Dear comrade wife, remember when I blocked a homosexuality-articles vandal troll for hate speech becase he refused to speak to homosexuals (and since I of course refused to answer his constant querries whether I was one — heh, like I'm going to answer that! answer: Heterosexual, pro-Lesbian & pro-Female Bi, so long as I can get in on that!), and then Rossi objected to the block on the grounds that myself and the homophobic troll were involved in an editing dispute (which was glaringly false) ? Memories, memories. Well, let me thank you again for your invaluable support then. It seems whenever I face opposition for admin actions I take against hate speech (or otherwise hate speech -related), you always got my back, and you're always able to articulate my position so much more eloquently, poignantly and clearly than I'm able to. I don't think I've thanked you enough for all you have done, my wonderful heroine, my wildcard poet whom StormFrontrollboards have yet to zone in on. Erm, sorry, I didn't really catch what you said above, I'm sorta limited to talking about —and thinking of— myself! Love, El_C10:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How you rattle on, and how you turn my head! I think I will start expressing my enjoyable confusion by signing posts to you with just the tulipface.
My tulip-faced Bastetİsis. ɦΩɯ. With such ease & grace you hover above the earth just-bellow the stormclouds, lightning-fisted. Goddess-like. El_C12:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!
Hey El C, I'd really like thank you for taking the time to vote at my RfA. I withdrew due to certain controversies, but I appreciated your vote and hope to see you here in the future. Thanks again. --Khoikhoi05:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. I'm sorry it didn't work out as you (and I) hoped. I hope you're not too down over it. All the best, El_C08:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, PedanticallySpeaking! Yeah, I hear that. Had he only made the slightest effort toward dialogue with me; I'm extremely dissapointed with his stance. It was a very destructive experience for me, and I find it unfortunate he utterly fails to appreciate the gravity of his actions, on multiple fronts. Hopefuly, in the future, he will be able to reflect and draw the appropriate lessons. Best, El_C08:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, we haven't spoken on this subject before, something which will no doubt surprise many people. I just saw your edit here [1] and thought someone should tell you - you are 100% correct. Of course he will apply again and again, but unless I see a huge shift in his behaviour and attitude I shall continue to oppose him. The problem is even if he apologises now, it will be hard not to suspect his motives - so it is going to be very hard to move on for all of us, but I suppose we must try, at leat until the next time! Good luck. Giano | talk12:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and well said (throughout), too. It may surprise many people, but I scarcely spoken to anyone on the subject. As explained, I am more concerned of a community that would allow his form of (current) indifference than this apathetic attitude itself. Till next time, then. El_C12:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In less than a minute! My live internet radio is lagging and skipping like there is no tommorow — somehow, though, I was able to get the big four, including the biggest surprise in the election, Gimla'ey Yisrael, which was expected to get 2 at most (or not pass at all) with eight. Wow, Likud crahses and burns, a slap in Bibiyahoo's neoliberal face: from 44 in the last election down to 11(!). Expect a resignation soon. El_C20:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, El C. Could you add an external newslinks about the 2006 Israel legislative election to Current events, please ? It's required to add the headline there according to the ITN guideline #1. I did that for you, but I don't have a newslink. Please also be reminded that fairuse pic are not allowed at ITN, and any images on the Main Page has to be {{mprotected}}. Thanks. -- PFHLai20:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've used FU images on ITN before; oh well. My source won't do any real good. It was live IBA radio, but it appears to be dead now. El_C20:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, although (like haaretz) it appears to cites a figure from all samples, whereas I am only interested in the IBA exit polls (the only real exit polls, and thus, most authoritative to go with until the official results are announced). El_C20:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Komemeiut
Hi El C. How would you translate "Komemeiut"? I would have said "erect" or "upright", but User:Zeq says it really should be translated as "rebuilding", "resurrection", "from the ashes". Jayjg (talk)18:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, התקוממות (insurrection) is one of my most favourite words, and note that התקוממות מזוינת could mean both armed insurrection and fucking insurrection! Hm, anyway, as for קוממיות, what Shoshan says is: 1. Erect posture, with head held high, [and in borrowing:] without fright, in glory. 2. Revival. 3. [In our day:] Independent existence, sovereignty, non-dependence on others. Square bracket and font-size in the original. I translated תקומה as revival. Hope this helps! Regards, El_C10:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SL
Sedat Laciner is on Wikipedia contributing under two different usernames, please keep and eye on him, as he has already begun his POV pushing campaign. His user name is Slaciner, I don't know the other name he uses. Please contact me if you have any questions or something important comes up, thanks!
BTW: Sedat Laciner runs the "Journal of Turkish Weekly."
It is a biased journal and I fear that he will spread the lies of that publication here.--Moosh8823:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ankaram? Yes, I know who he is. He will have to keep in mind that the Turkish position is a minority interpertation within the pertinent scholarship, and that this should be reflected in whatever given article/s. But I've yet to be afforded a chance to review Dr. Laciner's edits. El_C10:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
El_C, in a similair vain, I suspect user Hetware to be Germar Rudolf, his edition of one article in particular reffering to Rudolf under the IP address he used before getting an account. [2] This information he added in its description on the affair at Max Plank Institute contains informations a little too descriptive and the exact argument Rudolf used at the time, and now his specific defense on Rudolf article under this account makes me wonder. Had he been a general revisionist he would have engaged in various other articles and not limit himself on Rudolf related issues. Just so you may keep an eye on him. Fad(ix)20:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello El C, how are you? Thanks for your support in my RFA. The final vote count was (88/3/1), so I am now an administrator. I am very humbled by your vote and grateful. Please let me know if at any stage you require assistance, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an administrator. Once again thank you and with kind regards Gryffindor17:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I was told by another member to contact you in regards to a new member of Wikipedia, User:AkaAtour whose IP address is 75.4.183.229. He continues to vandalize articles(mostly Ashur Soro) and harass members. Thank you for your time --A2raya0720:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You uploaded the image Image:I'm RickJames Bitch!.jpg a while ago, and tagged it (for which I am very grateful) but neglected to state what film or TV program it came from. Please add a statement of where it came from, as a bare {{fairuse}} tag with no statement of the source is not acceptable. I've tagged it as {{no source}} so it will be deleted in seven days if you don't handle it. Thanks for uploading it, and all your work on Wikipedia. JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I realized there is wrong information regarding the number of ethnic Greeks in Greece on the Greeks article. Albanians, Macedons and Turks are being shown as ethnic Greeks (The number of Greeks in Greece given on the infobox is the entire population of Greece), I corrected this giving my sources [3], [4] but 2 users, who I believe are Greek, apperantly didn't like what I was saying and reverted my edits. And since I am a simple anon there isn't much I can do but I think I am making an important point there. I am asking you to deal with this if you can please. Thank you in advance. Regards.--81.213.75.13818:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is correct, they can't claim 100% of the population in Greece as ethnic Greeks. Not to mention that this is done within the context of ethnic Greeks in other countries, whereby Greek citizenship makes absolutely no difference. What a peculiar mixup, and is of course borderline vandalism, which I will attend to immediately. Thanks for taking the time. Regards, El_C00:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, thanks for letting me know; I would have missed it on account of my extended break from my watchlist, or should I say, whoa-list! Best, El_C00:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you now look at the bottom third of this section Zur Judenfrage) anon. user 85 has laid out three options for revising it - could you review and comment on them? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk13:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings comrade. I am on my way from one drinking-place to another (after all, it's Thursday night), and consequently not entirely sober. Nevertheless, I have had the requested look at Green Line (Israel) and made some changes. You might like to check that what I wrote about Jerusalem was right; I know that this was the effect of the 1980 Jerusalem Law, but did it also apply before then and should the text reflect that? I think so, but in the absence of precise knowledge and the lack of nay libraries being open here until Tuesday in deference to Easter refrained from saying anything of the sort. Also, you refer to citizens of the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem and Gush Etzion being taken prisoner - I think, to be pedantic, as far as the former goes anyway, the male population were made prisoners of war while the women and children were allowed to cross the lines? as well as an offer of the King's protection being made to those who wanted to stay, although doubtless nobody was really expected to take this up. Anyway, over to you. Palmiro | Talk20:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your prompt help! You've accomplished a lot for being in the wonderful state of not entirely sober! I'll make some immediate changes — I want to briefly reiterate what is said in the overview on Jerusalem in the population section, and also mention the Golan (and the Golan law). The only problem with that is making the Arab population section three times the size of its Jewish counterpart, but it's a price I'm willing to pay in the interests of clarity and organization. In answer to your questions: no, you are not being pedantic at all, that's an oversight on my part which I will be correcting. I'll also add the King's protection bit. As for the 1980 Jerusalem Law, I'll just note it as further entrenched the status of EJ as an annexed area (being a Basic law, approved by the Supreme Court of Israel) — EJ was originally annexed in 1967, in a directive. Thanks again for all your help. I'll go on to translating more soon and will be asking for help at that time. Fraternally, El_C00:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone over it once more, quickly, but will just point out that the figures you inserted regarding Knesset members are not quite consistent with the Knesset having 120 members! As I'm not sure which parties fit in which category (specifically wrt UTJ and Shas), I can't fix this myself. Also, I've changed your reference to PFLP to one to PFLP-GC, as the PFLP since the Cairo agreement seems in effect to tend more to the Fatah position despite still being fond of the hardline rhetoric from time to time (also, let's not forget: القدس, الدولة, خق العودة خطوط حمرى, which suggests that abolishing the Green Line is not a red line. Palmiro | Talk12:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The wonderful state of...! That's hilariously incomopetent of me! Especially considering that I'm the author of the of Immediate impact and coalition prospects (Olmert has 60 without the Arab KMs – i.e. no majority of Zionist parties). Alas, my head hurts too much to feel emberassed right now, and on that note, I'm going back to bed. Tob e continued. El_C17:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know what they say, you can't spell incompetence without incomopetentence-tence! /adds salt; dances El_C20:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spam links
But he followed our guidelines; it seems wrong for us to punish him for doing so. Moreover, the presence of the links on the Talk pages does no harm to the encyclopædia, whatever we think of his motives or what he might get out of it. The policy against link-spam is surely to protect the integrity of articles, not to police the Internet...
Hello! And where are my manners? :) Things are alirght, thanks for asking. I hope you've been well. As for the spam, while my experience with links to that specific site indeed involves removing it from the main namespace, I feel it's pretty bad form to have that same copy-pasted, generic question repeated tens of times. The question is where do we draw the line? If not tens, as in this case, hundreds? Thousands? I am actually againt any sort of copy-paste generic questions of this sort being placed on multiple pages, even if it falls short of tens. You may be right about the guidelines, I'm not really sure. Wikipedia guidelines are often pretty stupid and I've been known to ignore them unless they somehow serve my immediate interests! But I think this toletance of article talk page spammage sets a bad precedence. Also, I don't believe "policing the internet" is an accurate depiction, as opposed to Wikipedia realm of which. So, am I making sense yet? Let me know! :) Best, El_C20:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To take my above point to its logical conclusion, rather than answering the aforementioned question(s) many tens of times, I suggest removing it from all those talk pages and answering it once on the user's talk page — since clearly it's the same answer in all instances. El_C20:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also direct your attention to the User:Deuterium section on WP:ANI, if you've not seen it already, as this is the same individual.
His latest move, the Slashdot post with the link to my usertalk page, was just disturbing enough to prompt a little google research on my part. In case it's not already clear from the points made on WP:ANI, I can now establish beyond any reasonable doubt that these accounts proceed from the same real-world user and explain how he is able to post from UCLA IP addresses as referenced in the Deuterium section.
However, to demonstrate this would entail divulging his real-world identity and at least some aspects of his background, which I'm uncomfortable doing for several reasons: 1) He's shown a markedly vindictive nature, and a willingness to prolong and escalate conflict outside of wikipedia. 2) I'm unclear as to what the WP policies are on such matters.
Hi. Divulging personal details of users is not permitted. Feel free to email me the details, though, and I could go over them in confidence. El_C05:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As one of my comments on Talk:Islamism has become an issue, I'd like to highlight some comments made before I'd arrived on this page. I'm can't justify violations of CIV or any other policy or spirit on my part, but I suggest these to be mitigating circumstances.Some comments on Talk:Islam this user had made before I’d ever seen his user name(s):
“Ignoring this fact shows that you have never bothered picking up a translation for the Qur'an and are just ignorantly spewing non-sense on these pages.” [7]
“Graft, knowledge is an amazing thing and it would be in your best interest to go learn something before preaching ignorance here.” [8]
“I hate to burst your bubble but...”, “I find your desire to differentiate Hasan al-Banna from Mrs. Bhutto to also be ignorant.”, “Have a good day.” [9]
“Umm, I don't mean to be disrespectful but you are completely clueless with this statement”, “Unfortunately, your comment is rather ignorant and uninformed. I'm not going to sit here and try to educate you on where you are wrong because Google has ample amounts of information.”, “Again ignorance.”, “Please, life the blinders off your eyes.”, “It seems like you have a knowledge gap that needs to close before we can have a productive conversation.”, “Have a good day.” [10]
“Furthermore, judging by your previous contributions to Wikipedia, it is no surprise that you have an agenda to paint Islamic political ideologies in a negative light.”[11]
“It seems like s/he has a knowledge gap and an unwillingness to read the previous discussion on point s/he is bringing up.” [12]
All the preceding having nothing to do with me, much less Pecher, except to the degree that I'd felt offended at the tenor of discussion on the talk page, and the way in which this user was attempting to intimidate and dominate others through a relentlessly personalized dialogue predicated on the nefarious motives and/or abject ignorance of his fellow editors.
Since you mentioned the possibility of arbcom action, I'm somewhat inclined to post these on ANI, only because my own comment has come under scrutiny, and I feel it relevant, if not wholly exculpatory, to consider the timeline and context, and that assumptions of anti-Islamic motivation and attitudes on the part of other editors, accompanied by overt antipathy, predates any interaction with me, or any post on ANI.
I'm afraid I've yet to read that talk page to place it into context, so feel free. It was two weeks ago, though. El_C11:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why context should matter here any more than with the Bouyeri comment, which occured in the context of the above, but it's all available in Talk:Islamism/Archive 4. You can see me uncivilly standing up to an abusive user who'd been bullying everyone else for some time, and to that extent violating WP policy - I'm supposed to run to an admin, but that wasn't my first instinct. As you say, this all happened two weeks ago.Timothy Usher11:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but without knowing more about this context, I'm unable to advise one way or the other. I will try to study that archive soon. El_C12:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is for anonymous or highly disruptive users. For the user in question, it certainly bad form to just blank it, but I'm willing to overlook it if no other issues of the sort come up. Also, perhaps the user is unfamilliar with how to archive a talk page. El_C19:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A recent edit on [Talk:Islamism]
User:User247 has taken another editor’s comments (so they surely were) [14]...and interpolated his own to alter the passage's intent [15]
Unsigned, naturally.
Normally, I'd have reverted, but seeing as he's been carrying on about how I "censor comments by editors critical of my position", I thought I'd run this by you instead.Timothy Usher00:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've already responded. I never post on Slashdot.org and its up to the accusers to prove it with IP addresses and MAC addresses. Secondly, posting at the Administrator's noticeboard is in retribution for me posting Timothy Usher on there. It is no secret that both Timothy Usher and Pecher are working hand in hand almost to the point that I wonder if it is the same person. I find these attacks very disturbing and I don't understand why you are party to them. User24703:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know this may appear to be rude since it is none of my business, but when surfing I observed your comments on the Timothy Usher's talk page. I don't know what has been happened. I know Timothy since he started contributing significantly in wikipedia (which is not long ago). I found Timothy a very hard working, very willing to hear and accept arguments, and one of the best editors I have ever seen in wikipedia. Moreover, he is very willing to mediate among people and help getting at consensus. I think if you ask Zora, she will tell you about his very good contributions to wikipedia. Though I think he sometimes makes quick judgments, but I found his edits always quite mild. Please note that I am a Muslim editor who has been very active in the Islam related articles. Many "Muslim responses" in several sections of the article of criticism of Islam, is for example written by me. I have had conflict with many Non-Muslim editors but Timothy, I should say, is the most honest one to my mind. --Aminz07:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Timothy Usher's # of edits
I made a counting. Timothy has started extensively working on Wikipedia since March 12, 2006. Here is the record before:
He had 97 edits which are on Jan 22-25, 2006. 4-6 May 2004!
Since March 12, 2006 till April 18, 2006: 36(37?) days he has made 619 edits!!!
This is a very high rate! I think with this rate of editing and keeping his good faith, he will be eligible to become an admin soon of which I will strongly support. --Aminz08:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An example
There was a Mediation going on Dhimmi and Jizya articles. I remember Timothy made a change to one of these articles which I didn't like. I asked him to join us in the Mediation which he accepted. The Mediation was unsuccessful (I and Farhansher was on one side and Pecher was on the other side); you can ask Tom Harrison about this. Timothy was new but struggled a lot to gather us together again. We had long discussions on the mediation page. He read it and moreover looked into the history of the edits of the Dhimmi article and prepared the following long report:
The only reason that I gave him a barnstar was because of his tireless work. Currently he is trying to reconciliate me and Pecher on the article of Apostasy in Islam. --Aminz08:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Thanks for the note. Hrana is open to mediation, so we can start in the very near future. I'll prepare a suitable page soon. Regards, El_C10:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I'm seeing here is that two things I would ask is that the user join in shutting down the Deuterium pages and in removing the Slashdot post. I'm not sure the latter is possible, but I know neither is possible if we maintain the fiction that he's not behind this. Content is far down the list for me at this point, as is the usual type of trolling. I'd like the most egregious violations dealt with first, not to negotiate about content while these behaviors continue by default. Additionally, if we agree to pretend this is not him, that we are "being monitored on an outside forum" and what we say will be posted on Slashdot with links to our user talk pages, it legitimizes this behaviour in the future, for in this pretend reality, this user is not responsible for any of it. I'm not asking for punishment. Amnesty for past offenses is fine, but I'd like the ongoing abuses to stop.Timothy Usher10:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can appreciate those considerations, but will point out that In light of your Mohammed Bouyeri "sarcasm," you may find such a proceeding to be a double-edged sword. It makes no difference to me, of course. Only note, then, that I'm pragmatic and am open to amnesty for all —without an intensive investigation into conduct— in exchange for a workable formula that would prevent any future issues, whereas the Arbitrators will be more strict, in investigating conduct and sanctioning users from one or both sides. El_C11:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Might you explain to me why this comment is seen to take on such importance relative to the ocean of trolling from 247 in which it appeared? I'm not trying to be catty, just wondering what specifically you are getting at. I have to guess that something is seeming very obvious to you which is not at all obvious to me.
In any case, I've little choice, as the maintenance of hit-list-like dossiers (as in Deuterium) and continued external postings with links to my user page is simply unacceptable. Just what exactly is the purpose of posting my name in this forum, and (falsely) labelling me an anti-Muslim bigot? What is supposed to happen? Minimally, harrassment, maximally, what? It's a reasonable question, and one which speaks to the spirit I'd felt from this user which prompted my comment to begin with, a feeling confirmed by the enemies list on the Deuterium page..
If it's arbcom, it's arbcom. All I ask it that the nature of the charges against me be explained in a direct manner, as they've not been so far, so that I might be allowed to directly speak in my own defense.
Perhaps if I hear what is likely to occur based on the Bouyeri comment - I'm sorry that (judging from your quotes) you don't accept my word as sincere - I might change my mind, but at this point, I'm very puzzled as to how anyone could consider the two complaints to be remotely proportionate.
What judgement do you think is likely to be passed upon me in arbcom? I realize you can't know for sure, but would like to know what you're getting at.Timothy Usher11:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. I accept your word, but am not able to tell to what extent that would be deemed obvious enough to the user in question. In any case, I use that example since it's the only one I know of involving your misconduct, but will stress, only as ==an example==. Perhaps there are other instances of misconduct on your part, perhaps not. I'm not able to tell as I havne't studied the pertinent material, nor am I able to equate one side versus the other. The appearence that I'm doing so merely follows from my pragmatic approach. You are of course free to decide such an approach to be in error; perhaps it is, time will tell. Thus, I'm not able to postulate on the judgement; maybe it will be decided favourably for you, maybe not. Again, I'm simply not able to tell. Sorry I couldnt be of more help. Let me know if I could be of further assistance. El_C12:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bottom of talk page
For what it's worth, I finally have an automatic version of the thing you do with the bottom of your talk page. See User talk:Interiot or User:Interiot/talk bottom. It's a bit of an ugly hack though. What would be even better is if the devs could turn on <tfoot>, since then the code to do it is very simple and hack-free [16]. Bug #3156 might cover that, so feel free to vote for it if you want. --00:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I'm afraid I'm not entirely following that. What would be automated? What would I be voting for? Thanks for taking the time. Regards, El_C17:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't have to manually move new sections up above the bottom blurb, when they hit "+" to add a new section to the talk page. Here's an example... it lets the bottom section actually be located at the top of the wikitext, so when people add things to the bottom, it doesn't overwrite the blurb (view source on that page to see what I mean). --Interiot03:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the point is that example doesn't work on wikipedia yet, because the devs haven't enabled <tfoot>. (once they do, I'd be happy to set it here, of course) I think there's a good chance they will enable tfoot sooner rather than later, so I was hoping to stir up interest in it. --Interiot13:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see, nice. Hey, if you remember, please just add it to my page when it's available (I don't really keep track of developments in the ... developments realm); or anything clandestine is fine, too. Thanks again for letting me know of it. All the best, El_C23:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how I have violated it, and therefore why such a review of the policy on my part is needed. El_C16:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hehehe, you're funny Mr. El C. Making me come find your response on your talk page instead of writing back to me on mine. Hehehe.
Here's why you might want to review blocking policy.
- i made two short edits to the incidents page, then you threatened me. not very friendly behavior! a friend of yours--the one the incident reported--made at least eight. things that make you go hmmmm........
- i asked you to be civil, then you blocked me for disruption! very un-wikilike and most would agree that calling for civility is not disrupting anything.
I virtually always answer comments placed on my talk page on my talk page (see above). At any rate, I disagree with your assessment above and I stand by my decision and action. Perhaps it would be of benefit for you to seek outside opinion. El_C19:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, you're funny Mr El C. No explanation, just an "I stand by my decision". If you read the blocking policy I think you'll agree that asking for civility is not grounds for blocking -Justforasecond21:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your "observations" have been noted, but I still submitt it would likely be of benefit for you to seek outside opinion. El_C21:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just another RFA thank you note
Dear El C, I appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ←Humus sapiensну?03:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for granting an extension. I am not clear on what evidence that is missing that you are reffering to. Best wishes, IsraelBeach03:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. The evidence I'm looking for involve a more clear depiction of the signatories trying to resolve the dispute — the evidence currently there only establishes that Woggly attempted to withdraw from rather than her continuing to engage in it. El_C03:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. I'm afraid that falls short of what is needed, since the tone behind the comments does not appear conducive to resolving the dispute (it appears near- patronising and condescending, at times). Additionally, no diffs are provided, so the respective contexts cannot be guaged. The items should involve a brief-sentence summary followed by a diff, rather than quoting whole responses unsourced. Also, I find it noteworthy that the final addition highlights my original point: on letting someone withdraw from a dispute if they so wish (that is, why continue to pursue the conflict if she will no longer a factor?). El_C07:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to allow these personal attacks and threats by Woggly to continue?:
Woggly continues as of this date her personal attacks against user:Israelbeach stating: "Perhaps you can pull the wool over the eyes of someone who is not immersed in Israeli society and culture, but all this bluster doesn't fool or scare me for a minute. Part of the reason I'm pursuing this with you is ..." Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Woggly In addition, rather than seeking to resolve this issue she states that she will continue to "pursue" conflict. This does not serve the interests of the Wikipedia community. Bonnieisrael22:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've already responded to it and pressed on her to tone down the innuendo. But this RfC itself seems punitive (not to mention formated impropperly and is poorly-documented), and I will be deleting it tonight. Please make a copy for your records before I do so. I will keep the talk page, though, where hopefuly we can get to the bottom of the underlying dispute, with Woggly in dispassionate form, or not at all. El_C22:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first time that I have visited your user talk page El_C, as such I missed out on some commentary. Pleased that I am here now to say 1. you have an impressive user page, 2. thanks for the extensions and objective feedback for which I and others are now acting on. Thanks for speaking with Woggly to turn down the innuendos. I believe that these attacks are motivated from either political / religious beliefs (threatened perhaps by a new, successful non-profit Yahoo community forum in Israel that I created - "NewRaanana" which was the subject of this cover story in the Jerusalem Post.
If I have sounded "near- patronising and condescending" at times I apologize. In addition to my commercial and non-profit work, I serve in the IDF Spokesperson's Office (res.) and consult the Ministry of Foreign Affairs so that I am well experienced in having personal attacks thrown my way - but not by fellow Israelis, not on Wikipedia. :<
Hi. And thanks. While I cannot comment on much of the above as I've yet to study the pertinent material, I still think this RfC is an impediment to rather than a means to expedite a resolution in this case. But I'll let you go through the motions and will examine whatever you come up with as fairly as I can. Hopefuly, the underlying issue, which is the editorial dispute, can be tackled soon. El_C23:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A good solution was raised in the Ra'anana article which should satisfy everyone. That Israelbeach was to create a template addressing all issues as found for all major cities - i.e. New York, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and San Franisco. He could then include Father's Rights under the "Politics" section making for a more balanced article. Bonnieisrael15:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But what about mother's rights? (recenet Supreme Court ruling, for ex.)? And why in the context of cities? These issues should be covered under Family Law, but they must also be balanced and not one-sided. El_C20:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disputes
Hi again. May I also ask you as a contributor to Iranian Azerbaijan and the talk, what do you think about the move of the page to Azarbaijan (Iran) and the related voting process? And I’ll provide the summary of the dispute I have with Fadix in a few minutes. Grandmaster11:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's news to me (considering my ongoing dispute with my 12,000 article watchlist). From a scholarly vantage point, it's fine (and as per the spelling) ala East Azarbaijan Province, etc., but as for the name being suited to the average reader, it's definitely less straightforward. El_C11:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is strange that the names of the country and the region are spelled differently now, as it is the same word, and Azerbaijanis from Azarbaijan also sounds strange. Also not everybody is happy with the voting process, as you can see from the talk. Grandmaster11:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for Nakhichevan, the dispute is in a wider context than Nakhichevan. It is about naming principles in general. The lead of the article includes the name of the region in 4 languages. The dispute is whether it is correct to include all those names or only the name in the state language should be included. Also, if all applicable names should be listed in the lead, then there’s a dispute whether this principle should also be applied to Armenia, the territory of which was part of Ottoman Empire and Erivan Khanate, and in particular the city of Yerevan. The principle on which the names are added is not clear by the rules, because no official policy exists. According to the rules proposed in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), you can add foreign language names:
The lead: The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parenthesis: {name1, name2, name3, etc.}. Any archaic names in the list (including names used before the standardization of English orthography) should be clearly marked as such, i.e.: (name1 arch.). Foreign language names are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages, i.e.: (Armenian: name1, Belarusian: name2, Czech: name3). Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a names section immediately following the lead. In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced with the following text: (known also by several alternative namesNames). Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line.
Fadix insists that Armenian name should be added to Nakhichevan but Azeri and Turkish names cannot be added to Armenian locations, because the names are not of Turkic origin and are written in modern alphabet. He can present his position better of course, which I'm sure he'll do, but for more details you can see Talk:Nakhichevan. Grandmaster11:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the percentage of Turkish and Russian language speakers? How can we not have Azeri if that's the official language? As for the rest, it's easy, we'll have Name section which may be summarized in the lead. But why are you quoting the MoS? Nobody likes the MoS. El_C12:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Population of Nakhichevan is currently almost 100% Azeri, it has a small Russian minority. Is it OK to have Turkish and Azeri names included for Yerevan, which was part of Ottoman empire and capital of Azeri-Turkic Erivan khanate? Fadix strongly objects to that, while insisting on inclusion of Armenian name to Nakhichevan. And excuse my ignorance, but what's MoS? Grandmaster12:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MoS is Manual of Style (which nobody likes). I don't see why we need the Armenian name, even less so Russian and Turkish. El_C12:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
El_C, Grandmaster is not explaining the conflict like it really is. First, I was not the one having added the Armenian term, and I think that Armenian term should be modified. The Armenian term has an etymologic and historic value. The term etymologically meant 'Place of Descent' and originate from the belief that it was the first city build after the Flood from a Descent of Noah and from that legend Hayk the founder of the Armenian came in. Here quoting from a paper: But the most singular of all the traditionary etymology is that of the well known town of Nakhchevan, or more properly Nakhichevan. In the Armenian, this name is composed of two words, nakh, first, and ichevan, descent, or resting-place, i.e. "the first descent" or "the first resting place," which they say is the first place of abode built by Noah and his sons after the flood. (Armenian Traditions about Mt. Ararat, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 5 (1855) p. 190. The main point there was that the name has etymologic value, like any good dictionary or historic encyclopedias contains the etymology of terms, cities, towns etc. This is why I said to Grandmaster that there is no possible comparaison. I also told him that if he can find territories in Armenia which have Turkic etymology, they should perhaps be included, but they should from the way it was written, which was Arabic/Persian script and not writen in modern Azeri with modern prounciation, both existed after the Armenian SSR. But Grandmaster don't want to listen, he requested the inclusion of terms that have no etymologic values, and this is not enough, he want them in modern Azeri. This is around what the conflict is centered, and I have tried to explain him and make him understand that words are not added only for the pleasure of adding them, nor, added because foreign names are added in some other articles, they are added for a purpouses. My anger toward Grandmaster is as a result of his refusal to listen and this was just one cases. If people read the entry about Nakhichevan, they ought to know what that word mean and its etymology, this has nothing to do with pushing Armenian POV, it has an etymology and we can do nothing about it. And I haven't even added in the article what the word means, because it will right away be reverted by some POV pushers. Fad(ix)17:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First off, the name of Nakhichevan has different variations and different explanations of its etymology. This could have been dealt with in a separate section, where all appropriate variations and explanations of etymology could be collected. But inclusion of the name of the region in Armenian in the lead along with official Azerbaijani title is not justified, unless the same approach is taken towards the territory of Armenia. Grandmaster18:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is untrue, Nakhichevan does not have different etymologies. The ancient Greek term does not mean the same thing, which besides was a variant used also by Persians and Armenians. The Urartian term was also different. The term Nakhichevan is the origin of the term 'Nakhichevan.' The current way the Azeris spell it is the coining of two Armenian words minus the 'i' the Azeris have removed while in English it still is preserved. In English the term is spelled like it is spelled in Armenian and not Azeris. In English the 'i' is still preserved while in Azeri they removed it. Fad(ix)19:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The name on the lead should be in modern Azeri; other languages should be in an etymology section, plus subarticle if needed. El_C18:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK fair, but in English it is not called Nakhchevan as it is spelled in Azeri, in English they still kept the way the English were calling it when Nakhichevan was under Armenian administration. But wait and see the revert war now when the Armenian term appear (which is still the way in English and other languages it is called) in an etymology section and those that will try to remove it. Fad(ix)19:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, it has few Armenian-speakers today, though clearly there's much Armenian (language and otherwise) related material to be written on it. I don't see how it's going to be removed it from an etymology section. If it does, let me know. El_C19:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Adam Carr
El C
Don't get me wrong. I am no supporter of Adam. I was just trying to make the point that, it would appear that this type of activity gives strength to Adam's self-styled crusade (backed by his little band of groupie style political science students...)
13809:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I didn't take it as an expression of support for himself, I was making a more generalized and indirect observation about the role of propaganda on Wikipedia, and on how apologists of imperialism are always given so much more "freedom" to propogate their reactionary ideology (with little regards to civility, which on the one hand, is a sign of their strength which I speak of above, and on the other, an indication of a lacking self-restraint). And I value any opposition to his redcrusade, so thank you for offering your thoughts. Best, El_C19:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Terms?
I think we can all agree he's out of line, but I'm curious what the terms are that you mentioned here. I don't see mention of him in the arbitration case, is it somewhere else? Friday(talk)20:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not, these are terms I set out for him. This isn't "a bit," this is part if a reoccuring pattern. He should not be commented on the activities of DCV on ANI (and I have already blocked him once for it), certainly not authoring questionable notices. El_C20:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello!
I noticed that at the Woggly RfC you left a little note after my comment saying "User has less than 30 edits (less than 10 prior to Apr 25) — can someone please explain to me what is going on here?" I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but if your concern is that I'm a sockpuppet, I'm not. Although I guess my saying that proves exactly nothing. :-) I edited a little bit before I got my user name, but only typos and spelling errors. Once I started catching on to the whole Wiki idea, I got a user name, because I realized I do not have a static I.P. address, and it only seemed proper for my edits to be consistently identified as mine. For a while I was not logged in (perhaps my cookies were automatically deleted?), but I logged back in as soon as I noticed it. I can't tell you what I edited between log-ins, but it would only have been minor edits. I've been addicted to Wikipedia for a long time, but it took me a while to realize that I could try to help too. For the record, I don't really know anyone on Wikipedia (yet!), and none of my real-life friends are Wikipedians. I don't know if this explains anything you were wondering about, but please let me know if it doesn't, I'd be happy to answer any questions I can. -DejahThoris (A.K.A. Jenn) 22:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Actually, I was simply puzzled that so many very new users were editing an RfC page. That in itself is [statistically] unusual. I have no questions and you were not obliged to provide me with that explanation, but thank you for your note. El_C23:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JFAS et al on ANI
I thought I'd take this thread here, rather than continue to clog ANI.
I understand how, if you've been involved for a long time, the two ANI entries would seem to make a pattern and abuse. But as a previously uninvolved party, I have seen both content disputes and abuse cases pop up with multiple ANI notices / debates, many times much more clearly abusive than the two JFAS notices and their comments. I saw them, I shrugged, it didn't seem to be a big deal, went on to the next item, and then saw about the blocking and started to go "Huh?".
I know now that it's been going for a long time, but as someone who hadn't seen the DCV/JFAS stuff rise up to the level of noticability previously, what JFAS did in ANI this week didn't rise to the level of major evident abuse. I'm finding plenty of evidence now that I dig really deep, but I am suprised that we could get an abuse case to the level of this type of blocking without anyone having bothered to RFC it. I had always seen enough documented hoops jumped through that I could figure out the incident history rapidly, until this.
I think you're doing fine here now that I have found more, and you've been an excellent admin the whole time I've been paying attention to ANI and the like. But the lack of procedural history on this one did confuse me for a while, and that's unusual. I would urge you to either file RFC or get someone else who knows enough of the history to do a reasonable RFC on JFAS to get it on the record, so that the next guy coming along after me doesn't get confused...
Hello. Again, I take your point, and also thank you for the kind words. But I think you'll find that I'm really lazy all for informal measures and minimal documentation and accountability &;mdash;when it comes to my actions, at least— I demand much more from others! Oye. :) Regards, El_C00:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cuba
Hi El C. Thanks for your comments on the strange case of Dr Carr. It's driving me mad, by the way. I have presented Adam with the below (albeit wordy) paragraph which he's rejected out of hand. I have grave doubts whether he has the ability to comprehend the process of NPOV and article writing. He also appears to have no sense that other users (ie. someone who has debated with Marxist-Leninists since the early 1980's) can adopt neutrality on the matters. Please help, or if possible find someone who can explain how to write an article that doesn't place the personal views of Dr Adam Carr firmly in the frame!!!--Zleitzen04:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The distinct nature of grassroots political participation in Cuba has fostered much international discussion surrounding the nature of modern democracy. In 2000, Cuba sponsored the adopted UN resolution (55/96) which affirmed the recognition that “while all democracies share common features, there is no one universal model of democracy”[17]. Some international analysts have also suggested that Cuba’s constitution describes a Direct democracy[18] or a "centralized democracy". In 2006, the discussion gained additional attention after Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez referred to the Cuban model as a “revolutionary democracy”[19]. Peruvian presidential candidate and fellow Bolivarian leader Ollanta Humala responded, arguing that by Peruvian standards “Cuba does not qualify as a democracy"[20]. Modern Western political theory as advocated by groups including Freedom House, an organisation funded jointly by US Government and private investment budgets, demands more exact requisites to distinguish the criteria of electoral democracy. These include a competitive, multiparty political system, open political campaigning and independent media[21]. Consequently such groups determine that Cuba cannot be considered a modern functioning democracy, and frequently campaign to promote the implementation of these criteria for the island.
Hi, Zleitzen. I've spent countless hours on this article and all my efforts have amounted to nothing. And honestly, I'm not sure I'm prepared for a repeat preformance. The Miami billionaires have the money (plundered from the Cuban masses), and their money talks. For now. Best, El_C20:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please unblock me. Adam Carr posted a private a legal email which he admits to posting which in turn got me banned. That action over-stepped the authority of the admin that blocked me. I handled all my legal stuff off-wiki per wiki rules and Adam Carr was the one that posted the email not me. Sgrayban
Hello. I don't understand what happned, but I wouldn't simply unblock without bringing any concerns I have to the blocking admin. Please provide me some background (including any pertinent permanent links) sand I'll see what I can do. Thanks. El_C05:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, sorry to eavesdrop but Scott was an apolitical vandalism patroller who stumbled across the Cuba page debacle, he rightfully blocked a few users and tried to help a mediator reach consensus. When the process collapsed amidst the torrent of abuse from Adam and cronies, Scott reacted badly and issued all kinds of uncivil responses himself, he followed this up with a private email legal threat to Adam Carr. He's been blocked again until this legal issue is resolved/withdrawn. Such is the level of ignorance and incivility surrounding that page at the moment that even the Miami Herald has written a piece on it!! [22] Meanwhile although the incivility has resumed unabated, your pessimism about NPOV on that page is maybe premature. The page is improving, and I'm working on a study of all the issues which I hope will clarify these NPOV Cuban disputes and how they relate to Wikipedia. My aim is to have a reference guide so rather than rehash old arguments, editors could refer to the study[23].--Zleitzen11:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you underestimate my tenacity, patience, powers of persuasion and commitment to NPOV El_C ;) That article is going to be NPOV from all angles before I finish. And then I plan to wean a host of apprentices, willing to ensure that it remains so! Have faith!--Zleitzen23:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I sure hope you will succeed where I have failed. But I fear that you may soon find yourself censored and facing the pro-Miami billionaires' pov-as-npov being dictated via administrative (& higher) decree. That said, I wish you the best of luck! El_C23:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless what Zleitzen wants to think or believe but his statement above that reads Scott reacted badly and issued all kinds of uncivil responses himself is untrue. The only thing I did was email Adam Carr after I consulted my lawyer and pointed all the places on wikipedia where he slandered and attacked my German heritage and that prompted the email that Adam posted on wikipedia. That is exactly what the policy says here to do. How am I suppose to follow a policy only to find myself blocked for following it? Adam Carr freely admits he posted the email on-wiki in the RfC I had started on him. I even asked the original blocking admin for the proof that I made any legal comments on wiki and not once have I gotten a answer on it. I still ask for it and I am still ignored. Everything that has happened after all this went on is a direct result of the dumb-ass admin here that blocked me in the first place for following the fucking policy to direct any legal issues in email and off-wiki. For so many users and admin here not one person has stepped up to realize that my original block was wrong and should have been removed. That just shows either all the admin here are brainless and spineless to see that Adam was just being a WP:DICK or they are truely scared of Jimbo and his mighty crew of storm troopers that run Wikipedia the way they want to as long as King Jimbo lets them. When will the admin start following the real policy and not make them up as they go or choose when, where and on who they enforce them? This is exactly why wikipedia will be in the media's cross-hairs until something is done to correct what has gone seriously bad. Sgrayban
You wrote "...not one person has stepped up to realize that my original block was wrong". Well, I did, sort of. Mostly, I am bothered that the 'evidence chain' was tainted, and the precise charges were never revealed and the timing was fishy. My request for explanation was blown off[24], more or less. So, I agree that there was no due process that I could see. Also, the summary justice by the whim of an interested administrator is a 'Wild West' situtation here at Wikipedia for sure! Still, Sgrayban's written verbalization of a hot temper hasn't helped his cause. I guess that 'due process' is not a solid right at Wikipedia, and I have mixed feelings about this, because the community justice process does seem to get things right eventually, most the time. You could withdraw or deny your attributed statments which were interpreted as legal threats. I didn't see that you denied that the email provided by Adam Carr was yours, was it yours? The EFF statement didn't look like a legal threat to me, but I can see how it could be easily misinterpreted, so you might clarify that statement too. BruceHallman21:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mister Sgrayban, you have yet to submitt the evidence I requested above. So long as I lack a well-documented overview of what happned, I will remain unable to comment on and review your appeal. Please do so, otherwise, I fear you are wasting your time. El_C01:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is one[25] in particular where Adam Carr admits I did not ask for Scott Grayban to be banned. I posted the text of his threatening email to me at this page, and others then decided to ban him. Adam 13:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC) which in turn had me banned by admin User:Jdforrester and when questioned about it here[26] not one shred of proof was offered. I also had emailed Jdforrester at the gmail address he gives out a total of 6 times only to be ignored. As stated by Adam Carr himself he posted a email. There are 2 problems with that, 1)He could have doctored it and the other is its not verifiable since it never was on-wiki, other then Adam Carr posting it and 2)Its hearsay, 3rd party, and unusable by wikipedia's own policies of proof and verifiable. My rants after being flat out ignored by User:Jdforrester and his claim of on-wiki had my temper flared and I bashed, slammed and electricute the admin responsible for it publicly. Anyone here would have thrown a fit about this after being ignored for days for proof or at least a respectful email reply. User:Jdforrester did nothing instead. Sgrayban
I'm actually hesitant to postulate about what "anyone" would do. I'm wonder what substance, if any, is behind this notice. El_C04:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That my legal issues with Adam's slander and libel comment's he made on-wiki. My threat was never ever directed to wiki but directly to Adam Carr's direct actions to me. And I am still in process of that with my attorney so I won't get into that here. The point being if I followed wiki's policy to take such matter's off-wiki and in email how can that same policy be used when I do follow it? Sgrayban
Let me clarify that the current ban I am cool with. I did have heated words with Brad in email so its deserved. What I want is the block that caused all this to happen to be recored as a un-founded ban based on 3rd party information that User:Jdforrester imposed on me. That's it. I can deal with the rest. Sgrayban
Sorry, but I remain confused. Which ban are you contesting? The notice reads "I have contacted the EFF Attorney's regarding Wikipedia's censorship of private emails and blocking users that use email in order to defend themselves from slander that originates on Wikipedia sites," so it is difficult not to see this as a legal threat. Legal matters should be handled off-wiki. I'm not following the question. You say "if I followed wiki's policy to take such [legal] matter's off-wiki," but you didn't. How did Wikipedia censor anything, though? This isn't to excuse what Carr did, which I have yet to read. Was it deleted? If it is still on-site, can you link it, please? I'm afraid it's still difficult to follow what happned from that. El_C04:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's just it. I can't find anyplace in history on User:Jdforrester talk page, the original RfC on Adam or on Adam's talk page that even shows this email he says he posted that got me banned by User:Jdforrester. Its only talk by User:Jdforrester that it was. This is why I asked 6 times in emails to User:Jdforrester for the proof of this on-wiki and why I never got a reply back. Its the case of the missing email Adam claim's to have posted but not a shred of evidence to support it anyplace. As for the EFF Attorney's regarding Wikipedia's censorship that is me being very pissed off for not finding anything on the posted email or any reply from User:Jdforrester on it. Why would I be so hard up on demanding the proof if I knew I was guilty of it? If I am guilty of it why isn't User:Jdforrester jumping at the chance to beat me down with it? Sgrayban
LOL you really think I am going to post anything like that on-wiki? I asked for proof that it was on-wiki now you ask for the content of the email? Its off-wiki where it will stay. The contents will never be posted by me or my attorney. Its confidential. If it can't be found then the ban was placed by Jdforrester on personal grounds which violates the no personal threats which he did by banning me for the simple fact of the RfC and his connection to Adam Carr. Sgrayban
The only conclusion I can think of is Adam forward the email directly to User:Jdforrester and this is why there is no no evidence on-wiki of it and why User:Jdforrester chooses to remain silent. Sgrayban
Interesting how Zleitzen knew about it and I couldn't find a thing on it. But alas that isn't the correct email anyways. Its 3rd party pasted from a user that didn't like me in the first place. Its tainted and un-varifiable. Where are the headers for the email? Missing in action? Or maybe Bill Gates notepad editing? It is still 3rd party. Sgrayban
Nothing interesting about it Scott, it was always there. Just let it go, any right minded administrator could simply check your contributions from the IP you use now and make the same indefinate blocking decision. Please give this up and move on. --Zleitzen05:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW Adam Carr should read the news[28] more carefully. Might have kepted him out of trouble. Sgrayban
At any rate, Sgrayban, you are entitled to take any legal action you see fit off-wiki, and the phrasing (if the above excerpts are any indication), while clearly aggressive, do not count as hate speech (I bend the rules for hate speech). So I'm baffled as to why you were blocked for it, and also, especially, why you recieved no explanation for the block. If you promise to keep your temper in-check and to adhere to policy, I can take whatever steps needed toward lifting your block. Zleitzen, do you approve? El_C05:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intentions to edit on wiki with articles such as Cuba. They can revert war till the moon falls on them for all I care. I'll tend to my articles that I had originally started here which have no issues with rational talking before massive edits are done. Sgrayban
And no it wasn't hate speech like Adam has done in the past[29]Sgrayban
I don't think that counts as hate speech at all, rather, an attempt to deter hate speech which is arguably outside of policy. El_C06:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RE: 172's vandalism, I'm much more to the left than 172, he's just a moderate leftist — I'm the real thing. El_C05:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still, if Sgrayban agrees to keep his temper in-check and in policy, and if he makes a pledge to that effect, expressedly so, he can have another chance. Even if it looks very likely it's destined to fail, some due process is in order, and this will be it. On the record. El_C06:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If Scott promises that he won't edit anything related to the Cuba dispute, and drops all contact with myself, Adam Carr and 172 (including any Rfc or arbitatration matters) on Wikipedia at least, then I see no reason why he shouldn't return.--Zleitzen06:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he appears to be saying that much above. All he has to do is put this commitment it in pledge form, as in: 'yes, I pledge this.' El_C06:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intentions to edit on wikipedia articles such as Cuba. They can revert war till the moon falls on them for all I care. I'll tend to my articles that I had originally started here which have no issues with rational talking before massive edits are done. HAs my repeated statement above changed? In other words I personally could careless about the Cuba article, its editors or the talk page. I will never stoop to the level the lot of you have turned into. I got more respect for myself then that. However my legal issues that are off-wiki can never be used on wiki as means to get rid of me as well. Sgrayban
Oh I need the honour pledge. Very Well... I Scott Grayban, aka Sgrayban, do hereby promise, pledge and or swear to never edit Cuba or its talk page nor to ever make any un-civil comments nor post un-civil stuff about Adam, Zleitzen or 172 but on the same token this does not mean its open warefare on me where they can freely post any comments they wish about me. In others I'll be civil and mind my own business so long as they also refrain from taunting me editing or making any comments on my talk or user page or any article that I am currently working on. Fair is fair and posting is meant to be wikipedia or in the terms on-wiki . Sgrayban
And the drop all contact ? Not a chance. My legal issues with Adam will not be stopped as they off-wiki nor can Zleitzen force me into dropping that one for a unblock. No No. Sgrayban
Your legal issues are not our concern so long as they remain off-wiki, including comments which hint on it, such as this. El_C06:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. I expect the exact thing from the 3 people mentioned above as well. And remind 172 that wikipedia is not his play toy and deleting stuff on my pages here[32] and here[33] are also considered harassement and I am sure a few other policies here. Are we all clear on what is now an agreement? 172 is to stay far away from my pages and articles like it is infected, Adam is to never harasse or insult me on other pages/talk and Zleitzen will keep his personal issues away from me. I also will do the same in return. Now what happens if either side breaks this agreement? I assume Zleitzen is speaking for all since he is naming them. Sgrayban
The blocking admin did not object, so you've been unblocked. I'll drop a note on your page to that effect as well. El_C00:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patients and help in this matter. I hope all parties will repect our agreement so this isn't needed again. --Scott Grayban11:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A favor please
Hello friend, do you remember me? In the month of September 2005, your vote had made me an administrator. we all know that the life here is exciting and full of challenges. I would request you to please spare fem moments for me, and favor me with your comments and suggestions (here please) on my performance as a wikipedian. Let us continue to build the Better than the Best global encyclopedia. Thank you and regards. --Bhadani10:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the past 24 hours there has been an escalation in the war of the words between user:Israelbeach and user:Woggly. Woggly who never apologized for her personal attacks against Israelbeach was never addressed or blocked for these attacks by the administrators. In fact, she has been attacking Israelbeach, whose identity is for all to see, from an anonymous position. Not very fair or ethical!
Israelbeach, in turn, revealed Woggly's identity, something he was wrong for doing. According to Wiki policy: "This sort of behavior is blockable on its own (for example, moving another user's User Talk page), but should be considered an aggravating factor for the purposes of the block. For example, behavior that would earn a 1 day ban might become a 1 week ban if the Administrator believes the behavior was for the purposes of harassment. The block should only be enforced after warning the user and these pleas go ignored."
Israelbeach was warned by user:jpgordon and according to the logs deleted all material within minutes. Israelbeach should not have been blocked according to Wiki policy as he never ignored any warnings by adm but reacted quickly to them.
Woggly is now rightfully worried about legal action that Israelbeach can take against her for stating, without substance, that he was "dangerous" and other accusations made in front of his local community and the world public. She now appears to be leaving Wikipedia on her own.
Solution: Both Israelbeach and Woggly are professional editors and should be encouraged to stay with the Wiki project. The block on Israelbeach should be removed immediately, as it only serves to increase conflict. Remember, after a first warning, Israelbeach on his own removed all personal data even though he thought he was correct due to that personal information regarding Woggly was posted by Woggly with a direct link to Wikipedia that anyone can find on a simple Google search.
Both Israelbeach and Woggly should be warned with no punitive action taken and instructed not to interact with one another on Wikipedia. These are two professionals with tremendous pride - do not expect either to aplogize at this point. We must encourage both users to stay, to avoid court action (with the documentation that Israelbeach has on these clear personal attacks, no judge would deny Woggly's guilt) and keep Wikipedia operating with less negative news coverage.
I do not blame Woggly or Israelbeach for their now wanting to resign from Wikipedia, I place the blame solely on the desk of the administrators (with the exception of user:jpgordon) who could have taken action on the personal attacks which started this conflict. Woggly and Israelbeach are both assets to Wikipedia, all action should be taken to keep them here. I will be posting this message in how to resolve this matter on other pages. Nancetlv12:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, thank you! Bolivia nationalizing its energy sector today (though not expropriating, oh well) is making my May Day! :) El_C02:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, B&W symmetry properties are sweet. Although as a camouflage for what-again? As I tell my cat: you're a panda, a penguin, a Tapir! El_C04:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Happy (Belated) Admin Promotion Day
Happy (Belated) Admin Promotion Day, El C/generic sub-page2. It's good to know that you're so dedicated!
Editing Since August 9, 2004
After so many failed mediation attempts with SS on the part of various people, Fred Bauder's seemingly highly selective use of a Mediation Committee referal serving as a condition for a acceptance is as preplexing as it is potentially revealing. El_C20:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do want to see mediation used more, but I'm not sure Sam Spade is necessarily the best candidate. Lot of repetitive stuff with him. I wish we could all trust him to lay off the controversial articles and edit warring for a while. Fred Bauder16:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the thing about SS and mediation is that he is always willing to undergo it (that such a need arises in itself sould raise brows), but to my knowledge nothing has ever been achieved from these multiple attempts. I also wish we could trust him with editing uncontroversially —it's not that I disagree with him on everything, for ex., I agree with much of his approah re:the God article— but regretfuly, experience indicates he lacks the self-restraint to avoid similar entirely avoidable conflicts in the future. El_C19:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the stuff [34], I have always had considerable respect for the vast amount of you have put into Wikipedia, as your wide range of expertise as a scholar is abundantly apparent... I signed Adam's comment in order to show my support for his work on the Cuba article, where he has been gradually marking-up a terribly-written article previously dominated by crude apologists for what you called "a corrupt, state capitalist party." (BTW, I don't mean Zleitzen. He is a serious editor. The others, however, are... [sentenced unfinished due to civility policies!] While the Manichean overtones of Adam's polemic on the RfC are not my preferred style, I support him in the case of the Cuba-related articles for one overarching reason: Adam Carr has been contributing serious encyclopedic material to the article, while his opponents have been disruptive... Best regards. 172 | Talk05:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I'm not entirely satisfied with that, and I don't think the American (or Australian) academia is a place where one would expect to find moderation regarding Cuba, even among moderates. Also, neither one of you are experts on Cuba. Encyclopedic content has its pov tones and overtones, direction and political impetus. And simply because it is a corrupt party, does not make it more corrupt than the ruling-party in Haiti, the party Carr is affiliated with, or any bourgeoisie party for that matter. Nor does it make Fidel corrupt. It certainly dosen't compare to the ruling-party of North Korea and I denounce attempts to propogate this line, its questionable abundance via the Miami gang notwithstanding. And the terms of discourse are themsleves unacceptable; he should not be allowed to drive people away with his combative style simply because his pov serves the ruling order. I'm dissapointed that you'd comrpomise with having such a reactionary style, which in virtue of being so much more understated than Carr, you have been subjected to countless times. Perhaps I should be thanking Carr, since likely much of this would have gone un-notice by myself (at least for a while) had it not been for his inability to exercize self-control. And this lack of self-control is a problem. Zleitzen says: "Adam and 172 may have doctorates in history, but I can confirm from experience in my own academic career, and from discussions with friends and colleagues (Latin American historians and archivists) ... that their content judgements are suspect in this case". He should not have to operate under such questionable conditions El_C05:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Responding in order... First, indeed, U.S. academia often is not the place to find moderation on Cuba. The Cold War shaped not only our prevailing public discourse on Latin America, but also the institutions of research themselves. Researchers, of course, follow the grant money. Still, U.S. Latin American studies are pluralistic. For example, U.S. scholars were very influential in the dependista movement. Andre Gunder Frank was educated in the U.S. Fernando Henrique Cardoso has lectured in the U.S. for years (even before his conversion to neoliberalism!). World Systems theorists at U.S. universities published research on countries like Cuba. Dependency theory influenced the work of leading Latin American historians, such as Thomas Skidmore and Benjamin Keen. (By the way, I happen to recommend their surveys to students interested in general overview of Latin American history. I've also cited them on Wikipedia, though with my failing memory I forget exactly where.) Second, yes, neither of us are experts on Cuba. (Still, I'm not totally unfamiliar with the scholarly literature, as I run across material on Cuba often in stuff related to U.S. trade and diplomatic history.) Third, as for your questions concerning corruption, I'll rather gutlessly decline to reply. "Corruption" is a loaded, mushy, vague, culturally relative concept. I'll be more comfortable about making the comparisons you have in mind with more precise terminology. Perhaps I should offer a self-criticism for having thrown around a poorly defined term in the first place. Forth, regarding my support for Adam's tactics, please keep in mind that Wikipedia is a complex group environment, calling for a case-by-case approach to handling disputes. In some cases, talk page discussions often become zero-sum games between two opposing camps of editors battling for effective editorial control of the article. On the Cuba-related articles, the battle lines are clearly drawn between BruceHallman on one hand and Adam Carr on the other. I regret that Zleitzen feels marginalized in this mess. You probably have a valid point in stating that Zleitzen is getting marginalized by "virtue of being so much more understated than Carr," as I was in the past in previous disputes. Still, I think that Zleitzen is operating in conditions that are to an extent of his own making. He should have been doing a better job disassociating himself from several opponents of Adam Carr, particularly the sockpuppets and disruptive editors like Scott Grayban. In the end, I think the best outcome on the article may rest on a compromise draft between Zleitzen and Adam. Still, for that to happen, somehow the more disruptive opponents of Adam on the page must be taken out of the equation. 172 | Talk06:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
172, I'm uncertain how "Zleitzen is operating in conditions that are to an extent of his own making," anymore than are you — this is because I have not studied this dispute. Likewise, I am unsure of any infractions that BruceHallman is accused of (I have not heard of Scott Grayban), but I would appreciate any evidence to that effect, if applicable. Yes the world systems approach is to the credit of progressive segments of US academia and beyond, but the general tendency is nonetheless undeniable. I want all experts and nonexperts to have an enviornment where they are comfortable contributing, without prejudicial and discriminatory excalamtions turning editorial collaborations into a battleground. Bottom line is that two wrong (if we are to accept that Carr's wrongs are 2nd) make a bad situation worse, so I urge you to be more evenhanded about these wrongs, even when these involve Carr. I remain open to reveiwing any evidence regarding both sides of this dispute. At any rate, I trust that theree has been no incivilities by Carr today. All the best, El_C01:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm taking a break from the article for the time being. I might return when Adam is back from his conference. I'll try to keep an open mind in the future, though I have been much more inclined to cut Adam some slack, given the high quality of his section rewrites. 172 | Talk07:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I gathered by now that any incivilities on Adam's part today, are limited to said conference. Sounds good. Keep me posted. El_C07:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He'll be back in a couple of weeks, I believe. In all fairness to Adam, if one looks at his contributions to articles, I think it's clear that he's not nearly as hard-line as he makes himself appear on the talk pages. When it comes to his work on articles, I think he follows basic encyclopedic standards as rigorously as any of Wikipedia's top editors, such as yourself, Jtdirl, SlimVirgin, Slrubenstein, and John Kenney. (For example, compare the pre-Adam Carr history section to Adam Carr's rewrite.) 172 | Talk07:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I realize that he is held in high esteem for his contributions, and I did not question the quality of his these, only stressed that the form of discourse he has been accustomed to here is untenable. El_C08:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
172, I appologize if you found that offensive. Could you please answer the question that I asked and address my concern that you appear threatening when you describe the necessity of taking out your opponents? Is there any hope of finding a way to collaborate? BruceHallman20:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C. Is there any way that I could remove long comments from a talk page that are not personal attacks, but are just a waste of everyone's time. A new user "Anti-Com" has arrived on the Cuba page in trollish mood, he's goading other users and openly saying his has no intention of contributing to the article.--Zleitzen05:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
admin noticeboard
If you got da wrong idea that i was tryin to diss you on the admin noticeboard, i want to take this opportunity to apologize. peace.--Bonafide.hustla07:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ring me if more problems arise. I'm pressed for time today, so I may not get a chance to check. Best, El_C00:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sgrayban unblocking
Hi El C. Just wanted to make sure that you dotted your i's and crossed your t's when you unblocked Sgrayban. If you haven't already, can you make sure that you notify Danny or BradPatrick about your unblock? Apparently Sgrayban has been in contact with Brad – the Foundation's lawyer – and he (Brad) asked to be kept in the loop about anything that happens. If you've already emailed him, that's dandy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you do that!? He was continuing to make threats on his user talk page while he was blocked. Please re-block this user right away. 172 | Talk09:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
/me is completely confused. I don't trust User:SGrayban any farther than I can throw him. His reckless threats (including against admins) are obviously well-documented. He knows how to reach me. If his intent is to withdraw from everything, he can bloody well email me (or better, have his attorney email me) and explain his change of heart and mind. Until then, I cannot in good conscience accept his/your statement (not that this should be interpreted as reflecting on you). WP:AGF was burned up awhile ago with this guy.--BradPatrick13:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC) (and your Mandelbrot images are very nice, btw)[reply]
Sorry, I screwed up. One of the reason I unblocked the user was because I thought 172 was in favour of it. To make matters worse, I slipped and hurt myself. I just came back from the Dr.'s, I'm fine, but am badly bruised. I am re-blocking the user and will be withdrawing from Wikipedia for a while. My most sincere apologies to everyone I hurt with my reckless action. El_C17:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Brad, You have my word nothing will be taken against WP. All I wanted was the original block that placed on me removed when it was done in bad faith by Jdforrester. He based his whole block on me by something that should have never been posted here in the first place. El_C saw that after proof was shown that Carr posted something that was off-wiki in the first place. Since that was done I have nothing against WP since the error was corrected. It was a bad call on the admin in the first place. If you want to keep me banned on something that was wrong in the first place then do what you must. If WP:AGF is that mad with a email that was posted here and I complained about it and I was banned then why isn't the offending person (Carr) not banned for the same reason's? He has caused alot more grief then my complaint about him posting a email. He has disrupted entire article's with atleast half-dozen policy violations and he repeat's them over and over. *Sigh* I just don't get this place one bit. I agreed to keep away from all 3 people. They agreed as well why can't this just die. --Scott Grayban15:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then let's be done with it. My hesitancy, frankly, has much more to do with your communication with me and much less to do with your communication to anyone else. You reached out to me; fine. Don't let it happen again. Everyone's on notice, right? So have fun on Wikipedia.--BradPatrick18:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re: 172, who I thought was in favour of the plan El C, I don't recall saying anying suggesting support for the plan. Still, I forget lots of things. Sorry if I was unclear at any point. 172 | Talk17:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You probably didn't and I just got confused. I have a lot on my mind; I should'nt have touched this. I'm very sorry for any grief I caused you. El_C17:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just say your note above about the doctor's. I hope everything's alright. Try to get some rest and feel better! 172 | Talk17:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hereby award you this purple heart for your injuries. I hope you get well soon and dang be carefull... We need you out here, dont getyourself selfishly killed! Catchi?06:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, everyone! I feel so much better today. Still soar, but I was just a mess yesterday. I got some pics taken of the injury. Will upload these momentarily. El_C00:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blanking userpages
Hi, please don't accuse people of disruption who are acting in good faith. I made the archives as I believed that everyone was required to have them. I reverted once, I then just posted a message. Regards Arniep02:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But first, why get involved at all? Secondly, why revert an admin who tells you people are allowed to blank their pages? To be honest, it does look like disruption. SlimVirgin(talk)02:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I'm afraid that disruption can take place independently of good or less good faith. At any rate, now you know that there is no such requirement. My message was largely preventative, in that immediate sense. Regards, El_C03:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IDF Pics
First, thanks for all the excellent work you've done to fill in all the IDF units and commands. I've starting a number of bios on the officers of the IDF High Command, and through the hebrew links you've provided, see that the hebrew version of the articles use the officers' pics from their idf bio pages (Ex: he:אלעזר_שטרן , IDF Bio). Do you know what kind of fair use they're claiming to use the pics? Thanks Joshdboz10:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Those are IDF-sepcific fair use tags. My proposal to create english equivalents remains outstanding. For now, just tag them {{fair use as|article name}} and provide the link to the IDF page where they were taken from. Regards, El_C12:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, I see that's the same thing you've done with the unit logos. Now all I need to do is learn some Hebrew :( Thanks for the quick reply. Joshdboz19:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Adam Carr is back from his travels, and has announced his intentions on the Cuba talk page to "resume combat" as the "Fidelistas have been busy reinserting their pathetic lies in my absence". Again this is entire and unneccessary nonsense. Would you mind keeping an eye on the situation. Thanks.--Zleitzen14:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No surprises there. Keep me & TenofallTrades posted; document policy violations on the RfC. Regards, El_C04:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interested?
Hi, Recently I have realised that there is a grouping of Turkish nationalists in Wikipedia with the objective of turning Kurdish related articles into Turkish propagandas. Would you like to start a project with me called "WikiProject Kurds" to better organize information in articles related to the Kurds. Regards. Ozgur Gerilla02:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm not much for participating in wikiprojects, I'm afraid, but I'll certainly try to follow its discussions & the issues it highlights. Regards, El_C04:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Beersheba
You added a non-NPOV to Beersheba, claiming, based on google, that other spelling are commoner. And you said the vote was un-wikipedia-like.
You should remove the tag, because you failed to provide a reason why it is non-NPOV, and explain why the survey did not respect Wikipedia pactice.--Panairjdde13:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not fail to explain the npov issue; my protest is included in the first comments; nor is it policy to go with the most common name; nor is Beersheba the most common name, which is also included in my first, and last, comments — in fact, I repeated mysef twice now on that front, also on RFC. You should take the time to review my comments this time, it is obviously unwikipedia-like not have done so. El_C17:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, you failed because there is no reason why this is non-NPOV. The article name could be wrong, but why non-NPOV? Please, a little collaboration, don't put tags randomly, choose theme carefully.--Panairjdde09:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The title is nonnpov because it is not objective, for the reasons cited. Please cut on the innunendo and exclamations, and try to gain the experience needed for a collaborative enviornment in general, and Wikipedia, specifically. El_C11:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RE:rational
Let's say a fair use rational is provided, how is the bot able to tell if it is valid or not. It appears to be malfunctioning. Does it need section headers. Is it a matter of detail? Number of charachters. If so, what if the rational is provided via a link? Thanks. El_C11:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The bot checks for presence, not validity. It looks for any of about a dozen keywords that indicate that the uploader has at least considered fair-use law or Wikipedia's fair-use policy. If you think the bot is malfunctioning, could you point out the image that you think it mis-tagged? I've been having trouble finding enough images with fair-use rationales to build up the keyword list. --Carnildo17:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue was with the IAF.jpg being a screenshot of the IAF's (IDF) website, which anyway, allows for fairuse usage on Wikipedia. El_C17:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing on that image description page, or on the linked web page [35] that could even remotely be considered an explanation as to why the image is permitted under Wikipedia's fair-use policy. --Carnildo19:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hah! Unilateralism, I like that. But I'm afraid I lack the tech knowhow on how to set it up. We might need the help of a developer, even. I'm not sure. Anyway, proposed categories are up now! El_C01:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh. You know, proposing to do something without having a clue as to how to do so is a rather audacious thing to do by itself, if silly. Up next: Kim's "building castles in the sky proposal" ;-) Kim Bruning12:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh cripies. Well, taw will be visiting me today, maybe we can rescue you. Hold tight, don't make unnescesary moves. Have a biscuit. ta ta! Kim Bruning13:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know I object and all, but there are times when just doing something can cut through the sargasso sea of text that we insist on creating. Oh what's that? *looks the other way for a long time* Somethiing shiny. - brenneman{L}16:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You object while I lose my cool, somehow it works itself out. But, while I take your point, I still think we should try. After all, it isn't destined to fail, and if it does, at least we know we tried — even if it causes more damage than not having existed at all. Risk is a natural counterpoint to opportunity for improvement. So hopefuly it won't turn into a crisis-tunity, and the desired results will be achieved. Regards, El_C16:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I need a warning light for when I'm oblique to the point of obfuscation. Here's what I meant to say: Although I object to the idea of the cat system for deletion debates, I support the idea of just going ahead and doing it (perhaps even before too many objections pile up!) Why, for the love of peat moss, would I say that? 1) There's the possibility that I'm wrong, that it will work fine. 2) With regards to deletion we talk too much and act too little. And don't lose your cool, mate! - brenneman{L}02:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wise words, and yet you opted to oppose! How is it that I think the same thing and draft such a proposal? And what cool? El_C11:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interweaving of comments
Good morning -
I just refactored some comments that you made on the Deletion Reform proposal. I do not think that I changed any of your meaning but if I accidentally did, I will apologize ahead of time. My intent was merely to remove the interweaving. I find it very difficult to follow a discussion thread when users attempt to slide rebuttals and other comments into the comments of a prior participant in the discussion. It disrupts the signature and the continuity of the original comment. It can distort the intended meaning of the first person's comment.
It's a pet peeve of mine and something I reverse whenever I discover it. Again, if I accidentally changed your meaning, please fix it. That was not my intent. Thanks. Rossami(talk)15:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I greatly appreciate your recognition as well as your thoughtful efforts to explain, expand, and further articulate the proposal. Your input has been invaluable to how the the current proposal has been formulated. So thanks again. Keep up the the good work! All the best, El_C00:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt I can find the energy for that at this time, sorry. Time to archive? But I haven't even reached 300k! El_C03:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not to ruin a good rant, but...
My first take on Nandesuka's comment was that you were being saved from hours of their wanking -- not from your own wanking. Or, at most, that IRC's a wankfest, and it's a mercy to not be there...I'm busy alternating between wanting to tell people to calm down and needing to be calmed down. Odd day. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆02:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if you could look at this article for me. I have argued on its talk page that basically the term genocide is not notable enough except among Greeks to be labelled as such. There are no English books or non Greek books devoted to the subject, as its Greek contributors have admitted. There are no journals through JSTOR that i have been able to find which uses that term, there are no other encylopedias which cover such a topic. Put simply, only Greeks seem to recognise the events as such, and Greek contributors seem to be pushing this article. The article lacks any references to the events itself, but seems to original research. I would appreciate if you could add your two cents to the discussion, since as a Turkish Cypriot i am accused of "covering another Turkish genocide from public view". Thanks, --A.Garnet18:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IRC?! Are you mocking me? ;) Note, though, that Linuxbeak has lifted NichoalsTurnbull's ban a few seconds after it was implemented. I'm not worried about it. I just don't know if I have the energy anymore. I've spent over an hour speaking to Linuxbeak yesterday [everything said there is kept confidential by request] and nothing positive has come of it. I could have written several articles,
instead. Discretion does not appear suited for this case anymore, I'm inclined to have discourse that's open, that's on the record, that takes place on-wiki. Regards, El_C21:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear your having trouble here El_C - i think your efforts have been appreciated by many people, hope you solve the problem. --A.Garnet21:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words. The solution appears daunting right now, so I'm either going to give up or keep to myself. Regards, El_C21:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not see people infighting over this on-wiki. That's not helping anyone. I specifically recommend against any kind of action against Linuxbeak at this point in time.
I will talk with NicholasT when he comes online to ascertain what happened on irc.
Please reconsider private conversation over this matter. That way we can quickly eliminate a large number of possible misunderstandings quietly, which would otherwise cause us both great harm in public. Kim Bruning22:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Kim, but I'm not inclined to do so at this time. I expected an apologetic note, not to have an "however slight" so crudely offsetted with a "most people I respect are indefferent about this situation." The public damage has already been done and appear likely to continue. El_C22:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
El, I've read the log, and disagree strongly with the action of kicking you, in fact I feel rather inclined to join you in staying away from the channel. Btw, Kim no longer needs to ascertain what happened on IRC, as I have told him in full. Bishonen | talk22:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Child reports? What? Now you got suit dummies makin' up big fancy word papers about me being a bad father because i'm rich now? This is bullshit Lucy! I'm not a bad father am I Trinity? El_C22:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quick note for the benefit of Guettarda: private conversations go wrong about as often as public conversations. When you mess up a conversation in private, you look like an idiot in private. When you mess up a conversation in public, you look like an idiot in public.
No doubt - I should have said the last things I said to you (Kim) in private, rather than in the public square. But when private conversations result in decisions that cost us some of our best editors, public conversation begins to look much more appealing. Guettarda23:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kim's law:
Public conversations are larger, slower, and less subtle. Misunderstandings arise more quickly. Therefore, when a public conversation fails, a private conversation can make things better. When a private conversation fails, a public conversation can make things worse.
I know it may mean nothing to you, but I happen to think IRC has the possibility of being harmful to WP. It can cause a sense of Cabalilty and Secretosity. It isn't "open". I know you are not inclined to head back at this moment, but I just thought I'd pass along a little comment. If you decide not to return, don't worry. I for one have never even used IRC and I seem to get along just fine. I haven't had any problem keeping up with the Jolie-Pitts. My RfA flew through just fine. And all without calls of a Cabal. Well, don't know if this has any effect on you, or if you even care, just thought I'd pass it along. See you around. --You Know Who(Dark Mark)23:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Same here, LV, I've only been on IRC 10 (well, barring the times I just go to see if Bishonen is around, but then I just pm with her and don't pay attention to the main channel) or so times, and it has not negatively impacted anything related to myself. Yeah, I may return sometimes in the future, that's not the issue. The issue is, as you said, "the possibility of it being harmful to Wikipedia." We'll see what people think. We'll also see whether my IRC-pile-on theory becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.El_C23:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, IRC is just a network, and a communications tool like many others. Use it or not as you wish. (personally I don't think much of wikien-l, and so avoid *that* even though wikien-l is technically supposed to be authoritative.) Kim Bruning23:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Each communication tool has different attributes. I'm interested in limiting some types of decision-making which takes place with "IRC approval" and then immediately implemented on Wikipedia. But I'm not drafting that policy. I did the AfD categories one (that I came up with while speaking to you, on IRC no less!). It's your turn. Oh and regarding the AfD one, any news about the tech prospects? El_C23:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no such thing as "IRC approval". Upstart wikipedia users discover this at their own peril. (recalling some embarrasing memories)
So I'm not even writing policy on this. :-P Let people turn red once or twice, they'll learn quickly enough.
As for AfD, I asked TAW to look, but he wasn't interested in helping out, so I'm not sure who to look for to help you out. See if you can find a different developer. Your ircphobia is not helping here :-(. Kim Bruning07:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no such thing as "IRC approval". Upstart wikipedia users discover this at their own peril. (recalling some embarrasing memories) — controversial actions need to be brought before and approved on Wikipedia, it's that simple.
Indeed it is. And people find that out the hard way, every once in a while. <innocent look> Kim Bruning
So I'm not even writing policy on this. :-P Let people turn red once or twice, they'll learn quickly enough. — only presupposing the hopelessness of the above.
Which is quite a hopeless thing indeed. Kim Bruning
Oh, come on Kim! As Ricky famously said: "I'm not a pessimist, I'm an optometrist."
I asked TAW to look, but he wasn't interested in helping out, so I'm not sure who to look for to help you out. See if you can find a different developer. — That's too bad.
Your ircphobia is not helping here :-( — if ircphilia proves a hindrence, I could always spam the developers with pleas for help on the foundation wiki itself. Maybe bring it to the attetion of the board. They could even hire someone for that one task if need be. I wonder if I'll be the first editor to get banned from there! But nonetheless, the AfD policy enjoys support by a supermajority (and also from Jimbo), so it's difficult to envision how my criticisms of certain IRC-related practices (ones shared by others) should be seen as a factor in any of this. But it would be funny! El_C08:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Tis not your criticism. I just thought that if you really hated irc, you wouldn't have the will to go back there with me and lassoo us some devs ;-) Kim Bruning10:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after my the 'the truth hurts' (as I see it), I'm unsure how welcoming of an enviornment it would be, so I leave that domain to the tens of other people who supported the proposal. But I meant, hypothetically, in case a majority of devs are from the IRC camp that opposes my & others position as illustrated above. But, yes, I misread that; although it was fun to entertain a devs conspiracy theory. Back to practicalities: we try to find a dev soon, and if too much time passes without one, we go through higher and higher channels until it happens, protest, have a march or a carnival, and so on. But the sooner the better, is the point. El_C10:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet you made no comment when he used that phrase originally to refer to the "situation" involving the departure of six valued admins. That is not cool. Regards, El_C01:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. "[T]there are those who strongly disagree with me. Some include some of the people that I put the utmost respect in. Others that I have the utmost respect for have supported my efforts. Still more people that I respect have stated that they are indifferent to the situation but wish me the best of luck." Regards, El_C01:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His comment simply noted that there are people he respects who have no opinion of the matter (which I strongly suspect is true). Your comment, it appeared to me, was kicking someone when he is down. How are those two comments in the same league? Raul65401:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not simply, he has to exercize sensitivity. On to you, Raul, if I learn that this course of action was, in fact, discussed on IRC, then we're certainly facing the danger of it continuing to serve as more exclusive place for these sort of controversial actions than Wikipedia itself — in a case that already epitomizes IRC used in such a way. Regards, El_C01:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I discussed this with both Linuxbeak and Blu Aardvark in IRC before doing the unblock (and during the storm the brewed following it). It seemed the prudent course of action, and considering Blu's ban, on-wiki discussion was impossible. Raul65401:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how you can argue an on-wiki discussion was impossible, then effectively keeping it secret until the implementation and predictable wheeling that ensues. I'm at a loss for words. El_C01:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In retrospect, my approach wasn't the best. The question about whether blu aardvark should be allowed to edit again or not is contentious, and I suspect it won't have a definitive answer unless decided by the arbom. What do you think of that? Raul65401:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good, thank you. I have no opinion about whether the arbcom should be the deciding body so much, what I do want to see is a clear and unequivocal apology and rejection of all the Nazi hate speech that he allowed to take place on the old WR. Had he listened to me then, as it happned and immediately after, that would not be a factor today. Not to mention partipating in the Brandt harrassment. Blu, in his apology, is rejecting exactly what I asked of him following the racist hate speech on the old Wikipedia Review: "find[ing] assum[ing] [some] responsibility. Regards, El_C02:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for sensitivity, I have already stated I will not use my admin powers again in this situation. I simply wanted to give Blu a probationary period (per my belief that admins should be given discretion to conduct such experiments), and I didn't appreciate it when (after I spent 30 minutes unblocking Blu due to a mediawiki bug) Lethe casually redoes the block. Beyond that, I think I have been quite civil in explaining my position. Raul65401:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, that was re: Linuxbeak and the whole 'most users that I respect were indifferent about this situation." El_C01:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A compliment is a compliment, even if it (sadly) sees no action. :/ Btw, Raul, what do I get for reasonably explaining the eighth law: quite simply, Wikipedia [also] provides an anonymous enviornment where homophobic hate speech and other forms of these types of systemic abuses (which should be called "racist") are not tolerated. It makes perfect sense, actually. HTH! :) El_C02:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay, now I understand, so you're just not prepared to be the one who drafts it. But, again, it is your turn, since I drafted the AfD one... El_C13:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I caution you against talking out of your ass and giving me baseless "cautions". What the hell was that all about? --Golbez20:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please exercize some restraint before perssing submitt. Appearences make a difference was my point, and I reiterate it. No harm done by refraining from that "every happening in the world" comment. I am going to write the article, then add it to ITN. Hope that's okay with you. El_C20:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What appearances? I removed the World Economic Forum because it had no updated article, with the note that ITN is not the place to mention every going-on in the world. That is hardly Afrophobic, and I demand you retract both that comment, and your "caution" to me for it. By all means, write the article - but don't add it to ITN before you do, and don't slander me. --Golbez20:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how I slandered you. It's obvious that ITN is not the place to mention "every going-on in the world," after a few tens of thousands of edits and quite a few ITN entries (not all had fully updated articles, some were written shortly after), it would be safe to assume that I know this, but regardless, that "every going-on" can also be interperted as minor things, therefore, it could be inadvertantly "read as" marginalizing. Nothing impropper with cautioning someone of mistakes they may inadvertantly commit. El_C21:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not inadvertantly commit jack. Show me where in my comment I expressed a fear of Africa or its people? --Golbez21:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good. And I disagree that it's marginalizing, but at least that wasn't a baseless appeal to racism. Consider your words more carefully in the future. --Golbez21:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sure, but that is what I attempted to convey to you. I'm trying to avoid baseless appeals to racism on the part of those who may feel it has anything to do with perpetuating the underexposure of African stories. And I accept and welcome your point of having an updated article beforehand, and I thank you for your corrections. El_C21:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello El C. I'm wondering if you can check out the heading at the top of User talk:Anwar saadat please? He has been asked by myself and a few others to not make such specific comments. He seems to have been restricting himself to dose of Boothyism of late, but there are somewhat aggressive comments he adds also.Blnguyen | Have your say!!!06:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. My impression is that it's a bit annoying in that it's not funny, though it tries to be funny by coming across as mockingly misleading and offensive against those under 18, virgins, and senior citizens with faint hearts. But mostly, it's just stupid, so I would'nt worry about it. Best, El_C08:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Raul! Looks good and works for me. See, this is the sort of help I would expect. I've written or translated close to 40 IDF-related articles in the last few weeks, including the 80% missing from {{Israel Defense Forces}}, and I sort of feel I've earned some leeway on really obvious things, like the IDF allowing fairuse. Even if that specific image somehow fell outside of fairuse, it's not like it seems likely the IDF would disallow usage of it, not to mention threat legal action over it. If anything, the IDF would thank me for doing what they have yet to do, update & better organize their site — in Hebrew, let alone English. But the Hebrew Wikipedia has done it (to varying degrees of comprehesibility and accuracy). So now I'm bringing that to onlined English-speaking people through en.wikipedia.org, and I'm not asking for praise or recognition, just less obstruction and more help. And I thank you again for yours. Best, El_C22:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Let's hope the IDF url will satisfy orphanbot as a fairuse rational, or else this conflict will resurface again. So long as I am not facing any further interaction with its owner, whatever problems become greatly minimized. El_C08:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Armenian Genocide
Yeah, the user added all that stuff right before the page got protected (actually, come to think of it, that was the reason it got protected in the first place, because of an edit war over his edits). BTW, don't you think the caption "Armenian Genocide victims" might be a bit POV? I tracked down the source of the image to an extremely anti-Muslim and racist website (BibleProbe.com) It had the caption as:
Turkish soldiers proudly posing with bodies of their Christian victims. To these Muslims, the "Christians were like animals to be hunted."
I think that if the picture depicts victims of what is conventionally understood as the Armenian Genocide, my caption is quite accurate and objective. It's not relevant how it's used elsewhere online, so long as we know its true origins. Is its source noted on that site? (I didn't look) El_C01:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There still is many issues to make of it NPOV I think, Francis presented some examples to be addressed before Karabekir made his edits, so there is still the issues addressed by Francis, the additions of Karabekir, and the introduction of POV by some apparently Armenian editors, more particularly in the lead, but I just checked and that seem to have been corrected(at least for the lead), but whatever or not the tag should stay, I don't know, I think I am to implicated to judge. El_C, I really think that two Administrators should follow that article and its talkpage, I am really losing control on this, and I know that a RfAr will not rule positvly for me on the bases of incivility and assume good faith policy, so maybe it is not wise for now, but everything not related to the article should simply be removed. Regards. Oh and, thanks for the unblock. Fad(ix)02:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate you taking the time to explain your take of it for me. Oh, and as for the unblocking, it's my pleasure. El_C02:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
dear EL C as you said the picture is lacking credibility and i am ready to prove that it is not what it is said to be. But I want your guarante that after I show its doubfull nature you will back me up so that it will be removed. because many people there see it as a war and never come to an agreement in anything despite evidence.neurobio20:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Proving is a strong word, I won't have any problem with removing it, since I removed it myself in the past because it was not appopriate and that its sources is unclear. There was a more appopriate picture which Coolcat kept adding the delete tag to, and which was deleted while I was out from Wikipedia. El_C, could you undelete it? That picture was sourced and there was no copyright on it, a picture taken in late 1910s by the Russian's is not copyrighted. Also, as Raffi said, he had an answer from the organization who hold the copyright of Wegner pictures, the organization is permitting Wikipedia to have them here. And such pictures [36] are at least confirmed and we know who took the pictures, while the picture on the lead in my opinion is of duvious source. Fad(ix)22:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Any helps into figuring out & demonstrating the picture's true origins will be greatly appreciated. El_C22:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it is good to see that you already know they are not Turkish soldiers. I said I am ready to prove it is not what it is said to be. in many sites it is presented as Turkish soldiers posing in front of their victims but obviously these are Russian soldiers. all pictures except Wegner are doubtfull. Actually I am totaly agains putting any pictures.neurobio22:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Sorry, but it was impossible for me to know about the specific circumstances regarding IDF images. You quote their web site, "The user may make 'fair use' of the protected material as set out under the law." However, a few sentences later, it says clearly, "Subject to the law of copyright, User may not copy, redistribute, retransmit or publish protected material, without the prior written consent of the IDF." To save yourself this hassle, you should probably create a fair use image tag for IDF images, or have some boilerplate fair use rationale text saved in a text file that you can just copy and paste when the images are uploaded. Regards, howcheng {chat}06:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. I had no such expectation on your part. Just asking you to let me know when you encounter those images/url from now on, until someone creates the template (the Hebrew wiki already has one, designed as a single article fu, whose contents I'm happy to translate). As for the sentence which follows The user may make "fair use" of the protected material..., that obviously dosen't apply to fair use usage (or why would allowing fair use be mentioned prior? unlikely for mere kicks, I assure you!). Regards, El_C07:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please link individual diffs (and other links) as per my instructions. Where is the evidence for the misrepresentation? Where is the evidence for the links addition. The arrangment was for you to provide these for me. Please do so, then I'll look at it. El_C02:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IET again
HG is again linking to Indian POV which I removed like this. Also, in some cases, his links don't seem to even support his wild conspiracy theories (like annihilating Hinduism). Anwar22:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fair request. He should be able to provide evidence of statements to that [annihilating Hinduism] effect, including precise quotations. El_C02:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is enough to proove that Anwar's edit's are based on his personal ideology against Hinduism. He has even removed BBC citation for the Picture with a reason remove more. Is it wrong to provide refrences for the claims made in the article? He was asking for citations in article "Islamist extremist terrorism" by calling it conspiracy (which have been provided now!) but at the same time he removed BBC citation in this article without any reason. [39]
In an article on religion in uk, is it wrong to provide just 1 link which is giving information of 144 religious places of a Hinduism. [40]. He is not ready to tolerate even 2 links of Hinduism in that article most probably because they were added by me and they are related with Hinduism. This link is equal to many links put together because it is not only giving information about minority religion, it's 144 major centers in UK but also about largest temple of europe in UK. Now, religion in uk also means minority religion in Uk and for that just 2 links are not too much. Only he has the problem with it. If you can't link more than one link (even if it is logical and important), then we should remove separate religious sections from External links. Regards, - Holy Gangatalk10:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I reiterate that it isn't linkspam, Islam has three times more adherents, so why should it only have one link, he could argue. A list of Hindu temples might be better suited to Hinduism in the United Kingdom, he may also argue. This is a legitimate content argument, which I since pointed out to him needs to be phrased less aggressively. Let's hope he took it to heart. El_C08:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He once again reverted this by giving illogical reasons.[41] I don't understand how exactly this constitutes Indian POV, or what the problem with the links is. Some another admin has already reverted his edits with this reason. TimesofIndia and Yahoo are one of the reputed news sites and i don't understand whats Anwar's problem? - Holy Gangatalk11:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El_C, if everything is ok, could you please have a look at the talk page of this article. I have tried to get another admin involved but little has been achieved. I have argued the title is a Greek pov, and there is no academic merit for it, but i am facing the usual nationalist rhetoric of attempting to "cover up another Turkish genocide" etc. Any involvement would be appreciated. --A.Garnet14:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, A.Garnet. I will try to give it (at least a preliminary) look this weekend, hopefuly. Regards, El_C23:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Certainly, I don't believe it's so black & white (unlike a certain kitty who we love); I'm sure it can be cited for some purposes while it can be seen as outdated for others. What is specifically disputed as outdated on JE's part? Regards, El_C09:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much El C. The story is that on Dhimmi article, Pecher thinks the article is both factual and neutral and wants to remove the disputed tags. However several arguments (at Dhimmi) has been made to show the article is not undisputed (using JE). Pecher believes JE is outdated and can not be cited in wikipedia. So, all those arguments simply go away. My idea was to request some admins for comments on reliability of JE. I will appreciate your input. Best wishes, --Aminz10:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. It appears likely that some portions of it could be cited (i.e. those which do not conflict with today's scholarship, 100 years later). El_C10:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
El C, Pecher is simply rejecting all passages cited from JE (arguing that they are all out-dated). For example, he thinks all conversions to Islam were either forced or because of the situation of Dhimmi's in Muslim lands (something clearly contradicted by JE, but he thinks it is outdated!). --Aminz18:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While the JE could be cited for the more obvious expressions of scholarly consensus, if that consensus is disputed (i.e. not deemed obvious), we turn to the modern historiography. If the depiction for the pattern of these conversions is seen to follow the type of historical trends mentioned by the JE, it is not unreasonable to expect modern confirmation or lack thereof. El_C20:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You told me to inform you of any updates about this user—since the last time I talked with you they've changed the number of Greeks in Turkey from 20,000 to 2,000 without citing their sources, and also removed info w/o any explanation from the Armenians in Turkey article. Could you please talk to them? They're showing no desire to stop. Thanks. —Khoikhoi06:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, sorry. I notice from the above I've warned the user against inserting fabrications and that I ended up blocking him/her for it, but I do not recall those events taking place. At least we know that you didn't hallucinate it! El_C08:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arrrrrrg! They're back, but this time under a different IP! It appears they've left Argentina back to their home in good 'ol Ankara. You'll notice that 193.255.230.227 also has a history of editing Turkey & East Timor-related articles. Can you give their new IP a warning? —Khoikhoi18:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Would you mind to have a look at Nagorno-Karabakh? Edit war over the intro of that article resumed after a certain editor returned after the long absence. Maybe you can help to resolve the dispute again. Regards, Grandmaster10:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I have no memory of that editor. Will try to do so soon. I'm supposed to look into Pontian Greek Genocide this weekend, but I've yet to do so (I'm a bit behind on things). Perhaps you could also have a look there if you get a chance. Regards, El_C10:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Might be. I just don't know why every mass killing or deportation is called a genocide nowadays? The same in our region. Grandmaster10:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
El_C, you are welcome to look at the article, I just would like to clarify something. I am sorry for modifying an edit made by you a few months ago, but I truly saw a particular phrasing troublesome for NPOV reasons. I fully explained my change in the talk page, and it was agreed to by administrators and other editors on the article. User Grandmaster, currently blocked for 3RR violation, started reverting my and others' edits without as much as a discussion or an edit summary. The current version is actually supported by most editors active on the article, including the moderators. It is neutral and factual. Yet Grandmaster's uncompromising stance has locked any progress on the article. As before, he refuses to discuss, and makes wholesale reverts as a first resort. I and others have made numerous compromises, and we are very close to a neutral permanent solution, the only obstacle honestly being his inflexibility.--TigranTheGreat12:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't change anything I've written, but I will be restoring most of my previous lead rewrite, which did enjoy consensus at the time but was nonetheless changed at some point. And I think you two should slow down on the reverts and speed up on the sources. Thanks. El_C21:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BoNM
I, Ynhockey, hereby award you the Barnstar of National Merit for your extensive contributions to Israel Defense Forces-related articles.
P.S. I usually put awards on users' pages, but your user page is structured in a way which would make it awkward. In any case, thanks for your work and please keep adding information to IDF articles :) -- Ynhockey(Talk)15:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for helping out. Could you also take a look at his deletions at Wikipedia:WOT? Again he removed several parts of that page. As an aside, what is the value of this "poll" considering the vote-spamming and the deletion of a massive parts of the page (kizzle made a very good case against including Iraq, however you will not find it on the page due to the smoke and mirrors guys).Nomen NescioGnothi seauton11:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May I bother you again. After restarting his deletions[46] I reported to AV, however this was deleted without contacting Zero.[47] How do I proceed? I also posted a question at the admin's page since he refers me to AN/I where already this has been reported.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton14:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will remove any attempt by this user to add anything to the opening part of the poll. 20+ people have voted already and voiced their opinion. This user does not agree with the poll, he wants it to be about more then it is, however 20+ have already made their decisions and comments, changing the very idea behind the poll now is misleading and misrepresenting those peoples views and votes. I have warned him that this is vandalism and I will revert continued acts. He has also been warned by Rangeley. He can participate all he wants, but he cannot rephrase the context after people have already spoken about it. --zero faults|sockpuppets|14:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see why you keep following me around Wiki, we already agreed you would stop the stalking. Second, deleting the introduction that was there from the start(!!) seem a bit silly. Third, a poll is a discussion and deleting editors comments surely is manipulating such a poll.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton14:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, no matter how often you choose to ignore that you were attempting to change the foundationof the poll after 20+ people have voted, its still vandalism. --zero faults|sockpuppets|14:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm blocking both of you for a (rather symbolic) six hour (nexst time, it will 24) for violating the 3RR rule. Please stop edit warring. Thanks. El_C21:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again I ask you to intervene. My RFC was deleted, I restored it but Zero is now altering it again. Please intervene since you do not allow me to counter his vandalism.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton15:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First its not a RFC, this is like the 8th time I have told you this. 2nd of all I never changed your question, or changed any of your basis for it. That is what you were attempting to do to the other poll. Also you were summarizing 10+ votes into one sentence that fit your intended goal, that is manipulation. I put up a version that includes the votes and questions and again you try to add a summary of everyones votes according to how you want it to be. But all 10 people did not say that, its misleading. Also the polls are about the infoboxs not about the Iraq War and WOT being linked. People including myself have posted on your user page, if you want to talk and help reach a concensus then fine, if you want to say you will not beudge even though only 3 other users out of 30 agree with you, then that is just sad. --zero faults|sockpuppets|15:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advise, there already is a RFC against this user and I have decided not to take part in any user related RFC since after my experience in this RFC I concluded that these are more a popularity contest than a objective assesment of grievances. Anyway, I have decided to stop editing any article this person resides since he is unwilling to engage in serious attempts at reaching consensus but vehemently tries to get his POV endorsed. This makes the matter at hand moot.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton21:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I think you misunderstood my note. You are not permitted to recreate the Justice Court, and it appears that Zoe has since deleted the page (but I did reveiew at the deleted entries). At the event, I'm already Chair of OiHA. Thanks. El_C21:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Help
A user User:Pecher had been made multiple personal attack against me. I have recently decided to warn him 3-times as suggested at [[49]] so that I can report him eventally at [[50]]. Hence when I had written the warning message on his talk page herethen he had removed it. I restore it again and he removed it again. What I suppose to do? I am afraid that he will soon archieve the talk section and I will not able to find the warnings. Looking for your advice. Can you please restore the warning?--- Faisal22:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide diffs to aforementioned personal attacks...? Sadly, WP:PAIN is unlikely to relive its days of glory (4th edit). Regards, El_C22:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I see it. I don't think this counts as a personal attack, it was in response to your "I being a Muslim will not like to read hate-speach and other wrong words said against prophet Muhammad. Prophet Muhammad is a blessing to the whole world [etc.]" So his observation that your rationals are not grounded in policy (rather, in faith) strikes me as rather accurate, no offence intended. El_C22:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am sending this message to serious contributors who may be interested in articles related to U.S. politics. I believe I am receiving an unreasonable response-- and at times insulting and rude-- from the editors of Norm Coleman article, who refuse to remove a section that may offer some interesting trivia for Wikipeidia users, but is irrelevant to people interested in reading an encyclopedia article on a member of U.S. Senate. If you have time, please take a look at the article. Regards. 172 | Talk03:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of plagiarism and Cameroon, this major edit [51] by banned editor user:Primetime is undoubtedly plagiarized (I haven't identified the source yet, but every significant edit was copied). Even though we should remove the material, I hate to leave such a large hole in the article. Any interest in Cameroonian geography? Regarding Norm Coleman and invisibility - was that a rhetorical question or was I supposed to address your point? Cheers, -Will Beback09:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you are suggesting that an "edit war" be started? The topic has been discussed and a vote held which was approved with a majority. I don't see any need to start an "edit war" about an approved policy, nor am I interested in opening up this topic again. with kind regards Gryffindor07:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The topic has been discussed and a vote held which was approved with a majority Without me, though. Link? El_C08:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
El C, what do you want me to say? There was a discussion and a vote was held, the discussion was open to everyone. If you missed it then I'm sorry. Even with your vote it wouldn't have made a difference. The link? you provided it yourself on my talk page, [52], it's all in the discussion, please read through it. I would obviously be happier if you were on board as well, there are no "loosers" and "winners", but I really don't understand why this seems to be such a problem. You want "official" name as the entry, and others don't, like me. Gryffindor08:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's the approved policy?(!) Majority? I'm sorry, but this dose't strike me as an intellectually honest approach. Dissapointing. El_C08:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah of course, and now I am getting accused, what else? I guess it doesn't matter how one tries to do it, somebody will always be dissapointed and not be able to accept decisions. There was a discussion. In which you participated. There was an honest exchange of ideas, including reading yours. There was ample time to discuss the issues. There were various suggestions made. And in the end an agreement came out of it. I am highly dissapointed (and hurt) that you accuse me in such a way, why are you talking to me like this? Gryffindor12:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because you are misrepresenting policy, voting and consensus; because I'm dissapointed you didn't inform me of the new proposal; because I don't know if you will ever respond to my point regarding the "official longform" and official shortform. I was the one who pointed you to that page, I was the one who reverted your first set of edits. Please work on being more communicative — there was only three of us really involved in the original discussion. This somebody will always be dissapointed is a deflection, I find. I would have informed you of my proposal if the role were reversed. Since that sentiment does not appear reciprocal, my faith in your judgment is shaken. A simple note is all it would have taken. El_C01:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't wanna fight about a sentence in an article either, it should not degenerate. And your vote should have been included when we drafted up the agreement, you are right. You seemed to have been absent from Wikipedia for quite a while. But a message should have been passed on to you, I'm sorry about that. Since you were the only regular participant during the discussion who was consistently against the idea (if my memory serves me right), however other users agreed, the proposal was passed. I can understand your dissapointment, however I hope you can understand the other side as well. Of course your contributions are important, no one is denying that. If you really want to reopen the issue and if that would burry the hatchet then I'm fine with that, it should all be fair game and I don't want you to feel slighted. Gryffindor06:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for the thoughtful note. Yes, I want to reopen it, but it has nothing to do with burying the hatchet (that's already done), but advancing my (revised) point and guaging on others' feedback. Thanks again. Best, El_C10:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, El C. A few words about that Gryffindor. I have seen her/his work earlier, and also how (s)he behaves and does this work. I believe you are mostly in right, and that this is again one example of Gryffindor's style. It really has been her/his modus operandi to allege that anything (s)he wants to get enforced, is a policy. Gryffindor, albeit possibly undertands the difference, does not openly recognize that much of the instructions here are guidelines, and some things agreed by concerned editors are just customs. We all know that only a limited number of things, fundaments of WP if I describe them, are actually policies. There seems to be a pattern of wanting to make new and/or inexperienced editors to believe Wikipedia woks in a way Gryffindor wants it to work.
I have seen very often that this Gryffindor does not contribute anything really maningful. Her/his doings are very often just repetitive "corrections" (s)he wants to put to a number of articles, to make them follow her/his desired direction. Those are things (s)he very gladly calls policy.
You possibly do not know, but i realized very recently that Gryffindor has changed username. There may be some her/his sockpuppets somewhere out there. But in some article talks I found a bit disturbed opinions written under a username something like "Antares". When I clicked that, it led directly to Gryffindor's page. That Antares seems to have wanted to create certain novel policies (about some highly "celebrity-type" issues, namely concerning royals, particularly royal women), and seems to have been, how I say it, highly disappointed when other editors did not obey her/his wishes. Reading those outbursts is a bit saddening thing. Also, there appears to be many articles that person now known as Gryffindor had created as forks and/or moved by cut-and-paste, when others opposed her/his attempts to move them.
I have sensed that there is a pattern in how Gryddindor works: behind the backs of others. there seems to be "votes" where something got "accepted". Circumvention seems one correct concept in many instances. In these situations, Gryffindor seems to enforce some majoritarian power. Discussing with Gryffindor seems sometimes like talking to a stone wall - I sense high doses of conservatism and lack of imagination, lack of creativeness there.
I am sure that you are correct when assessing that something Gruffindor produced is stylistically "clunky and almost unreadable". Similar patterns repeat themselves in article names Gryffindor often has chosen, and/or defends even by warring: there are often an overabundance of names and/or titles for persons, and often a habit of deliberately using something else than English, such as German words "zu", "von" when they are not necessary or can rather be "of". Some products of Gryffindor taste like (s)he is a German and does not understand what those things familiar to her/him are really in English. All in all, I believe you are correct in (at least most of) your criticisms related to Gryffindor. Marrtel13:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm displeased about how he approached the country leads, I will drop you a note about my proposal when it's ready. Yes, he is way off base about that 4-person vote counting, not only as consensus but as outright policy (!). My jaw dropped when I read that. Regards, El_C19:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well you can close your jaw again. User:Marrtel, I don't know who you are, nor do I remember any kind of dealings with you, however after reading your talk page and the comments users left and watching your contributions and your penchant for moving pages completely disregarding rules/conventions/guidelines, I don't really care if you badmouth me further. I am warning you though to cease moving pages without prior discussion, other users have warned you as well. El C, of course the guidelines/rules/whatever you want to call them on the Wikiproject are guidelines. If someone adamantly opposes them to one particular country (or two), no point in trying to force the issue. However, these guidelines exist for one reason: in order for the articles to be uniform and to follow a similar pattern. Now of course we can say "well to hell with them...". fine. but then we don't really need these guidelines now do we, we might as well drop them altogether. So I'm not quite sure why are accusing me of obtusing anything. The main point is that these guidelines should be followed, why else would we have them? I also suggest that we take our discussion somewhere else instead of plastering it on each other's talk pages, it's probably best to post it on the discussion page of the country project, where each users concerns should be. sincerely Gryffindor15:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An arrangement reached on a wikiproject by 4 people does not count as Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Guideline has a specific meaning on Wikipedia — for it to become a (policy or) guideline, you need to actually propose it as a (policy or) guideline, or add it to an existing one, which you have not done. First you call it an "approved policy," now you're (almost) calling it a guideline. My argument is that you need to be much more careful in the future with your choice of words, because inexperienced users might end up being misled, thinking it is an approved policy or a guideline, when it isn't. Do you understand now? Regards, El_C03:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
want to help me
Ah a marxist I assume. We can argue later, if you like, we have a common cause together now, and must dispense of peity rivalries:
viva la revolucion!
On an unrelated topic, first of all, do you like my collage?
Now onto the subject at hand:
Want to help a sharp tongued wikipedian? I am compiling all of the articles on the senate scandal.
Can you research and make a list of:
1) the other people who were caught changing their wikipages?
2) those wikipages which state that these other people who were caught changing their wikipages?
I want to add this below the article section, to bolster our argument.
All of the articles list other names, which have been caught doing the same thing:
Hasta la victoria siempre! I do, but to be honest, I don't follow U.S. politics (short of geopolitics) that closely, and know of but one other Wikipedia controversy involving a US politician is mentioned above on *gasp*User_talk:El_C#Norm_Coleman, involving Cathy_Cox#Wikipedia_controversy. That's all I know of or can recall right now. Please keep me informed about the effort, nonetheless, though. Perhaps I'd be able to help in other ways. Regards, El_C12:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It means until victory always! Good luck to you as well. I will keep an eye on the discussion. Possibly, a Wikipedia entry awaits your efforts. Let me know when you have the material compiled. El_C12:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Viva!
At this point, the wikipedia scandal involving Norm Coleman appears to have subsided. The scandal will stay in the article, which we both wanted. I have no interest in this article now, since I trust that you will guard this information, and let me know if another edit war begins or you need help. You seem more interested then me in the article, I had a passing interest. I have unwatched the article. My contribution to the article, for now, is done. Best of luck. Let me know if i can help again.
I don't actually have interest in that article, either. It's unlikely I'll keep an eye on it. I only checked it out at the request of 172, or it's unlikely I'd have heard of the subject/article. This is besides the point re: an article about Wikipedia Congressional controversies, in general. If you're still interested in compiling the info for that, I'm willing to help, is what I meant. El_C04:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like we have the Same biases, but we fight like cats and dogs. Also seems like we share some of the same opinions about some of the same editors.
I stumbled upon your subapge which is quoted here: [Wikipedia Review link removed]. I have never argued with Carr, but i have argued with many of his "cabal" as wikipediareview.com calls it.Travb (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:General Tojo was clearly stalking me, so I'm not entirely satisfied with the above comment. But it dosen't matter, live and learn. El_C11:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite
If you have time, I'd really appreciate comments and suggestions concerning the new draft of the capitalism article. [53] Regards. 172 | Talk07:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as it being a (relatively) politically moderate academic effort, which I reject less so than Ultramrine's one-sidededness, nice try! El_C10:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why Nominators cannot vote
Hi El_C, I'd like to learn which wikipedia policy states that a nominator for deletion of an article,template, category etc.. cannot vote? could you kindly direct me on this. «₪Mÿš†íc₪» (T)18:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Due to obvious political differences, I hadn't expected to request your opinion on anything, but I was reminded yesterday of something you said, and I'm beginning to see what you mean. More details to follow via e-mail. — Jun. 26, '06[14:03] <freak|talk>
Thanks for the note. I'm pleased you're beginning to understand. :) I'll respond to your email soon. Regards, El_C10:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jus me
Sorry, I didn't mean to screw anything up. I saw, while reading the never ending discussion pages on the Capitalism article, that there was an edit war. I was asked, via email, by Lulu to help NPOV the article, since he knows I have no vested interest in it. I saw the edit war and protected the article, posting that I had protected the article on the discussion page and stressing that I do not support any given version. Shit, I don't know anything about Capitolism theory or the history of the article...all I can do there is keep the peace, examine the links provided to see if they back up the information posted, and fix typos. My word is not law...if you think Ultramarine should be blocked then feel free...evidence suggests that she/he is a long time contributor that knows the rules...I'm just a little leery from other stuff as of late, so now maybe I'm being too soft. Bset wishes.--MONGO12:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for the note. I can appreciate your confusion, I just hope you can see my point about the 3RR version being protected — Ultramarine is not even seeing the problem with his complex partial reverts, and he has been here for years. Also, his rhetorical "I don't think this board should be about," are clearly questionable. But the ArbComm has a soft spot for him in its heart because the thrust of his revert warring has been so markedly anti-communist in nature, which reflects their pov. No, I am unable to take administrative action in this case, even with you not objecting to it, since it involves an editor who, on Wikipedia, is above all other things, an anti-communist. Best, El_C12:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note for you, El_C: I put a comment on Talk:Capitalism explaining to Ultramarine that "commodities" was not a "Marxist" word, prior to her 3RR violation. In that note, I was pretty explicit and detailed about all the neo-Ricardians, Keynesians, Smithians, and the rest you also use the term in the broad way the lead sentence does. But as you note on the 3RR report, Ultramarine believes that everyone who's not a Heritage Foundation member is therefore a Marxist. FWIW, while I was careful not to 3RR myself during the edit history, I did skirt it by putting in more encyclopedic lead three-but-not-four times... so MONGO very justifiably requested that I not edit the article for a day, to which I wholly agree. I still don't think a 3RR block on Ultramarine would be a bad thing, but I'll leave it to you admins to determine that. LotLE×talk16:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the note. As mentioned, I disagree with 172's moderately pro-capitalist version, but find Ultrmarine's approach to be strikingly ahistorical, capitalist triumphalism & apologism pov. But I'm limiting my participation to avoid self-destruction. Best, El_C03:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Slrubenstein. You have professional academic expertise on the subject. You shouldn't feel afraid to participate. Knowledgeable, non-partisan, pro-encyclopedia editors will take your comments into serious consideration, even if they come from a much different political orientation. 172 | Talk22:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Crazy talk page antics
Hi El C, there are some antics occurring on the Fidel Castro talk page. No it's not a content dispute surprisingly, it's a user named User:Teemu Ruskeepää attempting a radical experiment in talk page restructuring. He's trying to have all comments pinned to his "discussion tree", rather than in the traditional chronological manner. He tried this on the blocked Cuba page which had some merit - but subsequently attempted it on the busy Castro page. Users gave it a go but universally became bamboozled by the lack of clarity and the apparent loss of comments.
Teemu took this badly. He tried to move everyone's comments to various points of the page - unilaterally rejected the concept of archiving and insisted that he had the answer to wikipedias problems. Of course, a consensus poll proved otherwise. This has not deterred young Teemu, and he is now adding lengthy polls to each discussion! With some rather uncivil comebacks to users calling for him to come down from his "discussion tree". I've laid out a programme of response if he continues causing talk page chaos [54], but need an administrator to enforce the will of the people if he continues. Do you know of any such admin?--Zleitzen12:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong. All I intended to do, at that point, was to support the notion that articles should not be titled as military operations unless these are ongoing operations (i.e. active on the operative level), or when they are events overwhelmingly known by the operation title (Operation Colossus vs. Operation Lightfoot). Certainly this common sense holds no weight over the consensus of US nationalist systemic bias. El_C12:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I was unclear - I recognise that I have some unusual speech patterns, but I use precise language because I want to be clear. To be perfectly frank, arguing The Israeli government calls it X thus we must call it Xis using Wikipedia as a propoganda arm of the Israeli army, and I'm inclined to call a spade a spade. It may not be the most sensitive language - but I am not a subtle guy, and I suspect I'm far too old to be taught new tricks. WilyD14:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You must place more efforts into explaining your arguments. Why would the IDF care if it's mistranslated as singular by some sources? How does that impact its (propaganda & otherwise) interests in any way. I suspect you failed to explain that because it dosen't. El_C14:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it seemed fairly clear to me the argument The official source says it's called X, thus we must call it X as well is propaganda in such a straightforward manner I normally wouldn't explain how this flows grammatically, it seemed to be a basic step such that's there's nothing to explain. I can't seriously imagine the IDF cares one way or the other about the pluralisation on the Wikipedia article, which I never implied nor ever meant to imply. I regret letting myself get caught up in the hostile tone that follows, but I felt my response was the easiest way to get past all the misconceptions that arose. The arguments I made remain sound, even if the tone was less than ideal. WilyD15:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no longer interested in discussing this issue with you. If you want to review a non-trivial ex., see the section directly above. El_C19:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!
For helping out with the Legion of Honour item. I know a lot about Napoleon and orders of knighthood but i failed to get the lay-out of the article and the "Dissimbag" stuff right.
Moving the two presidents to the Fifth republic and deleting a picture where Napoleon is King of Italy, look at he picture carefully and note the green border on his ribbon,improves the lay-out.
With the aid of the Wiki community the aricle could become a showpeace!
Not having proper pictures of the changing designs of the order through the fases and revolutions of France is the articles weakest point. Copyright is the problem! Maybe a collector will help us and photograph ssome items in his collection. I do not posess a cross of the Legion.
P.S. Can I use the " Hero of Labour" star as an illustration on the Dutch Wiki? ( Article on socialist orders)
My pleasure, glad to to be of service. Yes, you sure can! Just internally link it, it's on commons. Good luck with those efforts. Regards, El_C14:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are in violation of 3RR in summer rain. I want to give you a chance of self reverting since I think you may have not been aware of the number of your reverts. Zeq12:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've written well over half of that article myself, and you're coming in and editing, as always, in a disruptive & inconsiderate way. I'm out. El_C12:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Casualties section
Hey there! How can we resolve the issues of casualties? I think this is vital in the article, if not then at least very informative to the reader. What do you think?--Spoil2904:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I think the problem is that we have operation with singificant number of casualties, which this may well become. So I think it's best not to devote a section to this, but instead integrate pertinent events which involve casualties into the body of the article. Otherwise, it looks too much like wikinews and not enough like an encyclopedia article. Does that make sense? El_C04:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But that is why I propose making “Operation Summer Rains casualties”. Anyway, having a casualty section will show the reader what is happening on the ground and not politics. I have worked hard compiling the list of casualties/injuries so far. --Spoil2904:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This operation does not look like its going to last long. Maybe a few more casualties, that's why I did it in the first place. So I shouldn't update the hidden casualty text anymore? Let me know.--Spoil2904:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let us hope so. Feel free to either un-hide it or to update the hidden section (at your discretion) while the discussion is ongoing. El_C04:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm troubled, but am not surprised, of the sort of support the tag is getting. I'm confident it will be deleted. El_C00:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the input on the TfD. If you have time, here's another one on which I'm interested in your insight. [55] Regards. 172 | Talk03:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if you want to err on the side of caution. (IMO you shouldn't feel affaid to be more assertive. You are a professional historian, and your comments warrant serious consideration by users of all political orietnations.) I'm not sure if the discussion has to be political. For example, I'll oppose the creation of a "human rights abuses attributed to communism" category for the same reasons I'm now opposing the one currently being discussed. 172 | Talk06:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't the word "massive" I had a problem with, just the way it was worded. You can't have a "massive entrance" by a "military presence." Also, calling it the first massive entrance suggested it wasn't the first entrance, period, since 2005. So I just copy edited to remove that ambiguity. SlimVirgin(talk)04:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I defer to your superior grasp over the English language; just faithfuly translating the source material. El_C06:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The inflamatory question: "Why do you mock people's religious convictions from your user space?", the inflamatory comment: "defending his supposed right to defame me." (not clearly explained) Take it to dispute resolution. This warning also extends to other pages. El_C21:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This would seem a rather expansive definition of inflammatory. We could discuss this situation at greater length if you're interested. Dispute resolution might be a great idea, and I would welcome your participation in this. However, as I'm no longer allowed to post to her talk page (or vice-versa), I am not sure she'd be up for it.Timothy Usher23:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But how did she defend someone's supposed right to defame you? — cite the sentence, not the diff. I don't I see why her userpage should be subject to "ugly" or otherwise discussion. But you could file an RfC, I suppose, though it's doubtful you'd be able to certify it. Key is to work on being clear and comprehensible, in any event. Hope that helps. El_C03:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Under which category I place an image, which the person holding the copyright permit its uses only on Wikipedia? A member got a writen consent from the owners of the copyright to use it only on Wikipedia and that it should not be used elsewhere. What do I do with that? Fad(ix)20:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, now regarding the picture which was deleted which I uploaded, you requested the source, this was discussed here. [56] if you want more reference to undelete it, feel free to request. Fad(ix)23:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3RR: Crockspot
Hello sir, regarding the reverts to the Andy Stephenson page, here is my reply from my talk page: "Thank you for the link to the rule page, I could not find it before. It is my belief that I was reverting vandalism, as my edits were justified in the discussion page, and improved the page with additional sourcing. Anon users were undoing my edits repeatedly, without any justification on the discussion page. Is that not simple vandalism? Am I allowed to make constructive edits to the page? Since the scamdy link seems to inflame people, I was going to go ahead and source specific passages in the article with imbedded links." Additionally: I believe there is resistance to the inclusion of the scamdy.com site link, because that site has archived nearly all of the discussion about this saga from both sides, and the current allegations being made are easily refuted by the claimant's own words, which can be found on scamdy.com, with links to their sources. Why anyone would resist having full disclosure over the controversy is beyond me, unless you consider that the claimants are attemting to get Michael Moore to cover this controversy in his next film, and easy access to the full facts would thwart their current claims. Crockspot21:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. May I make constructive edits to the page without waiting 24 hours? I will not revert, but will embed sources to specific passages that already appear in the article. Crockspot21:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, just be careful not to restore or remove anything that would count as a revert, which could be tricky. But so long as nothing is changed & only new material is added (i.e. not the url, etc.), you should be in the clear. El_C21:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added fact tags to a couple of unsubstantiated claims, added citations to a couple of others, and added one sentence. I also hotlinked "some of his detractors" to the scamdy forum, since that is who is being referred to by that statement. What are my options if someone again reverts my changes? Crockspot22:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I said "not the url", so why did you add it? That counts as a revert; please self-revert that url immediately. El_C22:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I misunderstood, as it was not a seperate link. I will change it now. How should I proceed when those changes are reverted en masse, as I expect they will be? Crockspot22:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Placing that url anywhere in the article counts as a revert. If the article is reverted by the same editor, let me know, or file a 3RR report. El_C22:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The user 212.221.184.243 did an edit to the Andy Stephenson page again, marking it in the edit summary as "improving text". It looks like a simple revert to me. No comment was left on the talk page either. If the artile is going to make libelous assertions, there should be some balance, which is what my edits were attempting to do. Crockspot23:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I double checked, it was a simple revert to this version - [57] Is this the same user who circumvented your 3RR block yesterday? Crockspot23:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Our anonymous friend from Germany has reverted the page, again marking it as "improving text". They did leave one of my additions intact. I think what I should do is add a "disputeabout" template, and present my evidence on the talk page. I doubt that this will prevent the person from just removing the template, since they have yet to leave any justification for any of their actions on the discussion page. This is quite frustrating! Can you recommend any other course of action I might take? Crockspot16:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...dear El C, tho we have never talked face to face, I, like so many others, wholeheartedly hold you as one of the greatest Wikipedians and brightest persons around, whose dedication, knowledge and pride are simply inspiring. I know you've been through hard times, and if the bad side of Wikipedia ever seems to get the best of you, know that many of us tremble with indignation... comrade! A great hug, Phaedriel
Dear comrade Phaedriel, thank you so much! I greatly appreciate your praise and encouragement, and your highly intuitive timing. This is not the first time that I have been strengthened by your support, for which I am humbled. Big hug. Love, El_C00:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your recent 3RR block
Just to bring this to your attention, this was just posted in the block commentary:
User has changed IP to 84.146.212.154, and is so circumventing the block. -- Ec5618 10:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Yousaf465 vandalized more things than you reverted. [58][59][60] . I would change it myself but I have to sleep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.16.246 (talk • contribs)
Thanks so much for the awesome picture, my dear El C! Your cat is beautiful, can I ask you what his name is? Unless he has an issue with accountability for his edits on Wikipedia, that is! ;) His eyes are truly haunting, and he seems to be staring right through you - wow!
Seriously, hun, I truly hope you're doing fine, and that your levels of wikistress are getting better by now - and regarding my modest gift to you, don't mention it, please. You know you can drop by and talk to me any time you need me, k? Have a great hug, and hope to see you around real soon. Your friend, Phædriel♥tell me - 00:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Subhash Bose (name of a militant Hindu of 1940s) has begun a revert war in Babri Mosque. Take a log at his uncivil comments in his log. [61], [62], [63]. He is inserting wild POV without source or with tainted source. What to do? Anwar
I've given the guy a week's holiday - mainly for calling other users terrorist and making general inflammatory comments in the second set of diffs. The first set is article editing and there is no incivility there that I can see.Blnguyen | rant-line02:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer not be issued with notices for arbitration or mediation cases to which I am not party. El_C15:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Problem - Advice?
Hi - sorry to ask you but I don't know where to go with this. I'm being harrassed by a wikipedian because I question his publishing original and unreferenced information, and his reverting to it in the bargain. The same then leaves talk pages full of straw-man arguments - and no references - as "proof". The page I am working on has just been submitted for peer review - part of this improvement scheme is of course proviving proper references. This contributor is now providing fake ones. For a clear outline, I suggest you have a look at the Education section on the Paris talk page. The corrections I made after verification are outlined there - but these have already been reverted. Unable to provide fact an reference, things turn to insult and insinuated/invented accusations. This person is wriggly and loves provocation - namely through mimicry. This is far from the only problem I've had with this contributor, but it's been mostly along the same theme. These last days every edit I have made has been either systematically reverted or trounced upon by the same, and the same is editing no other article or even any other section of the same at present. This behaviour is at once breaking no Wiki rule per se but transcending many codes of civility - It's also making me slightly paranoid. I don't know where to go with this: Reverting, stalking, original research and falsehoods - where is the best place to complain? What began as a productive peer review is going to the dumps because of this. THEPROMENADER23:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quote by ThePromenader: "and the same is editing no other article or even any other section of the same at present." This is the most incredible lie I have read so far. Promenader, you should be ashamed, especially given that it's so easy to double-check things on Wikipedia. I have contributed to thousands of articles. Some of my many contributions include Emperor Guangwu of Han, Commune in France, Truffle, Norodom Sihanouk, Mexican Federal District, etc. Promenader, you're making a fool of yourself with such baseless accusations. Hardouin23:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
El C, in light of this incredible smearing and calling into question my integrity, I am left with no choice but to advise you to read this: User_talk:Metropolitan#Paris Edits, Metro Things. That was back a few months ago when ThePromenader thought that User:Metropolitan was my sock-puppet because Metropolitan dared to agree with me and disagree with Promenader. Read the entire section, it says a lot about where Promenader is ready to go... Hardouin23:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should also read User:Metropolitan very angry messages after being stalked by ThePromenader and having elements of his private life uncovered. Promenader erased them from his discussion page, but they can be easily retrieved with the history function: [70]. Hardouin00:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I regret bringing this to your doorstep, but I didn't expect to be dogged - now I must speak to the above fellow. Hardouin, I didn't even mention your name, although I'm sure that it wouldn't have taken long to discover. You have been stalking me since a week now, but leaving out "These last days every edit I have made ..." from your quote won't distract the argument any - just have a look at my contributions page, then yours. See any differences? No? Okay. Now for the "making a fool of myself" - well, let's just compare your allegations and sources. You seem to be doing your best to sabotage any chance of this happening, and it is for this I would like to complain.
Oh, and for the Metropolitan story, it was Hardouin's proven sock-puppetry that created the environment of suspicion - Metropolitan himself told me of his forums (cough - private life?) and I have since apologised to User:Metropolitan. You want to talk about smearing. This is becoming too silly for words. Apologies, El_C, but I would appreciate some help here. THEPROMENADER00:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You uncovered the location of Metropolitan's parents. You found out about his girlfriend. If that's not private life, then I don't know what is. I'm sorry, but lies must end. Hardouin00:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Metropolitan told me, not the opposite. I do keep record of this sort of thing, you know. How about we leave El_C alone for the night, what do you say? THEPROMENADER00:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remember Vicky on "Little Britan" ? I don't expect that you'll fathom much in the above either. It is basically the tail-end of an exchange caused by my discreditation of affirmations imposed by any means save reference. Tiring for all of us. My initial question still stands though, as the 'defensive' behaviour has gone to newer lows since then, but all I seek is advice for now - that is, if you're up to it.
I hope you can help provide a fresh eye at Cultural Marxism. One user is deleting most of the page. I am trying to have an expanded page edited down through discussion rather than starting over, especially since the new stub only represents a particular on-sided POV. The user in question has a long history of combative and aggressive confrontations, and has refused mediation with me on another article. I am at a loss to figure out how to deal with what is turning into a personal feud across several pages.--Cberlet17:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to attend to it once I'm much more rested, so it might take a while before I look at it. But hopefuly you got things sorted by now. Best, El_C15:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Hitler-car.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. [copyright explantion removedEl_C 15:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)] Thank you. Jkelly22:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, El C. You've been uploading a lot of images without providing any sort of fair use rationale. Unfree images that don't follow WP:FUC are now eligible for deletion two days after uploading. Neither uploading nor deletion are fun work. Jkelly01:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All my recent uploads that are tagged as fair use are accompanied with clear rationals. You might be mistaking me from someone else. I, actually, find uploading fun, sorry to learn that this isn't the case for you. As for deletions, I, as well, do not find it fun. If you feel deletion work proves too taxing, I encourage you to expend your efforts elsewhere. Thanks for informing me of the modified FU rule, though. El_C15:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be overriding each other without noticing due to the rapidity of editing. Lets discuss the format on the page's talk. TewfikTalk16:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hezbollah rocket campaign is overwhelmingly targetting civilians, so I think the section should reflect that and needs to accompany the Israeli bombing campaign of Lebanese civilian infrastructure and Claims of weaponized phosphorus use by IAF section titles I authored. El_C16:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Every time i edit I look at my sources, people change the death toll all the time... i make it my job to reflect on reality and the truth based on a source which i always site. Yahuddi16:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Beirut.jpg copyvio?
Why would it be in violation today when I have used images from this same source without a problem ever since I became member of wikipedia? [72]ArmanJan21:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The question isn't whether you've used it before, but whether it is allowed. I would like to see it used, but you are leaving me with no choice. If you could specify something (anything) about fairuse permission of that site or the source of the photograph, that would be great. El_C21:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Translating legal text (or whatever its called) is not easy. However it says that all materials on that site is protected by copyright law but there is an exemption for fair use of the copyrighted works. A mention should be given that is from them (Fars News Agency). ArmanJan22:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that there is a fair use clause, and I have subsequently removed the copyvio tag and reinserted it back into the article. Thanks for your time. El_C00:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go again. You have "instructed" her. This isn't a very sensible thing to do, is it? I also noticed that you then blocked her. Why did you do that? I profess myself utterly baffled by these actions. Why are you doing this? --Tony Sidaway07:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not doing anything related to this currently, but might. Past-tense: I was an uninvolved admin (in the AfDs, etc.) who saw the original ANI KM/B topic and pursued it and its perpetuation. I saw it was upsetting people and that she was being uncommunicative, so I issued warnings and when I felt these were ignored, applied sanctions. I don't like seeing people being upset for naught, and the playfullness of the games appeared wholly one sided. If this was meant as admin entrapment, I don't at all mind having fallen to it. El_C07:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Kelly did make some rather provocative statements after the blocking. However if people were being upset for naught, surely the thing for them to do is to stop being upset. Kelly explained that she was using the list to help her to make judgements (and I can confirm this from IRC conversations).
Are you determined to take this to arbitration [74]? I don't think you did much wrong, but the "instructions" and whatnot seemed out of place to me. Kelly's actions seem to me to have been reasonable most of the time (with the exception of after the block). --Tony Sidaway18:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. On the one hand, I do at this point wish to see a clear account of what happned (i.e. who did what when, and why), but to be perfectly honest, finding the time to do so is a pressing issue. Maybe I should just let the whole thing go. El_C19:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I realize that (& thanks again), I am refering to your latest restoration of infobox image. Just be careful with reverting anything that isn't clear vandalism/WP:V violation in the next 24 hours. El_C05:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You remove all the mainstream media accounts of casualties, and replace it with a Palestinian source? How about we add both figures then and let the people decide. --Spoil2912:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been having a play about with something that may go some way to answering both of your AfD reform suggestions. It involves a rather surprising "recycling" of the idea of userboxes, and from some stats I gathered on AfD at the moment and a mock-up system I put up, I get the feeling it is a workable solution. Everything's very preliminary and speculative, and open to major redesign. At the moment it is also rather ugly, but try to judge the concept not the aesthetics! You can review it at your leisure at User:TheGrappler/afd-boxes (general outline), User:TheGrappler/afd-boxes/Mock (a mock-up of how the system could work: if you don't have the time to read through the outline and want something "hands-on" look here first), and if your eyes can bear it, User:TheGrappler/afd-boxes/Mock/Articles for deletion (which shows how the AFD pages might look at the end of the exercise... like I said, the aesthetics need work!). I just played around with it as an interesting exercise and out of an endless curiosity to tamper with the "whatlinkshere" facility (the power of which is frequently overlooked), but you might find in it something worth taking further. Any comments would be appreciated - in your own time, of course, since you seem to be quite busy at the moment! TheGrappler19:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a promising start for the selection process — though the topical categories will have to conform to the consensus we arrived at here. Also, we ought to run using deletion criteria categories by the policy proposal (and thanks for the stats, elsewhere, too - very interesting). I have to think more about the latter. At first glance, it seems potentially brilliant, but on further thought, I can see some issues pertaining to its effective usefulness (more on that at a later date). What I still have in mind (whether in box form or however) are templates corresponding to the topical categories which lead the nomination to the respective AfD category while at the same time having it registered on the master list. More on that later. Thanks again for all your help; keep up the good work! El_C23:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not pushing super-hard for my alternative categorization - I did want to experiment and see how workable it was, though. I found it pretty easy to sort stuff using my scheme - maybe partly because I wrote it ;) - and didn't find it so easy with the current consensus one. To be honest I see that consensus as "stale" rather than "stable" - the existence of a "geography and history" category strongly suggested that it's not been designed with the particular requirements of AfD in mind (it looked pretty good for sorting general articles, but the statistics show that what arrives at AfD is not at all representative). I know it was late to the party but I weighted in at WP:ElC with the stats and my proposal. If you look there (you may have seen it) I think my reasoning is pretty sound, but the finer details are debatable. I also think that a category to sort "placecruft" (and which would comfortably incorporate transportation) would be a good complement to one for "biocruft", and that unifying social sciences (currently across 3 different categories!) made things a lot easier to sort. At any rate, that can be debated at the appropriate page.
As for how closely my design got to your spec: {{afdbox}} could easily be incorporated into the main afd templates. Things would still appear on the main list (mocked up at User:TheGrappler/afd-boxes/Mock/Articles for deletion) and can also be accessed by category (via the whatlinkshere, but it still works - and is in date order, which is actually quite helpful; check out the mock "nn nominations" at Special:Whatlinkshere/User:TheGrappler/afd-nn) through a category "portal" presented at User:TheGrappler/afd-boxes/Mock. It would also be possible to add a "browse other nominations like this..." link onto the boxes on individual nominations.
One further alternative would be to have topic-specific lists in addition to the central ones. There are several possibilities - they could be bot-compiled (dead easy to implement that) or the nominating editor could add them on (appropriate instructions/links could appear on the afd-boxes). I don't know if this is closer to how you mean? Basically I'm throwing up some ideas and seeing which ones look like sticking. Any further suggestions or comments would be appreciated - should I throw this open to wider feedback or do you not think it's ready yet? Until I get some good or bad comments on my consensus-shifting re-categorization ideas, it would look a bit arrogant to show off a mock system using "my" categorization rather than the consensus one; the idea is that it's a just a mocked-up thought experiment but I know some people can get upset about these things! TheGrappler00:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, and sorry for the delay. I look forward to further reviewing your findings and am open to any changes to the categorization scheme vis.a.vis the stats, and otherwise. I will have a closer look soon. Many thanks again for all your efforts. Regards, El_C08:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I noticed you inappropriately deleted something as a cross-namespace redirect. This only applies as a deletion criteria if the originating page is in one of the encyclopedia namespaces, namely article, category, or template. There may be reasons someone needs to redirect from something in userspace to article or project space, and it shouldn't necessarily be deleted solely on the basis of being a cross-namespace redirect. --Cyde↔Weys20:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to well thought out explanations of what these reasons may be per any given cross-namespace redirect. El_C20:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cuba update
Hi El C. Dropping by to give you an update on the Cuba pages. I've put in about 2000 edits now to various Cuba related pages and started a number of pages including Cuba-United States relations and so on. The addition of a number of subarticles does seem to have relaxed the pressure on the main content somewhat. Incivility is still rife however - the Castro page is awful. See this attack on BruceHallman - [75] for example - Ouch! And this needless attack on El Jigue [76] Yuk! Meanwhile, El Jigue has compliled a paper on Wikipedia which he will be presenting at some conference of Cuban Americans in Miami called "A Pernicious Model for Control of the World Wide Web: The Cuba Case" [77].In the paper he cites me removing a minor unsourced, terribly written and plainly bizarre statement of his about "Palestinos" as evidence of "clever, devious and unscrupulous polemicists"! Ridiculous! --Zleitzen04:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. "Palestinos," that's rich (and I mean that both figuratively and literally). I suggest for you to try repeating your successes in the Castro (Fidel & Raul) pages, too; namely, by splitting too lenghty sections into subarticles and retaining your seemingly inexhaustible patience. Let me know how it goes. Best, El_C22:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C. Bad day at the Cuban office. Since Fidel's operation allcomers have come out of the ground. His page is unworkable now and off my watchlist - anyone with any sense is being mercilessly attacked on the talk page, there were about 500 pieces of vandalism in a few hours. For some time the page was fully protected, all the while announcing to cyberspace that Castro had colon cancer apparently diagnosed by George Galloway! No user seems to be able to comprehend that the provisional transfer is conventional, uncomplicated and consitutional. An associate of yours is openly challenging me to "an edit war" on the "transfer of duties" page whilst defending an edit pasted direct from CNN in full journalese. I am reminded of former US envoy to Cuba, Wayne Smith admitting that "when many an American turns to the subject of Cuba it is like a werewolf looking at the the full moon". Meanwhile at any second El Jigue, now in Miami, will launch into his speech about the evils of wikipedia! Howl! --Zleitzen13:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Indeed! That is the nature of the system, though. At least it was sprotected, for now. Let me know if problems continue despite it. El_C13:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I requested semi-protect frequently - but this was a battle largely in vain. The main problems are stemming from this user whose changing accounts and assaults are so frequent I've stopped cataloguing them. On top of being banned on countless other IP accounts, he was banned for three times in an hour last night - each on a different IP address. But is still shooting from the hip at length on the talk page now. This user has been around for a while and won't move on in a hurry. --Zleitzen13:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24 hour reversion
Hello El C,
I believe FightCancer has again reverted before the end of their 24 hour ban on reversion. I would not normally report this an hour or so shy of its end, except that it is the same reversion that got the user blocked, and I didn't even see the user address Talk on this subject since then. TewfikTalk03:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I first discovered Kelly Martin/B, I copied it to a user subpage, Ssbohio/B (historylogs). I also created Ssbohio/BB (historylogs) to do more work on Kelly Martin's concept of listbuilding. Along comes Cyde who deletes B and moves BB to B with the comment (Proper naming scheme). I raised an objection on his talkpage, and Cyde moved B back to BB (where it started), leaving the comment (User wants another name). I asked again on his talkpage that the original B be undeleted. He responded that he wouldn't undelete the page because he didn't like my attitude.
Cyde cites no policy in support of his action. Can you restore these pages as they were before Cyde tinkered with them? If not, what am I supposed to do? Thanks for your attention, & I'd appreciate a reply on my talkpage. If not, I can check back here. --Ssbohio02:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you bring this up for deletion review and submitt your appeal for its restoration there. Regards, 22:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
2006 Israel-Gaza conflict
Hi, El C. I am trying to help out at Wikipedia:Requested moves and I came across a request to rename Operation Summer Rains to 2006 Gaza conflict. However, when I went to the article, I found that you had moved it to 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict. The result of the poll, currently, is that the article should be at Operation Summer Rains. Of course, there may be a good reason that the result should not be followed. However, since you did not close the poll or remove the move notice, perhaps you were unaware that a move had been requested. Anyway, I'll leave it up to you to decide whether to change it back or not. Thanks, Kjkolb10:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I know you've helped me out before with some Israeli military related articles and I just wanted to let you know that I've posted a peer review for Operation Wrath of God, the Israeli campaign to kill those responsible for the Munich massacre. I know everyone here is plenty busy with real life and their own wikipedia interests and obligations, but if you get the chance, I'd really appreciate any extra comments to improve the article. Thanks again.--Joshdboz11:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because you re-inserted the "are conducting an investigation" to the intro after I had already removed it from there today, having noted that it has now been concluded (& after having authored the section about it and its conclusion accordingly). El_C11:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about this line "The cause of death and time line of events are under investigation by the IDF" - I didn't add that; it was already there in the article, nor did I change it. My edit was concerning the body-count and the subsections. --Bluerain (talk)11:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I just read the Jerusalem Post about the conclusion of the report this morning and was about to remove the information about an investigation in progress. I guess you beat me to it. Sorry for the confusion. [78]
I removed the image because it is in my opinion horrible style to put emotion laden pictures into encyclopedia related articles, especially on current events. It starts looking like a propaganda war. The only pictures I find legitimate are those related to strategic maps.
I think that often any picture is better than none. Limiting ourselves to maps only sounds extreme. As it stands, I'm inclined to restore it. El_C20:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree but it can be solved through discussion at the proper time.
As for my edit regarding Hezbollah and the IDF, I would like to know on what basis are we equating Hezbollah indiscriminatly firing rockets against civilians, to the IDF firing at Hezbollah positions in civilian areas. According to the laws of war, Hezbollah tactics such as not wearing uniforms, blending in with the local population, setting up road blocks to keep the local population inside a battlezone, firing from civilian infrastructure while using civilians inside as human shields, constitute a gross violation of the laws of war. Should we not distinguish between Hezbollah indiscrimate attacks against civilian areas and IDF offensives solely against Hezbollah targets who uses civilians as pawns?
Because they are turning Lebanon to rubble (and its coastline into an oil spillage disaster zone). Those Lebanese who are able to escape, risk getting bombed on the roads they travel on (if there are roads), and as for those who can't... El_C00:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only place they've turned into rubble is a couple of suburbs in southern Beirut and some strategic places like airports. Compared to places like Chechnya, this has been a very low key conflict.
The destruction to Lebanon has been massive and its devastating impact on the Lebanese population (and its enviornment) has been catastrophic — that it may become even more massive and devastating is besides the point, I argue. El_C22:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I personally believe that Hezbollah and its sponsors Iran and Syria are to blame for every death in this conflict. Yes, almost a million have fled, but beyond that the damage is limited to some suburbs and infrastructure. For a military compaign, 800 civilians is a godsend compared to other militaries.
Echoing the same theme, Dr. Ibrahim al-Khair wrote on one Arab Web site: "Hassan Nasrallah is no different from [former Egyptian president] Gamal Abdul Nasser, who remained in power despite his country's defeat in 1967; Saddam Hussein, who 'defeated' Israel by destroying Iran, Kuwait and Iraq; and Osama bin Laden, who 'defeated' the US by destroying Afghanistan and distorting the image of Islam. Nasrallah, who last week announced his victory in the war with Israel, is just like the others. He remained steadfast in his bunker until he destroyed Lebanon and killed hundreds of its citizens. Now he wants to present his victory as a gift to the Lebanese people and no one is supposed to challenge this victory, which has cost Lebanon billions of dollars."[81]
I hope you are kidding about Israel's funding. Israel is a state, Hezbollah is an extension of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. It's more relevent to cite that this organization has the backing of state sponsors, that is well trained, organized, and bows to the will of a country whose goal is to wipe Israel of the map. You do live in Israel right? Guy Montag23:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are all committing war crimes and they all serve as proxies for the imperialists to which they are dependent on and subservient to. El_C23:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and thank you for the comprehensive response, which I nonetheless still have some issues with. More on your talk page. Best, El_C19:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
admin aid needed
user- 88.155.198.100 has removed several information sections apparently out of personal reasons he has ignored requests for talkpage usage and broken the 3RR rule. the majority of his removals have been under the casualty section of the Battle of Bint Jbeil. where he removes the more recent casualty counts provided by msn cnn ny times (as recent as aug-2) and replaced them with much older information from websites, and insists that the newer cnn sources are "BULLSHIT" with out giving details. as a inexperienced editor I need some sort of admin help with this. his frequent removals have brought aditions to the page down to a halt.--68.211.220.10900:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! This is probably none of my business, but is it possibly to extend the length of user tasc's block? If you skim his talk page, you will see that 1) when he was previously blocked, he also became abusive towards the admin who did so; 2) he has been involved in multiple mediations, and if you look at those mediations, he was universally abusive to the mediator whenever it didn't go his way; 3) many, many users -- myself included -- have had issues where he blanked content and refused repeated requests to discuss it and reach a conclusion; and 4) on the rare instances when he does respond to someone who contacts him in attempt to reach concensus, he is again universally abusive.
Frankly, I think tasc is an example of the most destructive type of Wikipedia user. The jokers who blank an entire article and write "poop" instead are easy to deal with -- a couple of reverts, a report to WP:AIV, wham-bam, they're gone. But folks like tasc, because they almost follow the rules, continue to cause widespread damage to Wikipedia for weeks or even months at a time. I think it is a very serious problem.
Probably nothing can be done, and probably I am a little out-of-line in asking you this. But what the hell... I'm asking anyway :) --Jaysweet22:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds tempting! Let me know if you encounter any further problematic conduct. And if you feel an RfC is in order, feel free to author it. El_C14:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. As far as an RfC, I don't think it's needed at this time. I am having very good luck with a couple of controversial topics now by creating a section on the talk page titled "You can help reach concensus on (blah blah)" -- it's amazing how many good-faith serious editors will jump blindly into a revert war, unless you just flat-out ask them to reach concensus :D
I'm just frustrated because I don't think Wikipedia policy is effective at combatting the type of user that I was complaining about above. I think that users who show a persistent unwillingness to seek compromise should be dealt with much more harshly than they are now. But hey, I'm not the one writing the checks :) As long as Wikipedia is ad- and subscription-free, I'll follow whatever rules the guys paying the bills want me to, even if I think they are being wusses by letting folks like that continue their crusades :) --Jaysweet17:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RE:Warning
Oh. I didn't know. I needed some advice from a good friends. Sorry. --User:Bethicalyna
Elsewhere you also wrote: "Guest2133 is my little sister, her name is Angela. She is 11 and she has had 26 boyfriends in her life, like a collection of some sort. " [82] If you are a minor, please notify your parents or legal guardian that you are making these sort of statements publicly on the internet. If you are an adult, seek professional mental health. El_C02:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You ought to take a look at Bethicalyna's talk page. The warning you have placed has been removed, by the IP address, which posted the comment above. You'll see that this IP address, has now been blocked, but you may wish to reinstate your warning/ consider contacting Shanel and extending the length of the block (for removing warning templates, which it seems this IP address ahs done before). --Wisden1720:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While the press may interpret Kaplinsky's assignment as his taking command, that is definitely not the official line, and he isn't officially in charge. Cheers, TewfikTalk00:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Feel free to add the official designation in parnthesis, I just didn't want to overcrowed the infobox field. El_C01:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello El C. since you took the step of speedying the Patriotic Indians guild Category, which is reassuring as I am not always the most deletionist around here, could you have a look at Sisodia's comments on the talk page about the nomination please, which constitute a personal attack. Although I have been around long enough to not take much notice, he seems to think that my dismissal of his claims to be an endorsement that his conduct is permissible. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line02:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hola Jefe, puedes ver si eso esta permitido? El famoso contruibudor no para de desafiar a todos. Esta manipulando banderas de lo que el considera enemigos. Hay una clausula re esta tema en lo que se trata de fair use? User Expatkiwi logs. Saludos -- Szvest17:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Wiki me up™[reply]
Tewfik's argument is what he considers the illegality of Hezbollah under UN 1559 as the reason he removed the detail. However, Tewfik has not removed recent requests of arms sales to Israel such as jet fuel and GBU-28's. I believe he is pushing the POV that aid to Israel is only in response to the current crisis or the illegality of Hezbollah under 1559. US aid to Israel is in fact a long standing agreement responsible for the size and makeup of the IDF. Without the aid they would not have a military capable of engaging in conflict. If you can take a look and support my position (was working under 82.29.227.171) that would be great. RandomGalen11:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, I don't mean to waste your time, but a man named FrenchDude gave me a link to go to his created article "Anal Sex in High School" and I think that is innapropriate to speak about to minors. Could you please send him a warning? $$$=Lindsay198018:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C...I haven't been able to see any changes as of yet to the situation about embedded citations in articles unless I am missing a page on this situation. I completely concur with you that the references embedded in the article text are just a mess at times, though admittedly, I use this system myself for most of my work...can you link me to any ongoing discussions about this? Just so I can get a bit pushy about trying to get some changes implemented...I mean, look at this one section of text here...well, you know what I'm talking about.--MONGO19:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've got nothing. There is a myth that policy proposals or ammendments are too difficult to attain on Wikipedia, so they should be implemented by user talk page decrees (i.e. by those in the offwiki-know), with the policy pages themsleves not being updated. I, on the other hand, am having the opposite problem: my proposals see overwhelming consensus (AfD, Ref reforms), but fail to be implementated. El_C19:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes...that is definitely fascism...I thought about chiming in, but didn't think I could contain myself...okay, anyway I'll link back into those areas and start pushing. Thanks. MONGO
Holy crap...what the hell is she doing there? [83] What a bunch of bull, man...I thought massiveego was trolling Rfa but that is outrageous!--MONGO10:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly appears to be a problem that could have been easily remedied through concision; i.e. instead of repeating the same sentence over and over again, placing a single character-sized ref. Not a great feat of sophistication, in my opinion. El_C10:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I closed the AfD and deleted the "bad edits" because it targetted individual editors. I've only glanced at his userpage now, and it appears no single editor seems to be mentioned. I might be missing something here, so feel free to expand. Best, El_C07:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's the exact same kind of stuff, he's just leaving out the usernames. By the way, thanks for information about, and deleting, that absurd RfC. I'm tempted to file an RfC about abuse of RfC process. :-P Jayjg (talk)16:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, so long as the RfC about the RfC abuse dosen't get RfC'd! RE:Deuterium — are you saying these are quotes made by editors? El_C16:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the "Propaganda#2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict" and "Chris McGreal", you'll see it's just the same POV and false descriptions of edits he doesn't like - the exact same stuff that was on the pages that got deleted. Jayjg (talk)19:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying he is refractoring edits which were not kept in the article/s? I'd certainly be pressing for their removal in that event. El_C00:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was saying he was storing the exact same kind of stuff that was in the deleted article. It may be a moot point, though; his Talk: page has been forcibly blanked by another admin, and he has been blocked for 2 days. Jayjg (talk)21:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Thanks for keeping me updated. Sorry that I wasn't able to attend to this as promptly as I would have liked. All the best, El_C18:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My Subpage
Hi El_C. I'm readding the section for those I have lost my respect for. It's not nessesarily true that I was in a dispute/need Dispute Resolution with them, but to tell them that I once did enjoy thier company until one of thier actions or comments made me feel indifferant towards them. It's not a list of people I'm out to get, it's the opposite. I care about everyone, regardless of what they have said to me in the past, but it's more of a reminder so I don't forget them. I often see users remove people from thier friends list or relative lists because of a dispute or misunderstanding. I feel removing them completely would be innappropriate, as I once did respect them, but sadly don't anymore. Thanks! — Moe Epsilon 16:39 August 16 '06
I'm not going to bother appealing to it. Admins do whatever they want, so why fight it. Appeal where? WP:AN, where I'll have nothing but admins run all over me, no thanks. — Moe Epsilon 17:05 August 16 '06
Moe Epsilon is requesting he be unblocked on his talk page. Please read through the messages on the page before approving or denying his request. Note that he seems to have calmed down now. Thanks, Prodegotalk18:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, feel free to take over and pursue as you see fit. You seem to have a calming influence over the user, so that sounds ideal. El_C18:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But it wasn't Prodego that gave me a more calm disposition, I wasn't angry, even after the block I wasn't. Maybe I just could have had the summary "screw it", may have been more appropriate. — Moe Epsilon 18:46 August 16 '06
Note sarcasm used* — Moe Epsilon 18:49 August 16 '06
I'm not following the sarcasm. Screw it would've worked. Also, your comments above that "Admins do whatever they want," etc., gave me that impression. El_C18:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well.... lets just drop it. :) — Moe Epsilon 18:55 August 16 '06
Done and Done. Tested in Firefox and I.E. Note that an unclosed div is required for this to work, so be careful not to add a lone </div> to the page. I hope you like it! Prodegotalk19:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am an experienced Wikipedian (although I've only been a user for a little over a month) and I do good, no harm! I speak fluently Croatian and English, communicate, cooperate and revert. Editing is what I do best, and cleaning up is the my favourite! Vote here! Please.Lindsay198023:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't think you're ready. You need at least ten times more contributions on the article and project namespaces. Regards, El_C18:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
not at all opposed to talk page responses
Hi El C. Nope I'm not at all against replying on private talk pages. I'll even read your talk page ; ) as the content looks quite interesting. Really beautiful hammer and sickle image at the top. I guess it is an award or something. I'm going t pass it on to a good friend in Sweden who will like it as well. --Nikkicraft20:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re the ITN piece. It is not that it is "unclear". It is that it is 100% factually wrong. You cannot achieve a a 50% majority. That is a plurality. If the Japan Times wrote that then their copy editor deserves the proverbial kick up the proverbial arse for writing such bad copy. A majority means 50%+. It can never mean 50% in a count once the spoiled votes are removed, because in theory you can lose with 50%. (Your opponent could also get 50% and there could be a revote, or even simply pulling the winner out of a hat after the draw.) To win you have to be more than 50%. Only then are you guaranteed a win, because your opponent mathematically cannot catch you, as there is then less than 50% left for he or she to get. Merely getting more votes than everyone else, without getting 50.01%, is a plurality. FearÉIREANN\(caint)01:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that it's perfectly fine as a phrase and that this is assumed. But this is moot, since I'm fine with majority per se.El_C01:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. A few things. First of all, do you own that picture of the Maoist valley in Nepal on your userpage? What can I legally use it for under copyright law? And about the Nepali Maoists, do you think that if they took control of Nepal they would be like the Khmer Rouge? What do you have to say about the Nepali Maoists? By the way, I would like to thank you for your contributions to the article on the Congolese elections. They are keeping me informed on the topic. Respectfully, Ionius Mundus03:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The Khmer Rouge were not communist, they were anti-communist in their ideology (i.e. anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-vietnemese, etc.) even if they had the word communist in their party's name. The bourgosie intelligentsia (on wikipedia, too) crudely and opportunistically distort this simple fact. This is why they were supported by the US, Thailand, and post-Maoist PRC — remember that it was Vietnam that overthrew them from power when they invaded Cambodia (partially why the PRC then started the Sino-Vietnamese War). So what I say is that I have full confidence in comrade Prachanda to act in the interests of the Nepali masses. Regarding the valley photograph, no, I do not own it (the photograph appears to have been taken by a Pavel Novak and uploaded by a User:Che — neither are me); see its Image decsription page on Commons. Thx, I am pleased that you find my contributions to the DRC election helpful. Regards, El_C03:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You are 100% correct about the Khmer Rouge and how they relate to the Việtnamese. I have just heard rumors that the Nepali Maoists and the Khmer Rouge would be the same. Thanks for your input. As for the picture, it says, "This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 License". I'm sorry, but I'm not very experienced with copyrights and am still unsure what I can use it for. Could you give me a brief explanation? Thanks. And regarding Kongo-Kinshasa, your work there has been very convenient. It is quite a shame that neither Antoine Gizenga nor Guy-Patrice Lumumba are doing too well. I don't understand why the Congolese people have given them so little support, even with Patrice Lumumba as a national hero. Thanks again. --Ionius Mundus03:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe those rumors to be lies propogated by the imperialists and their lackeys. Sorry, but I am not familliar with copyrights laws either, so I am unable to advise you further on that front. As for the DRC, Patrice Lumumba is someone whom the DRC masses should be looking up to; it's tragic that none of the candidates exhibit his qualities. On the contrary, they all appear more than ready to continue with the imperialist domination & exploitation of the DRC, with all the genocidal consequences that this entails. El_C03:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Lumumba's son is a candidate (Guy-Patrice Lumumba), and I believe Antoine Gizenga is a Lumumbist also. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be doing too well. Things look very bleak for the Kongo. One more thing. What do you think of Libya's Colonel Qaddafi? He isn't truly communist is he? Wasn't he responsible for sheltering Idi Amin and fighting against Mwalimu Julius Nyerere? Thanks for your thoughts. --Ionius Mundus03:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but they are all nonrevolutionary, nonetheless. Qaddafi is not, nor has he ever claimed to be, a communist — his "green revolution" meant to fuse Islam with socialist ideals, which I consider reactionary. Nor was Nyere a revolutionary — he promoted a more narrow African socialism, which revolutionaries such as Kwame Nkrumah correctly denounced. El_C04:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, but would you not agree that they do not "appear more than ready to continue with the imperialist domination & exploitation of the DRC, with all the genocidal consequences that this entails". And would you not agree that Mwalimu Julius Nyerere was great like Lumumba, revolutionary or not? --Ionius Mundus04:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I would not agree, although, for Nyerere at least, I also consider it a matter of degrees and breadth of vision. El_C04:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you support Mao Zedong? Mwalimu Nyerere supported Mao. You will rarely find a leader as honest as Mwalimu. Plus, Mwalimu said that he would have been prepared to lead a revolution for independence if he had needed to, though he wanted to use non-violence until it reached its limit. Also, look at his excellent human rights record. He was well-known for aiding refugees. And, he was a Pan-African. See what the Tanzanian people say. He is overwhelmingly supported by Tanzanians. --Ionius Mundus04:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do support many of Mao's invaluable teachings, but I am not a "Maoist," though this is less relevant to your question. Don't get me wrong, I also admire Nyerere and am not questioning his honesty (including, of course, his willingness to wage armed-struggle if the legal struggle was to be crushed), nor all the postive things he accomplished — and choosing to align with the PRC over reactionary Soviet Social-imperialism definitely should be held to his credit — but I note that some genuinely-revolutionary countries did align with the USSR due to lack of any other feasible choice (e.g. note Che's approach to the USSR). But simply because he is overwhelmingly supported by Tanzanians (understandebly so), does not mean that African socialism is any less narrow of a political doctrine; i.e. I think it would have invariably ended up being (in a broad historic sense) easy pray for the imperialists. El_C04:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is my pleasure, Ionius Mundus. No need to apologize, any time taken to explain these sort of issues, is time I consider well spent. Please do not hesitate to return with any other questions. El_C05:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to get the public domain notice to appear, so I put in the summary that it's from Italian wikipedia and is in the public domain. Hopefully someone I can get that fixed if I need to. I also figured out how to write 'Prachanda' in Nepali. I had to study a BBC Nepali article to find it. By the way, what do you think of Kim Il Sung? Thanks. --Ionius Mundus08:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's a fascist. No, that summary is not going to be enough, no one is going to fix it, they will just delete it. You need to translate the PD notice from the Italian wiki into the image page. El_C08:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant his son is a fascist, I mixed the two names up. It looks like he increasingly gave-in to reactionary forces, especially from within the army. El_C08:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've fixed the Prachanda image. I agree about Kim Jung Il. He is a hypocrite and a fascist. But what do you think about his father, Kim Il Sung? --Ionius Mundus09:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above was in reference to KI-S. Switching-over from Marxism-Leninism to the pseudocommunist "Juche" religion in the 1970s went far beyond delusions of grandeur, it was a clear and expressed betrayal. As for the Prachanda image, that is not going to be sufficient. You need to specify the PD permission beyond referencing another language Wikipedia, or they will delete it. You best speak to the uploader. But let me see if I could claim it as fairuse first. El_C09:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discouragement
I am greatly discoraged by Dmcdevit's seemingly dismissive response to my concenrs. The pertinent discussion (to be deleted soon) is refractored bellow. A totally unrelated aside, I'd like to reiterate I have no intention of revisiting the Pedophilia case outside of the (latest) page. El_C13:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zeq wikistalking and block count
I've been having a difficult time applying arbitration enforcement for Zeq and feel I have since been targetted by him. For example, after I blocked Kelly Martin for her B-list attack page, Zeq just happens to come along so as to caution me from blocking a user with whom you have a dispute" (what dispute? he fails to mention). Or, after removing and protecting the attack page by Sarasto777, Zeq just happens to come along, again. These are not isolated examples. Then today, Zeq questions my administrative compotence and speaks of an "edit[orial] conflict" after I delete his copyvio entry, twice. Many blocks later, how should I proceed with the tendencious edits by the user? Should I implement Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq#Enforcement_by_block next time — it will be the 6th block. Or will it? I am inclined to count article bans as blocks, and am seeking clarification as to this approach, and Zeq's conduct overall as illustrated above. Thanks in advance. El_C13:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your original question: article bans are not considered to count towards the escalating block periods, only vioations of bans. Having said that, if an editor is incorrigible, perhaps a general admin-discretionary block rather than, or in addition to, an arbcom article ban is warranted (by an uninvolved party of course, which I am not sure you are). I'd say take it to ANI, and try to avoid scaring admins awy with long-winded, dead-end discussions like the one that happened here. Dmcdevit·t00:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg)
![[36]](http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Image:Wegner-DSC_0124.JPG){kind=link}
![[37]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Neasden_Temple_-_Shree_Swaminarayan_Hindu_Mandir_-_Gate.jpg%7Cimage){kind=link}
