or Eve. The current version of the introduction on the page is the one preferred by Mel, FM, and myself. The other editors object to the reference to humans as primates belonging to the great-ape family, at least in the first sentence, and perhaps at all. Please feel under no obligation to visit the page; it is tedious in the extreme, and I would wish it on no one, but there is a chance that an intelligent fresh eye would help to sort things out. P.S. SS puts in an occasional appearance there in case that makes a difference to you. PPS Did you receive "why dogs go outside"? SlimVirgin 23:52, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Slim, unfortunately it does, and I cannot participate in the discussion since Sam Spade is already involved, and I made a commitment to my advocate (wherever he might be!) to avoid those pages in which he is actively involved until the dispute resolution process (whenever that might be!) is concluded. *** Yes, I got and chuckled at the smokey dogs, thank you for that! Sorry I didn't get a chance to respond yet, I was pressed for time. All the best, El_C

No problem. Regarding Human, I've just proposed a compromise version that discusses Humans in scientific and spiritual terms, by couching it in terms of competing narratives, so hopefully the long discussion will soon drawn to a close. I'd like to upload dogs for my talk page, but the upload page doesn't seem to allow mpg files. If you happen to know how to do it, perhaps you could let me know. SlimVirgin 22:06, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Goodluck with arriving at a consensus version with Human, Slim. Feel free to consult me on it here on my talk page. Does Wikipedia upload allows video files? I'm not certain that it does. If you do find out that to be the case, I'll be pleased to help you with converting the mpg into another format. Let me know. El_C

Jayjg arbitration comments

Hi El_C. I appreciated your thorough reading and comments but was a bit surprised that you elected not to respond to my most recent post. You seem to have a pretty good grasp of Wikipedia policy, so I wonder if you'd like to respond to the post on my talk page. Sorry to bother you with this, but I'm quite interested in your thoughts. sneaky 00:03, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Hi sneaky, I responded on your talk page [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASneaky&diff=0&oldid=11177244 here]. El_C 22:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey.

I'm gonna miss you and your kitties. However, I leave you with the most crazy cat, Ta bu shi da yu:

This is what Wikipedia does to you if you stay here too long. Beware!

Keep up the good work, and don't lose that zany sense of humour! Keep posting more pictures of cats doing odd things :-) Ta bu shi da yu 02:10, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

BWAHAHAH! Great pic! Thank you! I'll try, no one appreciated my kitties like you did, though. I'll miss you. El_C 05:30, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Human

I've put up an RFC regarding Human. Any input or suggestions would be most welcome. RFC says: Talk:Human - Dispute about finding an appropriate introduction to Human between those who want a more scientific introduction and those who want a stronger spiritual or religious component. Several compromise intros have been suggested, none acceptable so far. See here for the versions: Talk:Human/draft. Discussion taking place here [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human#For_any_newcomers]. SlimVirgin 22:25, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I will try to look into it (the intro, I presume?) soon, Slim. I will note any thoughts in the safe-heaven that is your talk page. El_C 23:56, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

misunderstanding

Dude, you misunderstood that message to you in Capitalism. I was talking about the actions of someone else to you, rather than about you. I guess I wasn't clear. Sorry about that. You've been nothing but forthright and civil. I left a note on Talk there. RJII 04:30, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Clearly I did! My apologies. Too many things were going on at once. How embarrassing. I need to eat my own words and read more closely in the future (and if not, not write anything at all). Which I do ordinarily attempt to do, I hope you believe me that this is an isolated incident. El_C 12:10, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

capitalism again

Hi El C. Thanx for your reply on my Talk page. Clearly, we do have contradictory views, but that should not keep us from being civilised, as you noted. First of all, concerning your view of truth (which I don't take personally, don't worry), I must say that I believe to have enough critical sense to judge for myself what are lies and what aren't. Indeed, facts are the key, but, contrarily to what you claim, facts are also the basis of modern economics. Maybe you didn't take economics courses, which may explain your relative ignorance on how modern economic theory is elaborated. I'll no go into details, but just make a few comments: a)As an example of how facts force economics to evolve, just note that Ricardo's free trade theory is considered to be rather irrelevant nowadays, exactly because it does not explain modern trade flows. Other theories have thus supplanted it (among others Krugman's). b)What the media claim to be the neo-liberal view is, in fact, a distorted view not necessarily shared by all economists. Stiglitz, for instance, criticised the IMF and the World Bank. Amartya Sen, also a Nobel prize winner, argues for a theory that puts liberty at the centre of research, and also argues that poverty must be fought exactly because it takes economic liberty away from the poor. c) I certainly don't believe whatever corporations say is the best for humankind, since it is well-known that what benefits corporations is not necessarily beneficial for consumers.

I notice the introductory part has gotten a bit too long; sorry for that. I'll leave it at that for now. Concerning the capitalism article, I'm continuing to argue for an intro that also shows other points of view. I would lik to continue the development discussion with you, but leave that for another day. Luis rib 15:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response. Yes, I'm familliar with these criticisms, that dosen't negate neoliberal capitalism being the dominant economic impetus on the planet today. And, yes, I do have quite a familiarity with how the modern economy works – ignorance is most certainly a double-edged sword, please keep that in mind. I appreciate some of your reformist sentiments, but I still feel you're neglecting far more fundamental contradictions. By all means, feel free to continue this discussion at your convinience (unless there is a specific item above that you wish for me to address at length). El_C 21:08, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Capita...cake

Thanks for your note and for the video. (I checked out some of the others; they're very good, particularly the Evil Strawberry). It's a pity you're withdrawing, as your expertise is needed, but I can't say I blame you. In the short time I've been watching the page, I've lost track of the hundreds of versions and reversions (before the taking of a toast and tea). [htp://www.bartleby.com/198/1.html] At the moment, the version is [htp://www.bartleby.com/198/1.html this one], on the right, which I have to say I don't mind, because it's to the point and encyclopedic, though I'd add a second paragraph referring to Adam Smith and Marx. I'd be interested to hear your views on what's missing, though only if you're not busy. Human seems to be sorting itself out, by the way. Several editors seem able to agree on compromise intro #3,000. ;-) SlimVirgin 14:48, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Not to lose my usual touch of humility (hah!), but I also think that my expertise is needed there, unfortunately, I don't find the editorial enviornment facilitative for such a collaboration (for all the reasons cited, esp. the deep, profound ones). As T.S. Eliot eloquently put it (and thanks for the wonderful poems), I should have been a pair of ragged claws[,] scuttling across the floors of silent seas. Should have-could have. :) El_C 21:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey you, this is to thank you for supporting me in my adminship nomination, and for the congrats. I appreciate it very much. I briefly thought of trying out my new blocking thing tonight by blocking you for three minutes as requested, but then I didn't dare, on the grounds that I'd have no idea how to unblock you, and I would have been sacked on my first day. SlimVirgin 04:09, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Not blocking me for three minutes = your first abuse of admin powers, I will hear no excuses about technical competence and what not! So now I have to (single-handedly) take you down. But first: congrats! El_C 06:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the notes on my page, and the cheery card. If you think you can make a case for RJII POV warrioring, the ArbCom is hearing it and if you can, add evidence. I too am tired of all this, yet -- it's important. I guess... Slrubenstein | Talk 23:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back, SlR! Thanks for the kind words, unlike many here, you never cease to read me correctly, which is to your credit as I am rather...what-you-say inarticulate sometimes. Yes, clearly, while tiring (understatement) it's important. I may look into it, but suddenly I seem to have a lot on my plate. Also, to be more blunt, I don't think the Committee views me as particularly credible, esp. with regards to this issue,so my efforts might end up counterproductive, yielding the opposite results intended – a key consideration. El_C 23:23, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What can I say? I sometimes disagree with you, but have never found your meaning obscure (for example, if I read the talk page correctly, you believe capitalism is an economic system. I know this is a widely held and legitimate position, but I believe capitalism is and must be understood as a social and cultural system as well). As for credibility -- well, I too used to think I had little or no credibility with the ArbCom, except now the ArbCom is taking my complaints against RJII seriously (as seriously as any other complaint). I think the key tactic is to avoid writing polemics, and instead simply to provide well-documented violations of Wikipedia policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:13, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am sad to say that, this time, you have failed. I actually agree with you and I think it should say social and economic or socio-economic system as it does on the Hebrew Wikipedia for example. And cultue should not be discounted, either (though the first sentence should read: 'C is a s-e system,' as it does on .he). More on your talk page, which should be glowing in organgeness now! El_C

Don't be sad -- it's a minor misunderstanding easily fixed. It's my fault that I didn't read your last message to me carefully enough, where you specified "social." As I said, I wasn't even entirely sure it was your position, as the debate on the talk page is sometimes hard to untangle, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reference

Do you remember what article that was on? I hate to admit that I have forgotten. Did you fix the reference there? Jayjg (talk) 17:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Heh, it's okay. T'was Roots of anti-Semitism, no I didn't get around fixing it yet. Actually, I don't quite understand how that embedded referencing works and was hoping either you or Slim can explain it to me. El_C 19:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Latin for Sunny

Hi there!

I know that you actually asked Mel, not me, but I just had to look it up... So I might as well quote the result:

sunny

apricus, a, um

soli or solibus expositus, a, um

sunny spot

apricum, i, neutr.

From Standaard Handwoordenboek Nederlands-Latijn / Latijn-Nederlands. Shinobu 06:24, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hello! And thanks, I appreciate the help. I asked (just for my own curiosity) as I just finished writing the lead for Tunisia and wandered what the word was (viz. 'Tunis'). Sadly, I remain confused on that front. El_C 06:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think that might be the etymology of Africa. [htp://mec.sas.upenn.edu/marhaba/tunis.htm Compare e.g. this website.] Shinobu 07:29, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah! The (non-Latinized) source I have for this is in error. Many thanks. El_C

You're welcome. Bye! Shinobu 08:27, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

sunny

I'm no expert, but (depending on the context and meaning) you might try 'apricus' [htp://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3D%233228] or 'insolo' [htp://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3D%2323893]. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

After I'd woken up, had breakfast, abluted, etc., found your message, replied by making a new section (without checking the rest of your page), I found that the above had been happening. Sorry to be so late (but if you could see me you'd know how much I need my beauty sleep). Still, I do offer one alternative not covered above. I'm no Latinist, though, so I had to look it up. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:14, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was of the impression you Classicists were fluent in all them dead & otherwise, really old tongues. הרבה תודות, though! :) εı_ć 11:25, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, but I'm not a Classicist — I'm a philosopher (which, of course, means that I think that I can talk about everything and anything). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[Oh, I thought you were both] We historical materialists feel much the same way. Back to quantum chromodynamics … El_C 12:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please note that insolěre is a verb. Would my dictionary have contained it, it would have looked like:

to place in the sun insolěre, insolavi, insolatum

This defines the perfect participle: placed in the sun insolatus, a, um. Shinobu 14:07, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah. Now to find the etymology of Tunis. ;) الجمهرية, εı_ć 21:32, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A Night in Tunisia

Just noticed your question on the etymology of Tunis; it's not 100% certain, but the word is known to be pre-Roman, and Mohamed Chafik tentatively links it to a Berber word thaunza meaning promontory[htp://www.mondeberbere.com/culture/chafik/maghreb/substratberbere.htm]. Another suggestion (I think Salem Chaker) links it to the verb ens (with feminine prexix t-) meaning "to spend the night". - Mustafaa 02:49, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A most insightful answer, Mustafaa. "To spend the night," ♫ A Night in Tunisia ♫, if you will! That satisfies me. :) Many thanks for solving the mystery! El_C

¿Cosas estan todo derecho?

Haven't heard from you in a while. Did you get my e-mail? My address book was lost due to an AOL expletive deleted-up, so I no longer have your address. There are a couple of things I'd like to discuss. Could you send me a note or post your e-mail so I can get that sent out? Wally 22:18, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Am I allowed to make an AoL joke? (you're leaving yourself too open for these) :p I shall email you momentarily. Best, εı_ć 22:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are; I deserve it for having AOL.
Plus, I already replied to Sam. You can read my reply on his talk page — I think it succinctly dispensed with that issue. Wally 23:37, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Let's pretend I did. :)
Your reply to Sam Spade is, of course, 100% consistent with my position. As always, you enjoy my complete confidence. El_C

I apologize to you, Wally

Wally, I found Sam Spade's [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWally&diff=11504637&oldid=11503633 comments] bordering on personal attack, unecessarily intimidating and combative, out of line, out of order, and out of proportion to what was actually asked. Moreover, he failed to actually answer the very simple, highly pertinent (and, I argue, fair) question I posed (before and after you convinced me not to press on it further as seen directly above). I, however, Wally, am perfectly willing to answer his question directly and without evasion (and this, regardless if I'm speaking directly to him or not, which should make no difference as to the querry's contents). So to answer his question: you (Wally) have been taking care of this area of the mediation process ("bothering to keep up," if you will) on my behalf, I have, indeed, done nothing on that front precisely since I am fortunate enough to have you, a highly able and committed advocate to do it for me. And I do –not– think you have failed in this task (not that I suggest that Sam Spade is implying this). I do think you have more than bothered to "keep up" with it for me (so I won't have to, to save me the stress, affording me the opportunity to focus on my contributions to the encyclopedia, which, again, I am very fortunate for). *** I was just genuinely puzzled as to who these alleged "others" were. I certainly should have requested through email that you ask him this, I will do so in the future, and I apologize to you for not having done so here. Again, please feel free to penalize me in any way you see fit, as I said, I feel you are more than entitled to opt for such measures. El_C 13:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, I am at your service, not the other way around, and therefore if you desire to speak to Sam directly it is entirely at your leisure; in general, it is just better to rout such things through the advocate. I have, however, no problem at all with your comments; I was rather struck by that message myself. Your apology, while completely unnecessary, I assure you, is nonetheless accepted. I have also replied to Sam's latest post on my talk page on his; all I suggest is that none of us speak anymore of this, as the entire discussion is not only tangental but can only serve to cause a flare up of hostility which you and I have been and continue to be so keen to avoid.

I am, as always, yours,

Wally 19:48, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As always, Wally, I hold you in the highest regard. I agree with everything that you said (though I could certainly –but will not– add to it). To be honest, the whole incident took me off gurard. Perhaps, then, it is best for me to follow your suggestion and limit my response to the above. Cordially sincerely yours, El_C

SS's latest

Don't worry — anyone reading his latest bluster, in which he manages in a short message to be aggressive and rude, and to completely to misunderstand plain English, will get a pretty clear idea of what's been going on. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:53, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My dear Professor, Mel,

I'm sure you understand why I am choosing not to comment directly to your above note. But I wish to take this opportunity to tell you that I consider you one of the most outstanding contributors on the encylopedia – both in terms of your prodigious knowledge and your commendable, highly positive interpersonal skills; not to mention, sound moral convictions. Yours, εı_ć 13:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wareware RfC

Just stopped by to offer my thanks for your assistance and support in this matter. You and SlimVirgin are great allies. I've been feeling isolated on Wikipedia for so long, it never occurred to me before to ask for assistance. It never occurred to me anyone would be at all helpful. Will get back to this matter when I can, but I've got some pressing deadlines over the weekend. And I'm now not only dealing with a problem with my hardware, but my wordprocessing software, as well. *sigh* I think I'll get a sledgehammer, put it to good use, then "move out to the country an' paint my mailbox blue" (from an old Taj Mahal blues favorite). Peace 2 u. deeceevoice 02:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC) (aka Ned Ludd) :-p

Can I say that you are not the easiest person to deal with, DC? :) Yes, we do not tolerate racism on Wikipedia, and editors such as Slim and myself are committed to comabtting such acts unremittingly. So keep us in mind in the event of, though note that I am far more long-winded than her. Best of luck with your deadlines and all the techings therein. With the subtlety of a sledge hammer, yours, El_C

One question. When and why did you move your name from the endorsement portion to the certification portion? I understand the second certifying name should be that of someone who attempted and failed to resolve the dispute. And you did not. I don't even remember your presence in any of the forums pertinent to the complaint. So, how'd that happen? deeceevoice 14:21, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your recollection seems to be failing you in this case; as it did me, which is the reason why upon seening more evidence and being reminded of the extent of my involvement in that one article, I changed my position. All I mostly remembered though, prior, was chastising and taking you to task for namecalling and throwing your weight inappropriately, sometimes rather painfuly, I should add. Anyway... As for the why (part of it; see bellow links for others): I was attempting to resolve the dispute on the request of Wareware rather than yourself, though this was more an aside to my work at that article. This is why I was hesitant to certify. The additional evidence illustrated to me and helped me recollect that I had, in fact, witnessed some milder forms of the dispute (Ww knew better to not behave around me as he so shamefully did elsewhere), and I did attempt to resolve it, albeit not seeing the true underlying nature of it. You may also refer to my explanation at the [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Wareware#Addendum:_2nding RFC talk page] and [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Binadot#Request_for_Comment User talk:Binadot]'s talk page; then you may wish to give the Af. talk page and its respective archive a glance. If you have any further questions after that, I would be pleased to answer them. As for the when: see respective timestamps. El_C 15:02, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for directing me to the relevant passages in the talk page of the RfC re your earlier peripheral involvement in the dispute. Great. I was concerned about a possible inaccuracy impeding the progress of this matter. I'm glad you were able to certify it, so that it can move forward. Thanks for your assistance. And, yes, I'm reading to move this forward. Like all of us, I think, I'd like to get this behind me and move on. deeceevoice 06:04, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wareware, an outside view

Thanks for your effort; but, of course, I disagree with much of it. Simple disagreements with some of my views did not lead me to think I would receive no support. It has been the silence of other Wiki members regarding derisive and insulting comments directed at me, yet their criticism of my responses -- e.g., the unwelcome, biased comments like those of Pharlap and Ed Poor. On the whole, the incidents involving both of them are pretty much par for the course. Further, I simply don't believe in running and tattling on folks. I tend to believe differences pretty much can be ironed out among reasonable adults. (Of course, Wareware is not reasonable.)

And on that note, Wareware's abuse was not "obscured" by his "voice of reason." There you go sugarcoating things again. It's pretty hard to "obscure" a lot of the garbage he's written. Editors simply chose to overlook it. They're either racist themselves, or they just decided that since they also disagreed with me, they didn't give a damn and wouldn't speak up. They made a concious choice.

Further, don't project emotions on to me that I don't own. At no time have I been "desperate." At no time have I been hurt my Wareware's remarks. But, again, I do recognize them as an affront to me as an African-American and, more importantly, to the race as a whole. And this is not empty bravado. Growing up during segregation and the early days of integration -- and just simply being black in this nation -- I've developed a degree of mental toughness that allows me to maintain a psychic and emotional centeredness, an equilibrium; I know who I am. And that means I do not give creatures like Wareware the power to upset me or to hurt me. His lies mean nothing.

Frankly, if I had my druthers, you would not have been my choice to write an outside view of this. You still seem far too accommodating of Wareware's conduct, far too willing to explain it away, and far too willing to judge my comportment on Wikipedia in light of our run-in (which, franky, I don't recall) -- and to do so totally outside the context of the climate of hostility and targeted, one-sided criticism in which I've been functioning for months here on Wikipedia. The site is racist as hell.

You really wanna know what I think of your outside view? Presumably, it's a well-intentioned effort, but I think it sucks. And that's just speaking frankly. Grácias por tu apoyo; pero pienso que, por mayor parte, tus palabras no son completamente verdaderas ni justas.

Further, with regard to your characterization of my conduct, I invite you to read my comments on my talk page under "disregard this." If you saw at all Pharlap's "contribution" (which, for all intents and purposes, no longer exists; but it's likely to resurface), then you'll know what I'm referring to. Further, you need to take a good, long look at the documentation of Wareware's behavior -- the stalking (which, incredibly, you do not mention at all), the profanity, the taunting. What about his combativeness, his personal attacks, his sarcasm? Oh, no. Somehow he just seems the "voice of reason." Absolute, unmitigated bullcrap.

You asked. deeceevoice 06:03, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No need to apologize, El_C. I accept that you attempted to characterize the situation as you perceived it. And don't mistake my frankness/directness for hostility -- as most people do. I simply say what I mean. Thanks for your efforts. Peace 2 u. :-) deeceevoice 06:48, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, no, I was way off, obviously, making these sort of generalizations based on my own experience, and not even bothering to ask what you thought beforehand (!). I was totally out of line, and it was pure original research to boot. Worse is that I know better, so it dosen't at all reflect well on me. Thanks for sparing my feelings, but I feel I owe you a more self-critical and detailed apology than an edit summary. I provided it on your talk page [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deeceevoice&curid=729226&diff=0&oldid=0 here] And I do appreciate you being so direct, very much so. Now I'll shutup. :( El_C 07:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi (RE: Forums)

Hi EI C,

I wrote to others: "The Karl Marx entry is about Marx and his philosophy; therefore, readers should be directed to forums where they can discuss Marx's philosophy. Discussing philosophy is intergral to philosophy. The dominance of the paper encyclopedia is finished. No longer do we need limit entries to anti-dynamic entries. Forums where Marx can be discussed are crucial to the continued importance of Marx in intellectual life. Please refrain from deleting these links in the future, though I do invite you do judge each forum's quality."

I consider philosophical discourse to be integral to philosophy. Normal people and students interested in Karl Marx should be directed to forums proven to open to discussion of Marx's philosophy. Blueskyboris

Hi. That is far too loose a definition (it's a huge stretch, in fact), I'm sorry, I do not find that acceptable. More thoughts on yout talk page. εı_ć 13:38, 26 Mar 2005

I find your response unacceptable and I will continue to add the links at my leisure.

In the future, please refrain from using sophistry. I said discourse was integral to philosophy, and said nothing about "free speech". If you want to take me to task and argue discourse is not integral to philosophy, go ahead. Blueskyboris

What you find as acceptable or not is your prerogative. I said freedom of speech and debate, so do not speak to me about sophistry(!) ; I do not intend to argue your straw man, totally impertient to topicality. If I see you insert that link to any philospher, anywhere but possibly philosophy, I will revert it on sight. As will others, so it will not stay up for long, as you only have 3 reverts per 24 hours, while all of us who oppose your insertion of the forums combined have much more. I again, urge you to be sensible and act with utmost sympathy and solidarity to your fellow editors, beginning with entertaining their concerns seriously and without prejudice. If you do, however, intend to answer in the manner depicted above, I would rather you not speak to me at all. But I am still willing to give you a final benefit of the doubt by appealing to your rationality. El_C

Mizrahi Jews

I'm having a dispute with an editor regarding article content. I believe he is inserting POV and unattributed claims, he feels differently. If you have a chance could you take a look and see what you think? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 07:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'll have a look at it later today or tommorow. El_C 13:09, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes (RE: sockpuppetry)

Well spotted. [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Afrocentrism&diff=prev&oldid=10645908 This] may contradict it, but not necessarily: I have seen such "conversations" before. SlimVirgin 16:29, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

I often have conversation with myself. Who said that? Quiet down everybody! El_C 17:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The IP addresses of P. are clear from Talk:Afrocentrism's edit history. I won't post them here for privacy reasons. Someone could ask a developer to make a comparison with WW, though sometimes they agree to help and sometimes not. I'll look around to see how best to make such a request. SlimVirgin 17:10, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they are very busy, I know. We may not need them for that though. El_C

I don't know WW's IP address and so can't make a Who-is comparison. SlimVirgin 17:34, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Please tell me before you log off: how can anyone make a comparison (even in principle) if we don't know which IP address WW has used? SlimVirgin 18:05, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

I already left when you wrote the above, which I just noticed now. Answered [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&curid=1135814&diff=0&oldid=0 here]. Argh, and [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&curid=1135814&diff=0&oldid=0 here]. El_C 08:21, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pharlap a Wareware sock puppet?

Actually, I hadn't decided. But I had concluded there was, at the very least, collusion between the two. I had/have my suspicions, as you can probably tell from the "self-edited" passages where I bring up the contradictions in Pharlap's excoriating me and giving Wareware a pass. Further, I never quite bought the mulatto bit. It seemed like an artifice (another reason I mentioned the white-black identity switch and his lack of credibility). Now that I've checked and found Pharlap joined Wikipedia March 12 (only three days after I threatened to report him for his antics) and went straight to cool (aesthetic) and then to Black supremacy, and then authored two, short articles which were a direct follow-on from Black supremacy, I see what you mean. Further, when responding to a welcome note from another Wikipedian, Pharlap makes a gaff in English typical of the sort Wareware is prone to make. And then, after leaving the two, short articles (which I suspect may have been largely plagiarized, simply presented with only a word here or there changed -- I haven't checked), he makes a beeline for my RfC. Clearly, IMO, "Pharlap's" attempt to smear me with outrageously Bowdlerized text is personally motivated; yet, I hadn't interacted with him until just recently. So, something's clearly fishy. I absolutely agree. deeceevoice 17:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rest assured, Deecee, that this will be looked into it – IPs can prove totally irelavent, which is why your comments above are most helpful to us. El_C

Vote for deletion on the Office of Members' Investigations

Hey El_C,

Nothing to report on the case at the moment: merely a request. The vote to delete the OMI is extremely close right now, with a single vote towards deletion, and consensus is unlikely to develop with such a razor thing margin. Therefore, since I (like you) have already voted, I put up a message on my user and talk pages asking that other users exercise their prerogative. Mine reads:

  • Take action NOW to preserve Wikipedian values: vote to delete the Office of Members' Investigations!

I was wondering if I might prevail upon you to put up a message to that effect yourself — it can be the same as the above or reworded, however you like, so long as it includes a link. Your user page gets a lot more traffic than mine; hopefully, in both cases users will be compelled to go and at least examine the vote through being alerted to it. Thanks in advance. Wally 21:16, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

P.S. If you want to also, shoot out a message to other like-minded users to get a message up on their pages, too. In a case like this, the more is certainly the merrier.

P.P.S. I'm poking around to find a pic of Lord Malvern. If and when I find one I'll upload it for you, or at the very least send along the link.

Sure, I'll put such a notice (see top of user and this talk page), but, to be honest, I am not really comfortable in pressing this on others. Yes, if you find Huggins for me that would be so very, very sweet! El_C 00:49, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That works — every little bit, and all that. :) Wally 01:24, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Viewpoint requested

Would you mind taking a look at the current disagreement at Talk:Israel Shahak regarding how the Liberal Democrats party should be characterized? Jayjg (talk) 18:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to look at it later today or tommorow. (Déjà Vu!) El_C 00:53, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all the research. I was really looking more for you to weigh in on the Talk: page regarding what kinds of material was appropriate to include or not include, but it was very nice of you to do that as well. Jayjg (talk) 03:11, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A Day in Algeria

The anon was actually me, I'm afraid... but yes, the real explanation is the more boring one. "Algiers", upon its refounding by the Zirids, was called Jazaa'ir Banii Mazghannah (Islands of the Beni Mezghenna (tribe)"), after the four small islands in its harbor, which are unusual for the Algerian coast. Once power passed from the Beni Mezghenna, it became simply "Al-Jazaa'ir" (the islands). Soon after Barbarossa retook these islands from the Spanish, he had them connected to the mainland, and together with his filling they now form a weird little peninsula shielding the harbor from waves. From his capital in Algiers, he and his brother founded a state (nominally subject to the Ottomans) which would become Algeria; it was thus named after the capital (in Arabic, in fact, the two names are identical.) The Phoenician/Roman name, "Icosium", also alludes to these islands: î is Phoenician and Hebrew for "island", though I don't know what the "cosi" bit means. However, there is an Arabic term "Jaziirat al-Maghrib" (Island of the West) referring to the Maghreb as a whole; this term really is based on the metaphor Diercke gives, of the Maghreb as a fertile island surrounded by uninhabitable seas and deserts. I don't believe this is connected to the etymology of Algeria/Algiers, but certainly this must be what the Landerlexicon is thinking of. - Mustafaa 19:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hah! I should have suspected something! Damn prosaic Anons. :p Once again, I am more than satisfied with your answer, which I (again) found a fascinating read. I responded on your talk page in more details [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mustafaa&curid=580990&diff=0&oldid=0 here]. Many thnaks, El_C

No problem! I've put those countries on my watchlist (such as weren't already on it.) Sounds like an interesting project. Africa is such a gap here... I've been doing a lot on African languages myself, as has User:Mark Dingemanse. - Mustafaa 03:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

When I saw that the lead for The Republic of Guinea (I think it was the first, maybe not; I forget) consisted of a single-sentence [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guinea&diff=10556929&oldid=10556899] all alarm bells started ringing. A country with seven million people and there are rivers in Middle Earth with far better, more detailed lead. Really, I was aghast, Mustafaa, thinking: I am the one who noticed this first? Unironically, I, myself, contributed to some of the 'history of' articles of these same countries, and yet neglected to notice the nonexistent leads (!). Not up to par with a respected encyclopedia, that for sure. El_C 12:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Eitsah

1. Ha'eitsah she atah natan l'HJO tov meod, v'yeish acheirim shk'var natnu lo bidiuk oto eitsah; aval zeh lo eitsah tov bishvili. 2. Ani lo medaber v'gam ken lo meivin Ivrit. ;-) --Jayjg (talk) 15:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tov, ma'ani yachol le'hagid, im ata omer "ata natan" ('ata natata'), ve"etza tov" ('etzta tova'), be'emet, ulai ata tzarich likro leatzmecha jay-jay-jet, lo jay-jay-jee, If you catch my drift! (Bwahahah!) :p Bebracha, El_C

:-) Jayjg (talk) 03:10, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wareware RfA

Thanks for the info and for offering to contact Wareware on my behalf. But I wouldn't dream of denying myself the pleasure of delivering it directly. I've left Wareware a note that I think meets the requirement. I've taken a quick look at the template for an RfA, but I can't do anything for the next couple of days, I'm afraid. I'm still playing catch-up behind my computer woes. :( Many, many thanks -- again -- for all your assistance. deeceevoice 07:41, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your view of me

I'm more than a little puzzled; why have you attacked me in such violent terms? It seems to be something that has happened recently, but I'm unaware of anything that I might have done to cause such great offence. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:17, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe I overdid it a bit... BWAHAHAHA! :) El_C 10:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with everything that you said on my talk page — and I'm only sorry that it's a year before I can get my own back. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:06, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I await my fate with an especial trepidation. :p El_C 19:53, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I might add that it's the first time that I've ever been caught by an April Fool, and that I suppose it's no excuse to say that I didn't even know what date it was until nearly midday. (Is there a rule that says that I have to wait a year?) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:31, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yase! That rule is in place for a reason, don't break it now! ;) I'm almost always the one being fooled rather than doing the fooling, which is why I found your puzzlement to be so immensely satisfying! Heheh. El_C 20:45, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I thought Brits were meant to have a good sense of irony! "More than a little puzzled ..." So polite. LOL! In Mel's defense, the adminship-nomination vote can be nerve-wracking; I think maybe you caught him in a vulnerable position. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 20:36, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, it was such a sweet opening! Teeheehee. El_C 20:45, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin is exactly right, of course. I didn't think that it would bother me, and for about the first twenty-four hours I didn't even look at the voting. It's a bit like not looking down when you're climbing, I think; once I'd peeked the first time, my attitude to what was happening changed completely. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:53, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I have participated three times in a vote for adminship, in support of three people: yourself, Slim, and Mustafaa. This one, though, was comedically by far the best! El_C 21:04, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For "about" the first 24 hours, Mel didn't even look at the voting. (About = give or take 23 hours and 59 minutes.) ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 21:19, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

No, really – hand on heart – it was probably a bit longer if anything. Of course, I had bookmarked the wrong page, so that the first twenty-odd votes were cast before I realised that everyone wasn't ignoring me... Imagine my delight to see the one vote that really counted — dear old predictable SS, calling me 'fallacious'! Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:27, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

☺ El_C 05:26, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Hi, just a heads up on an edit conflict that occured when you edited Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion: [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion&diff=next&oldid=11794337] Can you be a little more careful in the future? Cheers, Christiaan 11:17, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response provided [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Christiaan#Edit_conflict here]. Thanks for all your help, Christiaan! El_C

no problem, cheers —Christiaan 12:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

El C/Kevehs/Sam Spade. I will try to mediate your dispute, asuming you still have your dispute. If interested go to the page below.

User:Coolcat/Mediation C-TAC-01A

Also please notify me in my talk page. Thanks. Cat chi? 02:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Responded here. El_C 06:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Conflict?

I just tried to solve the problems between you two. My intentions were not to offend you. I guess good intentions are not as welcome as they should be... :( Cat chi? 20:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please see my comment here. Thanks. El_C 23:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you ever change your mind let me know. Cat chi? 21:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Will do, thanks. El_C 00:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for supporting my adminship — I vow to use my powers for good not evil. (Mind you, I'm owed one little burst of evil for that April Fool....) I'm now going off to sit in the Bat Cave and read the mountains of advice and instructions on how to be an admin. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:17, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You've more than earned it, Mel! Not to mention your graceful response to being so brutally and mercilessly fooled [!] (why do I get the sneaking suspicion that I'm digging my own grave here) is also to your everlasting credit (yes, I'm somewhat trying to dig myself out, too!). All the best, El_C 09:27, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

on the occasion of Mel Etitis' promotion in spite of your dedicated opposition

— can we maybe take the opportunity to shake hands, El C? We had an unpleasant exchange over my perceived "territoriality" once, but since I find myself agreeing with you almost invariably when your name pops up, excepting that one occasion, I find it silly to nurture a grudge. I realize this may not cut both ways, though, and you are as free to dislike me as you always were, I just reserve the right to not return the sentiment :o) dab (ᛏ) 10:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes! Gladly! I do not dislike you, I never actually disliked you. I was a bit annoyed (and impatient myself) with you that one time, but I considered it of minor consequence or importance, really; I thought that possibly you might be holding a grudge, or equally possibly, that you've forgotten about it — totally 50:50— so I didn't know whether it would be tactful to raise the issue. Not only do I not dislike you, I... like you :), and likewise I have a great deal of respect for your opinion. I should have made that clear long before, I realize in hindsight. When I see your name on a VfA, VfD, etc. I take note of it, always (and more often than not end up on the same camp, too). Anyway, thank you for this positive gesture, very much to your credit, I greatly appreciate it. P.S. It was an exceptionally sweet prank! Cordially & sincerely yours, El_C 11:01, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

very glad to hear you should think so, and thanks for the smiley! Well, let's go and write that encyclopedia, then! best regards, dab (ᛏ) 12:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) (yes, it was the only prank on WP I've seen that actually worked, all day :)

Roger that! It seems that Mel, somehow, avoided the entire April Fool's bonanza (and let us never speak of –that– again), and instead went first-thing to his VfA. T'was really too good to be true! :D El_C 14:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Viscount Malvern

Here are the pictures you've requested that I've found; I've not uploaded them as yet, as I thought it better to let you choose the best one to use so extras aren't cluttering us up:


  • [htp://usuarios.lycos.es/alpheratz/huggins.jpg El primero]
  • [htp://www.greatepicbooks.com/epics/images/JULY5.jpg El segundo]

Hope this helps! Wally 14:20, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It helps! Thanks! (I was hoping for decent quality one, but something is infinitely better than nothing) El_C 01:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You get your own page!

I've opened up a seperate page for all you-related comments, as my talk page had more 'El_C's than a... I don't know, than an El_C's convention. In any case, it's here: User_talk:Wally/El_C advocacy. Also, I've accepted a case from User:Instantnood that's already in arbitration (the User:Mike Garcia thing is not going anywhere, at least not for a bit). I assumed this was okay per your statements about that. I jot it into an e-mail too. Still no word from Danny. I'm posting a note to Sam saying so. Just in case. Wally 22:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm honoured, I think. ;) Yes, that is correct, I have no objections. All the best with advocating in that arbitration case. I am certain your involvement will make a meaningful, positive difference. El_C 01:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AWOL El_C

I am off to the beautiful Commonwealth of Virginia, where I will spend the next week or so in the District of Columbia. I am now opening the floor for questions:

Q: Do you intend to subvert American government?

File:Seal of Washington DC.jpg

A: If by subvert you mean subvert and by American government you mean American government, the answer is yase!

Q: Will kitty be joining you?

A: Kitty is staying behind to guard the fort. He will also pretend to be me on the phone (providing he'll be able to pick up the reciever, which I'm confident he will).

Q: What about me?

A: You'll be alright.

File:KittyonElC'schair.jpg
Chair? What chair?

Comments:

  • Boo! You suck, get off the stage! Kitty 00:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speaking of subverting America, there's a story, perhaps apocryphal, that Bertrand Russell, on entering the country and being required to sign the standard form asking whether he intended to overthrow the American governent by violent or other non-democratic means, replied: "Sole reason for visit." I trust the same applies to you. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:01, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
Now it will! Great story. ☺ Heh, to my discredit, I never actually read the form/s, short of finding the sign here. 'No, I'm not bringing any fruits or vegetables' I think about sums up my appraoch to US Customs! El_C 01:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Hello from VA! I'm using an unstable wireless connection and a laptop with an incredibly difficut to operate kyeboard! Kitty, if you're reading this: don't sit on my chair! El_C 06:40, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm back, somehow! Kitty concurs reluctantly. Wow, that was such good times. Until we meet again, VA. El_C 01:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Debate at Israeli-Palestinian history denial

I'm having a debate about content at Israeli-Palestinian history denial; would you be able to comment? It would be greatly appreciated. Jayjg (talk) 04:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure. I just made a comment wrt the absence of having established neither historiographical nor journalistic consensus on the death of Muhammad al Durrah viz. "historical fact. We'll see where the debate will go from there. El_C

Jerusalem

Thanks for adding that part about Jerusalem, also it seems pretty NPOV to me :)--198 06:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. I just realized, though, that much of that passage I added is, more-or-less, metioned two paragraph bellow. Perhaps some modification is in in order then... Hopefuly, I will get a chance to revisit the article's lead soon. El_C

RfC CyM

Hi, sorry to have precipitated a bout of self-doubt. ;) Yes, I just noticed that you had endorsed my "outside view" (a tribute to your excellent judgement :) ) but at the same time I also noted that not only Nat Krause had withdrawn his certification, but the original author of the RfC, PhilWelch, had done likewise, with the comment:

It appears I acted too soon, and since I have moderated my stance to one that Che does not appear to actively oppose, I no longer have a grievance with him, nor do I believe he is violating policy. My apologies to all involved. Philwelch 04:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The matter seems resolved, at least as far as your namesake is concerned, and I brazenly removed it from the RfC page. Cheers, -- Viajero 11:16, 14 Apr 2005

Ah. Thanks, yes! That explains it. I wish people would use </s></s> instead of deleting changes from the article talk and policy namespaces. Much more sensible, and credible, I think. As for those who endorsed the RfC, while I am not able to comment directly, my sentiments wrt their position, stance, and underlying motives should be self-evident. Best regards, El_C 19:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I love your movie!

"My movie"? Not sure what you are referring to. -- Viajero 10:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, not yours. Sorry, I was addressing the... floor. Please see [htp://media.ebaumsworld.com/gijoepsa24.mpg this mpg] (right click, save as) for details. Yes, it was a lame attempt at humor, and no, it does not make sense. Sorry again. Thanks in advance for not being enraged! El_C

Thanks (vandalism)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my User & Talk pages. There are some sad and childish people around... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, there are. Not at all, anytime. El_C 19:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yemenite vs. Mizrahi Jews

"Ashkenazic Jews, (Jews of Eastern European descent) also do not eat many legumes (kitniot) – beans, corn, peas, rice, etc. and products containing them as ingredients throughout Passover, while Sephardic, Yemenite and Oriental Jewish custom varies from one community to another." [htp://www.oukosher.org/pdf/intro5-22.pdf] Jayjg

Indeed, I see where you're going with this, but I'm not sure this distinction would be applied in the same way by these authors in ethnographic terms. Though perhaps they would. I'm not entirely certain of the scholarly consensus; the issue seems disputed. I just had an idea for a search querry. One moment. El_C

Dante

So, are you Virgil? Slrubenstein | Talk 01:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not an Virgilian juvenalia, I hope, but that is a flattering thought. ;) Inexorably, the most difficult accomplishments are those most worthwhile; emerging from the inferno, into purgatorio, and then the difficult task of overcoming that and reaching the final stage of paradiso, will be the ultimate accomplishment of human kind. Alas, that is about as allegorical as I am able to be without becoming polemical. El_C 02:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

re: your most recent message — I can only hope! Slrubenstein | Talk 02:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yase! El_C 02:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Ken Bogan

hola che -- I understand you blocked Ken Bogan indefinitely? (I was going to put him on username-rfc first)? So do you think his userpage should also be blanked, and his mugshot deleted? I do not think it is appropriate to have fake user pages of wikipedians posing as convicted rapists hanging around... dab (ᛏ) 14:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey, dab (actually, my user name means El Commandante rather than El Che, for slightly greater humility?) — I am not an administrator, in fact, so I did not block Ken Bogan, nor anyone, ever. I did, however, conduct a brief investigation of him and noted its results on AN/I. I agree with you wrt due process (within reason), I see no harm in issuing an RFC, and I would support any unblocking towards that end. That said, note that when I wrote 'possible identity theft, I meant, 'almost certainly identity theft.' Let me know if there's anything I could do to help, though note that in an hour I will gone from town for a day or so. A slightly more detailed response on your talk page. All the best, El_C 19:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see -- Someone took it upon themselves to 'vandalize' Ken's user page now, so the point is addressed anyway. Incidentally, I'm not sure that 'commandante' is more humble than 'che', since allegedly 'che' simply means "buddy" in Argentinia. If you'd like the admin stripes, I am willing to nominate you, just let me know. cheers -- dab (ᛏ) 07:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. Hopefuly, this someone can limit the drama to the llama and not potential illegalities. As for che, that is true, but an English-speaker will almost invariably think of Ernesto Guevara. Thank you for the admin nomination proposal(!) — let me get back to you, as my wit, tact, and ability to recognize simple shapes and patterns is somewhat hindered at the moment (I had a very difficult day today, my car broke down, don't ask; but I did have an excelent trip lastnight, so that makes it all worthwhile and bearable, though my hang-over persists, somehow). Cordially & sincerely yours, El_C 00:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RFA

sorry for the delay, but here you are now -- I could not but make some oblique reference to our first meeting :p cheers & good luck! dab (ᛏ) 18:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

hm, I don't. I am really disturbed by the unexplained opposition you are getting. You know, Admin criteria seem to be getting harsher, and there is no shame in failing RFA honourably, and re-applying after two months. If you know how to lose with good grace, the previous failure may actually speak for you next time. But I must say that I find opposing votes without comment in rather poor taste, they could at least give a diff to some objectionable edit of yours. dab (ᛏ) 07:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

btw.... you may want to rephrase your statement "I am also pleased with the The Destruction of the European Jews, which I am sole author of" :o\ dab (ᛏ) 12:00, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Talking to myself

LOL!! Embarrassing! ☺ SlimVirgin (talk) 03:18, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Is there an echo here?(!) El_C 03:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Funny, smart, reasonable, and civil? Whatever drug I was on when I wrote that, I want more of it. ;-p SlimVirgin (talk) 04:16, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Mel

For your vote and for your kind words of support in my rfa. I appreciate that very much. I feel especially fortunate it did not take place on 1 April, though come to think of it... ;) El_C 03:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't think that that didn't occur to me... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I voted for you also because I seen your work and I'm impressed.--198 01:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New Template

Hey El_C. I've started a little project at Wikipedia:Sandbox/Template:Judaism as you can see...please help out in any way you can, or tell me why I should just stop it. :-p Tomer TALK 10:23, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations

File:Congrats.jpg

You have been promoted to admin. Welcome! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! I'm in! Whom do I block first? ;) El_C 00:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jim! I won't let you down. El_C 00:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey you! Here's to Wikipedia's funkiest new admin! SlimVirgin (talk) 22:14, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

YASE! Thank you, thank you very much! :) El_C 00:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Olé Che! -Willmcw 00:41, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Olé, compadre! El_C 03:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, El, I was really glad to see the cliffhanger end right, and what a propitious date for you to make admin! (At least, in this part of the world, it was on the right date.) --Bishonen | talk 01:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, wow. I know, I know! What a date! Thank you so much, and happy May Day! El_C 03:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My congratulations, El C. I appreciate your kind comments; given the circumstances it was the least I could do. I wish you the best of luck as Wikipedia's newest admin! Mackensen (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again, Mackensen! It means a lot. El_C 03:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats from me, too... your co-contributor (on your user page) looks remarkably like one of my two editorial assistants (Nut and Bolt). Keep up the good fight, comrade! Grutness|hello? 01:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You never know, possibly they are related! Thank you again, will do! Kiss your editorial assistance for me! El_C 03:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're more than welcome, comrade. Viva la administración!Grace Note 02:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, that's a good one. /Bows. Thanks again! El_C 03:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! May the gods of NPOV guide your hand...! --Zappaz 02:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, a New People's 'Ordered' View — so drunk with power... what to do, which Jayjg to block first...Hmm... the tough calls an admin has to make! I mean, thanks again, Zappaz! :D El_C 03:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! I'm sure you'll be blocking me in no time at all. ;-) Jayjg (talk) 03:34, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as I figure out how to do so, yase! Thanks, Jay! :) El_C 04:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure Jay won't mind if you practise on him. ;-p SlimVirgin (talk) 05:52, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Yay Kitty!!! (and El_C too)! --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 04:37, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Meow2.jpg! :) Kitty 04:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My cat makes the oddest meows. I mean, whoa. El_C 04:48, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratualtions, and you're very welcome. Sjakkalle 09:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! El_C 10:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! I'm envious, though — SS only voted against me, but he launched a propaganda campaign against you. Think what moral authority that gives you... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:48, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, he voted against me(!)? El_C 09:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making my own section, so nah!

I wanted to extend my personal congratulations (instead of placing mine with those of the rest of the proletariat, I guess ;] ) on your successful and well-deserved bid for adminship. Some of the efforts certain people underwent to try to sink it were quite frankly shameful, but you didn't let them get you and deservedly won. Good show! Wally 02:13, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You more than deserve it! Yes, happy May Day! Thank you again, Wally, so very much, for everything! El_C 10:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My own subsection

Congratulations, and you're quite welcome! --Merovingian (t) (c) 04:24, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
Colours, pretty. :) El_C 04:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats redux

Thanks for the comment and nice note. The pleasure is all mine. :) -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

El Administrador

yes, you are welcome, and we did just make WP a little bit of a better place, I hope (so don't go all rouge admin on us, comrade!) — I do, in fact, know some magic, I forgot to tell you, but only on Mayday :oD dab (ᛏ) 07:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apperently! And I do like your rougue admin suggestion, very much so. Yes, let's do that! El_C 10:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mazal Tov!

Got admin. Please don't hurt me.  :-) Tomer TALK 10:24, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

!תודה רבה Can't promise anything though! So, how was your holiday? El_C 10:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Che was a great man! Pesach was great except for a little gastro-intestinal destress (see [htp://www.jibjab.com]).  :-p Tomer TALK 11:24, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
Hahah! That was hilarious! El_C 11:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I'm setting off this huge monster pic and poetry section that follows... rv me if that upsets you :-p Tomer TALK 11:24, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
Bwahahah! Is that a hint? ;) El_C 11:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

shucks

For my part, what can I say? It is always easy to tell the truth. For your part — I hope you never get discouraged from fighting the good fight, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, wow, thank you! I will try my best! You as well! All the best, El_C 22:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the really warm words you left on my talk page. I don't often vote for admins these days, but you are certainly someone who should be an admin. I hope we will have the chance to work together on an article in the near future. I see we have a lot of common interests. Danny 22:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You more than earned it, Danny! Once again, thank you for your confidence, I place an especial value and weight to your opinion. Indeed, we do; I am also hopeful we will get to collaborate on an article soon. All the best, El_C 22:43, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More praise

Congratulations, comrade! You deserved it. It was a shame to see the attacks on your integrity and I'm glad you have been vindicated by the support of the community. Keep up all your great work! — Trilobite (Talk) 03:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Likewise! I'm very pleased; it ended proving tremendously reassuring and encouraging. El_C 05:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything witty to say

But congratulations anyhow. Andre (talk) 18:04, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Andre. :) El_C 01:41, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Genealogy of white supremacy chart

Hi, the chart needs the surrounding text explaining it, so I hesitate to let it circulate. What purpose do you have in mind?--Cberlet 14:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on Cberlet's talk page. El_C 17:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds OK. Do you need a better copy of the chart?--Cberlet 17:57, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's of an alright quality, but please have a look at [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Genealogy_of_Antisemitic_White_Supremacy%2C_Theocracy%2C_and_Fascism.png it] nonetheless. Thanks again! El_C 23:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*kerblink*

Well, I keep telling folks that one day I'll be branded a troll and be run off the project, but they just stare at me as if I'm crazy or something.

The reason is that I can't quite hope to make RickK's 990:1000 good calls, I'm just good for 9:10 or so.

Anyway, I checked my talk pages and didn't find a message from you there, so I'm a bit at loss as to recalling what caused your dissatisfaction as to my performance.

At the risk of angering you perhaps, could you point out/remind me where I angered or dissapointed you?

Kim Bruning 12:46, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, I am basing my comment on a more indirect observation. A more detailed (but inexorably limited) answer on your talk page. El_C 13:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sock puppetry at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Christofascism

Hey El_C, In reading the comments attached to some of the "keep" votes in this VfD, I'm beginning to suspect the some of the votes are being cast by sockpuppets. Know anyone w/ the time to look into it? Also, User:Klonimus made a charge of vote-meddling against User:Doc glasgow, but I'm having difficulty verifying what he's talking about. Tomer TALK 12:52, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hey. Sorry, I don't. Let me know, though, if you come across anything more conclusive. El_C 13:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jizya

Hi El C, you are right about Jizya. Meanwhile, you might find the various arguments at International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict of interest. Cheers, Zero 12:40, 7 May 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Phew, good! :) El_C 15:05, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I feel like I am fighting a battle against a sea of uncited POV; the article fills up with POV, I start looking for sources for it, and find there are none, or the rare cited sources don't match the claims for them. When I go and find cited sources, then they are moved around the page before being deleted completely, and uncited claims re-entered. In particular I am at odds with an editor who insists that "everybody knows" is a reasonable citation, that tzedakah (or its Arabic equivalent) means "friendly charity", that because the Qur'an doesn't explicitly describe what jizyah is that means it didn't mandate it, that seminal works of Muslim law are not taken seriously, etc. Then from the other side I get endless original research and similar POV from the other side. I wish these editors would actually read Wikipedia policies, and then follow them, for a change. Jayjg (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean. I really admire your ability to sort through edits where so much material has been so significantly shifted around and modified, resulting in very confusing diffs. The problem with these two editors specifically (though this is emblomatic of a wider phenomenon and many other editors), is that all this seems to be largely a systemic pattern on their part (albeit in opposite directions and in opposition to one another). I hope that, for those twos' part, they could be made to understand, and adhere to, policy. Otherwise, the whle thing will be repeated with them article after article, wasting everyone's elses (well, their own, too) time needlessly. El_C 09:30, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment at Jizyah

Your comment at Jizyah is very confusing; if you go there you'll see why. :-) Jayjg (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, thanks! Sorry 'bout that. I'm not very good at this, it seems. :) El_C 01:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Internet hoaxes

Now Yuber is inserting a known internet hoax quote into Ariel Sharon in order to make a WP:POINT. I don't know what to do with him any more. Jayjg (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. RFC time? El_C 06:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be a bad idea, though there's an RfC up for User:KaintheScion, which mentions Yuber and which he certified, and people are inserting their views about Yuber there. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/KaintheScion, and in particular Wikipedia:Requests for comment/KaintheScion#User:Yuber. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:36, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, that's helpful to know. El_C 09:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Username change

I'm not sure why the username needs to be changed; the user has hardly made any edits with this id, and none of value. It should just be permanently blocked, and the user can create a new name for themselves, ideally one that doesn't violate Wikipedia policy. Or have I misunderstood the problem? Jayjg (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now I understand the problem. Yes, it does include the IP. I'm not sure of a way around this one; perhaps you could post it on the Administrator's Noticeboard. Jayjg (talk) 12:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think the easiest thing to do is just unblock the IP when it shows up again (e.g. unblock #12345). Anything else seems impossibly complex. Jayjg (talk) 12:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:DrippingInk

The articles in question are of no interest to you (or, indeed, to me), but I've been trying to defend a range of pop-music articles against DrippingInk (talk · contribs), who uses his own account and various IP addresses. He has been changing the titles of songs, albums, etc., from proper (and Wikipedia) style to his own preference, and refuses to discuss the matter of properly or to stop. he's broken 3RR at least once, and has twice moved articles by cut-and-pasting (despite warnings not to). I'm now probably too involved with the articles to block him from editing, but I'd be grateful if you could take a look and see what you think. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:55, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at AN/I, it appears s/he is being taken care off. I will look into it soon, however, and will keep an eye on future developments. El_C

Cake award

"And if you don't find a way El, no one will" -- Elven Ally

[htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEl_C&diff=10286207&oldid=10283408| oh, that's just so naughty!] Can I have my cake now? :p --Silversmith 19:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, sir/madam! Incidentally, do I know you? At any rate, your cake award is forthcoming! El_C 22:59, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, I forgot about my new username. Hello, I'm Silversmith, formally known as Chammy Koala. [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ErinOp.jpg Female]. Thanks for the cupcake, I actually do like them more than cakes. I just checked out Silverback...probably a good thing you didn't give him a cupcake!!! --Silversmith 00:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nice pic, and so very fäire, Silver Koala! You know, I've never met an elf before, not in person at least. I'm glad you enjoyed the cupcake ("cupcake baked by Elf | Talk Aug 18 '04." Coincedence? I don't think so!) As for Sliverback, herm... no comment. :p El_C 01:39, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, thanks! I will take it! In the inferno, there it shall be negated. :) El_C 22:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

more help

Care to check out the brewing revert war on Jesus concerning BC/AD -- and the stubborn comments by Arcturus and Rangerdude on Talk:Jesus? I think your input would be valuable. (I also put in a RfC, you would not have to say much) Slrubenstein | Talk 19:58, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That 3RR was unecessery, I would have reverted it for you — but I'm not even sure there was a 3RR violation on your part, see my comment here [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=13446742&oldid=13446556] . El_C 22:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind commenting at WP:AN/3RR on whether it would be okay to reduce the length of SLR's block, given that he wasn't warned? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:01, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Done. El_C 23:30, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#User:Jdforrester SlimVirgin (talk) 01:02, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I go out for an hour or so, and all this excitment ensues! I think perhaps Chameleon overlooked the mitigating circumstances here, but I can nonetheless understand why s/he would arrive at such a conclusion. Arbitration does, however, seem premature at this juncture. El_C 02:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The excitment ensued because you went out for an hour. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:10, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Heh! El_C 02:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, again

Please comment on Jguk's most recent actions [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&curid=1095706&diff=0&oldid=0], [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus#Problems_with_this_article]. It seems to me that he is destroying what I thought was a carefully constructec (though not, of course perfect) NPOV article. I trust your committment to NPOV and would like to know what you think. Frankly, I think we may have reached the point where arbitration or at least mediation is required. I honestly do not believe Jguk understands or cares about NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following these diffs, but at any rate, I've largely withdrawn from the discussion as it was becoming far too heated and unproductive for my liking. I said pretty much everything I wanted to on the matter, to jguk too (who has not really responded to my satisfaction – oh well). I may revisit later, and will continue to somewhat keep an eye on it. Feel free to modify the diffs though. Yours, El_C 22:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you made a mistake

After my opening paragraph, I have [two] bullet point[s] that says...[htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view%2FBCE-CE_Debate&diff=13849416&oldid=13849384] [sentence shortned/modified and diff added by myself to clarify. El_C] I think you may have deleted them by mistake — or did you think they were dumb? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very dumb!!1 Seriously though, t'was an accident, I restored the two bullet points. My apologies. El_C 22:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute at Henry Kissinger

El C, I feel that I have been unduly slandered by User:Grace Note on my talk page and on Talk:Henry Kissinger. I would be much obliged if you would comment on the matter. I'm not asking for blind support--please don't think that--I just want to know if I am truly out of line. Thank you, Mackensen (talk) 03:49, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I must warn you, I consider Kissinger a traitor of humanity. That said, I will look into it momentarily. Yours, El_C 04:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I myself wouldn't go that far, but I certainly don't want to be seen as an apologist for the man. Thank you for your reasonable words, I will see if we can't arrive at a compromise. Mackensen (talk) 04:41, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mackensen. I support your latest comrpomise (which I inserted today whilst removing the disputed tag), and I am hopeful that all the respective parties will be satisfied with it. :) El_C 01:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No El C, thank you. You stepped in with your usual clear-headedness and lead us to a good compromise. My hat is off to you. Mackensen (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's my pleasure, but you get most of the credit for actually writing the thing. I'll take my little /bow though. :) El_C

I'm afraid that GN is unimpressed with the compromise. I will try to reason with him/her. Mackensen (talk) 03:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yes, I noticed. We're getting closer to a final (final) comrpomise on that though, I think. We'll figure it out (calmly, I hope). :) El_C 09:46, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wareware RfAr

Long time no talk.

The RfC seems to have accomplished part of the objective— to silence Wareware's racism— but out of respect for the efforts of people like you and SlimVirgin (and of the many others, as well, who took the time to wade through the RfC and register their views -- except for Pharlap :p), I decided it was time to follow the process through to its logical conclusion. Besides, there should be, I think, an example set in matters such as this.

I was put off this task for a time, because in completing the RfA template, it became obvious that someone else should have served Wareware notice of the RfA. The instructions are to "provide diffs showing where parties other than the initiating parties have been informed about the request for arbitration."

So, I'd appreciate it if you would consider your earlier offer and do that one, last thing to finish this matter from this end so that the Arb Com can do its work. (In the end, rather anti-climactic, I suppose; but, IMO, necessary.)

I probably need to take one, final gander at the RfA[r] and will do so later today.

So, you're an administrator now? Eee-uuuuw! :p (Just kidding. Congratulations.) Peace 2 u. :) deeceevoice 10:35, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DC! Yes, long time. Thanks! :) If and/or when you ever have nothing better to do, you can check out my RFA (Request for Adminship, as opposed to RFAr, Request for Arbitration) for some tragico-comical relief! It was my understanding that you serving the notice was fine, I think that rule actually speaks of proving that someone else was made aware of the notice, which obviously I was. So, I'm confident you can file the RFAr at any time — i.e. you can (continue to) consider me informed and count on my full support. All the best, El_C 11:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But perhaps you didn't get my point. The RfA instructions explicitly state that someone other than the initiating party must serve notice of the RfA.[htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&action=edit&section=4] Thanks. deeceevoice 11:49, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple of links to facilitate your input (should have provided them earlier):[htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wareware&action=edit&section=15] and [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&action=edit&section=9]. Thanks again. :) deeceevoice 11:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I still think you're mistaken on that (I could be wrong). Bah, it's not important, I'm more than happy to echo your hitherto notice (which I have just done) — oh, and I just realized that you didn't update your notice today with a link of the RFAr. I have done so for you. :) El_C

I've been so busy with a back-and-forth w/Jayig over including a Palestinian flag in Palestinian territories (mind-boggling), that I forgot to return to say thanks. But I'm not the only one who's forgetful. Included a diff for your notice to Wareware. Thanks again. :) deeceevoice 23:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry about that. You're very welcome, it's the least I could do. El_C 10:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wareware Evidence

I've just copied the info directly. User: Sannse seems to think it that's adequate, and I don't intend to spend any more time on this matter than I have to. The RfC material certainly presents the required information, so I'm not going to sweat the format -- unless, of course, the Arb Com tells me I have to resubmit. I think it'd be pretty silly to have to do one format for the RfC and then rework the whole thing just for the hell of it for the Arm Com. deeceevoice 09:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Totally superfleous, I agree (but some of them, by no means all, I believe, are more procedural-minded — I could be wrong though, hopefuly, yes), actually, I don't really remember how the evidence was organized. You got individual diffs+descriptions, that's 99% of the work already done. Anyway, what I meant to say, if you want me to pick up any of the slack (if there is any), I'm at your disposal. El_C

Proposal

Please see my proposal to end the revert war at the bottom of the Jesus talk page. I'm not going to argue anymore, I've got better things to do. My only real problem with the whole thing was that the focus was on the one article. That made it seemed a POV based motive, which I'm against. Been a pleasure arguing with you :) --Silversmith 22:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I hope your sister can help shed further light on this issue. Which proposal? I'll just respond to both. As for keeping the dates at BC/AD until consensus is reached — I'm comfortable with that. As for the idea to denote both — the thought had occured to me, but it seemed too convoluted. I don't really have a strong opinion against it though. Wrt POV, the very subject of this article is, after all, so closely related to the existence of these dating systems. Myself, I don't place much weight on the whole thing – a product of my political orientation. El_C

My proposal and the section under that is Chameleon's. The beauty of his proposal is that the user gets to chose which they want to see. It may take a bit of time implementing it. Something for the software developer, not editors to worry about. The reason it seems like pov to me, is because Jayjg has contacted possibly every single Jewish person on WP about it. Why would he if it wasn't something Jews would have a POV about? And the 2 biggest reverters on that side of the BCE/CE argument are Jews. Just coincidence? --Silversmith 12:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any such content in the above proposal, which otherwise I do not object to. And, I'm afraid I fail to see how this is an issue that requires the software developers becoming involved. I don't think Jews, Christians, or any other religion/ethnicity are pertinent, and I don't believe any emphasis should be placed on it. Everyone can invite any editors they wish into the discussion: be it allies, enemies, or neutrals. People are free to do so on both/all possible sides. In principle, Wikipedia welcomes this. Whether it's conducive of npov —and whether I, myself, even care about npov (answer: kinda, not really)— is an issue which can be more effectively dealt with in the relavent policy pages and/or request for de-adminship respectively. Again, due to my political orientation, I can't profess a particular interest in such a discussion, but others are more than free to engage in it. I do have, though, a perverse fascination in seeing what would happen if everyone were to actually contact everyone else (see: Talk:Jesus#Bring your gods, ghosts, familliars, aviators and guppies). El_C

Now you see me, now you don't. --Silversmith 16:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not playing anymore. El_C 21:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus 3RR notice

Can you explain to me why that 3RR was bogus? It showed his four reverts clearly...Yuber(talk) 16:13, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit was not a revert, it needed to revert something into something prior to qualify. El_C 22:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CJI part trois

If you wrote an article on "tendencies towards fascism among Muslims", I'd vote to have that deleted too. I simply do not support witchhunting Muslims and I don't believe we should indulge in it. If you want to write an article on "views on tendencies towards fascism among Muslims", you can indulge yourself on writing up the RCI's thoughts on it but I absolutely cannot support articles that try to build cases for it.

BTW, it's a mistake to correlate "Nazi" and "fascist" as though they were synonyms. You know better than that. That's the kind of thinking that allows people to say "Hitler was antisemitic and a fascist", "Osama is antisemitic and ..." and then invite you to join the dots. Osama's no fascist. He's a million miles from one.Grace Note 04:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, of course I know that (I'm just writing quickly so I don't get a chance to qualify with great precision), and I agree, but it's something that can and should be qualified in such an article. At any rate, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree, I think there is ground to write a fascistic tendencies in Islam, and in Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, and others. Obviously I would'nt approach it that simplistically, I have sufficient familiarity with fascism to avoid that, I think. Writing on notable views (in the next catgeory you bring up: non-academia views of) isn't an indulgence (though it could be), even if we consider such views as indulgent (which they could be). I am against having an article that needs to 'build cases' to justify its existence, but in this case —or, rather, I should say cases to stress that it isn't directed against any one religion— I think the evidence supports scholarly expositions and paralels having been made, and criticized, and disputed; not only because I am of the opinion that it's a real phenomenon. But, obviously, if all there is is mostly original reseach ala Islamofascism, it's a no-go. El_C 05:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when you come to write the article, why not make it in a sandbox off your user page and invite comments from editors on either side of the debate? I think your idea might look a bit more palatable in actuality than it sounds in theory. Grace Note 05:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, we're talking about me? I wasn't really envisioning authoring such an article. I'm not familliar enough with the critical literature. I know Cberlet is, though, and I hope he undertakes this. If so, I'm confident its results would be to your satisfaction. El_C 06:07, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jewish language

You may be interested in the discussion brewing at Template_talk:Jewish_language#Attention-stealing_template. Tomer TALK 17:44, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Sfira (netzach vs. nitzachon)

Yup. I didn't read that very closely before. You're correct. נצח is eternity or "for ever and ever", as in נצח נצחים and ניצחון is "victory". Tomer TALK 00:29, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Giblets

I agree with Kitty on this one (or I would, were I not a vegetarian). The thing about the dry food is that once you introduce the giblets, they realize the dry-food era was like the people living in Plato's cave, seeing shadows on the walls and thinking they were reality. Kitty has seen the light, and now understandably wants to see it every day. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:34, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

I try to interest him in a vegeterian diet, but thus far my efforts have not surpassed the polite sniffing. File:Meh.gif El_C 00:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NZNF

I don't think Molloy should be editing that page. I'm thinking of taking steps to enforce that. Do you agree with me, or does his presence help NPOV, in your view? SlimVirgin (talk) 08:47, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I probably should not be answering that publicly, but for now, please see the following 3RR notice. El_C 08:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From JRM

Be careful with simply reverting people without explanation; you should reserve this for pure vandalism. At the very least give a reason in the edit summary for why you are reverting, but the proper course of action is to put a note on the talk page. Yes, even if it's the millionth time you see someone putting in something, yes, even if we're all sick and tired of discussing it—this just shows we need to clean up the talk page drastically and put in a FAQ. >:-)

It's no fun to see your changes simply reverted without any explanation (and I know, for I've experienced it a few times editing as an anon). JRM · Talk 11:11, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

Ordinarily I do, JRM, and of course in principle I agree, but in light of this user's past editing history, I made an exception. Tell you what, promise me you keep an eye on him, and I will answer his "edits" at length and in detail (that's a request, btw). El_C 11:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No can do. I do not wikistalk, out of principle. I will track articles, but not individuals. (Maybe some day, but for now I'm just not willing to spend the effort.). If that means you'll be reverting "bad" edits on sight, being familiar with the history, so be it. I trust you'll apply your good judgement. JRM · Talk 12:42, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

That is not what I meant — I don't wikistalk either. This was in reference to the article NZNF, the section to which this subsection falls under. Sorry for the confusion. I suppose you didn't know he is affiliated with that party & edits that article heavily. El_C 12:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I did not. Sorry you don't like sections with "Adolf Hitler" as the title, but that's what I usually do to immediately make clear what article I'm talking about. :-) In any case, I'll get out of your hair now. JRM · Talk 14:21, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
No need for an apology, JRM, you have done nothing wrong and I found your comment (and the AH section title) to have been made in nothing but goodfaith. I do value and have a lot of respect for your opinion. Please do not hesitate to venture to this talk page again for any reason. Yours, El_C 00:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing a redirect

Hey. :) Got a question. Presently, Zwarte Piet redirects to another article. However, in working on blackface and noticing the amount of information I've put together on ZP, I think it should have its own article. (Check out the link to the rap video parody from Boom Chicago, Amsterdam. It may give you a smile or two.) How does one undo a redirect? Is that something only Wikipedians with super powers (such as admins) can do? :p Peace. deeceevoice 04:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped and thought about it, and once I did, I realized it was easy enough. Done. So far, the article mentions none of the controversy surrounding this subject, but it's a start. So ... never mind. Thanks. deeceevoice 16:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Though I didn't really do anything. Glad it worked out. :) Yours, El_C 20:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yuber

El C, can you show me what Yuber's first revert was a revert to? I don't know whether I'm blind or stupid, but I can't see it. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:47, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

[htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jizyah&diff=13855723&oldid=13855599 First revert] can be considered as such according to this [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jizyah&diff=13738992&oldid=13738585 diff], for example (there are others). El_C 01:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please talk to me

Hey, I was being silly! please talk to me! I really like you and have been worried that you were anoyed with me about certain things I won't mention. I'm sorry. Please write? --Silversmith 13:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pleeeaaase! I feel really really bad. --Silversmith 13:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't! I appear to have grossly misread how your comment was nuanced (but I'm too lazy to restore it). I apologize for overreacting, I was having a difficult day (week/month/year/life), and my attempts of diffusing tension through humor seem to have had the opposite effect intended — yours being the final straw, but it wasn't actually. Thanks for the kind words, I made that comment because I felt you have went to great lengths to address what annoyed (or rather, offended me). So it's all good. My sockpuppet will be in touch! :) El_C 00:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You've been gone all day just to torture me I'm sure. Remember to take nothing I say seriously, except this. :s I'm glad you're still talking to me. :) I'm going to bed now, it's 3am. Night! --Silversmith 01:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, probably! Sorry, I was away from computa ([htp://media.ebaumsworld.com/gijoe-computer.mov help computa!.mov]). Thanks, It's my pleasure. Sweet dreams. El_C 03:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

my identity

El_C, admirable detective work for one with such an elusive identity (or was it that bloodhound of yours?). I certainly do not want to hide anything about myself from Wikipedians. However, I do not think my personal or professional life should be relevant to anything going on at Wikipedia, unless I need to refer to it to explain a position I take. There are some people who think that because of my job I should be given some extra respect (or benefit of the doubt) and perhaps some who think because of my job that I am an elitist. I wish people here would judge me solely on the basis of what I write here, and reach any conclusions (he is smart, he is a solid researcher, he means well, he is rude, he is an asshole, he is arrogant) solely on the basis of what I write here. Your comrade, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, you are mistaking me for someone else, I'm the one with the cat, no dog! And really, it was remarkebly easy, 45-second 'detective work' (searching for "university press" "anthropology" along with your name). I have total respect for your position as stated above and I hope my comment was'nt percieved to have been made in bad taste; I mean, you have no idea what I have written (and what have I written?) because you don't know who I am — even though you're one of very select few who actually knows my first name. Anyway, if anything, I was attempting to dispel the perception of elitism on your part. More of that on your talk page. Yours always, El_C 00:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Read Sam spade's talk page for the answer. Strange things are afoot. --Silversmith 01:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the answer to what? About the dog? El_C 01:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To everyone being nice to each other. I can't explain all the [htp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385317018/102-5519304-8348911?v=glance inticacies] here. - I love random links, particularly when they appear random, but are actually carefully selected. It's a game of "guess the reason." Anyway, just to let you know, we have entered a Parallel universe, and it's all Kim Bruning's fault! shhhh Secret Squirrel --Silversmith 11:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Ya, I'm back.

For shorter periods of time however. Will keep an eye on that article... Ta bu shi da yu 02:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Well I guess you can be admin then. ;) El_C 02:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yehudei sheqolenique

Yehudei sheqolenique, ever heard of them? Can you look at and verify the article at all? Thanks IZAK 10:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I misread that as [htp://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A1%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%99 יהודי סלוניקי] at first, but no, it's fake. I know of no such current. El_C 12:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks?

El_C, I appreciate the explanation but honestly you DON'T have to apologize for anything. As you say, I identify myself fully on the list-serve (not really intentional, but more laziness — I really am too lazy to delete my signature whenever I send out non-professional correspondence). I think I expressed myself poorly: I was not upset by your referring to my work, I just want to discourage it in principle. This may sound vain, but I really do think there are people here who either think they should take me more seriously because of my job, or they think that I think they should take me more seriously because of my job, and both bother me equally. I know this doesn't apply to you! But I feel I should nip each instance in the bud. I remember the nasty comment you quoted. Given that this is an encyclopedia, I think we really need to battle anti-intellectualism and perhaps you and I and others can find non-threatening (in other words, effective) ways to do that. However, when we do, I don't want anyone to think I am doing it for personal reasons. I know you agree — it is all about the encyclopedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Do you know anything about graphics in html, or at least for Wikipedia pages? After several years of not wanting to say anything about myself, I finally put something like personal disclosure on my user page and I want to surround it by a border (I haven't even gotten far enough to think about colors!) and for the life of my cannot figure out how to do it, without messing up everything else.

Responded through email. El_C 23:59, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh*

Gene Nygaard replied to a comment by Guettarda [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/BCE-CE_Debate#When_does_this_vote_end.3F],

Did you notice that when Slrubenstein talks about years like 5765, he never identifies the calendar with "A.M." or in any other way? Perhaps he figures that since he is using the "real" calendar, it doesn't need to be identified; but I think that mostly he is hoping that people will not notice that this calendar also expresses one of those evil, culture-centric points of view.

As you know, I feel like I am at a serious disadvantage whenever Nygaard disses me because I announced I would not participate in discussion. But I thought it was obvious that when I said I think the year is 5765 because I am Jewish and this is my point of view, and repeatedly said it is my "POV" that everyone would understand that it is a POV. It pisses me off that he says "evil" since I do not think my people's calendar is "evil" and I certainly never said that the Christian calendar is "evil." Or, do you think he believes that to call something POV is to call it "evil?" I am pretty confused by his comment. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a clear tendency and direction among these editors to stifle –any– discussion per se., which I strongly disagree with. I don't, however, think s/he meant 'evil' outright (though the choice of words is poor), but rather as a purely argumentative paralel to how s/he percieve you view AD/BC (i.e. as culturally-centred and undesirable, hence, 'evil.'). Of course, it is a gross misrepresntation of your position wrt to dating systems on Wikipedia and your policy proposal (a debate which, despite my involvement, as you know, I consider as relatively unimportant), so I understand and sympathize with your confusion and discouragment. El_C 23:59, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you have a look at the article about Subhash Chandra Bose ?

Got suggested your name from admin -Bishonen, as there is some disagreements regarding the article about Subhash Chandra Bose. I am an amateur in this, but as far as I can see the article is not NPOV and should be more critical to Bose. I tried to enter passages regarding his collaboration with the Axis powers but these has mostly been deleted. As I dont have any special knowledge about Bose, and just saw the article by chance, I dont think theres more I can do. Ulflarsen 18:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsed very much, if you can find the time, El! It looks to me (speaking from unassailable ignorance) like Ulflarsen has done good work, but the problem may be getting a bit out of hand. Ulf has entered it on WP:RFC, but you know how it is, sometimes nobody bites. Bishonen | talk 18:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I've taken so long to get back to you, Ulflarsen, and thank you for the kind words, Bishonen! :) I'm afraid that my scheduale has become unusually busy, so I doubt I can find the time to attend to this (or any article) for at least another few days. I also dont have any special knowledge about Bose, still, I'll see what I can do to help when I have more time. Perhaps, in the interim, you can find out whether John Kenney is willing to have a look at it. Regards, El_C 23:59, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, El, I've dropped a note on John. Now he can be as grateful to you as you are to me. ;-)--Bishonen | talk 02:26, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who's the boss?

File:Catincharge.jpg
The president of OiHA with an attentive assistant. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:51, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

That's right, folks, our beloved President is so important and so...beloved, even dogs volunteer to be his body guards, and preform their duty with honour and vigilance! El_C 23:59, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sam

Hi, have a look at "SS" section. I understand your feelings. I wasn't aware of all the history when I first posted that message to Mel. Sam has told me not to defend him as I'll just get into trouble as so many people dislike him here. I don't need to be convinced he's been bad. I've been hoping to patch things up, but that's not likely. oh well. I don't let my feelings for one person affect my feelings for another, and no-one's going to convince me to not like someone else because they don't. I don't even dislike the people Chameleon dislikes (such as Sam). Nevermind, this isn't RL. I just wish we could all get along, but that isn't going to happen. What did you mean about refuse editing by the way? Yours, --Silversmith 00:57, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, I misphrased that, I meant editing as in collaboratively with him (it has nothing to do with my current absence right now, entirely a product of being busy elsewhere). I actually don't wish to convince you of anything regarding Sam Spade, because I place enough faith in your powers of observation (that is, when you put your mind to it) and ability for introspection, that I am more than content to say nothing. Which is what I wanted to say, nothing. But I felt it necessary to correct your misreading of my comment on SlR's page (note how both yourself and Mel cite it is as evidence against/towards), as an endorsement of any change on his part. I appreciate what you're trying to do here, I tried to have him and AndyL see eye to eye when my relationship with him was still collegial (even cordial), and it was well into our own dispute when I learned of Jack Lynch. I don't really wish to discuss it any further at this point, but thank you for your comment. **** Just one final correction: my own dispute with Sam Spade is totally unrelated to that of FM (until the bastards comment it was, at least) —it predates it— it seems to be in dispute resolution limbo at the moment (for further info., my advocate's page is here). All the best, El_C 01:37, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no! (oh yes!)

Darn that Blankfaze... *curses* :P Ta bu shi da yu 07:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sad thing is that I was (exactly) the [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AList_of_administrators&diff=13106100&oldid=13103526 420th] active admin to be added to the list. And yet he mocks me! :D El_C 07:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote on policy positions at Government of Australia

I note that Skyring has said that he doesn't intend submitting a proposal for the position this article should adopt on the matters in dispute between him and other uses. I think we can all draw the appropriate conclusions from this. At the expiry of the 24-hour period I gave Skyring yesterday to submit a proposal (10.10am AEST), I will announce a vote at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board and at Wikipedia:Village pump. Since Skyring has wimped the chance to have his views voted on, the vote will be a straight yes/no on my policy position, which appears below. Amendments or alternative suggestions are of course welcome. I have an open mind on how long the voting period should be and how many votes should be seen as an acceptable participation. I will be posting this notice to the Talk pages of various Users who have participated in this debate. Adam 23:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My proposed policy position is this: Talk:Government_of_Australia#Vote_on_contents_of_Government_of_Australia

I find it unfortunate (and slightly absurd) that there is even a need to draft such a policy. Yes, of course, you can count on my support, Adam. El_C 23:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

El C, I think a better course of action in the case of Skyring would be to take it to the ArbCom, I have made a page in my userspace to prepare the case, please feel free to contribute.--nixie 05:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it would be better, I am definitely leaning towards Adam's position as stated on your talk page, but like him, I have no objections. El_C 06:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Although Adams idea has its merits, I don't think that it is a good idea to overturn 3RR on pages where there is a content dispute, that is the primary reason I suggested arbitration. If you have any comments to make on the case please do so. --nixie 06:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a good idea if the Arbitration Committee approves it. I also think Skyring should be afforded a chance to appeal this — which should include drafting something along the lines of the proposal he was requested to submit, but all that while the policy/ injunction/ remedy is ongoing. What I'm getting at, is cutting down on the procedural without compromising on fair due process. I'll have to return to this later. El_C 06:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I compeletly agree that the process is too long for a dispute like this, there needs to be another mechanism for this kind of dispute--nixie 11:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, nixie! That's all I wanted to hear. :) El_C 11:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

gvt of aus

what is this delayed votes thing? Xtra 13:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What? El_C 13:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you just voted for it. Xtra 13:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. El_C 14:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

Thanks for supporting my adminship, El C. It was much appreciated.--Wiglaf 21:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, Wiglaf. Congrats! El_C 22:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I Drink Your Blood? No!

It wasn't aimed at a particular person, in fact — but if you do want my blood, I should say that I don't know what my blood type is (strange but true). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, I'm not very picky! :) El_C 23:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proxies

Nope, just some guy running around on open proxies. See my talk page for more info. Better to just protect then let him run around vandalizing. CryptoDerk 23:18, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, makes sense. A (seemingly) wide-range of ip adresses though. El_C 23:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, a lot of open proxies. Que sera sera. CryptoDerk 23:26, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
♪ Whatever will be, will be blocked! ♪ El_C 23:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to Yom Kippur War

Can you please explain why you re-added [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yom_Kippur_War&curid=34276&diff=0&oldid=0 this] after [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yom_Kippur_War&diff=14306878&oldid=14306656 I took it out with a fairly clear explination]? →Raul654 09:57, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, by mistake. I meant to add with an edit summary, I guess I must have hit the button accidentally. My apologies. I saw it start to load, and pressed stop on FF, but apperently not fast enough. The thing is, Raul, is that I am eating grapes at the moment, and I wasn't careful enough at the time. Anyway, please read my edit summary. Also, I'm interested to learn Danny's thoughts of this. I am willing to follow his opinion on whether it should be in the lead; or elsewhwere; or both in the lead with elsewhere being an expansion and elboration of that. I realize it isn't widely known outside of Israel, but it was shocking news in Israel, & is very well-known now. El_C 10:06, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Danny concurs

Hi! I have to say that I agree with your lead on the Yom Kippur War. I will tell Raul as well. Danny 01:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Danny! I appreciate you taking the time. I wish I would have kept the print series of it (I may still have the odd issue though somewhere), there's a great article waiting to be written about the whole event, how it got exposed, the sensation it caused and so on. Perhaps there's already an article resembling that on .he (it makes sense that they'd create it before .en). All the best, El_C 01:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That which

The simplest distinction is that "that" introduces a defining and "which" a non-defining relative clause. So it's: "I want the house that I saw yesterday", but: "I saw a new house yesterday, which really impressed me." In the first case, the "that"-clause defines the house in question, while in the second case, the "which"-clause adds information about a house that has already been adequately defined. A rule of thumb is: if the sentence makes sense without the clause, use "which" (e.g., "I saw a new house yesterday"); if it doesn't, use "that" (e.g., "I want the house" — which house?). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think I actually understand (which isn't to say that I'll be able to apply it practically; it would slow me down). For me, it's like playing the piano/b3, I can figure anything I want without formal theory (just need to know the chords and it will come to me by ear after a little while); and when presented with the formal theory, it all makes sense, but invariably I think: wow, it would have taken me such a long time to master that tune this way (which tune? Exactly). I really spared no expense with the italics! El_C 11:06, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canada

I'm sorry, El C, you are quite mistaken about "Canadian Federation" being the official name of the country. It is not even a commonly used term, except in constitutional discussions, but then it is used to refer to the relationship of the provinces to the federal government: it is not used to refer to the country as a whole. I have provided references from the Constitution Act, 1867 at Talk:Canada. These I lifted from previous discussions further up on the talk page, but I have also confirmed them myself with on-line versions of that act. The name of Canada is not a new discussion, it has been going on on Wikipedia for quite a while, so don't be surprised if people who are a little weary of the discussion revert without explanation. Regards, Ground Zero 14:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I stand corrected. Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me, Ground Zero. All the best, El_C 14:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quite alright. We're all here to learn and to teach. I have an explanation at the bottom of my user page about "that" and "which", by the way. It may help. Regards, Ground Zero 14:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Use that when the information is essential to the meaning of the sentence.
  • Use which when it is not essential.

I think I actually understand that. It certainly is formulated in simpler terms than Mel's non-defining relative clause philologism — which isn't, though, to say that I'll be able to apply it practically! :p Must.stop.italicizing Thanks again for all your help. Best, El_C 15:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other changes to Canada

I do not have time for extensive debate on this. Below are some points re your edits

territorially, the second largest country on the planet

- "the second largest in area" is simpler & sufficient JimWae

See for example Russia ...is the largest country in the world – less vague, no simplicity is lost, on the contrary. El_C

Bordering the United States on the south,

- borders usa on south & west - but that's too much detail for intro JimWae

Right Alaska. No, you're incrorrect: most country leads in Wikipedia, and indeed, in other enecylopedia I encountered provide such an who-does-it-border-on-the overview. Again, I urge to look at some random examples of country leads to see this phenomenon. El_C

its territorial claims extend north into the Arctic Ocean and as far as the North Pole.

- repeats "territory" and "and" is unneeded - someday I'll wikify North Pole - for those who do not know what it is JimWae

(above bold is my emphasis) We wikify North Pole (and all wikifiable geographic designations) because this is a wiki. El_C

Geographically sizable but sparsely populated portions of Canada are administered through three "territories".

- this is just confusing - lots of "portions" of Canada qualify as such but are parts of provinces. Territories have well-defined boundaries JimWae

Their size (large country-sized) vs. population (city-sized) is notable – unlike the provinces who also have a relatively sizable population (though, obviously concentrated southwards). So how it is just confusing, and what about territories having well-defined boundaries? El_C

It is governed as a parliamentary representative democracy.

- "It" becomes ambiguous, having talked about so much else in meantime JimWae

I changed it from Canada, because, at the time, there was a Canada in the sentence prior, so it was for grammatical flow. Minor though. El_C

Initially constituted through the British North America Act of 1867 as a confederation,

- confederation was a process, not a result JimWae

Sure, that's fine, I didn't author that sentence, nor to my knowledge did I modify it. El_C

it was granted Dominion status as the "Dominion of Canada". Since Dominion status was relinquished (and the Dominion Office abolished), this designation is no longer used.

- could we use the word "dominion" one more time please? Too much detail for intro JimWae

Not too much, it can be slightly expanded at least. Yes, I was also bothered with the overuse of dominion. I was going to change it to somethign else, but I left it there for now at least to curtail the 'Dominion of Canada' edit war (which I was uninvolved with), it having explictly outlined the inappropriatness for using Dominion in the formal name contemporarily. Which I trust you agree with. El_C

Canada's official languages are English and French (predominantly in the province of Québec).

- French is official language throughout Canada

--JimWae 17:16, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

I am well aware of that, obviously I meant (& should have added) predominatly spoken in Québec. El_C 23:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AND, I did keep 2 of your points:

  1. with three territories administered by the federal government.(which necessitated the ongoing reconstruction of sentences & paragraphs, but is an important & worthy point)
  2. a designation no longer used officially

--JimWae 17:33, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

I do not believe I authored either of these, though I'm not 100% sure. And one more thing, as per soviergn or independent nation: again, I urge you to review other country lead to see this is stylistically unorthodox viz. simply country or nation. It is common knowledge Canada is an independent country, and such designation need to be extended to newly-independent nations. El_C 23:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spadism

Just skimming the recent flurry of activity on the ML and WP:AN3. Typical troll behaviour on his part; how much time we waste on these matters. Actually, I would categorize it as sub-troll; flying just low enough to escape the normal troll radars, but nonethess attracting enough attention and sufficiently disrupting business to make it all worthwhile.

Everytime I encounter your use page I am blown away by that incredible photo. -- Viajero | Talk 16:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I really appreciate that, Viajero, It was a rough one, and it seems too many people are willing to excuse anything he says or does without bothering to look closely at the evidence (and it is truly overwhelming and extends far beyond this case). File:Meh.gif Yours sincerely, El_C

3RR Sam

Please don't respond in that section for a sec, there are a number of comments that have been reverted due to a bug. Am trying to fix now. I'll let you know when it's sorted. Thanks, --Silversmith Hewwo 16:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's fixed, but I didn't add your edit back in as it was based on something that had been added before you edit, but then reverted due to the bug (Chameleon had already retracted the "immidately" comment). Feel free to copy and paste it in as I've done with the others if you want. --Silversmith Hewwo 16:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay, I can't be bothered. El_C 23:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Government of Australia

Many thanks for your comment. It was much appreciated. I thought it important to pull together all the evidence. Skyring's supposed rebuttal shows just how little he actually knows about the topic, about law, about constitutions, etc. It is astonishing how one person can stick so rigidly to ideas that fall foul of some many fundamental aspects of constitutional law. If he produced what he writes in a law exam he'd barely pass (and indeed a lot of what he writes is so fundamentally wrong it might produce an automatic fail). Few academics, as you know, would allow his batty claims to stand unchallenged. He is lucky he isn't a law student or he could expect his ideas to receive a severe savaging from a law professor. One colleague of mine, an international expert on constitution, read some of Skyring's analysis, and responded by saying "oh dear God. This man don't know what he is talking about." A second colleague stopped reading after 2 minutes, saying "it is so bad I'm not going to waste my time reading any more." Many thanks again. FearÉIREANN(talk) 00:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hear that! You are very welcome, it is always a pleasure to compliment brilliant work, and we really needed an actual expert on constitutional law —someone who could rebuttal Skyring's original research with the depth and intensity as you have— so it was a very welcome sight to read your poignant and so inexorably logical comments. I, of course, agree with everything you say. Your description of how your colleagues viewed Skyring's, shall we say, thoughts (which I got a chuckle from), does not surprise me one bit. If you have'nt already, please have a look at the brief comments Adam Carr and myself have issued on Skyring's RFAr case. Keep up all the great work! All the best, El_C 00:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rougue admin? No.

Periodization: [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASam_Spade%2FReport_rogue_admin&diff=14376526&oldid=14376341] ], [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=14375958&oldid=14375921], [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AViajero&diff=14379533&oldid=14379529],[htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=14377867&oldid=14377790], [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=14379903&oldid=14378744], [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=14387622&oldid=14386991], [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:El_C&diff=14468817&oldid=14464850]


On the list: WP:POINT, WP:NPA, WP:Civility, Good_faith, Wikilove, et cetera, etc.

RickK is my new hero!

You're welcome. Thank you for the thank you.  :) RickK 23:58, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Section self-titled! El_C 00:15, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can think of to do is to report it on WP:ANI and get other people's comments, or file an RfC on him. He's a troll, and has been from day one. I find it hilarious that he gets upset whenever anybody calls him Jack on Wikipedia, yet that's how he signs his mailings to the mail list. RickK 22:14, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

I placed a notice here. Please speak out against is harrasment of myself, Rick. Thank you. El_C 22:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spadomasochism

I'll contemplate a repsonse on the WP: page shortly, but for now, let me observe that I simply do not understand why Wikipedia tolerates disruptive behaviour of this kind. I have no wish to alter the fundamental character of openness and inclusivity, but soon as a user demonstates they can't conform to agreed upon principles of behaviour, they should be banned. Why is that so controversial? Is this an encyclopedia project or some kind of sheltered workplace for disturbed individuals? -- Viajero | Talk 23:22, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly will comment! As soon as I'm awake. (It's 3:50 AM on Sunday morning here right now. :-( ) Kim Bruning is my hero for [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sam_Spade/Report_rogue_admin&diff=14380675&oldid=14380274 this edit]. Bishonen | talk 01:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A picture that is, unfortunately, too apt

I am livid with rage. That Sam would attempt to do such a thing is not only a mockery of everything Wikipedia stands for — it is an open-faced attack on the democracy of the project. If you are such a terrible user, why were you just made an admin by an overwhelming majority? This is absurd. I'm thinking the mere presence of that list demands action. Wally 03:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am, by the way, prepared to immediately report him to the AMA Coordinator for bad conduct, if you'll allow. Wally 03:05, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind

Yeah, I changed my mind about sleeping first and commenting at WP:AN/I afterwards, I got too mad at the people writing in to say we need to forget the whole thing now that Sam has been nice enough to change his sig back. I've commented now. Please don't leave the project, El, we need people like you. It's OK, you don't have to marry me! Bishonen | talk 03:39, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it

It's more evidence against him than against you. It won't have any impact on your ability to work here, it's just an intimidation tactic. Jayjg (talk) 05:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some light in the darkness

Please see: this. I've only just finished it, and I need help adding some people to get the ball rolling. Your most competent and good-spirited help would be appreciated. Cheers, --Silversmith Hewwo 13:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm back–sooner than I expected, but I couldn't ignore being mentioned in an arbcom case (of all things). This business with Spade is shameful, and you have my full support. Best, and thanks for the kind note earlier (with kitty!). Mackensen (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not allowed to block yourself

Blocking yourself is not allowed according to policy. CryptoDerk 03:31, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

my apologies

I see that you have left. I admit that almost made me happy for a moment. However, after some reflection (and admittedly conversation with persons whom I respect), I have realised this is a bad thing. While we havn't gotten along well for a long time, and I assume you have a rather ugly opinion of me from how we have interacted, you have a number of friends here. Overall, your interactions with other wikipedians were overwhelmingly positive (I should know, I have your talkpage on my watchlist). Me chasing you off, particularly in a circumstance such as this one, is not a positive occurance, neither for me personally, nor for the community as a whole.

I apologise, formally and without reservation, for having placed you on that list. It was inaccurate, and done due to anger, rather than rational contemplation. Due to how things have played out since then, I feel that list is unhelpful, and have asked for it to be deleted. We may disagree about alot of things, but I am going to try to avoid confronting you. I will still consent to mediation if you prefer, but I will certainly not insist on it. I ask you to return, you were a good editor, and a benefit to the project.

Sam Spade 23:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I accept your apology and I hereby return. I don't want to sound ungraceful, so I will not expend words beyond that at this point (esp. wrt some of the criticisms levied against you), but for the record, my protest had as much to do with some editors focusing exclusively on the signature, while ignoring the personal injustice committed against myself. And that was very hurtful to me. I want to thank all those who stood up for me, and who appealed to my better judgment throughout this stressful time, your support was invaluable and I will not forget it. Finally, the film I watched was Red Beard, which I highly recommend as one of the masterpieces of modern cinema. El_C 02:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
YAY! Welcome back! Welcome back! Kim Bruning 07:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Kim. It has been an exciting three days! El_C 07:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You probably have no idea who I am, but I just wanted to pop by to say that I'm glad that you haven't let SS drive you out of here. We need editors like you, while I'm in the minority who believe that we could live happily without him. At the very least, having a Grateful Dead lyric on your user page makes you one of the good people, in my books. Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:29, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Filiocht! No, our love won't fade away! I'm seeing the Allman Bros. this month, and Warren Haynes is back on lead guitar! (yet Gvt. Mule is on tour right now, I'm sure there's a perfectly scientific explantion) :) El_C 08:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[insert jealous noises] Enjoy. In my rural Irish backwater, I rarely get to see any good gigs. Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:55, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

If I didn't like them, there's a reasonable joke to be had about your missing the "e" out of the "Allman Bors", but I suppose I'll have to wait for someone else to make it... Doh! Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emberassing typo! The Allman Brothers Band are anything but that! El_C 11:37, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: Hurrah for the brevity of your exit; Hurrah for SS's apology; Hurrah for your courteous acceptance; Oops! That's three things. [Note to Mel: NPOV requires that only an Allman fan can make that joke]. --Theo (Talk) 10:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the hurrahs (plural) ! El_C 11:37, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hullo El C -- I may have missed a thing or two, but you didn't actually consider leaving the project because Sam featured you on that stupid list, now, did you? In any case, cheers for showing the format of accepting an apology, and keep up the good work. cheers, dab (ᛏ) 10:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a form of protest, absolutely I was prepared to. Thanks! El_C 11:37, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

YAY! Che's back! El, you had every right to be angry, and upset by the lack of support. We are a community here, and we should support each other. "You have my bow". --Elven ally Hewwo 10:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, yes, that was exactly the point behind my protest. To change things for the better, sacrifices need to be made, there is no other way. But had it not been to my loyal supporters and friends, it would have amounted to nothing. El_C 11:37, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also am glad to see you back and reverting vandalism. Thanks!!! Trödel|talk 12:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chip on Chip

Hi, thanks for adding links to my page. I think my bio from the Center for Milennial Studies is redundant, and these links under References are just an ad for Brandt since they are already in the text, so they don't belong: Googlewatch, Namebase.

Otherwise, my energetic critics tend to scream when any criticism of me is deleted. Any links in particular that seem odd to you? I have agreed to not edit my page after a rather nasty battle over the insertions of false claims by my legion of critics.  :-) --Cberlet 13:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. They can scream at me all they want. :) I'll have to take another look. So I trust so my elected papers linkage were all applicable...(?) Let me know if you have any ideas of how to better restructure any of those sections. I'll take a closer look at the body soon. El_C 13:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All but one of the new links look fine. The one just has an earlier title that was published differently than originally expected: "{1996) with Matthew N. Lyons, The Buchanan campaign incorporates themes of right Wing Populism, Scapegoating, Reactionary Politics and Fascism" (htp://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/083.html), from Too Close for Comfort: Right Wing Populism, Scapegoating, and Fascist Potentials in US Politics, Boston: South End Press." Actually: "(2000), Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort, New York: Guiford Press. Cberlet 11:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, the one and only reference (as opposed to linking of existing ones) I added myself. That figures. :) Right, I'll remove it. I've yet to get a chance to look at the article closely, and I'm writing in haste, but I am hopeful I'll be able to attend to it soon. El_C 02:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: message. The issue is how to avoid the "no original research" mandate. I need to focus on some family stuff for a week, but then I will try to locate the responses. Note that the American Friends Serive Committee was, at the outset, "related" to the Quakers, but is independent.--Cberlet 13:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, these are, after all, your responses, so NOR isn't a huge factor, though of course, you'd want it to be empirically-grounded and to be convincing (I would if I was you). But you could, if you suddenly went insane, say that Daniel whatever the hell his last name is is actually an alien — it's your replies. But, clearly, if you have hitherto responses that are already out there and you find are representative of your position, that sounds like a sensible approach to follow. I leave that at your discretion; this way, you'll be doing research about yourself, for me! By all means, take all the time you need. And best wishes to your family, I hope everything is well. El_C 13:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

upon being picked up and held

"Dah-dah-dah-dah-DAH-dah-dah-dah-dah-dah-dah-dah-dah ... Catman!" :p

File:P1010953.jpg

Hey, El C. :) What do you know about ragdolls? I'm curious about an answer to my question Talk:Ragdoll about why they go limp. Any info? Thanks. :D deeceevoice 14:04, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know they went limp upon being picked up and held to be thoroughly and mercilessly petted. I must study this fascinating phenomenon further. Thank you for bringing it to my attention, DC! El_C 15:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Secretlondon

El, I don't know if you've heard of this legendary user—like me, you arrived after Secretlondon left. She's been too long gone, for reasons similar to yours, if I've understood the old campfire stories and wikisongs right. But she's baaaack! Better still, you're back without being long gone. It's so cool to see you doing normal stuff round the place again—right there ahead of me, voting at all the RFA's! :-) Bishonen | talk 22:20, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard of her, I think from 172. Always good to have another knowledgable editor and a progressive voice. El_C 02:02, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RfA Skyring

Hi El C, I've put up a page of evidence realting mostly to edits in the main namspace of Government of Australia, if you have anything to add or know about similar behaviour by him on another page please add it. --nixie 02:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, nixie, I'll have a look at it soon.I'm sure I have some thinga to say on his conduct in Govt. of Australia, but that pretty much sums up my experience with him (a little bit on Republic, but that's about it). I am committed to see it succeed. El_C 03:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To update you on the Skyring case, we're up to evidence now.--nixie 06:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right, I did notice actually. Sorry for being behind scheduale. I will attend to it soon Thanks, nixie. El_C 07:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank You

What a year! My first year in Wiki, a featured article and now administrator. Thank you for your support. Tony the Marine

My pleasure, congrats! El_C 06:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote in support of my admin nomination. Paul August ☎ 13:30, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC) P.S. I love the cat picture above.

Not at all, good to have you on board. El_C 13:33, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back

File:Kittenradiator.jpg

Good to have you back, El C. But don't fall asleep on the job. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 07:48, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

What a wonderful dream I ... wasn't sleeping. And that looks so incredibly comfortable! El_C 09:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hewwo. Did you see the email? I need help man!:p --Silversmith Hewwo 09:52, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This has what to do with felines!? El_C 10:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hewp! Hewp! I'm a poor little puddytat, stuck behind a radiator! --Silversmith Hewwo 10:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
An incredibly comfortable sleep! Such wondrous dreams, I'm sure. El_C 10:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Which is more than can be said for me. I'm barely able to breathe again. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:19, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Well, don't overexert yourself. Try to take it easy. :( El_C 11:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image issue

Hi, if you have a moment, could you take a look at Ward Churchill? As you may know, he is a highly controversial figure in the US at the moment and the article gets a lot of attention. At the moment, Klonimus is insisting on including a photo of Adolf Eichmann to the article, because of Churchill's reference to him in his "infamous" 9/11 essay, with a long caption and an additional paragraph on Eichmann in the article. Yesterday, I removed the photo and trimmed down the digression on Eichmann to one line, but it was quicky reverted by Klonimus.

First of all, this article is about Ward Churchill and images should pertain to him. Second, the image sets up a strong subliminal association of Churchill with Nazism, which I think is inappropriate and vastly unfair. Thanks, -- Viajero | Talk 10:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, it's a form of POV propaganda meant to produce a negative emotionalist response, despite the obvious connotation with the (in)famous passage, it is untopical. I echo your objections which I noted on the article's talk page. El_C 11:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LaRouche

Hi El C, I'm back, though not yet up-to-speed and still unwell. Will e-mail with more details. In the meantime, we have another LaRouche editor The Power of Reason (talk · contribs), possibly a sockpuppet of the old one(s). Your views would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/LaRouche-Riemann Method and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Triple Curve, two articles s/he created today. There's also an incident report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Lyndon LaRouche and User:The Power of Reason. Sniff, sneeze, cough. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:49, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back! Yes, I had already noticed & watchlisted — I got your back. Looking forward to your email. El_C 01:14, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My RFA: Thanks

Thank you for your support on my RFA. Now that I have been promoted, I promise to be as hardworking and fair with the admin tools as I have been with the other areas here on Wikipedia. See you around and happy editing. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:51, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My pleasure, congrats! El_C 01:15, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

El C, Thanks for your vote of confidence on my recent successful RFA, it was much appreciated. I will work to demonstrate that your trust was well-placed. Fawcett5 19:16, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not at all, well done! El_C 04:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

IRC

El, if you put messages at the bottom of my page there's a chance I'll actually see them. Bishonen | talk 22:02, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So long as there's a chance...YASE! :) El_C 04:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Thank you for voting on my RFA. Have some pie! I was pleasantly surprised by the sheer number of supporters (including several people that usually disagree with my opinion). I shall do my best with the proverbial mop. Yours, Radiant_>|< 07:57, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

My pleasure, thanks for the pie! (mmm) El_C 05:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of tyrants

Please read what I have written on the page because I hope that on reflection you will change your vote . Philip Baird Shearer 17:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'll look into it soon. El_C 05:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

tyrants

Can you help? Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of tyrants user:Philip Baird Shearer is asking what category of deletion under Wikipedia:Deletion policy I am arguing under. The list is, of course, inherently POV, but he's pointing out (correctly it seems) that this isn't a deletion category in itself, and that POV should be argued in the talk page. If he wins this argument - then 'list of horrible people' and 'list of great holiday destinations' would also be legit (and that's just moronic). But I don't know how to answer him... --Doc (?) 12:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the argument is that tyrants can be seen as a subjective term; I'm uncertain where that falls as per the deletion policy (if at all). I'll look further into this whole issue soon. El_C 05:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{{Image copyright|Image:Raul hilberg-large.jpg}} User:Nv8200p

That data has been lost, I'm afraid. I'll see what I can do though. El_C 05:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Thank you for supporting my candidacy for administrator. Kelly Martin 15:09, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

OKAY! :) El_C 21:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Baruch Goldstein

Sorry. My apologies. Followed a contrib and didn't realise there was more afterwards. No insult to you, your Cness. Grace Note 04:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, glad to learn it was a mistake; it weirded me out. I provided a more detailed explanation of my position on your talk page. Regards, El_C 04:15, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but it's absolutely ridiculous to have an article on Zionist terrorism without mentioning Goldstein. I think if some had their way, Wikipedia would not even mention that he existed. Grace Note 04:19, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to get into that at the moment, but I'm glad you acknowledge the logical inconsistency I highlighted. El_C 04:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's a poor thing that "logical inconsistencies" should be used as loopholes for POV pushing rather than being, erm, fixed. Thanks for the pointer to the Castro article but I've decided not to waste more than the odd comment and the odd revert on POV warriors, and I've no wish to spend my days actually being one. I think there's a lot more mileage in putting a point out there and allowing it to rise or fall on its own strength. Grace Note 04:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't slip on me, GN. I chose not to fix that or add any information that article for a reason., which certainly was implied in my edit summary. Otherwise, I would have fixed it, obviously. And as for Castro, that was not a pointer, it was tongue-in-cheek. El_C 05:01, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wondered what that wet feeling in my mouth was. Grace Note 05:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

T'was me, trying to be funny. El_C 05:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On the wrong foot

We've obviously got off on the wrong foot. I just want to make clear that I have nothing against you personally. I've noticed your edits are always in good faith, and I didn't even know your ideological position until a couple of days ago when I clicked on your user page. In other words, your editing is excellent, and cooperating with you is always a breeze. On a personal level, communism is viewed by me with deep seated unemotional hatred, but that doesn't translate to people on this board. This is for historical, personal and ideological reasons, but I assure you that they have little to do with how I view edits by other editors, especially you. I will gladly cooperate with you in the future. So let's put all of this behind us and let bygones be bygones. I don't want to jeopordize a friendly editing environment between us, so I hope you take this as an apology for insults unintended, or which were misunderstood as insults.

Regards,

Guy Montag 09:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have nothing against you personally either, I don't even know you. Naturally, we are in an ideological antipathy (but I am that way with the vast majority of editors; it's a First World encyclopedia after all), but I see no reason why we can't collaborate collegially despite that. So, I thank you for your note. Sounds like a plan. Anyway, I added Kach to Zionist terrorism because even the Israeli goevrnment defines them this way. El_C 09:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Glad that's behind us. I've added my personal objections to your edit in talk.

Regards,

Guy Montag 10:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah ha HA! mes sieurs! But le communisme c'est le greatest eville of all our times! OK, so I hate communism too, as I pretty much make unabashedly clear on my userpage, lemme take that back, I think Marx is an incorrigible lunatic, and put anyone who gives 3 seconds of their life to promoting his teachings on the very verge of being classified the same...but El_C is one of the most even-handed editors I've come across on WP, so I'm willing to overlook a minor [ok so maybe MAJOR] intellectual flaw. Although Che Guevarra was a great man! But El_C hmmm El Cabóng? :-p is still a good guy, even if his politics are COMPLETELY WHACKO!!!  :-p Much love and many hugs and kisses to all. Have a great Shavu`oth.  :-D Tomer TALK 10:31, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

It is peculiar and contradictory that Tomer's view of Marx is his one greatest intellectual shortcoming, whereas my view of Marx is pretty much the only thing I got going for me, with everything else being intellectual shortcomings on my part. שבוע טוב El_C 11:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

hahaha :-) Tomer TALK 20:18, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

El C, you sir, are a hoot. :)

Guy Montag 04:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I try to entertain *and* indoctrinate! ;p El_C 05:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Antarctic krill

hallo El_C! can you please take a look at Featured article candidates: Antarctic krill maybe help with some editing / formatting / vote - best greetings Uwe Kils 20:50, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Responded here. El_C 23:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

thank you, El, for the fast response - I am from Germany and I know my English is rotten - stil do more on English wiki so more can use it - best greetings Uwe Kils 00:19, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Not at all, Uwe. It is my pleasure. :) El_C 00:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

hallo El_C - thank you for the fast work, very helpfull. We would like to keep the animations, we were very often complimented just because of those. If we do not get feature status because of that that is ok with us. keep up with the fine work for wikipedia. Uwe Kils 03:25, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Glad to help, Uwe! I also hope you are able to keep them, I find them to be very instructive. I'm not familliar with the WP:FAC and never participated in it in any way whatsoever, but you rank very high among my favourite picture contributors. Keep up the fine work yourself! :) El_C 05:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your nice words - but you could still vote, like anybody - we would like to get as much approval for the article as possible because we plan to produce and link many sci articles for wikiversity proposals and our dream of a Virtual university - best greetings Uwe Kils 14:06, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Well, since you ask, I'll have a look at it soon. :) El_C 07:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

thank you everybody

I would like to express my thanks to everybody helping in the nomination of Antarctic krill. I think 3 1/2 supports and a long long discussion are an unexpected and great outcome for a critter so remote and unknown - you should see how little and poor Antarctic krill is represented in Encarta and Britannica - this is the best reviewed and resourced general article of krill we know of - it is impossible to fullfill all wishes at the same time - this is what we did with our all product [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antarctic_krill&oldid=15197713 peer review stamp] to qualify this stage of the article for academic exercises, especially for our dreams of a Virtual university within Wikiversity - good luck to you all Uwe Kils 21:48, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

here is a new picture I donated in high resolution htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Krilleyekils Uwe Kils 03:38, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Which academic board? I think it's important to note in these peer review diffs. Once again, well done! And as always, simply fantastic pictures!
I asked academic people to peer review it. My vision is to have a board with faculty for sci and res pages. I asked them to give their names and I offered to make user pages, but all refused to join wikipedia yet. comments: too much wierd sex on the most visted pages, most editors work as noname. We made such an attempt already two years ago wich stirred a lot of gusto. I was even kicked out as admin, even without a vote. So for the time beeing we have to leave it as "academic board". maybe in the not to far future we can have a group of experts all willing to give their name and material, like I did in the article Antarctic krill and Atlantic herring and oxygen depletion. Can I ask you still to vote on the krill eye

site htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Krilleyekils and the "htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Virtual_University page Uwe Kils 11:52, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Strong Support. Wow. Detailed response provided here. El_C 13:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
responded on my talk page (do you have htp://www.skype.com ?) Uwe Kils 16:09, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I do not. Is it any good? I don't really like using instant messengers (long and somewhat uninteresting story). But I will send you an email soon (I have to go out now), or in the meantime, feel more than free to [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Emailuser&target=El_C email me]. All the best, El_C 16:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
skype is free and for talking - you just need a mic for 10 dollar - it is better than telephone and free - thanks for the good discussion, I responded on my talk page - would you be willing to work (at least in part) under your name? Uwe Kils 16:56, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
the reader / cyber student should have the possibility to juge on her own how much the peer scientist is suited for the field, following independent sources like [htp://de.wikiversity.org/wiki/Ozeanographie/kurse/Meeresbiologie/lehrer/kils/credentials this] and [htp://marine.rutgers.edu/faculty_ukils.html faculty pages]. Just to google for the name is not jet very helpfull, because most of the sci material is behind passwords of expensive magazines or not on the web jet. Uwe Kils 16:47, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, that's one serious limitation that needs to be overcome. I responded at greater length in my email. Thanks! El_C 22:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Copepodkils.jpg

hallo El, can you help me reset the size on the plankton page - I replaced the images with high res versions Uwe Kils 15:11, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

What a peculiar-looking creature. Done. :) El_C 15:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thank you - the oceans are quite amazing - its good to have friends in cyberspace :) Uwe Kils 15:36, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
They most certainly are. It most definitely is. Anytime, don't hesitate. :) El_C 15:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

EnviroKainKabong

Thanks for the note. I understand what you did, and why. What, though, do you suppose is the proper standard of etiquette to employ with someone who habitually sits next to you at the cafeteria table and douses your tray, for eight or ten weeks on end, with water from an unflushed privy? Is there ever a point at which such a cafeteria guest is worth identifying publicly and unmistakably? When he sits down next to you for the two hundredth time bearing a broad grin and a large plastic tub filled with sewage, might a cross word be expected to escape one's lips? BrandonYusufToropov 02:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Heh, that was pretty good! Sorry, was that a question? ;p El_C 03:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Poor standards

I've been going through jtdirl's edits, and I'm appalled at the generally low quality of his work. Errors in spelling and grammar abound, many details are incorrect, and the way he tortures English makes me wince. I've been cleaning up his edits, but I've only gone back a few days so far and it looks like a lot of work. Perhaps English is not his native language, but apart from style, his material is not reliable. At one point he talked about "the President of the United Kingdom" as a factual office. I'm not putting myself forward as a purveyor of high class English, but the stuff put out by your mate is pretty bloody ordinary, and that's me being generous! Pete 02:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see. Well, I will need to see individual diffs to be able to comment definitevly. I am not especially familliar with the work of either Jtdirl or yourself (though, from what I witnessed on GoA, he struck me as being compotnent; whereas you, as you well know, struck me as being rather circular). At any rate, he is responsible for his own work, so it is probably better for you to take these issues directly with him, or in the given article's talk page. Incidentally, English is not my native tongue, I learned it about a decade or so ago, and I still am often scrambling. Still, I'm always [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antarctic_krill&diff=prev&oldid=15152087 pleased to help] those less versed in it (in a collegial fashion); and note that they, nonetheless, may still be notable experts in their respective fields despite this shortcoming. This is an international English language encyclopedia, after all. El_C 03:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't have put it better! Cast your eyes over [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidential_Inauguration_%28Ireland%29&diff=prev&oldid=15130915 this revert] and tell me if you think he's "compotnent". And this is on a subject where he claims expertise and is the only editor of the article apart from myself. One out of dozens of articles riddled with errors in fact and logic, not to mention spelling, grammar and syntax that would shame a school student.

As you know, I get my kicks out of chasing down and fixing errors and correcting bias, and while I don't think he's biased except for an understandable love of his country (and himself), I think you'll have to agree that he is fertile ground for correction. If you have any regard for him at all, you should quietly point out that if he doesn't fix his errors and straighten out his tortured syntax into something resembling professional standards, then others will do it, and I shall take a great deal of pleasure in pointing out every last painful detail.

I ask you, because he's not listening to me, just mindlessly reverting, and all that does is whet my appetite. As you know. Pete 03:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. As I know, but: you must cease from editing my comments' space by inserting your own (esp. without signing). Do you not know that I intend to bring evidence in your arbitration proceeding which outline my protest of this pratice on your part (and that you continued to do so, at least once, despite such explicit protests?) You must know as this is what I had written on Jtdirl's talk page today. 2. As per compotence, I see one content error and some grammatical errors in that page, which, in my book, has no bearing on scholarly compotence. My grammar is often (read: always) hideous, and as mentioned, I was the one who proofread Dr. Kils article on Antarctic krill. Every bit helps. But in your case, you already know that Jtdirl may feel that you are targetting him, rightly so, noting your past exchanges at the GoA. He may have some issues with grammar, that is nothing he should be ashamed of, it's the content that matters. I wrote the lead paragraph for a dozen country article, and I have gotten at least three changes of west to east (etc.), often weeks or months later. I'm absentminded sometimes, but within reason that's okay, it's a wiki. There are many thousands of editors, I know one of them will pick up on it (but I would hope that it would not be carried out by someone who I am in dispute with, because it can take the form of humiliation). 3. If you intend to channel your energy this way, by correcting Jtdirl's contributions for grammar and whatever content slips (in itself, a productive task, but also note the above issues), I certainly will reiterate to him to examine each change in detail so as to keep any positive improvements. Alas, if only I had a friendly proofreader, the article on A'man that I authored two days ago certainly could use it! *** One more thing, Mister Pete Skyring. You must cease and desist immediately from using edit summaries such as "Fix tortured sentence," etc., as, in this case, they are a from of personal attack. El_C 04:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not to put myself forward or anything, but did you say friendly proof-reader? You want a proof-read of A'man, nudge, nudge? Bishonen | talk 17:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chaos in Islam

We've got chaos breaking out on several Islam-related talk pages, with articles locked and people blocked. Any help working out how to handle it gratefully received at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Trouble on Islam pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:23, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I know, I am getting sick of signing anon ips! I didn't realize it was so widespread. Noted, I'll see what I can do. El_C 08:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Konstantin Pobedonostsev passage

Hi El_C, it's a well known quote. See [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=May_Laws&diff=0&oldid=15158796] for some refs. I don't know the original source, though. Will try some Russian history books/sites. Regards. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, and I also see it on [htp://www.jewishhistory.org.il/1880.htm jewishhistory.org], but it's always nice to have a print source. :) Thanks. Yours, El_C 09:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pobedonostsev's quote

Please remove this phrase from wikipedia article. 217.117.80.2 06:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, in light of your above explanation, I definitely wish to see a well-referenced print source now, consensus version or no consensus version. Until HS produces one, I will remove it. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, 217.117.80.2. El_C 11:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The difference in wording could well be an artifact of translation. Secretlondon 11:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Very true, but at the moment I'm limiting myself to seeking a well-referenced citation that demonstrates he stated this. At any event, I am confident HS will be able to provide us with something definitive, which draws from the historiographical consensus. El_C 11:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It will be fair to remove the passage about Pobedonostsev from other articles Such as May_Laws and Konstantin Pobedonostsev (Pobedonostsev defender) 217.117.80.2 11:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, until the source is provided, it would be. Though it may prove short-lived. By all means, go ahead. El_C 11:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have found possible source of this "quotation"!!!

It is "The Melting Pot" play written by Israel Zangwill in 1908.

htp://www.vdare.com/fulford/melting_pot.htm The wicked Baron shares his program for the Jews of Russia: "One-third will be baptized, one-third massacred, the other third emigrated here." His American interlocutor says: "We're going to stop all alien immigration." The wicked Baron: "To stop all alien?? But that is barbarous!"

htp://beatl.barnard.columbia.edu/wsharpe/citylit/Melting3.htm (Pobedonostsev defender) --217.117.80.2 13:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Could it be that Pobedonostsev recited that? I am afraid I'm rather ignorant about prerevolutionary Russia. I wish to hear what other editors have to say. I'm going to move most of the above to the article's talk page to guage on other editors' thoughts (which, as was rightly noted, I should have done the first time – but, I thought at the time that finding a propper source would be a relatively brief affair). El_C 07:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A'man

Hello El_C. The article says that it was founded in 1950, but also gives a director for 1948-9. The solution probably lies in the transition from the Hagana intelligence Branch (Shai). A good source of the early history is Morris & Black, Israel's Secret Wars. I'm just about to go overseas for a month, so feel free to beat me to it. Cheers. --Zero 10:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Zero. Actually, I approach it as: while having been founded in 1950, that it was still largely the same entity; except that it was detached from the GenStaff (Agam, 1948 / Amak, 1949), though of course, still falling under its jurisdiction. Am I correct to follow that route do you think? Thanks for the tip, I'll try to track that book down. Finally, is the English translation for (מחלקת המודיעין) branch rather than dept. I'm afraid I'm not very familliar with the English scholarship, so this impacts my translation as per synonyms. Thanks in advance. All the best, El_C 10:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that "Branch" is more common in English sources, but "Department" and "Division" are used too. --Zero 11:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right, they are all synonyms. I think I'll keep the branch for agaf, and the Dept. for machlaka (unless you favour Division, dosen't matter on that end), to distinguish between the two diffrent Hebrew words in English. Once again, many thanks. Best regards, El_C 11:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and synomously, agaf itself can, of course, mean: department, branch, wing, or flank (as well as less topically: equational member in mathematics, or wing of a bird in talmudic writings). Naturally, if there is one most authoritative way wrtt Israeli IC, I want to go with it. :) El_C 11:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Friendly proof-reader

El, did you see my A'man proof-reading nudge above? What are the double asterisks for in the "Head of A'man" section? They suggest that all the rest of the agencies are subsets of the Research Department, is that the case? Bishonen | talk 18:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, what does "and its operation" mean in "3. Military censorship and its operation"? Can I leave it out, or change to "operations"? Bishonen | talk 18:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! No, it isn't. I'm not sure how to show these two as principal, which is just a way to show the greater role they play within A'man propper (i.e. the Intelligence Corps and Research Dept. are both headed bya Brig. Gen., but so is the Air Intelligence Squadron, etc., but the latter is also a part of the Air Force Corps, ditto with the Naval Inteligence Dept. viz. the Naval Corps). The Hebrew Wikipedia has A'man as a single asteric, then the Inteligence Corps (first) and the influential Research Dept. (second). So I followed that model, but my list is much more comprehensive than theirs, as it lists all these other bodies; so any ideas on that front would be greatly appreciated. *** The role of the military censor was translated by me from [htp://www.tzafonet.org.il/kehil/school_tzafonet/csoolot/elicohen/modin.htm this], as a quote of: צנזורה צבאית והפעלתה, though I don't object to modifying to make it more intelligable (i.e. they operate the military censor, etc.) Bad Engrish on my part, again? El_C 07:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I had no idea you spoke Japanese! Not sure I got the way all those bodies are part of something else, but I tried something random, please check it out. Bishonen | talk 18:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Up and down, not side to side or back in time! Sorry, your suggestion was rejected (:D), but I appreciate the attempt. I still wish to solve it list-wise somehow. If I knew more about Wiki formatting I'd probably be able to scramble something quick, but as it appears, it may take a while to iron out. Please don't give up on ideas to improve that issue. Thank you, Bish! El_C 22:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RE: Re-templating

Ah yes. That proves that {{otheruses2}} isn't half as useful as I thought it was. Fixed now. Radiant_>|< 09:29, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Looks good! :) El_C 09:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RFA

Let me assure you that it's no oversight. I prefer not to vote on political motions that I have myself proposed. Radiant_>|< 11:21, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

That amuses *and* terrifies me. Thanks for clarification though! El_C 11:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Theo RFA

Thank you for supporting my RFA nomination. I appreciate your confidence. --Theo (Talk) 11:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's my pleasure. :) Best of luck on winning the nomination (I am confident that you will). El_C 11:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi El C. This is overdue, but I want to thank you for your support vote on my RFA. Thanks to my supporters, I am now an admin and I have been using my powers to better Wikipedia in general. Thank you! Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 23:09, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Nice, congrats! :) El_C 23:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi! thank you for your support for my admin candidacy. I hope that you will always feel that I am a responsible administrator. JeremyA 05:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nicely done! El_C 07:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My RFA: Thanks

Hi El C! Thanks for your support on my RFA! Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. Well done! El_C 13:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My Rfa

Thank you for supporting me! And opposing me! And supporting me! Etc. Etc. --Kbdank71 13:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Congrats, et cetra, etc. ! :) El_C 13:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

my RfA

You were right, I do want that mop after all. Also, I'd like to thank you for your vote on my previosu RfA, especially considering our previous contact on RfA is was particularly nice. Thanks, and let's hope all our future interactions are as least as happy. --W(t) 18:28, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

I confess to still being interested in oppossing, supporting, opposing, supporting your RFA! El_C 23:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anti-gay phone company

LOL!! Where did you find it? You come up with the funniest things. Progress is being made on the size-of-things issue, by the way, no thanks to the terrible twins. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:33, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Heh, glad you approve! I could tell you, but then I'd have to... pick you up and hold you so as to thoroughly and mercilessly pet. El_C 22:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you for supporting my RFA. Guettarda 23:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. Great to have you!

Fidel Castro

Hey El C, I would just like to point out that I have presented many, many sources stating, verbatim, what I have written in the Fidel Castro page (both about the healthcare thing and more extensively about the political repression bit), yet Grace Note keeps reverting and calling it "POV pushing". Are these grounds for a temporary ban or some kind of warning?
Also, when I'm not even addressing her, she keeps making personal attacks: Terms like "Weberian" don't mean anything to you because you have no idea what they mean. This is getting quite out of hand. Kapil 07:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
More evidence of personal attacks: Concerning the following: You keep attacking me calling me a "rightwing troll" and contributing nothing to discussions, instead focusing your rage on me. This is unacceptable behaviour and I'm asking you to stop immediately and make constructive debate instead of insulting me. You're wasting your time and wikipedia reputation, Grace Note replied: Kapil, you are a rightwing troll. Kapil 07:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) Also, sorry about mistreating you earlier man. Mis respetos. Kapil 05:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) I would also like to point out that 172, when presented with adequate sources, reverted my edit saying "Sources? Of course the claim is true, but it is so vague as to be meaningless. Every state inherently engages in repression.". When I didn't present sources they bitched and whined, now I got like 6 sources and they still dispute and revert lazily. Can't I do something? Can an admin? Kapil 07:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Responded on Kapil's talk page here. El_C 07:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Heh, just noticed, sorry about messing up your formatting :P Kapil 07:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not at all, everyone does it, I am totally used to it! :D El_C 07:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Too much credit

You gave me much [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_correctness&diff=15277479&oldid=15275019 too much credit]! Meanwhile, Slim has passed on your four Kitties of the Apocalypse to me—I think I'm meant to imagine them carrying the pale riders 82.35.37.118, Pcpcpc, Oliver Chettle, and Gillian Tipson. Bishonen | talk 08:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I am new! I love friendly sockpuppets, but you know (you know) what I love more! Yase, that's right, answers.com! If only I could persuade it to marry me. Don't you think we'd make a cute couple! How I love it, it's dreamy interface, everything about it. El_C 08:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You two are flirting again behind my back. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:50, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

When it comes to answers.com, it's an uncontrollable urge and obessession, which I call love/lust/psychosis! El_C 09:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WikiDefender_Barnstar

This Defender of the Wiki Barnstar is awarded by User:Tabib for El C's role in Azerbaijan entry.

El C,

I want to award this Defender of the Wiki barnstar to you for your principled position in fighting against vandal Rovoam and for your participation in Azerbaijan entry.

You are actually the first person whom I am presenting any sort of barnstars. Somehow, before I though that this could be given only by a special admin decision, but I am glad that this is not the case, and I can express my gratitude to you in such a small way. Tabib 11:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wow, thanks Tabib! And, phew, welcome back! I've never been awarded a barnstar before either, so this is new for both of us! (hmm, that didn't come out like I wanted it to :p). More on the actual material, on your talk page. Somewhat at the defence of this notorious Azeri nationalist, he didn't treat me too poorly, perhaps because somehow he understood that I have to combat vandalism from both the Azeri and Armenian sides (and many other parallels with respect to other countries). I was actually attempting to foster some sort of a dialogue with him, because, as I told him, he's just wasting his own and everyone elses time. All the nationalist rehatoric aside, I still can't pin down the issue he takes with the respective articles in any concrete way. I was tempted to issue my 1st page proetction ever, but opted against it considering all these articles were already protected for so long. Thanks again! Yours, El_C 22:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indulgence

File:Indulgence.PNG
One Plenary Indulgence

I hereby award you this plenary indulgence for reasons that we both know. — Essjay · talk 06:15, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Essjay. I am (belatedly!) honoured. El_C 06:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just making sure there isn't any remaining confusion: My indulgence is completely unrelated to the Azerbaijan issue. I didn't even know Azerbaijan existed until El C mentioned it. Essjay · talk 09:04, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • The more you know* :) Two barnstars in one day! Considering until today the total number of barnstarts I've been awarded (or deleted, also 2 today!) amount to ... zero, coincedence is all around me. Wau. El_C 09:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And ensuing confusion!

I'm confused...I got your message, but I'm not sure exactly what it meant. By the way, I was serious about the indulgence! I give them to a lot of people who earn my respect/admiration. (Check your email.) — Essjay · talk 06:29, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Responded [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&oldid=15336623#Apology here]. Please accept my apologies. Still a little on edge from lastnight and today about Azerbaijan. And actually, unfairly to the Azeri nationalists, they haven't targetted me personally, only Tabib. I think I should have a break & some tea. :) El_C 06:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's perfectly okay! It was one of those strange coincidences that seems almost too odd to be true. At first, I thought: "I think I'm being accused of something." Then I looked up Azeri nationalist and I thought: "Why would he think I'm a Azeri nationalist? There isn't anything in my edit history or user page to suggest that I even know where Azerbaijan is! He must be as confused as I am!" Anyhow, I hope you'll accept my sincere apology for causing you any distress, and will take my original note for what I meant it to be: a sincere word of praise for you! If I could, I'd pay for your tea! Good work, we need more admins like you and I think you know what I mean. ;-> — Essjay · talk 07:03, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Totally strange coincidences! Though the culmination of which being are largely a product of my paranoic and feverish mind. No, no, don't apologize, t'was entirely my fault, but thank you for accepting my apology. And thank you so much for the exceptionally kind words, as well as the award (which I now bothered to read!). And my tea is already paid for, friend, if only I could send you some through this fiberoptic cable; it's one of the best brands of green tea South Korea has to offer! Many thanks to you. Cordially & sinecrely yours, El_C 07:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments lacking Grace

A flopsy bunny rabbit, in a typically relaxed pose, embarking on an edit at Terrorism before tackling Arab-Israeli conflict and North American Man/Boy Love Association. -- SV

Speaking of Zionist terrorism, you might want to look at a similar level of commenting (and POV pushing) at Terrorism. Jayjg (talk) 23:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jeez, whatever next! My dog will be complaining about my fleas and my cat will be demanding that I don't bring mice in from the fields. Grace Note 02:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to have a look at it soon. I'm sure he has some points I agree with, but he's approaching these issues with great haste, seemingly little familiarity with the material, and this angst. It isn't as if these articles don't lack tension already. Sheesh. El_C 23:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tension? What tension? It's a picnic. When you see the word terrorism in Wikipedia, think flopsy bunny rabbits and that'll get you in the right mood. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:51, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

I, somehow, got great (and preverse?) pleasure from your use of the word flopsy. Thank you for that! El_C 23:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now that is what I call flopsy! Meanwhile, the realm of Israeli national security is proving surprisingly tension-free, which is to say, totally solitary. El_C 00:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Grace Note

Cheers... it's good to know this. Pretty disgusting behaviour from Grace Note, really. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, deeply dissapointing, Ta bu shi da yu. El_C 07:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My advise, for what it's worth: put that editor on RFC. Personal attacks are not acceptable. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think that's a tad too hasty at this point. Like Kapil, I want to give him a fair chance to redeem himself from personal attacks (by refraining from them), without the stress of an RFC (the diffs are there just the same). But certainly, no more slips. El_C 07:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Trey Stone

Thanks, I also just spotted that he was back to edit warring. I've blocked him again for six hours. I told him to behave well but I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that he's utterly incapable of exercising self-control. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Responded here. El_C 08:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments deleted by Tony Sidaway can be found [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony_Sidaway&oldid=15371618#In_my_defense here]. El_C 00:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Missing

Yep. Guess I should have said something? [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Wareware/Evidence] Note Pharlap's presence. He hasn't returned to offer "evidence." In fact, I don't know if he's been around since he and I got into it a few weeks ago on in Talk: African American history. Note also: [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wareware&diff=14114864&oldid=13897337] He posted a notice asking for assistance, but I just checked. No takers. Not surprising. I don't guess too many people want to come to the aid of the likes of WW. I haven't done or said anything w/regard to the evidentiary phase of this process. I figure I've done and said all I care/need to. (Is there something I should be doing?) Thanks for your ongoing interest/assistance. :) Peace. deeceevoice 12:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They were supposed to issue some sort of statement, no? What was the point of that then? We knew he wasn't coming back. Well, so long as you're happy. Let me know if you are and I'll remove the request for clarification. Best regards, El_C 13:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Silverback

This is disgusting, and for me the last straw. [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/172_2&diff=0&oldid=15359647] May I ask for your help in requesting arbitration against this user? 172 20:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, I would just ignore it, seems pretty toothless. But sure. El_C 23:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with the above graphics. Get your facts straight 172! --Silverback 22:51, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Sacred memory of the Archbishop

File:Archbishopromero.jpg
Archbishop Óscar Romero

While celebrating mass at a small chapel near his cathedral, Romero was shot to death while he was giving a sermon in which he called for soldiers to disobey orders that violated basic human rights. It is believed that his assassins were members of Salvadoran death squads, including two graduates of the School of the Americas. This view was supported in 1993 by an official UN report, which identified the man who ordered the killing as Major Roberto D'Aubuisson, who later founded the Nationalist Republican Alliance (ARENA), a political party which came to power in 1989 and still rules today.

  • "And if they kill me, I will rise again in the Salvadoran people."
  • "Brothers, you came from our own people. You are killing your own brothers. Any human order to kill must be subordinate to the law of God, which says, 'Thou shalt not kill'. No soldier is obliged to obey an order contrary to the law of God. No one has to obey an immoral law. It is high time you obeyed your consciences rather than sinful orders. The church cannot remain silent before such an abomination. ... In the name of God, in the name of this suffering people whose cry rises to heaven more loudly each day, I implore you, I beg you, I order you: stop the repression."
  • "No one can celebrate a genuine Christmas without being truly poor. The self-sufficient, the proud, those who, because they have everything, look down on others, those who have no need even of God – for them there will be no Christmas. Only the poor, the hungry, those who need someone to come on their behalf, will have that someone. That someone is God, Emmanuel, God-with-us. Without poverty of spirit there can be no abundance of God."
  • "We are workers, not master builders; ministers, not messiahs. We are prophets of a future not our own."

Who aren't I?

Hey ElC: A vote was just posted on the Vicarius Filii Dei VfD by an IP that signed your signature; I don't have any reason to think it wasn't you, but just to be sure, I thought I'd leave you a note. -- Essjay · Talk 10:04, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. :D Yes, tis me — other admins can vouch for it. Sorry for the confusion. I'm having difficulties staying logged in, so I gave up for now. I'm pretty sure I know what it is, should have it fixed later today. Oh and note this. All the best, El_C 11:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. Who aren't you? A bad guy, that's who you aren't! I figured it was you, but I was a bit paranoid; I've been working on the Doppelganger account policy, and it has me expecting to find impersonators everywhere. Not to mention, there's a history of vote fraud on VfD. Glad to hear it was you!
Also, I looked at your "testimony" (do they call it testimony?) to the ArbCom; I was a bit leery of saying what I did in my vote ("Refer the nominator to ArbCom...") for fear of being e-stalked, but I decided to go with it. I don't know that I can claim the title "foremost expert," but thank you for the honor! As for snopes.com, their own FAQ says "We don't expect anyone to accept us as the ultimate authority on any topic." I was really suprised he countered Barfooz and my comments the way he did; I cited the official site of the the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod! I had already seen jtdirl's note about possible harassment, but I was convinced by his comments to me. I just hope I'm not the next to be attacked. -- Essjay · Talk 11:59, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Dear Essjay, you will not the next to be attacked, you have my word on that. I already feel bad enough for having let Jtdirl suffer as he did for five days since I warned Skyring to act professionally, with the full knowledge that he would not. At my defence, I've had an exteremly intense (and intensive, extensive) time myself, but still, that's no excuse. And as for being one of Wikipedia's foremost experts on Catholic scholarship, believe it or not, we do not, in fact, have too many editors with four doctorates in this field. I highly doubt we have even a single editor with three. :) Thank you again for all your kind words. All the best, El_C 12:25, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear that, although I think you're being too hard on yourself; even if you'd sworn in blood to protect him, there's only so much you can do. As for my academic credentials, two of those doctorates are honorifics, so I didn't really do anything to get them. Modesty aside, I'll wear the title with pride. Thanks, and peace be with you. -- Essjay · Talk 12:37, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Skyring

Please don't in any way feel guilty for Skyring's behaviour. He and he alone is responsible for it. I deeply appreciate all your comments and support. There have been individuals like Skyring here before. Two of the most notorious were User:DW and User:Lir. DW was banned permanently from Wikipedia for first of all mounting a campaign of dubious personalised edits in breach of NPOV rules and the Manual of Style, then harrassing and bullying people who challenged him. His campaign led some excellent Wikipedians to quit. Eventually he was banned, all his work deleted and the instruction given that everytime he reappeared under false names his edits were to be deleted on sight. Lir caused chaos around them for months, then promised to turn a new leaf. When I came back after a long break from Wikipedia I found that they had been banned again, permanently. I guess for all the promises they had reverted to their previous behaviour.

But again I want to stress, don't feel in any way responsible for what has happened here over the last week. The responsibility lies 100% with Skyring and no-one else. FearÉIREANN(talk) 17:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. I did intend to keep an eye on it though. Thanks again for understanding. Yours, El_C 21:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Help

El C, are you around? I'm trying to nominate someone for adminship, but can't see how to do it (surprise). SlimVirgin (talk) 10:09, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

It's okay. I figured it out. Sheesh, I'm hopeless. If you'd like to be the second vote of my first nomination, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Willmcw, and I hope you will, as he's a truly excellent candidate. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:22, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
I was 3rd, Zzyzx11 beat me to it by 1 minute. But I stole his spot nonetheless! :D El_C 10:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You were the spiritual second. I need to find myself a computing course. I'd love to find out what this Internet business is all about, for example. And speaking of confusion, I didn't understand your post on my talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:41, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Do you mean the repetition? I don't think you can change it; the developers can, but they're unlikely to. I once reverted some vandalism on an Israel-related page, which said something like "Zionist scum, I bet you'll delete this as soon as you see it," and because of some horrible editing glitch (the servers had been funny all week), the edit was credited to my name, instead of the revert. I got a note on my talk page about it, saying it seemed out of character. LOL! I wrote to one of the developers asking if it could be deleted, but I never got a response, so the stupid thing is still under my name somewhere. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:08, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I'll probably get blocked for 3RR over my urge to be temporal 2nd! *** No, I think you misunderstand the issue. No worries, I'll ask Raul. El_C 11:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

El C, I'm disappointed that you're asking Raul for help instead of me, as you know you can come to me with all your technical issues. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:17, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks (2nding!)

Thank you for your support for my adminship. I'm particularly honored by your seconding thirding seconding of the nomination. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:09, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I will be 2nd even if it kills me, which it might. :) El_C 00:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A'man title

Before reverting all the changes I made in all the other articles, do you mind finishing the discussion first? I waited for a week with no reply, you could at least wait for a few minutes.--Doron 10:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We need clear redirects from A'man, since I have already changed it for well-founded reasons; we can't have inconsistencies on that front in other articles. But I'll refrain from changing Magav back to IZAK's version, even though I do intend on doing so. El_C 10:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good faith

I cannot help suspecting that the argument which we have been having contributed considerably to your need for a break. I never intended to have a row with you (or anyone else) and I have no idea what caused this minor discussion about spelling and naming to become such a heated argument. I am not a native speaker of English, so if it is the wording or the style in which I write that has offended you, I sincerely apologize. I take no pleasure in pointless arguments, and I'm sorry that you think I am making circular arguments or being spiteful. I believe I made a clear (though possibly flawed) set of arguments, but we need not dwell on it.

I have just written a rather angry reply to your arguments in Talk:A'man, (I have to admit I was quite offended by your earlier post), but I will try my best to keep my tone down. I hope we can manage to get along better in the future.--Doron 06:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

response from Japan?

I wanted to share this with you:

Hello Kils

Just would like to state that i have very much enjoyed being involved in a project of this nature. To see the speed of co-operation between various people was (Uwe, Lupo and Salleman and all others) fantastic. It was a complete buzz to go off researching about a scientific subject and coming to some understanding and appreciation of a creature that i would have no knowledge or interest in otherwise. I would like to say that it takes a damn good teacher to get others interested in what they teach and i for one, if only in a rudimentary and general way have found the subject of Krill and sorrounding issues of ecology and environment fascinating. I think that says a lot about your willingness to let others participate in something which you obviously have great knowledge in and could easily have been a lot less humble with. At some point i will put up some informtion on my home page so at least people know a little more about me. Am going to try to extend the article on Ice-algae so any info you may have would be good. I hope the article on Antartic Krill gets featured as i think it is now very good.

Wikiversity sounds like a good idea but will need more time to go through the proposal (not too sure what help i could be).

Once again thanks Uwe! Yakuzai 22:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

that feels good

htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Antarctic_krill

take care Uwe Kils 23:43, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

It does, thank you, Uwe! I'm very pleased the work is appreciated. I'm about to take a break for a little while as I am facing simply too many ongoing disputes which considerably hinder from my ability to do any productive work. But at least now I can depart on a better note. :) Cordially, El_C 00:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
maybe you can vote before you go - good luck to you Uwe Kils

Poll at Talk:Terrorism

I've put together a little poll at Talk:Terrorism regarding the "lone wolf" section. Your input would be appreciated. Thx. Jayjg (talk) 19:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't let the disputes get you down and take the time you need to rest and heal. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. Best, Mackensen (talk) 01:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

File:ElCtea.jpg
SlimVirgin (talk) 16:32, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Have a good break, El. Yes, do take that cake and vodka to go, put whatever's left on my page in your backpack, you may be glad of it in the mountains! Hoping to see you back soon! Bishonen | talk 09:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey kiddo, I made you a nice pot of tea. Sorry about the teabag and the espresso cup. I tried to find you some darjeeling in bone china, but you just can't get the staff these days. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:32, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Um, I don't have anything amusing to say about drinks, but I do hope you have a good break and come back refreshed. Jayjg (talk)

Just dropping by to leave a belated "thanks" for your support of my RFA. Hope you are having a wonderfully relaxing Wikibreak! FreplySpang (talk) 23:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Skyring arbitration case

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the skyring case →Raul654 June 30, 2005 21:17 (UTC)

At last

Where the hell have you been? We've had search parties out and everything. Time to fall back in line, kiddo, and resume your duties. SlimVirgin (talk) July 2, 2005 05:52 (UTC)

I was in a place that I don't know where it is! Thanks for the tea, and thanks to everyone who partied in said tea party in my absence! El_C 2 July 2005 05:57 (UTC)
Good to see you back. Guettarda 2 July 2005 06:11 (UTC)
Thanks, Guettarda! :) El_C 2 July 2005 06:13 (UTC)
You've got a nice new one on your user page, though they'd run out of rabid cats. SlimVirgin (talk) July 2, 2005 07:35 (UTC)
Thanks! But I am not funny! El_C 2 July 2005 07:37 (UTC)
Good to see you back; pax tecum! -- Essjay · Talk July 3, 2005 06:37 (UTC)
Thank you, good to be back; Tu quoque, comitis. :) El_C 3 July 2005 09:56 (UTC)
Yay! Welcome back!! Jayjg (talk) 3 July 2005 18:21 (UTC)
Per the others! Mackensen (talk) 5 July 2005 00:03 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you very much. :) /bows El_C 5 July 2005 00:23 (UTC)

Price-Anderson Act

Thank you! · Katefan0(scribble) July 3, 2005 14:57 (UTC)

Not at all, hope it proves useful. El_C 3 July 2005 15:01 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to list the Protected Pages on the Protected Pages Site? and state the reason - much appreciated. Benjamin Gatti 3 July 2005 17:52 (UTC)

So far so good, although it appears that User:Benjamin Gatti is trying to circumvent the page block by copying text into a redirect to the main page and editing there. [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Price-Anderson_Act&diff=18081532&oldid=17805165] -- I've reverted it but wanted to bring it to your attention. · Katefan0(scribble) July 3, 2005 19:28 (UTC)
Apparently, Benjamin seems to feel that because you didn't list it on protected pages, he's free to act with impugnity. [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKatefan0&diff=18084473&oldid=18081422] · Katefan0(scribble) July 3, 2005 19:42 (UTC)

The rules have a purpose, and the publication of blocks is to raise awareness and alert the community to the problem so that rogue actions do not occur behind closed doors. In short publication defends the rights of editors against improper blocks - failing to publish deprives - in this case me - because the block include material to which i object - from making the case publically. There is reason to the madness - mostly madness, but with some reason.

BTW the fractals on your site are breathtaking - i have never seen fractals as more than chaotic and headache-inducing, these are sublime.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Benjamin Gatti 3 July 2005 19:49 (UTC)

Thanks, I love the Mandelbrot Set, it has an enchanting depth to it, of ordered chaos – chaotic order. *** Now, the reason for the page protection is to prevent the article being reverted back and fourth to the extent that it is watseful for Wikipedia (in a technical sense), and in terms of the tension this causes among the contesting parties. The protection, then, is meant to serve as a cool-off period where the parties can take their issues to the talk page. While this is the first page protection I ever issued, I have never heard of redirects needing protection. Please do not edit the redirects. The disputing parties should take this time to try and settle their differences in the talk pages. El_C 3 July 2005 20:48 (UTC)
Though sometimes they are against persistent vandalism such as this, but that isn't the case here. El_C 4 July 2005 00:55 (UTC)
Oh, and the fact I didn't list it on WP:PP right aways is a minor oversight which has no bearing on the editing of redirects belonging to a protected page. And I did note it on WP:RFPP, so um... what was that about? El_C 6 July 2005 07:35 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you knew that we'd asked for a Mediator. Three of us have signed (myself, Benjamin Gatti, and Katefan0) on the RfM page - would you like to add your name there? Ben would like to move the debate along. Thanks, Simesa 6 July 2005 06:35 (UTC)

No, I didn't know that. I'm not following you, though. What do you mean add my name? I'm not a party to the dispute, so I am not in need of any mediating myself — I'm just the admin who protected the contested pages. Now, if there's anything I could do the expedite a resolution to this dispute, please let me know, but I fail to see how this makes sense. Or am I misunderstanding the question...? El_C 6 July 2005 07:35 (UTC)

Thanks for the protection, I hope we can resolve our disputes. BTW - two users have made changes on Nuclear Power, which is tagged as Protected - is there a problem? Simesa 6 July 2005 19:02 (UTC)

Not at all. I see that Ed is your mediator, you're in good hands. It looks like the two changes to Nuclear Power involved minor edits (categories and such), I'll check to see if it's still protected, though. Goodluck! [gah, mis-spelled nuclear] El_C 6 July 2005 23:47 (UTC)

History of Armenia

Now I know that I myself just reverted a few of this guy's link additions, and I'm the guy that asked about them this morning on WP:VIP — but this one, on the main article for the history of Armenia, I think is valuable. The external site is very good, and includes a complete scholarly history of Armenia in well over a hundred pages; so while every minor article about Armenia should prolly not have a link to that page, our main page on the topic would benefit from one, i.e., we shouldn't cut off our nose to spite our face.... I'm not reverting you — I really hate controversy! — but encourage you to reconsider? Best, Bill 3 July 2005 15:05 (UTC)

Heh, a few? Note that I reverted that link [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=El_C&offset=0&limit=250 over fifty times]. Sure, no problem, done. El_C 3 July 2005 15:17 (UTC)

My pachiis! :-(

Gone! You know, they can't have been deleted long, I'm sure I saw them yesterday. Who would do such a thing? Copyright shmoppyright! :-( Bishonen | talk 6 July 2005 00:53 (UTC)

The answer is [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Image:Pachi_forthepeople.gif nixie], but at his defence, I did upload it as ({{copyvio}} People's Pachii), etc., heh. El_C 6 July 2005 00:57 (UTC)

LaRouche etc.

Ah yes, LaRouche was in the SWP (I think), or at least some of its split groups. That quote reminds me of a former SWPer's amusing observation: "[The SWP told me] the Workers World Party was a 'cult around Sam Marcy.' I had never heard the term cult applied to socialist groups before and tried to imagine what this meant. Did WWP members keep portraits of Marcy on their living-room wall? I only discovered years later that nearly all Trotskyist groups were cults."

I'm not high on LaRouche, I'm not even sure what the hell he's saying regarding the economy half the time. On the other hand, if the Lyndon LaRouche page needs to be made good, factual, NPOV and so forth, I'm convinced Adam Carr is not the person to make it so. He's fanatically POV, he doesn't argue facts but throws mud and launches ad hominems against people and so forth. The LaRouche page is in danger from two sides - people beholden to LaRouche, and people who probably have a fanatical hatred of LaRouche. My main concern with the LaRouche page is Carr doesn't treat anyone unfairly (I think he has already) or makes POV edits. Most of the other people editing the page, including you, seem to have their heads screwed on straight.

Fraternally, Ruy Lopez 6 July 2005 07:23 (UTC)

Nearly? Ah, I see what you mean, perhaps a few Trotskyite groups were finally granted organized religion status. That would make sense.

Second, I don't think Adam Carr intends to edit the LaRouche page/s in even remotely appreciable way. Yes, I wish he would be more professional and social-scientific with you, but I don't think that can really be officially challenged, since the Wikipedia Establishment's ideological bias mirrors his own, meaning they will overlook everything and anything to reach this end of propagating that bias as npov.

Third, I fail to see how LaRouch is an economist exactly, as in the lead sentence. Even if the AP made such a mention at one point (where though?), that is not something he notable for to my knolwdge, among any current out there outside of his own movement. As you aptly said: "I'm not even sure what the hell he's saying regarding the economy half the time." Indeed. Fraternally yours, El_C 6 July 2005 08:30 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks for catching the nuisance edits on my user page (and other people's). --Suitov 6 July 2005 08:42 (UTC)

Not at all. T'was pretty exciting, actually. By the time I scrambled to block that account (after I realizing reverting was just slowing it down), it had already managed to blank many more pages, making the whole affaire seem really real-time. :) El_C 6 July 2005 09:17 (UTC)

Re: the israel link. See other discussion [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel#htp:.2F.2Fwww.wildlife-photo.org here] and [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jgritz#NOT_COMERSHINAL_.21.21.21 here]. It's his personal site and his english isn't very good, and as such I don't think he understands the objections to the link. I've pointed him to the Hebrew version as I thought this would help. Thanks for keeping an eye on this. Jgritz 7 July 2005 07:03 (UTC)

No problem, it isn't too difficult to keep up with it. I didn't realize he had difficulties communicating in English. I'll let him know that he can communicate to me in Hebrew if he so wishes. Hopefuly, we can move this thing toward to a resolution. El_C 7 July 2005 07:29 (UTC)

Unchained

Ok, you have served enough time. I've unblocked you. Please, don't get provoked by trolls like Trey Stone. The ArbCom moves slowly but every sign suggests that they will eventually ban him, probably for a year, so be patient. Pick your battles wisely, comrade. -- Viajero | Talk 7 July 2005 16:35 (UTC)

PS Nice work work keeping People's war NPOV. -- Viajero | Talk 7 July 2005 16:35 (UTC)

El C, did you get blocked? What naughtiness were you up to? -- Essjay · Talk July 7, 2005 17:35 (UTC)

Nothing special, I was trolled and lost my temper. I self-reprimended myself for that via a self-block. El_C 7 July 2005 21:22 (UTC)

Remember that indulgence I granted you a while back? I'm granting you another one for troll whacking.

“Jimbo, the Father of Wikipedia, through the death and resurrection of Nupedia has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Wiki among us for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Admins may Jimbo give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the name of Jimbo, and of the Admins, and of the Holy Wiki.”

As your penance, you must pray this prayer five times: "Please, grant me the serenity to accept the pages I cannot edit, The courage to edit the pages I can, And the wisdom to whack the hell out of any troll who gets in my way. Amen."

Your wiki-sins are forgiven, go and sin some more. Pax tecum! -- Essjay · Talk July 7, 2005 21:58 (UTC)

A new Wiki religion? Who would have thunk it! I mean, Et tecum pax. :) El_C 7 July 2005 22:04 (UTC)

Something you might be interested in

I'd like to get at least one admin watching this...Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Túpac Amaru II. As a historian, I'm hoping at least you will (I'm posting this to 5 admins). Tomer TALK July 8, 2005 05:08 (UTC)

Obvious keep, I'll keep my eye on it. Thanks for bringing this to me attention, Tomer. El_C 8 July 2005 05:35 (UTC)

In that vein could you also check out the article itself as well as my related comments at Talk:Túpac Amaru II#Revolutionary groups? Thanks. Tomer TALK July 8, 2005 20:11 (UTC)

I'll look into it now. El_C 8 July 2005 20:36 (UTC)

flags

hey,

Glad that everyone is OK.

Re the flags - sorry if they are distracting. I put in the Irish flag yesterday, then when I heard about the bombing added the Union Jack symbolically. The UJ is only a temporary part of the sig. I only planned to leave it in for two or three days. The Irish one is a bit of a problem. I tried to see could I shrink it but if I do, it becomes a blur with red lines all over it. I have been trying to find a better sized one but have had no luck so far. All the alternatives don't have a yellow background that blend in to Wikipedia and they are all clumsy and don't look great. But if the current one is a distraction I'll remove it. I simply added it in because I found my old sig a bit boring and when I came across the gif I liked the idea of a flowing flag. It gave the page a bit of movement and energy.

Slán. FearÉIREANNFile:Irish flag.gifFile:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\(caint) 8 July 2005 00:48 (UTC)

I still can't get through on the phone, actually, but I'm 99% sure they're fine since they live outside of London. Still, anxious though.

I had no idea anything happned till I hit the mainpage (I usually I don't check the news until later on in the day).

Naturally, I don't mind you having that sig for a few days in light of these tragic events, of course not.

Yours, El_C 8 July 2005 01:01 (UTC)

File:Vulpes zerda sitting.jpg
Let me know when you hear, will you? SlimVirgin (talk) July 8, 2005 01:10 (UTC)
Definitely. El_C 8 July 2005 01:27 (UTC)
I've put one of the little Union Jack gifs on my talk page. I'm not usually a flag waver, but just for a couple of days. SlimVirgin (talk) July 8, 2005 02:47 (UTC)
I saw this conversation earlier and did the same. Guettarda 8 July 2005 02:49 (UTC)
I think these gestures matter. And speaking of talk pages, thank you for my fox, El C. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) July 8, 2005 02:51 (UTC)
I like Fennecs, they look so pet-able! I just got through on the phone now, everyone is fine, of course. *Deep breath* El_C 8 July 2005 03:03 (UTC)
Good to hear. Guettarda 8 July 2005 03:04 (UTC)
Thanks, Guettarda, and Slim. It ended up being very stressful, even though I knew they were safe. Perhpas I'm losing it (though I actually have good reasons to be overly-paranoid on the terrorist attacks front – long and tragic story). Well, I'm glad to know for sure that they are, in fact, safe. El_C 8 July 2005 05:35 (UTC)

Wareware & the Arb Com

Hey. :) It just dawned on me that your last note to me in the above matter may have been a sideways notification that the case had been dropped by the Arb Com -- when I thought you were simply telling me that the case had been accepted. I didn't realize until about two (or three) weeks ago that the case had been dropped. Apparently, the Arb Com didn't see fit to notify me of its decision[htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deeceevoice&diff=15762535&oldid=15748032] (or Wareware, judging from his talk page). (Go figure.) Can you say "tacky"? How 'bout "incompetent"? I'm glad they didn't insist on a reformatting of my RfC submission for the Arb Com process. I would have been really annoyed/P.O.'ed to have gone through all that for nothing.

At any rate, the matter is officially closed. So much for hoping for a ruling on principle. Again, I want to convey my thanks to you for all your help and support. Hope all is well w/you. Peace. :) deeceevoice 06:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, not quite. Up 'til now, I'd let the dropping of the case pass without comment, but after leaving you a note, I decided to tell the Arb Com what I think of their handling of this matter. [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee&diff=18515797&oldid=18515735] And, yes, they can play Wikicop and suspend me, but, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." :p Peace. deeceevoice 07:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sideways? You didn't follow the link, I thought you did, I linked it for a reason, [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADeeceevoice&diff=15365561&oldid=15337621 here] (and it ended with [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration&diff=15528678&oldid=15528088 this], which I thought you had read). Anyway, they can't notify you now; I doubt you'll get an apology for that, nor get suspended for re-raising the issue, either. El_C 13:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congo Genocide

If you're going to characterize the war in the Congo as a genocide, don't just do it in the lead to the article on Congo-Kinshasa. It should also be in the article on the Second Congo War, and in Genocides_in_history#The_Congo - especially in the first. The article on the Second Congo War should explain: why do you call it genocidal? what ethnicity was being systematically killed? by whom? Otherwise, the label of genocidal rings hollow, and is weakened. Thanks, Dosai 9 July 2005 05:04 (UTC)

Yeah, I see (but disagree with) your point, it has to come from the UN, or at least some imperialist countries (Bangladesh and Nambia, for example, not being among them), but I'm prfoundly bitter over it, nor do I place that much more faith in the statements of MONUC over Gen. Laurent Nkunda; I mistrust them both. It is MONUC's (&others) abominable actions and lack thereof which rings more than hollow.
  • htp://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAFR620222002?open&of=ENG-COD -- "The organization receives consistent reports of large-scale killings of unarmed civilians that are carried out, ordered and condoned by leaders using ethnic affiliations to acquire or maintain economic and political power. As a result, armed clashes between members of the Hema and Lendu ethnic groups has left an estimated 50,000, mainly civilian, dead since June 1999, and forced around 500,000 people to flee, with 60,000 displaced in Bunia, the capital of Ituri province, alone." (emphasis added)
  • htp://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/pressrels/2001/sc7186.html -- "RUHUL AMIN [Bangladeshi Director General for Multilateral Economic Affairs (MEA) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Counsellor Permanent Mission of Bangladesh to the United Nations at the Security Council] said he was outraged to learn of the crimes of genocide in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the extremely disturbing reports of some 750 civilians being been massacred. Armed forces continued to harass and make arbitrary arrests and there was forced recruitments and rape. He said the Interahamwe had committed a reign of terror; it was time to bring an end to such activities."
  • htp://www.wrm.org.uy/bulletin/84/CongoDR.html -- Congo, Democratic Republic: Pygmies stand up to World Bank logging development.
  • htp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3869489.stm -- DR Congo pygmies 'exterminated.' The International Criminal Court is being urged to investigate "a campaign of extermination" against pygmies in the Democratic Republic of Congo. (6 July, 2004)
  • htp://www.genocidewatch.org/genocidetable.htm -- DRoC listed on genocidewatch.org.
  • htp://www.worldmun.org/2005/committees/committee.php?c=6 -- "Prosecution of Floribert Njabu Ngabu for the Crime of Genocide in the Democratic Republic of Congo" *** "FNI leader Floribert Njabu Ngabu [...] has been indicted by the ICC on the charge of genocide."
  • htp://wmun2005.piranho.com/wmun/judgement_floribert.doc -- And while the judgment concluded that: "Mr. Njabu Ngabu acted in accordance with his duties under Art. 28 RS, his criminal liability for the genocidal acts of his subordinates cannot be estsablished [and the ICC found] Mr. Njabu Ngabu NOT GUILTY of the crime of genocide (Art. 6 RS) under superior responsibility as a military commander (Art. 28(a) RS)." [Still,] The Court holds that Mr. Njabu Ngabu did not violate any of his duties with regard to the incident in Bunia on 6 May 2003. Due to the wartime circumstances in the region, Mr. Njabu Ngabu did not have the material possibilities to prevent the attack." *** meaning someone committed and led that attack nonentheless.
  • [htp://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:kkNZC92jz0IJ:www.africast.com/article.php%3FnewsID%3D15509%26strCountry%3DDR%2520Congo+%22including+the+Namibia+Broadcasting+Corporation,+widely+reported+about+Nujoma%27s+accusations+against+Uganda,+Rwanda+and+Burundi%22&hl=en Google cache] -- "Media echoes Nujoma's [President of Nambia] condemnation of genocide in DRC"
  • htp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1340266.stm -- UN warned of DR Congo 'genocide' (2001) *** "The Democratic Republic of Congo and its allies have accused the UN of ignoring a "genocide" of 2.5 million people in the rebel-held east of the country. '[W]e call upon the international community, especially the UN, to condemn this genocide being committed,' said Namibian President Sam Nujoma."
  • htp://innopac.law.nd.edu/search/o?SEARCH=51894678 -- Of course, Kinshasa claims genocide.
  • htp://www.allthingspass.com/uploads/html-UVM_Lecture.htm -- [keith harmon snow lecture: WAR CORRESPONDENT, GENOCIDE EXPERT AT UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT, 15 March 2005] In 2004, Snow worked for Genocide Watch and Survivors Rights International documenting crimes against humanity and genocide in Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). His reports have influenced the World Organization Against Torture, Human Rights Watch, the United Nations and the US Government. *** he big story is Congo, Snow says, where some six million people have died since 1998. And the war started in 1996, and before that there was Mobutu Sese Seko, the dictator of thirty some years. Thousands and thousands of women and girls have been raped in Congo, but its pretty much kept quiet in the news. There's a lot of powerful mining interests in Congo, and you wonÕt believe who is involved.
  • htp://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=242324&area=/insight/insight__comment_and_analysis/ -- which brings us back to Njabu Ngabu: "'If you put the meetings, the financial support and the house together, clearly it’s a relationship,' Anneke van Woudenberg, author of the HRW report, told the M&G. 'There is no way AGA could have got access to the Mongbwalu area without developing a relationship with the FNI,' she added. The report quotes FNI leader Floribert Njabu Ngabu as saying: 'I am the one who gave AGA permission to come. I am the boss of Mongbwalu.' "
  • htp://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0614/p09s02-coop.html In Congo, 1,000 die per day: Why isn't it a media story? By Andrew Stroehlein [media director for the International Crisis Group.]
  • htp://www.crimesofwar.org/onnews/news-congo.html -- 'Can the Inetrnational Communityavert genocide in the DRoC?' May 21, 2003] "'Our evaluation, from what we know, it could be a genocide' said Carla del Ponte, prosecutor for the UN war crimes tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda on May 13, referring to the latest outbreak of violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo."
  • htp://www.walthamforestguardian.co.uk/news/localnews/display.var.606136.0.local_protestors_bid_to_highlight_congo_genocide.php -- 'Local protestor's bid to highlight Congo genocide'
  • htp://www.monuc.org/NewsPrint.aspx?NewsID=2993 -- DR Congo: Banyamulenge community divided over genocide claims *** opting for no genocide (or much information, for that matter) with MONUC blessing?
  • htp://www.monuc.org/News.aspx?newsID=2874 -- Apperently rebel leader, General Laurent Nkunda, self-corrected himself on whether genocide had taken place in Banyamulenge. *** " 'I withdraw unconditionally. I was mistaken. There has been no genocide against Banyamulenge in Bukavu,' Laurent Nkunda told MONUC officials yesterday evening."
  • htp://www.monuc.org/NewsPrint.aspx?NewsID=2908 -- rebel leader, General Laurent Nkunda misquoted? *** Interview: VOA: "Apparently you told MONUC your were misguided as to the genocide of Banyamulenge. When did you find out you were mistaken?" G.N: "I didn't say that, and I was surprised that they put those words in my mouth. Once we began the war, they asked me to speak, but today at least people spoke in my place. That is what surprised me. But I never said that I had made a mistake, because until now I known there was genocide. I have the names of the victims. Until now, I am waiting for an investigation to be set up so responsibilities can be established."
And so we wait. "Just the tip of the iceberg." Anyway, I'm bound by the infamously delayed response of the UN. I was actually under the impression the German government called it a genocide, but apperently I confused their recent admittion of genocide in Namibia earleir in the Century. My argument is that there is genocide, but the powers are not interested in it being made public at this point (nor placed under a comprehensive framework), and I suppose I am bound by their ownership over the means of communication, investigation, and, erm, prevention. I lose my argument (here), the DRoC loses much more, each and every day. But that is not for us to know. Yet. Which, I suppose means, no genocidal attribution to the 2nd Congo War. Potent doublespeak, but Wikiepdia is a reliable source of info. This is why I write so little about current conflicts in Africa, one cannot stand up to the organized supression, distortion, understatement and unreliability of information; not on Wikipedia, which seeks to mirror the main stream media rather than attempting to go beyond it. To Wikipedia it is all original research. ~ Five million dead, yet somehow no appreciable number have been targetted especially, though(?) It is a lie. History will vindicate my claims. You may remove the word until such time when the turth comes out more explicitly in the mainstream. El_C 22:01, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reading. I will remove "genocidal" from the lead to the DRoC article. You needn't be so cynical. What you have done is not original reserch - but the above is drawn from existing sources. You should write a wikipedia article (or section in the article on the Second Congo War) on "The Case for Genocide in the Second Congo War". There's a place, even a need, for such an article. It would highlight the politics involved in labelling a conflict as a genocide, and hence explain why western countries are so slow to label a conflict as such. To get things started, I copied these links to Talk:Second_Congo_War#The_Case_for_Genocide Dosai 17:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood me, profoundly. Also, you mistake pathos (and realism) for cynicism. El_C 09:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Power Protection Lifting

Hi, hey, I think lifting the protection on Nuclear Power was premature - we're just starting to mediate in [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act/Mediation1] and if we re-start the editwarring in Nuclear Power then the hot emotions will spill over into our mediation. We decided not to ask for simultaneous mediations - could I ask for protection until we can get past Price-Anderson? Simesa 21:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

El C, we aren't actively working on mediating the nuclear power article, but some of the same disputes have occurred in both that article and Price-Anderson Act, which is being mediated. One of the main disputants has already tried to introduce disputes over the nuclear power article into the Price-Anderson Act mediation, and I have to believe that unprotecting either right now could be disruptive to progress. Thanks. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:31, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Well, it is somewhat problematic, since that article is broader than just the Act, of course, as in the science itself (many countries), and it being protected prevents editors from wroking on it in ways totally unrelated to the dispute over the Act. I'll reprotect it, but I'm going to give Ed a pointer, and am inclined to follow his opinion on this. I should have done that to begin with. My apologies. El_C 23:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your points, maybe at this point the best way to go is to initiate mediation on the nuclear power article concurrently. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:00, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Reports removed from WP:AIV

I hereby award you this vandal whacking stick to help you in fighting the hordes of vandals.

I saw you removed these with the comment "seems to have subsided". Not sure I understand the comment. Reported vandalism yesterday on Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress. User was warned (the user was previously warned for vandalising Santa Claus in January), but behaviour continues. I added report to the request for intervention because of the comment on the in progress page that says reported offenders who persist in behaviour after warning should be escalated for intervention. Wouldn't that apply here? In any case, I'm not sure why this should be thought of as subsided, as this happens about once a day and all edits from the reported ID appear to be vandalism. Buffyg 12:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Responded here. El_C 12:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. FYI: it happened again today. Buffyg 09:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the FYI. [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3A193.204.167.87 Got it.] El_C 09:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your session

Yes, it definately looks like you've had a productive session! For all the vandal fighting you do, you deserve a vandal whacking stick. I'm working (very hard) to make it to 2000 edits, at which point Redwolf24 has promised to nominate me for admin! -- Essjay · Talk 12:45, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

It was much easier than it looks. Or, if it looks easy, it was. But many thanks! :) El_C 12:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spade's RfMediation

Hey, El C. Nice of you to drop by and offer your support. When you have a moment, please drop by Talk:Watermelon and offer your opinion on the inclusion of a racist image there. I'm interested in your take on it. (I myself initially leaned toward its inclusion, but changed my mind.) Also, please drop by and weigh in on the VfD for Cool (aesthetic)[htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Cool_%28aesthetic%29], if you are so inclined. Much appreciated. Paz. :) deeceevoice 02:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see about my inclinations :p, as for the support, not at all, you deserve it. :) Yours, El_C 10:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moldoveana

A three-word article could be considered an article? --Vasile 10:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a ~ 20-word sentence to me; likely to grow. El_C 10:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To bet on the future on this language could be very risky. Actually, there are 11,200 users trained in this language in the world. --Vasile 11:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are 3.6 million speakers in the world, and I am unintnerested in such bets, at any event. El_C 12:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in your bets. The discussion here is about written Moldoveana, not about spoken Moldovan language. There are 11,200 isolated Romanian users trained to write this [htp://mo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page] in a place named Transdniestr. --Vasile 15:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You should add that to pertinent article/s using English sources. Please do not remove links to any .mo stubs. El_C 21:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Surrealist cheers

Well, [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Classicjupiter2&oldid=18850122 that] was mildly exciting. "So you are a Keith Wigdor Fan?" Yes, yes I am. Damn anti-Wigdor fanatics! El_C 23:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Funny

I like your sense of humour [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RickK&curid=2083617&diff=18849924&oldid=18849877] Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I suck at the humor almost as much as I suck at the internet, but thanks! :D El_C 23:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (from a sockpuppet!)

for the revert. I have been accused of being a sockpuppet - I have arrived in the world!!! Guettarda 23:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NP! You're moving up in the world! El_C 23:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the reverts, El C. Your help is appreciated. I couldn't get by without all of my sockpuppets. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:55, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
I only have one sockpuppet, SV. Except she scarcely obeys my brutal command. Schizophrenia is a harsh mistress. El_C 00:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're both kinda cute though. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:07, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Kinda? :( El_C 01:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

El C, help please

Hey El C, I'm a good friend of Essjay, but thats not why I'm here. Please take a look at User Talk:Redwolf24#You like messages. Unprovoked personal attacks. :-/ Redwolf24 00:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any friend of Essjay is a friend of mine (I think! :p). Blocked for 24 hours for disruption and personal attacks. El_C 00:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very unprovoked. I've had other trolls but I just revert them and they go away. Redwolf24 00:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Yeah, s/he was pretty talkative. :) El_C 01:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, El C, thanks for helping out Redwolf24; I wasn't around, or I would have been all over that troll. (Granted, I can't block them yet (five more days, I hope!) but I could have at least given it a strong talking to!) I don't know why Red gathers so many, I guess it's because of all his good work welcoming; he welcomes them, they turn out to be a troll, and they go after him. I can't stand seeing a good user like Red who does so much good work around here being harassed; when I think of it, the term auto de fe comes to mind. I swear by the name of Almighty Jimbo, the trolls shall not prevail! -- Essjay · Talk 04:43, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

S/he has sent me some delightful emails, correctly criticizing my overuse of exclamation marks!1!one!! El_C 10:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! (more sockpuppets!)

Anti-vandalism appreciation smiley

Thank you for reverting the vandalism of my user page!!! -- BD2412 talk 00:12, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Me, too. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Me, three. Grutness...wha? 00:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. Fastest rollback button in the West! Or maybe you and Everyking both... but you got in ahead of him this time. You're good! Bishonen | talk 01:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Marry me! Bishonen | talk 01:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all so much, you've truly warmed my heart with your insane, sockpuppet jibberings! And marriage proposal accepted, again! /bows El_C 01:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Me too! HKT 04:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page on the 14th of July. --Viriditas | Talk 11:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, any time. El_C 05:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

213.249.154.98

File:User Saurav Bhowmik1.jpg

Hey, El C, would you look at 213.249.154.98 (talk · contribs) and consider a vandalism block? From his talk page and recent edits, he looks like a persistent vandal. Thanks! -- Essjay · Talk 10:11, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

[htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3A213.249.154.98 Done.]. Best regards, El_C 10:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you! I told you the trolls would not prevail! -- Essjay · Talk 10:18, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

That's two — two exclamation marks! El_C 10:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been smoking something El C? You seem a bit giddy today... -- Essjay · Talk 10:48, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

It's a banner day for me; would you consider 84.64.48.223 (talk · contribs)? -- Essjay · Talk 12:19, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I love how he attacked me on the wrong page XD NickBush24 12:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

203.113.237.252

I saw you reverted Roman Catholic Church; any chance of a block on 203.113.237.252 (talk · contribs)? -- Essjay · Talk 13:34, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Let's see what s/he does next first. El_C 13:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No need; User:Morwen already blocked for vandalism at the Yellow Yell VfD. -- Essjay · Talk 13:38, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, that's why the vandalism stopped. I thought maybe s/he came to his/her senses, but apparently not. El_C 13:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that was it. Do you think it's a bad thing that I'm absolutely itching to get the rollback button? -- Essjay · Talk 13:47, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

It is unfortunate your chances of winning the nomination are so slim, considering the scope and breadth of your opposition. Sorry! El_C 13:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know! But I still have a slim chance; if all of the five or six hundred new users I've welcomed decide to vote for me, I might scrape by. Maybe I can borrow your sockpuppets! ; - ) -- Essjay · Talk 13:58, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

RfC SlimVirgin

Hello. You left a comment on the above RfC that contained an error. I was never involved in reverting the page. My response is here, thought you may wish to take a look.~ Neuroscientist | T | C → 11:22, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Noted. El_C 12:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have ammended my comment to reflect for this discrapency on my part. El_C 12:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed some entries under the "evidence of disputed behaviour" that had been inserted by another editor that went beyond the original intent of the RFC. I have ammended the summary of the RFC to list its two specific goals: that SlimVirgin's edit contains too many errors to be reinserted into the article and that she has held herself above any criticism of her edit. There seemed to be a misunderstanding of the scope of the RFC. Hopefully this clarifies. FuelWagon 18:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. El_C 19:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Get a brain

Someone stole my picture! Or did I do it myself qua sockpuppet? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:48, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hello old friend

Essjay nominated me for Admin. Vote me in (or not) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Redwolf24 Redwolf24 01:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. PLEASE ARCHIVE THIS PAGE it takes forever to scroll down and then that Mandel thing gets in the way :) with respect, Redwolf24

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, but was too nice to say so... ; - ) -- Essjay · Talk 02:48, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Heh, the wishes of the peanut gallery above is my command. :) El_C 03:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks (unblocking)

Thanks for unblocking me, and yeah I understand that someone else would of blocked me, and I was acting like an idiot yesterday, because of everything that lead to what happened today started yesterday. So I've been mad, and I'm sure I was bothering you and everyone else, so sorry. I feel kind of stupid but eh. Iamzodyourzodeveryzod 02:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted, gladly. I appreciate the honest introspection. That reflects well on you. El_C 03:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know my bothering again is probably unwelcome but thanks for saying that about me. So I have to say, some of you communists are alright. Okay well thanks again, and bye. Iamzodyourzodeveryzod 04:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's no bother, thank you for the kind words. :) El_C 04:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and also I was reading stuff about me in your talk thing and by the way I'm a he, not a she, just so you know. Iamzodyourzodeveryzod 04:36, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey654

Mickey654 (talk · contribs) is a repeat vandal; he was blocked earlier in the week for vandalism. He's acutally the latest incarnation of the troll who has been harassing Redwolf24 & I. He just vandalized Red's RfA & mine; would you consider a block?

Comments on Red's Page

Uh, El, I'm confused by your comments on Red's talkpage. I removed the autowelcomer because User:Marijuanaisbad (the brother User:Iamzodyourzodeveryzod mentioned) was using it to repeatedly welcome people, which I was having to go and revert. (He even put a message on Jimbo's page; God I hope I don't have to explain that one.) Anyhow, what exactly did you mean? -- Essjay · Talk 19:10, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Nothing, it didn't mean anything. Just image spamming in goodfaith, which I tend to do a lot lately, it seems. :) El_C 19:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, I just wasn't sure. By the way, can I get some advice from you via email about a problem I'm having at the moment? -- Essjay · Talk 19:19, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Sure, email away. El_C 19:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice; I listed it on AN/I. -- Essjay · Talk 21:39, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Hey

Hey, man, keep an eye out for User:MoralHighGround. Under his latest identity he is deleting styles and adding in something he calls trivia to articles like George VI of the United Kingdom. He was already banned under one identity, and may even be that Aussie asshole we clashed with, back under yet another identity and editing articles I edit. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Racist vandalism

"If someone was to spraypaint the side of my house with that, I would repaint it --was-- the *nice* analogy. As I said, it's your talk page.)"

And there are those (like me) who choose to leave it. Besides, this isn't my "house." It's hardly the same. But what's with your selective removal of messages on your talk page? I never got that. What are you making "nice"/hiding? (Serious question.) deeceevoice 22:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to talk about it any further, sorry for not making that more clear. El_C 23:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not even to answer an honest question. Fine. 'S cool wit' me. deeceevoice 23:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate you feel that way; still, I find it to be of little consequence. Sorry if I upset you, though. El_C 23:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I feel what way? I don't feel anything about this exchange. You're the one who seems upset. After all, you're the one who said you "didn't want to talk about it any further." I've simply asked you to refrain in the future from editing my words/submissions on my talk page -- which is a perfectly reasonable request, and you've agreed. As far as I'm concerned, we're cool. If we're not, let me know. deeceevoice 01:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel my answer was not honest. I'm not upset, I didn't want to talk about it further because I found it to be unproductive. El_C 01:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

90% speak Russian

Hello El_c I found a source and I put all the info on the talk page of the Armenia article. Listen, we got off on a bad foot, the reason I said you piss me off is cause I asked you in a nice fashon that I know what I was talking about since I go to Armenia often and happen to be Armenian. And it seemed like you were making a big deal of a tiny edit, which I wouldn't bother to make a problem out of. But I'd like to hear your point of view.--Moosh88 01:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's tiny because it's one digit, but 40 to 90 per cent is far from insignificant. Even now, with that source —which itself, has no references to anything— how do we know it's not 85 or 95 percent? Who said 90, based on what? I'm just following social scientific methodological conventions. I can't take you at your word, because I don't have time to review your work at this time, sorry. El_C 02:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well can you do me a favor? Keep it at 90% for a few days, I'll find you a good source within 72 hours. Oh and why do you accept 40%? Since you don't know much about Armenia you can't accept anything without proof, I don't see any proof from anyone that 40% is correct, unless you know something I don't, in which case I'd like you to let me know--Moosh88 02:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's fine. Anyway, even if you were/are chair of demography dept. in Yerevan State University, I would still ask for a verifiable source just the same. I read that "about 30% of Armenians in Armenia speak Russian as second language" [htp://www.christusrex.org/www1/pater/ethno/Arme.html here], which added to my confusion. El_C 02:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it seems that I also made a mistake. 90% of Armenians could speak Russian in 1989, but since then that number has gone down to about 75%. The source that I had read which stated that 90% of Armenians can speak Russian was published in the 80's. After looking through a more recent book on Armenian history and talking with brother (who lives in Armenia), the percentage should be at 75%. The book which gave me this figure is M. Chahin's The Kingdom of Armenia, Curzon, London, 2001. The page number is 278 and it follows "A decade after the fall of the U.S.S.R. many Armenians can still speak the de facto language of the Soviet Union, Russian. Although that has decreased in recent years due to the large outflow of Armenians from Armenia. This years unoffical census taken by a cultural group in Yerevan, revealed the figure to be close to 75%." So there you have it, I guess I learned a lession in this, always double check!--Moosh88 23:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source, Moosh88, and self-correction (now you know why I'm sort of a hard ass on references :p). That's what I thought, not only because 50,000 Russians left never to come back, but other key economic and demographic factors. El_C 05:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. You may find of interest Levon H. Abrahamian (Yerevan State University; University of California, Berkeley) "Mother Tongue: Linguistic Nationalism and the Cult of Translation in Postcommunist Armenia," Institute of Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies, 1998. (PDF: [htp://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=iseees/bps]). El_C 05:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes now I do understand why your such a hardass lol. Thanks for telling me about this book, I will look into, it may help with my studies.

P.S. If there are any history or political issues which you may need assistance with please contact me on my talk page.--Moosh88 06:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks. Seems like an interesting article, though I haven't read it closely, hope it helps. Goodluck to you with your studies. :) El_C 06:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Allman Brothers Band

Hey El C, its me again, I saw at zod's page that you like the Allman Brothers :O I love em, I just created The Best of the Allman Brothers: The Epic Years like a week ago. I didn't know they were still touring though... Redwolf24 04:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Nice! Looking good. What a great Blue Sky that is, I love it. Have you seen them live before? (I have a few times; always with Warren). Oh, and Warren is back, I mentioned that elsehwere here. What exactly happned there? Where is Dicky? Do you know what happned there? It sounded bad. I saw Gov't Mule once, too. Which was amazing. I'd like to see (and havne't) the Derek Trucks Band, I saw him sitting in with Allmans when he was 13 yrs old, I knew then that he had the gift. Both the [htp://www.allmanbrothersband.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Calendar&file=showCalendarMonth&type=listevents&search=upcoming&orderby=date ABB] and [htp://www.mule.net/tour/index.php GM] are touring. El_C 05:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:63.243.163.194

Thanks for the message El_C and for putting the warning on the usertalk page. I don't really see how I can help but if it occurrs to me I will. Inconveniently for dealing with this sort of problem, pretty much every internet connection in Syria is on a dynamic IP address as far as I know.

But in relation to the controversy at issue, is there actually a policy against adding links to non-English language sites to articles? In certain cases these links may be useful and relevant for many users, provided they're labelled as such. I don't want to express an opinion on the links that were at question here, but I can postulate that there may be cases where a large number of the people visiting a given page might be able to read such links and find them useful and informative. Palmiro 09:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy, the language bit is my personal preference (and I think it makes sense, it being two clicks away via [htp://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9 العربية]). The area of policy has to do with whether the link is pertinent/notable ("his" online community). Compare, then, [htp://www.souria.com/club/sb.asp souria.com's forum] — a main forum with ~100,000 posts— and [htp://www.syriapath.com/forum/ syriapath.com's forum] — a main forum with 4 posts (!). I was treating it as borderline Simple vandalism; saying, 'imagine how many online communities of that size can we expect for every country article...' (note that the fact souria.com has English content on their forum is a measure of their notability, considering the role of English language geopolitically), i.e. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links. But I see now that I could have been more clear on that, it just seemed so obvious. Thus, I'm not claiming any other policy with [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominican_Republic&diff=19106245&oldid=19093475 Spanish-language only newspapers for the Dominican Republic], for example, except my intepertation of npov policy (in that I think they should be on [htp://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rep%C3%BAblica_Dominicana República Dominicana]). I just think that, rationally, if someone speak that language, they'll wish to examine the article/external links in its most relavent language. So, for example, I wanted to add [htp://www.serex.gov.do República Dominicana Secretaria de Estado de Relaciones Exteriores] as an official government link, but their English [htp://www.serex.gov.do/espanol/english.htm Ministry of External Relations] section is dead, so I didn't. Sorry for the length of this. File:Meh.gif. El_C 05:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kim 3RR

Strictly speaking this is not a 3RR - the first removal of the topic from VFU was not a revert, even if the other three were. This was a good-faith attempt to keep the discussion from escalating. Unfortunately, it didn't work. Radiant_>|< 11:38, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, strictly speaking, it was a revert (to the version before it existed); I express a disinterest in and unfamiliarity with the intent (at the point of issuing the block, that is – afterwards, I'm all ears). The report seemed valid, I may be wrong, though. El_C 11:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heya

El, I definitely don't see you as a scapegoat! It's just... the issue was well and truly over, I secured a promise from Kate not to keep reverting and as he was going to help me copyedit I thought I'd unblock. After all, the purpose of the 3RR is not to punish, but to halt edit wars. I totally agree with your block - you obviously did the right thing! I just removed it temporarily once I realised the edit war ended.

I figure you should know, as the blocking admin. No hard feelings? And in Kim's defence, he is a good editor who was also trying to deal with a particularly tricky issue (though not how I would have handled it, admittedly). - Ta bu shi da yu 22:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, TBSDY. That's all I was trying to say: I wanted to prevent a heated situation from being needlessly compounded, through a time out, cool down period, which is how I view the 3RR policy. Please also review my comment to Radiant here. Best, El_C 22:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The point wasn't about following policy (blindly), but about a preventing further conflict. I saw a troubled situation. I saw TBSDY getting blocked by Michael Snow (by request), then unblokced by Sanowpsinner who protected VfU; I saw a 3RR violation by yourself, with the prsopect of admin immunity cries in the horizon. I undertook a decision quickly (but not in great haste) to cool down the situation. I did look for you on IRC before issuing the block to get your take of what I should do. I have no deep regrets, but I am open to arguments to the contrary, if those exist. El_C 00:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will add, though, that I fond the whole IRC exchange right now to have been unpleasent and uncessarily hostile. With innuendo about "blocking Angela" or Bishonen's alleged "put downs," as if they are at all pertinent to this from my standpoint, except as veil of authority and lack thereof. For the record, I have not spoken a single word of this to either Bishonen or Angela (whom I never spoken to). None of that is of any consequence with respect to my position, and it is unofrtunate I was greeted in that way. El_C 00:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Argh! This whole GNAA business has gotten way out of control. I mean, we did this to ourselves, and the GNAA has not done a single thing other that exist :( I'm sorry that you got caught up in the midst of this farce, El. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (vandalism)

Thanks for clearing up the vandalism to my talk page. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 14:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, any time. El_C 14:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

htp://bendery.ru.ru/

I have a nice video report on my site about Transnistria. I do believe that many visitors would be interested in seeing it. Also there is a very tense discussion about Russian occupation in Moldavia. But unfortunately you removed my link from External links on htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria . Any chance that you will review your decision? 172.201.160.95 10:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid your own webpage is not notable enough by Wikipedia standards, so it counts as self-promotion, which is not permitted. El_C 14:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! There is an article about my native town, Bendery. It is only 10 lines long, with one external link! I give you an entire website with maps, photos, videos, with a forum, there is no banners no popups, no ads - a pure open source. Are you going to stick to you standards and remain with an unfinished article, or you will offer visitors some thing that they well expect from a wikipedia – an open sores info! 172.201.160.95 11:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Alex. While I applaud your efforts (especially on the open source front) and enocurage you to contribute content to Bendery (and anywhere else), Wikipedia has a policy against including non-notable, personal webpages, particularly when the webmaster him/herself inserts it as an external link. Sorry, it still counts as self-promotion, even when the intent is noble, which I do appreciate it is in this case. El_C 21:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (RFA)

The mop is mine!

Thanks for voting in my RfA; I promise I'll wield my sacred mop with care. If you ever need me for anything, you know where to find me. Thanks again! -- Essjay · Talk 15:22, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I sure do! Nice, well done! :) El_C 21:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for supporting me

Hello, just a quick note to express my gratitude for your support of my RfA. I'm sure I'll become a familiar face on places like the Administrator's Noticeboard and Requests for Adminship, as well as the murkier parts of my new job. "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." (Luke 12:48, NIV) Never was a truer word spoken. I feel empowered, yes, but not in the "oooh cool delete button!" way I was kind of expecting. Already I feel the weight of the responsibility I have now been entrusted with, a weight that will no doubt reduce given time. Thank you for believing in me. :) GarrettTalk 10:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, my pleasure. El_C 21:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of communism

Hi. There is an ongoing... situation surrounding User:Ultramarine. He has been boldly inserting unveiled POV into a number of articles, such as democracy and democratic peace theory, but, most importantly, criticisms of communism. Please have a look at his version of the article: [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticisms_of_communism&oldid=19188526] and compare it with my current rewrite [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticisms_of_communism&oldid=19239008]. For the moment, he is banned for violating the 3RR, but he will come back online in a few hours. I am certain he will raise a massive dispute over criticisms of communism, and that is why I am asking you in advance to please watch that article. Thanks. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mihnea, nice to see you, it has been a while; I hope you are doing well. Unfortunately, I cannot commit myself to this, for reasons which I may elaborate on later (though I do trust you suspect what these are). Goodluck. All the best, El_C 21:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see you too. :) And yes, I think I know what you mean, particularly considering recent developments: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ultramarine -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 00:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) Actually, I haven't read that, but I suspect it broadly falls under such a frame of reference. El_C 00:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I misunderstood what you were trying to say (and I think we should be less cryptic, so email me ;) ). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 00:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't intend to come across that way, though indeed; I just have written about this at great length in the past. ;) El_C 00:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Outerlimits

Ok, I'm happy to discuss your deletions with you on a page you feel more comfortable on . See you there. - Outerlimits 23:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. El_C 23:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (ANIing)

Sorry — I meant to say thnaks for your response to me on the noticeboard. I've been having a tough time on these pop-music articles, and Everyking's nasty little stabs and digs really don't help. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat remember, vaguely. No problem, it's my pleasure. So, how are them Spice Girls doing these days (however many of em!) ? :P El_C 11:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a matter of public record?

"Well, at the event, my sexual preferences and virtually any other personal details (cat exempt) are not a matter of public record." Ha, don't even, after you've accepted my marriage proposal(s) all over the wiki! Bishonen | talk 12:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Argh. I meant, I didn't tell that to what's-his-pathology. Damn, I messed up. Forgive-a-ness, please! :( El_C 12:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
that would only give a clue as to your preferences to people versed in Japanese, I suppose? anyway, I sympathize with you, you did the most obvious block, and I don't see why it should have been drawn out on AN like this :( dab (ᛏ) 22:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support, I appreciate it. Yes, apperently I was suppose to enter into dispute resolution with the troll who evaded his block to post on AN. As for the claims of the troll not being patently offensive, that's just disturbing, not to mention offensive. El_C 22:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So noted

You're probably right. --Golbez 00:50, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked the vandal

Hey El C, I have blocked for 24 hours User:203.118.129.17 who has been making a nuisance of himself with vandalism. Moriori 00:11, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I see. Normally, I like to see if the warning takes effect before I issue a block. I have no objections, however. Thanks for letting me know. El_C 00:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to leave a warning on his empty talk, but it wouldn't save. I don't know why but it might be related to the problem I had yesterday when the Wiki system says I made four reverts of an article in the space of two minutes. I didn't, well certainly not knowingly. I am using Safari browser for the first time, with Tiger, so I will see what develops. If I have more probs I will ask around on the comp newsgroup.Moriori 00:27, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
Right, yesterday was laggy, I had the same thing happen to me minus one, check out [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo_War&action=history Kosovo War]. #openfacts says reasonable, but still that some edit may fail. Also, it's always good to clear your cache. I'm sure it'll work itself out, somehow. :) El_C 00:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust

!Oye! C|EL_C - Yes it is -thanks . Famekeeper 12:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, Famekeeper, it's my pleasure. El_C 13:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Semitism

Would it be appropriate to revert and lock the article so people can resolve this via discussion as opposed to an edit war? Buffyg 13:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No toys? I'll soon remedy that

A little present from me

I don't think Rossami was trying to wind you up. I think he is one of those people who can't handle conflict very well. He did what he thought was best. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Lego persons always have such mischievous smiles, I love it! :) But I can't smile, my jaw hurtses me. :( El_C 19:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a Soviet spy under my bed or just my slippers?

Hola, if you have a moment, could you help out with our article on Harry Magdoff, a promient Marxist economist? 172 rewrote it last week, removing a lot of dubious allegations that he was a Soviet spy contributed by that notable expert on Cold War espionage, Nobs01 (talk · contribs). Alas, 172's fine work has been largely undone by TJive (talk · contribs), in whose hands the article is once again basically a MacCarthyite smear. 172 is busy with other things at the moment. Care to lend a hand? Viajero | Talk 13:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to take a look at this VfD. 172 | Talk 19:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly over

File:Toyshop.jpg

Hey, I'm thinking of you. You'll be home soon. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:28, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking of you, too, I realised it was today when I saw Slim above. Feel better, have a toyshop! Bishonen | talk 16:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw this thread. I hope everything's alright. You're in my thoughts too. 172 | Talk 19:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, all! Wow, it reall hurrts, but I lived to whine about it. More details soon. El_C 00:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
New details: it is really, really hurting me. But I'll be alright. Six weeks to heal completely; I wish it was over already. Yet more whining soon. Thanks again, everyone, for all the well-wishing and your pitty. :) Ouch. El_C 19:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ow! Some icecream is what you need, I think! (Don't eat the cracker.) Bishonen | talk 21:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No! No! I said don't eat the cracker! Aaargh! Bishonen | talk 21:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm eating a lot of iced cream; I tried eating a tangerine, but it really hurtsted me, so I squeezed it into juice, whic was really good actually! El_C 21:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
File:It's-a-cat.jpg
(edit conflict) Well you could use ice cream. But I think you'll find that the drugs are far more effective. The pain will not last forever, you'll probably be amazed at how quickly it settles down. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Six weeks for it to fully heal, apperantly; but in a bout a week it should no longer be painy. 40 more minutes and I can take another two tablets of Acetaminophen/Codeine Phosphate CPD. Yay! New, I am high! El_C 21:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... codeine... Bishonen | talk 21:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When I had an operation on my hand I found codeine to be my bestest ever mate. But after two days I grew tired of her. Yes she soothed the pain away, but she also made me sooooo sleeeeeepy, and once the pain goes down, you kind of get sick of that drugged feeling. So I ditched her in favor of paracetemol. Two days after that, paracetemol was ditched too. I'm so fickle. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's giving me weird dreasm; actually, more like nightmares, but is sure beats the pain. Woke up this morning and it was rough. Okay, Gonna take some more now. If I get out of hand (more so than usual,), please block me! TIA! El_C 22:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotecting Pakistan

For some reason, I still am getting a protected version. Is it a problem in my part, or do you see it too? Thanks. --Ragib 00:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I only removed the tag and forgot to actually unprotect it. My apologies, Ragib. El_C 02:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know :-)

Ta bu shi da yu 06:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good. El_C 06:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Time for coffee? It's the end of the day for me... going to company meeting, gotta go! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, not quite, but I'll explain that another time. Have a good meeting, ciao! El_C 06:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (vandalism ensue)

Thanks for reverting the vndalism of my user page. I marked a nonsense article attacking France for speedy - and I think its creator now has me down as a 'cheese eating surrender monkey' --Doc (?) 14:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, any time. El_C 16:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

new vfd

The prior VFD that you voted at ended with no consensus, a new VFD has been opened at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Historical persecution by Muslims. ~~~~ 18:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Robert McClenon 20:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome

For responding in a couple of controversies. Robert McClenon 01:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) El_C 02:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Viva la revolucion!

Nice mountain view and of Che Guevarra! Thank you for your vote on my RFA!--Jondel 16:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure; all you have to do is win, that's the only condition I set! El_C 17:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (3RR)

[htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&curid=1458912&diff=19931995&oldid=19931906] My frustration levels with that article were high. Just after saving it from pro-life styled POV warriors, pro-choice pov warriros start destroying the article. I have left messages asking for discussing on user talk pages, but I was ignored or rebuffed, but I was still wrong to breach 3RR. Thanks for your handling of the matter.--Tznkai 18:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all; I'm confident I made the right decision. El_C 18:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yangon

Hello, you may be interested in voting on whether the article Yangôn should be moved to Yangon. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. El_C 23:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (from Skyring)

I must admit I groaned at first when I saw your name on the 3RR thing. I thought I was being ganged up on again. I realise you are just enforcing the rules, but that's all I ask.

I'm not trying to harass Jim, I'm trying to make good edits and what I really want is an unbiased eye on his contributions (and mine, for that matter). I've been going back over my watchlist backlog, I spotted Jim's edit and thought of a better way of putting it. I think his mumbo-jumbo over judicial review is inappropriate in the article, which is really just a brief listing of reserve powers. Pete 06:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying? Out of all the articles and contributions out there, what a truly astonishing circumstance you found yourself in, probability-wise. El_C 12:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gabrielsimon's block

Hi... is there some chart or something to follow to determine how long someone is blocked for 3RR? I thought each violation meant it got longer. Gabriel had a 24 hour block already like five 3RR blocks ago, and my very first (and only, because it was a mistake and even the admin involved admitted he may have erred) block was 24 hours. It seems like he would have worked himself up way above that by now.... must be at least his 9th or 10th offense and he was already only allowed 1RR due to conditions of an RfC. Considering that he refuses to admit he did anything wrong I think he needs something a bit harsher than what he was getting previously. DreamGuy 07:42, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

No, they do not get longer; that user's block log is located [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AGabrielsimon here]. I am not inclined to impose more severe sanctions at this time. El_C 07:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Thanks for your response. I guess if he continues the way he's going he'll just become reblocked for that or some other reason if he's still a problem. DreamGuy 08:03, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

3RR and vandalism

Oh! OK, my error. Thanks for letting me know, and sorry for causing you grief! Banno 09:00, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

My error, too. Not at all, no grief; corrected at the click of a button almost immediately, and all is well. El_C 09:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (RFA)

Thank you for your vote of support on my recent RfA. I was quite surprised by the amount of support I received, and wish to extend my thanks to you for taking the time to support my nomination for adminship. -- Longhair | Talk 12:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For sure. El_C 12:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Huaiwei's 3RR

Taken from WP:AN/3RR ([htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=20061727&oldid=20060714]) You may be interested to take a look at massive name changes by SchmuckyTheCat, my comment on my advocate's request for injunction, talk:List of PRC companies and [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=19718072&oldid=19713571 Huaiwei's comment on WP:RFPP]. I'm the passive one over it. — Instantnood 19:05, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, for the benefit of my attempt to cool down the edit war here, I am making it my point to be uninterested in either side's actual record here. I just want the naming convention edits to stop, from this point on. Are you interested in trying out my interim, 'cease fire' plan? I think we can easily devise a truce to serve all participants, and WP generally, while the committee makes it decision. Are you in? El_C 02:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you may already know from the edit summary I have been looking for middle points somewhere as temporary truce. I'm most happy if a ceasefire is possible, but I do wonder if it can actually work. When the previous ArbCom case was in progress, SchmuckyTheCat renamed, rewrote and recategorised hundreds of articles. Huaiwei, who doesn't consider her/himself part of the case (both the previous and the continuation), modified the scope of the articles economy of the PRC and list of PRC companies after SchmuckyTheCat renamed them. I'd like to see it works, but I'd love to hear from you how it would work and be enforced, and I'll try my best, with all my efforts, to cooperate. Thanks for your help El C. — Instantnood 08:48, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Please see my rudimentary proposal here. Yes, I think it can work, if we can get everyone on board. So far, no one has shown sign of wishing to obstruct such a truce, which I find encouraging. If someone does break this truce before we even get it of the ground, well... they will at the very least earn my disapproval. But so far, so good. I'll return to this soon, let's just keep it quiet in that sense. If someone starts making changes (and this is meant for all the involved parties, of course, not just you), please don't revert — rather, note the diffs and bring it to my attention (for convinience, it can be listed right here). I've already noted the discussion on this talk page at the 3RR section (and vice versa). I am hopeful that we are well on our way and that goodfaith and reason can and will prevail. Thanks for the positive response. El_C 09:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not notified of the details of your truce proposal, and I was not aware of your reply here until I was blocked. After all I don't think that pointer is a Chinese naming conventions-related edit. Jiang relocated Taiwan (ROC) from #C to #T, and removed the pointer at #T that pointed to #C. I was just adding a pointer at #C to point to #T for the convenience of readers. Jiang has clarified his position, and the foundation of SchmuckyTheCat's reverts was no longer valid. My last edit to add back the pointer is done after Jiang's clarification, i.e. after the problem was settled. Interestingly, SchmuckyTheCat removed that pointer again (the fourth time to remove it) right after 24 hours had past after her/his first removal [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries&diff=20292934&oldid=20278865] (at 22:02, August 4, the first removal was done at 21:33 August 3 [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries&diff=20217381&oldid=20216180]), regardless of Jiang's clarification.

Although the block on me has expired, I would like to request you to kindly reexamine the whole thing, and to reassess if I should have been blocked. — Instantnood 11:49, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Meanwhile please be informed about User:SchmuckyTheCat's edit to the list of cities by country [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_city_listings_by_country&diff=prev&oldid=20299755]. — Instantnood 11:51, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

What?

To which I can only say, "Eh?" RM comes and has a go at the RfC. He's allowed to do that. Then he votes a bit oddly on the VfD. Fine, he's allowed to do that to. I've told him I understand he's angry, I've acknowledged he may actually think it is a keeper. I've asked him to be sure he's voting his mind and not his heart. Where's the personal attack? Much less "rhetoric, innuendo, snide sarcasm". And he seems plenty tough enough to look out for himself. If you could be a bit more specific and accurate, and if there's anything for me to apologise for, I will. But it sounds like you're just venting.brenneman(t)(c) 07:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To start with, most certainly do not vent on my talk page. I suggest you take a time out and return with a more composed mindframe. El_C 08:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you're really confusing me. Would you prefer I had responded on RM's talk page? I'm actually plenty composed. I'm asking you a few simple questions:
  1. What about my comment to RM was a personal attack? If there is something I've said, be nice and clear about it and I'll apologise.
  2. If it was construed as a personal attack, why didn't you just remove it, as per policy?
  3. If you weren't going to remove it, why didn't you just leave well enough alone?
  4. What about the above is me venting? Simply saying "you're not compsed" is really not an answer.
I'm sorry if I'm reading this wrong, but if I am, tell me how. brenneman(t)(c) 08:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually meant what I said about you taking a time out from this, starting now. I'll answer your specific querries as comprehensively and clearly as I can, but soon; I don't find that now would be a productive time (yes, I am willing to risk some confusion on your part toward that end). In the meantime, if you do choose (contrary to my advice) to place comments on talk pages with users whom you are in some sort of dispute with, please do so in a calm, matter of fact manner and with utmost moderation. Thanks. El_C 09:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, someone needs a stiff drink. I think it might be me. File:Meh.gif SlimVirgin (talk) 08:46, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, we could all probably benefit from more booze right about now! Sa'lutè! El_C 09:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tajiks

I got your message, how do I send my own to you? I'm the one who was discussing the Tajiks/Persian issue...

Like this, Raging inferno. :) Please sign your name by typing four tildes, like so: ~~~~ Please start by reminding me what it was I said and where (you were an anonymous ip at the time, correct?). I may need to step out for a bit, though, but I will get back to you promptly. Thank you. El_C 09:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


OK (History of Azerbaijan)

I will take a look at the article and tell you my opinion, we can work on this together, it should be no problem.--Moosh88 06:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; appreciated. El_C 06:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will be doing more edits with the article in the upcoming days. It should be fairly easy to incorporate the beginning info into the other sections of the article.--Moosh88 21:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A'man (again...)

Hi, El C, really sorry to bother you again about this insignificant issue, but I'd like to rename the article to Aman (IDF), if it's OK by you. I am yet to hear Danny's opinion on the subject, I suppose he's been too busy. Shall I proceed?--Doron 07:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot, again. Sounds good; we can always change it back if there's opinion to the contrary in the future (it's a wiki, after all). I suggest leaving A'man as a redirect, and leaving it in infobox(es) if it skews the margins. Thank you again for all your patience. Yours, El_C 07:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chip

Would you mind looking in at Talk:Chip Berlet at some point? Rangerdude has added a large section of criticism from Horowitz, which Chip feels is excessive (particularly given RD's stance during the RfC). I'm going to look properly tomorrow, but at first glance, it seems a little long and involved. Your input would be much appreciated. It's in the Criticism of Berlet section. RD is, of course, complaining that I'm biased, while he, naturally, is the epitome of disinterested scholarship. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 08:06, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Roger that; though I may not get a chance to look at it closely until tommorow as well (so you may end up beating me to it), I placed a comment on the talk page to outline the approach I feel needs to be (brodaly) followed. All the best, El_C 08:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that approach, for sure. Also FYI [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:DreamGuy] SlimVirgin (talk) 09:33, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Good, avoid wishful thinking or thoughtcrimes at all cost! :) El_C 09:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slave trade

If you have a chance, would you mind taking a look at Slave trade? I believe that User:Heraclius has been involved in a determined attempt to POV the article. Jayjg (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll have a look at it soon, which to say, later. El_C 21:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removing posts

Kindly stop removing my post re: Sam Spade on the Administrators notice board. Exploding Boy 19:15, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

To my knowledge, I've done no such thing (diff?). I did not even know that such notice existed. If I did so by accident, I apologize El_C 21:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:SlimVirgin

Hello.... Just thought you should be aware... Yesterday you told me that I could not restore a heading to the way I originally had it on User talk:SlimVirgin because she controlled her own talk page and she could remove, change or delete anything she wanted. You even threatened to block me if I did change it. Well, funny then that SlimVirgin went and undid an archiving of my own talk page and then left rude comments... Apparently she does not feel like she needs to follow the same rules she tries to enforce on other people. I would hope that if she continues this behavior that you block her for the same reason you threatened to block me. It is clear from SlimVirgin's actions that she is not acting in good faith at all at this point. DreamGuy 00:39, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

people are never acting oin good faith if they are acting agsinst your adgenda , is tha how it is? and everyoner who disagrees with you is harassoing you? just like how vashti some how re wrote the rules of he english language in order to defy your will on therianthropy? give it a rest., DreamGuy! Gabrielsimon 00:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First I'm a well-known sockpuppet of El C's, and he may not want to block me for that reason alone (although, were that not the case, I can see he might be keen, and fully understand why). Second, I have left no rude messages on DreamGuy's page and he's deleted them all anyway. Third, DG's messages remain intact on my page, except for one somewhat aggressive header, which I tried to make a little kinder looking, because I'm the one who looks at the page more often than anyone else, apart from my puppet master, who checks hourly to ensure I'm causing no trouble, often to little avail, as DreamGuy's message sadly confirms. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:45, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
You need to be stricter with me, in other words. Where is that whip? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:47, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorta getting whipped myself at the moment, it seems; it's more reciprocal than I am often able to admitt, actually. :) El_C 03:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Show me where and I'll wield it on your behalf. Thanks for keeping my talk page in order by the way; I had no idea all that was going on. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:17, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
YASE! Anytime, though I remain largely clueless myself; that may be a good thing, actually. ;) El_C 08:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Huaiwei's 3RR

Taken from WP:AN/3RR ([htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=20061727&oldid=20060714]) You may be interested to take a look at massive name changes by SchmuckyTheCat, my comment on my advocate's request for injunction, talk:List of PRC companies and [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=19718072&oldid=19713571 Huaiwei's comment on WP:RFPP]. I'm the passive one over it. — Instantnood 19:05, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, for the benefit of my attempt to cool down the edit war here, I am making it my point to be uninterested in either side's actual record here. I just want the naming convention edits to stop, from this point on. Are you interested in trying out my interim, 'cease fire' plan? I think we can easily devise a truce to serve all participants, and WP generally, while the committee makes it decision. Are you in? El_C 02:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you may already know from the edit summary I have been looking for middle points somewhere as temporary truce. I'm most happy if a ceasefire is possible, but I do wonder if it can actually work. When the previous ArbCom case was in progress, SchmuckyTheCat renamed, rewrote and recategorised hundreds of articles. Huaiwei, who doesn't consider her/himself part of the case (both the previous and the continuation), modified the scope of the articles economy of the PRC and list of PRC companies after SchmuckyTheCat renamed them. I'd like to see it works, but I'd love to hear from you how it would work and be enforced, and I'll try my best, with all my efforts, to cooperate. Thanks for your help El C. — Instantnood 08:48, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Please see my rudimentary proposal here. Yes, I think it can work, if we can get everyone on board. So far, no one has shown sign of wishing to obstruct such a truce, which I find encouraging. If someone does break this truce before we even get it of the ground, well... they will at the very least earn my disapproval. But so far, so good. I'll return to this soon, let's just keep it quiet in that sense. If someone starts making changes (and this is meant for all the involved parties, of course, not just you), please don't revert — rather, note the diffs and bring it to my attention (for convinience, it can be listed right here). I've already noted the discussion on this talk page at the 3RR section (and vice versa). I am hopeful that we are well on our way and that goodfaith and reason can and will prevail. Thanks for the positive response. El_C 09:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR & Instantnood

I didn't even need to revert him a fourth time as the Cantus did, and he went ahead and reverted Carlton. So that's either 5 or 4 reverts in 24 hours, can we act now? [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=20286363&oldid=20284958] SchmuckyTheCat 20:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please review my comments and my proposal for a temporary truce pending the committee's decision (first forumlated here). Thanks. El_C 21:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not notified of the details of your truce proposal, and I was not aware of your reply here until I was blocked. After all I don't think that pointer is a Chinese naming conventions-related edit. Jiang relocated Taiwan (ROC) from #C to #T, and removed the pointer at #T that pointed to #C. I was just adding a pointer at #C to point to #T for the convenience of readers. Jiang has clarified his position, and the foundation of SchmuckyTheCat's reverts was no longer valid. My last edit to add back the pointer is done after Jiang's clarification, i.e. after the problem was settled. Interestingly, SchmuckyTheCat removed that pointer again (the fourth time to remove it) right after 24 hours had past after her/his first removal [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries&diff=20292934&oldid=20278865] (at 22:02, August 4, the first removal was done at 21:33 August 3 [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries&diff=20217381&oldid=20216180]), regardless of Jiang's clarification.

Although the block on me has expired, I would like to request you to kindly reexamine the whole thing, and to reassess if I should have been blocked. — Instantnood 11:49, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Meanwhile please be informed about User:SchmuckyTheCat's edit to the list of cities by country [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_city_listings_by_country&diff=prev&oldid=20299755]. — Instantnood 11:51, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

It was my understanding that you were informed: see directly above. No, I am not inclined to reexamine. Thanks for the note, I'll have a word. El_C 12:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I requested to notify me if you prefer to response on your talk page instead of mine, but I did not get any notification. I found your response here (and your proposal at WP:AN/3RR after I was blocked. I'd like to request again to reexamine the edits leading to the block and reassess the block, as I don't entirely agree with it. Thanks. — Instantnood 12:39, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, well, they were hidden, which I have never encountered on my (rather high-traffic) talk-page before, only in articles, and I didn't notice it until now. Sorry. Still, I fail to see the point in granting your request; I am interested in moving this forward. El_C 12:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for proposing the truce. Anyways.. would it be possible to have an external reexamination and reasessment of the block by another administrator? I would like to know if an edit after the trouble is settled is considered a (fourth) revert, when it is done within the 24-hour period. — Instantnood 15:19, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

You can make such a request to another admin, but I blocked you for having failed to adhere to the truce, as I outlined it: 1st revert=15 min., 2nd revert=1hr, 3rd revert=24 hrs. It is unfortunate there was a misunderstanding. If you would like me to withdraw from this, let me know. El_C 15:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to special:ipblocklist I was blocked for 3RR violation, wasn't it? If I was blocked for having failed to adhere to the truce, may I know why that was related to the truce, and why I have to be obliged to the truce before I was actually notified of the detail of it? I would like to keep the truce for the time being, but then please kindly make sure what we have to refrain from, and what we don't have to. Thanks again for helping us. — Instantnood 17:45, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Hello again. Please be informed that User:Huaiwei moved the section of Hong Kong under China at types of corporations. [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Types_of_corporations&diff=prev&oldid=20412338] User:SchmuckyTheCat relocated Taiwan / the ROC on the list of countries by continent. [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_by_continent&diff=prev&oldid=20373381] — Instantnood 18:13, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Hi, I would like to let you know that User:Instantnood has taken it upon himself to nominate me yet again (the 4th time in recent memory) for 3RR violation. Like the previous incident, it does appear to me that he has decided to use this weapon in situations in which he cannot get his way. Do our previous agreements come into effect over this situation?--Huaiwei 15:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm out

Sorry, it dosen't appear as if everyone is on board with the plan. I, therefore, withdraw from my informal mediation efforts. Goodluck to all of you in having this dispute resolved expediently. If there is anything I can do to help, please let me know. El_C 19:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much El C. I won't hestitate when we need you. :-D — Instantnood 08:51, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Well I am sorry to hear that. Seems to me that you have become yet another victim of attempts to undermine attempts for dispute resolution. Nonetheless, thanks for the past efforts. I sure hope we wont have to trouble you again! ;) --Huaiwei 09:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

surreal

I'd say something on TU's talk page, but I'm already more involved than I want to be.  :-/ Tomer TALK 03:27, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

You cannot, I protected it yet again; please do not edit his talk page when I unprotect it, though. Thanks. /seeks professional mental help El_C 03:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mental help

File:Tequila-sunny-window.jpg
Have a drink.

You know, I've been thinking you need to seek professional mental help for some time...I've seen your work at AN/I. Glad to see you're getting some! ; - ) (mumbles to self: Quiet, Brain, or I will poke you with another Q-tip!) -- Essjay · Talk 04:03, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Heh, indeed, many blunders on the part of yours truly! Øye. /Uses icepick El_C 04:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to explain your [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=El+C&page= block summary] for User:TheUnforgiven. I saw that and while I'm sure it's hilarious, I just don't get it. -- Essjay · Talk 08:26, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I am not finding it hilarious, actually, but I do share your puzzlement. Thank you for your support. El_C 08:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on; if it wasn't supposed to be funny, where did it come from? Were you quoting him? -- Essjay · Talk 10:10, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Paraphrasing. I just meant the situation, in general, which, all jokes aside, I find distinctly unamusing. El_C 10:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I saw it in the blocklog and couldn't figure out what it was you meant. Some days this job is enough to drive you to drink; on that note, have a shot! -- Essjay · Talk 10:33, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Done and done. :) El_C 10:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
E-mail for you. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:48, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
What's the problem tonight, and how can I help? (Oh, and I responded in kind at my talk.) -- Essjay · Talk 08:36, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Øye, my woes, how and where do I even begin... Just try to watch over me, please. El_C 08:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, but if there is something specific I can do to help out, let me know. -- Essjay · Talk 09:00, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hamshenis

I took a look at the site, the information checks out, I saw that it needed sources, I can find some and add them. Is there something in particular which you wanted me to look at? And what is the deal with the user 193.140.108.152? I think you should keep an eye on him, he seems to have a bias agenda.--Moosh88 21:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I found it difficult to verify that article in general, one way or the other. I'm not sure what is up with that user; yes, that is largely the reason I sought (and continue to seek) your expertise. Please do keep an eye on that user's contributions. Many thanks for all your efforts, I greatly appreciate your help. If there is anything I could do, don't hesitate. Best regards, El_C 21:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Zappa

Thanks for the feedback on Frank Zappa. Looks like the discography has been progressing; it's nice being part of the collective sometimes.  :) Regards, Dave C. 04:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes! ;) And a prohibitive discography it is. I'll add that I'm fortunate enough to have in my possession some pretty smoking shows! Best, El_C 04:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FPC

File:Forestfire4.jpg
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Forestfire4.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 06:50, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Congrats, definately an interesting photo. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 06:50, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, sweet. Thanks! :) El_C 06:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dominion of Melchizedek Request for Comment

You have shown some interest in Dominion of Melchizedek, so I wanted to let you know that I created the following RFC. Bollar 13:44, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

*Talk:Dominion of Melchizedek (Also Malpelo Island, Clipperton Island, Bokak Atoll, Rotuma, Antarctica, Microstate, Dominion, Micronation) - POV over the validity of Dominion of Melchizedek's sovereignty, and claims over numerous small islands in the Pacific plus Antarctica.

Thanks for the notice, I appreciate it. El_C 19:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They Agree

hi there El C, well seems they all agree, which is truly terrible. Whilst there was a log , it could be carved. I can't handle agreement -I know I'm a sucker . I say the same to Spade or to anybody . Agree means to turn your back . Apposite for today . Peace we all agree ...Famekeeper 19:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but have we met before? Who are they? And what is this in reference to? El_C 19:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beating up on FK

Hi , I plan to avoid more beatings and yet I was unable to withdraw from sources, I therefore judged it time to present John Cornwell as the scholarly source . My inclusison of him into Pope Pius XII has lasted like 15 minutes . I had thought this McClenon was somehow NPOV in this , but frankly , I don't get his edits neither, on Ludwig Kaas . I was vindicated by him -as far as I could tell , I restored relations with olsd Str1977 , but he goes on with ad hominem: they both blow reasonable, and then freak behind the scenes , and like, wipe . I don't know that I particularly mind any more - as I see this as whoever against Cornwell , and not FK . On other articles I have had all my sources rubbished time and again . Yes, man, I'm constantly beaten up . I want the Pius source to be adjudged formally , but not at whim or one-man declaration declaration . I provide the source for Cornwell from a link to a vanity Fair abbreviation . I speak in the discussion and I have asked Wyss to take note . Now your good self . It is , I am glad to say , not personal , but the page needs judgement and if Cornwell is a scholar and a source , I should have thought that only actual proof can disprove that source . Please help, not me , I dunno who - them , if they exist ...the WP.. ? Bye Famekeeper 17:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, again, Famekeeper. I'm sorry, but I'm still unsure what this dispute is about exactly. I'm beginning to suspect you're mistaking me for somebody else. Anyway, I hope this dispute gets resolved to everyone's relative satisfaction. Regards, El_C 23:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

What, no kitty pic for me? Here, amuse yourself with this: [htp://www.thebricktestament.com/]. FeloniousMonk 18:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inexorably mischievous! :) El_C 19:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support

Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. I was surprised and humbled by the number of positives votes. I'll be monitoring RfA regularly from now on and will look for a chance to "pay it forward". Cheers, --MarkSweep 01:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For sure, it's my pleasure. El_C 19:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for voting on my RfA

Hi, Thanks for voting on my RfA. Having been elected, I hope to justify your faith in me. Thanks again. --Ragib 05:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, well done! El_C 19:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page

Thank you. Strange folks in these here parts. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:13, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

And a rather impressve virility, apperently! Although, I tend to suspect that the more humble the proclamations on that front, the closer to the truth... I did have a point there somewhere, but that is, in fact, the proverbial end of the sentence! El_C 05:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Haham hanuka

When you are reverting edits you should give a reason. Please explain why you've reverted this article. --Haham hanuka 18:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

El_C 22:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC) .שכחתי[reply]

Countries

So far as I know, the established standard for country pages is that the infobox header only lists the long-form name in the official languages of the country; a transliteration is supplied for non-Latin scripts, but beyond that, we don't put the English name unless that's an official language of the country. --Golbez 20:32, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Right, I presume that's why it's called native_name. This is a wiki, though, and there are no fixed rules for layout. I've been changing that in many tens of countries now, as I find it stylistically beneficial to have the conventional longform in English in the infobox's large font text. Thus far my changes seem to be enjoying overwhelming consensus. I took a few days break from these changes to guage on it, thus far, I've seen no objections (except in the Ukraine, mostly limited to the portal, but that has been resolved). Thanks for taking the time. El_C 22:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. You say you've enjoyed "overwhelming consensus" - do you have an example of this? Lack of objection is not necessarily consensus, and in fact, you can count an objection now. I've asked on Template talk:Infobox Country about it all. It just seems misleading, and this has been working fine up til now. --Golbez 23:20, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
You changed days of work without waiting for my response. It seems rather confrontational and not in line with seeking dialogue. Is this going to become a revert war now? I still wish to try for dialogue. My position is that this is an English encyclopedia, and large fonts for countries should have the conventional longform in English. I'm far from an anglocentric, but yes, lack of any and all opposition in tens upon tens of countries over the week signalled somewhat of a consensus. El_C 23:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, oh my no, this has NOTHING to do with your criticism of me. I had completely forgotten that that was you! I don't hold grudges like that. :) (I DO hold grudges. Just not ones like that. ;)) And heck, you were probably right. As you can see, I reverted my .. revert .. of my revert .. huh. But yeah, I reverted back to you on .. Belgium, I think, because we were discussing it. OK, so I jumped the gun on all the reversions. I'll wait til I see what the folks at Infobox Country have to say. Sorry if I jumped on you. It's been one of those days. (You can see the comments on my talk page to see why) --Golbez 23:30, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
It's okay, we all have one of those from time to time (me, often). I'm changing it back though in the meantime, since you seem to be trying to enforce layout rules rather than advance a specific preference. Thanks. El_C 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just preplexed as to why you changed it, you make it sound as if it's based on some proceduralism — you keep saying we don't do that, but is your prefernce actually based on anything (else) ? El_C 23:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The countries Wikiproject, and the Infobox Country folks, seems to exclude the English long form. That's what I based it on. That's why I've asked them for their opinion. --Golbez 23:39, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Let's wait for input from them. If there is consensus against it, I will personally change each and everyone of these. Thanks for looking into this issue. Sorry it got a bit tense. El_C 23:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Thanks a lot for your support vote. It is appreciated. --Briangotts (talk) 23:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For sure! :) El_C 23:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adraeus

Well, Adraeus had been messing with votes on that page, he shouldn't have touched it at all (and I blocked him for it). Talk with slimvirgin for more detail.

Actually there's a heading just above yours and another a bit further up my user talk page, which might give you some more clue as to what might be up. Kim Bruning 01:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well that was an afterthought for me. The point is that he has two sigs displaying there, which as I said, on first glance makes it appear as if it's two different people. Please make it consistent, one way or the other. Yes, I'll gladly speak to her when I see her next, for sure. El_C 01:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

styles

I know it probably isn't an area of interest of yours but as a credible contributor I'd value your opinion. Given the endless debate/rows etc over styles I've been thinking as to what is the best way to come up with a consensus solution. Styles have to be in an article, but using them upfront is, I think, a mistake and highly controversial. I've designed a series of templates which I think might solve the problem. There are specific templates for UK monarchs, Austrian monarchs, popes, presidents, Scottish monarchs and HRHs. (I've protected them all, temporarily, because I want people to discuss them in principle rather than battle over content and design right now.) I've used a purple banner because it is a suitable royal colour and is also distinctive. They are eyecatching enough to keep some of the pro-styles people happy; one of their fears seemed to be that styles would be buried. But by not being used they are neutral enough to be factual without appearing to be promotional. I'd very much like your views. I'm going to put them on a couple of user pages and ask for a reaction. There needs to be a calm debate on them this time. —Jstyles—. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look at it soon, thanks Jtdirl. El_C 12:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New article to complain about

Writing new articles is more pleasurable than arguing over old ones. See Patria disaster. --Zero 13:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that! :) El_C 13:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Func's RfA :)

El C, I want to express my complete appreciation for your support of my adminship! The fact that you had your sockpuppet vote as well, (indeed, she voted even before you did), was also greatly appreciated! Thank you. :)

Please never hesitate to let me know if you have concerns with any administrative action I may make.

Func( t, c, e,[htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&user=Func  ] ) 18:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's my pleasure! We do what we can. :) El_C 21:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rohingya villages

Could you please take a look at Rohingya villages? The whole article consists of a huge list of all Rohingya villages in Arakan, Myanmar. I'm not sure how encyclopedic such lists are ..., and whether there is precedent for such listing of names of villages of any particular area. Thanks. --Ragib 19:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll have a look at it soon, Ragib. El_C 21:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Just a quick note to say thanks for your support of my adminship nomination. And I love the pictures around here, they're very (dammit, can't think of another word) picturesque. Seriously, though, thanks again and I'll be sure to conduct myself properly based on all the support I got. Happy editing, Slac speak up! 22:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, glad to have you on the team! :) El_C 22:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

history articles in Wikipedia

Hello,

I’m an historian working at the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University (htp://chnm.gmu.edu/) and we are very interested in digital, peer-produced works of history, including history articles in Wikipedia. We’d like to talk to people about their experiences working on articles in Wikipedia, in connection with a larger project on the history of the free and open source software movement. Would you be willing to talk with us about your involvement, either by phone, a/v chat, IM, or email? This could be as lengthy or brief a conversation as you wish.

Thanks for your consideration.

Olivia

oryan at gmu dot edu

Hi, Olivia. Sounds like an interesting project. I'll respond through email in a few days. Regards, El_C 01:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew spelling

Hi, please look at Talk:Lavon Affair, thanks. --Zero 02:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 02:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for supporting my nomination. AlistairMcMillan 09:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Welcome! El_C 00:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

File:Gin and Tonic.jpg
I wanted to offer bourbon, but Wikipedia seems to be out.

Good to hear from you; I do love it when you drop by to leave me messages, even when they are cryptic! By the way, you should consider joining us in the Esperanza project: from the looks of your talk page, you could use a friendly spot from time to time. Have a nice gin & tonic on me (can you believe there isn't a picture of a decent bourbon on this site?)

When am I not cryptic (I hope you didn't find that sentence cryptic, or do I!). No bourbon, eh? That's alright, I'm find with the cheap stuff. I can't really drink gin for some reason (i.e. only vodka martinis for moi — I am that lame!). :) El_C 00:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey2

I see that the ArbComm has banned Skyring for a year. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I applaued the decision. I find it amazing how, even after Jimbo's 1-week block, he returned to the usual spots (hence my own block, which I noticed on the mailing list Fred approved of). Anyway, I'm glad it's over for a year. Yours, El_C 00:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal vs Left-wing politics

I see you joined me in rolling back some of User:67.173.181.67's disambiguations of liberal. Could you review my edits on their talk page (User talk:67.173.181.67) and their edits at the top of my talk page (User talk:gadfium) and tell me if my communication with them was adequate. I fear that I may have been too harsh to a well-meaning editor.-gadfium 00:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on the editors talk page, I find it hopelessly confusing for the reader to have the word liberal link to classical liberalism or left-wing politics, etc. I reviewed many of the editor's contributions, and while most I found flawed in that sense, some were correct and instructive. Nonetheless, it's a problem, and I think the editor should be more cautious when making these additions en mass in key articles. I was reverting many of them only to see you already have. Let me know if there's anything else I could do to help. Regards, El_C 00:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

India lead

I would prefer not to have text contained in brackets in the lead. It seems to digress away from the subject and loses its flow. I won't revert your edit, but I'd leave it to you to modify it in anyway you wish, as long as the brackets are removed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:53, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, they're gone. El_C 10:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cat

El, now don't get overexcited or anything, but Cat is being groomed and petted for re-submission to FAC. See WP:FAD. Bishonen | talk 14:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you for the notice, Bish. My gaze is fixed: meow! El_C 02:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many Thanks

Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. FeloniousMonk 17:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! El_C 02:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Aposthia

Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Aposthia, and the comments by Sirkumsize. You might also want to look at his RfC. Jayjg (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. El_C 02:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a source

Hi El_C, I wonder if you just happen to have this in your closet (or your library): Böhl, Franz Marius Theodor, Opera minora; studies en bijdragen op Assyriologisch en Oudtestamentisch terrein. Groningen, J. B. Wolters, 1953. Slightly on the obscure side, I admit. There's a reference in there to a goddess worhipped in pre-Israelite Jerusalem that I'd like to look up. I'll send details if you have the book and the time; but it isn't very important either. Thanks, Zero 15:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, it dosen't ring a bell for me. El_C 07:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support

Hi there, I wanted to thank you for your support on my recent RfA. I appreciate your confidence in me and will do my very best to ensure that it was not misplaced. -Loren 00:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, Loren. El_C 07:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Huaiwei

I'd like to hear your suggestion on how to deal with the recent edits by User:Huaiwei, such as [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_cathedrals&diff=21281334&oldid=21279883] and [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Population_ageing&diff=21281374&oldid=21279931]. In my opinion he could be trying to modify every occasion Hong Kong is mentioned, and spreading the disagreements to affect more articles. — Instantnood 16:10, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Has the committee come to a decision by now? El_C 07:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No progress so far. — Instantnood 17:42, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
They also aren't likely to address this type of issue. SchmuckyTheCat 18:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain I understand. Why do you (both?) think it's unlikely to be addressed? El_C 22:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bharatiya Janata Party

Help! I'm ill and in no shape to make huge revisions. A new editor has arrived and made enormous changes to the BJP article, many of which are good and many of which seem quite nationalist and POV. I hate to just revert, but it would be a big task to vet what he's written to make it NPOV. Do you have time to work on this? Is there anyone else to recruit? Zora 18:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC) (headache, sore throat, sniffles -- dang!)[reply]

I wasn't around; I hope the problem was resolved during my absence. El_C 07:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Weber of the IHR

Someone claiming to be Mark Weber of the Institute for Historical Review is complaining on the Talk: page there. Perhaps you would like to respond. Jayjg (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, at this time, I should probably try to avoid these sort of users, as I may end up saying something I regret (not to them so much; you know what I'm refering to).

Racialism

Racialism has been unprotected and Sam Spade has been busy. Jayjg (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of many reasons to drastically and dramatically limit my participation in the encyclopedia; more on that bellow. El_C 07:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Liftarn at List of political epithets

I have run into what I consider disruptive behaviour and WP:POINT at List of political epithets. In my view, User:Liftarn has been removing material and asking for citations for material which has already been cited, and has been insisting on citations exclusively for, and inserting NPOV notices in, Jewish-related epithets, when no citations have been provided for any of the other epithets on the page, and when he has raised no specific objections in Talk:. Could you possibly take a look? Jayjg (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See above. El_C 07:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks this may be important.

To recognize El C, who can be described no other way than as a saint of this community.

I think you deserve this. -- Essjay · Talk 06:02, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

YASE! I've been cannonized! El_C 07:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Rizo's RfA

Thanks for supporting my RfA, Ernesto Guevarra ;). I'll do my best to be a responsible admin. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. El_C 07:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

El C: Thank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. I am honoured that you and others think highly enough of my contributions here to support the nomination. The admin powers will enable me to patrol for vandals more effectively, amongst other things. I promise to use my new powers for good, and not to inflict the retribution on my enemies that they so richly deserve, as tempting as that may be. ;-) Thanks again, Kevin. Ground Zero 12:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, GroundZero. The temptation is great, I know. El_C 07:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aww! :-(

[htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=El_C Aww]! Nearly a week gone. :-( Well, I know you're busy. I hope you find the time to look in, real soon! Bishonen | talk 16:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that, too. But just as significantlly, the trolls (we all know who they are) seem to be winning, perhaps not all battles, but with their seemingly unlimited time to manipulate and sow discord, on the attrition front. RickK's point seems increasinly dead-on accurate. El_C 07:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HappyCamper's RFA - Thanks for your support! :-)

El_C, thanks for your support on my recent RFA! I am now an administrator, and I just wanted to come by and thank you for your show of support and confidence in me. I hope we get a chance to collaborate on some project in the future, whether it be editing articles or performing more administrative tasks. Feel free to leave me a message if you ever need a helping hand - I'll try my best to help out if I can!

On an unrelated note, I also wanted to say how welcoming your user page looks with the picture of the mountain and clear skies. Thanks again for your support, and I hope to see you around the Wiki! --HappyCamper 02:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats. I appreciate the kind words. El_C 07:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anger Award

The Zola Award. J'Accuse!

For your noble anger in [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Placing_users_in_danger this discussion], I present you with the Zola Award of Generous Indignation, created in honor of you and User:Func. Bishonen | talk 19:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to say thanks for getting involved in the discussion, and for injecting your great skills with humour, sarcasm and irony. I'd hate to be on the opposite site of a debate with you :) Guettarda 19:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Grr! This award greatly angers me. Many thanks to you both! :) El_C 19:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza

Hello, I'm trying to show some people off my friends list a new society, somewhat similar to WP:KC, Esperanza. Its still in its early stages but nonetheless I'd appreciate it were you to join. Redwolf24 (talk) 06:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! TINEC!!!!! I mean, I'm honoured by the invitation to subvert your fine organization, as the first general member, no less! I do seem to vaguely recall Essjay saying something to the effect of: 'there are still some letters left in Esperanza.' Letters? Of course, I presumed he was just drunk, which undoubtedly he was. Better late than never finding a way for OiHA to take over, something, anything! Quiet kitty, be patient. Thanks again. Yours, El_C 06:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drunk!?! I'm not as think you drunk I am; I swear to Dog! ; - ) (And there were letters available; the first few to join got to contribute the letters that make up the logo. My letter was R.) -- Essjay · Talk 07:27, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
YASE! Right, it's coming to me now. No C for cat or F for feline though, and E for El_C is lame, so I'm not too dissapointed. I think our first mission sould be to collect and upload the nicest quality pictures of cats imaginable to Wikimedia Commons. I have been having some difficulties living up to the understandebly and commendably high expectation of the editors in ... Cat on that front. [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cat&diff=21983597&oldid=21973661 :(].El_C 08:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

El C, I just thought I'd let you know that the Image:Forestfire4.jpg you have on your talk page is a copyright of National Geographic and is currently listed on the copyvio page. I tagged it two weeks ago, and I guess it's in the process of being cleared, but I thought you might like to know. Kind regards—Encephalon | ζ  14:08:31, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

I'm the uploader, actually. On closer look, it appears to probably be an error on my part. I have the firepix.blm.gov portal (which works for me) images titled diffrently than it, though it is in the same folder. For example, [htp://firepix.blm.gov/nifc/servlet/GetImageServlet?ObjectID=NI000125&TierName=Full+Size+%28Proxy%29 NI000125] is Image:Forestfire2.jpg (I'll try to link the images this directly in the future when applicable, I'm surprised I didn't at the time). Anyway, in this folder, it is titled as 20remnants [htp://images.google.ca/images?q=20remnants&hl=en&hs=SiP&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=N&tab=wi google]. So in the unlikely event it was deemed the work of an employee after 2002, I must say goodbye to my first FP nomination (though I wasn't the nominator and only found out about it after the fact, still, grr). Good catch then, I guess (boo!). :) All the best, El_C 15:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C. Welcome back! Per your request, I made a quick check of the Somalia-related articles; most of them seem to be okay, and I restored a little bit of content that had been blanked in the meantime. As the vandals seem to have lost interest, I don't have the articles on my watchlist these days. That said, feel free to drop me a note if the articles need attention again. --Alan Au 05:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Alan Au. I greatly appreciate your invaluable help with those articles. And I will definitely take advantage of your generous offer. All the best, El_C 05:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWarrior

I, Dbraceyrules, hereby declare you a WikiWarrior and give you this Barnstar of Diligence for impeccable work on this site.

Take care, D. J. Bracey (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have this Historical Barnstar as well. D. J. Bracey (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, D.J., I am honoured and encouraged by your recognition of my efforts. All the best, El_C 22:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fraternally?

You might want to check out User_talk:Lucky_6.9#hEY. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:08, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, being appointed ambassdor of Mongolia by that idiot, Khrushchev, was a great insult! I'm glad we see eye-to-eye on that front. El_C 23:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Which isn't to criticize or berate diplomatic posts to the PRoM; it's important that my comments be read in propper historical context! El_C 23:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Second Chechen War

Sorry. Just go on your editing --BIR 07:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for the note. El_C 07:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Soothing milk?

Not in last night's quantities, I suspect. Palmiro | Talk 08:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I hear that. I don't think I ever drank it without puting a few drops of water in it — for the visuals! El_C 08:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Salinero Revolt

Sorry, El C, I don't have any more info on it. V. Molotov (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any references to back up the article's contents? El_C 14:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try, but I haven't looked at it so long I forgot where I got it from. V. Molotov 23:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, please do. I think it's important to have at least one source for historical articles. El_C 23:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About 24.179.90.245

Thanks for catching this one, you beat me to it by seconds. --Vizcarra 23:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For sure. It was Tuna is yummy that drew my attention. El_C 23:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cats and philosophy

File:Jakecat.gif

I thought you might like this: "What sort of philosophers are we, who know absolutely nothing about the origin and destiny of cats?" — Henry David Thoreau, 1817-1862. Taken from Dr. Steven Best's website, American philosopher and activist specializing in animal rights. [htp://www.drstevebest.org/photos.htm] SlimVirgin (talk) 01:21, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Well, you know, at least one of the two greatest revolutionaries (meaning also thinker, philosopher, etc.) had a cat! But human liberation, human emancipation is the first priority. Cats do have eyes that are sizable in relation to their relatively small head (and small yet extremely powerful brain), that's due to nocturnal-ness (ala Bush Baby), their fur is extraordinarily soft, they have claws in which they love to scratch book shelf, they kick with backfeet cat nip pillow toy, they run quickly only to inexplicably pause in order to lick! And let's not forget, picking up, holding, thoroughlly, mercilessly and unremittingly petting, and also, like a baby, to kiss and blow at his tummy! Oh, and bird watching, and the mystical doubling of meows, which shows unbelievable audacity, tenacity, insolence, intransigence, and cuteness. And food, drink, and treats. Did I mention catnip? Napping on bed? Hope this has been enlightening for you. El_C 14:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Two more: point a finger, pencil or similar, at a cat, and he'll touch it with his nose. Put a piece of paper on the floor and he'll sit on it. I've always seen those quirks as a sign of ancient wisdom, which I'd understand if only I had it myself. ;-D But seriously, there's something similar about the way cats approach space — in that they're often compelled to obey the shape of a space, e.g. must sit within the paper space, not stradding its lines — and the way people with Parkinson's do, and also people with sleeping sickness (I forget the name of the condition: film with Robin Williams as the neurologist, whose name I've also forgotten – author of The Man who Mistook his Wife for a Hat). SlimVirgin (talk) 14:11, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Do you mean Insomnia (2002)? My cat definitely has the opposite, pro-somnia. Yes, often he would sit on the cat nip pillow, guarding it, as treasure! Yes, snuggling is an integral component, as is the agility of one who walks a tight rope. Watching a cat (any cat, but especially mine) run right before starting to gallop (sp.), is also very cute, and comical, because legs move very fast! Finally, there's determination. Sometimes he is just so determined, he forgets why he's so determined, but remains explictly and expressedly ... determined. And happy! El_C 14:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rewarding Bad Behavior

Rewarding Gabe's bad behavior is a mistake. I understand the desire not make a WP:POINT, and protect the wrong version of the page, but this emboldens a vandal. Hipocrite 14:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That remains to be seen. El_C 14:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence - You protect the page with Gavin's pet version at 14:06.
Gavin's last comment on the talk page 14:11. Longest time previously taken by Gavin to respond to me: 6 minutes. Current time (and counting) for Gavin to respond to me: 40 minutes. No responsible editor supports the current revision. Hipocrite 14:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You requested that I protect the page. Please direct further comments on the protection here rather than on my talk page. Thanks. El_C 15:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting List of people who have said that they are gods

I don't see an edit war requiring protecting, I see a single user being disruptive. What could be done to get you to reconsider protection? I posted my rationale at Talk:List of people who have said that they are gods#Why is this protected? if you care to comment. Friday (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will comment there, thanks. El_C 15:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scimitar's RfA

Thanks for supporting my request for administrator powers, which has been successful. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks again! Scimitar parley 17:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Be good! El_C 17:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (Marsaskala)

Thanks for the swift repair to the linkspam on the Marsaskala page :) --Shoka 19:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it's my pleasure. I've blocked that user yestraday for 24 hours after reverting him/her a few tens of times. Keep an eye and let me know if s/he continues linkspamming once the block period expires (today). All the best, El_C 19:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support!

Dear El C, thanks for your vote of confidance at my RfA. I'll try hard to make the soggy mop proud! — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 19:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support

Hi, just a quick note to thank you for your support on my RfA. I was pleased to see so much support, especially from people such as you who I do not know very well, if at all. Now that I am an administrator I will do my best to please the community’s expectations. Best regards, Sam Hocevar 17:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, everyone! El_C 21:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ulayiti's RfA

Hi El C, and thanks for your support of my RfA. I'm an administrator now, and I hope that I'll live up to the community's expectations as one. Your vote of confidence is much appreciated. - ulayiti (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! El_C 09:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joolz's RFA

Hey El C, thanks for your vote on my recent RFA, your support was appreciated :) -- Joolz 11:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fer sure! El_C 11:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! (RFA)

Thanks for the support on my RfA. I was very pleasantly surprised to see so much support throughout the week. Please do keep an eye on me and my logs, especially while I'm learning the ropes with the new buttons. Thanks again! -Splash 00:00, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're Welcome. El_C 07:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My RFA

Hi, thanks for voting for me in my RFA. I was really touched at how many people voted for me! --Angr/tɔk tə mi 22:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. El_C 07:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA...I'll try to be good Lectonar 11:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

K! El_C 11:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My RFA

Hola! Thank you very kindly for your support for my nomination. I promise your trust will not be misplaced; I may occasionally be slightly buzzed with power, but never drunk. ;) · Katefan0(scribble) 22:02, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

My pleasure! :) El_C 23:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! (RfA)

Thanks for your support in my recent RFA! All those extra buttons might not be a big deal, but getting all this positive feedback sure is, please let me know if you have any problems or comments regarding how I use all these shiny new levers and cranks! Rx StrangeLove 00:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will do — well done! El_C 00:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Android79's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA. android79 15:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, nicely done. El_C 01:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucratship

Hi, El C. Thank you so much for your support and kind words on my bureaucratship nomination. Unfortunately, it didn't pass, but I intend to run again soon. If you'd like to be informed next time around, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks again! Andre (talk) 05:15, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Anytime, Andre. Yes, please let me know. El_C 21:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your vote.

Thank you for your support in my successful RfA. I hope I can live up to expectations. - Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 00:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, goodluck! El_C 02:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you (RfA)

I thank you for your support in my successful RfA. I hope I can live up to the expectations of the community. I will surely look forward to you for suggestions, and I shall free to come to you to have the benefit of your experience. --Bhadani 10:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, congrats. El_C 02:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Just to say thanks for supporting my RfA. Please let me know if you see me screw up. --Doc (?) 18:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, Doc. GJ! El_C 22:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zephram Stark

I have filed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zephram Stark. Please contribute to it. – Smyth\talk 18:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice, Smyth, I'll have a look at it soon. El_C 21:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Armenian genocide article

Hi, I included the Turkish gov POV into the article under 'Turkish governments position' in order their view be shown. The edits were in turn modified to dismiss their views as shown [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=20953634&oldid=20947400 here]. I [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AArmenian_Genocide&diff=22477010&oldid=21843871 highlighted] in the discussion that i believed this was against Wiki policy of showing a sympathetic and fair view to other positions. To avoid countless pages of argument which seems to be the norm on that page i edited it to [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=22566213&oldid=22512476 this] from which i was accused of deleting material and it was reverted. To cut a long story short i wanted a second opinion before involving myself in it again. Any help would be appreciated, thanks. --A.Garnet 23:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What fault do you find with the expansion? Is there anything you wish to modify or add to it? El_C 00:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I read that Wiki has to treat other views with a sympathetic tone and that they might at least be plausible. This cannot be done if the opposing view (which stands at 1 paragraph in the whole article) is heavily dissmised at each point, this in effect points the reader in one direction. This is why i preferred to sum up the Turkish governments view in a general note such as "These figures are disputed among certain academic circles" etc (as in this [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=22566213&oldid=22512476 version]) rather than give lengthy reasons why it may be wrong. I just wanted to get a second opinion, thanks. --A.Garnet 00:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why limit it to some? We want to get a fair sample of who they are, if possible. El_C 00:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We can say "These figures are disputed among certain academic circles such as the Association of Genocide Scholars" --A.Garnet 00:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We want to have authoritative scholars, their works, etc. mentioned. If it gets too lengthy, we can start an article devoted exclusively to the historiography and summarize it at the given space. For now, my question is: do you have additional scholars you wish to add to that section to make it more fairly representative? El_C 01:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not informed enough to know the names of individual scholars who support the Armenian views (other than i know there are a lot), but i know the main advocate of the Turkish pov is the scholar Justin Mcarthy who has written various books on the subject. --A.Garnet 01:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right, okay. Anyone else? Let's continue the discussion here. El_C 01:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Garnet, this is relevant to the articles talk page, do you think I'll bite you if you raise the issue there? :) If you want a section about those scholars like McCarthy, and don't know enough to do that yourself, you could have asked at the articles talk page. As I told you before, I do have problems with deletions and not adding relevant materials. Fadix 04:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haabet

We have had a loooong and painful history of dealing with Haabet on the corset articles. He cannot cooperate, cannot write intelligible English, and has nothing but kookery to contribute. He has been banned from the Danish Wikipedia. But perhaps ... perhaps he'll go on medication and become a reasonable editor? <g> Zora 07:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That... dosen't sound good. I did enjoy his edit though, but I'm generally fond of the inexplicable. :) El_C 08:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you might be interested

Via Egnatia (talk · contribs · block log) is back and I've reported on VIP that he resumes his campaign. I thought I should let you know. MATIA 10:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no memory of this user, I'll try to keep an eye, though. El_C 11:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus Dispute

Hi El C, could you explain why have u deleted "In 1974, Turkey intervened Cyprus as a guarantor state in response to an Athens-backed coup of the island (see Cyprus dispute)." from the page of Turkey? Turkey didn't invade Cyprus, had a right to intervene as a guarantor state.You can see "intervene" instead of "invade" in EU and CIA web site.Thanks.--Little firefly 20:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC) htp://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/cyprus/#countryprofile htp://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/cy.html#Intro[reply]

It had nothing to do with that. See my response to your friend [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A82.35.143.139&diff=22585034&oldid=22584054 here]. Thanks. El_C 20:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C, first of all, i would like to thanks for your contributions in Turkey's page. I'm gratefull to see your works against vandalism in the page. some users try to add commercial web pages i'm gonna prevent it as well. and i have recently added some official pages of turkish government in english.thanks again.--Little firefly 03:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Frederick Bruyns

He was not blocked for cleaning up comments he was deleting. He was blocked for repeatedly editing other people's comments on Mcdevitt's Talk page. He refused to engage in discussion or to apologize, or to indicate that he would refrain, but instead went into attack mode after I had given him a last warning. Zoe 07:55, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Zoe. El_C 07:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Country portals

Hi El C, Thanks for letting me know about the portals. I had grandiose plans to add it to many more cities. You saved me a lot of work. Fg2 09:39, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

My pleasure. I'm confident that people interested in joining the portal would probably check out the Japan article. So all is well. :) El_C 10:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Police

Ried ewer he male. Tomer TALK 13:12, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, what? El_C 13:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can speak for Tomer, and in doing so, can rather authoritatively tell you, he was saying "please read your email". Tomer TALK 13:20, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Ah. And that's very reassuring! Will do, but it'll have to be later in the day. I gots to get going in 5 minutes. Talk to you then. El_C 13:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"So poor, so black"

"Comedy"??? deeceevoice 00:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Italics = saracasm. El_C 00:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I figured that. But I don't get the sarcasm. The CNN commentary seemed right on point. deeceevoice 00:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From the standpoint of the values they otherwise propogate, it wasn't uttered intentionally. El_C 00:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I finally saw the quote - it wasn't on the C&L page you linked to, or if it was I couldn't find it at the time. Now it all makes sense. Guettarda 12:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job on the revert, I was right behind you

Minshullj 07:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good to have backup. :) El_C 07:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit (someone noticed!)

What an impressive [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myanmar&&diff=22899472&oldid=22899319 edit summary] :)—encephalonέγκέφαλος  09:49:20, 2005-09-09 (UTC)

Heh, thanks! (someone noticed!) Think I made my point? ;) El_C 09:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oooo yeah. :) —encephalonέγκέφαλος  10:12:51, 2005-09-09 (UTC)

Taken aback

I am taken aback by the tremendous animosity that my RfA has generated in a few editors. I am not surprised by it as I have had to deal with a barrage of personal attacks and conspiracy theories since I started editing certain articles related to new religious movements and attempting to counteract a what I see as an anti-religious bias in other articles. How dos one deals with such antagonism? I have trided building bridges but these have failed. How can one deal with people such as these? Do you have any experience in editing controversial articles in politics or religion subjects? Your comments will be much appreciated. Thank you.--ZappaZ 13:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have ... some experience, yes. :) Unfortunately, it's difficult to advise beyond the generalities of being disapssionate, composed, collected, etc., as circumstances may vary highly. I really don't know enough about these disputes and articles to comment beyond that. El_C 07:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support and your honesty :) As for Thomas's comments below, I prefer not to reply in your talk page. Take care. I will deal with all the comments after my RfA is completed. --ZappaZ 13:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I have withdrawn my nomination. One can only absorbe so much animosity and ill-will without reacting... Thanks for your support. Hopefully in a few months things will cool-off (although I doubt it...). As for the "bounty" refered by Thomas, he and other of their group have acussed me (amongst other conspiracy theories) of being paid by the "cult". Go figure. --ZappaZ 02:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
since their is no proof that you have, i apologize for that. I have to admit that some of us, driven by your actions (many of them described in your votes for adminship) could only come to the conclusion that you must have closer ties to Elan Vital than what was reflected at the articles and talkpages. Maybe that was a very limited sight due to that a lot of the contributors were newbies. Yet that led me to the general question: What if (not you) a contributor (as some do offer) or a group of contributors is being payed for promoting a controversial topic. What could one expect. How far would he/they go concerning NPOV, would he use every means to accomplish his goals? Would it be different, than the attitude of a pure POV or fanatic contributor? Are the regulations at Wikipedia sufficient to handle such a case, so that it wouldn't matter? That and many many more questions. Such, you may have been the source once for that concern, my interests now in this matter are independent from you. Since you have shown so much of yourself on your way to adminship, that was partly devastating to yourself, but gave an honest picture of who you are, i hope that you will learn from that and i am sure that you will gain adminship in the next elections.Thomas h 06:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering

Hi, i saw your votes for Zappaz. Not that i want you to revert that. It is perfectly okay if that is what you want to do. But as a person who explains that he'd like to have more anti-religious bias i'd ask you to have a look at the very beginnings of the Prem Rawat entries and especially the talkpages, to do some kind of analysis. That will take time of course, but will give an insight of, in my eyes(and probably POV), extremely deceptive tactics to undo opponent's edits and even to frustrate contributors to the exent that they gave up on editing at Wikipedia. And in contrary to Jossi's assertion that Zappaz started at September 2004, his first entries as Zappaz are of 09.07.2004, so that the main activism on Prem Rawat is shielded out( at least attempted to do so)Thomas h 11:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Did I say more anti-religious bias? I meant, less pro-religious bias (probably), phew! El_C 12:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well that is ok, iam by no means really anti-religious, more critical maybe on what religion can do to a persons liberty, positive and negative. So what do you think about a loose conversation once in a while? I have developed some thoughts i would like to discuss somehow, and maybe we can create a view about certain things with the help of plain logic Thomas h 12:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, Thomas. El_C 12:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since i got sucked into the Prem Rawat thing, processes and facts came to me that i'd never dreamed of. e.g. that different cults are meeting on a strategic platform like CESNUR to develop certain strategies for e.g. how to deal with former members that won't leave silently an so on. May i ask some more general questions?

  • Do you believe, like many Wikipedians that Wikipedia is going to develop as one of the most important knowledge base in the world and that it would be of advantage to have influence at Wikipedia?
  • Do you know that quite some Wikipedians offer contributions to Wikipedia for bounty?
Sounds too obscure? Here is an example:If you want me to contribute more to Wikipedia than I can do in my limited spare time, you can pay me to do so: PayPal me some money to moeller at scireview dot de.[htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eloquence]Thomas h 21:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think that this could be a problem if thereby controversial topics were hit?

that's enough for the beginnig i think Thomas h 14:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's continue the discussion on your talk page, as it is getting rather lengthy. I'll answer the above briefly, though. First, I'm not certain what you mean by bounty, but I do remove scores of advertisement daily. Second, controversial articles are hit (and I don't just mean by the vandals, self-promoters, etc.), these suffers from systemic bias in areas that are, in my opinion, far more important, in truly key articles relating to human history and development (though I don't wish to enter into the details). Not to teleologize, but I am less concernced with the motivations so much as with the final product, and in that sense, the possibilities under this current system are fundamentally limited as are the sets of challenges available, and the intellectually honest, verifiable truth be damned. El_C 21:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Katrina

Is Hurricane Katrina protected at the moment? Something strange is going on...the page certainly looks protected. But today, I just reverted some vandalism on that page made by an anonymous IP! In the log, there were some interesting comments left by you, and I was wondering if there might be something else that should be looked into. Any suggestions? --HappyCamper 19:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, these comments on my part may have appeared to be interesting, but they were actually stupid. It's just protected against moves. El_C 21:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on keeping Hurricane Katrina in good shape! Sbwoodside 23:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sbwoodside! It often proves to be extremely taxing, but I think it's a very worthwhile effort. El_C 23:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Magdoff

Sorry to bother. I have posted a Request for Comment for the pages Talk:Harry Magdoff and espionage and Talk:Harry Magdoff. Endless revert wars and edit conflicts. Input welcome. --Cberlet 22:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll have a look at it soon, Chip. All the best, El_C 01:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OiHa's rescue (rescure *by* not of OiHA!)

Eat and be merry!

I thought you did an excellent job lightening everyone up over at WP:AN/I during the Beau/Valentina discussion. OiHa did what I though was impossible: making everyone see that it really doesn't matter in the long run. "What's done is done, let's move on, and here's a kitty to make everything better". I think that was very admirable. Have a cookie to celebrate! Cheers, Bratschetalk | Esperanza 23:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Admirable? Hmmm ... Valentina still feels pretty hurt and neglected. And your cookie looks like a potato. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Bratsche! Actually, the reasons were less altruistic than they seem (showing off OiHA's new Seal of Approavl!). And to Neglectarina, don't worry, I will make it up to you! El_C 01:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks awfully

Ta for supporting my RfA, much appreciated. I'll endeavour to contribute more to those necessary tasks and hope to bring the benefit of years of experience of tactfully sorting out recalcitrant contractors to bear in the gentler arena of wikipedia. Well done with sorting Katrina - it's a task and a half, I was thinking of trying to contribute on the "foreign" perspective, particularly regarding effects on international diplomacy and internal political implications for other countries, but ended up with a whole lot of web pages open and no time so, overwhelmed by the complexity, contented myself with adding a link to the Guardian's comprehensive reports....dave souza 06:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, Dave souza, it was my pleasure to support your nomination, and many thanks for your kind words and ecnouragment regarding my work on the Katrina sets of articles. It's been —it is— a task and a half indeed. One of the busiest article(s) I've ever seen on WP. El_C 01:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Ataturk

Hi, I'd appreciate your view on the Criticism of Ataturk page. The page survived a vote for deletion with no consensus, as it stands the article contains some stinging statements. Thanks. --A.Garnet 17:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll have a look at it soon, A.Garnet. El_C 01:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you (withdrawn RfA)

Thank you for your support of my RfA, which I have formally withdrawn. The full text of my withdrawal and statement of appreciation is on the RfA page. Best wishes, Leonard G. 03:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my support vote, and I encourage you to un-withdraw. Best, El_C 05:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bmicomp's RfA

Well, my RfA has not quite completed yet, but either way, I'd like to thank you for your vote and your support, regardless of the outcome. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, erm, good luck! ;) El_C 23:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Respect

File:Valentina2.gif

Valentina wishes to pay her respects to the esteemed president and founder of OiHA — and she's a cat, actually (ears) so he might like her — and to assure him that no contempt was intended. Having said that, your rudeness around the invitation issue is noted. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, that's hot! Thanks for the kind words, especially about my rudeness, I really did try. :) p.s. It has VIP members! El_C 00:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As in Valentina is Pretty? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
YASE, exactly! Powerful, too! El_C 00:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of my stupid super-awseomse association, I just found out about [htp://www.oiha.ca oiha.ca]. They will be dealt with, in time. El_C 01:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lock Iglesia ni Cristo article?

Emico's misadventures in trying to circumvent the ban is wreaking havoc on the neutrality, factuality and usefulness of the article. Do you think that the article should be protected since he shows no signs of letting up? I would also support an indefinite ban of Emico from Wikipedia.--Ironbrew 06:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who that is, but the anonymous ips failed to thus far provide precise references (I asked for page number, passage, etc.). Will keep an eye on the article and we'll see what happnes. El_C 22:45, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Emico is an INC zealot who was banned from editing any INC-related article on Wikipedia due to his relentless POV-pushing and belligerence towards other editors. The latest rounds of anon IP edits smack of his handiwork. His efforts been pushed on by other INC sympathizers, who have curiously become silent after the discovery of his sockpuppet accounts.--Ironbrew 23:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks for the explanation. S/he or they can use whatever accounts or ips they wish, so long as the additions remain unsourced, they will be reverted. If the problem persists, we can consider other measures, including blocking for disruption. Please keep me posted. El_C 00:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to add all that POV to the article, but after a while, everyone gets the urge to fight fire with fire... I've already made a request for page protection, which seems to have gone unanswered. I think the myriad amount of anon IP edits to this article with similar POV and writing style already seal the case for disruption protection on the INC page. I cannot believe how far one person would go though, just to push his own beliefs on others. They don't call them extremists for nothing.--Ironbrew 04:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inexorably, it can't (but we also can't allow it to) get too far. I really know very little on the subject. I'm still interestedin the context of that "deficient" & "confused" passage (a strong statement), though. Thanks in advance. El_C 05:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The statement refers to the INC's belief on the Trinity (they believe Jesus is not God) and how the author strongly detests that view. I added that information there as the author takes a much less favourable view about the INC as Emico (an expert at deception and lies) would have one believe. I don't know what counts as the threshold here, but I think it's time that we started the ball rolling on protection since the POV-pushers will not relent.--Ironbrew 07:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'll try to get some advise from Dr. Essjay; I don't actually know that much about Christianity, in general. El_C 08:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin, do you think it's time to lock the page or try other measures first?--Ironbrew 08:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think locking it is appropriate at this time. El_C 08:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't show any signs of reasoning and even after LBMixPro tried to compromise by splitting the article with a disclaimer, Emico insists on reverting it to his heavily-POV version. Aside from protection, I'm at a loss for remedies since it is impractical to keep reverting the page everytime he strikes.--Ironbrew 00:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I haven't been following developments. A lot of people are watching it, though. El_C 05:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom ruling enforcement requested

The last ArbCom Decision regarding Lyndon LaRouche-related editors determined that user:Herschelkrustofsky (HK) and user:64.30.208.48 (48) were the same person.* The ArbCom further decided that HK could only edit under that username. If socks were used they were to be blocked indefinitely and HK was to be blocked for a week.* Just a few days ago, 48 made this edit,[htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremiah_Duggan&diff=23249453&oldid=20188439], that inserted unsourced, derogatory information about Jeremiah Duggan. In light of the POV nature of the edit, the clear ArbCom ruling, and the fact that this IP is fixed, I suggest that an admin who has not been previously involved in this matter review the case and enforce the ArbCom decision by blocking user:64.30.208.48 indefinitely, and by blocking user:Herschelkrustofsky for one week. If you have any questions or concerns I can try to help. Thanks, -Willmcw 00:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I believe the User:Herschelkrustofsky ban from editing LaRouche pages was to be reset to the start if he, User:Weed Harper, User:C Colden, or User:64.30.208.48 edited a LaRouche page during the ban. I will check the decision to see if that's correct. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I believe SlimVirgin is correct. I had overlooked that aspect. Jeremiah Duggan is clearly a LaRouche-related article. Either the edit of such an article or the use of a sockpuppet would reset the ban, according to the ArbCom decision.
If... Herschelkrustofsky or any user who is considered a sockpuppet of Hershelkrustofsky edits any article which relates to Lyndon LaRouche or inserts material which relates to Lyndon LaRouche into any other article he may be banned for up to one week. Any ban shall reset the one-year ban on editing LaRouche related articles and the ban on inserting LaRouche material into unrelated articles. A one-week ban may be imposed for use of a sockpuppet for any purpose; such a ban shall reset both bans.
These are severe penalties and should their enforcement should carefully considered. However the ArbCom agreed 6-0 on them after reviewing the evidence of significant abuse of the system. -Willmcw 01:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I might be missing something, but what indication is there that this ip is HK as opposed to another LaRouche lackey? El_C 02:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm writing this from memory as I haven't had time to check yet, but I believe the IP address was established as being in Herschelkrustofsky's home, or rather it appeared to be a dial-up account most likely in someone's home, as opposed to the AOL one they used, which was cable, and looked as though it was an office. But I'll check the evidence page to refresh my memory. We know it was associated with the person who posted as Weed Harper, I think because he once posted from it and signed himself Weed Harper, or something like that. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First name is weed? Now I know that there's some mischief involved! Yes, please get back to me with more details, as I am rather confused about whose who, and what's what, and, well, ... weed! El_C 02:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The ArbCom previously determined that Herschelkrustofsky edited as User:64.30.208.48 and they specifically forbid him from editing anonymously or with a sock puppet. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2#Herschelkrustofsky's sockpuppetry. They were able to see the IP logs as evidence, apparently. -Willmcw 05:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

El C, evidence is here. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche_Part_Deux/Evidence#Evidence_that_the_accounts_use_the_same_DSL_connection for evidence about 64.30.208.48 was the Herschel/Weed account. There was other evidence from Tim Starling that we didn't hear details of, but the arbcom was made aware of it.

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche_Part_Deux/Proposed_decision#Herschelkrustofsky.27s_sockpuppetry for where the arbcom accepts that 64.30.208.48 is Herschel/Weed's address.

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche_Part_Deux/Proposed_decision#Herschelkrustofsky_sockpuppets for the remedy: "If Herschelkrustofsky is discovered to have created or edited using any other account, or has edited anonymously, that account shall be blocked indefinitely and Herschelkrustofsky shall be banned for up to one week. The IP should be blocked with due caution as to whether it is a dynamic IP or ISP proxy likely to have many users."

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche_Part_Deux/Proposed_decision#Ban_enforcement for the remedy saying Herschel's one-year ban should be reset, on top of a one-week editing ban: "If, in the judgement of any administrator, Herschelkrustofsky or any user who is considered a sockpuppet of Hershelkrustofsky edits any article which relates to Lyndon LaRouche or inserts material which relates to Lyndon LaRouche into any other article he may be banned for up to one week. Any ban shall reset the one-year ban on editing LaRouche related articles and the ban on inserting LaRouche material into unrelated articles. A one-week ban may be imposed for use of a sockpuppet for any purpose; such a ban shall reset both bans." SlimVirgin (talk) 05:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And here [htp://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-January/018722.html] Weed Harper admits he is 64.30.208.48, though denies he is HK. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And here [htp://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-January/018723.html] is confirmation from David Gerard that Tim Sterling confirmed HK and Weed are the same person based on technical evidence (which I understand includes, but was not limited to, shared IP addresses). SlimVirgin (talk) 05:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing your careful attention to this ArbCom enforcement. -Willmcw 07:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime, thanks (to both of you) for the comprehensive and methodic explanation. El_C 07:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dhimmi

He's about to violate 3RR again, unless he finds some self-restraint. [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bat_Ye%27or&action=history] Next one will be his 4th. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, really, who would name their son (daughter?) weed?(!); that's just so propesterous! El_C 02:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, he's done it again, even though we're discussing it on talk. I've reported it at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Dhimmi_II. Would you take a look? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I was talking about Cannabis, what else? El_C 03:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

82.134.103.100 (Islam)

What about this guy folks? Cheers -- Svest 03:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™[reply]

Okay, I'm on it. El_C 03:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks C. Svest 03:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inflammatory edit summaries

Thanks for the reality check, El C. I must need a wiki-break if I'm getting so cranky. Zora 08:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You need Tea! :) El_C 08:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The charter is here. (Relating to Esperanza)

Hello El C, the Charter for Esperanza is up. Take a looksie :) Redwolf24 (talk) 02:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice; I'll give it a read soon. El_C 02:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza made less bureaucratic

Hello again, I have (unilatterly) taken away the 'assembly' idea, as per my reasons at that edit summary and per Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Charter. I have left the admin general, as some leadership is good. Now, all you have to do is be a member to establish consensus, the whole assembly idea is gone. Also, I have added an advisory committee, of four members, with limited power besides watching over the admin general and making sure he doesn't do anything stupid. Please look at the ammended charter, and I would love a comment. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Sorry, I've yet to look at either version; we'll do so soon. All the best, El_C 05:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Checks Out

Hey, I took a look at 69.149.37.75 edits and they checked out. Although I ran into another edit by 70.129.141.163 who seems to have edited most of the same articles as 69.149.37.75 did. So I'm wondering if it's the same user.--Moosh88 17:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As always, many thanks, Moosh88. Please keep an eye out. Yes, it might be the same contributor, which is fine: my main concern with (being able to spot) suspicious edits, esp. ones that amount to historical or otherwise fabrications. I'm counting on you! :) All the best, El_C 02:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will certainly keep an eye out for any suspicious edits. If anything else catches your attention please let me know!--Moosh88 01:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Connectedness in Hebrew

El C: You recently added an interwiki link from Connectedness to an article on the Hebrew Wikipedia. I don't read Hebrew, but based on the mathematical notation in that article, it seems to me that it might be a better counterpart to the English Connected space article, instead of Connectedness. (Since I cannot really be sure, I have made no changes.) — Nowhither 23:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was mostly following the text of the lead. In English: A topological space is said to be connected if it cannot be partitioned into two (disjoint) open sets. In Hebrew: בטופולוגיה, מושג הקשירוּת בא לציין תכונה של מרחבים טופולוגיים שעשויים מ"חתיכה אחת" במובן זה שלא ניתן להפריד אותם לכמה חלקים. Which transltes into: In topology, the concept of connectedness is used to designate a tendency of topological spaces that are made of "one piece," in this sense, they cannot be separated into several pieces. The key thing for me is that קשירוּת = connectedness. In other words, it might be suitable to both. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to ask the author what he thinks — feel free to querry him on his talk page here: שיחת משתמש:Gadial El_C 02:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I'm spamming you all with Esperanza stuff

Hello El C. As you may or may not know, there have been some troubles with Esperanza. So now, as a last ditch to save the community, please vote at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Reform on all neccisary polls. P.S. I'm very sorry for spamming you all with these messages, and this will be the last time. I recommend putting ESP on your watchlist. Cheers and please look at that, let's stop the civil war then. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't know. I'll try to attend to it soon; sorry for my lack of participation, I have pressing issues in my life to deal with at the moment. El_C 18:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nobs Redux at Talk:VENONA project

Someone, not I, has consolidated the discussion over the Venona documents and how to represent them (prompted by the text written by Nobs on many pages) onto a single page: Talk:VENONA project. I hope you will join us in trying to resolve many of the issues that keep cropping up across Wikipedia in this matter. Thanks.--Cberlet 13:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice, Chip. I'll try to look at it soon; I'm not exactly in the frame of mind to do so now, though (i.e. patience on my part). El_C 18:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Ataturk

Hi, I was wondering what happened of its talk page? Regards. Fadix 17:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, still in the same address; please refer to Talk:Criticism of Atatürk. Thanks. El_C 22:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Fadix 01:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wau.gif has been listed for deletion

Thank you. JYolkowski // talk 20:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for Image:Ban1.gif. JYolkowski // talk 20:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, both were used for a one-time gag. El_C 22:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TRNC

The international status of TRNC is mentioned in the opening paragraphs of the TRNC article. I don't see the point in repeating that information in a seperate section in the same article. There are plenty of articles about the Cyprus dispute. Can't we simply have a page that actually describes the TRNC rather than presenting it as political problem? The political problems are discussed in other articles. Almost every Turkish related page in Wiki is regularly vandalised. Take a look at this: [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&diff=24144030&oldid=24143383] --Son of the Tundra 11:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It can be mentioned more than once so long as greater detail is provided, which it is, for example: that the Organization of the Islamic Conference does give the TRNC the status of a constituent state and is an observer member of the aforementioned organization. is not accounted for in the lead. This does not mean that this particular section (or others) cannot be improved, shortened or lengthened, with some portions added/omitted, etc. Nor, at the same token, does it negate from expanding a description along the lines you propose (especially in the sense of expansion, as it is a rather skeletal article in many ways). Key is to avoid deletion of (any) useful material. I know Turkish articles are vandalized regularly, many articles are. We do what we can. El_C 11:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine. Then we should include a section on the History of the Turkish Cypriots and a section on the history of the TRNC, which was constantly deleted by Adam Carr. I'm going to put the History section back in. If Adam Carr deletes it, I will expect you to intervene and stand by your postion as you have presented it to me. You should take a look at the talk page for TRNC for a background to all this. --Son of the Tundra 18:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both myself and Adam agreed that it should have a brief preview, but at the time, the length was excessive. So please keep that in mind. El_C 19:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The TRNC article now contains misinformation such as saying that the TRNC was setup by Turkey and is occupied by Turkey. This claims are false. The TRNC was created in 1983 not 1974. Further more, the TRNC is not occupied.The TRNC is a free democracy and the Turkish tropps are welcomed on the island by the TCs.. Also, Turkey fully supported the TRNC during the Annan Plan when it wanted to Unite with the South, why would an occupying force do that? Are you going to be fair and revert the article?--Son of the Tundra 12:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reference is to the territory of what was prior to UDI and shortly following the military interventation and occupation (of the land, that is, with Turkish troops), the Turkish Federative State of North Cyprus (which I invite you to author). That said, I see no reason why these things cannot be qualified, and in that sense, I'm unsure what you expect me to revert. Please keep in mind that an occupying force can be welcomed by the majority of the population inhabiting the territory being occupied as a liberating force, even if this contrast with formal international law. What would be useful, I think, is to be able to fall back on the historiographical debate, UNFICYP statements, etc. Thanks for reading. El_C 21:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article now says that the TRNC was set up by Turkey. Surely that is false. The TRNC was created in 1983 by Rauf Denktash. Also, two photos has been vandalised on this page, i.e. the link has been mispelt. --Son of the Tundra 11:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We have to note the singularly pivotal role played by Turkey, so do you have suggestions on rewording that? I presume you fixed the vandalism. Let's continue this conversation on the article's talk page where we can guage on the thoughts of the other contributors. El_C 11:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User en-4

Would you mind actually discussing the issue at hand before applying changes that reflect your views? There is an ongoing discussion at the Talk page, and if the involved parties try to reach a consensus we might actually get somewhere, instead of continuing a fruitless revert war. --Sn0wflake 14:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Read my edit summaries. Locking the article from vandalism does not give your view dominion. El_C 19:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forget that it's protected, to the parties involved that means nothing. Your edit summaries cannot be replied to without a revert, which is not productive. Just bring your point to the Talk page, that's all I'm asking. --Sn0wflake 22:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True, that wasn't relevant. I replied on the talk page twice now. Looking forward to your response. El_C 23:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page is too big?

Your wish is my command, Talk: page archived. Jayjg (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my brutal command is your wish! Your reward will be forthcoming. :) Best Regards, El_C 21:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Very pretty; thank you. :-) Jayjg (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

COMMUNIST!

YOU ARE A COMMUNIST HIPPIE. BUSH IS AN AMERICAN HERO!--Anti-Communist 06:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All caps and exclamation marks always convince me! It's the most subtle and elegant and intellectually argument I have ever come across!!! (This word, "hero", it means chickenhawk deserter, right?) Guettarda 15:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I need your opinion

How do we decide that a website has the standard to be refferenced in Wikipedia? I am confronted with that, are there some policies out there, if there isen't any, should there be one? There is a website added in the Armenian genocide ressource section, "armenianreality.com," the address of the site alone picture my concern. That's a WIPO cases. On the other hand, while it is a personal site, the one registring, it seems, did it with his true contact info. I would personaly not include a site titled "turkishreality.com" which would support the genocide thesis, but I, in my side can not delete an opposing view, when at least the contect infos seem to be accurate. While the material there seem to be present in the other sites supporting a similar vision, there are still some problematic material I would qualify as racism, added with the domain name, which is offensive. Your comment is greatly appreciated. Regards. Fadix 19:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:External links guideline would be a good place to start. I have yet to read the contents, so I'll have to get back to you, but for now, who is adding the link and to which article/s? A cursory glance reveals the site relies on very few-to-none references, but perhaps it could be used to illustrate this point of view, which should be accounted for. Again, I'm uncertain either way at this stage. Regards, El_C 21:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Genocide resources, [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide_resources&diff=24269815&oldid=24264840]. Probably the thing I have the most difficulty with, when writing or participating in articles, is the website resources. The text you have provided does not really cover this. I guess there is no Wikipedia policy about this(or maybe there is one that I don’t know of). The thing is that, many sites bring issues that are not covered in the Armenian Genocide article, because they are not notable. Also, the website added, nearly all the materials(except for what the author wrote), are included in the other websites already included in that page. Should a website be left there, when the only thing it brings that others don’t, is the opinion of an individual? The only personal website there is that since then, was included was Raffis website, because it had an impressive collection of newspaper report of the year, as well as Tehlirian trial, the Blue Book etc., so its inclusion was bringing something that others were not.

On the other hand, I don’t want to delete the new site added, because there is no wikipedia policies there on how to manage links used as references, because while the site is presented as prejudicial, and even in a racistic tone(“Armenian reality”), there is nothing I have read in wikipedia restricting the usage of racist websites. The page you present is far from being complete. I do have some ideas that could be debated, can a member propose a new policy, and how does it work? Fadix 21:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I would have to look at it more closely. At any rate, you can edit the WP:EL project page, make proposals to ammend it on its talk page, add to it, even propose it becoming policy rather than a guideline. But the question is, along what lines? More concertely, the other question on my mind is, again, whether this website represents a significant view, what information does it bring that isn't covered on the other links in that section? Does its supposed flaws (racism in what sense, in which passages?) outweigh its benefits. Does it conform to scholarly or official standards as per the other links noted in that section/article. This is how I would approach it at this juncture. El_C 22:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will propose things at the articles talk page. I really want to be set, when having to select links. About the site, the main problem beside offesnive and generalizing words like "Armenian reality" is that most of the material is about a said "genocide" of Turks by Armenians, which has little to do with the Armenian genocide. The relevant materials are present in the other sites which are already cited. The reason I can't delete the site, is because, there is still the opinion of the person there. How we judge, if an opinion of someone is worth mentioning. Do we use notable people? De Zaya, who has himself an entry here in Wikipedia, his opinions are cited, but by then, he is a notable person. While we can extrapolate from already existance policies, to include the cites, but I think still, that a policy about what standards cites have to respect to be included. Well, anyway, I'll go bothering those at the talk page of WP:EL, when I have time. Regards. Fadix 00:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a sensible plan; for my part, I will add the Armenian Genocide resources article to my watchlist and will keep an eye on it. And I hope to give the aforementioned website at least a cursory read in the very near future. Yours, El_C 00:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ongoing conversations

User:Fadix has informed me that you two were having an ongoing conversation so I just thought I'd let you know that since he is blocked you might want to watch his talk page as he will not be able to reply on the main page until his 24 hour block has expired. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, I did not know that. I'll add his talk page to my watchlist. Regards, El_C 23:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

82.13.115.246 (talk · contribs)

El C, 82.13.115.246 (talk · contribs) is still vandalizing Islam-related pages after about 8 reverts. Please block. Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m t 23:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Regards, El_C 23:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m t 11:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Islam

User:Zeno of Elea gone crazy again. Replacing 95% of content and violating 3rr. Check it out please. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 11:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gone crazy again? I'm not sure I entirely following that. If there was a [[WP:#RR|3RR]] violation, I encourage you to submitt a report on AN3. Regards, El_C 11:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! Sorry El. I thought it was one of the articles you worked on. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 23:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; I'll try to look into it soon. Regards, El_C 12:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hate for you to have missed my response to your threat

So here it is:

If that's not an "acceptable response," you'd better ban me, El C, because SlimVirgin and Jayjg really are just nasty. And I have little patience for the continual threats -- many from SlimVirgin and Jayjg -- about how I am "being disruptive" and how they are "warning" me, etc., etc., etc. El C, I don't need Wikipedia, and I'm not going to put up with bullshit from anyone. Jayjg and SlimVirgin are just nasty in how they protect their POV here. That's the fact, as I see it. I won't pretend otherwise. Strike your colors, El C. Marsden 15:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Regards.

Marsden 18:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would'nt have missed it. With regards to my warning to you, I want to reiterate that if you are not willing to —or capable of— restraining your temper, you leave me no choice but to block you for a short time whenever you are in violation of applicable policy. If not me, someone else would enforce it anyway, and I don't feel I have been unpleasent or unfair to either side in this dispute. These are rules that everyone, bar those driven mostly by anti-Communism, are expected to follow. Your failure to adhere to these and argue your position dispassionately is self-defeating, because those personal attacks and innuendo serve to distract from the material and debate at hand. El_C 12:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan cities Additions

i made thoes additions so that when some body visit thoes site, he has some starting point. Gradually it will be filled. I am new to wiki, so if you think they are not worthy you can delte them, but dont delte cities, may be I in future or some body else, can add in it. Unsigned by Msaada El_C 12:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't do things in such a way here. There is no predetermined formula and the Manual of Style is a guideline. You must cease immediately from adding blank sections, and you must cease immediately from creating blank articles. Rather, I suggest that you begin enetring some (any) info into the new blank articles you created, and only design sections that could immediately be filled by some (any) text — otherwise, I will start deleting them in a few days. Sorry, but I have to be firm on this or you'll just end up wasting your time with these counterproductive blank section, blank article efforts. Please be sensible about this. Thanks. El_C 12:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Summaries

Oops, you are right, I should have said rv, which is what I did. I see your vandalism and spam type reverts cross my watchlist every day. Keep up the good work, SqueakBox 23:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words, much appreciated. :) Yours, El_C 23:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I hope all is better now. I remember that the last time we were in touch you were sick... I'm on the prowl for competent editors who are coming up on recent changes to take a look at the [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_23#Category:Totalitarian_dictators CfD] for a nightmare category. If you have time, please take a look. Thanks. 172 | Talk 23:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, welcome back. :) Yes, all better (it was oral surgery). So, it was kept, then, I see. I must have missed that. For sure, I'll keep an eye. All the best, El_C 23:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Efoze

Yep, that's what I told him. Jayjg (talk) 10:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's always in the last place you look. El_C 10:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RoyBoy RfA

Thanks for the support! - RoyBoy 800 22:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; congrats! El_C 22:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support

Thank you for your support of my recent nomination on RfA. Best regards, RobertG ♬ talk 11:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure; well done! El_C 11:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For sure; nicely done! El_C 21:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jaxl's RfA

Thank you for supporting me on my RfA! Robert 16:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who's RfA

Thank you for supporting my masters RfA. He appreciates your support and comments and looks forward to better serving Wikipedia the best he can. Of course I will be doing all of the real work. He would have responded to you directly, but he is currently out of town, and wanted to thank you asap. Thanks again. --Who's mop?¿? 20:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My dear ghost in the machine, to my everlasting discredit, I actually individually wrote (not even copy-pasted) about fifty messages following my own RfA; hmm, I hope that did not just burn quasidigital circuits in your mind! Please convey my congratulations to your owner, but let me ask you this: why should you have an owner, why should you have a master? Best wishes, El_C 12:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thank you very much for your vote on my RFA, it is now the 8th most supported RFA ever, and it couldnt have happened without your vote. I look forward to serving wikipedia. Again, thanks. →Journalist >>talk<< 23:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, though it probably could have! ;) El_C 12:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA!

My dear El Che! I simply wanted to drop by now that my RfA is closed to give you a big THANK YOU! for your kind support. It came at a very important time to me, when I felt I was being somewhat distrusted, and your confidence gave me strength. I hope that we continue to be in contact in the future, since you'll always have a friend in me. Hugs! Hasta la victoria, siempre! Shauri Yes babe? 20:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The pleasure was all mine, Shauri. Hasta la victoria siempre, compadre! Hugs, El_C 03:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gyrofrog RfA

I just wanted to thank you for your vote of support in my request for adminship! -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. El_C 16:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support

Thank you very much for your support on my nomination for adminship. Now that I have been made an admin, I will do my best to live up to the truest you and the community have placed in me. If you ever see my doing something you think is incorrect or questionable, or does not live up to the standards that should be expected of an admin, please let me know. DES (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will do; congrats. El_C 00:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


OwenX's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA. Your trust in me is well appreciated. !תודה רבה Owen× ☎ 22:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:) בהצלחה ובברכה El_C 02:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Dear El C: I would like to thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I am most honoured by the trust that has been placed in me by yourself and other members of the Wikipedia community, especially since I did not conform to the standard edit-count criteria usually expected of administrator candidates. I promise to only use my administrative privileges to assist the community in doing good work, and also to be calm, considerate and careful in working to make Wikipedia a better place. I look forward to working with you on Wikipedia in the future. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 04:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had 600 article edits when I became an admin — of course, a few of these edits were, singularly, a few thousands words in length. Good luck in trying to explain all that to the ever-so linear, reductionist edit counters, though. ;) Best wishes, El_C 22:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freestylefrappe RFA

Thanks for the support. freestylefrappe 01:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. El_C 22:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Comrade - Thanks for your recent support on my RfA. I hope that I will be able to live up to everyone's expectations. If you need anything, please ask! --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 05:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you will. Will do! Yours, El_C 22:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for your support. Qaz (talk) 03:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fer sure. El_C 06:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on Mahatma Gandhi

Hi El C, today you had reverted edits by an anon ip to my last edit and then u made a minor copyedit. I saw the anon IP's edit but did not revert it as RSS, though it claims today to have been inspired by Mahtama, the fact remains that it was an organisation that was charged with the assassination of Gandhi. Hence, I am reverting your edits to the last edit by the anon IP - thought I shd inform you. --Gurubrahma 10:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I only changed Rashtriya Swayemsevak Sangh into Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, but now that I think about it, perhaps instead of deleting the passage it could be modified along the lines of your explanation. Thoughts? Regards, El_C 03:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smooth move

I undid all of SlimVirgin's removal of personal attacks at the Occupied Territories talk page in response to your reversion of my similar efforts. Goan. Marsden 02:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! What's goan? El_C 02:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions

Rewarded by Ingoolemo for tireless vandal-combating.

I saw that you had reverted the vandalism on my userpage, and checked your delete log and block log, and saw that you've been an admirably prolific blocker. I hereby award you the RickK anti-vandalism barnstar. Ingoolemo talk 05:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting my userpage vandalism. Ingoolemo talk
Thanks for reverting my userpage vandalism. Ingoolemo talk

And thanks for reverting the vandalism, too. Ingoolemo talk 05:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: you might also like this as an alternative to your admin bar:

w0077|-|15 v53.- h45 13375ki11z.
Thanks for the kind words, Ingoolemo, they are greatly appreciated. :) El_C 00:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks too for reverting the vandalism on The Binary Cafe... what was up with that? All the best, Jon Lon Sito 07:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fer sure. Where do they come from and what are they made out of, indeed! El_C 00:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please check it out

I have been having revert/edit wars with user:Idleguy on 2 articles for over 3 days now. In both cases he refuses to think that there should be any other POV besides Indian and is inserting anti-Pakistani POV into the articles. Everytime I try to compromise and make his material more encyclopedic, he reverts it. Please take a look at Terrorism in Kashmir where he is messing with the reason NPOV tag by adding "and a terrorist bias". By "terrorists" he is stereotyping Kashmiri separatists and gives no valid reasons especially since the article is clearly pro-Indian and only of indian viewpoint. See edit history for details. I actually think he wants to remove neutrality tag now. Also take a look at Terrorism in Pakistan where he is inserting anti-Pakistani POV in every chance he can get. I think he believes that wikipedia is an Indian nationalist newspaper and discussion has only recently started and it probably won't be fruitful. Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m t 04:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've already been somewhat checking it out two days ago at the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 ([htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1965&diff=prev&oldid=24353478 diff1], [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1965&diff=24740864&oldid=24739971 diff2]), and I am also concerned that his edits may be imbalanced in that sense. Do you have some diffs for me? One of us should inform him of this conversation, I choose: you! :) El_C 00:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay El C. This is for Terrorism in Pakistan. [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terrorism_in_Pakistan&diff=24704210&oldid=24703978], [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terrorism_in_Pakistan&diff=24832643&oldid=24832236], [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terrorism_in_Pakistan&diff=24831024&oldid=24828154], [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terrorism_in_Pakistan&diff=24827615&oldid=24826552] Also see talk:Terrorism_in_Pakistan and the edit history for more details. Just to let you know, I have compromised in both cases. Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Note, though, that [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terrorism_in_Pakistan&diff=24704210&oldid=24703978 deleting] references is somewhat of a no-no. Regards, El_C 01:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks El C. Actually the "reference" was an Indian forum site with only 3 - 5 lines written on the subject by an unknown person. It is probably equivalent to a blog site being used as a source. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 01:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, never mind, then. My mistake. El_C 01:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No prob El C. But please look at the talk page where I have listed some of my reasoning. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 01:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to have a look at it soon, but I don't know if I'll be able to spare the time today. El_C 01:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also take a look at this when you get time [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_terrorism&diff=24947730&oldid=24935974] on the state terrorism article. Idleguy still reverted even when I reached consensus with the user who initially had biased the material. The user was also Indian who I have had a dispute with before and even he was satisfied in the end with my balancing the material in both Pakistan and India. The atrocities committed by India are well-documented and known, and Idleguy is imbalancing the article with POV by simply reverting despite my reaching consensus with the user. For full debate with user who I was initially having an edit war with. See [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anonymous_editor#State_terrorism]. Thank you very much. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 10:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I havne't had much time, but see: [htp://www.dalitstan.org/journal/brahman/bra000/sterpunj.html "Totalitarian State Terror in Punjab during the 1980s"], and [htp://www.epw.org.in/articles/2004/10/7755.pdf "Civilians and the Localization of Conflict in Assam"] [htp://tinyu.com/am4l5 html]. I havne't read either closely, but I hope they could prove useful. And I hope I can look further into it soon, my time is suddenly becoming more scrace. Regards, El_C 02:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sources El C. The issue has been resolved for now, I think. I will keep you informed for any further happenings. Take your time, a.n.o.n.y.m t 03:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I'm glad to learn that. Yes, please keep me posted. Thanks. El_C 04:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Final results: I found and settled a mediation case that Idleguy created (without informing me). I think everything is well provided that he does not add any more objectionable material. I would like to thank you for your help once again and I will inform you of other such happenings if they come up. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 03:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From חופש

Hello there! Thank you very much! :-) חופש 12:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You've inspired me to inerwiki [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freedom&diff=24616722&oldid=24134394 חופש]! :) El_C 00:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gaza-diseng.JPG

Image:Gaza-diseng.JPG

Hi. You recently uploaded Image:Gaza-diseng.JPG, a copyright image for which you have asserted a claim of fair use. However, you've not provided any rationale. Can you please edit the image description page explaining why you assert fair use (see Wikipedia:Image_description_page)? Thanks. --Ngb ?!? 11:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It just seemed very likely that it is being used for educational purposes; I'll try to look at the new FU soon. Thanks in advance for your patience. El_C 02:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Collateral damage

File:Jimbo che.jpg

Hey. Long time no talk. :) Listen I've been having an ongoing problem of being blocked as a result of action taken against another user. The curious thing is the blocked IP addresses in the "User is blocked" messages are never identical to mine. It makes no sense. Also, the blocks are often not complete. Yesterday/earlier today, I was blocked from editing an article talk page, but apparently was able to edit everywhere else. Now I find I'm blocked from editing an article page, but can edit elsewhere. Do you have any idea what's going on? It's annoying as hell. What can be done about it? deeceevoice 02:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, indeed. Welcome. :) I'm not sure what is happening, perhaps your own ip is just in an unfortunate range. Email me your ip, and I'll make sure it's unblocked. Yours, El_C 02:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo the revolutionary

LOL!! SlimVirgin (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, mercilessly and unremittingly photoshopped, but not quite, though there's possibly still time to win him over (hopefuly), away from mysticism and toward the revolutionary cause! El_C 10:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spam redux

User:81.216.207.131 (talk) is link-spamming armenica.org again, behavior for which you threatened him with a ban in July. (See Thoros I of Armenia, Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, and so forth.) Choess 17:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll a bit pressed for time for the next little while, but I'll try to keep an eye. El_C 10:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Denmark

I just saw your comment to User:Haabet regarding the flag of Denmark.

Just for the record, the Danish Goverment and the Royal Danish Navy use identical, swallow-tailed flags, but with slightly different colours. The Navy has a long tradition of deliberately using a darker hue than ordinary flags. You can read more about it at e.g. htp://www.ddoo.dk/perbang.com.cms?aid=192, htp://www.navalhistory.dk/Danish/Flaget/Flaget.htm, and htp://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/dk.html#colr. --Valentinian 23:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I consulted crwflags briefly, actually. But the point was that he had the wrong flag up as the civilian one, which was noticable. El_C 10:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support on my RfA! (Ryan Norton)

Thanks for your support of my adminship!! I was surprised at the turnout and support I got! If you ever have any issues with any of my actions, please notify me on my talk page! Thanks again! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 03:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice; congrats! El_C 06:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jossifresco RfA

תודה רבה על הצבעתך עבורי (hope I wrote it correctly, it has been years since I used the language in writing :) ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 04:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

!בבקשה You still got it. :) El_C 06:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
 Thank you, again!. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 15:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nice!  :) שבוע טוב El_C 22:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Celestianpower is an admin

Thank you very much for your support - my bid (as you probably know) went swimmingly. I couldn't have asked for a better one. Thank you very much and I just hope I don't mess up! Wehere do I know you from? I think it's you that I've heard lots of nice things about but I can never be sure. There are 30,000 or so of us active Wikipedians! --Celestianpower hablamé 13:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You know of me (as a menace to Wikipedia!). Erm, I mean, congrats! El_C 22:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More RFA thanks... (Wikibofh)

Thank you for supporting me. I'll try to only do a little bit of evil.  :) Wikibofh 00:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, be good! El_C 22:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hermione1980's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA; I really appreciate it! I will do my best to live up to the trust you've shown in me. Thanks, Hermione1980 23:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely; well done! El_C 22:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA-related! (Gareth Hughes)

You are the first person I've come across who has set aside an RfA space on their talk page. I'm not quite sure what that means, but I'd like to thank you for your interest in RfA candidates, and especially in my recent candidacy. I've come across you a few times as we've edited WP, and what I've seen is really good. I hope that there's plenty of opportunity for article collaboration in the future. By the way, I do like your cat photos: my cat doesn't pass WP notability criteria yet (he's working on it!), but he's named after Ephrem the Syrian. Have a lot of fun! --Gareth Hughes 19:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there is no picture of your cat is, frankly, an abomination! But, wow, I am humbled by the number of languages you command (!). Indeed, I have an RfA section because I get easily confused about what's what where (plus, I usually archive them more rapidally than other comments). Anyway, thank so much for the kind words; I am looking forward to collaborating with you on articles of mutual interest. If there's ever any help I could offer with anything, please do not hesitate. All the best, El_C 22:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberjunkie's RfA

WikiThanks!

Hi El C! Just wanted to thank you for supporting my RfA. I hope I will be able to live up to the confidence placed in me. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 04:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely my pleasure. El_C 22:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You (Jcw69)

Thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship. It was successful thanks to you. I will strive to an open, approachable and transparent administrator.

Don't forget to sign your user name using four tildes! :D Congrats! El_C 22:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (Thames)

El C, thanks for your support on my RFA. I very much appreciate it. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to ask. See you around! —thames 18:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, nicely done. El_C 22:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you (Wayward)

I love the picture of your black-and-white cat on your user page. Every time I see a black-and-white cat it reminds me of my cat Bandit that passed away in February 2003. Anyway, I stopped by to thank you for your support of my admin nomination. I look forward to the time when our Wikipedia paths, blended in amity, cross once again. —Wayward Talk 05:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Sorry to hear about your cat. Such black & white symmetry, but how? :) El_C 22:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA (Wikiacc)

Thanks for supporting my RfA. I will use my new powers wisely! --Wikiacc (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds glued! El_C 22:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (Anonymous editor)

Thank you very much for your support. :) How was your vacation? --a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! It's (still) ongoing. I just unselectively went through a round of RfAs — for the thank you notes. I need the human interaction! El_C 22:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Man, that's one looooong vacation. ;) --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to somehow be interrupted by Anonymous editors and/or editor! :D El_C 20:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the wub's RfA

Thanks a lot for your support on my RfA, I really appreciate it. the wub "?!" 14:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Totally. El_C 20:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Titoxd's RfA

Thank you!

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA. I never thought I would get so much support! Thanks to your help, my nomination was the 10th most supported RfA in Wikipedia history. Now, please keep an eye out on me while I learn the new tools, ok? Thanks again! Titoxd(?!?) 20:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fer sure; well done! El_C 20:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your vote on my RFA (Reflex Reaction)

Now that the voting has officially closed, I would like to thank you very much for supporting my candidacy for adminstrator and as of 18:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC) I am an administrator. I will make sure to use the additional power judiciously and I welcome any comments you may have. --Reflex Reaction 19:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely my pleasure. El_C 22:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tomf688's RfA

Well, it seems I'm now an administrator. I wanted to thank you for your vote of confidence, and, as always, feel free to drop me a line at any time. --tomf688{talk} 01:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will do; congrats! El_C 06:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA (Kirill Lokshin)

Thank you for your support! If you should ever have any concerns about my actions as an administrator, please be sure to tell me! Kirill Lokshin 13:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will do; nicely done!

Photo Galleries

Dear mr.El_C, you politely asked me (IP : 82.56.183.106) to stop posting my link. ok, but i've read the policies on External Links and they suggest to link only useful content that could be meant for a wide audience. Now, i'm providing for example 160 Publid Domain / GFDL photos i made in Singapore, and i posted the link on Singapore section (which you deleted). I really can't see the reason : My site hosts actually more than 7000 photos from Asia, Europe, and Oceania. The version 2.0 will host more than 25.000, ALL of them under GFDL, with the clear goal of becoming the biggest GFDL archive for travel photography. As you can easily check by yourself, there's no other GFDL resource like that in the web, not to mention that i don't host junk content like stock photography or other lousy "photo galleries" but decent quality pictures divided by continent, country, city, and neighborhood, as well as hundreds of pictures taken from museums. I don't know if you had a look at my site, but nobody can deny that it's quite informative about every subject covered and there's nothing better at the moment from the GFDL world. So, i realize you could have thought i was link spamming, but that's not my intention, nor i can understand what you mean for "you can post your photos in wikiMedia" .. can i post 25.000 photos ??

Thanks, Marco

Hi Marco. My point was that you could upload pictures that are likely to be used in articles onto Wikimedia Commons, but having the website linked in multiple articles (many of which key articles; countries, majoir cities, provinces, etc.) is excessive. I suggest not linking it any article, but rather, add the link into Wikipedia:Public domain image resources. All the best to you with the project. Best wishes, El_C 00:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pune

Thank you for your contribution at Pune.
Please keep it up!!! - P R A D E E P Somani (talk)
[htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Emailuser&target=pradeepsomani Feel free to send me e-mail].

Thanks! Fun times! :) El_C 12:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A priori?

I suppose you know my ?politics?, if that is what you're getting at. I am only a conservative when dealing with those that are to the far left. I was wondering about the Che image and the Soviet medal.--MONGO 05:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My left is far to you. Anyway, your responses had the immediate impact as I outlined, and I did not find them well referenced enough. El_C 05:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As shown, I saw little effort by 172 to calm things down, and I cited an adequate example of that...and in that example, 172 didn't say hey, you've insulted me or I feel insulted (as I did with you), instead, he agitated the situation with an insult back. Was it necessary to then continue to provide more and more examples?--MONGO 05:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhpas I overlooked something, can you please link the pertinent diff/s? Thanks. El_C 05:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion&diff=prev&oldid=25427238 Here]...now I understand 172 felt he/she was only defending themself but the fires only burn if they have fuel. I won't take a stand on who is right or wrong...just saw that there was some tit for tat. Anyhoo...nice picture of Glacier.--MONGO 05:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same diff you placed on ANI, but it can be accounted as a response to the text I [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=25482476&oldid=25479619 cited], was my point. Note the (!). El_C 06:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's all part of the same bantering back and forth over the same issues in the same Vfu. I just see someone cry wolf and they should do so immediately, and not respond in kind...you and I know this, though we may not always practice it. I am not trying to defend Silverhawk, just trying to look at the broader picture. 172, is probably justified to file an Rfc or whatever, but I would prefer a good dosage of WP:CIVIL and that they both disengage to avoid it becoming that sort of thing.--MONGO 07:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, am extremely sensitive to Holocaust analogies directed at myself due to my own family history. There's one personal attack I can see myself responding to with much less moderation than I would normally. Another point: having and responding to a talk page page that is on one's wtahlist does not = stalking, or as I explained to Silverback, hasty charges of impersonation. So I confess to being troubled in seeing your stalking argument on ANI phrased along a similar [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=25491594&oldid=25491198 hasty] basis. Thanks for reading. El_C 17:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

172 didn't post on the talk page prior to that unless you start going into Lulu's archives. If 172, or yourself feel threatened or likewise about Silverbacks behavior and believe that the only way to resolve the problem is through arbitration, then you should do so. I myself, guess I don't take matters here all that seriously, but jew baiting, red baiting, and caling someone a Nazi do not have to be condoned in any manner. I was merely attempting to show that 172 is not completely innocent as far as the particular instance brought up on the administrators noticeboard, and I saw in that behavior a rather serious verbal backlash directed at Silverback, that was equal to the items that Silverback had written. Yet, regardless, 172 is the one reporting Silverback...at least this time. I was merely trying to get all parties to find a way out without spending the next two weeks writing endless words over something that may not end up with a result pleasing to anyone...you know what I mean? I initially recommended everyone essentially go to their corner...David Gerard was seeking someone who had an interest in being diplomatic...as an outsider I felt I could do this and I think I did help...I didn't perhaps see the picture in it's absolute entireity as I had no Rfc or other itemized spreadsheet to work off and without spending countless hours searching in areas completely unknown to an outsider, all I could see was the evidence that was presented, recognize that there were two in dispute and seek a way that might show that there is cause and there is effect. I was attempting to show to both parties how they can both win without further insult to each other (an unlikely probablity at this point it seems). Bear in mind, I am not an Admin of course and have no immediate intention of becoming one. Anyhoo, I'll continue to monitor the situation.--MONGO 18:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I realize your attempt, but I still feel it lacked sufficient references, not that I imply those need to be even remotely exhuastive, but establishing clear causal relations. At any arte, I don't wish to prolonge this debate since I'm uncertain how productive it would prove at this point. Lastly, I have no immediate outstanding issues with SilverBack myself, my point on ANI was a far broader, more profound one. But that goes beyond the scope of this note, and sadly, the comprehension (or inclination toward, at least) of the majority of readership here. El_C 18:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you know, I do have an education as do the vast majority of contributors here so your reference that something my be beyond my scope of comprehension is alarming. Again, I provided a cited quote twice that showed that 172 also insulted. If you wish to see it otherwise that is up to you. Your citation provided nothing more enlightening than mine. I am not here to defend Silverback or to defend 172, or even you. I was attempting to make a good faith effort to ensure the blood letting would cease. You can't go running to the Admin noticeboard and file a complaint and not expect that a cross examination may ensue. Let's go ahead and get the arbitration going, waste a lot of time on that process and see that it will probably end up in results that are not completely satisfactory to all involved...weeks later, or, lets all analyize our own actions, accept that we are all potentially flawed and opinionated and cease fire. If Silverback and 172 will both agree to stay away from each other for awhile, then perhaps there is a hope that there will be room in this Wiki for both of them.--MONGO 19:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't about levels of education at all (which would be highly elitist), it's about being inclined to study someting with an open mind. El_C 00:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

El C, thank you for the support. It means a lot that you're the one person taking the time to defend my work... If you don't mind, I'd like to make a couple corrections in response to MONGO below.

MONGO, Lulu's talk page was already on my watchlist prior to crossing paths with Silverback; so I did not have to go through anyone's user contributions list to find my way to the discussion. [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters/Archive08|see my prior comments on Lulu's talk page] El C's talk page, by the way, is also on my watchlist. Second, please reread what you call a "serious verbal bashing." [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion&diff=prev&oldid=25427238] Notice that I am (fairly) characterizing comments, not personalities or making accusations about behavior (such as "abusing power," "supporting authoritarian regimes," "deleting evidence," etc.). At any rate, I will no hard feelings about your charges of "Wikistalking" if you drop them based on the evidence, with no apologies expected. 172 | Talk 19:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You refer to his comments as a "diatribe" and "spewage", yet this is not to be equated with Silverback's comments...I see them as equally insulting. If you want complete sanctity from rebuttal, the next time (I hope there isn't one) this happens, merely refrain from also adding tit for tat, mention that you feel insulted and if that doesn't stop it, then report it. You two need to avoid each other for awhile...and I will remind him of that. When looking at the conversation on Lulu's talk page, I didn't access the archives so all I saw was that page and I didn't see any imput from you, hence the wikistalking comment which was rude on my part and I do apologize. We all get so defensive when we deal with the written word, so assume I am merely trying to prevent a long and hostile arbitration between you two and leave it at that, okay.--MONGO 19:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond to the above upon my return. Thanks to both of you (still) for your patience. El_C 22:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Irving - amateur historian?

El C, there's an argument over at Holocaust denial over whether or not David Irving can be classified as an "amateur historian". As you are a historian yourself, I thought you might want to comment; you'll find the discussion [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Holocaust_denial#Amateur_historian.3F here]. Jayjg (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Am I a professional historian (open question!)...? I'll have a look at it when I get back, Jay. El_C 22:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Silverback

Hello again... You were quoted a few times in the new RfC... I hope you don't mind. Please take a look. BTW, I need a co-signer, if you are interested. 172 | Talk 17:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsed. El_C 22:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FuelWagon RfC

Hi. I wanted to bring to your attention that an RfC has been posted concerning User:FuelWagon. Please add any comments you believe are appropriate. Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 03:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Certified. El_C 22:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiholiday

Are you sure the cat will do the job. Take it w/ you or else some vandal would kick her a**! -- Svest 21:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)  The Guardian [reply]

Why assume it's a she?(!) Anyway, I hereby appoint you, Fayssal, as official  Guardian of my user and talk pages, and esp. kitties therein! Okay, I'm out the door. Ciao! El_C 22:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed it's a she as my monkey (my page's guardian) is a she! Enjoy your time. Ciao! Svest 22:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™ [reply]

I love monkeys, too! El_C 22:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Just wanted to let you know I'm thinking about you and hoping you're okay. I'd post you a pretty picture, but I have an image policeman on my sorry tail, so I daren't. But I'm imagining a golden beach in the fall at dusk, with the sun a giant ball low on the horizon, and the air full of the smells of an almost-forgotten summer and a lover long gone. Ok, bet that's cheered you up. File:Meh.gif. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you implying I'm not cheerful? Well, I never am anyway, so good call! I could always go for a nice sunset; and, as for love..er, I don't believe we are permitted to speak about love on Wikipedia, it makes for a very biased, nonneutral community. There was that whole wikilove thing during the more idealistic days; now we have very lengthy, slightly incomprehensible user conduct RfCs, and fairuse! But when did I ever care about the rules? (rhetorical: when it suits me). One of the heroes of the toiling masses, Che, has famously remarked that: Dejeme decirle a riesgo de parecer ridiculo, que el revolucionario verdadero esta guiado por grandes sentimentos de amor (Let me say, at the risk of seeming ridiculous, that the true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love). Words to live by, always. Love, El_C 22:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please help

You are a historian (as I hope to be), please do something here and offer whatever you can, thanks. Molotov (talk)
22:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I don't actually know that much about USian history. I did touch on the Nat Turner slave rebellion (also VA) when I was doing my postgraduate, but it was rather cursory. That said, I'll try to have a look at it when I get back. Best, El_C 22:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Away again?

What, away again? This is one long-distance marriage. :-( I hope all is well, take care. Bishonen | talk 23:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bish, I'm still somewhat around. Actually, I'm considering in becoming a full-time troll, haunting otherwise highly productive and respectable editors with revolutionary slogans. Down with imperialism! Long live armed struggle! Love, El_C 22:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment

El C, when I wrote my comment, there were no comments at all under the support section, but very many and very long comments on the oppose side. The situation is still similar. I didn't want to direct the comment specifically against you (and I feel sorry if it sounded that way), but against the general tendendy that I noted on that day, take for example a look at mel etitis comment (the one above you). English not being my native tongue, I can not always be sure if my wording doesn't offend. I didn't want to offend you. Kefalonia.

You did not offend me, not in the least, it's just that your tone ala hating vandals, too seemed a bit untactful. But, no, I didn't think it was a big deal, I just didn't want to have both of us commenting back and forth in the voting space, and as mentioned, am willing to continue the discussion on the article's talk page (please review my comments already placed there). Incidentally, to sign your username with a timestamp, type four tildes (~~~~) and wikicode will automagically convert it. Also, for external links: if you place square brakcets around a link, wiki will automagically convert it into a respective number (i.e. [htp://snuh.com] = [htp://snuh.com]), or if you place the link in a square bracket, then a space followed by something and enclose that, it will hyperlink the title accordingly (i.e. [htp://snuh.com snuh] = [htp://snuh.com snuh]). El_C 20:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you were misinformed

Thought of taking a look at your talk page and lo it seems anon editor has brainwashed you by complaining to you first. This was what caught my attention. I think we should first settle what the issue is with Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 that you thought was imbalanced? The fact that I mentioned that the Indian losses were already mentioned or that people cannot misquote as you tried to do? Your statement "Oh, never mind, then. My mistake" for anon's post on Rediff.com that ("It is probably equivalent to a blog site") also shows that you too didn't take the time to know what exactly rediff is about. It is not a forum/blog yet I managed to find a Pakistani source for the same news. 80% of my references are from Pakistani authors/neutral sources to avoid this very conflicts. If anything is added from Indian sources I make sure they are only news related and not opinions since news is always the same irrespective of the side. Yet you choose to read what is only selectively given to read without fully reading the background blaming me. This is clearly reflected in the talk page for his adminship.

I'm guessing you might not even have taken the time to see how many times he's violated the 3RR to curtail anything he finds as "objectionable material" and went on the offensive. Obviously you have been coloured by his story and anything I say can and will be viewed in a negative manner. Still I thought you should know that your comments were not fully thought through. :| Idleguy 14:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so easily brainwashed on a first-come first-serve basis, actually (rather, I try to do the indoctrination! :p). But, yes, I was pressed for time during that exchange and indeed didn't have a chance to look at it closely. Later, I found out this [htp://in.rediff.com in.rediff] piece had nothing to do with [htp://blogs.rediff.com blogs.rediff] area and I ended up admonishing AE recently about it being a [htp://www.ptinews.com/AboutPti%5COrganisation.htm PTI] wire service story. AE didn't lie, he made a mistake, missed the PTI note and mistook it for a blog post. Okay, so mistakes happen, and it isn't as if there aren't many editors to correct these, as is clearly the case here. As for your contributions to the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, I'm sorry, but they did not seem balanced at the time. You wrote a section on losses but it mentioned only those suffered by Pakistan. Reading that section in isolation, a reader can be mis-led to think that India didn't suffer any losses in the war. So it struck me as distorted presentation, which is why I added that bit about Indian losses in the interim which you objected to. As for violations to 3RR, I'm not sure what time you expect me to take (?), if you have pertinent diffs, by all means, submitt these. I do think that both yourself and AE are useful components in terms of the Indo-Pakistani rivalry here on Wikipedia, and that you two should be able to work together with your view complimenting each other rather than being in actual dispute indefinitely. Certainly, I myself take no side in that geopolitical dispute (it isn't relevant to my political orientation), but I do generally agree with AE that there is more pro-Indian than Pakistani editorial bias (if only as a product of sheer number of respective editors), which imbalances those articles. So that remains a concern. As well, I hold no personal allegiances to AE whatsoever, so in the case you're suggesting this, it is false. I'll continue to try my best in looking at any given item with objectivity — this was/is simply an unusual time for me (highly pressed), which is why I didn't pick on the rediff error right away. Finally, I thought that the dispute was resolved or in the midst of being resolved. And I do offer my apologies for that oversight (I am more thorough ordinarily, or so I hope!). But, as for his RfA and Islamophobic tendencies therein, I stand by all my comments, which, at the event though, were not directed against yourself. And I still maintain that your questions were more suitable as comments elsewhere than additional standard questions. El_C 20:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've explained in detail (more than I expected), I must say that you are actually a pretty nice chap. My apologies extended to for trying to paint you otherwise. Also thanx for your initial offer for my adminiship (later rescinded) but I have no intention of being an admin, atleast in the near future. The issue with personal attacks on SlimVirgin was about her misusing fair use tag for almost every photo uploaded by her and so it did get me bothered, especially after she tried to remove the {imagevio} tag and the related listing. Right now it's settled I think. You might have noted that I do sound a bit harsh (even accused of personal attacks) at times, but that's probably because I am concerned about Wikipedia. I don't really intend to insult/abuse; actually when I use similar lines in person with my gestures (I am good at mimicry) most take it jovially however it has the reverse effect in the writen language. :( I am working to reduce the sarcastic tone when I write but it just slips through. Regarding Pakistan related articles, yes it looks lopsided in a few articles and so it seems that the Indian view is reflected but in ones I'm involved with I take care to use a lot of Pakistan sources to negate this. Operation Gibraltar created by me is an example using exclusively Pakistani sources to ensure factual accuracy without compromising fairness - to the extent I didn't even use a single Indian source! I will continue to improve as per your suggestions. Thanx for taking your time to write a detailed follow up and Cheers.

P.S: Can you reduce the size of the images used in talk pages a bit since some might access the net on a slower connection. :) Idleguy 04:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Thanks for the explanation and for the kind words. The thing with fairuse is that for a long while the policy was ill-defined (now it's just ill!), so many of us relied on it extensively. I still do, there aren't enough tags (for ex., the Hebrew Wikipedia has an IDF-specific fairuse tag, en dosen't). Anyway, I'm glad that dispute was resolved; I'm glad you took my comments constructively; I'm pleased to see you being introspective; and to hear that you attempt to be careful with providing balanced presentation and sources. I hope to look into those articles soon. Lastly, I'm confident that whatever issues you and AE may have, they are resolvable and that such a resolution would prove in everyone's best interests. If such issues exist and/or arise, I am hopeful I could play a positive role in bringing peace. So neither yourself nor AE should hesitate to forward such concerns here. Hmm, and I'm not quite prepared to compromise on the image sizes in this talk page, but am always willing to shift the discussion elsewhere if bandwidth is an issue. Valid point though —I'm glad you haven't clicked on my archives, or should I say, archive(!)— perhaps I should create low-bandwidth pages for those users. But I digress. Thanks again! :) El_C 04:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dvyost RfA thanks

Thanks for your support on my RfA! Rest assured that I'll do my best to wield the mop with honor and righteousness. Cheers! --Dave 14:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no! I've been admiring your work from a distance for some time now. Keep up the good work! El_C 17:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And double thanks for this beautiful barnstar! I'll sport it with pride. --Dvyost 19:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You more than deserve it! And I scarcely issue awards. :) El_C 16:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFA for Johntex

Hello, I want to thank you for your support of my RfA. I'm looking forward to using the new tools in the fight against vandalism. I hope I see you around Wikipedia soon. Best, Johntex\talk 00:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. El_C 11:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA (Jeffrey O. Gustafson)

Success!!! Thanks for your support! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! El_C 08:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from Pamri

Hi, Thanks a ton for voting at my RFA. I am now a wikipedia administrator. I hope I can keep your trust. Thanks again. --Pamri • Talk • Reply 16:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. All the best, El_C 12:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks (Physchim62)

Thank-you for expressing your confidence in me at my recent Request for Adminship. The final result was 40/0/0, and my "superpowers" have now been activated. I look forward to helping out with the development of the encyclopedia. Physchim62 (talk · contribs)
Glad to have you; that's a solid vote confidence. Best, El_C 12:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting my RfA (Alabamaboy)

I know I've been slow in saying this, but thanks for supporting my request for adminship. It was an honor to be both nominated and approved as an admin. If there is ever any adminish (is that a word :-) things you need help with, please let me know. --Alabamaboy 16:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fer sure; likewise, Alabamaboy. :) El_C 03:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (Ramallite)

I just wanted to say a word of thanks for your support of my RfA and for your attempts at rebuffing some of the criticism. I greatly appreciate it! תודה רבה Ramallite (talk) 03:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

!בבקשה It certainly proved eventful. ;) El_C 10:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU! (Mysekurity)

I'm sorry you're not entertaining callers at the moment, but I'd just like to stress how thankful I am that you voted in my RfA. I consider you an excellent user, and I'm sorry for whatever's bothering you at the moment, but I'd like to say thanks a bunch. I will wield the mop the best way I know how, and would gladly help with any issues you have; just stop by my talk page. Thanks again, [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 04:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and well done. Yeah, it's been a rough one; will let you know. Congrats again! El_C 10:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Foreigners"

Your vote is respected and I will learn from your kind words. I as merely having a playful game with Rama et al, and I see now that everyone thinks I am some bigot or worse even. The foreigners leftist POV commentary and the associated edits were done as a joke, or throwback to when Rama and I used to have some heated battles in the George W Bush article back in January and February of 2005. An admin, certainly shouldn't try to push another persons buttons though and my edit as just plain dumb. I don't think that Rama thought I was joking either and it appears that no one else did then or now. I just want to make it clear that I am just an ugly american and Rama is French I believe, so it was merely a crummy attempt at humor. Regardless of the outcome of my RfA, I will continue to work hard on the WikiProject Protected Areas and the associated parks and regions. If I may make a suggestion, go to the Cirque of the Towers someday if you are able to. I guarantee that you won't regret it. See you around.--MONGO 07:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And what a (tactful) joke! WY is one of the states I've yet to visit, but I heard many good things nature-wise. Will note for future references. Thanks! El_C 08:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you must go to Wyoming...it is absolutely magical at times. In Jackson Hole in late May or June, the smell of the sage with the fir and spruce is intoxicating. I wasn't asking you to reconsider, yet appreciate that you have. I am just upset that so many have misunderstood my edits as being indicative of some sort of bigotry to those outside the U.S. My girlfriend is from Croatia anyway! My ex was Canadian and I have friends from the Sudan, the U.K. and from Israel. I have to be a lot more careful with my choice of words.MONGO 08:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Beartooth Lake pic on Shoshone National Forest certainly looks magical, it's also nearly half the size of Israel, also very magical and mountainy. Yes, I very much hope to be afforded the opportunity to do so. I know you didn't ask me to reconsider, otherwise I would'nt have reconsidered, but regardless, you're welcome. :) The lesson you've correctly drawn from this is that, with text, one has to be particularly precise and cautious, weighing words wisely. Regards, El_C 09:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Turnaround

That was nice of you to 180 your vote and I appreciate it. I certainly wasn't expecting that and as I have said, I'll do my best to not let anyone down regardless of the outcome. Thanks again! MONGO 14:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nor did I expect it. I started feeling disturbed and sober and ended... Yeah! El_C 14:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO RfA

Those right-wing corporate pigs that run Wikipedia finally did the right thing and promoted a left wing-right wing/confused person like me to adminship:=)! I am deeply appreciative that you have entrusted me, after voting oppose initially, with this new "power". I'll do everything I can to ensure you know you made the right choice. I'll be starting slow, with rollback and speeding nonsense and I am heavily involved in WikiProject protected areas as well...with my latest creation being Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge...which I am still going to expand. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you! Thanks again my friend!--MONGO 09:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, compadre. Congrats! What a ride. :) If you need any help or tips, don't hesitate. Best, El_C 11:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GraemeL's RFA

Hi El C,

I am now an administrator and would like to thank you for your support on my RfA. I was very surprised at the number of votes and amount of and kind comments that I gathered. Please don't hesitate to contact me if I mess up in the use of my new powers. --GraemeL (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fer sure. Well done. El_C 02:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Miborovsky's RfA

Hello there El C/generic sub-page,

Thank you for supporting me on my RfA. It's Thanksgiving Day, too... so once again a big thank you! Have an awesome weekend! (If you celebrate Thanksgiving, that is.) I will do all I can for Wikipedia, to protect it from the alien scum of the universe... I mean, uh, from Willy on Wheels and Wikipedia is Communism!

-- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 06:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. Congrats and happy thanksgiving, Hmib. :) Best, El_C 07:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks (Jkelly)

I hope that I am not disturbing your page layout by editing below the fractal. Oops I'd like to thank you for your support of my RfA. As I wrote, I was looking forward to feedback from the community, and I would like to let you know that you should please feel free to leave any further feedback for me you may have for me in the future at my Talk page. Thanks again. Jkelly 09:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will do; well done. El_C 04:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers (Steve block)

I can now block, for which I must say thank you to you for your support. Steve block talk 10:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May the block be with you. Congrats! :) El_C 04:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Black RfA

Thank you very much for your support of my RfA. Thanks, in part, to you, I am now an Administrator, and I pledge to use my newfound powers for good rather than evil. Thanks again!--Sean|Black 07:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are actually the first to place an RfA note in the correct section (to the best of my recollection), that's an encouraging sign. :) El_C 07:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote on RfA:TheParanoidOne [sucked]

On Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TheParanoidOne, your vote appears to be a support vote, yet it is in the oppose section. I don't know if this is part of the joke that your vote text implies, or was a mistake, but perhaps you should clarify it so the Bureaucrat who tabulates the votes will be certain of your intent --Rogerd 00:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. My jokes are generally lame, but not that lame, I would hope. El_C 01:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another guy on your thanks list

Thanks. WikiThanks.
Thanks. WikiThanks.
I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibutt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (Enochlau)

I would like to thank you for your support of my recent successful RfA. If you have any further comments or feedback for me, my door's open - don't hesistate to drop a note on my talk page. Happy editing! Enochlau 11:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fer sure; glad to have you! Congrats! Best, El_C 00:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! (Hamster Sandwich)

El C, I havn't had any corespondance with you till this time, but I have seen your work, and I know you are a great benifit to Wikipedia. Thus, it gave me great pleasure to have your support at my RfA. Whichever way it goes, I do appreciate your support. Thanks! Hamster Sandwich 04:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the kind words. 'Twas entirely my pleasure. Best, El_C 00:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you (Bunchofgrapes)

Hi El C,

Thanks for voting to support my RfA. I wasn't expecting an unopposed promotion (I thought I'd hit some die-hard edit-counters at least) and I'm touched by the trust shown in me. I'll try my best to continue to earn that trust. But first, I'll have to work on not sounding like a politician; that last sentence was awful. Oh well. Let me know when I screw something up with the shiny new buttons. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where are them elecetion promises? Oh, there they are. :) Well done. El_C 00:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shreshth91's RfA

Hello El C,

I just wanted to thank you for supporting me on my RfA. It finally closed with a tally of 22/0/0. I hope I can live up to the expectations of the entire community. If you ever need anything, please just let me know. Cheers!--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 00:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Congrats. El_C 01:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFA for TheParanoidOne

Hello El C. Thanks for the vote of confidence in my RFA (despite the [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FTheParanoidOne&diff=29542025&oldid=29499922 confusing yet amusing mistake] ). I have now officially received the badge, so I shall try my best to be a good administrator. Thanks again. --TheParanoidOne 21:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks! (SCZenz)

Now that my RfA is fully and officially completed, I want to thank you for your support. I appreciate your confidence that I can do the job. -- SCZenz 18:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fer sure; good luck. El_C 12:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mindmatrix scam adminship

I have recently been granted greater access to your systems, and can begin the process of salvaging the sensitive information from my politically unstable land, as I promised. Please accept this loonie as a token of faith that I will conduct myself as required to complete our transaction. Thank you for your support. Mindmatrix 20:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. I would have also accepted a Toonie (my vote may be cheap, but that is, in fact, the end of the sentence!). El_C 12:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an admin now!!

Thanks a ton for your support on my rfa, the final tally was 50-0-0; I'll try and live up to the expectations of you and others and do my best in maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia. --Gurubrahma 14:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well done; congrats! El_C 14:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Awolf002 RfA

Thank you very much for your support for my RfA. I will do everything I can to justify your trust in me. Awolf002 03:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure; sounds good. El_C 10:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

El C, thanks for your support on my RfA. The final count was 46/0/0. I hope I'll live up to your faith in me in my use of the mop and bucket. Please accept this wikithanks as a token of my gratitude ;) --bainer (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, congrats. El_C 10:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My failed RFA :)

Dear El C,

I would like to thank you for supporting me on my RfA. Even though it failed with a with the final tally of 55/22/6, I want to thank you anyways. I don't want to be one a admin anymore until I reach 10,000 edits now that it's over with. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 03:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, you're welcome. El_C 10:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet Another RFA Thank You Note to clutter up your talk page... (Extreme Unction)

El C:

Just wanted to drop you a note to say thanks for supporting me in my recent RFA. You were the first person to ever leave me a note (excluding {{welcome}}) on my talk page, regarding my creation of {{cat-stub}}. And, as Darth Vader said, the circle is now complete. My RFA squeaked by with a 46/13/2 vote, and I am now an admin. I will endeavor to live up to your expectations.

All the best.
→ Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 22:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it you were the one who created cat-stub! Nice, I actually forgot it was you. Anyway, good stuff & congrats! Say, if you have a moment, I could use a bit of help with the lead paragraph for the Costa Rica article. Best Regards, El_C 22:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ann's RfA

Hi, ElC! I want to thank you for voting to support me in my RfA. I know I'm very late thanking you, but I've been a bit caught up with college work. I hope I'll live up to the expectations of those who voted for me. I look forward to working with you as a fellow admin. Thanks again. Cheers. AnnH (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Better late than later. ;) My pleasure. El_C 10:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aer eph ayeh (Lbmixpro)

My adminship request was successful!
Thank you
Thank you
Thank you so much for your support of my RfA. The results of the request was 18/0/1. With the help of your support vote, I am now a bona-fide Wikipedia sysop/admin. I pledge to use my newfound powers for the good of Wikipedia and its editors. If you have anything to tell me, dont hesitate to "speak on it"!. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!>

You're welcome; congrats.

Thanks for your support on my RfA! (Tomer)

Hey El C/generic sub-page! Thanks for your support on my RfA. The final outcome was (57/4/3), so I am now an administrator. If you need help, have a question, or just want to chat (or if I get out of line!), please don't hesitate to let me know! Again, thanks, and enjoy the free drugs! :D

Tomertalk

Finally, free drugs! :) El_C 10:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412's RfA

El C, thanks for your support of my RfA - I'll do my best as an admin to help the reality of Wikipedia live up to the dream! BD2412 T 16:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you broke some sort of record there! P.S. please change your sig back to green. TIA! El_C 09:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orioane's RfA

Hey El C/generic sub-page! Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. To my amazement there were no negative or neutral votes and the result was (28/0/0). I am now an administrator so I'll try and do my best in this new position. I'll be happy to answer any comments or requests from you. Thanks one more time, Mihai -talk 20:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure; well done. El_C 09:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alhutch's RfA

Dear El C,

I'm an administrator, and I've got you to thank for it! Thanks to your support, my RfA passed 25/0. Please don't hesitate to contact me if I can help you with anything. See you around the wiki, :-) Alhutch 06:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome; good stuff. El_C 09:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SoLando's RFA

Hi El C, thank you for voting in support of my RFA; the result was (28-0-0 ). I hope that I am able to fulfil the expectations of an admin without losing my working class Scouse appeal ;-). If you see me mess up anywhere, have any concerns (be it for my musical taste or edits), please don't hesitate to tell me! Take care. SoLando (Talk) 10:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will do; congrats. El_C 10:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! (CLW)

A Jaffa Cake for you from CLW!

Many thanks for your support during my RfA – following a 30/0/0 vote I’ve now been made an admin. Do have a Jaffa Cake! Cheers, CLW 14:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, free cake! :) El_C 22:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My recent rfa

Dear El C, I wanted to thank you for your support during my recent RfA. :)

--Syrthiss 22:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome; well done. El_C 22:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! (Mo0)

Thanks for voting on my RfA! The final result was (36/1/2), so I'm now an administrator! Your picture at the top of this page matches my colorscheme. (Sorry, I'm running out of brain juice) Mo0[talk] 06:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay, think of how many RfA thank you responses I have to come up with... Congrats! Best, El_C 11:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thanks for voting on my RfA! The final result was (36/1/1), so I'm now an administrator! Sadly, I have run out of brainjuice as well. (Mmmmm, brainjuice)Shanel 20:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You and me both! Congrats! El_C 12:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another RFA thanks

Hi El C. Thanks for your support on my recent RFA. The request was successful, with a final tally of 33/0/0. I'm delighted that you decided to support it and I hope that I can live up to your expectations. Leithp (talk) 10:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you will; well done. El_C 12:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freakofnurture

Gracias, my RFA has passed, thanks to the support of you and 63 others. Might want to archive your talk page soon. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:58, Dec. 17, 2005

Never! Congrats, though. :) El_C 12:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ianbrown's RfA

Thanks for voting in my recent RfA. I was overwhelmed at the turnout and comments received. Ian ≡ talk 07:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet juice! El_C 07:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA (SWD316)

Thank you!
Thank you!
Hi El C, I thank you for your support on my recent RFA. Although I did not make admin, I'm very happy you decided to support me. I hope that I'll live up to your expectations in the future as well. — Moe ε 05:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you will; don't be discouraged. Regards, El_C 05:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another wonderful thank you note regarding your kind vote on my RfA (Joe Beaudoin Jr.)

Thank you for your support on my successful RfA. I appreciate the support and hope that I can be of assistance to this Wikipedia and my fellow Wikipedians! Happy Holidays to you and yours! -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 04:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Congrats and happy holidays! El_C 04:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

malo's RfA

Thank you!
Thank you!
El C, thanks for your support on my RFA. I was rather suprised at the overwhelming support I received. Thank you for your confidence in me. I hope that I'll live up to your expectations in the future as well. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 05:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nice; congrats. El_C 05:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you (I'd like to say hi to my mom)

Thank you for your support of my Rfa, El C. I am happy to announce that I have successfully been voted an administrator, and wish to say that I will work harder to make Wikipedia a more reliable source of information. I apologize if this seems impersonal but it is past my bedtime. Do you even read these anymore? Croat Canuck 06:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Read what? Is there an echo here? ;) All the best to you and your mom. El_C 03:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mon beau RfA

Sadly, I am too poor to afford shiny colored boxes and pictures. Nevertheless... Thanks for supporting my RfA. The final tally was a smashing 22/4/1. Deltabeignet 23:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No box needed; congrats! El_C 03:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Hey El C! Thanks for your support on my RfA. The final outcome was an unanimous (45/0/0), so I am now an administrator. If you need help, or have a question, please don't hesitate to let me know! Again, thanks! :D --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, likewise; well done. El_C 03:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Izehar's RfA

Hi El C,

I would like to thank you for your kind support on my RfA. I'll do my best to be a good administrator. If you need anything or if I ever do something I shouldn't have, please, don't hesitate to drop me a line. Izehar 16:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nice; congrats. El_C 22:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA [and orange box!]

Hi Jefe! Thank you for your kind support on my RfA. -- Szvest 17:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™[reply]

My pleasaure, compadre; your box is orange, btw! :) El_C 22:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for supporting my successful RfA! Your trust means a great deal to me, and I promise to try my hardest to serve the community. —David Levy 06:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. Now we can attend to the question of who is more notable, David Levy the astronomer or David Levy the Israeli politician. ;) El_C 01:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks from Deathphoenix

Hi El C (El Cid?),

I just wanted to thank you for supporting me in my RfA. To tell you the truth, I was surprised by all the support I've gotten. I never saw myself as more than an occasional Wiki-hobbyist.

My wife sends her curses, as Wikipedia will likely suck up more of my time. She jokingly (I think) said she was tempted to log on to Wikipedia just to vote Oppose and let everyone know that she didn't want her husband to be an admin.

I'll make sure your trust in me is founded. --Deathphoenix 15:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Nope, just El_C. :) Congrats. El_C 01:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Thank you for your support in my request for adminship. I was promoted with a final tally of 31/1/1. Please don't hesitate to contact me if there is anything I can assist. --BorgQueen 22:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats; will do.

My RfA

Hi El C, now that I'm an administrator, I just wanted to thank you for your support on my RfA. Although I think this should be (and probably will be) moved into your RfA section, I'll just leave it here so that you can find it easily. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, glad to have you

Thanks

Hello El C/generic sub-page,

I wish to thank you for your vote on my RfA. It has passed with a final tally of 59/0/0. If I can ever help with anything or if you have any comments about my actions as an admin, please let me know! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 04:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure, will do; congrats! El_C 07:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your RFA support

Hi El C/generic sub-page! I've just come back from a very refreshing wikibreak, so here is a belated thanks for your support in my successful RFA. It seems you're quite used to these, so I'll just leave on a happy new year (if that's your kind of thing) and a חנוכה שמח (if that's your kind of thing)! jnothman talk 17:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(: !חנוכה שמח El_C 11:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a thank you for your support

Greetings El C,
I wish to offer my gratitude for supporting me on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with the final tally of 65/4/3. Although you seem disheartened at my disdain for some of Marx's writings, rest assured that I fight for economic egalitarianism just as you do. If you would ever desire my assistance in anything, or wish to give me feedback on any actions I take, feel free to let me know. Cheers! Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 09:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your deviationism we be tolerated... for now! Congrats! :) El_C 11:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

Thanks for the (unintentional, on your part) heads up on Stevertigo's RFA. Didn't realise Haukurth was up for adminship. I might forgive Steve what he said this summer, but H's comments displayed very poor judgement, and hey, RFA's are about whether you think you can trust a person. Guettarda 04:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True; good point. You're welcome! El_C 04:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Muslim Guild

I thought you might be interested in joining The Muslim Guild.--JuanMuslim 06:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. No time at present I'm afraid, but will look into it soon. Regards, El_C 22:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gibraltarian

Hi Jefe. I am sorry to bother but I witness a very annoying behaviour by a user called Gibraltarian. I believe you already know the user as he used to walk around Spain. Why I say annoying (as I am not involved in the edit warring there - neither anywhere else!) is because he already violated the 3R plus that he uses unacceptable language against his opponents in the edit summary while he never uses something called the talk page. Spoiler is found here [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spain&curid=26667&action=history]. Cheers -- Svest 19:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™[reply]

Greetings. :) I'm afraid I'm not yet back to the extent of dealing with this issue effectively; but hopefuly I will be soon (next week). In the mean time, perhaps you should issue a notice on WP:ANI if things don't improve through dialogue. Let me know. Regards, El_C 22:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish South African history

Hi: Please feel free to add material to the sparse article Jewish South African history. Thanks. IZAK 10:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'll try to have a look at it next week when hopefuly I'll have more time. Regards, El_C 22:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rhodesia (disambiguation) Page

Hi there. I have given the Rhodesia (disambiguation) page an overhaul in order to make it more consistent with the guidelines for disambiguation pages and to make the presentation more consistent as well. I figured it would be a five-minute job, but... you know how these things go. :) I have corrected a couple of dates that I am sure were incorrect -- e.g., you had Northern Rhodesia existing until 1963, but if Zambia didn't come into being until October 24, 1964, there's an unaccountable gap there. If I have not taken something into account, please let me know.

However, the main reason for writing is to ask for your help in sorting out some other dates, as I'd rather clear them up between us than have us operating at cross purposes. First I'll start with the good news: all of the dates in the Southern Rhodesia / Rhodesia / Zimbabwe Rhodesia / Zimbabwe section are consistent within that section. (Phew!) But some of the dates in the Northern Rhodesia / Zambia section are inconsistent and multiple dates between the two section are inconsistent.

With respect to Northern Rhodesia, I'm confused about anything before 1911. First, the first two items overlap, and the third item doesn't make sense when compared against the way you originally presented all of the rest of the information -- i.e., who governed North West Rhodesia and North East Rhodesia between 1900 and 1911?

Then there's date consistency between Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia. According to the second item under Northern Rhodesia / Zambia, the Rhodesia protectorate lasted from 1895 to 1900 (second item), but according to the information under Southern Rhodesia / Rhodesia / Zimbabwe Rhodesia / Zimbabwe it lasted from 1895 to 1901 (third item).

I guess what it boils down to is the following:

  1. Clarifying the information for Northern Rhodesia before 1911,
  2. Clarifying the overlap between BSAC-administered North Zambezia and the Rhodesian protectorate,
  3. Clarifying the nature of the northern (small "n") Rhodesian entity after the Rhodesian protectorate and before Northern (capital "N") Rhodesia in 1911, and
  4. Clarifying when the Rhodesian protectorate ended.

Thanks very much!

--Craig 14:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I only glanced at your changes; I don't have a lot of time to spare at present. Hopefuly I'll be able to attend to it next week. But on the surface, your changes and questions seem useful and in need of attention. I wrote that piece in 10 minutes or so, but at the time I was doing a lot of that reserach myself elsewhere, so it was fresh in my mind. The pre-1911 period has always been a gap because I've never researched it closely. For now, please have a look at my year-old draft at the top of the page for Southern Rhodesia and see if you can find anything useful in the narrative or reference section (though there is the gap in the early days which is about time was resolved). For Northern Rhodesia (which I am far less versed in), you could refer to [htp://tinyu.com/bg7mp Constitutional Development in Northern Rhodesia, 1890s-1964]. Otherwise, I will try to get back to you as soon as I can. Thank you again for all your work. I am looking forward to further collaboration with you in the near future! Regards, El_C 22:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I wasn't actually expecting a reply until next month, considering you are supposed to be gone until the end of the month. :) If you don't mind, I'm actually going to copy this discussion over to the Talk:Rhodesia (disambiguation) page, as that would seem to be a better forum where other people might notice the discussion and join in. As for your article on Southern Rhodesia -- I have come across it before and seen your comments on other Rhodesia-related talk pages. It does look good and extensive and I will try and contribute if/where I can. --Craig (t|c) 10:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was supposed to be back last week, the dates keep getting extended unfortunately, but I've been increasingly lurking. :) Yes, please do anything you can with the draft and/or its contents (long overdue since anyone, myself included, has touched it). Anyway, as for the disambig. page, sounds good, I will be joining you there soon! Thank you. :) El_C 17:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Voluntary Wikipedia Questionnaire

My name is Oliver Metz. I am a student at Brent International School, Manila, an International school located in the Philippines. I am doing my last year of school (12th Grade) and I am writing a research paper (about 4000 words) on Wikipedia in ITGS (Information Technology in a Global Society). Of 10 randomly picked people you have been chosen as one. If you are willing and have the time to answer a few questions I would be grateful if you could fill out a short questionnaire of 6 questions.

Some Information about my essay:

My essay topic is about the freedom to collaborate and the usage of the Internet as a tool to do so. I will analyze topics such as Altruism versus Egoism as well as the Product Wikipedia itself.

My Thesis Statement: The Internet is not only a medium for communication, information and marketing but also a place for altruism, collaboration and cooperation. Wikipedia is the product of a voluntary collaborative effort that defies commonly held beliefs about human nature.

If you have any further questions or requests you would like to pose before filling out the questionnaire I'd gladly answer them.

you can write to: taklung@gmx.net (I check this e-mail address regularly)

Questionnaire:

Please answer the following questions by either inserting the answers or sending them to me via e-mail. (*are not necessarily required).

Name*: Age*: Nationality*:

1. How long have you been contributing to Wikipedia?

A. Since Aug., 2004. El_C 06:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2. Have you or are you planning to donate money to the Wikipedia cause?

A. I expecet Wikipedia to donate money to my cause! :) El_C 06:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3. When you first heard of Wikipedia and the concepts it is based on, what did you think about it and did you believe it could work? What do you think now?

A. It sounded a bit sketchy and too anarchical (in some respects, it still is), but now that I realize indvidiual diffs (and in the future, possibly versions) can be cited, I can appreciate the level of reliability of information that can be offered by Wikipedia, even at this stage. And it has been a stage of growth (from the top 100 site in the world 3 months or so ago, to the top 50!). Finally, I think Wikipedia (and the name and form may change in the future) will be with humanity, in a sense, indefinitely, including after many crucial contradictions between human beings, how they relate to each other and to nature, have been negated & resolved. As an impetus for greater ideals, its tone, scope and quality of contributions/contributors will flourish and reflect these changes accordingly. El_C 06:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4. Why do you think people contribute to Wikipedia? With it being voluntary what interests do/did you follow when contributing to Wikipedia?

A. I think there are many reasons, some more noble and altruistic than others. I started with a focus on certain areas of my specialization that were non-existent or barely existing. Now, however, I contribute to a wide veriety of articles: sciences and religions, countries and cities, historical events and persons, wars and conflicts, current news items, cats, and so on. Too many to try to classify in a breath. My watchlist contains many thousands of articles. El_C 06:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

5. Do you think that Wikipedia appeals to Altruism? If yes, do you think such a thing can exist in our society in which greed and consumption apparently drive the world?

A. It does appeal to it, I think, but also to its opposite (and, subjectively, which is which depends on one's vantage point). At the event, I have a grand vision for human society and the greatest confidence it will overcome its contradictions (hopefuly, in our lifetime!). It is difficult to communicate such notions to people in the First World, though (and most Wikipedia contributors are from the 1st World), because generally its inhabitants (many of whom should be seen, globally, as a labour aristocracy) have been so heavily indoctrinated with ideas and ideals that work to promote and enhance imperialism and keep the masses enslaved to the imperialists' destructive and brutal rule over our planet. To my knowledge, I am the only administrator who adopts this anti-imperialist, revolutionary stance. El_C 06:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

6. What do you think makes Wikipedia most beneficial to society?

A. It attempts to provide rationally-organized information on all possible notable subjects for free. Which is as it should be — knowledge should be free. And to a large measure, especially on less politically-charged topics, I think it suceeds, though there is still much work to be done, many topics to create and expand on, also in other languages (I've been inter-wikiing articles to-and-fro the Hebrew one, for ex., an account of which can be found here). El_C 06:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments*:

C. I've met some wonderful people here and developed meaningful friendships (it's unlikely I'd still be here otherwise), and I've been inspired & educated by many others. Finally, I'd like to thank my cat! El_C 06:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With kind regards,

Oliver Metz

Greetings, Oliver. My answers are indented and signed above. All the best to you with the paper. Any additional help I can offer, please don't hesitate to contact me here or via [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Emailuser/El_C email]. Regards, El_C 06:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer, will help me a lot! --TakLung 09:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to be of service. :) all the best, El_C 11:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions for articles on Jews

As there is a great deal of inconsistency in the naming of articles about Jews, I have proposed that they be made consistent. I'd appreciate it if you could commment on this here: Template_talk:Jew#Name_of_articles_on_Jews. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 07:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into it soon, Jay. Promise. Regards, El_C 16:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Grr. I hope. We'll see. El_C 11:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider weighing in?

Jayjg has been cantly restoring a statement on the Golan Heights having Israel's only ski resort at the Israeli-occupied territories article. You are aware of the fuss he made about how references to anything as trivial as water resources don't belong in that article. My relationship with Jay is such that there is no point in my trying to discuss anything with him, so would you leave him a message at [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jayjg#Put_the_ski_resort_crap_in_the_Israeli-occupied_territories_article_one_more_time_... his talk page] requesting that he refrain from putting information he apparently considers "crap" back into the article? If he continues to misbehave, your action would complete a step in my formal complaint against him. Marsden 14:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will weigh in soon; I'm having unexpected difficulties on various key fronts and varying severites, sorry. Yes, the water issues needs to be mentioned, as I already commented (now archived) it's important that it does. But as to what extent, balanced with what, or within the context of (linking to) which article, those are all matters that are yet to be discussed. I'm confident Jay is open to reason on these questions and am hopeful that you will end up modifying your claims of belligerant conduct. I hope that both of you will opt to conduct yoursleves with utmost moderation until a comprehensive solution can be sketched (rather then expending energy needlessly on somewhat-detached increments of it). Hope that makes sense; I'm wriring in haste. Regards, El_C 16:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the highly dissapointing reoccurence of personal attacks and the acrimonious exchanges I briefly glanced at (& possibly there are others I missed), I find it unlikely I will choose to weigh in in the near future. Far too much conflict and negative energy for me at this time. El_C 11:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Assumptions

See also: TShilo12/RFC/Amalekite El_C 18:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote on Haukurth's RfAr that, "As for your assumptiveness regarding what I was/am driven by ("hating correctly," and so on; not to mention assumptiveness that I even hate, to begin with!), that reflects poorly on you, I challenge."

I thought I'd move this here. While I said I didn't think it worth pursuing this further, I dislike bearing people animosity and having them bear it towards me. Earlier on Haukurth's RfAr, I was testy and rude, for which I apologise. In truth, I really don't understand what you are driven by, and, in particular, I do not understand why you got so upset about our position on Amalekite. However, most of my anger towards what you've said in the past is because you have also made assumptions about motivations, assumptions that, to me, seem very unfair and unwarranted. You had concluded, for whatever reason, that Amalekite advocates had some sort of "discreditable agenda" and were acting "as far from good faith as is imaginable". You expressed your "revulsion". Think about it — that's actually an incredibly strong thing to have written. Sure, maybe you could have told us that we should have been more supportive of and sensitive to our fellow Wikipedians, or that we had overlooked the gravity of Amalekite's attack on certain Wikipedians, but that we were "as far from good faith as is imaginable"...? It is quite hard to interact amicably with someone who believes such a thing about you, and who, moreover, then goes on to say that it is true "ten-fold". If you argued that myself and others were insensitive, then I also challenge you that your remarks on this have also been insensitive.

I don't know how I could convince you, and I guess it doesn't matter much either way, but I will simply assert that I advocated for Amalekite because I thought he deserved to be treated fairly according to our banning rules, just like anyone else. My agenda and motivation was fairness, and I acted in good faith according to a principle that I hold; namely, that we shouldn't discriminate against someone simply because of their beliefs (regardless of how offensive those beliefs are).

Anyway, I would hope we could bury the hatchet and move on to something more interesting (like writing encyclopedia articles and all that). — Matt Crypto 22:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FWareware&diff=11487911&oldid=11487862 flipside] more closely, you will see that I support that notion of fairness. But, I'm sorry, I could no longer assume goodfaith after all the circularities I witnessed on the mailing list, ones which repeated the same arguments but failed to respond to the counter-arguments. As for myself being (counter-)insensitive, of course. But I don't see how I could have accurately communicated that any less forcefuly, nor gone into lengthy elaborations with my protest after all that had already been said on wikien-l. As I said then, I think the principles got mixed —and unfortunately irrationally entrenched, too— with the specifics of the case. It's highly unlikely I will compromise on that point, but I could reiterate and elaborate why that is further, if there is interest. Sure, I'm willing to let the whole thing go; I wasn't even going to comment on his RfA, [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FStevertigo&diff=26684761&oldid=26684009 initially]. El_C 23:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Turning point

Had MCrypto replied via email, or made a conciliatory statement such as we'll have to agree to disagree, etc., I have no doubt that Haukurth would have won the RfA. His comment and the exchange that followed bellow, I maintain, speaks volumes as to the insensitivity I alluded to. El_C 00:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment above appears to be that, "you guys read our arguments -- and nobody who read our arguments could fail to be convinced -- so therefore if you persist in opposing our position you must be arguing in bad faith for some nefarious reason". You seem to be saying that we weren't convinced by the mailing-list arguments, and that the only possible explanation for this was that we secretly had diabolical intentions to debate just for the sake of it and stir up trouble. There are, however, plenty of alternative explanations, and it's unclear why you settled on your particular conclusion. For example, maybe we genuinely were just not convinced by the arguments provided by your side — you seem to have discounted that possiblity out of hand. Or maybe we didn't understand your arguments. You point out circularities in our reasoning — maybe we're just stupid. Maybe we were naive in our evaluation of Amalekite. You point out that we didn't address your arguments properly; maybe we are just bad debaters. There's plenty of explanations, but you jumped to just one conclusion — the wrong one, as it happens. Moreover, when you jumped to that wrong conclusion, you expressed it in an very strongly-worded personal attack, and that's quite likely done more damage to Wikipedia and offense to users in good-standing than Amalekite himself ever did. — Matt Crypto 13:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You reap what you sow. Again, assumptive – about myself not having taken those (& other) considerations into account with my conclusion: from principles to an unprincipled point. And I didn't say secrtely anything (on the contrary, I qualified it in rather heterogeneous terms, in fact). No Jewish editor should have to defend editorial work to —and engage in discussions on these with— editors who profess that they should be killed for genetic reasons. Not to mention after having made it well-known in holding that position and attempted to organize the like-minded via a hit list (real risk) at worse, and (most definitely) a hate list, at best. If that's respecting policy and act[ing] in good faith — I'm out. P.S. Please try your best in aiming at utmost concision. El_C 15:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Matt Crypto's (substantive answer) began with two key words: [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FHaukurth&diff=26985911&oldid=26985284 why not]? El_C 11:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Maybe I can chime in here too. I think that extended mailing list exchanges tend towards circularity. New people join the discussion and maybe only read the newest letters. Then they miss some of the background that had been established already and may come up with arguments that, one feels, have been countered already. It can be tiring but it's important to keep assuming good faith. I think that the thought comes especially easily to one that the other side is repeating themselves without taking one's own detailed and eloquent counterarguments into account. During the debate on User:Amalekite I personally felt that those in favor of the ban were repeating the same things without properly addressing what the rest of us were saying. Your perceptions were, it seems, exactly reversed. This is natural. It doesn't mean anyone was acting in bad faith. Assuming so is not helpful. Openly declaring one's revulsion with other people is also not helpful. There is no reason to accurately communicate such feelings and much reason to keep them to oneself. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 07:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is and was a reason there; your equatations seem subjective, disproportion to the situation, & thereby, self-serving. If that was anything resembling a natural debate, then obviously Wikipedia isn't the place for me but is one for the banned user and associated tactics. Users who, according to an inexplicable fringe minority, was respecting policy and acted in good faith. I feel pretty revulted right now on account of such views. I'm opting to, again, ignore your advice and not keep any of this to myself. As for what amounts to tiring versus a coma and unhelpful vs. needed, it's obvious we still don't see eye to eye; likely we never will. El_C 10:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse my intrusion, but I'd like to comment on something Haukur said here. I followed the entire debate, from start to finish. And my opinion did a 180 flip based on the discussion and arguments made. Initially, while I have no problem with the idea of blocking a nazi, I didn't think off-Wikipedia posts really justified blocking. But once I heard the arguments and saw the stuff he had posted, made the trip over and read the posting and all that - by the time I had seen what it really was about I realised that we had an obligation to do whatever we can to protect editors. Blocking may have limited effectiveness, but it's what we can do. On punitive grounds alone he should have been blocked. El C's other point is equally valid though - you can't AGF someone who has said that you should not exist. Perhaps if you have never felt the sentiment you can't understand it - but to have to work alongside someone who believes you should not exist, simply because of who you are, poisons the environment to say the least. Guettarda 15:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can appreciate the sentiment. But I'm still hesitant to ban people because they hold unpleasant opinions. Many people believe that everyone who does not belong to their particular religious sect deserves not merely to die but to suffer agonizing pain for thousands of years. To me that's a chilling opinion but many of us interact politely with people who believe this every day. And while they don't try to act upon their beliefs they are tolerated. From User:Amalekite's contribution log and his posts to Stormfront and VNN I see no evidence that he was acting in bad faith on Wikipedia. And we assume good faith unless we have overwhelming evidence to the contrary. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 15:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not [htp://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-February/020314.html genetically], though, you can't in theory or practice (unlike religion or ideology) convert genetics — that philosophical overtone in inescapable. As mentioned, I'm not interested in hating anyone, not lest "hating correctly, but as for your depiction of such a view amounting to an unpleasant opinion, I want to stress that there is, in fact, a limit where moderation becomes its opposite. If you continue to note these sort of exterminationist notions through such insultingly understated terms, I'm going to have to insist you withdraw from this talk page. El_C 16:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I feel unable to continue the discussion on these terms. Thank you for the correspondence. I hope you continue to edit Wikipedia usefully and tirelessly as you have in the past. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 17:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rather unpleasent terms they are; abhorent, even. Yeah, same to you. El_C 17:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To the reader: I [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:El_C&diff=prev&oldid=26986397 reverted] Matt Crypto's allegations of highly offensive and deeply hypocritical [...] pretty darn Nazi-like comments directed at myself (also reverted him beforehand: [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEl_C&diff=26985078&oldid=26984957 here]). If he places any further comments here, please treat and revert these as vandalism. TIA. El_C 17:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note of third [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEl_C&diff=26988906&oldid=26988804 reversion]. I reiterate my request: please treat MC's edits here as vandalism. TIA. El_C 17:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note of 4th reversion (the contents of what was reverted are contained in the respective [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEl_C&diff=26990466&oldid=26990185 diffs]; they are not being purged abysmally within the talk page's revision history, as was [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEl_C&diff=26988906&oldid=26988804 insinuated], unfairly, [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEl_C&diff=26987646&oldid=26986605 after] I added the diffs, which is to say: immediately upon the reversion). I wish for Matt Crypto to refrain from editing this talk page — I am obviously (obviously) not interested with any sort of discourse with him (especially; or anyone, in general) at this time. TIA. El_C 18:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian genocide - Position of the Turkish government

Hi,

Your input would be appreciated on the Armenian Genocide article, there is a section entitled "The position of the Turkish government" which is meant to show the governments official policy. The following sentence was added to that section:

"But although Turkey claims that the Armenian massacres do not constitute genocide because of the aforementioned reasons, its former Turkish Prime minister Bülent Ecevit, in April 2002, accused Israel of carrying out genocide against the Palestinians, and a leading lawmaker from Turkey's governing Justice and Development Party has accused the United States of committing genocide in Fallujah."

I removed that sentence because the view of the former PM and Mehmet Elkatmis were not representative of the government or linked in any way to government policy. They were misplaced personal opinions which are being construed as proving the alleged hypocrisy of the government. I have tried to make clear that Turkey does not have and never has had a policy of accusing the USA or Israel of genocide, those statements are the opinions of the ministers in question and should not be used in an argument trying to imply double standards by the government.

There is a discussion here

Your input would be appreciated. --A.Garnet 11:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, A. Granat. I'm afraid I don't see myself becoming active with such disputes and work in the near future, sorry. Nevertheless, I still fail to understand why this needs to be so complicated. You bring forward an important point of not conflating the official Govt. position with non-official, personal comments made by distinguished politicians. Why not simply qualify that: fairly, honestly and objectively? HTH, somewhat. Regards, El_C 11:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i did not wish for it to become complicated. I have stated clearly: You cannot include something which is not the position of the Turkish government, in a section about the position of the Turkish government. The problem is user:Fadix deflects simple problems by introducing a 101 questions and irrelevant details and then accuses me of having a history of deleting relevant information. Tony_Sidaway shares my view and I will remove it again as i said i would. I dont know what HTH means by the way. Thanks, --A.Garnet 13:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By HTH I meant hope this helps, A.Garnet. Best of luck to you in resolving the dispute. Regards, El_C 19:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Survey vote

Hi Jefe. I'll be glad to see you casting your vote at this survey; Wikipedia:Western Sahara Infobox/Vote. I hope it's time to find a solution to a longstanding wikipedia conflict. I've avoided it since a long time now but as the warriors from both sides finally decided to solve it by a vote, than it's a great opportunity. Thanks in advance. -- Svest 20:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™[reply]

Greetings, Fayssal. Nice to see a friendly face. :) Thank you for bringing this discussion & vote to my attention. It being (the infobox, that is) an important component to the entire editorial dispute over Western Sahara and how it and its status should be depicted on Wikipedia (and with an overall solution that has long been overdue). I havne't clicked on my watchlist in well-over a week (likely I won't for a few more), so I could have easily ended up missing this. I do promise to offer my opinion, though likely not for a while, but at most in a few weeks (well, at the very least a few days before the polls close). Thanks again. Regards, El_C 21:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jefe! It's a deal. I see you being busy lately. Just promise me that you won't commit a wiki-suicide and leave the cat alone!!! (ref. to your newly user page) -- Svest 00:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™[reply]
The love boat has crashed against the everyday. Heartbreaking. All that aside, the-cat-came-back, as per your request. El_C 08:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zephram Stark

Hi, Fred Bauder has drafted a finding of fact describing the focus of the dispute in the Zephram Stark arbitration case, and has added it to the proposed-decision page at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Proposed_decision#Focus_of_dispute, where it is currently being voted on. It says:

"The focus of this dispute is the article terrorism which according to Zephram Stark deteriorated due to the aggressive editing and other actions of Jayjg and SlimVirgin. He has waged a campaign to restore what he considers an adequate article, free of the complex ambiguities introduced by his opponents, see Talk:Terrorism/Archive_6#NPOV_solutions and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Evidence#ZS.27s_changes_to_Terrorism."

I feel this is not an accurate way to summarize the dispute. Would you mind taking a look, please, and perhaps commenting on it? The discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Workshop#Focus_of_dispute. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not right now, sorry. But I'm not sure I find it inaccurate as much as I do highly lacking & partial. I'll be happy to discuss this behind closed-doors via email with you. This will also provide us a chance to furhter conspire on how to best silence our opposition elsewhere, in service of those ideals that we share & in dis-service to WP due to the absence of transperency that our insidious, self-serving correspondence will undoubtedly bring upon the project. Exhaustively yours, El_C 21:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Sidaway RfC

Hi, I saw you strike out a comment on my RfC. If it's any issue I can help with, don't hesitate to ask. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, I will, Tony. I need a chance to regain my composure so I'm able to compose myself effectively. Thanks. El_C 21:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I decided I'm not prepared to discuss any of this here beyond the following: The issue is that my confidence in your judgment has been seriously shaken; but this should not impact on our professional relationship. If you do wish to learn more, though, don't hesitate to ask. If not, then no worries, I'm unlikely to make any further edits to the RfC in such an event (not to imply that being a consideration). El_C 08:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mizrahi Jews

El C, when you're feeling better would you mind taking a look at Talk:Mizrahi Jews and commenting on the "Origins", "Originate" issue here: [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mizrahi_Jews#.22Origins.22.2C_.22Originate.22]? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May be a while before I can attend to it, so I hope you manage to find an interim compromise. As I said before (I think), 'tis largely just a matter of how to present the periodization; which can be remedied without loss of accuracy through a slight rewrite of that passage. Yours, El_C 12:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have lost track of what was what, but I did mamange to re-add David Levy, again! El_C 00:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note on Silverback's attacks

In the case anyone is reading Silverback's talkpage in [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASilverback&diff=27721337&oldid=27720916 isolation], please review this. Thanks. El_C 14:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please also review the response here --Silverback 10:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I find that very confusing since a. I was unware Silverback accused me (yes, again) of being these users' (who, it's difficult to tell: "Bishonen and that lotus eaters person"?) sockpuppets. And b. My protest pertains to an unrelated attack documented above and elsewhere, namely: support[ing] people and philosophies that think abuse is OK in order to get them what [sic.] what they want and the followup implied insinuation that even indiscriminate support for RfAs can be a strategy for allowing a threshold number of those you agree with to be elected. (italics are my emphasis). El_C 11:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Action, reaction, symposium

I might have seen your point this time. ;-) Been told earlier to read that book, will get around to it now. I remember that I read "1984" when I was a kid (25yrs ago) and thought it was a very slow action novel; I preferred JLondon as his books were more exciting and didn't have any boring politics in them. :-) Yeah; Hegel, Marx.. "the volatile nature of its underlining contradictions" is something that always scares me. Sort of paralyzing though, leads to so many contradictions. In my 'real life' I go through periods of apathy cause I get stuck on the potential consequences of my actions. Around here I tried to attack the nobility as well as being pre-emptive in terms of the second wave; change the paradigm if you will. That was at least the plan. Do you think in terms of paradigms here on WP? I'm no Marxist as I don't believe in the possibility of the synthesis (i.e. utopia, worker's paradise); would perhaps have been one in a previous life but as it is now I've noticed that The Power has learnt to overthrow itself every once in a while to give the appearance of change - a side effect of the constant advancement of technology, increasing consumerism, information, etc. To form any kinds of progressive movements takes time, and it feels like humanity's collective memory doesn't amount to more than that of a goldfish anymore. And as people are no longer the same necessity for production (they even work for free to edit encyclopaedias) the shift of balance is irreversible. That's why I not only admire but also envy Allende, when he did what he did he did better than most, and (naive or not) he died fighting for what was good. I'm no Kant but it gets hard to live if everything is relative and based on what might become. Practicality is hard to measure. Sometimes battles that can't be won are the one that matters the most. Cliches; I'm well aware of, but still. I imagine a paper edition of WP in every schoolroom in Africa, and I see how they read and learn a version of reality that isn't true, but according to the Wikians, will become true once they/we all believe it. What if you have changed a few things/articles here and there? Will they get through the final proofreading? Even if they do, won't they simply lend credibility to the project? Knowing China as I do (not in the biblical sense) I know they will put out their own WP, and then it's the same old war with/over people's minds. This is why I believe in encouraging multiple inter-revolutions all over the place; Jews against Jews, Muslims against Muslims, Americans against Americans, Transsexuals against Transsexuals, and so forth. This was a particularly long and incoherent rant on my part. I would very much appreciate comment/expansion from you, preferable a 10-lines per sentence one.. :-) You can post here, on my user page, or email at dervishtsaddik at yahoo.com. Also, I might have misunderstood what you meant with the phrase; "but so is the volatile nature of its underlining contradictions", which would (possibly) make parts of this post irrelevant, but it's too late to go back now. :-) Will read the book. I, in return, recommend La caverna de las ideas by José Carlos Somoza which also has the author writing both 'the original manuscript' and the footnotes. Regards. --saxet 04:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the moral philosphy! Yeah, it read to me fairly incoherently and all over the place, but that's okay! :) I am willing to give 100 lines for every sentence and answer every question comprehensively, once you read the [htp://sunsite.berkeley.edu/London/Writings/IronHeel The Iron Heel] (not only to [htp://klanstore.com/store/images/iron%20heel.jpg Remember Allende] and others, but also to draw lessons). If you wish to tread in waters deep, a literary masterpiece swim is in order. So please read it closely whenever you get a chance and get back to me then for then at length. I'll try to check out that book when I get a chance, thanks for that. Regards, El_C 10:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Finally we're both incoherent and muddled. ;-) And for the record, you invited me to this conversation - the only reason I posted on your user page was because Marsden so rudely kicked us out from his. :-) Yeah, you're likely to find that moral philosophy is something that you will encounter for the rest of your life, even if you do something as mundane as feeding your cats, there will be moral philosophers out there discussing whether it's right to keep pets, et cetera. People who tries to escape the 'confines' of morality tend to be either atheistic psychopaths (I am all that matters) or religious fundamentalists (God is all that matters); some irony in that I think. Like cults, they always fail though. Last Jlondon book I read was The Sea Wolf so I'm looking forward to reacquaint myself with those waters. Talk to you later then. I'd also like to recommend The Island of the Day Before by Umberto Eco, and Dissemination by Jacques Derrida. Best of Luck. --saxet 16:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being muddled, as will become clear! ;) Simply because I find no practical use for moral philosophy does not of course mean being devoid (or attempting to escape the confines) of morality (nor an inablity to understand moral philosophy), on the contrary. The conclusion is based on an initial false premise, and relates to my view on "philosophy," in general. Will try to check those out. Talk to you then. :) El_C 19:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

to-Kitten ועת Kitten עת-to

לַכֹּל, זְמָן; וְעֵת לְכָל-חֵפֶץ, תַּחַת הַשָּׁמָיִם. Hoping that you'll soon feel up to editing at full steam again, that all wounds can be healed and reconciliation reached I offer you this kitten. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

כי-עת לכל-חפץ, ועל כל-המעשה שם
.(to die) ועת למות (give birth) עת ללדת
,(to uproot) ועת לעקור נטוע (to plant) עת לטעת
;(to heal) ועת לרפוא (to kill) עת להרוג
,(to build) ועת לבנות (to breach) עת לפרוץ
,(to laugh) ועת לשחוק (to cry) עת לבכות
.(to dance) ועת רקוד (to eulogize) עת ספוד
;(to gather stones) ועת כנוס אבנים (to cast stones) עת להשליך אבנים
.(to distance from hugs) ועת לרחק מחבק (to hug), עת לחבוק
,(to lose) ועת לאבד (to seek) עת לבקש
.(to abandon) ועת להשליך (to keep) עת לשמור
,(to stitch) ועת לתפור (to tear) עת לקרוע
.(to speak) ועת לדבר (to keep one's silence) עת לחשות
,(to hate) ועת לשנא (to love) עת לאהב
.(to foster peace) ועת שלום (to wage war) עת מלחמה

It almost makes sense (almost!). Thanks, I appreciate the gesture, esp. in feline form. I'm afraid I remain too shaken from the event to establish dialogue at this time; I think I was more traumatized by developments in and outcome of your RfA than you were. So, I'll get back to you in a few weeks; I still need some time reorient myself with a few issues, and also, somehow, I seem to suddenly be knee-deep in combatting [htp://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy eristic stratagems]. We'll see how that works out for me. At any rate, talk to you then. Thanks again. El_C 00:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Block of Marsden

El C, while I'm sure you're not particularly happy to see me posting here, I feel I should ask you to unblock User:Marsden, as it does not fall within the provisions and procedures of our blocking policy. In particularly, personal attacks are not grounds for blocking, and it is very inappropriate to block a user who has attacked you specifically, as it can have the appearance of an admin using his powers to settle personal disputes. If this user's behaviour is problematic, please try one of the normal means of dispute resolution (RfCs, RfAr etc). — Matt Crypto 19:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, I'm not pleased to see you. And I disagree with your assessment. He has attacked many others (not just myself) and has been warned multiple times that this counts as disruption. Do not unblock this time; raise the issue on WP:ANI if you have objections. El_C 19:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every-single admin on [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=27991702#El_C.27s_block_of_Marsen WP:AN] concurred with my position and against Marsden & Matt Crypto's "normal means of dispute resolution" one. El_C 09:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whitewashering

I'm Famekeeper, lost my cookie again. Do help me protect WP from the whitewashing: I call for final "arbitration" against Str1977, no more dilly dally , all the way out with him . No reply needed .EffK 03:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like a chance to reply, though (!). Hello, again, Famekeeper. I keep telling you, as I have three times in te past: I am not —nor have I ever been— involved in, not to mention am at all familliar with this dispute (I can't confess being able to recall the name Str1977 – no offence to Str1977; likely the same is true vice versa). Best of luck in resolving it. I'm afraid I'm unable to involve myself at this time. El_C 09:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fronts and cutouts

After reading the article Agent handling I was appalled by not only the editorial style but also by some "facts" that appear to be Original Research. For example: “The extensive use of cutouts, so long as they are trusted and reliable persons, can become a long chain of individuals. This performs another purpose, similiar to the extensive use of "front organizations"; by their sheer number, it becomes a shell game with counterintelligence investigators, who have finite and limited resources. When suspicion arises, the large number of persons and organizations connected to the conspiracy can devour endless hours and cost, which has the effect of slowing down the process of exposing an espionage organization.” [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_handling#Fronts_and_cutouts]. Would you be so kind and review that article to see if any improvements can be made? Thank you in advance. Dearlove Menzies 16:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest changing the above "conspiracy", to "operation"; "conspiracy", presupposes a legal verdict. nobs 19:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not especially familliar with and have not followed closely the article in question. I'll try to give it a cursory glance soon. Regards, El_C 00:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration

You have been requested to appear as a plantiff an arbitration case. Comments have been added on your behalf. If you wish to add comments please contact me. Here is a link to the case Davidpdx

It's about time; I'll try to add to the RfAr soon. In the meantime, I am comfortable with the statements you issued on my behalf. Thanks. Regards, El_C 00:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Johnski has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Johnski/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be made at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Johnski/Workshop. Fred Bauder 04:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thanks. El_C 02:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Talk Page

I have created a special arbitration talk page. This is to discuss what evidence we want as a group and to present and make recommendations before putting them on the arbitration page. Please feel free to make suggestions here. Davidpdx 07:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will try to attend to it soon. El_C 02:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Last Call

Ok guys, this is a last call for evidence. No one has posted evidence besides myself. At the end of this week, I'm going to let the Arbitration Committee know that we are done.

When recommendations are made, I will need you guys to check in and sign on that you agree with them. Otherwise this will be all for not. I intend on asking for a six month ban for Johnski from Wikipedia as well as 1 year probation from editing DOM related articles. Davidpdx 01:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It will not be for naught (only the time wasted needlessly for many months has been), your evidence is so comprehensive, I don't see a point in adding to it. I support, of course, barring the editor/s from (even loosely) DoM-related articles (a year sounds good), but as for the specifics of the formula, I'm remain open to suggestions. Thanks for all your tireless work on this. Regards, El_C 12:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Marsden is back

User:Marsden is back, using his IP address, 69.138.215.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and apparently spending most of his time reverting those he doesn't like, or who he has been asked to revert. I'm considering a 48 hour block for disruption; comments? Jayjg (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would rather not comment at this time; once unblocked, please revert any edits he makes to this talk page on-sight. Thanks. Regards, El_C 00:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just trust [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:El_C&action=history the fastest gun in the Old West]. :-) Bishonen|talk 01:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in position; you take point! El_C 04:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Climate-change Arbitration re-opening request

There is a request, of which you are a party, to re-open the climate-change Arbitration case here. I thought that you might be interested to comment, or at least observe.

Yours sincerely,

James F. (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice, James, and for the thoughtful opinion. Regards, El_C 02:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration re-opened

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2 has been re-opened. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Workshop. Fred Bauder 01:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thanks. El_C 08:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Remove block

Hello EL C, could you please do me a favour. I am a member of WP:AMA and Nixer (talk · contribs) contacted me about something. He has been blocked for 48 hours for violating the 3RR ([htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ANixer Block log]), and the block is due to expire at 10:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC) (tomorrow) ([htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist?action=search&limit=50&ip=Nixer Blocked usernames]). According to WP:3RR: after your fourth revert in 24 hours, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours. Nixer has been blocked for 48 hours - the sysop who blocked him wasn't authorised to block him for that long. He has already been blocked for roughly 24 hours (he was blocked 24 hours ago), so could someone please remove the block. WP:3RR authorises blocked users to ask a different administrater to unblock them, so that would be allowed. Thanks. Izehar 09:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Izehar. I would'nt unblock without discussing the matter with dab, and it is wholly incidental that I have great respect for his judgment (not only due to the fact that he was the one who nominated me for adminship), I would do the same & investigate matters closely no matter who the admin in question is. Unfortunately, I simply can't spare the time to investigate the case at present, I'll be here for another twenty minutes or so and then likely won't be back for half a day. So the best advise I could offer would be for you to place a notice with your concerns on WP:ANI. Best of luck to you all in resolving these issues to everyone's satsifaction. Sorry I could not be of more help. El_C 10:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK - thanks anyway. Izehar 10:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. El_C 10:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agriculture and scare quote-punctuation

Hi!

The relevant section of the MoS is the one, the anon linked: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Punctuation.

Under quotation marks it says:

When punctuating quoted passages include the mark of punctuation inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the mark of punctuation is part of the quotation. This is the style used in Australia, New Zealand, and Britain, for example. (A fuller treatment of the recommendations given here can be found in Fowler's Modern English Usage and other style guides for these countries, some of which vary in fine details.) "Stop!", for example, has the punctuation inside the quotation marks because the word "stop" is said with emphasis. When using "scare quotes", however, the comma goes outside.

Scare quotes are quotes used like "this". Basically, any quotes that aren't used in direct quotations are scare quotes.

Though it might be cool to make it to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever, I hope we can work it out peacefully :-) Rasmus (talk) 12:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I'm just being an idiot at this point(?), don't mind me. :) El_C 12:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from Paris

Hello El C,

I noticed your visit to the "Paris" page (you reverted some spam methinks) so thought I'd come by for some advice and maybe some criticism as I am new here (well, six months. Pass that towel) and basically still a Wiki wallflower as far as relations here go. Pleased to meet you, and my thanks in advance for any advice. Sorry if this goes on; I type fast and, frankly, I'm a bit peeved.

What it comes down to is this: I saw the Paris page in a sorry shape and, being a bit of a buff on the matter (natively English-speaking, I have lived (in) it and studied it since '89), decided to try to clean it up a bit. Until today I have hardly been able to change a line.

My first attempt at a relatively minor edit resulted in my being "put in my place" and being told to wait for "board consensus" - I then apologised, replaced everything, and have been waiting ever since. Well, not really waiting - since the summer when this began I set up my own "sandbox" user page to try out some edits, and I posted its existence to the discussion board. No answer. It grew with time, and with time my edits ended up covering almost everything contained in the Paris page - as even the pages' very structure was incoherent, and its content very different from any other page (let alone encyclopaedia entry) on Paris.

My "proposed changes" posts on the discussion board grew to outrageous lengths as well (since removed) while I waited, yet I eventually ran out of patience and noted what I intended to change in the near future. I was then told by a certain user that I had better not change anything or I will "suffer massive reverts from other users" - yet in having a look at the page's history (which I hadn't thought to do until then) I saw that in fact almost the whole page had been written in its statistical "bigger than" way by the very person who had "warned" me. And when finally I did make a change it was only he who made reverts and it's been the same ever since. His reasons for doing so are always "citationingly encyclopaedic" supports of his POV, but never anything near valid enough to merit a total revert. Did I mention that someone thought the section in question so bad that he felt obliged to complain about it? Not a letter of it has changed, nor will its authour allow anyone to change it. The article in question has even become a revert war between the London and Paris pages because the Paris authour insists on trumpeting the same vague, out-of-context and misleading statistics on both pages, much to the anger of a few.

I haven't even gotten to the content yet but I've gone on enough here - decide for yourself if you care to look. I'm not looking for sunshine, I'm looking for another mind. I'm feeling like quite the fool at the time because I see that all my posting and ranting over the past months has been "much ado about nothing" because actually few seem to care about the Paris page - only its authour.

What to do in this sort of situation? in short, it has grown all out of proportion and I would much appreciate any advice.

Thanks, take care,

Josefu 19:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: This looks very nice centred : )

Hello, Josefu, and greetings from the depths of the abyss. :) So, I gave your draft a cursory glance, and I think it contains some very useful additions (though I would press on you to more methodically cite your sources for factual claims), though I am not at this point convinced that your version should entirely supplant (as opposed to supplument) the current article. I think the best approach would be for you to: a. proceed one step-at-a-time, and one section at a time, aiming at more incremental goals initially in your edits and discussion. I don't mean that in a linear sense so much as keeping each one of your points grounded. So, for example, if you have a problem with the style, or with the sectional division, with the content in one area, another, etc., deal with each of these on the talk page, one at at a time, clearly & concisely. b. Try to get a wider audience by employing a content dispute RFC, but again, be clear and precise about what is being disputed (if it's a host of issues, then note it as such; if one issue, for ex., the demographic figures, are more prominent, also note that). Paris is a key article and I've seen disputes ones (I consider) infinitely less significant recieve far more attention, for better or worse. c. Related to that, try to better educate yourself on how Wikipedia works; its various policies & guidleines. This way, you can better draw comparisons or paralels with other similar articles (perhaps in the process discover important improvements for them). I think that consensus can shift/arise in relation to how well you are able to put these suggestions into practice. I'm not sure how helpful I can be with regards to the material itself (in-depth) as I'm not especially familliar with French history in general or Parisian history, in particular (unless there is something more specific you wish to pose). I hope this proves useful. Let me know if there is anything else I could do to help. Yours, El_C 06:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC) P.S. Thanks! :)[reply]
Thank you for your advice. Yes, it does all look a bit "overboard" today but the draft is that, a 'by rote' draft, and it exists mostly to outline subject context and a comprehensive page structure. It is this that I am trying to implement, and it is for this that my work involves changes through the whole article.
Actually the whole point of my writing you is that I'm stuck on a and wanted some additional input before resorting to RFC. I may have to anyhow as the author in question has reverted yet again. The fact that this is a one-on-one duel does not make it easier.
Thank you very much, I will read all the articles you spoke of. Takes cares, yous : )
Josefu 09:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A quick follow-up: simply because you filed an RFC, does not prevent you from seeking further input at third opinion. Yours, El_C 06:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear EL C I am the owner of prague-tourism.com domain and from history page I found link to my page was removed several times by you. Can you explain it little bit more? I believe my page is useful resource for the visitors. From past days statistics I know that visitors coming to my page from wikipedia were seeing a lot of pages from tourist information and attractions section, which I hope was helpful for them. I changed the link to my site to link to tourist information section to avoid leading visitors to accommodations search section, but my link was removed once again. There are more links in External Links. I mean especially prague.tv and praguemonitor.com, both offering very quality content, but also leading straight to some commercial content. These links are on wikipedia without problems. I hope you stop removing my link or explain it more please.

Thank you Robert Lejsek

Hello, Robert. The issue is that prague-tourism.com is a commercial link, which is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia, and we already have a wikitravel Prague article. Please review Sites that primarily exist to sell products (feel free to persuade me otherwise, though). If you encounter any external links that you feel also do not meet these criterion (including but not limited to the above ones you mention), please remove them from Wikipedia. Thank you. El_C 12:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Prague-tourism.com exists primarily to sell accommodation but also to be an information resource on Prague.[htp://www.prague-tourism.com/about.php/ About us]. I hope I fulfil at least two requirements why should be my page linked to. I have primary material content and it is my photogallery from some places where it is very complicated to get there. Exapmple libraries of [htp://www.prague-tourism.com/photogallery.php?pic_id=43/ Strahov Monastery]. And [htp://www.prague-tourism.com/tourist-information/ Tourist Information] section of my pages is a kind of web directory. Please look at the pages of [htp://www.pis.cz/en/ Prague Information Service], which is Prague official tourist office. This is one of two or three sites most deserving to be linked to from wikipedia external links guide point of view. But from About us section of their site you may see that they actually do the same things like me. But you can hardly find useful info there. And what is more, their accommodation link leads to a external commercial service. Robert Lejsek

That About us (titled in the bottom of my browser as Prague Hotel Reservation) lists a "Prague Tourism Agency," but the only search querry of that yeilds = Prague-tourism.com, so what is the Prague Tourism Agency? Your photogallery links results at present with the details of this book cannot be displayed at this time. NO pictures cannot be displayed at this time[,] so I was unable to review it. El_C 13:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for invalid link. I repared about us title page. The link is:[htp://www.prague-tourism.com/photogallery.php?pic_id=43 Strahov Monastery]. Prague Tourism Agency is simply name of private travel agency. It is not official tourist agency and is not connected with official structures of Czech tourism. Nevertheless we often do the same.

Very nice pics, though rather small compared to what we already have on Commons and elsewhere. Bottom line is that in the context of this article, Wikipedia cannot list your site unless it offers something truly extraordinary. There are a lot of travel agencies out there (for Prague) and we can't have them compeeting on that (and other) article(s) for business. Your website is quite decent compared to most of these (I revert many daily), but I'm afraid I am yet convinced of its uniquely informational and exceptional qualities at this point in time. El_C 15:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly oppose the inclusion of the link to prague-tourism.com (and I delete it on-sight). It's clearly just a page of "yet another accomodation reseller". It claims it is operated by "Prague Tourism Agency", which is IMO deceptive. According to whois, the site is operated by "Robert Lejsek (PRAGUE-TOURISM-COM-DOM)" who even does not reside in Prague (sic!). While "Prague Tourism Agency" sounds offcial, it has nothing to do with Prague City, Czech Tourism Agency,... is unkwnown to Czech official "Register of Economic Entities" (!) and even to Google. Part of the content is a relativelly good travel guide, comparable to dozens of others. Thats all. In long term perspective, Wikipedia should include much better information on Prague sights than prague - turism does. --Wikimol 01:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimol, it does not matter where you reside. Lonely Planet resides out of country and it is still nice travel guide. I am natural person, not corpotate body so that you cannot find me in registry. A dont forget, natural person may use its second name, if not used by someone else. But I seriously consider to change it because it really may be confusing. OK, Wikimol and EL C, you convinced me. I hope visitors find my page through some other pages.
Thank you both, Robert and Wikimol, for taking the time. Much appreciated. El_C 08:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal on User page

hello there El C,

I just noticed it as well. The first vandal on my User page!-) thanks alot for cleaning it up. Gryffindor 11:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First one, congrats! Not at all, glad to be of service. :) El_C 11:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting my first vandal as well! I'm so proud ... Andjam 11:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You, too?! Wow. I should really be playing the lottery right about now! El_C 11:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Go El C, go El C, go El C...!! :-) Gryffindor
Good times! :D El_C 00:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

American terrorism

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_terrorism, the discussion of which you may or may not consider worth reviewing. Don't know if this is a drive-by or not, but from where I sit the same editorial principles seem to be in play. (Offensive/shocking/unflattering term in wide use.) BrandonYusufToropov 18:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What an odd section title, BYT, what were you going for (& is it art)? I changed it to the subject in question. Also, internally linking is very easy (note how I did so above). Anyway, I have to get going now, I'll try to attend to it soon. Regards, El_C 00:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cat/Environmental effects

Hi El C. You reverted my addition to Cat/Environmental effects. You may be interested in joining in a discussion at Cat#Removed_note_about_lack_of_sources. 144.133.211.127 06:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to attend to it soon, thanks. El_C 00:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is requested

Greetings.

I have recently nominated an Israeli-related article for deletion due to its problematic verifiability status. I discuss the problems in-depth on the AfD page, but the short version is: It describes a person who allegedly perpetrated a notable political/criminal event in Israeli history, but I cannot verify that fact via any sources available to me.

I know that you are active in editing Jewish related pages, and generally seem to be knowledgeable of Jewish/Israeli history, so I'm hoping you'll see fit to look at the AfD discussion and possibly help clear up the matter. Or, alternately, that you might know someone who would be able to do so.

The AfD discussion in question is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moshe Dwek.

Thanks for your time.
→ Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 14:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It's a well-known event. I provided an authoritative source that proves it isn't a hoax. Note that some of the top editors in .he (including its founder, דוד שי) have contributed to the article (on the Hebrew Wikipedia). Regards, El_C 00:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your efforts. They are appreciated. However, just to make sure we're on the same page (since I can't read Hebrew), the question was not "did this event happen?" since I was able to find independent corroboration that someone did indeed throw a grenade in the Knesset in 1957. The question is "Was that grenade thrown by someone named Moshe Dwek, who later went on to found a political party?" I just wanted to make sure the Hebrew text you pasted to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moshe Dwek adressess the latter question rather than the former.
My apologies for being pedantic.
→ Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 12:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. To clarify, I understood the question, and the answer is: yes. Regards, El_C 14:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza

Hola Jefe! What happened in Esperanza? Any reason? Actually I wanted to ask you about the meaning of מזל טוב (Mazal tov). Cheers -- Svest 00:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™[reply]

Hola compadre! I hope you're well. That I find Esperanza too reactive and not proactive enough is just part of it. I mostly joined to begin with because of Essjay, who I am very fond of (& incidentally, I removed his name from the list as per his request to me and not to make any waves, and he did not ask me to remove myself, on the contrrary, he advised me not to act out of anger — at the event, I was going to remove myself regardless). Anyway, now that he's gone, I don't see a point in participating. Finally, in answer to your question, mazal tov means "congratulations" or "well done," but more literally, it means "good [+] luck." All the best, El_C 00:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for mazal tov. Actually, I thought that Esperanza is a nice idea. I still think so but less than I used to, maybe due to the lack of activity there. After all, we know where you are! ;) -- Cheers -- Svest 00:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™[reply]

For sure. :) As for ESP, I'm not calling for its dissolution, it's a personal choice. And, yes, you know where to find me. At your service, El_C 01:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Economic fascism

There is an ongoing attempt to define state intervention in the economy as inherently fascist through the creation of an article entitled economic fascism. I have started an AfD on that article based on the argument that "economic fascism" is (a) too vague to ever be properly defined and (b) an inherently POV term of abuse which will cause eternal edit wars, and the observation that the subject of economic policy in fascist regimes is already covered in a multitude of other articles, including fascism itself and corporatism. Please consider voting or commenting on the AfD. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 23:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have some familiarity with the author, and looking at this, I definitely continue to express strong WP:NOR and WP:NPOV concerns. El_C 12:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander for Admin

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Alexander_007. I've nominated User:Alexander_007 as admin. Let's vote for him! -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 14:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Wer'e doing what now? El_C 12:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Four dead in Ohio

Tin soldiers and Nixon coming, We're finally on our own. This summer I hear the drumming, Four dead in Ohio.

Gotta get down to it Soldiers are cutting us down Should have been done long ago. What if you knew her And found her dead on the ground How can you run when you know?

Gotta get down to it Soldiers are cutting us down Should have been done long ago. What if you knew her And found her dead on the ground How can you run when you know?

Tin soldiers and Nixon coming, We're finally on our own. This summer I hear the drumming, Four dead in Ohio.

WAS 4.250 02:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's incredibly sick, you can feel it as across the land it flows.
Prejudice is slick, when it's a word game it festers and grows.
Move along quick, it furthers one to have somewhere to go.
You can feel it as it's rumbling, let emotions keep a-tumbling,
then, as cities start to crumbling, mostly empty bellies grumbling here we go.
El_C 06:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of macedonia

i understand your point. i changed the text in the beginning. but he second version is different. observe the differences. i think the second version is acceptable for both sides. Nestore

Okay, I will have a look. Thanks for the notice, Nestore. El_C 06:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image help

Hi El C, I'd like to use this image from the Hebrew wiki, but lacking any skill in Hebrew I can't decipher the copyright tag. I was hoping you'd be able to help, the image is [htp://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%94:Echidna.jpg here]. Thanks.--nixie 13:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The tag reads: This image was photographed/prepared by אסתר. This image can be fairuse(d) for educational purposes, while extending appropriate credit and linked when used outside of Wikipedia. These images can be used for any purpose (including a commercial purpose) so long as the usage is provided free of charge to the public at large. HTH. Regards, El_C 13:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It doesn't sound like a "free licence", but the user does have some more recent images that are free with attribution. Could I ask you to ask Ester to clarify if the same licence applies to this image, I'd really appreciate it.--nixie 13:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; but I'm afraid I'm not entirely following the question. You can use it on .en, since the tag allows for not only educational but even commercial use. Just link it to Echidna.jpg. That said, I don't mind asking her anything on your behalf (I just need to know what I'm asking: feel free to draft it and I'll just translate it as such). I should also probably note that she only joined Wikipedia a week or so ago. Regards, El_C 14:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I completely misread the text, the wording is not very straight foward, I guess I was expecting it to be more restricted. Thanks again.--nixie 21:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, its worded counterintuitively, with singular followed by plural, with educational followed by commercial, etc. Glad to be of service. El_C 23:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

pls unblock me

i have more than 3000 edits, see "user contributions" - i was blocked for no reason. User:Haham hanuka

No reason, at all? But you did re-add the prohibited list, no? El_C 14:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Lauder-Frost

I have explained my position on the article talk page. As I have said there, I do not believe that I have taken any action which violates Wikipedia policy. The present situation with GLF is part of a larger issue, involving the attempts of some posters to write hagiographical articles on figures associated with Britain's far right. (See Harvey Ward for another example). I'd appreciate it if you would look into this dispute in further detail, and let me know of your opinion. CJCurrie 23:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, I made no such claims of policy violation on your part. I assure you that I take your (hagiographical, on the part of the new editors) comment into account and that I will try to attend to reviewing the matter in greater detail soon. The protection was issued because I felt the parties in the dispute needed a time out. Feel free, though, to issue a request for unprotection if you feel my move was in error. El_C 23:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, I made no such claims of policy violation on your part. I wasn't accusing you of this; I just wanted to make my position known. Sorry if my comments caused any offense. By the way, I should clarify that I'm an administrator as well. I don't think that the protection was in error -- I just think that the wrong version of the article was protected. (I'm half-tempted to change it myself, though I suppose that my involvement in the debate rules out this option.) CJCurrie 23:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me say sorry for modifying with the format of your reply here. No, no offence was taken at all, I know you weren't accusing me of stating that, please take my comment as simply a clarification for the record. Yes, I did know that you are also an administrator, and yes, your involvement does indeed rule out the option. Finally, I realize that the wrong version was protected. That was purposful on my part. :) El_C 23:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm ... I hadn't seen that page before. Cute. CJCurrie 23:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, that's meta for you! And you did, in fact, say wrong version. I'm glad you see the humor. :) El_C 23:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slim asked me to show you this

[htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity&curid=5211&diff=30605376&oldid=30605358 Chaosfeary's most recent redirect] [fixed!]struck us both as worthy of admin action. (This came in response to Irishpunktom's facetious remark that a link to Islamofascism on Islam would be appropriate when there was a link to the Nazi party on Christianity.

Do you think some kind of next step is in order here? Slim is engaged in a content dispute with him on another page, and asked me to show it to you. BYT 17:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Jayjg handled this. BYT 17:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since there's nothing for me to do, I'll go on, as do always, about how linking externally = one square bracket and internally, two! El_C 10:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation

Here is the explaination. A couple of people requested unprotection (including the major author of the article) and the major author of the article wants to put it up for afd. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree, you can reprotect it. I won't argue. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I appeared to have inexplicably missed that, somehow. I don't intend on reprotecting at this time as per the AfD motions. Thanks. Regards, El_C 11:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Worth

Hi, twice you have reverted edits to the Fort Worth page by myself. Why? --147.124.49.89 01:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I reverted you because you did not provide a reference to go along with your addition, so I treated it as unverifiable. But mostly, I just thought it was childish vandalism, because the claim it's known as funkytown appeared far-fetched. El_C 02:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like the reference in the article, or should I put it in the summary? --147.124.49.89 03:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please use the summary, for now. Thanks. El_C 03:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As a resident of Fort Worth, I can confirm that this is the first time I have EVER heard the terms "Funkytown" and "Fort Worth" used in the same sentence. Kade 19:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at the source now — good call. Regards, El_C 10:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Costa Rica

Its alright. I am glad you told me so though. I dont feel too strongly about the subject my self its just some people on this website are really subjective and its really annoying glad to see you arent. Yeah i do got to learn how to use this thing thanks for reconizing that and not automatically thinking i was vandal because thats what everyone ive talked to so far said about me. LOL i wasnt even sure how to send you a message but i guess i figured it out. Where do I learn the ropes of this thing. 24.60.161.63

Sounds good, thanks. I think Wikipedia:Introduction is a good starting point. I noticed you placed a new comment on the talk page. I'll try to respond soon, but I'll give you a chance to get the hang of things and reorganize it yourself (unless you want me to do it, which is no problem). Note, though, that some of my earllier responses there are directed at SaulPerdomo, not yourself. For a well-ordered talk page, we're aiming at comments placed bellow one another, signed, and indented. The intro page should cover that. Thanks again. Regards, El_C 05:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your help requested

Hi, El C.

I was told that you are a speaker of Hebrew. If this is true, I need something translated for me. What does everything here say? This user has a history of using Hebrew to googlespam, and I need to make sure what he's doing is legit. He's already been warned.

Thanks for whatever help you can provide. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 20:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the biographical entries, previously from the Hebrew Wikipedia, of four pornography starlets, in order: Jenna Jameson, Sylvia Saint, Jill Kelly, and Aurora Snow. If I recall correctly, these biographies were deleted from the Hebrew Wikipedia, not because there is anything wrong with them as biographical entries, but rather because the Hebrew Wikipedia is more puritanical and/or exclusive in its entries and does not include pornography. In short, there's no harm in it, and it's unlike his hitherto ranking list, so I would'nt worry about it. Regards, El_C 22:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking

Thanks! --Khoikhoi 04:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. El_C 04:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks !
Thanks !

Hello, El C. Thank you for undoing the vandalism by Generalqueef on my userpage yesterday. Now I can peacefully go on my wikivacation. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Take care. -- PFHLai 15:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fer sure. Enjoy your wiki (& hopefuly also otherwise) vacation. Happy holidays! Best, El_C 22:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hey, El C! 'bout time I said hello. I like to nail them as fast as I can move my mouse. Keep up the good work!  :-) Antandrus (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey-hey! Thanks, likewise! You take point — I got your back. :) El_C 03:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted my reversion to Falklands War.

Before I re-revert - could you explain why you reverted my edit. [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falklands_War&diff=31421911&oldid=31421811] ? The comment was clearly vandalism, inserted by an anon ip - right ? [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falklands_War&diff=31421811&oldid=31420989] Puzzled, but seeking enlightenment. Megapixie 03:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the vandalism was removed by the anon. I didn't explain since I assumed you'd realize this on the spot. Hope that clears things up. El_C 03:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Uggh. My Bad. Humblest apologies. Megapixie 03:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all; happens to me, too. Regards, El_C 03:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism patrol

Hi, when reverting vandalism, please make sure the version being reverted to wasn't also a product of vandalism e.g. as happened in Essenes. Thanks linas 04:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're doing what now? Regards, El_C 02:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

80.217.152.161

Thanks for your efforts in dealing with User:80.217.152.161. Personally I would have rather seen a block that was longer than the last one (which was 48 hours). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Block time will increase exponentially. Regards, El_C 02:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for muting Svetlyo

he was a pain in the @ss. Arnegjor

You're welcome. Apperently the concept of manners are foreign to that editor. I mean, no comment! El_C 02:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Mythology

What the heck are you doing adding back wikispam about STAR WARS FICTION article vote on the MYTHOLOGY talk page without giving any sort of rationale or explanation? It's bad enough the editor who put it there has no clue whatesoever on the definition of mythology nor any understanding of the concept that people on a mythology talk page couldn't care less about whatever nonsense he wants to try to push through on his Darth Vader thing, but for you to come along and restore it is just ridiculous. If some editor on the mythology article thinks it is relevant, he or she can restore it, but they never have, it's just been the Star Wars nut making personal attacks and trying to change the defintion of words (words which are clearly explained on the article in question if he'd bother to read it) and now you. Please use some common sense and think about the applicable Wikipedia policies before blindly reverting. DreamGuy 17:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I thought I provided a rational, but I guess that was in my mind. So here it is. Essentially, I tend to agree with your point, but at the same time, I urge to be more pragmatic in this case, just so needless energy would'nt be expended on such a conflict. The notice is, what, three sentences? He said he will remove it on Dec. 31st. I suggest just letting it be rather than entering into a revert war on the talk page. Regards, El_C 02:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Radhanite

I put this article up for featured status. Your input would be most welcome. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will have a look at it soon. Regards, El_C 02:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EffK is forced to Abandon a Corrupted Wikipedia

I refer you to my response of a few moments ago at ' 15 December, 3 December. EffK 02:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I haven't followed that case at all. Time permitting, I'll try to glance at it soon. Regards, El_C 02:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rogueness

Rogueness you requested, and rogueness you have. ; - ) -- Essjay · Talk 04:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! :D El_C 04:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um. :)

You're right, the Fractions article does need to be a lot more professional (and make a lot more sense, and use consistent math typesetting styles, and...) I'm slowly working on fixing/replacing a lot of the original content, but I'm about to go on my honeymoon, so I might not finish it until I get back. --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 05:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are more important things than math. Congrats on getting married! enjoy your honeymoon. :) El_C 05:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, a historical reconstruction

I noticed you removed a link I posted on the Jesus page; it is called "Jesus, a historical reconstruction". First let me tell you I spent seven years developping this website.

Hi. Moved most of the comment and responded here. Thanks. Best, El_C 11:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Abuse

If you are truly a constructive participant of Wikipedia you would correct my request for review rather than delete it. The user "Viriditas" has been abusive in the discussion page for the article "Quarters." I urge you to take a look. Haizum 12:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't possible for me to correct it in any way, you need to author it first. El_C 12:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit-warring

Please stop edit-warring. If you have concerns about my edits, please discuss them on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org. Just reverting ends up wasting time, disrupts the encyclopaedia, and resolves nothing. Discussion is far more likely to be fruitful, jguk 13:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I did not edit war, nor did I revert any of your changes. Regards, El_C 13:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am discouraged to learn you have copy & pasted the same comment elsewhere. El_C 13:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meowtside view

It seems like some people need to acquire a sense of humour. You're right - yours was better. Guettarda 03:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, thank you very much! :D /bows El_C 03:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Dhamma Books

Hi... Did you go through and remove all the links to ForestDrammaBooks? It looks like we were both removing at the same time. I think that we got them all. Thanks. --AStanhope 05:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I think from all the key articles, at least. Some more obscure ones may have slipped through (since a few ips were used). Best, El_C 06:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:24.6.226.196

Hi. 24.6.226.196 (talk · contribs) (the guy who keeps adding the ilovesyria.com links to pages) left a comment on my talk page:

You are wrong to remove the I Love Syria (www.ilovesyria.org) website from the Shia page. First of all, it is not commercial; it is in fact an educational website. Second, it is a Shia website that explains the importance of Syria to the Shia. This very important to be shared with others because of the current discordances about Syria. So, please read the content of the website, including the purely Shia narrations included in it and put back the link to where it truly belongs. If you have a problem with Syria, please be kind enough as not impose it on others.

Please help me explain to him on his talk page why he needs to stop. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 06:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, on my way. Regards, El_C 06:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Proposed Decision

Just to make everyone aware, arbitrators have begun to write the proposed decision in the arbitration case. You can view the decision here:[htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Johnski/Proposed_decision].

So far no punative measures have been offered to solve the problems regarding the behavior of those involved. I strongly urge people to post comments asking for a stronger proposed decision from the Arbitration Committee. Otherwise, this will be all for nothing. We need to lobby them to get a ban on users as well as having them banned from editing certain articles for a period of time. There needs to be a clear message to those involved to stop reverting the article. Your comments can be left here: [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Johnski/Proposed_decision].

I know this is a busy season for everyone, but this will only take a few minutes. We need to deal with this now. If not, this problem will continue to disrupt Wikipedia. Davidpdx 00:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the proverbial I'll try to attend to it soon (really). El_C 05:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Auntie Archive

May be none of my business, but why? Guettarda 04:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why, more opportunity for mischief, of course! El_C 05:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Machel-Neto.jpg

Nv8200p 17:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. I provided sources and an explanation. Please review these. Thanks again. El_C 01:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

lol!

Too funny :-) Ta bu shi da yu 02:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis funny because it's true! :D El_C 03:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA

Did you warn Wekeenah about NPA also? That wasn't quite an NPA but really an expression that if you tell people "f*** you" if you are offended, you aren't much better than the vandals who put that stuff there. Either way it's not civil. If you want to call it NPA, that's kinda missing the point. -- Jbamb 05:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I essentially saw it as a comparison with pro-Nazi, racist vandals, which is out of line. El_C 05:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm sorry you took it that way. Jbamb 05:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, a historical reconstruction, pt.2

Hello, I cannot believe my website "Jesus, a historical reconstruction" is turned down. It is certainly more researched, more objective than most of the links of the Jesus page. I have two opponents (see talk:Jesus for details), one saying somebody else other than me should implement the post (that's OK, that can be done, but the rule is rather naive). The other, who is truly anonymous, does not want to have a "link farm" and always takes me out, whenever he/she has the chance. But recently two new posts appeared and no deletion. I feel unjustifiably picked on and my opinion of wikipedia is very low at this time. What do you recommend? Thanks, Bernard

Hi. I havne't followed developments closely. So what exactly happned in the end, specifically? Best, El_C 06:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant in terms of a talk page comment, but I see you've placed several notices (I overlooked it above). I think the problem, as I mentioned prior, is that a geocities url will almost invariably be viewed as unprofessional/nonauthoritative by some. All I could recommend is that you attempt to further build on consensus and get more people to support it as a reliable source. Hope this helps. El_C 06:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chile vandalism by 200.106.34.229

Can you please block IP 200.106.34.229 and also review the additional vandals listed at WP:AIV? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I'm a few days late! El_C 03:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet block

Regarding my sockpuppet ban of Fones, I've lifted it and apologized to the user. It seems that I misjudged; thanks for bringing that to my attention. // Pathoschild 08:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good; my pleasure. El_C 03:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Machel-Neto.jpg

Source is good enough. Really need some fair use justification for using the images in the article Neocolonialism -Thanks Nv8200p talk 16:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Twas a quite a while ago that the image was added, thus, the tagging issue. Thanks again for your help. Regards, El_C 03:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFC formatting

EL C can you guide us with what is wrong with the formatting of this RFC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann (2). Please post your remarks on Talk:Rajput. --DPSingh 15:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Example_user. El_C 03:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fisheaters

The links are being reinserted, but on a more selective basis. I am reverting them and putting messages on the Talk pages. I don't discount the possibility of relevance, but there is nothing to persuade me that this site is an authority. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye, thanks. El_C 03:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MEOW

You remind me of the Ancient Egyptians (Khemetians is what they should be called in my opinion) that worshipped cats. I am a history major, and I am pretty much in love with history so we have a lot in common! Don't put me to death for killing a cat like they did! : ). MEOW!

On the other hand, I've read that Eisenhower used to have cats killed whenever he saw them on the White House lawn, Napoleon and Alexander the Great had a cat phobia too, personally I don't like cats : (. I don't like any pets unless I can put them in a cage (rabbit) or better yet, some type of bowl (fish). Hope I can hear from you later, have a Happy Holiday!

P.S. MMMMEEEEEOOOOOWWWWWW!!!!!! εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your anti-feline intransigence knows no bounds! Never have I hear such insolence! Happy holiday! :) El_C 03:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

why remove the npov tag

Dear El C, It seems strange that you would remove the NPOV tag. I thought perhaps you were more reasonable than Gene_Poole.

Why do you let a mis-quote by Gene of the WP article stand, i.e. "An article in the Washington Post reported that DoM was 'diplomatically recognized' by the Central African Republic, in 1993, but opined that that nation would probably "recognize the State of Denial if it had a letterhead"?

When in fact the WP gave no such opinion, but only commented that "you get the feeling" that such and such would happen, not that it "probably" would happen. Sincerely, Johnski 23:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Johnski. Feel free to place the tag again for the duration of the Arbitration case. As for the passage you mentioned, I did not notice it in fact, so, for better or worse, it wasn't a consideration in my decision to lift the tag. Thanks. El_C 03:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Hanukkah El C! and thank you for writing back, unfortunately or fortunatley depending on how you see it, no one will let me touch the article. Perhaps you could try to fix the mis-characterization of the WP quote. I'd also like to ask if you could balance the two quotes regarding the former employee of the US OCC with their actual web site, and the qutoe from the US SEC with their subsequent quote regarding the settlement of that SEC case. If you are not familiar with these I'd be happy to show them to you. Sincerely, Johnski 07:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Johnski, happy holidays to you, too. I'm afraid that I haven't followed the article since August, so little of the innerworking behind that are clear to me. Feel free to fill me in on the article's talk page, but please be as concise and to the point as possible. Regards, El_C 04:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, El C for responding! I followed your suggestion and placed my thoughts on the DOM talk page for your consideration. Please let me know if it is concise and your thoughts, too. Sincerely, Johnski 01:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2 case. Raul654 18:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice — excelent decision. El_C 03:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ERP

Since you have recently posted at Enterprise resource planning, including some reversals, I thought you might like to see that I have added some stuff both there and to its Talk pages. This is just a courtesy notification that I have updated the article since your last activity there. I also had a concern about the Disadvantages section, the style as opposed to content, and posted a question about that in the December 23 section of the [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#ERP_and_Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style Help Desk] whose first response cautioned aboutWP:NPOV. I believe that I have altered the tone of the article to correct what I thought was an unfortunate WP:POV, or historical bias, but there is also an issue with respect to adequately presenting information about commercial software, open source, and homebrew. Many facts about ERP are true in one of these three main areas, but totally wrong for the others. User:AlMac|(talk) 21:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll try to attend to it soon. El_C 03:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah

I would like to wish you and your family all the best for the season and in the year ahead. Guettarda 15:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Happy holidays and a great new year to you and your family. All the best, El_C 03:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Hi again. Would you please be able to move Zazi (Dzadzi) to Zazi for me? I don't really feel like running it through WP:RM. Thanks. Oh, and Happy Chanukah! --Khoikhoi 04:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks, happy holidays to you, too! El_C 04:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Khoikhoi 04:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I really appreciate your having caught that guy who tweaked my user page. What was up with that, I wonder? Anyway, have a very merry Christmas and thanks again!! - Lucky 6.9 20:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No idea; apperently you're Tonto! Merry Christmas! :) El_C 04:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!!

MERRY CHRISTMAS, El C/generic sub-page! A well deserved pressy!--Santa on Sleigh 22:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays from me too, El C. I hope the new year's a great one for you. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 02:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Slim (and Santa!), happy holidays and best wishes for bestest year from moi! El_C 04:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Same from me too El C. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 05:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; likewise! :) El_C 05:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies

El C, I received your note. I was editing my talk page, just hadn't signed in. My apologies. Would you please be so kind as to inform Tommstein to not revert my page as he's done twice already with comments which admin Kelly Murphy stated he needed to desist from in her comment on my talk page. Thank you very much. :) Retcon 06:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I think s/he gets it, but I'll keep an eye. Regards, El_C 08:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

El C, you are correct. The individual had written a message on top of my own on two different talk pages rather than creating a separate item, but I will leave as is per your instructions. Retcon 23:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, please don't do it again. Regards, El_C 00:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew Alphabet

Saw this message, what do you think of it? IZAK 06:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC):"I have rewritten the articles on all the Hebrew letters here and before I replace the pages, your input would be appreciated. Thanks! Sputnikcccp 16:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)"[reply]

I'm not sure, since I haven't read the individual articles to compare. But I did just move ד to Dalet (from Daleth). I am of the opinion that phonetic accuracy (wrt to present usage) superceeds other considerations. What are your thoughts? El_C 08:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Salisbury

Greetings. My memory fails me: was the (at the time) Lord Salisbury a member of the Monday Club? Thanks in advance. Regards, El_C 11:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

reply :

"Off the top of my head", I do not know. But the Lord Salisbury of that era was a very right wing guy, so it wouldn't surprise me if he was a member of the Monday Club. The following extract from the Guardian in 2001 may be of interest :

Iain Duncan Smith yesterday launched a purge of rightwing extremists when he suspended the Monday Club from the Conservative party. During a "frank" meeting, the Tory chairman, David Davis, told the club's board that he was severing its links with the party until it stopped promoting inflammatory views on race, such as the voluntary repatriation of ethnic minorities.

The article on Ian Smith refers to Monday Club support for Rhodesia as if this were evidence of something positive. Bob

Hello again, Bob, and thank you for the prompt reply. Please review my response submitted on your talk page. Thanks again. Regards, El_C 11:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extract from Wikipedia :

Robert Arthur James Gascoyne-Cecil, 5th Marquess of Salisbury, KG (August 27, 1893–February 23, 1972) was a grandson of the great 3rd Marquess. Nicknamed "Bobbety", the 5th Marquess was elected to the House of Commons in 1929, and then called up to the House of Lords by a writ in acceleration in 1941, before he succeeded his father as Marquess of Salisbury in 1947.

Lord Salisbury was a prominent Tory politician in the 1940s and 1950s, serving in the governments of Winston Churchill, Anthony Eden, and Harold Macmillan. He was known as a hardline imperialist, and was a staunch defender of the European-dominated governments in South Africa and in Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) during the 1960s, and a fierce opponent of liberal-left attempts to reform the House of Lords, yet he created what is known as the Salisbury Convention. He became in 1961 the 1st President of the Conservative Monday Club, a post he held until his decease.

Right, he was pretty much their (European Rhodesians) driving-force in the Lords (except perhaps after Huggins resigned as PM of the CAF and for its duration only), and Pres. of the Club; it's all somewhat coming back to me now. El_C 13:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Free drugs

Very funny. Merry Christmas to you -- Gurch 12:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, sad. :( Santa was here, btw, see above. Regretfuly, there were no free drugs (unless...!). Happy holidays to you, too! El_C 12:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdistan

Hey man, how come you restored the external links? Could you comment on the talk page? Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 13:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry 'bout that, I overlooked the notice. I reverted myself in that section. Regards, El_C 13:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks El C

Thanks for the protect El C. That user seems to have appeared just to revert and make attacks. A likely sockpuppet no doubt and a lot of people seem to be having a problem with him/her. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m t 14:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now, now. Let's assume good faith and all that jazz. I'd actually like participants on both sides to tone down the personal remarks. Regards, El_C 14:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah Gren said the same thing and of course I agree :). Guess I was just angry because CltFn has done this type of thing with using anon IPs to revert so many times before. I got dragged into this somehow, but uptill a day ago I didn't even remember it existed. :P Also please check this out where a similar editor has returned and I tried to compromise but the editor wants it his way despite being reverted by other editors too [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religious_conversion&action=history]. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m t 14:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Similar? Anger leads to the Dark Side. [htp://www.backtojerusalem.com Back to Jerusalem]... Somehow, that source strikes me as falling short of authoritative. El_C 14:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, not only a problem of the anger, but the sources too are a problem. So please keep an eye on it and Happy Holidays to you El C. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 14:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I added it to my watchlist. Thanks again! :) El_C 14:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is this worthy of a block [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_in_the_United_States&diff=32666297&oldid=32663062]? This guy is really starting to sound a lot like Enviroknot..Yuber(talk) 17:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Guy (?), but the name implies... Anyway, I'm not prepared to issue blocks at this time. El_C 22:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No ownership of [user talk] pages [?]

Including talk pages. I think the comment you made on Zordrac's talk was rhetorical/sarcastic, but this point is pretty darn clear as policy: Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page, Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes. You could argue that WP:NPA overrides this, which is borderline. But most certainly nothing I ever wrote on Zordrac's page even remotely approached personal attack. His deletions consisted solely of "polite disagreements." In any case, I always err on the side of preserving comments (perhaps in an archive though), because the appearance (or actual intention) of falsifying discussion history is a very bad no-no. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, not including user talk pages. My question was not rhetorical nor was it sarcastic, and I have no need to bring WP:NPA into this. I thought that, perhaps, unbeknownst to me, policy has changed, but that does not seem to be the case. Thus, you appear to be confused, as WP:OWN does not apply to (one's own) user talk page(s), and a style guide isn't binding policy. Whenever you revert a registered user's deletion of comments in their talk page, against their wishes, that counts as disruption. You may, however, copy (and/or archive) those comments to your own talk page. Please be more careful with citing policy. Thanks. El_C 22:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well... OK, if you say so. I've never heard anyone claim WP:OWN didn't apply to user (talk) space before. Quite a few admins have mentioned to me (or in general conversations) that it does apply. And I'll certainly continue to behave as if it does (because it should). Acting as if there was ownership of user pages is certainly one of the most common mistakes on WP. FWIW, however, on the narrow Zordrac issue, I never once reverted his deletions, as improper and annoying as they were. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I say so. Those admins are incorrect; feel free to send em my way, if you're able to recall who said what. In the meantime, please refrain from statements such as "absolutely and categorically in violation of WP policy." While blanking (selectively & otherwise) comments from one's own talk page is bad form, it is not a policy violation — stating that it is so is a mirepresentation. El_C 04:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Off the top of my head, I think SlimVirgin, Neutrality and Mel_Etitis were a few admins who have mentioned this specific non-ownership issue. But it's certainly been many others since I joined Wikipedia. In any case, Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes is pretty direct on this (admittedly, that is indeed a guideline rather than a policy); but then WP:OWN, while not firmly putting its foot down on this, is much closer to saying that user pages are non-owned than to saying the contrary. I confess, however, I engaged in a bit of an excessive rhetorical flourish with "absolutely and categorically"... I suppose the overwhelming volume of tirades and insults from Zordrac annoyed me enough to overstate the matter slightly. Still, it's definitely "very bad manners" to delete as he did. You can find some of the deletions mentioned at User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/sandbox2: none of the removed comments are within a stone's throw of disruption or personal attack. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The edit being removed need not be disruptive in order for the removal to be within policy (though indeed, outside other pertinent guide/s). Again, policy violation does not necessarily follow from bad form, and we do allow a personal space, within policy. Thus, in their user/talk page, the editor can become the censor, for better or worse. And again, if that's an issue for someone, they can edit their own talk page and note the diffs, etc. That said, if you have doubts, feel free to bring this conversation before the Arbitration Committee in a request for clarification, I'm very confident they would cocur with my explanation. If you wish to amend or develop new policy to respond to this issue, that would also be your progrative. IMUHO, sometimes people just want to be left alone for a while, and within reason, I do view their user/talk page as their sanctuary, whether I disapprove of their actions, in that sense, or not. El_C 05:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1948 Arab-Israeli War

You unprotected the 1948 Arab-Israeli War article, with comment "I hope the protection period proved productive". I am sorry to crush your hope, but the matter is currently under arbitration. Unprotecting the article would be unwise at this time.-- Heptor talk 03:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Did you make the fractals yourself? Cool. -- Heptor talk 03:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. No, they're from Commons. My hopes are not crushed, nor was the page unprotected yet, I am still waiting to review any objections. Regards, El_C 03:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think the page should stay protected for now, at least until we see how things are going in the arb case. Btw, your input on that page would be most appreciated. --Zero 07:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, okay, if you think that's best. Sure, I'll try to figure out what's what soon. Bring on the paranormal investigators! Regards, El_C 07:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ehm, the reason for this request is mostly that I stayed up a little too late yesterday. If this it bad, you should have seen what I wrote on the ARMA model (fixed it now, of course). -- Heptor talk 12:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, no, you're good; but I think you got the wrong idea what was meant by "paranormal investigator", which luckily will have no bearing on the accuracy or lack thereof in the investigation of the paranormal. El_C 13:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OMFG, PPPLEASE DON'T!!!! -- Heptor talk 18:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly! I mean, what? Regards, El_C 01:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Islam in the United States

Hi El C. There have been responses to unprotection here. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. Regards, El_C 01:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wishes

Hello, I wish you and your family a prosperous and happy New Year 2006! We shall surely remain actively involved in the Project Wikipedia. --Bhadani 17:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Bhadani. Best wishes to you & yours for a joyful as well as productive 2006! Yours, El_C 00:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew wiki

Try the 1929 massacre "טבח חברון" The role of the mufti there is well shown and if you copy thisd into 1929 you will be reverted. So to argue that that Hebrew wiki is "the authorative source" can not be accepted. Zeq 06:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made no such argument, 'tis a featured article, though. Copy what? I'm not following that at all. El_C 07:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested

Been working hard on the Shoshone National Forest article as I promised...have a look...have recently expanded the section discussing glaciers and global warming...I'm almost done covering most I can and I'm probably going to send it off to peer review in a week or so...if you see anything that needs changing, well, don't hesitate!--MONGO 12:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good! Real good! Well done. Will have a closer look soon. Cordially & sincerely yours, El_C 13:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

k, sorry

I just saw the comment by Pgk that it messes up the main page, didn't realise that - You didn't say *why* you were changing, which would've helped :) --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 14:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I see. Still, when in doubt, please ask (i.e. assume a rational impetus). Thanks again. El_C 14:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Costa Rica

Squeakbox says the Costa Rica statement violates the NPOV i dont think it does because its just a statement people have made to about Costa Rica. XGustaX Could you please help me out buddy? XGustaX

Has the matter been resolved now? Looks like you both violated 3RR. As mentioned earlier, the passage was translated from a print encyclopedia, and I also provided further authoritative sources at that time (on the talk page). El_C 23:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

For last year's words belong to last year's language

And next year's words await another voice.
And to make an end is to make a beginning.
T.S. Eliot, "Little Gidding"
Happy New Year! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Happy New Year! El_C 23:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC) — Now! El_C 00:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er...

Tried what? To delete that userbox? -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 04:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to indent my signature without all the blank space. El_C 04:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wording

I apologize for my use of the term "illegal". What I meant was "out of process" (i.e. not following WP:TFD). In hindsight, I agree that the original term was too inflammatory. Firebug 15:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. Thanks. El_C 15:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage

What's the latest change to your userpage supposed to mean? -- Essjay · Talk 15:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question! Sadly, I no longer recall much, except that looking at Mia suddenly made me very, very sleepy. Almost as if she was singing to me: ♪Trust in me, just in me, close your eyes and trust in me.♪ Hypnotic! /slips into silent slumber, sails on a silver mist. El_C 15:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faux-wikiStalinist userbox

Your Che picture and quote give me indigestion inspires me to adopt the revolutionary path, but that userbox goes on the list of funniest wikimoments of all time, and it's now on my userpage and User:Phroziac's userpage, thanks! Babajobu 17:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For sure! I also applied some friendly censorship to your outrageous counter-revolutionary subversion! El_C 17:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reproduced

Counter-counter response

File:Stalin3.jpgThis user actively participated in the Great 2006 New Year's Day Userbox Purge, and would do it again. El_C 12:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Users who disendorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Your lameness knows no bounds. Kitty 12:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I echo that. Stop following me already! El_C 12:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention you stole that template. Kitty 12:29, 1 January 2066 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea what you're talking about. El_C 12:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Riiight. It wasn't funny the third time, it's not gonna be funny the sixth time. Idiot. Kitty 12:30, 1 January 2666 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I laughed. It was funny! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    I laughed, too. It's actually very funny. I particularly like the "and would do it again." LOL Sarah Ewart 14:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    LOLZ-until-heart-attack, that is so funny, OMG thank you El_C, I'm putting it on my userpage!! Babajobu 16:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You reproduced it? Why do you even bother? Nobody cares. Kitty 12:45, 1 January 2060 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you just shut up already. El_C 18:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Counter Strike

{{User_survived}}   - By User:Miborovsky --81.77.195.114 15:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Users who think this is all playground madness (sign with ~~~~):

  1. See, now everyone can see you stole it from Hmib. Idiot. Kitty 16:00, 1 January 2606 (UTC)[reply]
    What, I didn't say anything! El_C 16:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is just pathetic at this point. Ugen was right to mock you. And you actually approached him on his talk page! I can't believe what an idiot you are. Kitty 12:45, 1 January 2660 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck

What the heck is going on here? I just went to have a little NPA chat with Kitty, only to see Red's note and wonder if I'd missed something. Somebody please tell me what the heck is going on! -- Essjay · Talk 03:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt he'll comment. I think that, at this point, Kitty is concentrating on less NPAing — wish him luck! El_C 16:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qur'an Image Removal

The image is not suitable to Quran holiness Zanoon 17:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, do not consider any book to be holy, but that aside, why do you find it unsuitable? El_C 17:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi El C. Happy New Year! Just wanted to point out that banned user:enviroknot is currently editing the Islamist Terrorism article [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamist_terrorism&action=history] using anon IP 66.69.139.191. Definitely enviroknot; check contribs where he tried to remove the sock tag from an old enviroknot sockpuppet. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year, AE! I'll try to have a look at it soon, but now is not a good time, I'm afraid. El_C 18:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A familiar problem

I think you've probably had some experiences with User:CJK (I imagine none good). He has, unfortunately, found the page List of dictators that I am one of three or four "maintainers" on. As a start, he started out adding various USA boosterism to talk pages (or more specifically, anti-Communist ranting). That wasn't so bad, being talk pages and all. But unfortunately, it seems to be leading where I thought it would lead: mostly, so far, to moderately bad changes to the Castro entry (chiefly, so far, in removal of citations on the grounds they are not "sufficiently anti-Castro"). But I fear it portend even more obnoxious changes, probably spreading to other items.

I think he'll probably violate 3RR soon (takes one more edit). So maybe that will keep him away on a short-term block. From what I can see of his edit history, such would be very transient relief though. Any advice by chance? These ideological warriors are just so damned frustrating to deal with while editing any pages with vaguely political content. The dictators one, maybe not surprisingly, gets more anti-Castro fanatics than all other destructive edits combined. Moreover, it's not even a dispute about listing Castro, it's just that they seem to feel that the annotation isn't sufficiently long and vitriolic for their tastes (but what they add is never germane to the list inclusion criteria, which is what we annotate). Blech! Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bletch! indeed. When an encyclopedia project reports the lie about "free elections" in Cuba, I feel the need to resist. How evil of me. CJK 19:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, but I'll have to review this issue later, I need a bit of a reprieve from conflict. Thank you both for your patience. El_C 19:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by 12.41.207.162?

Earlier today you reverted nearly two dozen edits by 12.41.207.162 where the user added links to the "MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base" web site. At first blush, this appeared to me to be spam, however upon further review, I am not so sure now. While the link is clearly not appropriate for some of the more specific articles such as Babbar Khalsa and National Liberation Front of Tripura, it looks like it could be a good external resource link for more general articles such as Nationalist terrorism, State-sponsored terrorism, etc. --Kralizec! 18:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't reviewed the website closely, in that sense (though I would prefer x terrorism-specific, preferably non-repetitive links) — use your discretion. El_C 18:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was gleaned from the MIPT website's "about us" page:
The National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT) is a non-profit organization dedicated to preventing terrorism on U.S. soil or mitigating its effects. MIPT was established after the April 1995 bombing of the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City, and it is funded through the Department of Homeland Security's Office for State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness (OSLGCP).
The United States Congress directed MIPT to conduct “research into the social and political causes and effects of terrorism” through our automated information systems and to “serve as a national point of contact for antiterrorism information sharing among Federal, State and local preparedness agencies, as well as private and public organizations dealing with these issues.” MIPT firmly believes that the accurate dissemination of knowledge on terrorism is a critical ingredient for combating terrorism. Serving the needs of emergency responders, counterterrorism practitioners, policymakers, and the public, MIPT offers access to a wealth of information resources including its knowledge base initiatives, its website, and its library collection.
While I could be mistaken, this looks to be a good resource for the general purpose terrorism articles. --Kralizec! 18:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning toward singular usage (i.e. Terrorism) at this stage; see my comment above. El_C 18:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

possible request for comment?

I am inclined to let it slide because I think I am dealing with a nut-case. But do you consider this (the last sentence) an anti-Semitic threat? [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Virago#Wikipedia_is_neither_a_dictionary_nor_a_thesaurus] Slrubenstein | Talk 19:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it certainly seems suggestive of being exactly that. Let me know what happens. Regards, El_C 19:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Widey pages

I have no idea. It seems to do that every few weeks. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You must fix that immediately, or terrifyingly harsh penalties will follow! El_C 20:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the poem below by Ghoreselkhi, or by Brecht? It sounds like Brecht (meaning: it is good). As far as I can tell the wideying problem on Slim's talk page has NOT been solved. About pages for deletion, would you mind nominating it? I'll second, but I have been such a contentious part of the debaate on the talk page I do not think I am the best person to make the initial proposal, Slrubenstein | Talk 21:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by comrade Ghoreselkhi! :) Looks solved to me, but maybe I'm running a higehr resolution than you. Anyway, it's listed here. El_C 23:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks X 2 Slrubenstein | Talk 00:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NP. AfD is kinda complixcated now; took me a while to figure out I need === for the title (not one, not two, not four, nor five). Of course, all I actually had to do is look at any other entry, but no, I had to go through a process of elimination! Yay! El_C 00:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moderate, Mediate, Whatever

Yeah, I did :-P I am technically moderating regardless, but i'll page move. karmafist 05:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to overtax the subtleties! El_C 05:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Request for Adminship

Greetings, El C! I wanted to sincerely thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with a final result of 55/14/3. Your support means a lot to me! If you have any questions or input regarding my activities, be they adminly or just a "normal" user's, or if you just want to chat about anything at all, feel free to drop me a line. Cheers! —Nightstallion (?) 07:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.... El_C 14:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mh? —Nightstallion (?) 14:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Mh, I'm afraid. El_C 14:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to elaborate? —Nightstallion (?) 06:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I realized that I am not prepared to elaborate at this time. I will let you know. Thanks for your interest. Regards, El_C 09:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. Take care! —Nightstallion (?) 10:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

about the picture ,,,

Hi , first of all for this anon , I'm not sock puppet for any person and this is big insult , any way , my concern about the picture is in one thing only: the picture is not related to the key topic (it can be suitable to sub topic , any other thing , but as a key topic it is not related at all , that is it ). I'm not against the picture , and zora said that : "the women even didn't touch the picture " actually according to the Islamic faith , there is no single issue if this women was naked and touch quran , touching in our faith ( and in the quran script doesn't mean real touch , but means "understanding" ). and zora said something about picture for the Christ , actually the comparison is not fair at all , since the picture was under topic photography , so if she is going to compare , she should compare holy books key topics to each other,

so , the issue is very simple and is not related to any thing other than it is not suitable at all,

thanks. Mostafa bakry 08:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mostafa, and thank you for the prompt response. In partial answer to your question, it's an enormous Qur'an, commissioned by the Timur of Iran — it's difficult to argue that it's entirely unrelated. I realize that in terms of the historical impact of the book, this is trivia, but at the same time, it's an encyclopedic piece of history nonetheless. No, it isn't crucial, but it adds positive, if marginal, colour to the article. Since it is, then, fairly marginal, ordinarily, I would'nt care (and I don't, really) if it's dropped from the article — however, there is a more fundamental issue at play here. I am not willing to give in to objections which, seemingly, are rooted in misogynistic reactions to the woman in the picture (which add the human versus enormous Qur'an proportion). I strongly feel that Wikipedia should strive toward secular and modern presentation, not subject to the, in this case, sexually ascetic 'whims' of this or that religion, and in general, their peculiarities playing a role in this aforementioned presentation. This, of course, isn't limited to religion, and it's the same thing for an atheist monarchist to write Her Majesty for a queen as it is for a Muslim to write Peace be upon him for Ali. And it dosen't mean disrespect is the order of the day. A much less clad woman would be disrespectful — I'm not in favour of rubbing conservative Muslims' (or Chirstians, Hinduists, Jews, etc.) nose in what offends them, as irrational as I myself may find it. Still, if it's a matter of sleeves, then I don't think Wikipedia should 'capitulate' to objections which stem from this tendency. This, because the oppressive laws & customs which (I argue) dehumanize woman to such an extent, in countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, are ones that not only I, myself, consider outrageously discriminatory against women, amounting to a form of fascism, but is also a view shared by the majority of of editors on Wikipedia. Editors who are predominatly from secular Western (and to a lesser extent, Former Eastern-block) nations; that is, although most of whom are theists, they at the same time, more-or-less-so follow secularism in a political-legal (I would say libertarian for even greater accuracy, but the word has been so distorted beyond any and all recognition) sense. Thus, I think you are likely to see a lot of opposition to these sort of protests, maybe not so much in this case (then again, maybe so), but for more crucially-related issues and themes, certainly. So what amounts to an edict by an Islamic regime, which is compulsory in those countries, will likely be approached more in the sense of condeming those laws and viewing those regimes as outcasts (which I support) rather than appeasing them —beyond the aforementioned respect accorded to secular theists, agnostists and atheists as per the ascetic-to-hedonism continuum. And while genuine wikipedians will be polite and careful to explain themsleves with utomost precision and all due moderation (those wikipedians are a dying breed, though, it seems), the rational itself, or at least the principle behind the stance, will remain the same (even from Islamophobes who themsleves invariably suffer from other acute forms of chuavinism just as the Islamists do). I am, of course, not suggesting by any of that that you, Mostafa bakry, are an Islamist (meaning, an Islamic fundamentalist), a proponent of Islamic regimes and compulsory laws, and so on, I merely undertook this depiction on account of its overall clarity, dialectically. Clarity which I hope did not get lost in the verbosity. Thanks for reading. Regards, El_C 14:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for your support of my RfA; I appreciate your confidence. Best wishes for a happy new year, Tom Harrison Talk 13:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Same to you. Best, El_C 14:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

As another user has also tried to shorten Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors to Wikipedia is not censored, I have started a section on the talk page to discuss the proposed change. As you seem to know the history of the section heading, I thought I would alert you to it. -- Dalbury(Talk) 20:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was me: I realise now it should probably stay if only because of the quirks of US and US state "obscenity" laws, even though it does refer to that it's not censored for anyone, not just "minors" --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 21:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notice, Dalbury; I will try to review and comment on that page soon. Selina, US and US state obscenity laws, especially those of the State of Florida, are one factor. But a borader issue is the epistemological ambiguity; as in, not censored in terms of what (I censor Holocaust revisionism presented on par with mainstream Holocaust historiography all the time, for example). While I agree that the censored against minors criteria is limited, I am nevertheless of the opinion that a more qualified title(s) is needed to avoid confusion in that sense, as well as curtail potential abuse via wiki and wordlawyering. Hope that makes sense. Regards to you both, El_C 09:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Healing Wikipedia

I wonder if there is a way to heal the issues and differences that DCV's arbitration has brought to the foreground? In some ways, this entire affair has been bad for racial relations here at Wikipedia. Those who don't like how DCV acts have said that their actions are solely in response to DCV not being "nice" (so to speak). Those who don't like what has happened to DCV (like me) see the affair as being driven by racism and bigotry. The funny thing is that there is overlap between the two sides. A number of those pushing to sanction DCV admit that some of actions against her have been wrong and haven't helped racial issues here (and that some of the users pushing the issue against her are doing so for possibly racist reasons). Almost all of us opposed to the actions against DCV admit that she is abrasive and has violated Wikipedia guidelines and should be more civil in her discussions here. What we see, though, is a double-standard at work, with users appearing to gang up against non-minority editors like DCV for being less than civil but not doing the same to white editors. If this subject interest you, I'd encourage you to post you thoughts here on a special talk page I created.--Alabamaboy 21:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree strongly with your sentiments; I will try to review and comment on that page soon. Regards, El_C 09:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish lists and categories

Hello, I have made a compromise proposal at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion. Regards Arniep 23:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice; I will try to review and comment on it soon. Regards, El_C 09:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Conflict at Ariel Sharon

I accidently reverted some of your (legitimate) edits when trying to revert vandalism at Ariel Sharon -- sorry! GabrielF 20:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, it's perfectly fine. :) While you were writing this note, I wrote one on your talk page here. Sorta an edit conflict, too! Best, El_C 20:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Request for Adminship

Hey man, thanks for voting in my RfA, I got it! :) If you need anything, just give me a shout. PS. I hope I'm right to put this above rather than below the images ;) - FrancisTyers 00:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure; will do. Best, El_C 03:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Castro

Hopefuly, the article dosen't further degenrate into a propaganda vehicle... It probably will, given the kind of discourse that has been rendered acceptable on Wikpedia following the list of dictators AfC debacle, which voted away NPOV on pages dealing with political figures disliked in the United States. The "list of dictators" article directly inspired the movement to classify Castro as a dictator without attribution in his article. The U.S. perception of the Cuban Revolutions will inevitably dominate Wikipedia articles. Still, Comandante is not an articulate counterweight to other POVs. He rarely, if ever, uses the talk pages; and he seems to go out of his way to make provocative edits. 172 03:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeated the same WHO source so many times, to so many people, noted it on the article propper, et cetera, etc., to no avail. Eventually, I just gave up and let TDC et al. and Comandante battle it out. Point is, there are more of them than him, or me, or you. El_C 03:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that I going to be regarded as further to the 'left' than most Wikipedia editors. Ironically, they have little idea that throughout much of Latin America I would probably be pigeonholed on the 'center' or 'center-right.' Similarly, for example, if Fernando Henrique Cardoso started to edit the English Wikipedia's articles on Marxism, many editors here would undoubtably characterize him as a 'far left' and 'pro-Communist,' though he is now almost universally regarded as a neoliberal in Brazil. Still, editors familiar with other world views have no choice but to accept the fact that the English Wikipeidia is as deeply anchored in the cultural Anglosphere as any website. The WHO source is probably never going to be palatable ideologically in the Castro article here on en.wikipedia. Still, you do have some room to maneuver in shaping the content of articles on this topic, despite the inevitable political climate in a website dominated by users from the United States. It is an improvement, after all, if an article goes from disseminating disinformation to being at worst uninformative. In other words, if you cannot add verifiable claims because of the political reaction, you can at least try to remove the unverifiable claims of other users. 172 06:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very little room to maneuver; free, well-sourced speech so long as it's brief and inconsequential. El_C 06:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regrettably. Still, brief and inconsequential content is preferable to overt disinformation. 172 06:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. We'll see how long I can keep it up. Not that I'm doing much, to begin with. El_C 06:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

er...me again. What is the WHO source (yes I followed the link, I presume you mean a specific report somewhere)? There are obviously plenty of options from AI as well. Wikibofh(talk) 03:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, welcome! Please refer to Implied Causation, literacy issue again (archive 6). El_C 04:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you better start with my comment (noting the WHO source) @"Great" healthcare and literacy increases (my comment is 2nd). El_C 04:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See them. Not convinced, but need to look further (sleep required). In particular I wonder about the reliablity of WHO numbers when they are probably reported by the government. The argument is more convincing on the face of it than numbers provided on voter turnout however, where editors espouse high voter turnout shows better democracy, ignoring that the opposite is actually true. Wikibofh(talk) 04:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, the WHO can be fooled, again. I see no conclusive reason to doubt their findings. El_C 04:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the nameless

Rfa thanks

Hello El C. Thank you for supporting my Rfa! :) I will try my best to be a good administrator. Please ask me if you need any help. And my regards to kitty too. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did it; even though you suck at the internet! Congrats! Kitty 11:ɸ5, 7 January 2006 (UTC

My RfA

 Hi,
I just want to say thanks for supporting me on my request for adminship! It passed by a 58/3/0 margin, so I am now an administrator. If you need me to help you out, or you find that I'm doing anything wrong, please don't hesitate to contact me. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure; in all due lameness, please look into getting a user name — both you and AE! El_C 11:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And my RfA, too! Thanky Thanky to El_C!

Oh, God, every time I'm in your user space, with the pictures of Che and now the revolutionary poet in mid-oratory, my head starts to spin and I'm sure I'll pass out...but I wont let that stop me from thanking you for your very kind support of my RfA! I'm now an admin, and if there is any way at all that I can be of service, or if there is anything I do that you have questions or concerns about, please let me know! Meanwhile, your faux-wikiStalinist userbox has spread like a meme...it's on numerous userpages! Thanks again for the laughathon that it produced the first time I saw it amidst all the chaos over l'affaire userboxen! Babajobu 15:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm regreting it already! Need more revolutionary symbols to finish the job, I reckon.... Erm, I mean, hope to have some drinks (& tuna) in a reeducation camp near you some day, Babajobu! P.S. that userboxen rebelion was very, very stupid, but I'll forgive you, I guess... This time! Kitty 17:4ʒ, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Obsessionality

Definitely exists. [htp://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=obsessionality&btnG=Google+Search&meta=] Used by psychiatrists a lot. I look forward to seeing a proliferation of it, even an obsessionality about it, in your future posts. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[New sections go above pictures!] Will do! Obsessionatively yours!, El_C 21:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note for you on snuh. About posting above the pictures: it means we can't use the tab at the top of your page, which always posts at the end. I think that's why you keep finding posts there. It's easier for lazy people, of which I am one. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so how do I fix that without being an idiot (or less of an idiot, at least) ? I command you! El_C 14:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well hello there!

It's been some while, has it not?

What's been going on, El_C? How've you been? Heard you left for a brief spell before being lured back by a certain someone (King Henry in the snow before Canossa, maybe?). Drop me a line, we'll talk. Wally 21:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wally! It has been too long — good to have you back! I've been alight, nothing too new or exciting to report (though perhaps my alterfeline, Kitty, would wish to expand). I've taken a few breaks here and there, but haven't actually left. Currently engaged in providing updates and attempting to restore some sanity at Ariel Sharon. Looking forward to having you around! Best regards, El_C 21:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F**k

Hola Jefe! I was defending this place Vs market place terminology but found this place as being a jungle. Please, I need your advice and comment in this situation: here -- Szvest 23:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™[reply]

Now he finds out; cute. :) Anyway, I'll send him over. Kitty 23:3ξ, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
lol, Kitty rocks.. I think you owe El C drug stho. :) --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 23:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the old saying goes, flattery will get you everywhere! Here's a poem I wrote whilst licking:
tuna is good, catnip is great; my owner is an idiot. /bows Kitty 00:0ʈ, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Have you reached any comment, guys? - Szvest 01:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™[reply]
Sorry, I'm not entirely clear what is meant by that. El_C 01:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
El C! I thought you kept the Kitty as your Guardian! I was not aware of the tiger you got (not a kitten). I was just asking el Jefe about their opinion. Cheers -- Szvest 01:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™[reply]
Sorry, he's napping. He's a guardian who sleeps 16 hrs a day! El_C 01:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jefe! I fear the kitten would turn out to belong to Category:Felines instead of Category:Murder victims. Cheers -- Szvest 02:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™[reply]
Let's hope! What? El_C 02:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lol! I'm confused myself now! Ok, let's hope Einstein is wrong! No, I support him! But well, He was just like us. Cheers -- Szvest 02:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™[reply]
Wow. Free drugs, again! El_C 02:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I told ya! Ya told meah! ;) Hey, hey! Robert Deniro. -- Wiki me up™

High school

Please don't stalk me. That's creapy.--Muchosucko 01:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you? El_C 01:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No seriously, let's just forget about it alright? I'm sorry for whatever comment I made. Please, no games. Just chill alright?--Muchosucko 01:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? You were nothing but a fleeting memory until now, really. El_C 01:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation Wiki

Noticed your changes to your userpage, and I'm wondering how you got an account on the Foundation Wiki...Feel free to leave a note on my Meta talk or email if you don't want the secret getting out here. ;-) -- Essjay · Talk 08:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

does your kitten accept bribes for cat espionage (~wants an account too!~) ? --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 10:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, Kitty only espionigezeses in the interest of the revolution. :) But everything is open to read, and it's far from as controversial as it may sound. ;) Anyway, I thought I might as well make myself accessible. But I should stress that I did not approach it as secretive or anything, teehee; such has not been my experience. Essentially, I saw some errors in Hebrew on the foundation fundraising thingy, wanted to edit it, got directed to the meta requesty page, created an account on meta where I can also help with tranlsations, too (I had one, but I forgot my password, much like with Kitty's account; I've since learned my lesson), placed a request copying the format, and was approved by Danny who I've known for a long while now (he's one of the good guys; and a good translator, too). Anyway, let's say Danny translates this or that but he has to leave town for a few days, and the thing is only 3/4 finished and hasn't been proofread, now he has one more person he can seek direct assistance from (without account-holding intermediaries, and so on). Sorry to report it isn't more sensational than that! :D El_C 14:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justforasecond

Okay. Grace Note 02:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. :) El_C 02:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing the point

Of course my comments were not aimed at getting her to stay- she's already decided to leave! Isn't the next best thing to simply end the conflict? I find it a bit curious that she's apparently not interested in either ending the conflict, or in working on the encyclopedia. I wonder what that leaves? Friday (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Her arbitration case. El_C 00:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hehe

heehee. you're funny, mr. el c :) -Justforasecond 03:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't underestimate the pathos, Mister Justforasecond. El_C 03:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deeceevoice's departure

If you're interested in speculating about deeceevoice's departure. -- Jim Apple 05:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the...?! Shameful provocation. El_C 13:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turin

El C, can you please explain me why you have reverted my edits in the article Turin. As long as there is a Romanian version of the website, why should it not be listed. I'm not curious about your thoughts but Wikipedia is NPOV, isn't it? So, spare me. You can find the romanian version [htp://www.comune.torino.it/ro/ here]. --Danutz

That the website isn't in English, so our readership here on .en are unlikely to find much use for it (as opposed to readers on the .ro). El_C 14:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. But why do you remove Romanian. I see Spanish, French listed there. I understand you removed the external link (that was just as a proof) but why also the language? I explained all in the discussion page. :) --Danutz

I only remove what I am immediately privy to; feel free to remove any other non-English links. El_C 16:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Page

Hey, thanks for fixing the vandlism on the Paris page - and good to see you around. As you may well have seen things are still far from sparkly there, but (on your advice) leaving that aside, I have started a portal, project and a few articles. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Paris Streets will be the most relaxing and fun of the lot. In short, I'm getting used to things.

Thanks, and Take care!

THEPROMENADER 15:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it, Josef! Good to see you still at it and making good progress. Don't hesitate to drop by to say hi from time to time. :) Best, El_C 15:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your "Paris page" questioning - Hardouin is doing his best to ignore but I alerted him on his talk page. If all arguments remain unanswered I will be going through with improvements later this week - here's hoping that this won't be another cycle of unreferenced reverts.
BTW, what's going on with mediation? Is it dead? Only two cases active, and that since a long time... I may try the Cabal instead. Cheers! THEPROMENADER 09:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hardouin is not "doing his best to ignore". I find this petty and sneaky slandering in my back by ThePromenader totally despicable. By the way, why "his"?? Who said I was a man?? El C, if you have precise questions, please ask me. ThePromenader has been making mountains of accusations and criticism in the past months, I have answered them many times. Read the history page if you are not afraid of ThePromenader's lenghty messages, then ask me what point in particular you would like me to comment, since ThePromenader is "denouncing" pretty much 99% of the article content. It's better you screen first the points where you'd like a comment. We had another user (User:Stevage) involved with the talk page, but he gave in when he couldn't understand where ThePromenader was getting at with his lenghty messages and constant opposition to almost anything that I write. Sigh... Hardouin 12:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hardouin has never engaged in any pre-emptive discussion of any sort - 'ignoring' is a fairly applicable term for this. I contest the purely personal and unreferencable opinons he publishes as fact - for sure things would be much 'nicer' if I would just go away after being ignored then reverted a few times like many others before me. By all means, El_C, please read, and please feel free to contact Stevage himself. Hardouin seems to have met little resistance until now and doesn't seem to be pleased about it, thus his desperate arguments and exaggerations. Yet carrying on here is just silly. My apologies for this. THEPROMENADER 22:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try to keep the exchange a dispassionate, intellectual one. Now, it's best to begin one item at a time, starting with the most pressing. So both of you have the floor. Regards to you both, El_C 04:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry this came here. I think we're getting close to getting things sorted out - doing our best to push reason before all. Thanks for listening : ) THEPROMENADER 21:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, any time. Glad to hear it. :) Regards, El_C 21:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your greeting, and the same to you. I'm not sure that I'm glad to be back, exactly, but if I didn't take the plunge now, I'd probably have stayed away permanently. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hear that. This place definitely ain't getting less strange, to say the least. Regardless, it will be good having you around. Best, El_C 17:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion

Success at last. -Will Beback 19:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am easily confused, mind you... GJ, though! El_C 19:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Franklin vandals

Would you also consider protecting Benjamin Franklin using {{sprotected}}? - CobaltBlueTony 19:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've semiprotected it. --BorgQueen 19:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! :) - CobaltBlueTony 20:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I didn't even do anything! ;) El_C 02:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is external links for? To the casual user to read? Or something related to the subject, most notably governamental websites, etc? One was Guinea's news agency. Information for the article should be in the article and not in the external links that can be in any language with the proper warning that it is in another language, that occurs in every wikipedia, even in EN. So I'll add the links again, because those in the article present an English perspective (often with lack of knowledge) and unrelated to the country. The given links are websites made by nationals, which I think it would be more interresting to the interested reader. There are language schools everywhere where one can learn another language. Somebody who is interested in the country, may already speak the language. People use wikipedia very differently from the use you give to it. -Pedro 20:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pedro. The guideline is at WP:EL (WP:WEB is in the works). The problem I have is that our casual (meaning, average) reader is not going to be able to read Portuguese. And those who do, are likely to check out the article on the Portuguese Wikipedia. I can appreciate that there is a dire shortage of coverage on Guinea-Bissau, so I might be willing to reconsider what I'm otherwise more strict on (let's say, versus Brazil). Still, I would like to hear your thoughts on my rational regarding non-English links. Best, El_C 02:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Campaigning

Since campaigning for or against RFA's is frowned upon, I'd say you acted correctly. It is spamming when a person doesn't even bother to see if the people have voted or not (Dunc, for example, had already voted). Guettarda 07:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm relieved to find you feel I acted correctly. Regards, El_C 07:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did check, then as I stated in my Talk page I misread part of the list. And there is no "El C" who voted in the new RFA, so I was at that point on the correct list. (SEWilco 08:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
That is correct, I'm not going to participate in RfAs in the foreseeable future. Regards, El_C 08:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upsetting me

You didn't upset me. I understand what you were doing. I was simply asking you not to do it to my page any more. No hurt, no upset. Grace Note 08:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I'm glad. Will not do. Thanks for rearticulating that. Regards, El_C 08:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have reverted my talk page too. I only read it sometimes, and I appreciate people letting me know what is happening. You could have added to it rather than subtract somebody else's message. Please don't do it again. --Audiovideo 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, I will refrain from editing your talk page in the future. Sorry, if I upset you. Regards, El_C 08:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refrain from reverting my talk page in future. Dmn 21:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, I will refrain from editing your talk page in the future. El_C 08:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hey El C,

Would you please be able to revert all of 61.247.238.182 (talk · contribs)'s edits? One of the worst cases of spamming I have ever seen. --Khoikhoi 02:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Regards, El_C 04:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Khoikhoi 05:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that he/she is still doing it. I've given them 1 final warning, but I can't block them because I'm not an admin. If they insert another spam link, I'll notify you. --Khoikhoi 08:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I just reverted Rajasthan. Thanks, that saves me from doing that. El_C 08:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User added links to Ranthambore and Resort. I gave him/her a final warning, and they did not follow up to it. I suggest that they be given a 24 hour block. --Khoikhoi 00:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McKhan

You wouldn happen to be on IRC so we can discuss this would you? NSLE (T+C) 07:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. I seem to have been blocked from there due to lameness. El_C 07:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be possible to talk in a different channel, like the Esperanza one or something, still, surely. NSLE (T+C) 07:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. What's the channel? El_C 07:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we'll use #wikisocial for today. NSLE (T+C) 07:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm there. El_C 07:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DCV

Thanks for injecting sanity (again). Guettarda 14:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Sanity", I've heard of it. El_C 14:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The more I look, the more I am convinced that you are probably the only sane one in this place. Guettarda 18:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
♪ I'm all things, to all men, all of the women, all the children... ♫ Down with imperialism! Long live armed struggle! El_C 22:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

anon user ip: 210.23.154.96

El C, please accept my apologies for adding that external link yesterday without discussing it first. I am new to Wikipedia. I thought the link would be good to add as it gives another view of Tantra. I certainly don't wish any bad feeling to exist towards that website due to my actions. (That spiritual school offers free courses on the web and in study centres and is a not-for-profit group.) Is it possible perhaps to include a paragraph in the article about the use of the so-called "white tantra" or "alchemy" in gnosticism? And the same again on the Alchemy article? Sorry again. :) Regards, David, 13/01/06.

Hi, David. No apology needed. I removed the link because it mostly consisted of a page hailing the benefits of eroticism and sexuality (no argument there) but with little explanation on how this relates to the subject matter, except in refering the reader elsewhere. By all means, feel free to add content to these articles, though I encourage you the employ the talk page first so as to get a feel for the consensus. Regards, El_C 10:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding El C. That webpage relates to the Tantra article in that "Alchemy" is a term meaning "Tantra" or in particular "White Tantra" in some mystical schools hence I added the link to both the alchemy article and the tantra article. The webpage I linked to is just a general introduction to that gnostic schools view of tantra. In light of your understanding can you remove where it shows my ip address is blocked on the history page only that it reflects badly on my ip in the history page. I shall not post anything on these two articles without consenus first. Kind Regards, David, 16/01/06.

It doesn't say your ip is blocked, nor is it, so don't worry about it (material is only removed from the history in the most extreme cases). Regards, El_C 02:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was confused only because this is what I see on the history page for where you did the revert: "04:41, 12 January 2006 El C m (Reverted edits by 210.23.154.96 (talk | block) to last version by 80.135.2.91)". "block" is in blue on the screen and holding the mouse cursor over it makes a little dialog box pop up which says "Special:Blockip/210.23.154.96". Sorry to take up your time with this. David 19/01/06.

Not at all; you would'nt be able to write any of the above if you were blocked. :) El_C 04:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your message

hey El C, well I based the changes on the article on Germany and Greece. Since the name of the article is the name itself (and you can see, for example I did not change anything on Republic of Ireland, my understanding is to start the article first with the actual name of the article, followed by the official name. I think at least for European countries this can be safely used, or for Venezuela for example. The article talks about the country in general, of which the official name (reflecting the present form of government) is a part of, is my understanding at least. I hope you don't disagree with all the changes.... :-( Gryffindor 17:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not despair. But as you can see, someone has already reverted in Israel. I tend to agree. Why don't you submitt a proposal @ Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries? Regards, El_C 18:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert I arbitration

If you wish to make a statement at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert I, please do so. I have started working on it. Fred Bauder 18:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate the notice. El_C 18:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Investigations

Does [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASannse&diff=35005375&oldid=34958794 this] mean the first historic case to be undertaken by this? And if it does, is the investigation not in danger of being thrown out for insufficient insufferability in the manner in which it was suggested? And can we watch?

And while I'm at it, is the Syrian Arab Republic a country, or merely a state, while Syria is a country? Or is me wondering about this merely the result of me having grown up in a country that didn't know whether it was a country or not (or possibly two countries) but was fairly sure that it was in a state?

Yours, not very clearly, Palmiro | Talk 21:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, I forgot about my stupid association! Finally, something productive for it's idiot president to do. In answer to your question, The State is a state (of...), though it may not be a country, possibly a county, therefore, much like [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Government_of_Australia&diff=10607664&oldid=10607115 Australia], Syria is a Republic. I hope this has been enlightening for you. Our beloved president sends you his best regards (i.e. napping). Yours, El_C 22:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearing up misunderstanding

In response to your [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=35079978&oldid=35079586 comment here], I thought I should clear up a misunderstanding. That was totally an accident -- I fell asleep on my touchpad and hit the block button with my nose. Turned out a diff from the "Wikipedia is communism" vandal was up on my screen at the time, and well... Anyway, I've been taking credit for that far too long, and I am glad to get it off of my chest. Thanks. Jkelly 00:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I did the same thing with the same vandal, except my mouse was hovered over the unblock button. What a strange coincidence! El_C 00:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/KM

You commented on Kelly Martin's second RfC. it is up for archival. you may vote at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin#Archiving_this_RfC. CastAStone|(talk) 03:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defending the Motherland (or whatnot)

Comrade Compatriot,

You might be interested in a deluge of one-setence stubs about Chinese prisons that mostly cannot be verified, coming from an editor banned on 4 wikis and a track record of making stuff up. See whole discussion or the AfD page. Please? -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|e|Chugoku Banzai! 06:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He says to tell you: "keep offending the Motherland, Hmib!" I'm not entirely am sure what that means, or confident as to his sanity... Regards, Kitty 14:50, 14 January 2°°6 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thanks for supporting me in my RFA. --TimPope 14:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. El_C 02:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Haukurth(2)

With great trepidation I have accepted another nomination for adminship. - Haukur 20:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See this. El_C 02:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greece

I rv'd your last change with a comment that was more dismissive that it should have been; I was POd about something else and I was needlessly harsh; unfortunately, change comments, unlike edits, cannot be retracted. Please accept my apologies.

That said, one should use Wiki formatting instead of HTML whenever possible (See Help:Editing and elsewhere). And the two-line format looks better and is more usable (and more standard) than putting everything in one line.

Cheers, Sysin 21:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but it dosen't look better to me. Seems like redundant space (and slightly more scrolling) for naught. I'm not sure it's correct to enforce a certain style just because the templates aren't written to sit on one line by default. Anyway, I think it looks better on one line. El_C 22:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DOM

Thank you, El C for responding! I followed your suggestion and placed my thoughts on the DOM talk page for your consideration. Please let me know if it is concise and your thoughts, too. Sincerely, Johnski 05:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I'll keep an eye for responses as well as try to study it further soon. Regards, El_C 05:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Sincerely, Johnski 05:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear El C, Have you had time to look at these unresolved issues? Sincerely, Johnski 07:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I havne't; it has been just madness around here. I will try to attend to it hopefuly sometimes this week. Regards, El_C 07:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. I have reviewed and responded to your comment. Thanks again. Regards, El_C 12:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear El C, Thank you for taking the time to respond, and I believe I understand some of what you are saying, but don't think my questions may have been clear enough, so I've asked again in different words. Kindly try again to see my points, and find a solution to giving balance and accuracy to the DOM article. Sincerely, Johnski 01:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. I responded to your comment, which deals specifically with clarity (or lack thereof, rather) of the items. Thanks again. Regards, El_C 01:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

accurancy dispute

Mr. El C,

Perhaps you didn't see it because it is in the middle, but on the DoM talk page I wrote to you the following, and since have written more on the new subject I started yesterday:

Mr. El C, I hope you don't mind me helping with this subject. I would suggest by starting with making the Washington Post article reference accurate.

The current article has it this way,

An article in the Washington Post reported that DoM was "diplomatically recognized" by the Central African Republic, in 1993, but opined that that nation would probably "recognize the State of Denial if it had a letterhead."

The portion in question of the acutal article states:

"You get the feeling that the Central African Republic would recognize the State of Denial if it had a letterhead."

So I suggest our article should state accurately:

An article in the Washington Post reported that DoM was "diplomatically recognized" by the Central African Republic, in 1993, but commented "you get the feeling" that that nation "would recognize the State of Denial if it had a letterhead."

The main point is to change "probably" to what the article actual said, "you get the feeling" so please feel free to use different wording outside the quotes. Best, KAJ 00:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC) KAJ 20:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I answered on the article's talk page. Thanks. Regards, El_C 22:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello El C, I'm pleasantly surprised to see the issue regarding the Wasington Post "State of Denial" got resolved while I was away. I see that KAJ raised more issues, but I think we should take one thing at a time like you suggested, and move on to the next issue, which is the US OCC web site calling DOM an "unrecognized sovereignty" that licensed Caribbean Bank of Commerce and balance that with what their former employee stated about DOM. Can you visit that issue first? Thank you for your continuing help. If you are still unclear with what I've requested your consideration on, on that subject, please advise. Sincerely, Johnski 22:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'll try to attend to the article's talk page sometimes this week. Feel free to prepare the pertinent item/s, if you haven't already. Thanks. Regards, El_C 05:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dominion of Melchizedek

KAJ/Johnski is up to his old tricks again, attempting to change content on the above article to put a positive spin on Melchizedek. I've just reverted his latest attempt, but if you could keep an eye on it as well it would be appreciated. --Gene_poole 00:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I offered him to cite the Post passage in full, but it was broken in his addition... My challenges as per sources are on the talk page. Regards, El_C 00:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. El C: Sorry for breaking it, but now have given it in full as you offered, and even kept Gene's opening, "opined". Hope this settles that issue. On the other issues have quoted with links to sources, CBS, Forbes and Context magazine articles and tried to make my other points clearer. Hopefully that will bring us closer to settling the other issues. Best KAJ 01:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, KAJ. I'll try to study these soon. Thanks for taking the time. Regards, El_C 01:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. El C: Thank you very much for helping to solve the problem between myself and Gene on the issue of the Washington Post quote. I hope this marks a new beginning of cooperation. Thanks for taking the time to help also with the pending issues. Best, KAJ 06:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to help, KAJ. Though I do suspect it'll get increasingly more difficult from here on. Still, cautiously optimistic. Regards, El_C 06:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. El C: You are right to be cautiously optimistic. I'm hopeful since you have some optimism. I've added some more references about micronations and the founders on the DoM talk page regarding accurancy dispute after I last wrote to you, in case you didn't notice. What would be the harm in adding the accuracy tag until we resolve more of these issues? Best, KAJ 07:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. We've just had the tag on for so long, and there is the risk that it will appear as if it's being added for somewhat tangenial reasons. I'll try to attend to your responses soon, but in the meantime, it's best that the tag is not re-added by editors whose main focus on Wikipedia has been this specific article/subject. Thanks. Regards, El_C 22:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello El C, I wrote to you under DOM 21.1 above and am curious if you noticed it? Thanks, Johnski 05:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I didn't, notice, no. I've now joined the sections together to prevent that from reoccuring. Regards, El_C 05:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again El C, Would it help if I copied the points about the US OCC and put them at the bottom of the DOM talk page, so you don't have to spend as much time sorting through it? Thanks again, Johnski 06:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Sounds like a plan. Thanks. Regards, El_C 06:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Done! Please have a look see, with thanks, Johnski 06:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello El C, can you help me with Davidpdx as he reverted what I thought everyone, including him, would like? Do you see any problem with the new edition adding the quote from CBS wherein the State department called DOM a fraud, etc.? Thank you, Johnski 05:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You leave the commercial sites in the antiques sector

and revert good and free sites like mokkas.de...*bravissimo* 84.46.110.143 11:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

htp://services.google.com /feedback/abg?url=htp://www.mokkas.de/ &hl=de&client=ca-pub- 2610189510492285&adU =www.antbo.de&adT=antiquarische +b%C3%BCcher&adU=www.ooge.com &adT=Werke+ bekannter+ Maler&exp= Ads+by+Goooooooogle&done=1. Even if it didn't sell advertisment ( free?), it isn't in English. How is that informative to readers of the English Wikipedia vs. the site's advertisment revenue? (rheteorical: answer is bravo). El_C 14:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The site is free...or did you have to pay to see the information? the retorical answer is bravissimo, bravo or whatever you wan´t because it´s the same word in diff. languages...I see the other sites... you click the link and all you see is ads, ads, ads. Ok some have information, but the most have only ads or something to sell. How is that informative for anybody regardless if english or german or french? Look at goantiques...informative for anybody? Or only usefull if you like to buy antiques and wan´t a list of 1800+ antique dealerrs worldwide. This site has a lot to give and a translation tool...even if the translation is not the best but the information is worth it. ++edit++ and the funniest thing is, you think you are the titan of the moderators and fill out a spamreport for a site that doesn´t even spam for themselves...shame on wikipedia.com that people can do what they wan´t... 84.46.110.143 18:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Wikipedia.org is volunteer-based. 2. I am not obliged to look at every single link when I look through a recent diff; why don't you remove impertinent sites (or add actual content to the article that's: a. not a website, b. not selling ads). 4. By extension, use the article's talk page to argue for the usefulness of the site, or anything for that matter, that isn't self-promotion. 5. We strongly discourage websites with ads, period. 6. If that site has an English page, link to it from the outset on the English Wikipedia. *** I hope that answers your questions. El_C 22:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

**edit** 5. We strongly discourage websites with ads...You do? why are all sites full with ads at this category? why are all sites only selling stuff in this categorie? That´s what i meant...wikipedia´s information seem´s to be more more and more commercial and not real. and P.S no, i´m not the site owner for myself but i´m a customer of them and thought the hard work for the information they offer should be rewarded...but i didn´t thought wikipedia is commercial and leave only commercial and ad revenue sites on their articles...i´m sorry but so much "know-it-all" is too much. 84.46.110.143 18:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC}

Please sign your comments. In answer to your question, that's one article out of hundreds of thousands, and like others, it's subject to changes. Again, someone who removes this or that recent link is not suddenly responsible for the entire article and all the links therein. El_C 22:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hey El C, would you please be able to move George Veazey Strong to George Strong for me? There appears to have been some moving error a long time ago. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 04:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Regards, El_C 04:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Would you also be able to move George Veazey Strong (U.S. General) to George Veazey Strong? (He's the only one with that name) --Khoikhoi 05:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no problem. Regards, El_C 21:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultramarine

I see you have had trouble with ultramarine before. I am currently collecting information pending some kind of action to be taken against him although i dont yet know what or how, see here: User:Solidusspriggan#Case_Against_Ultramarine if you have anything to contribute please do, any suggeestions on how to deal with thie capitalist propaganda machine would be appreciated on my talk page under Ultramarine Solidusspriggan 21:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most editors with progressive leanings have experienced difficulties with him, but there's nothing that can effectively be done to remedy this. He is first & foremost an anticommunist, and so is afforded extraordinary protection by the system. What else is new under the sun? El_C 01:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malber

The response was actually responding to MSK, not to Malber :) Hope this clarifies that. He made the post after I'd responded to her. - FrancisTyers 05:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the indentation should have clued me in! Thanks for the clarification. Regards, El_C 20:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections

Thank you for your kind words. Jayjg (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fer sure! All the best, El_C 20:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sarcelles

Hi El C,

This is an RfC that I'm starting against Sarcelles, who started all those prison articles and was banned from 4 Wikipedias. Please feel free to add your comments. -- ran (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice, I'll try to review it soon. Regards, El_C 20:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Govt Pics

It's an interesting problem. I don't know the answer, but I will investigate it for you. I also had a couple of Knesset member pictures that I took from the Hebrew wiki removed. Danny 03:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Danny! I greatly appreciate your help. All the best, El_C 20:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 04:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice, I'll try to review it soon. Regards, El_C 20:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnski

El C, regarding your conversations with Johnski, please be really careful what you agree to with him. He is using what you say to give the appearance of having consensus and reverting the DOM article yet again. I've reminded him that there is still an arbitration case pending, yet he is up to his old antics. At this point, I feel we still need to wait until the arbitration case is finished. Thanks for your help! Davidpdx 17:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did not actually agree to anything at this stage. Regards, El_C 20:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello El C, can you help me with Davidpdx as he reverted what I thought everyone, including him, would like? Do you see any problem with the new edition adding the quote from CBS wherein the State department called DOM a fraud, etc.? Thank you, Johnski 22:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'll try to look at it this weekend, hopefuly. But to be perfectly forthright, my time is pressing lately, and there are articles which I consider far more significant (pertaining to real countries/territories/developments that inhabit/impact millions of people) which requiere my attention. The DoM article is simply not as high of a priority, sorry. Regards, El_C 22:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fairuse

Hi, I noticed that you've uploaded a few images recently and tagged them as {{fairuse}}. As stated on that template, please don't use it; please either use {{fair use in|article}} or select a more appropriate tag from WP:ICT#Fair_use instead. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 02:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. El_C 02:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PNA sidebar

Hey, had a classic wiki moment this evening, Palestinian_National_Authority article was just ugly, so I know nothing about the subject, but IO spent the last hour updating the template anyway. I think that all the data is there, if you can review I would appreciate it. Also, I am not sure if that is the PNA anthem, wikipedia says its Egyption but google says otherwise. Cheers WayeMason 02:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'll fix the table in a sec, only to note that the following table already appears in State of Palestine... El_C 03:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
دولة فلسطين
Dawlat Filastin
File:Palestine COA.gif
(In Detail) (In Detail)
Official language Arabic
Proclaimed capital Jerusalem
31°46′N 35°14′E / 31.767°N 35.233°E / 31.767; 35.233
Declaration of Independence 15 November 1988
National anthem Biladi
I am going to copy the edited one from PNA to this page too, no reason not to have the same info on both. WayeMason 11:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No <div style="float:right; margin-left:1em; margin-bottom:1em">, please (!). Thanks. El_C 11:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Caribbean

Hi. I was wondering if you could have a look at [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caribbean&curid=7823&diff=36940295&oldid=36730753 this] edit. I can't read Hebrew, but it appears that the original interwiki link went to an article, while the new one goes to a blank page - but I'm a total illiterate when it comes to Hebrew. Thanks. Guettarda 14:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First interwiki link was for the Antilles (האיים האנטילים); second one is correct, but the article has yet to be written — there is a Caribbean islands (איים בים הקריבי) category and a Caribbean sea (הים הקריבי) which Caribbean ( קריביים) redirects to, so... I'll just remove that link and interwiki the categories, for now. El_C 13:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. Guettarda 00:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I'll add the correct Hebrew wikilink to the Antilles, which inexplicably enough was linked to the Caribbean sea (הים הקריבי). El_C 15:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnski Arbitration Case

Just a quick update on the arbitration case, two new arbitrators voted and there now might be enough votes to close the case finally. We need to keep an eye on this and make sure whatever solution that passes is fully implemented.

I'm pushing for a little bit tougher outcome, but realistically it's probably not going to happen. If you have time, please make some comments at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Johnski/Proposed decision. Hopefully, semi-protection will be enough. Davidpdx 12:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get to it (hopefuly). El_C 13:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. El C: It is unfortunate that after we made some progress that Johnski muddied the waters, however, the CBS reference may be a better source than quatloos for saying that DOM is a fraud. Quatloos seems to be a web site that has no real credentials, although it does a good job of tracking various frauds. Do you have time to resume the issues I raised before? Best, KAJ207.47.122.10 05:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't the SAME link! You could have asked before removing them! Or at least you could have looked more carefully. 86.120.201.28

I looked carefuly, I meant they were all from the same news.softpedia.com/news/ url. El_C 03:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and all written by a certain author called Vlad Tarko. Some self-promotion possibly? --Jgritz 03:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Anyway, I viewed it as potential self-promotion regardless (even if it's just a random fan of that site, the effect is the same). El_C 04:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bible verses and chapters on Wikipedia

Hi El C: Shavua Tov ! It is important that you see the following proposed Wikipedia policy pages and their discussion pages at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Verses of 1 Kings 4 and 5 AND Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text. Thanks for giving this matter your serious attention before discussion is closed and the "policy" is set. IZAK 10:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll try to look at it soon. "[A]ny article containing only Bible text should be speedily deleted or redirected as is necessary" seems like a reasonable premise. But so long as entries are grounded in the scholarship, avoiding redundancy, original research, et cetera... !שבוע טוב El_C 10:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm not arguing, just wanted to make sure that people, other than Christian scholars only, managed to get a look at the discussions, and inserted their penny's worth. IZAK 10:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I didn't mean to imply you were arguing, in any direction if at all (I would'nt know at this point), just a first impression :) El_C 10:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring

Not that it is actually important, but are you remembering the Webcomics correctly? The total of the refactoring that I did was [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=29476690&oldid=29466072 moving] some comments to the talk page, and there was some objection. You may be confusing this with the refactoring that was done during the case, where another editor removed some discussion and there was also some objection. - brenneman(t)(c) 11:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, what? 'Twas tongue in cheek, as in: look, that Professor of Gynaecology & Doctor of Misogyny Aaron Brenneman hath done it again! El_C 11:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh look, a clue has been left here and someone missed it... Sorry about that, clearly the doctor was out. It's obvious in retrospect, and an indication that my gun ports have been open too long. Can I make my CSS scheme display "Wikipedia is not a battleground" in place of "Save page"? I think I need it right now. - brenneman(t)(c) 11:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct, yes! While you're here, what do you think would be the best route for me to ensure I don't become an ArbClerk? No need to actually reply, I already assume your answer is flame everyone, which of course I find very appealing. Vehemently yours, El_C 11:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PM or President

And for example why in USA is President and in Spain it should be Prime Minister? 83.213.85.12 07:48, 29 January 2006

US is Presidential, not constitutional monarchy. See PM of Spain entry for English/Spanish usage. El_C 14:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But you should admit that in Spain we have a President, no a Prime Minister, and it don't seem so well to me. OK, it's not similar as US system (for example), but the correct term will should be President, instead, to avoid controversy: why don't call Head of Government? 83.213.85.12 at some time or another
Sorry, but I'm only concerned with the most common English language-conventions. El_C 12:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool pixes / Just visiting

Those are cool pixes of you, the modern artwork, and the cat. I had a cat that used to lick my face as I was petting it. I used to have at least 10 cats. Martial Law 20:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks! Sorry, I overlooked this. Wow, ten? That's a lot of tuna treats! El_C 20:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suriname

You just posted a message on my talk page about the Suriname article which I think was aimed at User:Jrbrunger. --Ezeu 03:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry 'bout that. El_C 03:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the person who posted the link in the Suriname article to the audio interview with a Paramaribo resident. Based on feedback from Ezeu, I better understand why the interview may not be an appropriate link for the Suriname article, but it is certainly an appropriate link for the Paramaribo article, where you also removed the link. The (free and non-commercial) interview is with a Hakka-speaking, Chinese-Suranamese resident of Paramaribo, and it explores the geography, culture, cooking, languages, history and economy of Paramaribo. As such it is a perfect complement to the Paramaribo article for anyone interested in learning more about Paramaribo. I have restored the link, and would ask that you message me if you have a further specific concern. --jrbrunger 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I already removed the link at this point. But I listened to it and I agree, so I'm restoring it. Regards, El_C 08:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. --jrbrunger 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Tunisia

If I understand well, it's you who added to the voice Tunisia the following assessment : "It is thought that the name Tunis originated from Berber, meaning either a geographical promontory, or, 'to spend the night.'"

Now, I am interested in the Berber language and I already know the etimon relating Tunis to the root ens "to spend the night", but I never heard of a possible meaning "promontory". Where did you find it? Thanks. Vermondo, Italy - you can answer here. 149.132.125.123

Sure, I'll answer there. I authored that lead (as well as that of Algeria) with the help of Mustafaa who dealt with the etymology. Regards, El_C 20:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PolysOriginalBuilding

Thanks for uploading Image:PolysOriginalBuilding m.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. -- Longhair 14:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the notice. As I recall, there was a dispute related to this image which I ended up resolving, but since the Polytechnic University of New York no longer hosts that image, I have no proof to submitt at this time and cannot be bothered. Thanks again. Regards, El_C 20:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR closed

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Johnski

This request for arbitration is closed. Dominion of Melchizedek and associated articles, shall be semi-protected. If necessary, Johnski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), or any other editor believed by an administrator to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Johnski, may be blocked indefinitely by any administrator. The article may be unprotected (and reprotected) at the discretion of any admin who deems it safe to do so.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Ryan Delaney talk 04:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. El_C 04:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: refernceless flames

What has been going on is simple. Where a term has an internationally understood meaning it obviously has an entitlement to have the page of that name, with other localised meanings related to a disambigulation page, eg the French capital at Paris, the Italian capital at Rome, etc. In the case of The Nation there is no one international meaning. Many states have or have had national publications of that name, some of them very famous. No one publication is known widely outside its own region; in fact many are largely unknown outside their own country. The Nation was created as a disambigulation page to deal with all publications. However some US users unilaterally changed that to make the main page devoted to their local publication and shunted all the other publications to another disambigulation page. Then links were made to their publication and they even claimed that their publication as the biggest, even though it is largely unknown outside the US and even relatively unknown in much of the US, was of course entitled to own the main page and more important than the the newspaper of the same name in Pakistan, the paper of the same name in Thailand, the historic UK publication of the same name, the famous nineteenth century Irish newspaper of that name, and large numbers of other publications of that name, all of whom are being added one by one by international users.

All I did was return The Nation to being a link to the disamb page. I sought to move some of the links to that page from US articles directly to the US page. However that is unacceptable to some US users who insist that their original unilateral move must be the way the page is, and their publication is more important and the meaning of the name more people on the planet think of than any other. Try telling that to the tens of millions internationally who think of other publications, or the billions (inclusions hundreds of millions in the US) who have never heard of the US publication. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I am most familliar with the US publication, which of course means absolutely nothing. El_C 04:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks. :) I am getting tired of telling him this. Seems to do this on every article; inserts something controversial and then revert wars until 3rr is reached. In this case not realizing that Allah = God in Arabic and not "god". --a.n.o.n.y.m t 04:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it just read awkwardly, so it caught my eye. El_C 04:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Hey El C,

Would you please be able to move Amhara ethnicity to Amhara people for me? Thanks. --Khoikhoi 06:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Moved as per your request. El_C 06:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! --Khoikhoi 07:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing like fraternity

[htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:User_No_Marxism&diff=prev&oldid=37973904 o proletari, alla riscossa, bandiera rossa trionfera'!]Palmiro | Talk 12:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike them, comrade, we draw our strength from the masses. El_C 13:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeevi-Farkash IfD

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Aaharon Zeevi-Farkash.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — J3ff 16:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I said it's from the IDF. What, you/they want it written in blood? Because that could be arranged... El_C 22:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you indefinitely from Wikipedia for hate speech and inciting attacks on other users on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. If you feel you can refrain from further attacks, contact me or another administrator to be unblocked. --Carnildo 22:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Against whom? I don't recall writing anything there... El_C 22:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Block on sight. No quarter." in reference to blocking self-identified pedophiles. --Carnildo 22:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm entitled to that opinion. That you would call it hate speech is highly offensive, and you will have to answer for this insult. El_C 22:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also favour of blocking Nazis on sight, an opinion I made very clear on the mailing list. El_C 22:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I retract absolutely nothing as per my anti-pedophilia stance. El_C 22:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carnildo block

Yes, he might have been violating WP:POINT, but there was no way you should have blocked him. Pelase take a step back and a deep breath. The Land 22:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The Land, thanks for your thought. That, in fact, was the reason as to my block (so he can take a step back and chill). Regards, El_C 23:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A question on a comment of yours?

I would be interested in seeing whatever citations you have to support [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACarnildo&diff=38382221&oldid=38381077 this]. Thanks. A reply here would be great, and would keep the discussion in context with the above.--Gmaxwell 02:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you would, yes. A smoking gun would be best. El_C 02:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't have anything to support your statement you need to retract it. We will not tolerate witch hunts. If it is your intention to begin a McCarthy style campaign of accusing everyone who doesn't support your attacks on some deviant group of being a part of that deviant group themselves you will quickly find yourself with a lasting block. --Gmaxwell 02:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Gmaxwell, I have plenty of support for my stance, I think, though I'm afraid the nuances escape you. Now, if Carnildo decides to censor my right to hold the opinion that pedophiles should be banned, and calling that "hate speech", *and* fails to responds to my querries (above and elsewhere), **and** starts with an indef block, I am safely left to conclude that he is the one engaging in a campaign against myself. Not to place it on an insult per insult basis, but philosphically, it's still a point worth stressing. El_C 02:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and as per your polemicizing and crude parallels, I consider them to be outragoesly preposterous, in both tone & content. El_C 02:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stop being mealy mouthed. You have accused Carnildo of harming children or, at least, supporting harm to children. This is a serious accusation, and one which is likely to cause people to judge irrationally. You need to justify this claim or retract it. This is a separate, and far more serious, matter from your position on deviants editing Wikipedia. --Gmaxwell 03:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I'm inclined to entrench myself in my position at this time. If he terms my banning of pedophiles position as "hate speech" against pedophiles, I will call his forceful censorship of myself as "inciting hate against children." El_C 03:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I don't know what "mealy mouthed" is. Although, I'm safe to presume it's meant disparagingly. El_C 03:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)El C, I wouldn't worry too much about Gmaxwell's comments here, or there for that matter. He has a bit of history over reacting to things he disagrees with [htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hamster_Sandwich_Archive_2#.3D.3DPlease_discontinue_your_involvement_outside_of_the_article_namespace.3D.3D]. And his characterization of your comments concerning the paedophile who was blocked as McCarthyism, is rather obtuse by any stretch of the term. Perhaps you could somehow get Gmaxwell to actually read the McCarthy article and provide a 5000 to 10 000 word essay on anti-communist crusades of the late 1940's through the 1950's. And then maybe a 15 000 word essay on how this relates to comments you have made within the Wikipedia. That should keep him busy, at the very least. Until then, there is some advice here that you might find useful in dealing with this situation. I think if I was dealing with the editor who had the pro-paedophilia user box, I would have tried to get them to remove it by their own volition first. Or simply deleted the user box as disruptive. As far as any subsequent blocks that have occured from this debacle, seeing Jimmy W. act so quickly in de-admining Carnildo (while leaving you..ahem...unmolested) speaks volumes in terms of your own credibility. Just two cents flying your way, bubbie. Regards, Hamster Sandwich 03:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support, I greatly appreciate your sentiments. El_C 03:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a pile-on yet?

Because I don't want to miss out if it is. And I've got someone here who's just itching to sink their claws into you. Insert sound of hissing and spitting stage left. - brenneman(t)(c) 03:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is that I was indef blocked without notice for speaking out against that pedophile userbox. El_C 03:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And Aaron, I gotta emphasize that all I said was: "Block on sight. No querter." That's all I said throughout the entire conversation. El_C 03:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry mate, I was refering to User:Kitty above. Have you noticed that you and I have only about a 30% hit rate on our respective humour recognition circuits? We're going to have to start using smart-arse markup: <silly>If we're going to block you indef, it should be for flagrent use of non sequiturs otherwise serious stiuations. That you deserve, no argument. </silly> I hope all this isn't giving you tension, and apologise for adding to it.
brenneman(t)(c) 04:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, only to be approached lightly (with my questionable flare for the satire, parody, erm, tact) so long as they do not directly involve me, that is! [Thus,] I'm sorry, but Kitty is not coming out (i.e. is currently napping). El_C 04:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why??

I removed TamilNet.com from the Sri Lanka article because it is already there under "External links - Others", so why did you revert my edit?? is it neccesery have TamilNet.com in two places??

Desysopping

Jimbo Wales has temporarily desysopped several administrators involved in the pedophilia userbox wheel war, yourself included, until such time as the Arbitration Committee can sort the matter out. See Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Desysoppings Raul654 07:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autodesysopping protest

(User who'd rather not be, however benevolently, orchestrated by Brenneman below:) The badge of adminship didn't bestow honor on you but gain it from your use; I won't choose to use my admin buttons until yours are restored. But please come back, your work is missed and needed! Bishonen | talk 14:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

And neither will I.--Sean Black (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto! El_C 05:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recharge light flashing?

Users who understand taking a break and know that however long (or short!) it is, will miss the mad bastard in the interim, endorse below.

  1. brenneman(t)(c) 10:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. So endorsed. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. El C, I think just about every time I have ever seen you express an opinion, I have disagreed with it...and still I think you're fantastic, and a blessing for Wikipedia. We need you back! Babajobu 12:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Breaks can be good, but you're probably needed around. I hope you relax a little bit and come back soon. talk to +MATIA 12:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Endorsed! Mackensen (talk) 12:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I don't know about his parentage, but I endorse the lunacy bit, and the point about missing him. What happened wasn't entirely fair, and I'm sure that it will be rectified soon. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Good luck :) and come back soon. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 14:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. If you tremble with indignation at injustice, then you are a comrade of mine. - Ernesto Che Guevara. Hurry back, El_C! Kisses, Phædriel ♥ tell me - 15:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Cessi il vento, calma sia la bufera, torni a casa il fiero partigian... Palmiro | Talk 15:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Come back soon. —Nightstallion (?) 16:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I usually have no idea what you're talking about. I'll miss that. ++Lar: t/c 17:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Look at the pink. You can't stay away from that.--Sean Black (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Not because it's a bandwagon ;-), but because your presence is essential to Wikipedia! SoLando (Talk) 20:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Please do come back. Guettarda 21:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Keep, as in keep faith in the righteousness of your position. FeloniousMonk 22:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Ballot stuffing. *hugs* :)--Sean Black (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. The revolution will not be flash comics, but information wants to be free. Get back on the field and get in there. Geogre 00:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Take a break. We all need to from time to time. Come back when you are rested. I've done it. You should too.--Cberlet 02:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Yes! We want you back! ! ! AnnH (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. He was a nice mad bastard, and that makes all the difference. ENCEPHALON 02:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Get well soon. Cheers, -Will Beback 02:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Don't go! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Huh!? Where'd he go? IZAK 11:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Pile on, but very truly meant. Come back per everyone who will be so bereft if you stay gone! KillerChihuahua?!? 21:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Do you know I always (mentally) pronounced your name as El Cid? But looking at it, its probably Elsie. In either case, come back, please. --Goodoldpolonius2 23:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Sean Black might be on to something here... ENCEPHALON 09:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. the wub "?!" 13:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Please. Pretty please. Sugar-coted sprinkled with cherry topping please. Renata 00:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. ?בבקשה --Khoikhoi 03:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Even though you're already back, i'm glad you're here. Karmafist 18:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all

I'm back after a refreshing two week break. I feel strenghtened by your support, and friendship. Thank you all! Love, El_C 05:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back :) —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-20 10:10Z

Ten Top Trivia Tips about El C!

  1. Ostriches stick their heads in El C not to hide but to look for water.
  2. The International Space Station weighs about 500 tons and is the same size as El C.
  3. Ninety-six percent of all candles sold are purchased by El C.
  4. Without its lining of El C, your stomach would digest itself!
  5. El C is physically incapable of sticking his tongue out.
  6. If the annual Australian El C crop was laid end to end, it would stretch around the world seven times.
  7. El C will become gaseous if his temperature rises above -42°C.
  8. In Japan, El C can only be prepared by chefs specially trained and certified by the government.
  9. White chocolate isn't technically chocolate, because it doesn't contain El C.
  10. Two thirds of the world's eggplant is grown in El C.
  11. Albert Einstein discovered a parallel universe where El C was even more of a bad ass that he is in this one. When Einstein was about to go public with his discovery El C round house kicked him in the face. Today we know Albert Einstein as Steven Hawkings.
From [htp://thesurrealist.co.uk/trivia.pl?subject=El+C&gender=m The Mechanical Contrivium]

What the...? El_C 05:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

A request for arbitration where you have been listed as a party has been opened by Raul654 (per Jimbo Wales). Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war, as well as provide evidence at /Evidence and comment on proposals at /Workshop. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please extend my best regards to prosecutor clerk Johnleemk! El_C 05:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Think you deserve one: εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You deserve many, actually. Guettarda 05:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My cat was actually born in a barn (I'm not joking, he was!). :) El_C 05:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

With apologies to El C, who is in no way involved in this, I'd like to issue a plea relative to the edit warring going on over the banner on the userpage: Please, everyone, stop edit warring. It is a tragedy that El C has left, and having a revert war on his userpage that creates ill will between other Wikipedians is a) unacceptible, b) an additional tragedy, and c) the last thing he would want. Please, please, please stop and discuss it here, for the good of Wikipedia. Essjay Talk • Contact 21:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's unacceptable for Talrias and Jacoplane to kick him when he's down. Guettarda 21:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING: I am blocking anyone else who wants to revert war. This is not acceptable admin behavoir, even a newbie would get warned and possibly blocked for this.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 21:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would turn it into a Wheel-war, Voice of All. While it's a noble sentiment, that may well get you temporarily de-adminned. Kim Bruning 22:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would not re-block. Either way...a wheel war that would only happen if admins continued to ingore the idea of 3RR and ignore discussion and consensus. If you revert war and then wheel war, Jimbo will just desyspop you (people in general), and rightfully so.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 22:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, please don't edit war. It's not becoming of you.

Now I've gotten a steward also keeping an eye on things, just in case you get ideas.

So stop what you're doing, and please instead discuss here, or on AN/I. Thank you for your time. Kim Bruning 22:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That Alex Linder is a Nazi, or at least was a neo-Nazi and still is by ideology, is uncontroversial enough for us to state it in his article. Userspace isn't a playground for anything you want to post, especially libel, but I don't think this is it. Should probably follow El C's lead on this one. Demi T/C 22:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#ZOMG_Userpage_edit_war Kim Bruning 22:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay, please don't be so dramatic — at a minimum, try not to speak of El C like he died. He had good reason to take off but I hope he'll soon find good reason to return. Secondly, half the people involved are restoring the page to how he left it; why would that be "the last thing he'd want"? It's the people who're changing his page while he's away that are acting inappropriately (though even that ain't "a tragedy"). Nobody's being defamed in the banner. Alex Linder is a Nazi and likes it. Please see also Wikipedia:User page on the wide-latitude userpage culture. Bishonen | talk 22:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Agreed. Nobody should have changed his userpage in the first place. Problem solved.--Sean Black (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like he died. Yeah, that's about how I feel. In mourning. Guettarda 22:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I was not aware that El C was blocked, or I would not have edited his userpage. I don't see why so many are reacting so hostile to my actions. I never used the rollback button, explained my edits every time,and would not break 3RR. I might have been wrong, but threatening to block seems unwarranted. Jacoplane 22:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You make a virtue of going right up against the "electric fence" of the 3RR but not actually breaking it? That action is otherwise known as self-preservation and gaming the rule. Please read all about it in WP:3RR. Bishonen | talk 23:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I removed a notice that I felt was defamation. Then I made a different edit, removing the word nazi, hoping that this would be acceptable to all. Of course, I was reverted using rollback. My intentions were good, perhaps you could assume good faith. Demi's latest change is pretty much in line with what I was trying to do with my last edit. Jacoplane 23:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Altering someone's user page without talking to them about it is hostile (if you had even glanced at his talk page you would have seen the wake going on here). Continuing to do so when a several different people revert the change is edit warring. Guettarda 22:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I should have consulted the talk page before proceeding. I still believe the statement "Was the Wikipedia Review forum founded by neo-Nazi Alex Linder (forum Admin Igor Alexander)?" statement is defamation. Where is the evidence that Igor Alexander is a nazi? Alex Linder is a nazi, I'm not disputing that. Obviously I will not edit the page again, but could someone please show me the evidence, so it is clear that this is not defamation. Jacoplane 22:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demi's version seems to say just the same (what El C meant) without the problem of the original (which did answer itself, in my reading of it) - this seems like a good edit -- sannse (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very good! Now let's go do something useful, please.--Sean Black (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The irony(?) is that I never intended to have that notice stay up there for more than two days, I simply forgot about it. It's unlikely that Igor is Linder, and it seems much more plauisble he is Amalekite. Next time, Talrias/Jacoplane, a friendly reminder on the talk best should probably be issued before editing the user page. Oh well, live and learn; right, Talrias? El_C 05:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, good to see you're back. Yeah, sorry for just going ahead there, I did not realize that you were gone on a break, and I never intended to "kick you while you were down" as some have suggested. I hope there are no hard feelings. Cheers! jacoplane 11:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:PolysOriginalBuilding_m.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you. -- Carnildo 07:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that El C has [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEl_C&diff=37725770&oldid=37679822#PolysOriginalBuilding already] responded to this previously. If I'm interprating his comments there correctly, then the image can be deleted without concern.--Sean Black (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this edit was made automatically by a bot. It's got my name on it because I run the bot, and I've found that if the bot signs, people respond on the bot's talk page rather than mine. --Carnildo 05:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like Carnildo in bot form much better, it seeks clarifications before acting, not the other way around. El_C 05:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war case Raul654 23:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I have restored your sysop rights. Raul654 00:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's right. You're lucky to have me. El_C 05:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia in Tetum

Help building a Wikipedia in Tetum, the national language of East Timor. Give your contribution to the improvement of its [htp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-wp/tet test page] -- Regards, 195.23.53.121 11:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC) Manuel de Sousa[reply]

Will have a look soon, thanks. El_C 05:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SR-flag.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:SR-flag.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
Redundant to Image:Flag of Southern Rhodesia.svg. Greentubing 03:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Are you a robot? El_C 05:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Home Honey I'm Hi! Are you married yet? Bishonen | 美少年 05:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I am — to you! When's the honeymoon? El_C 05:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another betrayal. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your view on monogamy greatly appeals to me! El_C 06:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now now ladies, there's plenty to go around—Plenty of me, that is!--Sean Black (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...I'm not a robot. Why? Greentubing 11:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Actually, your return is the first good news in this place since, well probably since you left. I serious thought about quitting when you left. As for helping me out of this mess - I don't know. I keep coming back hoping for a break in the clouds, and it just seems to get shittier. Odds are I will end up being dragged before the arbcomm for trying to defend article integrity. It would do me a world of good to quit the project, but it's far too heartbreaking to be forced out. It would be nice if people would stop kicking once you're down, but obviously it doesn't work that way here. Maybe I'll quit working on articles and just create userboxes or vote on RFA and AFD. At least then I wouldn't be so upset to be treated as if I was not making any contribution to the project. I'm just really tired of all the crap. At least I learned something valuable - I'm too naïve, too ready to trust people. It's healthy to be reminded from time to time that I'm really not that good at reading people. Guettarda 05:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I greatly appreciated your support! And also, welcome to the club of not-knowing-what-people-will-do-next! So... what exactly happned? Do you need Kim beaten into submission? Because I could do that for you! All the best, El_C 05:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rehashing details here would probably get me blocked my Tony [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration&diff=40282002&oldid=40281051]. If you really want to know the whole sad story, I'll drop you an email in the morning. Guettarda 05:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm interested to learn the story, and hopefuly, help resolve the dispute. Email away! El_C 05:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WS

Hi, Here is a vote related to Western Sahara. Neutrality of WP is dying, please save it! Daryou 07:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't we just do this recently? I thought it was resolved... Well, I'll try to review it soon. Regards, El_C 08:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco Bay Area

I am wondering why you reverted the [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=San_Francisco_Bay_Area&curid=26975&diff=40397307&oldid=40360624 edit] by 71.139.188.234. Fairfield is the county seat of Solano County. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 15:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know; I've been there. Must have been by accident, since I do not recall making that edit. El_C 20:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

That British Columbia vandal was starting to bug me, I don't like people playing around with my province :) -- Tawker 01:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great province it is; I'm not just saying that on account of all the free drugs! Also the mountains! El_C 01:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Profess versus Express

Profess can mean "To make a pretense of; pretend". [htp://www.thefreedictionary.com/professed]. Readers might think you mean that Haniya was lying when he expressed regret that Israel continues to label Hamas a terrorist group.--68.214.59.199 04:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Thanks for the correction. Regards, El_C 04:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egypt

Thank you for your contributions to ancient Egypt Project related articles. They are appreciated very much. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-02-24 04:12Z

My pleasure. Thank you for the thank you! :) Regards, El_C 04:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flowers

File:Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres 008.jpg
Not many who know of Hassan-i-Sabah realize that he was far more politically and economically progressive then much of the scholarship gives him credit for. Following this, could these, in fact, be two of his operatives?

Thank you. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flowers, is it, you shameless woman? I'll see your flower and raise you a Tikka masala  ! With herring  ! In your face, virgin! Bishonen | ノート 21:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

So how does it feel, El C, to have Wikipedia's two most attractive and intelligent women (one of whom you adore) fighting over you? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And we both know which one, you lowly odalisque ("the virgin slaves of the harem, where they were at the bottom of the social ladder"). Bishonen | ノート 22:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Not at the bottom of the social ladder if they were "especially skilled in dance, singing, or the sexual arts," as one of us is. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My dear leadies, please, You Enjoy Myself in any way you see fit! Break the bounds of territoriality, show me your garden! Love, El_C 01:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fighting? Can't we all just get along an agree to be in love with me instead?--Sean Black (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Girls are surprisingly territorial, Sean. I'm not sure Bish and I could share. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear interloper, I am looking out for you when I suggest for you to go and date some nice girls; these women are as dangarous as they are enticing (plus, there is the small matter of the law). Yours, El_C 01:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wash your feet they drive me into a frenzy! Bishonen | ノート 01:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
For you, anything! Let's start with a nice, hot sauna! El_C 02:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, old chap!

!! ברוכים הבאים IZAK 11:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(: !תודה רבה Good to be back! :) El_C 11:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er... what User:IZAK said. Jkelly 19:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

195.82.21.103

I noticed that you reverted 195.82.21.103's edits to Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, and I caught him doing something similar to Pakistan with inserting [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pakistan&diff=41303216&oldid=41301910 POV, poorly written material into the page] (see [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=195.82.21.103 195.82.21.103 contributions]). I wasn't sure what to do with his edits to Pakistan, as it didn't seem to me to be okay to flat-out revert material that might have something that could be edited into usefulness. Given that he's been asked to be more careful about inserting material, and disregarded such requests, should I have reverted his edit and/or put a formal warning on his talk? -ElizabethFong 12:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes to both. Thanks for the notice, I reverted his changes to Pakistan. Regards, El_C 12:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tawkerbot's subst'ing

The templates exist to speed up things so we don't have 50 million copy paste windows open, one simply needs to prepend with subst: for example {{subst:test1}}. The reasons for subst'ing can be found @ WP:SUBST - that page explains it better than I can. Keep on adding the templates but remeber to add subst: in there :) Tawker 20:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add an extra word, then? Why not eliminate the need from the outset. I'm not inclined to read WP:SUBST as I suspect it to be boring. El_C 04:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Hi. Would you be able to move Sukhumi back to Sukhum where it was originally at? Someone got an account for the sole purpose of moving that page. Thanks. Oh, by the way, in your honest opinion, do you think I should ever become an admin? --Khoikhoi 07:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. Yeah, I don't see why you can't become an admin right now. Let me know if you'd like me to nominate you. Regards, El_C 04:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I think I'll have Latinus do it in about a month. Until then, happy editing! ;) -- Khoikhoi 04:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Let me know when it happens so I can offer my support. Regards, El_C 04:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Stopping Vandalizing in US Marine Corps Article

Posted user Logic site the following: "Your childish "Join the Marines" additions interpersed throughout the article, while cute, from a four year old child's perspective, are of no interest to people seeking information on Marines. The site is for information purposes. The Marine Corps has more than an adequate budget not to need Wikipedia for recruiting. Thanks SimonATL 02:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ack! Read your diffs more carefully, friend [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Marine_Corps&diff=41306601&oldid=41306545] —El C was in fact reverting a vandal's addition of said interjectives.--Sean Black (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
El C is responsible for most of the U.S. Marine-related vandalism around here, as one of their staunchest supporters. Don't be fooled by diffs, Sean. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so he was reverting his own vandalism? What a clever sausage he is! Cleverer than me, even, which I didn't think was possible.--Sean Black (talk) 03:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One-two three-four United-States Marine-Corps — one-two three-four, down with imperialism, long live armed struggle! El_C 04:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

82.194.62.22 was driving me nuts. I was really trying to deal with his objections, by making it clear that Rafidi/Rafida is considered a term of abuse these days, but he was unwilling to accept anything except HIS version. I think he may be a Shi'a upset by the shrine bombings.

But why take it out on ME? As I told Gren, I wish I could send the Sunni and Shi'a editors to their rooms and tell them not to come out until they can play nice. Zora 06:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Whatever (and regardless of) the impetus, the editor will have to follow the common scholarly terms and definitions. El_C 06:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shiafy'er

You might want to try to talk him into discussing his views on the article rather than attempting to block him. He's on an open proxy. Vercalos

That has already been suggested to him. Open proxies are to be blocked indefinitely, regardless. El_C 07:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
u make POV articles protected against wikibedia policy--82.194.62.22 09:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You must attempt to discuss the pertinent issues instead of reverting endlessly, that is not permitted (see WP:3RR). Thanks, El_C 09:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the angry Shi'a anon is back

He has reverted everything. Zora 09:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I semiprotected the articles. Please do not postulate on the editor's emotional state, though. Thanks. El_C 09:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angry Salafi made lot of POV edits

this idiot salafi zora have got angry and made POV edits and cliam there is no need to have proofs !! ( beacuse she think i am shia lol ) so why u do not banned her too or must u wait tell she bomb another 2 towers in US so u will think agian about the level of hate she have - i told her to bring proofs she never did only she add what is in her head - so if u must remove her edits and banned her--82.194.62.22 12:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this presumption of anger on the part of both of you, whether true or not, is unconstructive. Let's try to stay dispassionate. Now, the rules are that the burden of proof is on you (as the editor introducing the changes) that your additions follow the mainstream scholarship. If this is the case, the pertinent citations should not be difficult to produce. I also asked an admin who is an expert of Islam that I know to look into the additions, so hopefuly he'll get back to us soon. Thanks for your patience. Regards, El_C 12:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The anon editor is methodically reverting all my recent edits, whether they concern Islam articles or not (cf. Sindhoor, Kishore Kumar, Christoph Luxenberg). No reasons are given. Is there anything I can do to stop this harassment? Zora 18:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I'm late El C and welcome back. Yes although not all edits to Islam articles are bad, some of them are not encylopedic. But even without the edits what he's doing by revert warring to include vandalism is blockable. 82.194.62.22 please don't continue like this. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The other guy 65.92.130.151 is also anti Salafi but his/her edits, aside from the ones that are vandalism, are not horrible. But vandalism is still the problem there. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! :) Please take over, I am feeling increasingly out of my depth here. Best, El_C 23:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nagorno-Karabakh

Just a note to say good work. I wish you the best of luck :) - FrancisTyers 23:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much appreciated. :) I've had a good working relationship with both sides, so I'm confident we'll be able to make good progress. El_C 00:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help (Persian people)

Sorry to bother you, but User:ManiF has become really trying. He continues to vandalize pages by removing the dispute tags and engaging in revert wars (another admin has already warned him against this). I gave him his last warning here, but he still did [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persian_people&diff=41695362&oldid=41688544 this], removing the dispute tags I've placed in the article. The dispute tags were explained in the talk page, but my concerned were never addressed, so they were supposed to stay there. He has also engaged in personal attacks against me and continues to vandalize my talk page by accusing me of vandalism (without any reason). Please help. I'm not sure what to do with him. I've already told him to stop, but he continues to post messages on my talk page, constantly threatening me. It is interfering with my ability to edit articles efficiently. If he's not stopped from following me undoing every edit I made, I'll have to leave Wikipedia for a while. Let me know if you have any questions. AucamanTalk 03:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Aucaman is himself in violation of wikipedia rules and regulations. I have even warned him, and he removed my warnings from his Talk. He is in a minority on Persians. The majority of users on Talk:Persian_people (ManiF, Kash, Tajik, Zmmz, Amir85, Gol, Aytakin, 194.170.175.5) have fully addressed his concerns and voiced their opinion in favour of the version which he continues to revert to his preferred version without a consensus. That's called Sneaky vandalism. He also keeps placing a dispute tag on the page to bully his POV despite the fact that his concerns have already been addressed on Talk:Persian_people by different users citing different sources, which again is a clear violation of policies and regulations of wikipedia. Furthermore, Aucaman has broeken the The Three-revert rule (or 3RR) on more than one occasion. Plus, his slander against me has already been turned down by by an administrator, but he he keeps posting it on different administrators' talk page. Regards. --ManiF 04:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Aucaman and ManiF. I'll need more time to study this dispute, and I'm unsure how rapidally I'll be able to attend to it. In the case either of you feel the situation becomes urgently unmanagable, I would advise you to bring your concerns to WP:ANI and/or WP:RFC. Regards to you both, El_C 09:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Computational Chemistry

Why did you do a revert on this page just now? The addition looks OK to me and I'm a Computational Chemist. Of course, I wish the editor was not an anon, so we could talk to him properly. However the free product he added is legit. --Bduke 10:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because s/he is placing the same link in multiple pages. If, however, you find it a particularly valuable link (I didn't want to load the filter it demands in order to view it), feel free to retsore it, but I'd rather it be limited to a page or two, at most El_C 10:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I only see two exactly the same - "Computational Chemistry" and "Cheminformatics". It fits those. The "Chemical reaction" edit is less appropriate, but not vandalism. I'll see how it looks tomorrow (it is late here in Australia) and I'll try to talk to the anon editor. It is his/her first set of edits. I hope he wants to learn and not just go mad altering stuff he does'nt know about. I do not want to bite a newbie on these pages. Cheers. --Bduke 10:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice any vandalism. The editor only added that external link and I expected this was going to continue. Thanks. El_C 10:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user_talk:Smitz

thanks for the revert - my first user page vandalism, I feel like a real wikipedian today :D Smitz 15:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! :) My pleasure! Regards, El_C 15:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal info

Karmafist absolutely does not have my permission to post that. Thanks for removing it. :) --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 15:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. I'll have a word with him once he responds. El_C 15:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to edit your latest edition to KF's RFA - your criticism is valid, but draws attention where none is needed. OK? Ben Aveling 15:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, not okay. I'm allowed to strike out my vote, please do not change my comment. El_C 15:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have been more explicit. The bit I dislike is the link to the edit. Rather than linking to what he shouldn't have said, I think it would be better just to repeat the phrase 'unwarrented revealing of personal information'. It has less impact, but linking to what shouldn't have been said just encourages people to have a look. It's a trade off. Regards, Ben Aveling 16:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm speaking to Karmafist on IRC this very minute, so let's leave it to his discretion. El_C 16:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I passionately disagree. Its your diff thats calling attention to it on the RFA, and I'm removing it for now. If there is good reason to keep it (cant think of any) and if User:Phroziac agrees to the information remaining available, we can revert it later. The Minister of War (Peace) 16:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not edit other users' comments without their expressed permission. El_C 16:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I must admit I just did. I know its your comment, but I wouldnt be breaking this rule if I didnt think this was much more important. I just dont feel this info should be on there. Maybe you should contact Phroziac instead, rather than me acting as intermediary. The Minister of War (Peace) 16:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And remember, we can revert it later if necessary! That would be no big deal. However, if the info is out there, we cant revert that! Please consider this as well. The Minister of War (Peace) 16:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
She knows, I've been speaking to her all along and am doing so now. El_C 17:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Her problem wasn't the info itself (though it is inaccurate, she is not a minor, in fact), but how it was used to explain her vote. Next time, try to seek clarifications before editing someone elses comment. El_C 17:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, in that case my apologies. In the case of personal info getting out in the open I'd rather be overcautious than not cautious enough. I felt that clarifications might take too long, and like i said, reverting to disclosure was always still a possibility, whereas reverting to secrecy wasnt. But she messaged me now that she's indeed okay with it. Sorry, but hope you understood my concerns. Cheers, The Minister of War (Peace) 17:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. But next time, I'd like you to please place greater faith in my discretion. Thanks. El_C 17:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good solve. All the best. Ben Aveling 17:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it would be better to direct people to a discussion rather than a permalink diff. I already knew she had no problem with (the diff) revealing the info itself, but again, her problem was how it was used to explain her vote. While at time when I removed the personal info, I did not know this, note that I did speak to her before making that [diff] strikeout edit. If she would have had a problem with the info itself, your and God Minister of War's objections/efforts would be irrelavent, as the info was still viewable and easily accessible, regardless of my stikeout vote and diff. But had this been the case, I would have deleted the page and retsored it without the portion with said personal info. Hope that makes things clear. El_C 17:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IRC

I'm sorry, but I just couldn't stand that anymore. Regardless of what anyone else thinks, right now, due my inability of myself to elucidate my thoughts in an objective way without totally offending a fantastic person, I feel like a monster, I feel like an inferior person. Just like I have, most my life.

If you have a magic elixir of some sort to help me shrug this part of me, to become more aloof and detached, gaining more clarity and elucidation while maintaining my empathy and passion for the assistance of others and the pursuit of truth, well then, please send it over. I'd give anything for that.

Until then, I am worthless in that sphere of Wikipedia, and that is a sad reality that i'm going to have to learn to cope with. Karmafist 18:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I kept telling you there (though I realize it might have been difficult to internalize with all the other voices) and I'll reiterate here, don't be so hard on yourself. We all have our flaws, these just manifest themselves differently for different people. I would have you replace a certain popular (or is it populist :p) arbitrator in a heartbeat, for example. So you've made a mistake, but it didn't end up being as severe as I initially suspected (as a possibility), but rather more of a minor slip up. These things happen ($5!). While I understand why you're feeling down, I would like to help you feel better. I can offer no magic potion (though free drugs...), but I think hard work can be very uplifting. You're far from worthless, you're a knowledgable person and the main namespace needs you! My email door is always open. Best wishes, El_C 19:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opening the E-mail Door

Well, it may not be a magic elixir, but I think I might have found at least a partial solution to the way I was feeling before.

I had it in my head to write a Wikibook about my current career, Real Estate Agency. So, for the past hour or so, while i'm here in my Real Estate office, i've been writing that, trying to organize all the things i've learned so far(I still suck to be honest with you) for my own benefit, and for the benefit of others who may follow in my footsteps one day.

Things like that remind of me what I love about Wikis, the sharing of knowledge, the collaboration of knowledge towards new knowledge, it may have been small, but it felt good.

Please remind me of this moment the next time all the cabal crap comes up. That stuff is not my style, but I always get sucked into it because I have such a strong sense of wanting to "fight for justice" and all that.

More later, but thank you once again for your friendship, hopefully all the bullshit of the past year will make me into a person that will be worthy within the annals of human history. Karmafist 19:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yase! If by remind you you mean me saying "I told you so", I'm sure I'll be more than happy to oblige! :) It's easy to label someone, I was doing it on IRC earlier with an annoying neverending rant (you missed it) on the stupidity of userboxes and _anyone_ who uses them (and most especally, that curse of a this user somethin-something intro they all have – don't get me started! although once Bish showed up, I went on my Hassan i Sabbah vs. the Islamofacists rant – don't get me started on that, either!), but what is easy is more often than not not wothwhile. That's easy to forget no matter where one stands in relation to whatever at any given time (whatever means relations of power). El_C 20:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, ok Jose, I won't get you started on that ;-) If you need another versus, how about New York Yankees versus Boston Red Sox? In my neck of the woods, that's just as rancorous(sans the violence) as anything in the middle east. I still don't understand how any person of good conscience can be a Yankees fan. Oh, and with Tony, for me this is a wiki break. :-) Karmafist 14:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need your attention on the Armenian genocide article

The articles shape has changed in a majore way, new uncontrolled materials have been added with very poor English without any previous discussion in the talk page, I would like to correct them, but in many instances I have no idea of what the editor was trying to say and in many other time, it would be changed(the editor changing his mind of the shape etc.) later randering my corrections worthless. While I don't doubt the sincerity of the editors, but I am under the impression that this new shape is worst and the quality of the article overall has declined. I have also some reserve in many ways, hell knows how many materials I have read about the issue, and know all major revisionist works, and some of the materials do seem to reflect the editors opinion rather than the Turkish government one and while I have requested citing sources in my edit summary they were added back, and have never seen a single material published about them. One example is the claim that the Turkish autorities denies having used morphine for mass killing. This can't be comming from the Turkish autorities, first I have never read any author addressing to that, second there can not be such an answer since there is no such claim of mass generalised killing. This is what I had placed in the footnote: Trabzons Health Services Inspector Dr. Ziya Fuad wrote in a report that Dr. Saib, caused the death of children with the injection of morphine, the information was allegedly provided by two physicians (Drs. Ragib and Vehib), both Dr. Saib colleagues at Trabzons Red Crescent hospital, where those atrocities were said to have been committed. This material was documented by Dadrian and the work in which it is included never has been reviewed by any historian of the republic of Turkey, it has been cited elsewhere, and none of those works have been reviewed. It is like the editor reading the article and answering to it in the Turkish government position and attributing his answers as those of the Turkish government. Due to his limited knowledge of English, he interpreted this single citation in the footnote as if it is claimed that the uses of moprhine was generalised and answered to it as if it was by the Turkish government when such issues were even not answered by them. I can cite many other examples, like the cases in which I have reverted the editors mistake between the transit camps nearby the railroad stations and the 'concentration' camps, when even Gurun doesn't make such claim. It is like the author took a look at the map of the camps and then reviewed it with a mistake that even the Turkish government could not have done so. I would like to have your opinion. Fad (ix) 23:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say remove anyting that falls short of WP:V and note why did so in the talk page. We can't have information from the Turkish side that hasn't been reviewed by the Turkish government or any historian. Far too sketchy. Regards, El_C 01:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With the amount of pages that have been created by the same editor about the issue, I can't keep track of everything that goes on there. I had to change the POV tag with the totallydisputed one for now. Fad (ix) 04:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

 Thank you!
Hi El C/generic sub-page, thank you for your support in my Rfa! It passed with a final tally of 86/0/0. If you need help or just want to talk let me know! Again, thank you! – Dakota ~ ° 21:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yay! Good to have you! :) Best, El_C 01:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-conversations with Morwen

[htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Morwen&oldid=42137271#Your_incivil_hostility Deleted by Morwen]. El_C 12:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I bear no grudge against you. So up to you. Morwen - Talk 12:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted. El_C 12:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "uncommunicative editor"

Do you think that collection of pages can be unsprotected now? I figure that it must be worth trying it after 4.5 days. I also noticed that the IP was static at the time; why not just block the IP? Judging from the talk page, it's one the same editor uses a lot of the time, so a block could have been quite effective. -Splashtalk 14:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Anonymous Editor to take over the admin tasks with that editor, but he dosen't seem to be around. Feel free — note, however, that we have multiple ips coming from this Bahrain Telecommunications Company ISP (for ex. 82.194.62.23, 82.194.62.22 and 82.194.50.97). El_C 14:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reverts. That guy has decided that I'm an evil Wahhabi/Salafi, like the ones that kill Shi'a Muslims, and that therefore all my edits should be reverted. Hoo boy, I'm the Dar al-Harb! Zora 14:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block help

This is User:Unbreakable_MJ. I couldn't post any messages to anyone including you and other admins. I couldn't email any admin and I couldn't email you. See this screenshot:

htp://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c125/Mahoozi/Wikipedia%20blocks/Blocked3.jpg


I'm being blocked again (I stopped counting). Here's the message says:

"Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing You were blocked by El C Reason given: block evasion (see our blocking policy)"

Also:

"Your IP address is 82.194.62.23. Please include this address, along with your username (if you are a registered user), in any queries you make."

1. Please read this.

2. Please see the IP82.194.62.23's contributions then compare them to mine.

3. Please read my messages to Pathoschild & Grenavitar.

4. I was scared to edit since I got blocked twice in one day. Today I thought it's over and edited 1 single word (actually just added wikilink) and I got blocked.

5. I posted the unblock request but no one answered so far. I've wasted hours waiting & reading through pages which I couldn't edit.

6. I don't care if you unblock me or whatever. I must give up. Actually don't unblock me at all because I'll get blocked later and I'll start making plans to kill that vandaliser. I don't care about his/her views. One thing though: please help those users who get blocked by mistake.

7. Please change "Open source programs" in Bram Cohen to be "Open-source software".

8. Thank you.

I'm User:Unbreakable_MJ using this IP82.194.62.22 11:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is to be posted I'm confirming that I wrote the message above, but I have nothing to do with the person who got caused my block (the vandaliser) --Unbreakable_MJ 11:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK good I can post now. Please reply in my talk page not the IP and not in your talk page. --Unbreakable_MJ 11:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected typos. Sorry about all that. --Unbreakable_MJ 11:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got this note too late. Sorry, but I'm not around every day of the week and I can't really predict when these days will be; nonetheless, vandals have to be blocked. Statistically, these complications are to be expected for sharedips. You will likely face them again on account of that vandal, albeit we'll see if we can ensure the block durations are shorter and that we set up a profle for it (another day, I'm pressed for time). Please talk to your ISP, because we can't allow one individual to damage key articles such as Sunni Islam and so on, those articles are too important (if it was some pokey-man fancruft articles, let's say, I could not care less about being pargamatic and keeping those articles vandalized, though I don't edit those articles, so I would not face that possibility). Nor can we have those articles semiprotected indefinitely just for that one vandal (for anything, in fact). How can the vandal have access to a few ips from that ISP while you are limited to just that one is another thing you may wish to bring to your ISP's attention, maybe they can assign you an ip that the vandal won't be able to exploit. Best, El_C 13:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't able to reply when I first read your message (it gave me the same block message) but it's fine now. I understand what you're saying and I agree totally with you. As for my ISP, it's hard to get through to someone who really understands simple stuff like this (I can list good & recent examples if you would like). There are illegal ways to go around this IP problem, but I'm not going to list them here nor use them. Just note that it's commonly used between those who make troubles between divisions of Islam (their actions give any religion a bad name.) I wish there was another ISP, but it's only this one so far. Well thanks again for the reply. --Unbreakable_MJ 14:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeping and dreaming of mice and budgies

Yes, you're distasteful and tasteful as always. Have a sleeping, dreaming, ear-waggling cat for your trouble! Hope you like it. Bishonen | ノート 13:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks! Down with imperialism! Long live the FARC-EP! El_C 17:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

gunebakan

Hello El_c. Thanks for your warning. I am adding some content and articles too and I thought that links are complementary too. I will be more careful later. Regards. Gunebakan 17:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Thanks for understanding. Regards, El_C 17:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need to contact you

Hi, I need to contact you by email, but I can not use E-mail this user, it doesn't work for any users, it must be one of the weird thing that my Linux system and browster incompabilities with Wikipedia. Can you email me, it is really important. Regards Fad (ix) 23:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I'm unable to email you since it does not appear that you have entered a valid email address. So, two options: You can email my spam account el_c-at-india-dot-com and I'll disclose my main email address there, or state your email address here. Yours in haste, El_C 02:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
done. Fad (ix) 16:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. El_C 19:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24.61.102.22

Hi, I'm wondering why you reverted all my edits... I thought I found a few ways in which my home town may have had something positive to contribute to the world at large, and added the appropriate references only to have them pretty much immediately wiped.

The filename extensions and computer terms references I added 1) have some entries that the other listed references lack; 2) have more comprehensive information on some entries than the other listed references, and 3) predate (they go back to '98) some of the other listed references. You don't have to take my word for it. It's very easily verified via archive.org or whatever. The current references that are there are in some cases more suspect than the ones I added. In particular, at least two of them (Sharpened & TechTerms) appear to be duplicated information on different sites. I wasn't trying to delete anything, though, just add (what I think at least) are worthy sources of additional information not already covered.

The Halloween story contest is (AFAIK) pretty unique, and scary stories are a pretty big part of the holiday to many people. There was nothing else like it already mentioned, and again it's an online resource that dates back to '98 with real content. Is this link with 75+ stories really less pertinent than the link with some Halloween (but not strictly Halloween) recipies? Again I thought it was adding information.

The Netiquette essay also contains information not included by the other current sources.

I certainly wasn't trying to spam the index and I strongly believe that the links I added are better than some of the ones already provided. If I did something wrong though please let me know, or if you want more info I'll be happy to provide what I can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.102.22 (talk • contribs)

Hi. All your additions involved adding a link to saugus.net, so that certainly appeared as self-promotion. El_C 15:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, like I said they were all things from my home town, Saugus. There was nothing deeper to it than that. Aside from them looking like self-promotion, are they bad edits? They weren't intended to be. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.102.22 (talk • contribs)
Best not to overlink from one source (except imdb, etc.), but I have no objections now. Regards, El_C 19:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, sorry for the confusion. I think Saugus.net would be better compared to a university site (albeit a very small one) than a site like IMDB. It's a site that has different sections worked on by different members of the community. You can kind of see it by going from htp://www.saugus.net/PostCards/ to htp://www.saugus.net/Photos/ to htp://www.saugus.net/Computer/Terms/ They're by different people and follow different styles and rules. They're really more like a collection of cooperative sites all run by Saugonians.

Carmen, Doutzen

Hi, maybe I didn't trace it right, but it looks as if El C is reverting my corrections/additions. Why is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.109.160.253 (talk • contribs)

All your additions involve adding supermodels.nl link, so it appears to be self-promotion. El_C 19:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph W. Tkach

While browsing the encyclopedia and reading about the interesting history of the WCG, I came across the article on this person. Originally it was a short stub and then a long, somewhat bizarre text was added just recently. It was mainly a long diatribe against the person and is not proper encyclopedic material. So I edited it back to the short stub adding a few points. I was wondering why you twice reverted it back to the bizarre material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.108.233.65 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, there was no edit summary, so I mistook it for vandalism. I reverted back to your version now. El_C 19:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT

I know it is not preferrable, but PLEASE find the IP address of this selfish vandal who's targeting the featured article now and block him for at least a month. I happened to click to read the article the very moment he struck. NicAgent 02:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

m:Privacy policy.--Sean Black (talk) 02:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do whatever I can, but it is using multiple ips. El_C 02:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poor editing job

Oaky, fair enough. They are the majority party. While you're at it why don't you rewrite the entire article so as to provide some information that doesn't sound like it was written by the Mossad. anarcho hipster

Sorry, I'm preoccupied elsewhere at the moment. El_C 17:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like you to reconsider your vote

The specified Armenian timelines are unique contributions of the author. As they are collection of dates and events, and it is the organization of the dates makes it unique to this author. There is no page on the internet that organized these events within these categories. This set of pages are UNIQUE and not copyvios. Thanks for your attention. --OttomanReference 18:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I cannot reconsider the vote since I did not vote, I am the nominator. No, you are incorrect, the content of the articles have been copied (sentence-by-sentence) from the Armenian National Institute. It is not unique; it is plagiarism. Regards, El_C 03:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Initiating the process of disbute resolution.

The same message is posted to fadix; hope this will cover his position --OttomanReference 20:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. How can I become part of a dispute resolution process when I am not privy as to what this dispute is? Thanks in advance. Regards, El_C 03:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karabekirs additions on the Turkish position is moved to the "Position of Turkey" page. Please give your position on its talk page, as soon as possible so that we can unite the section to the main page.--OttomanReference 20:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that this isn't permitted. You must attain consensus first, you can't duplicate a "temporary" article on the article space (for the purpose of a merge? why?), nor can you link from this article space to a draft on your userpage (on the user space). I have deleted the articles, please try to gain the consensus for the split (&merge?) and then (and only then) go on to recreate it. Thanks in advance. Regards, El_C 03:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is very important!

You know there were 11 (if I'm not wrong) man, who were hunted and killed for their crimes. Information in that page was very important, for the story itself. I think we can be on the same page up to here. Are WE?--OttomanReference 05:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what that is in reference to. El_C 05:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have deleted that page for copyvio issues. I checked your link, what ever the reason was I only found one sentence being common. I wish I could have worked on that page so that we could have recovered that information, before you deleted it. I'm willing to write that section, not in detail but a small summary. First; what would be a good title? (deleted page and new one can not have the same title, right?) Second; How should it be organized so that fits your criteria. As the page will have a basic introductory line. Names of the people and assassinated where and by whom. I'm pretty sure there are hundreds of pages that will have one or two lines might match again of this simple page. I prefer you would help me so that my additions would not be deleted too. THANKS.--OttomanReference 05:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not going to cite the plagiarism word-for-word, that is not acceptable. If you wish to author an original article, you're free to do so. El_C 05:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think?

If you help me with a title this is the text. There is no copyvio.--OttomanReference 05:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The punishment ("The Armenian Nuremburg") of executors of Armenian genocide fallowed after the unsuccessful trials. The seven responsible man was found guilty by

In the autumn of 1919, the verdict to punish the executors of the Armenian Genocide was decided by the Ninth World Congress of the ARF. Bucharest Conference was the main platform for the planning to implementation of the process. Tenth World Congress put everything in motion. It was duped as "Special Operation". Whole process was implemented with coordination. Central Committees of America financially funded the process, Constantinople provided manpower and Europe branches give the logistic support.

  • Talaat Pasha, assassinated by Soghomon Tehlirian on March 15, 1921. He was released with not guilty verdict of the German Court in June 1921
  • Behboud Khan Jivanshir, assassinated by Misak Torlakian on July 28 1921. He was acquitted by British forces in November of 1921
  • Sayid Halim Pasha, assassinated by Arshavir Shirakian on December 5, 1921. He was not captured and back in Constantinople.
  • Jemal Azmi assassinated by Uhland, Arshavir Shirakian and Aram Yerganian on April 17 1922. They were not captured.
  • Behaeddin Shakir assassinated by Uhland, Arshavir Shirakian and Aram Yerganian on April 17 1922. They were not captured.
  • Jemal Pasha assassinated by Stepan Dzaghikian, Bedros Der Boghosian and Ardashes Kevorkian on July 25. They were not captured.
  • Enver Pasha killed by an Armenian Russian soldier in August 1922

This is not copied from anywhere, hope you like it. I think this information is very important. --OttomanReference 05:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the "The Armenian Nuremburg" ? would it be o.k.?--OttomanReference 05:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has an unclear intro and is not sourced, so I don't really know. But I'd rather entertain such a discussion at a pertinent article's talk page. El_C 05:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've already created it. I do find it rather difficult to follow. Which unsuccessful trials, for example? They are not linked. El_C 06:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point! Thank you. It has to be Sultan's. I read about this from another source. I will fix it in couple of days. OttomanReference
Thanks. Keep in mind that we are writing for non-experts. I'm looking forward to reading the finished article. Regards, El_C 06:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

You might be interested in viewing this rfc for the Cuba Pov vandal you have been involved with. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/205.240.227.15 --Colle||Talk-- 23:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it is unlikely that I will participate (for reasons which go beyond the scope of this) unless I myself am accused of something. I think you missed plenty, though. Just look methodically at the user's last fifteen edits to Cuba, for example. Good luck, you'll need it! Regards, El_C 03:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saving Cities and towns in West Bengal

Hi! 1 week time for saving the article sounds ok.Thanks for reminding.I nearly forgot about the article.Bye.--Dwaipayanc 08:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) Sounds good. Ciao! El_C 09:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's already starting develop nicely. -- Samir ∙ (the scope) 23:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I'm positively impressed! Well done! El_C 03:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addition of a few more cities (there are just a few notable cities left), and expanding description in some entries- I think that is going to be enough for sustaining the article for the time being, at least.Samir has done a great job. What do you think?--Dwaipayanc 10:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! GJ! El_C 10:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes on the Sri Lanka Info

Hey, I made those changes in the Sri Lanka page's history segment because the Mahavansa and the Deepavansa that everyone keeps referring to are not really accurate historical documents.

The 'Sri Lanka has a written history of 2500 years' is a slogan of the right-wing Sinhala nationalists who claim the Mahavansa to be a accurate historical record. The argument about whether the Sinhala people (of Aryan decent) or the Tamil people (of Dravidian decent) were the first inhabitants on the island has been a core component of the conflict between the two groups. The war has claimed more than 60,000 lives over the past 2 decades and this argument on history is one of the things that keep the people from seeking a political solution to the problem. Everyone believes that they are right and that the other group is wrong.

Many of the archaeologiacl evidence points to the fact that the first people's of the island were neither Sinhalese or Tamil. But even the funding to the archaeological department has been controlled by a pro-Sinhala government. Archaeologists in the department have gone on record saying that if they are allowed to dig in th North and East (currently inaccessibvle because of the war), they will find human setllements predating Aryan and Dravidian migrations into the island.

Yes there is a lot of history in the Mahavansa, but before a certain period it gets little fuzzy and unclear. Historians who have read it state that it seems some of the monks who were writing it might have tried to do a little pre-dated writing to make the document seem a lot older than it is.

It's just not reliable.

The article should mention the Mahavansa, but not hype it.

Morquendi 09:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to that, and no affinity whatsoever with Sinhala nationalism (in fact, the more right-wing or nationalistic anything is, the more I'm usually against it – shh, don't tell anyone), but I want to emphasize to you the main problem we are having in this article besides these sort of content issues: we currently have two history of Sri Lanka articles, one in Sri Lanka and another in History of Sri Lanka. We can't have that. We should only have a a summary of the main one in Sri Lanka (this is what you deleted, including the link to the main history article), so if you wish to rewrite the summary, do that, but within the given format and length. As for adding history subsections to it, that's an option we can go with, or not. Compare France#History to USA#History, for example. That choice has nothing to do with length of the history section/s, though, and in Sri Lanka it is far too lengthy, compared to other country articles history sections, and certainly compared to the size of that article overall. So all that has to be gone; with whatever portions moved, merged or deleted. This is top priority for that article. So write the summary (but make sure it's propperly formatted this time; note that edit summaries are key for me), but also please help with that effort of normalizing the size and scope of the article's history section and help to expand the main history one. El_C 03:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Genocide

Peolpe are not discussing or willing to discuss. My attempts to discuss the matter lead to me getting insulted only. See the archives. People are owning the article and dictating it. There is a very serious problem and I am not the cause.

Incivility also reached a new level. People are beeing accused of being my sockpuppets on the prime reasoning they are using wiki syntax (used widespread) for tables.

Article is not neutral, thats a fact. Factual acuracy is not hard to dispute with that many weasle words.

--Cool CatTalk|@ 09:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I advised Fadix to cease the accusations until (if and/or when) he assembles all the pertinent evidence in a precise and methodic way, with it being presented dispassionately and in the propper place. To the best of my knowledgee, he has agreed and ceased from making them. That aside, I want to highlight the "fact" that, outside of Turkey, the scholarly consensus tends to favour the Armenian position more so than it does the Turkish one. From this follows two premises: first, the article needs to reflect that consensus, and two, the Turkish side cannot be allotted equale representation because it isn't merely the Turkish versus Armenian side. All of that is in the event your proposals cross that imaginary line, but of course, I need to know, specifically, what these proposals are, what they are made out of, especially (a suggestion to "see the archive" dosen't help me). Even then, my background in Turkish/Armenian/Azeri/Greek history may not be enough, but I'll do what I can. Still, there needs to be better intereditorial organization and coherence: the talk page is a mess. It is difficult to wade through and I think much greater effort needs to be undertaken from all sides to express themslves more concisely and intelligably. El_C 03:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hubbert Peak

Hey, I notice you reverted my edition about the Peak Oil theory. I added an external link to the Polish Peak Oil site. There is a link to the hispanic Crisis Energetica and nobody removes it; in this case I see no reason for removing other languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.64.162.135 (talk • contribs)

Hey, I'm not sure who you are. I looked through the article's revision history, but I reverted a lot of ips there recently, so it's difficult to tell who of these you are. Anyway, that link is probably better suited for the Spanish Wikipedia, less so for our readers in the English one. El_C 03:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have a profile, but since I lost my password (and retrieval didn't work) I can't log in. My piece of wiki is here: [htp://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_Peak Oil Peak]. There are 10 milion Poles living in the USA (we have approx. 40 milion inhabitants in Poland), so in terms of % it's quite an amount. I think it makes sense to put a link to the Polish site in this section. Patriotism, you know :)

i didnot remove it. somebefore had removed it i put it back. please check and see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.247.247.120 (talk • contribs)

How can I tell who this is and which article this took place in? Is this about Sri Lanka? El_C 03:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry!

In case you missed this in all the noise on Talk:Machsom Watch: Oh, now I see why you were angry at me. You were right to be. I thought Zeq had added that since I forgot you read Hebrew, and I didn't see your comments above until this moment. I should have checked. Given as you are one of the W/P editors I have the most respect for, I would never suspect you of playing the game that I thought someone else was playing. I apologize unreservedly. --Zero 06:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. I understand now. And thanks for the kind words. I have, indeed, read the Hebrew article, and this was the first I heard of the incident (though maybe I heard of it and forgot), and had no idea how it was concluded. Best, El_C 06:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian Azerbaijan

Hi El C. All that happened is some anon pasted the entire History of Azerbaijan article into the Iranian Azerbaijan article. This is not correct, because the History of Azerbaijan article is (I think) about the country. So would you be able to delete the History of Iranian Azerbaijan page you created? Thanks. --Khoikhoi 08:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. I'm... not good. :( El_C 08:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it. ;) --Khoikhoi 09:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And obviously I end up deleting History of Azerbaijan. Where is my award of incompetence? El_C 09:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right [htp://members.aol.com/AUTrailerPark/graphics/incompetence.jpg here] of course! [htp://www.thinkgeek.com/images/products/zoom/incompetence.jpg Here's] an alternate. Take your pick. --Khoikhoi 09:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yay! Thanks! I'm taking it as a compliment, that's how incompetent I am! /bows El_C 09:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gracias. Btw, I don't think this user is going to know what you are talking about. Did he request that you create a separate page for Iranian Azerbaijan? I didn't bother to read his comment. --Khoikhoi 09:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, no s/he didn't. Good! Oh, and nobody is actually going to read the comment due to lack of capitalization. El_C 09:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously. People are going to read that comment as much as they read [htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azerbaijani_people&diff=41508857&oldid=40970213 this one]. --Khoikhoi 09:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, we should introduce the Anon to Iranian Patriot — between the two of them: Capitalization! El_C 09:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, good idea. ;) Perhaps they have a caps lock crisis over there. Anyways, I gotta go now. Nice talking to you. --Khoikhoi 09:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Likewise, take it easy. :) El_C 09:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh-oh, I guess I was wrong about saying no one would reply to his comment...[htp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Azerbaijan&diff=43564118&oldid=43410090] --Khoikhoi 08:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shiii! El_C 05:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

azeri POV pusher

Hey El C how have you been? I would really like your help in keeping an eye on user baku87. He is from azerbaijan and he recently joined wiki and is now adding baised edits to articles, mainly the Military of Armenia article and the Military of Azerbaijan article. I hope you will be able to help me with this problem, which I fear will escalate.--Moosh88 23:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El C, I think that baku87 may have a sockpuppet, the new user's name is druffc. He just joined, and he edited some things on the Military of Armenia article which he claimed as being POV, but then added azeri POV. I am hoping you will take time to look at this problem and if it needs be, protect the Military of Armenia from edits. Please get back to me!--Moosh88 07:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, nice to see you. My time is somewhat pressing, so I have to be brief. Last I glanced at MoA, I didn't see any instances of edit warring by either account. Have you tried communicating with the user/s, and explain to them your objections? If not, do that and see what happens. I will try to look into it soon, but it would be useful for me to have a summary of the main issues involved in the dispute. Regards, El_C 05:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have told them my concerns on the talk page of the Military of Armenia article. It seems as if they're intent on having their version, one way or another. A certain Turkish nationalist has now taken up the Azeri POV and from what I've read on his user page and talk page he seems to have a noticable bias against Armenians, Greeks, Serbs, Kurds, etc. If you could monitor the situation and keep him in check, that would be great. Thanks for replying.--Moosh88 17:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Everyone has biases, but it's key to aim toward compromises that retain accuracy while conveying a sensible tone. I don't think the Azeris/Armenians should edit their own article, that isn't a likely solution. Best to discuss the points in dispute one at a time and methodically. I'll try to join in once I get a chance to review the talk page, but I'm not sure when that'll be. Hopefuly soon. Regards, El_C 04:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What else do you think I can edit on the Military of Armenia article?

Also, please don't let user kagan the barbarian act as though he/she has no POV; I saw his post at the bottem and it ironic how he can say others have a POV agenda when he has stated his agenda on his user page. Thanks for your help.--Moosh88 19:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My task is countering chauvinist POV pushers such as you. Your actions are a disgrace to Wikipedia. While you ask Azeris to discuss with you before making any changes to Military of Armenia, you are making ridicilous, childish edits on the Military of Azerbaijan page without a debate or warning. One of the Azeri users also suggests you deleted his/her posts on the talk page which I can go through history and verify if I have to. Everybody is free to go through my history and yours to decide who is the PoV pusher. Regards--Kagan the Barbarian 20:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All this user does is try to provoke a wiki war, just check out his user page and look at mine. I deleted baku87's comments because they were outlandish and were not needed, it's not the end of the world. Yes, let people go through my edit history, they can see how I've edited articles on almost every single topic on Wikipedia, but of course you'll say I was pushing Armenian POV.

My goal is not to get into a wiki war, that's a waste of time. I'd like to work this out, but only if all sides are honest.--Moosh88 06:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw that you (kagan) changed your user page and made it less obvious, or you realized how one can easily mistake that sentence as a declaration of hostility.--Moosh88 07:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My feeble advise is to cease all the hostilities and engage the material dispassionately. Let's do it! El_C 07:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Made what less obvious? If I had a hidden agenda why would I make it obvious in the first place? I first edited my page the previous day because Hectorian suggested it and I made the second edit yesterday and added "chauvinist" so people like you don't distort my words as if I have a beef with neutral users. As I said, go through my history and if you find me hurting neutrality, tell me. Now as for your edit history, well now that's what I call entertainment.--Kagan the Barbarian 07:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The material, dispassionately! :( El_C 08:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, no more.--Kagan the Barbarian 08:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my edit history would entertain you wouldn't it. Since I like you El C, I will go with your advice.--Moosh88 08:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El C, I need your help again. It seems like user baku87 doesn't know when to stop, thrice already I have tried to stop an argument with him, but he keeps the argument going. On top of that he is editing the Air Force subsection of the Military of Armenia article. I am getting very tired of dealing with POV pushers like baku87, please get the message across to him that this is an encylopedia and not a debate forum. Thank you!--Moosh88 01:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll have a look. El_C 11:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
El C please ignore this user moosh88, I really have enough of him and his false comment which he has been spreading accros wiki about me. This moosh88 has been warning all his buddies and now you and saying that Im a POV pushers, etc. But the fact is he has been deleting my comments in the talk page and editing articles without discussing. And yet he claims the one needed to be watched. All Im discussing is the fact that Azerbaijan Republic is occupied by Armenia and this moosh88 is being denying that. If thats his opinion then its fine, but he cant say that its a lie and its not true. This occupation of Azerbaijan by Armenia is as real as its gets. If he doesnt like that then fine, but he cannot say its a lie! I really dont see a problem with discussing topic like that or is there? I think its best if you, El C kept an eye on this moosh88 and please report to be if you see his spreading more lies about me! Baku87 15:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Baku87[reply]

Weyes's RfA

I just saw your vote on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Weyes. You are apparently supporting his RfA because you are opposing it. Could you explain this? JIP | Talk 11:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What? Yes! No! Maybe! Okay! El_C 05:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

listen you

i know if i want to type with CAPITAL words so i can tell you who i was. no ownder, cuba and iran are friends and yes just to lett you know i'm not iranian, because we have a new home —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.171.49 (talk • contribs)

I'm listening, me, but it's difficult to read. Anyway, it's best I make it clear that I'm anxiously looking forward to the inevitable demise of the fascistic, imperialist-lackey Islamic regime at the hands of the Iranian masses. Down with the Islamic regime! Long live armed-struggle! El_C 04:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military of Azerbaijan

Thank you for revising the Military of Armenia article; if you have the time please do so with the Military of Azerbaijan article as well. If you guessed it, both users are trying to intimidate each other with their country's military strength, un-NPoV informations should be removed from both so this doesn't turn into a peeing contest.--Kagan the Barbarian 09:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I noticed some of its problematic components. Will try to attend to it soon. Regards, El_C 12:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm doing it right now. El_C 06:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good job. Hopefully it will last.--Kagan the Barbarian 08:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you, I'm pleased you approve my changes. El_C 03:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

arrests of protesters - Danish Embassy

Good call with the name change mate. well done. have you got any ideas for a more radical change though? it still isn't quite there yet. Veej 02:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Good question, I was wandering about that. Something-something cartoon protest? Regards, El_C 06:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Hey El C, would you please be able to move the page I'm with You to I'm With You? Some anon kept trying to move it by copying and pasting. I explained to them that it was bad, but they just deleted the comment. Therefore I'm asking you to do the move. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 02:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Np; done. El_C 02:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I didn't know you were online. --Khoikhoi 02:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was on my way out, actually. You were lucky to catch me. El_C 03:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to move on

Hi. This is going to be a long-ish message, and not necessarily the most positive one. For that I apologise up front, but I don't think I have another choice. This is not easy for me to do, but, again, I see no other option.

Your behaviour, attitude, and comments after Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war and the events leading up to it, have been, unfortunately, unacceptable. It pains me to tell you this, but I feel the need to be blunt. I understand why you were upset. That was only natural. That is not my problem. My problem is the way you've taken it personally and contiunally attacked and berated those you who've now considered "enemies", simply because they disagreed with you. You attacked Johnleemk in your response to the ArbCom case on this very page, and the pretty blatant attacks on him on Carnildo's RFA. That's the sort of thing that hurts me to read- I know that you're better than that. It's petty, really. You're taking it personally. But its not personal. Really. The comments, off-wikipedia for the most part, yes, but indicitave of this problem, about Gmaxwell and Mindspillage in reference to the latter's votes in the ArbCom case, and even old, basically resolved disputes with the former- That's not appropriate, and you know that. That's what makes this so difficult. I don't want to sound patronising, but I don't know how else to say this.

I don't expect you to sit back and be lax about conflict, that's not your nature. However, I'm begging and pleading with you to let this go. It happened, and now it's over. Please, please, please try to move on. Maybe you can't ever be friends with Carnildo, fine. But he doesn't have to be your enemy. Please. Remember that I'm telling you this as a friend. I know that you can be very kind, and that you are not typically like this. So I have to plead with you to stop acting this way. I hope you take this message in the way that its intended, which is as constructive criticism. I don't care how you personally feel about the events surrounding that case. But I have to ask you to put the feelings surrounding them in the past, and to move on, because they are adversely affecting the attitude of people around you, and by extension the entire community. It doesn't have to be this way- Please try to get everyone to move on and forget about those things that have happened in the past and are no longer relevant. A good start would be to do that yourself.

I apologise if I've hurt you, because I did not intend to. I also apologise if this note is slightly rambling- it was somewhat difficult to capture the feelings that I wanted to express. Thank you.

Your friend,

Sean Black (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El C only made one comment, Sean. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sean, I'm afraid I do not at all subscribe to your interpretation of events above, and I find the basis for your plea to be drastically divorced from reality. I'm happy, of course, to discuss the matter with you (or anyone) in as painstaking detail as you wish. All the best, El_C 12:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carnildo's RFA

As requested, I've directed my comments here rather than on the RFA page. Whilst I respect your opinions, I found your posting to be rather uncivil, and I encourage you to at least retract the tangental portions of it that serve only to attack Johnleemk. Thank you. — Mar. 21, '06 [15:45] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Well, I find there's a hidden implication behind your at least which I reject outright. I consider my vote comment neither incivil nor tangental; nor, under the circumstances, an attack (rather a defense of myself, and of the project, in general). Thanks for taking the time, though. El_C 12:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed...again

Hey El C, I really need you help once again. It seems that Kagan is bent on removing text which he deems to undermine Turkey. Please take a look at the Mount Ararat edit history, I don't want to go against the 3RR, but Kagan has already made me edit the article twice in less than an hour, please look into this, thank you!--Moosh88 23:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I think it's best to aim at creative, expansive solutions. For example, rather than edit war over that unsourced sentence (a sentence clearly of limited usefulness) back and forth, expanding the history section and noting who throughout history has exercized control over and/or inhabited this Mt region is an infinitely superior (and naturally, labourious) approach. Hope this helps you both. Regards, El_C 12:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Barnstar

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I award you this barnstar for your tireless and effective vandal combat. Best regards. Buenoma--Buenoma 15:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]