The selection of which 3RR incident/s to examine (& in what order) on the 3RR incidents board is at the respective admin's discretion. El_C01:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you take a look at the one I reported about 12 hours ago. I fear that because he was warned that a 3RR would cause a block, if at least a warning is not given, he will continue going about reverting. -- Jeff300002:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This makes me fearful to suggest future edits and makes me nervous about being bold. Perhaps a more detailed explanation of your rational will put my fears to bed. HighInBC15:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen that the user in question has perhaps performed other actions that way have contrributed to your decision. Please understand I am not upset at the ban itself, just the apparent lack of explaination. HighInBC18:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C! Please see [1] in which I propose to lift the block, mentor the user, and reblock if necessary. Would that be acceptable to you? I won't lift without a clear consensus, or your concurrence. You can answer here if you like, (although answering there may be better) I have both on watch. Thanks and happy editing! ++Lar: t/c17:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm going to go ahead and unblock but with a warning that I'm watching. If you see anything untoward please feel free to let me know or reblock, no offense will be taken. ++Lar: t/c01:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey El_C. I would also like you to see this [2] Could you give some input into this possiblility. Maybe a indefblock was a tad bit harsh, IMO. Maybe a week-long block like Bunchesofgrapes has suggested in the above diff, then when she returns, maybe some mentoring to see if she's willing to improve? — The Future18:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Email
I sent you an email, and would be grateful if you could let me know if it's arrived, as one of mine to someone else didn't, and I'm beginning to wonder if there's a bug in the system. I have also sent a second one marked "test". Thanks. Tyrenius21:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Sorry, I havne't checked my email today, and I'm on my way out right now. But I will read and reply to it later tonight. Regards, El_C21:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
El_C - I've tried to email you at all the email addresses I have for you. I miss you. Come back for a visit sometime! - Ack
Dear Ack, I'm so sorry for my inexcusable neglect, of which you are far from the only victim. I also miss you, dearly, and you have been, positively, in my thoughts (and dreams), which I always draw strength from. I've been so utterly overwhelemed by and trying to come to terms with major lifechanging events I endured in the last few months (one after the other — regretfuly, for the most part wholly negative ones, but also with hope of positive things to come in the future); I've barely been able to place it in comprhenesible terms, even in my own mind. My spirit (&body) has been badly dented, traumatized, mostly by what I've experienced during the 2nd Lebanon War, and am still in the process of healing from that, but, crucially, I've yet to actually breakdown emotionally, which I feel is what's most needed. There is one major (unrelated to all that) event that will take place around the mid- of this month. After it transpires (for better or worse), I promise I'll try my best to explain all that has happned as of late (you can count on it being one super-tl;dr anthology!). Your friend, always; love, El_C P.S. I believe the email address you attempted to reach me by is no longer active, however, I am rather confident that I managed to update my current one in the pertinent listing (along with whatever updates to my physical address, and any other such details) on my last visit. P.P.S. I really didn't mean to ramble on at such length.
Hello El C, it seems from your comment that your view is that the lead should be somewhere between what is currently on the article and SlimVirigin's no? (→Netscott)13:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if this explanation isn't warranted but by your response it seems it is: The word "neologism" is a descriptor for terms not concepts. The term "Islamophobia" is a neologism. (→Netscott)22:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The lesson is past-tense, and correct emphasis — a Black hole is a neologism for an object predicted by general relativity with a gravitational field so strong that nothing can escape it, not even light. Sí? El_C05:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit concerned about the additions being made here. (and no, I'm not really back, just calling by!) Perhaps you could take a look? I've already mentioned it to Zero0000 and Ramallite, but I then thought you might be more available. Regards to Kitty. Palmiro | Talk20:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My availability knows no bounds! Write to me further about your summer adventures when you have time. Kitty extends his best wishes! El_C21:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it's deleted, I will be quitting the project forever. And whomever nominated did not even bother to sign their name. How shameful! El_C01:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Damn straight! I mean, what's next? Nominating flags of countries for deletion? Sheer intransigence on the part of unsigned editor! El_C03:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a try at implementing this (in userspace at the moment, so there's no fallout). If you want to see what I've come up with, try making a user subpage and tagging it with {{subst:User:ais523/ElC/afd}}; this should create a catted AfD if you follow the maintenance links at the bottom of the template. (It's based on the recent AfD instruction streamlining whereby the links do some of the editing automatically.) --ais523 15:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks good! Just implement it if you know how and if you're relatively certain it will work. We have a supermajority support for the proposal (including support from Jimbo) and the only thing holding it back right now is practical implementation. El_C19:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you recently moved requests for page protection to the fulfilled requests section, but Voice of All's bot already does that, and purposely leaves one request at minimum in each area so people can already see the format for requesting a page protection on record. So, in the future, it's unnecessary to move the requests unless the bot seems to overlook it. Thanks. Cowman109Talk06:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Say what? I was noting the protection anyway, so in the course of that, I moved requests that were fulfilled to the fulfilled requests section. El_C07:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it just makes it easier for people who are making requests to see an example of what a request for protection looks like. Voice of All's bot automatically does the archiving anyway. Sorry for not making that clear - I'm half asleep.. and going to bed! Cowman109Talk07:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone rouge and reopened this debate -- just because Mr. Colbert is American, it doesn't mean that a "humor policy" page devoted to him is totally insane. I'm not saying I like the page, but I am saying that it deserves discussing per the precedent of WP:SPIDER. Best wishes, Xoloz17:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I warned you that I went "rouge" on this one, so I why should I advise folks first? ;) Seriously, though, going rouge isn't my usual habit, so I don't think you'll have to worry. Incidentally, I'm sure there's a fine article at Stephen Colbert explaining exactly who he is. :) Best wishes, Xoloz19:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I go rogue (sp.) all the time, just yesterday I speedied about ten MfDs. Yes, he's a comedian, I gathered that and I did glance at it before deleting that entry, but it still didn't make sense to me. And invoking WP:SPIDER? I don't understand that page! Best, El_C19:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Issue with your action
I must protest your removal of my sockpuppet report page for Shravak. The result was that the sockpuppet did not understand why I had tagged his page because the evidence I provided had been deleted and he became hostile as he believed I had tagged his page simply b/c I didn't like his edits. I have no problem with no action being taken, but that should simply be commented on the evidence page. Deleting the evidence opens the accuser to unneeded animosity, having to explain myself to several people, nasty notes on my talk page, etc. All this could have been avoided by leaving the evidence in place so others could see that the complaint was reasonable. I have restored the evidence page to avoid more nastiness. -999 (Talk) 19:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The single diff was already noted on the user's talk page; that subpage seemd rather bare and needelessly intimidating. But we can another admin look into if you like, though I doubt their position will differ from mine significantly. El_C19:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I don't care what the resolution is, I was objecting to the deletion of the page causing me to look like I had accused him without reason. The account was created within 35 minutes of User:Shravak's last edit after being warned of 3RR and made exactly the same edit, not by revert, but by cut and paste (I'd moved the text and both copies were in the article). Clearly if the account had had an previous edit history, it would not be so suspicious. This clearly looked like an account created to evade 3RR. -999 (Talk) 20:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the user had a firm grasp of the rules, so the purpose (and announcement) of that subpage seemd misdirected. It was already noted on the 3RR board and the user's talk page, so I don't see what it accomplishes. El_C20:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, of course the puppet claims not to be the same person, not to understand, and to have no knowledge of the 3RR complaint. And since I followed process and put a sockpuppet tag on the puppets user page, once you deleted the evidence the tag remained with a red link. Other users then questioned me about why I tagged the page without following the process of making an evidence page. Which of course I had, but deletion leaves no tracks. So it looked like I had no evidence and I've been being taken to task for it, even though I did everything according to process. It is a waste of my time and would have been avoided by your following process and commenting on the page rather than deleting it! -999 (Talk) 20:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to assume good faith, nonetheless. And that evidence page was just a refractoring of the 3RR report, anyway. El_C20:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence page was authored so that an admin could attend to it, and I attended to it, so there was no longer a pressing reason for it and by deleting it I thought I'd be preventing needless hostility. I was going to watch over the matter, regardless. El_C22:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Name of Azerbaijan article
You just protected a vandalized page. GM is inserting his POV over cited facts. Please atleast protect the correct version of the article.Khosrow II21:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even seen his changes? He just moved around a couple paragraphs (I think he did this so that he could hide is small edits) and then he totally took out cited material and put in his POV. He is tricky. For example, one of the small edits he made was change "the pan Turkist Democratic Musavat party" to "Turkish Democratic Musavat party", when its a well known fact that the party was Pan-Turkist, and advocated ideals of uniting all Turkic speaking peoples, which is significant as it shows the motives for the name change (as parties within the republic later admitted). Him changing this simple fact is proof of his vandalism. Please, I implore you to protect my version of the article, as it is the exact same thing as the current version except with the removal of some cited facts. GM's edits also go against the discussion in the talk page, where he was proven wrong time and time again. Also, please note that my version of the article also includes his view points (see the talk page, we came to a consensus on some issues).
Please, protect my version of the article. Also, if you do not believe what I'm saying, check the edits for yourself, and you will see that all he did was move things around, while making some major, although small, edits that basically go against Wikipedia's rules of no POV and origional research.Khosrow II22:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have not looked at his changes closely; please refrain from characterizations such as "tricky," however. I may well end up supporting your version pending a discussion on the talk page, but it will be impropper for me to protect your version at this time. El_C22:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, notice how he changed the link of the Democratic Musavat Party (the one in 1918) to the current one that is in operation at the present. These two are two different things, yet GM wants people to believe they are the samething, because the new party's policies are not as aggressive as the old ones. This is what I'm talking about, he is pushing his POV while at the same time accusing me of pushing POV when everything I have written is based on cited sources.
What is wrong with protecting my version? Isnt it wrong protecting a version of an article that wrong? Please, if there is anything you can do, I implore that you take the right course of action. Thanks.Khosrow II22:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because I would be breaching policy if I do that. I'm not sure this is about the pan-Turkist/pan-Turanist tendency on the part of the IDMP/TDMP, as much as it is about its formal name, which your version distort — the party wasn't called PTDMP, it was called TDMP. But don't tell me this is the main dispute (!). Regards, El_C00:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood or maybe I typed it in wrong. The name of the party was not PTDMP, your right, the Pan-Turkist is just the description. For example, when writing in that context about the Grey Wolves (a Pan Turkist party in Turkey), I would right "the pan-Turkist Grey Wolves Party". Get it, the pan Turkist was not put in there as part of the name, it was put there are an adjective. I was not trying to distort anything.
I'm just trying to tell you that the version you currently have protected is POV. Also, remember that GM was the one who wanted to get rid of the article, which shows that he really doesnt care of the neutrality of the article, he just wants it gone or to suit his POV.Khosrow II00:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But you can't call it "the pan-TurkistDemocratic Musavat party," maybe you can call it the "pan-TurkistTurkish Democratic Musavat party" (similarly, let's say the IDMP was Islamist, you would not be able to call it the "IslamistDemocratic Musavat party," instead you'd have to say something similar to the above, like the "IslamistIslamic Democratic Musavat party"). But let's continue this on the article talk page. Thanks in advance. Regards, El_C01:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thats something you can change if you revert the article back to its correct states. I admit that the wording may have not been the best, although I did not realize it at the time.Khosrow II02:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that misperceptions and antagonism follow from these sort of misunderstandings. My other comments are on the this article's talk page section. Please do join us there. Thanks again. Regards, El_C05:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should un protect it now. We have come to an agreement, and GM has not responded to any of my arguments so he must also be content. You should un protect it now, we have come to a compromise.Khosrow II14:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished implementing and testing this, but need admin help to change AfD over to the new process. Look near the bottom of today's AfD log to see the category system in action; the categories contain all unclosed deletion debates in the relevant category and all log pages containing such deletion debates (so hopefully there won't be any lost debates any more).
These changes should implement the new category system across all new AfDs.
P.S. There's been a bit of an edit war on {{afd}} recently, so I'm suggesting a compromise version on the change.--ais523 10:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, it's not confusing at all, it's really straightforward edit-this-to-that. I misread something and went way off course — there was no reason for you to write the bellow (although it is educating). My apologies for being slow. El_C00:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! Sorry, but I'm not sure I entirely I understand what specific administrative actions you seek (or I would just do it). You do of course understand that the categorized AfD scheme is to run concurent to and not as a replacement for the current system, right? I have to get going soon, so regretfuly, I won't be able to see your answer until I return. But I look forward to reading it. Thanks again for all your work! El_C11:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only changes made to AfD are:
Prompting the user for a category during step 2 of the afd-tagging
Displaying the category notice on the debate
Adding the debates to categories
The log pages and debates work in exactly the same way as before. As for the specific admin actions needed, it's protecting 2 pages and editing 2 protected pages (the whole AfD process is protected at the moment); I've listed some other pages that need editing at the same time in the list above, as the changes shouldn't have too much of a gap between them so as not to confuse users. Each change consists of either protecting a page or editing a page; in each case, there is a page (whatever new) that contains the exact wikimarkup needed in the page to be edited; for instance, the first change is a request to change {{afd2}} so that it is the same as {{afd2 new}}; I've listed the changes in the order I think is least likely to confuse users. I previously put in a {{editprotected}} request for this, which was declined on the basis of no proof that it would work (the proof is now available) and the unprotectedness of various key templates; I have tweaked the proposal to answer these concerns. (One last thing; it's best to check that I have the top contrib on each of the new pages, in case they're vandalised before you reach them.)
Unfortunately, we seem to edit at different times (based on our contribs), so it's unlikely I'll be able to reply when you get back, but I'll be interested to see what happens. --ais523 11:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Come to think of it, I'm unlikely to edit over the weekend (as always), so if you need more feedback from me this had better wait until Monday UTC. I only edit from public computers, and so normally can't get a connection in the weekend or evening UTC. --ais523 15:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
See my comment above; sorry for the brain melt on my part. I'm implementing it now. Let's hope it works! /knocks on catEl_C00:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to ask where the page that will be display the categories be at? Also, I think kitty10 whould be removed — kitty11 should cover that. I'll wait till you're back before changing it, though, just in case it might break everything, somehow. El_C00:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the categories won't break anything, but if you do be sure to make the same change to {{afd3 starter}}. As for cats 10 vs. 11, I added 10 per the suggestion on WP:ElC, and 11 for the same reason that we have a 'not sure' on the image copyright drop-down: to avoid biting newbies (who despite all preadded help occasionally still won't understand what's going on). The lists can be found as subcategories of Category:AfD debates. --ais523 08:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, seeing how the cats are being used, 10 and 11 probably ought to be left separate. (As of this timestamp, there are some articles in category 11 where it's obvious what they're about, bit they don't quite fit in any of the others.) --ais523 09:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I had originally decided not to archive it because I was informed of my mistake by someone else, prior to your question. This is why I include "at my discretion" at the top of my talk page. I felt that it was not really necessary, but since you insist (I swear it's either guilt or a WP:POINT) I have archived the discussion. Ryūlóng03:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to your qustion, I like having clear and easily-accessible account of my conversations (in general), for my own references. El_C04:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I didn't ban him, I blocked him! Anyway, while I didn't get a chance at the time, then to be honest lost the motivation to look closely into the charges (arguably I should have), I purposfuly did not include Dattat's revert as part of Shravak's 3RR. That much was clear to me. El_C08:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you move it? There's no consensus for it, and you've not provided a reason in your edit summary. Could you at least explain yourself on the talk page, please? Iorek8508:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know - I've posted a request for the page to be moved back on WP:ANI, since you wouldn't do it yourself. It's under "protected page move by admin without consensus". Iorek8523:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've also posted there. I too think this move was highly inappropriate since there is a 50/50 split currently in the discussion for the move to war. Also as an involved party you moving the article is highly irregular. JohnnyBGood00:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus. Some of the arguements in the "vote" for conflict were reasonable. I don't see why you expect those who who participate in the poll to repeat themselves in opposing your move. On the other hand, there is a weak consensus for changing "Lebanon" to "Hezbollah". — Arthur Rubin | (talk)13:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You held a discussion, and there was some opposition there, as well. However, the poll was still open, and under the guidelines for WP:RM, no moves should be made while that is open, unless there is clear consensus in that venue, as well. You'd moved this article against consensus before, and the move was reverted. I had assumed that you had agreed not to move the article again without clear consensus. — Arthur Rubin | (talk)13:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are not following the timeline and you are not responding to why you over-ruled my move without discussion, irrespective of WP:RM. El_C13:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I didn't see your assertion that the article should be moved. I assumed that, as the poll was still open, that was the working procedure. But there isn't agreement in the section replying to your proposed move, either. — Arthur Rubin | (talk)13:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried reasoning with User:Nickjohnsonhill who insists on removing speedy deletion notices from his copyvio/spam and won't answer my inquiries. I no longer have admin privileges or I'd whammy him myself. Thanks. - Lucky 6.916:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but according to you I violated the three revert policy, can you defend your block as I cannot find where I reverted over 3 times.--Shravak17:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My 1666 fire article draft has come out of the closet now—not moved to article space, but I've let the cat out of the bag (Hello, Kitty, was it horrible in there?). It's not a secret any more, so feel free to refer to it. There's a little there now about politics, what do you think? There will be more, as Charles II was very worried that the huge social problem prsented by homelessness and rising prices after the fire would lead to another London rebellion. I believe that's why he was so keen to help the homeless settle elsewhere, the farther away the better. Just as long as they didn't march on the Bastille...no, he can't have been thinking that, can he? Anyway, he was scared the Good Old Cause would come and get him. Bishonen | talk01:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
By doing this he ended up contributing to its later urban growth, wherein various partially-integrated, resettled localities incresingly connected as a single urban entity. All rather inadvertantly to his more narrowly machavelian plan. Looking forward to reading the additions! El_C07:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, please use the {{at}} and {{ab}} templates when closing afds (instead of mfd top and bottom). The mfd templates make the log pages harder to read (because of random spots of color) and might break the count at WP:AFD/Old. And it's faster to type 'at' than 'mfd top'. Thanks. - Bobet10:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to put the talk on your talk page. It doesn't belong on mine; a user's page is a user's page, and one doesn't have to tolerate gratuitous insults by other private users there. Clossius19:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to the link; it might even come in handy later. People may do with their user and talk pages, per Wiki policy, what they want; they surely don't have to tolerate aggressive or patronizing accusations and insults, particularly not from other users with a less than constructive track record of Wiki behavior. To call legitimate deletion of such removal "censorship" just underlines the point. Clossius21:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My track record is constructive, I challenge. I'm an editor and administrator in good standing. There was no "patronizing accusations and insults," and as for "call[ing] legitimate deletion of such removal 'censorship,'" I am entitled to link to and call the uncensored discussion as such. I suggest you find something more productive to do if you're not going to edit the article. Thanks. El_C21:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your track record on the article in question is surely not constructive. I will certainly desist from doing anything with this article right now, so you get what you wanted. Congrats. If you have some time, please consider whether it just could be possible that you occasionally edit from a POV. Clossius21:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to the Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy, I have no strong view. If I did, I would say so. I consider the Pope, his Islamic opponents, and the Western media equally reactionary. I'm sorry you left the article, but you were not being constructive. I have added content today and I continue to play a constructive role in the cleanup efforts. That was the only section I simply was unable to cleanup, which isn't to say I would not like to see it authored. If you continue to assume bad faith about my motives, you will not be welcomed on this talk page. El_C21:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get back to you on that front! How have you been? I noticed elsewhere that Rovoam is still out and about. That brings memories! ;) El_C19:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear. He was the first long-term disruptive user I attended to as an admin. It's pretty amazing that he's still at it. El_C21:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you protect Taretone's page? I think the best away to finish this NOW, is to request mediation or arbitration. I am tired of disputes with Tryenius, Taretone, and Charlesknight. What do you think about mediation/arbitration? Sugarpinet20:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I protected it in light of his personal attack against myself and Tryenius. Sure, feel free to request mediation with the respective parties. El_C20:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I advise against it. That's incorrect. I am an uninvolved admin who responded to a notice on the admin noticeboard. El_C20:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have tried every dispute but mediation. I don't feel mediation will work. I'd like you to unblock him so he can praticipate in Arbitration. Sugarpinet20:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I'm still inclined against unblocking at this time. The user appears to be lacking restraint and needs to take some time off. El_C21:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. :) I was wondering if you could protect the Pontian Greek Genocide article. You don't have to get involved, but the dispute tags keep being removed, and I've gotten tired of removing them. BTW, did I tell you about my Israel trip? —Khoikhoi02:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, if the tags are explained on the talk page, removing them at this stage counts as vandalism. Let me know if it continues while the article is sprotected. RE: Israel. No, you didn't. Did I tell you about my Israel trip ? El_C02:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article can't remain taged forever! There is no point if the visitors of Wikipedia read article whose neutrality and factual accurancy is disputed. Anyone who disputes the article can explain the reason on the talk page. A.Garnet doesn't disputes something specific, and even if we back the article up with state of the art references he is still going to dispute it. Maybe we should delete the article because A.Garnet disputes it???? Please reply on my talk page. Thanks Mitsos08:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Kuhnster has posted to the unblock mailing list inquiring about his block. There isn't anything posted on the talk page or in the block log that explains the reason for an indefinite block. Are there deleted articles? Is this user account a sockpuppet? Could you let me know why this user was indefinitely blocked? Thanks. Gamaliel22:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please tell me the content of that now deleted image? I can't really compose a proper response to his mailing list query without being better informed about this. Gamaliel03:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some of his reverts from the vandalism were to pages that were PRIOR to the most recent one - so he did a revert to the wrong version to cure the vandalism plus delete my content at the same time. Some of the revers were a combination. Stick to the Facts09:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I don't know how to put this, but I am kinda shocked with all this nationalistic matcho s*** taking place in Talk:Pontian Greek Genocide and User talk:Mitsos. I thought I should bring certain quotes to your attention, and hope you'll figure out what to do:
User:Mitsos userpage (and its history) is probably what started all this. My thoughts about this are here, although on second thought I reverted myself, because I thought they didn't add to the conversation there. I also tried to mentor Mitsos in his talk (in Greek here), who had already removed part of the 'material' in his page (here).
User:Baristarim has made some matcho threats, both in the article talk (here) and in Mitsos' talk (here), which have been reverted part-by-part by him, and finally by you and Mitsos respectively (see next versions in both links).
I am sorry that you deemed what I have wrote as macho threats, if I did so, I apologize... I am definitely not a nationalist (you don't have to believe me if you don't want to).. But I find it extremely hard to not get angry when I see such users vandalizing wikipedia.. Mitsos has again vandalized the page by removing the tags, after repeated warnings not to do so.. If you can have a look at the talk page, you can see that I am seriously trying to contribute to the discussion, but it is way too hard... Regards... Baristarim20:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Sorry, but I am not prepared to comment on the above at this time. I informed other admins of the situation, so they may wish to do so. El_C23:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is probably for the best for now, since Baristarim appears to be handling the tag dispute. Whatever (and if) there is to be done, is better to be done after this process. As for Mitsos, keep in mind that I actively participated in nationalistic/provocative userpage culls, along with a fellow Macedonian Slav editor. I deleted those of the Greeks, and he deleted those of his own people. The whole process was advised and foreseen by admin user:FrancisTyers, when it was evident that userpage provocative content was inflammatory and did not help in normal editing. In this case, however, I'd prefer not to be part of it, but I am stating it as a precedent...•NikoSilver•23:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I went to sleep, I wake up and voila, fait accompli!!.. ??? .. You know you guys could have at least waited for a couple days for input, u too, El_C, I mean that would have been common sense, right? Most people have a real life out there... Look, El_C, no offense but I think that u didn't understand the depth of the argument or read the archive.. The issue over the reliability of the sources and one about original research has not been considered at all... I put a list of arguments, and in four hours the tags are gone.. That's not fair dispute resolution... Baristarim11:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to disagree.. Closing the debate in the matter of hours, in the dead of the night, is neither courtious to other users who are contributing to the debate nor is it fair.. Wouldn't it be common courtesy to wait at least for a couple of days? You see nothing wrong with the fact that three people close a debate in a couple of hours at four in the morning?? Seriously, it isn't academic, and you know it...Baristarim16:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I noticed that you removed the Stormfront AfD tag early. I believe there were more votes to delete than to keep the article at that time. Why was't the tag left in place? There doesn't seem to be an explanation. Thanks, Stick to the Facts15:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything I could do to get you to comment on Stormfront(Talk)? If there is not, simply say NO or don't do anything, I won't bother you anymore, this will be my last entry. You would lose respect in my eyes, but why should you care about that? -- ExpImptalkcon11:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why shouldn't I? In answer to your original question, it depends: in the event of a no, will I be left with suboptimal respect, or none at all? ;) El_C11:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,Regarding the merger you performed between Votebank and Votebank politics in India, don't you think that the history of Votebank Politics in India is long enought to merit a separate article. Also, given how poorly the Votebank politics in India article was written, might it not have been better to add a brief synopsis to the Votebank article about the Indian experience with votebank politics, and add a {{main}} link to the other article.Gamesmaster G-920:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I'm drastically editing the section. Its hopelessly POV and unencyclopaedic. I tried to edit it back when it was two articles, but User:Ikonoblast took the edits personally, even starting a revert was when I tagged it as NPOV. I see he has made a promise of good behaviour, and I hope he keeps it. Let me warn you that I intend to appeal to you to mediate if it happens again.Gamesmaster G-902:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may edit the entry as you see fit, in any case. Certainly, you are welcomed to bring any pressing issues to my attention. El_C02:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi!
I noticed that you have removed the unreferenced tag from this article. I was hoping that the article would get to featured status as it has a lot of content. But unless it is referenced, it will never get there. When I added the tag, there were many more such statements. It is slowly getting better but there are still many that require references. The tag brings it to the attention of the reference project and hence will bring in references. So would you mind if I readd the template? Thanks. Shushruth\talk page \ contribs05:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That position is taken, I'm afraid. If it's supreme overlordship you're after, I suggest you consider becoming a clerk. It's a tried and tested path, apparently, and I have a few papers you could pretend to shuffle while beating the masses into submission (to me). SlimVirgin(talk)09:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry to have to bother you, but, with regards to his recent issues, where he promised to act civil. I believe that he is not following through on it. He has just made accusations against myself and Gamesmaster G-9 on Talk:Votebank[4] and has violated WP:OWN, insinuating that we should "leave" and thustly claiming ownership of the article Votebank. In addition, he has made statements so inarticulate that I could not even understand them. Then he told me to "Plz go through VHF on my user page" here. The VHF says: "Discover a Fool inside you and present him wisely" here. Calling me a "fool" does, I believe. constitute a personal attack. I would appreciate your mediation on these matters.Hkelkar10:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi , I would like to let you know that the article was started by me and mostly contributed by me too (though you must not interpret it as I wish to own it).The other users involved are not interested in article,they have only one interest undoing my edits.You can check this by looking into Mamta Kulkarni talk page and edit history of vote bank politics in India.User:Hkelkar in particular is following me simply after a dispute with him on Kancha Ilaiah.I would also like to let you know I have never been incivil with anyone for that matter.For proof of all I accuse of them you must try to look into the history of concerned pages.Maybe you would like to block these two even which is a long overdue task now. Ikon |no-blast10:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly as I thought he might, User:Ikonoblast has reneged on his promise of good behaviour. I see that User:Hkelkar has already brought it to your notice. He is consistently violating WP:OWN. I also note that he has asked you to take a look at Mamta Kulkarni, which is ironic because I was about to point to that as another blatant example of WP:OWN behaviour. Furthermore, he considers ANY edit to be a personal affront, but thinks nothing of making nonsensical edits of his own, that can only be attributed to malice. I think this has gone on far enough.Gamesmaster G-914:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All right, here's a more detailed description of events.
The original article was created by User:Ikonoblast, and looked like this[5]. Since it did not contain a proper definition of the term, I moved the article to Votebank politics in india and added a {{POV}} tag[6]. User:Ikonoblast immediately reverted both changes[7]. I reapplied the changes, and this led to an edit war where the page was moved back and forth and the template was applied and removed continuously [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16].
Finally, he stopped his reversions, but only after I created the new page [17]. At this point, he immediately listed this for deletion, the result of which was Keep[18]. At this point, User:Ikonoblast started getting really malicious. He tagged it and tried merging [19]. This started yet another revert war [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. Please also note that during each revert war, I made it a point to explain my actions on the talk pages Talk:Votebank and Talk:Votebank politics in India, but the responses made it amply clear that User:Ikonoblast was making the whole matter personal.
Finally, when you did merge it, I began a cleanup, as I had said I would do. At this point, he started YET another edit war, beginning by tagging the page with {{dubious}} tags - which make no sense whatsoever, and reverting all the material I had edited [30]. At the same time, he was feigning offense when some material he included was similarly tagged [31]. Yet another revert war began, this time with User:Hkelkar joining in [32], [33], [34], [35], [36].
That is the situation as it stands. I realise its a lot of information - I haven't even brought up the problems I had with Mamta Kulkarni. I hope you will agree that User:Ikonoblast's behaviour is a clear violation of WP:OWN, because I'm pretty sure that he is going to continue this petty behaviour till kingdom come. Thanks.Gamesmaster G-901:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. I'll try to go through that soon, but if it ends up taking me too long, feel free to take it to AN/I or RfC. Thanks for your patience. El_C01:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all I thank Gamesmasterg9 for toiling this much to defend himself (EL_C must look into it if he is really successful doing it or it).Few things he missed was presenting his movelogs including one anonymous move, and anonymously tagging of AfD (removed by user:Samir(the scope)) then tagging it again and after loosing Afd ,he started moving the article without citing anyreason ,dubiously created a separate article taking few lines from original article itself ,just to justify himself and obstruct restoration.You can also look at the talk pages to judge per WP:civility. Ikon |no-blast08:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have mentioned that I moved the pages. Why on earth would you think I am hiding it? Furthermore, I haven't made any edits or moves anonymously. How would it help me if I did?Gamesmaster G-916:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to register for the record that I am extremely disappointed by what you said earlier.. I recognize it as a genocide because there are casualty figures in the hundreds of thousands.. What is this?? Are you an international lawyer?? How can you claim to make such a statement?? Genocide is a legal term, not a layword.. Massacre is a layword.. I put an extremely detailed post on the talk page that responds directly to this claim, please read it before jumping the gun as you did at that point... This is exactly the reason why genocide recognition isn't left to ordinary people but to countries, academicians, lawyers and judges... Regards... Baristarim08:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have already read and responded to it (on the article talk page) but it isn't well referenced. I am an academician, and I recognize mass killings in the hundreds of thousands to be a genocide. And I hardly need to be an "internatonal lawyer" to be entitled to that opinion. El_C08:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's exactly what it is then, POV (Point of view) aka personal opinion... That's all I am saying... I am just pointing out the fact that Genocide is a legal term. For the sources, I have also responded to that.. This is such a minority opinion that there are no anti-theses. It is common sense, these events are supposed to have happened 90 years ago, and funny enough, in no school or university on earth (even in Greece until nine years ago) it is refered to as Genocide.. Even for the numbers, there are absolutely no numbers that have been derived using the Scientific Method, where do they come from?? If someone, by miracle, can confirm that number and its genocidal nature (legally speaking), I will also accept it.. Is it so hard to see that it is an extreme POV?? All the academic sites listed or sourced in the article are biased and written by Greeks.. That's all...Baristarim09:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As an academician, you can understand that certain terms have certain meanings.. Most people jump on the Genocide word as being the word that describes the worst massacres, but it isn't.. That's what I meant earlier by political correctness.. Massacre of 4000 people can be genocide as well.. In usage, genocide doesn't mean what its latin origin would suggest... It indicates an overriding (more important than anything considered) will and action.. With all due respect, you must see this? I respect your opinion, but throwing around such words so easily doesn't contribute to an academic debate, particularly on that talk page... Baristarim09:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, it has qualitative aspects as well, that's implied; but it also has quantitative ones, which is what I meant (i.e. 100 people is unlikely to be termed a genocide). Again, I am entitled to express my opinion in a single sentence (though it may subject to change on the basis of evidence), so your protest seem misplaced and misdirected, and this discussion is better suited to the article talk page. Thanks. El_C19:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re: September 2006 Thailand coup, for an article of this size 7,800 words long (40-50,000 characters, depending on how they are counted), a 1 paragraph introduction of 100 words is unacceptable. See Wikipedia guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead section#Length. The guidelines suggest 3-4 paragraphs. If you think that my summaries are not concise enough, then rewrite them. But please do not delete them. Patiwat12:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not deleting them, I am hiding them. They are not concise, the emphasis they lend to one or another development is imbalanced. El_C12:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm afraid that, despite warnings, ikonoblast continues to be tendentious in his edits as well as incivil and disrespectful to the editing process.In the article Laloo Prasad Yadav he made several POV edits, on which I have filed an RfC and wish for the relevant section to have an NPOV tag until it is resolved, the section being: #Institutional bias against Lalu He continues to edit war over this and make threats against me: [37] Could you please take a look at this matter? Thanks.Hkelkar19:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone that you reverted here [38] then changed the picture on your userpage. It has been on there for 5 hours, so maybe you don't mind or didn't notice. Never know, my hunch is that it probably should be changed back. DVD+ R/W 20:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Note: another person changed it back while I was writing this. DVD+ R/W20:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And while I'm here, I wanted to mention that I've stumbled across a couple of translations that you've made, one of a Yom Kippur War memo at Usertalk:Raul654 a couple of weeks ago, and another from the Babylonian Talmud at Wikiproject Judaism, and I'm really impressed by your ability at this. Regards, DVD+ R/W20:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm always a little hesitant of making requests because some people don't take requests. But, since you are so proficient at this I must ask. Could you have a look at he:צבי הקר an article about an architect I started an article on in English, and maybe, if you want, drop a translation into the article here? I would love to know what it says, but I can't read so good. Thanks, DVD+ R/W00:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
hey El C. you may recall putting up a note stating that off-topic discussions would not be allowed on the talk page. sadly, the soapboxing continues with some anon's or new accounts and User TharkunColl (talk·contribs) continuing to use the talk page as a forum for advocacy and personal evaluation of the subject, the latter user having already been warned about trolling in this manner on that talk page (although he has clearly ignored this and continued per [39], [40], [41] and maybe more). can anything be done about this? thank you. ITAQALLAH00:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you've made some contributions to the discussion there recently. I'd like to get your general view on the whole article, what you think of its title, its content, its sources etc. Thanks, --A.Garnet12:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again El_C. Well we brought a number of sources forward which state what the Greeks suffered was not genocide, they can be found in the discussion page. The other editors have found one or two sources which use the term genocide in reference to Pontians, but none of them serve to shed light on how the events unfolded. As such, the main body of the article is devoted to arguing over the term genocide, with barely any explanation of the events themselves. There is still no historical narrative to the event, no context and it still suffers from original research. A number of the sources used are also confusing two different events and locations i.e. the fate of Asia minor Greeks with the Black Sea or Pontian Greeks. There was a period where we had some third party involvement from User:Aldux and User:Francis Tyers, and both found the article to be lacking in credible sources. It is my opinion that for this article to change there has to be third party involvement, otherwise nothing seems to be achieved. Thanks, --A.Garnet23:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know El_C, i've become disheartened with the whole thing. Its not only this article. Articles like Cypriot refugee, blantant pov pushing, are popping up and being defended by the same group of people. In Pan-Turkism, again the same editors asked that i provide sources that Turkish Cypriots can understand Turkish, a ridicolous request in my opinion. In TRNC, their removing all mention of the word Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, adding illegal to any mention of it on Wikipedia. In Occupation of Izmir, they are asking for a rename because Greece cannot occupy their 'own'. What is the point of mediation, it may solve one article, but are we meant to enter into mediation in each of these cases? --A.Garnet22:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can request mediation, or if that attempt fails, comment, for multiple articles. It needs not be limited to just one if there is a clear pattern. If both those efforts fail to materialize, you can request the Arbitration Committee to intervene. El_C22:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed when you closed the above AfD, you did not remove the category template, "REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE
WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD". By deleting this when closing it pulls the discussion out of the category. I have
deleted it from this discussion, but if you could review any other closures you have done recently and
remove the tag from them it would be greatly appreicated. This is a fairly recent change. The official
policy is at WP:AFDC. I have been going through the listing in each of the categories CAT:AFD and
removing the tag from pages that are closed and adding the approriate category code for those in the
uncatagorised group. Thanks.--Gay Cdn(talk)(email)(Contr.)20:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the first section that you added to the article you helped me on, I keep thinking of that as personal advice to me from you. And I sort of wish I could. How did you learn to read so well, by the way? DVD+ R/W23:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Looking at the website's forum, it appears it has not yet reached sufficient notability so as to be included in North Africa. Thanks. El_C 07:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I'm afraid I do not see how it became notable since then, certainly to as the sole link for an article as significant as North Africa. Also, the forum is mostly not in English, making it even less suitable for the English Wikipedia. Even if the website was notable enough to warrant its own article, which I'm not sure it does, I still would object to the link in NA. Sorry. Regards, El_C21:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you reverted my userpage. What about the comment on User:Jiang that says Dalai Lama owns slave? Taiwan=shame and comment that says President Chen should be executed definitely violated WP:NPA according to your reasoning. This is obviously double-standard. An admin support my claim that userpage and talkpage doesn't fall under wikipedia rules. see [[42]], User:Nlu clearly states this is a userpage, not an article. [[43]] [[44]]. I got lots more if you're interested. Meanwhile, I already made it clear that until Jiang removed his PA and racist image toward Taiwanese I will not remove mine. Please help us to reach a peaceful resolution.--Bonafide.hustla04:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. As mentioned, you're not permitted to use offensive racial epithets, regardless of anything. I fail to see the racism in Jiang's page. El_C04:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Taiwan=shame is a clear display of racial hatred. The content include stuff slandering Dalai Lama and promoting China to invade Taiwan (communist propaganda). Jiang claimed he doesn' "endorse" the content on his page but I think it's a violation of WP:POINT and should be removed. The 2 diff. link I provided above is based on a discussion with admin User:Nlu who clearly pointed out that even if I put racist contents (for example making fun of the Muslim prophet Muhammad, he doesn't care 'cause he would only revert the article not my userpage/talkpage). So either way, please read the diff. link I provided above. The more likley reason you failed to see the racial hatred is I'm assuming you can't read Mandarin. Anyway thanks for looking into the situation.--Bonafide.hustla04:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How does it intimate that? It's about the Republic of China, not a race(!). Since you continue to revert, I'm protecting the page, for now. El_C05:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, did you read the diff. I provided? Race is a really vague concept. His image clearly insulted the 23 million Taiwanese population. While his outburst is allowed, mine isn't??--Bonafide.hustla05:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it's promoting violence against Taiwanese population and encourage communist invasion to Taiwan. In addition, it also make personal attack on President Chen and Dalai Lama. Can you unprotect my userpage after reading the diff. I provided above?--Bonafide.hustla06:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's promoting violence is subject to interpertation. The page will remain protected until I know the offensive material will not be reintroduced. El_C06:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see my userpage content being anymore offensive than Jiang's. Mine's targeting at Chinese while Jiang's is targeting Taiwanese (promote Chinese invasion, assassinate President, Taiwan=shame, etc). By telling me to remove the offensive contents on mine but not his seem to be quite trivial not to mention double-standard. I would respectfully advise you to contact User:Nlu who, accordingly to the diff. provided above, have different interpretation than yours regarding wikipedia regulations.--Bonafide.hustla07:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I already did a few months ago. I provided some diff. link above. Please read it and unprotect my talkpage or discuss with other admins. It seems to me that pro-China/communist influence is very high on here (i'm not accusing you of anythin because I assume you are neutral) but clearly this seems to be a blatant example of double standard (favoring China's annexation of Taiwan but disregard Taiwanese nationalistic feelings)--Bonafide.hustla03:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel my decision merits review, feel free to submitt such a request. Your arguments suffer from non sequiturs, and I see no reason why you should be allowed to have the "chinks" on your user page nor why Jiang's userpage is a problem, not to mention one of a similar (racial) nature. If it was within my mandate, I'd also remove your sexist, objectifying These chickz are too hot: Girlz shouldn't wear anythin'. El_C00:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both contains racial nature but mine deserved punitive actions while his isn't? Mine is actually a quote from a Taiwanese politician, so that is why I pointed out specifically that I don't endorse the quote. User:Nlu already pointed out that as long as no endorsement was stated, it might, just might, be a violation of wikipedia policy. Also, in regard to the sexist allegation, well I mean, I don't find it sexist or offensive at all. I'm just stating some girls that I really like. (they are like some of my fantasy girlfriends) And of course, all of us have had crushes and fantasies over these celebrities and wish to see them in scanty clothing. They are completely natural reaction. That is what this society stands for, more or less. Can't we just make wikipedia a little more humorous, a little more fun, a little more human? Anyway thanks for your attention. --Bonafide.hustla
You have yet to demonstrate the racial (certainly racist) nature for Jinag's image, on a very basic and definitional level. Also, I think the non-endorsement is a totally frivolous justification. As for the sexist heading, I was not implying such an intent, only that this is how it comes across. Human is good, but dehumanizing is not. I've been known to indulge in (un)healthy sexual innuendo around the wiki with some of my favourite female wikipedianates, although they start it! (where did they all go?), but Girlz shouldn't wear anythin is a bit much. El_C12:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've established that the alledgely racist heading is the one you're having problem with. Nevertheless, China=shame is strictly a statement about China, nothing better or worse than Taiwan=shame. I will remove the content under that heading (but not the heading itself) if those are the stuff that you're concern about and replace it by a quote of a Taiwanese politician. An unprotection is respectfully requested.--Certified.Gangsta19:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Granted. Please ensure that these comments are devoid of racial epithets and connotations. Purely political arguments are permitted. El_C22:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I might have missed a trick here - can you explain to me why the result of this debate was delete when the result from the vote count is actually even (6/0/6)? Are we deleting articles that show no overall concensus now or have I just miscounted? Mammal410:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not a vote. Most of those expressing support to keep were new or very new users. No convincing claims to notability were made. El_C19:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You closed this as delete, but the associated User:Modern Industry which I added to the nom (probably in a less than obvious way looking back at it) wasn't deleted. Will you delete this or shall I open a new MFD? Cheers, Yomanganitalk11:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How can you see the result as being in part "edit away the OR"? Three people expressed OR concerns, all of whom weren't part of the majority view to keep, and a number of contributors disagreed that OR was present- not to mention that implicitly, those who voted Keep were rejecting the idea that the article was OR. Gabrielthursday20:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My thanks for having closed the MfD on the Kingstonjr gallery. I think that may well have been a rather difficult decision to make. I do have one slight, marginally related question. I just recently noticed that there is a new proposal at Wikipedia:Galleries addressing how and when galleries can be permitted. I was going to post a link to the proposal on the MfD comments when I noticed that the discussion was closed. As you seem to be an admin, which I am not, do you have any suggestions on how I would go about letting people know that this proposal exists? I've never actually dealt with proposals before, so frankly I don't have a clue. If you do, please let me know. And, again, thank you very much for your fulfilling your admin duties, both in this instance and elsewhere. Badbilltucker15:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the note. I'm not an admin, so my actions are pretty much limited to voicing my opinion. That, I've already done. Take care, Mexcellent 04:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, somehow I was sure you were one. I have no problem taking administrative action (unblock) on your behalf, but if you decide to take over the case, I'd expect for you to actively keep an eye on the matter. Let me know if you're interested and we'll go from there. Best, El_C04:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Russian yield est.
Hi -- I moved the Russian yield estimate out of the lead of the North Korea article. Even when it was announced it was very much at odds with all other estimates (even, it now appears, with what the North Koreans estimated their yield would have been in the most ideal circumstances) and the "5-15 kilotons" line itself seems at odds with their own seismic readings (there is an interesting but brief discussion of this here — and yes, it is a blog, but the blogger in question is the head of the Managing the Atom policy program at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, so he's not just some guy off the street, to say the least). In any case, as time goes on almost all other sources have put it in the sub-kiloton range, and even the most optimistic don't put it anywhere near the Russian estimate. Personally I doubt even the Russians would still hold strong to that. So, whatever the case behind the Russian estimate, I don't think it should be in the lead (I of course support it being in the yield section of course). Hope that makes sense. --Fastfission14:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Or, maybe the DPRK were able to master nuclear weapon minituarization! Heh. Anyway, what I, myself, at the time thought was plausible to have happned was that Beijing (or Pyongyang directly) called the Russian and told em, "DPRK is about to detonate 5-to-15kt device, arm your children," and the Russians just went with it (this is somewhat similar to Dr Jeffrey Lewis' explanation). Note that Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Ivanov said he had "no doubt" the blast was nuclear[45] (whatever the fizzle that means! i.e. stacking 5kt worth of tnt would be... wow). But I put in the lead then because I found it of some significant that one of two of the world's greatest nuclear power stated the blast was, at minumum, ten times than what everyone now says it was. Do you know if they revised their yield estimates or said anything about the successful or lack thereof operability of the device? We should look into it. Best, El_C21:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ITN headline
I removed the ITN headline you added regarding Ecuadorian run-off elections, because I believe it really isn't necessary to have a headline about an upcoming event. I think it would be best to actually add the headline when the run-off actually occurs, and the final results are tabulated. Thanks. If you have any comments, feel free to message me back. Nishkid6421:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's going to a run-off because no one was able to obtain a majority in the general election. This is not the final result. I just don't see why it's necessary to announce that an election will head to the second round. Wouldn't it just be better to put in the news item when the results of the second-round run-off occur? Nishkid6400:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the DRC one was the 1st election since 1960, so your point is not entirely invalid. Still, I believe it is ITN-worthy. El_C00:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for contributing to my RFA. Unfortunately it failed (final tally 26/17/3). As a result of the concerns raised in my RFA, I intend to undergo coaching, get involved in the welcoming committee and try to further improve the quality of my contributions to AFD and RFA. All the best. Cynical14:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey El C, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoikhoi04:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it wasn't unsigned ... rather it looks like one you posted on his user page and he wanted me to believe that you meant it for me. Sorry to bother you. Duke53 | Talk06:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[Watch this is as the top of the page, so I'm not following that postscript] Yes, that comment was directed to you, I see now that s/he appeared to have copied it to your talk page and bolded it for emphasis. Hope that helps. El_C08:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute
Hi. I would really appreciate if you could find a minute and have a look here: [47]
Sarah Ewart has been so kind as to try help resolve my dispute with Khosrow. I would appreciate your input as well. It looks like the more people are involved in this is the better. Thanks in advance. Regards, Grandmaster18:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to being generally updated, perhaps a renaming would be in order so as to reflect the focus on the commissions, of which the soldiers' protest is only one aspect? TewfikTalk19:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Better than renaming, material should be split to a Winograd Commission (the protest is not actually one aspect of the commission/s but rather relates to it was shaped, etc.). As for updating, I think there was maybe one more protest I've yet to cover. Certainly, the as of in the lead can be supplanted; it's always problematic to introduce an entry this way, in that one needs to actively watch over it — although at least it's better to have ir flatly out there — see my changes to the African Union Mission in Sudan for example, where incidentally I now use as of as well (reminder to self about that). Anyway, when I'll attend to it when I get a chance. Feel free to start without me, though. El_C23:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cuba Tourism article caught in the crossfire
Hi El C, I wonder if you'd be intersted in taking a look at the discussion at Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba. The article was originally created seemingly due to various disputes about the word apartheid in reference to Israel. It was my understanding that the Cuba apartheid article was to be merged with Tourism in Cuba, when that page became significantly more than just a stub. Having now worked on the Tourism in Cuba page - and followed the various calls for a merge between the apartheid in Cuba and tourism in Cuba page - it seems that editors from the apartheid outside South Africa article have swooped in to oppose this. I hope I'm not breaching WP:AGF by presuming that the actual motives for opposing this perfectly logical and uncontroversial merge, is to do with disputes on other pages concerning the word apartheid in the context of Israel. In which case I don't think it's helpful for readers or editors that the portrayal of another small embattled nation should get caught in the crossfire and suffer as a result. It seems an extraordinary precedent to set to oppose this merge and one which fringes on WP:POINT. Your thoughts would be of great help.--Zleitzen18:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not a vote. Most of those expressing support to keep were new or very new users. No convincing claims to notability were made. El_C05:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps new users, but users nonetheless. The even is real and it is notable to thousands of foreigners living in Tokyo, of which I am one. I disapprove of the event, but that's not the point. Does something have to be notable to the world? It seems to me that you were very high handed about this and you disregarded a consensus. I really don't feel like pursuing this further, but my feeling is you were quite wrong to delete the page. Vincent06:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's documented in local papers and on local internet pages. One of the top Google hits is with CrissCross, a company that owns "Metropolis", Tokyo's foremost foreign community magazine. Documentation might not meet the high standards of academia, but it's wrong to say it's merely anectodal. The fact is that you are not here and you are therefore a poor judge of this, at least on grounds of factuality. Vincent06:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not expect academic notice; but greater mention in mainstream media sources is needed to establish notability. El_C06:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Yamanote Halloween Train. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vfp15 (talk • contribs) .
Sorry, unintentional. But then I'm not an expert wiki-er and I had to spend a long time reading the procedure. This should also underscore my point: recent users who begin participating in a keep/delete debate perhaps fail to sign their comments for the same reason viz. they are unfamiliar with wiki arcana.
Also, shouldn't we all assume good faith? For example, that SF user (San Francisco?) could have been travelling in London, or he could be working in San Francisco for a hotel chain based in London so the proxy server's IP address would in London. Vincent07:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Np. I'll comment there now. I expressed no opinion about the location of the various ips, so assume that I assumed good faith. El_C07:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the guy who created the initial article. Your comment about "No convincing claims to notability" is pretty bizarre considering the wide-ranging arcana that routinely passes muster throughout wikipedia. Regarding my being "single-purpose", I have contributed edits and corrections to many articles -anonymously- but this was the first article I created, so I logged in to do it because I thought that was what I supposed to do. Regarding "Unresponsive", I saw some comment (I am guessing yours) about a need for more sources, but did not understand it to mean that I was expected to provide further references: I assumed it was bad for a single contributor to completely own an article, that it was better if the contributions came from many places. It would have been thoughtful of you to leave the article up past Halloween so the participants in this years' event could contribute to it. I would sign this post properly except I recently changed computers and my (saved) login is not on this machine, so I currently have no idea what my login is. Is there any way to send me that article so I can give it another go? Thanks, Mark H.
Hello. Most of those expressing support to keep appeared to have been SPAs on account of them having few —if any— edits outside that AfD. Irrespectvely, I neither named yourself, nor anyone specific for that matter, as an SPA (why would I crae to or bother to do so?). Sure, the deleted contents can be made available so you can attempt to add (and please read closely the guidline) reliable sources to it. I've placed it on User talk:El C/Yamanote HT. Let me know when you have copied its contents and I'll delete it again. If you wish to recreate it later, just present the additional sources. That in itself should be enough to tell if it's sufficiently notable. Hope that makes sense. Regards, El_C04:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey El C, since you took the initial action and seem like a reasonable fellow (From the Deletion review) I decided instead of waiting a few more days for a response from another admin I was talking to, I would just come straight to you. Since the cause of the deletion seems to have been a dearth of reliable sources, I provided multiple sources (I realize that one of them linked directly to a youTube after an explanation and thats considered not kosher, but in this case since it was indisputable footage of hundreds of people at the event I figured it was ok). However, I was told by Guy (Admin I mentioned earlier) that I needed multiple mainstream coverage and I simply do not see how I can acquire that as I'm not a resident of Japan nor a native speaker. Furthermore, I believe this is following the letter of the law but not the spirit. I have provided and can provide more evidence including pictures, videos, and various sources corroborating the event and its history, which I believe prove that this is in fact a real annual cultural event in Japan. If you have any advice as to how I should continue to see this article undeleted (Or remade, I can do that too) it would be most appreciated. Thanks for reading. Isikari00:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
110k of the bd's total 280. I'm certainly not inclined to read and participate in it with all that scrolling. People can find it by following the link. El_C03:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How so? It says moved to [link]. What makes it hard? Basically, ANI has outlived its usefulness as a venue for that discussion. El_C04:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It messes up archiving because people who don't know where to find it in the future go from archive to archive searching for key words or key user names. If the thing has been moved, the search won't return anything and the discussion won't be found. That's why it's better to leave things where people expect to find them and have them archived in the normal way. The thread has been split up into several headers anyway, so it's just the same as if there were a number of different discussions. SlimVirgin(talk)04:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The header is should be enough. Since the discussion is ongoing, it is only going to get larger. I'll put it up for disussion. El_C04:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just leave it for a bit, El C, please. A consensus has formed and we need to see whether it holds. Interrupting it now may affect that, and then you-know-who will try to use that in his favor. SlimVirgin(talk)05:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message. The Chinese casualty figures are based on internally circulated documents and hospital figures - these are not public claims. However, they would seem to roughly correspond to what the Chinese have been saying for 25 years about their casualty numbers, so I would say that they are the best estimate on the basis of the available evidence. It is a bit cluttered at the minute - I would be inclined to delete what each side claimed about the other's casualty figures, and just go with the most up-to-date numbers we have. Cripipper11:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I strongly feel that we should include the PRC and Vietnamese claims, since their governments dispute the figures. It's also useful to have outside estimate for the number of those killed, per se. Your last version was inaccurate and unbalanced because it had only one mention for the PRC —their own— which you failed to attribute to them, making it appear as if this is Zhang's own conclusion, but as mentioned, Zhang says "Chinese sources categorize the PLA’s losses as 6900..." I think what we have is decent enough, for now. To reiterate, I think it's noteworthy what each side says they lost and what they say the other side lost, and having outside estimates (Zhang for VPA, Clodfelter for both). That said, I'm not inclined to expand it at this time by adding additional estimates. But certainly, having the PRC with only one mention of 6,900 losses (crucially, unattributed as a PRC claim) while Vietnam is depicted as 10-to-10s of thousands is too pro-PRC of a presentation. (Stars and Stripes says 13,000 PLA to 8,000 VPA losses.) Thank you. El_C21:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am content to leave it as it is, but would point out that the Chinese figures come from internal secret documents and hospital records, which would certainly present themselves as the strongest evidence available, as opposed to pure speculation, which is what all the other figures are. Cripipper13:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is fair enough and it is indeed likely that recently-released documents published by the Medical Section of the Department of Logistics of the Guangzhou Military Region, et al. are the most accurate indicator we have for PRC casualties (certainly, it is the most specific figure we have on the infobox; the only one in the hundreds). On the other hand, I'm unsure if (at this time) it reflects historiographical consensus (by Western, Vietnamese, etc. scholars). Zhang does not provide us with an entirely comprehensive account, and from what I can see, and perhaps I missed something, all he tells us is that "[a]n internal record shows that 10,202 wounded soldiers were having received treatment in 17 hospitals in the Guangzhou Military Region" and that "[s]everal unofficial Chinese sources also reveal that the casualties were lighter in Yunnan with 2,812 killed and 5,074 wounded" (p.867). Perhaps I should just quote Zhang in the ref, does that sound sensible? El_C22:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for assistance: as I've never had a username or opened an RFC, I have little experience in the area of creating them. I noticed you were involed in Adam's. He's got a real attitude problem, and is treating anyone without a username like scum. I'm working on a list of diffs demonstrating his disgraceful behavior and need to know how I would go about getting said list out. Do I somehow create a second RFC that describes his behavior, or do I add to the old one and hope someone responds to it, despite the fact that it's more than six months old? Any help would be greatly appreciated. --172.194.72.6823:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. It is really up to you. Anonymous editors are of course to be treated with the same courtesy as registered accounts. You can present some of the diffs here first, if you like. Since I do not know what your dispute entails, I'm refraining from further comment. Regards, El_C05:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well here we go:
Examples of Adam treating anons badly/warning them out of line/being a jerk, etc...:
[48] Claiming he will have an anon blocked for a good-faith edit [49] The anon obviously didn't realize that the election isn't officialy over and made a mistake. The anon then asked what (s)he had done wrong [50], which I responded to [51]. Adam jumped back in and insulted the anon saying that he "must know" that Tester isn't yet a senator, and that he's "wasting other people's time" and that Adam is "much less tolerant of anons". [52]
An older version of his talk page said that he will not respond to comments by unregistered users, instead putting "When you become a registered Wikipedian I will be happy to discuss this matter with you" I left him a message (it wasn't a kind message by any means, but it was true) [53]. He responded with the usual [54]. I told him that his total lack of respect for us unregistered users is disgraceful, [55], which he deleted along with everything on his talk page. [56]. He also added that any anon comments will now be deleted. I was mildly surprised that my message could have such an impact, but still insulted that he would delete it without so much as a response. I told him that the way he treats anons is wrong and I would open an RFC-without using a username, mind you (hence, I need to ask for help)-[57], which he promptly erased. [58]
Deleting an unsigned comment instead of adding the {{unsigned}} template [59]. then removing more "as per policy" [60].
[61] Anon giving a kind, helpful message that was quite friendly. Adam completely ignored it.
[62], which doesn't seem that bad until you see that the anon's edit was in good faith [63] (edit summary of his revert: [64]
[65]Biting a registered user, saying that it's more offensive to vandalise articles on his watchlist, and on his favorite articles.
[66] Telling someone to register if they want to edit-he didn't give them a suggestion, he blatently said that they have to register.
[67] More threats to an anon about Adam's watchlist. (Note also that he deleted the bot warning)
[74] Anon making a good-faith edit, trying to fix Adam's talk page (he did, in fact, fix the page), which Adam reverted without so much as an edit aummary or a message to the anon. [75]
Adam recieved multiple warnings that he deleted, and someone in passing restored [76]. He continues to delete comment rather than archive.
That example clearly indicates a failure to assume good faith and needlessly combative attitude. But, with respect to user talk pages, removal of good faith comments, while dsicouraged, is allowed (this includes blanket removal of anons comments). I do not believe it would be out of line to create a User:Carresponse and note on the user page that it is used soley to communicate on his talk page due to his anon policy (and it would take 20 seconds to create such an account).
Again, he is entitled to remove comments from anons just as anons may open an RfC on that practice (and are not obliged to register an account toward that end).
The removal of (unsigned or otherwise) comments from article talk pages, unlike from user talk pages, is a violation of policy. Unless the comments are not made in good faith, no one has the authority to do so. El_C23:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See above.
The revert and edit summary seem fine; the edit on the anon's talk page, however, is needlessly combative.
I'm not sure the response to that vandalism was biting; and in fact, I agree with him that "it is particularly offensive to vandalise articles on topics like Wannsee Conference."
He said "[p]lease become a registered Wikipedian if you are intending to continue editing articles." Now, if the anon would have asked 'do I have to' and was answered by a yes, then that would misrepresent policy, but otherwise, it is a suggestion (i.e. as opposed to 'you must register an account,' etc.)
I don't think it's inappropriate for him to refer to his watchlist (though I, myself, would not phrase it that way). Removing the bot warning may have been in error.
See above.
I am also sick of the ROM/FYROM battles, so I can sympathize. In fairness, he is not obliged to debate anons or anyone, though I, myself, strongly disagree with that position.
See above. Again, he entitled to argue (by implication or otherwise) that "any articles on his watchlist are more important that any other article," even if others consider that position to be in error.
At least there's an actualy edit summary! He is, however, permitted to argue that "anonymous people should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia."
The New South Wales High Schools saga goes beyond the scope of this, but in fairness, others have made similar arguments due to volume of vandalism from these ips.
Yes, well, it's nice to be heroic. :) I, myself, usually block after the first or second warning, and I never use templates.
That was an irrational revert; he should have kept the anon's edit, or at least used an edit summary which reads: 'I would rather have my talk page unreadable than keep any fixes from anons.' Oh well, maybe next time!
My block log is as lengthy, though mostly involves accidental self-blocks (a measure of my comptenece!).
Overall, there are few, if any, actual policy violations listed above, though the general attitude/conduct is (or rather, remains) problematic. But even if every bulletpoint involved a policy violation, it is likely that he'd be allowed to continue to operate as he does, since: 1. he contributes a lot of content. 2. his political orientation outside the prism of the welfare State is highly reactionary, so he can count on the continued supported of key members from the Wikipedia Establishment, as it largely reflects their own political views which they wish to see reflected in articles. Keep all that in mind if and/or when you consider your next step. Hope that helps. G'luck. El_C23:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that's what I was afraid of; his being a highly active contributor would prevent any long-term implications of his behavior. Mostly I just thought he was being a jerk and should be reprimended for civility. I was just going to pop in and out of his talk page once in a while until he responded (not trolling, just asking questions), but when I was checking to see how to create RFC's, I accidently found he already had one. It's got better diffs than I provided, but I was in a bit of a hurry to begin with...
Anyway, thanks for the help. I'll probably take some time to think about how exactly to go about responding to his rudeness (RFC, get an account to debate him, etc), then act. I'll let you know if anything develops. --172.194.140.14501:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RfA thanks
Hi El C, and thanks very much for your support during my recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 64/0/0. I am grateful for the overwhelming support I received from the community, and hope I will continue to earn your trust as I expand my participation on Wikipedia. It goes without saying that if you ever need anything and I can help, please let me know. Wait, I guess it does go with saying. ; ) --cholmes75(chit chat)22:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My RfA passed with a tally of 71/1/0. Thank you very much for your support. I hope that my performance as an admin will not disappoint you. Please let me know if you see me doing anything inappropriate. -- Donald Albury10:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey El C, I have a favor to ask of you. I need a quote, something like the "אם בארזים נפלה שלהבת" one. This is for something I volunteered to help with in the next couple of weeks. Do you have one for me, or can you tell me some places to look? DVD+ R/W21:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I got lots. Try Hebraic proverbs. Their translations are at times off, so feel free to bring whatever you've chosen here and I'll doublecheck it. Here are two cat-related ones: אל תקנה חתול בשק (don't buy a cat in a bag - meaning: do not buy an uncertain good) and אל תתן לחתול לשמור על השמנת (don't let the cat guard the cream - meaning: don't give something to someone who is likely to take it for themselves; for example, the imperialists and the planet). And one of my favourites: חיים ומוות ביד הלשון (life and death in the hands of the tongue - meaning: what you say can have decisive consequences; for example, the imperailists are going to have me killed for what I said above!). El_C22:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident needs some cleaning up and expansion, the problem we have had is that a number of users like Striver and Burgas00, members of the "Muslim Guild", have been incessantly trying to POV push in this, and they created another POV fork (deletion nomination Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israeli_shelling_of_Beit_Hanoun here, POV fork named Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun), slammed a bunch of propaganda into it, and then "suggested" a merge trying to shoehorn their POV content into the main article. Until we get it down so there's only ONE article, improving is going to be difficult even without the rest of their POV-pushing antics. RunedChozo23:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have anything to say about Mr. Bryant's supposed neutrality, but we can't have two articles on one item like this. POV forking is POV forking, and the evidence is very plain on the matter. I'd encourage having the article Mr. Bryant refers to deleted, but I'm already on record as saying so seeing that I'm the one who nominated it for deletion, so I suppose my suggestion might not carry much weight in the matter. RunedChozo23:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. When I said "consistant", I was meaning "if you are gonna close one speedy, you're endorsing that it is the non-POV fork of the two articles, so by definition you should close the other one as Speedy Delete and redirect". Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) stipulates that the right article name was kept. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant[ T · C ]23:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. No, I'm not making such an endorsement. This, as I mention above, is about forking. If editors feel the entry should be renamed, they're free to pursue that through the normal channels. Had the title order been reversed, I'd have done the same thing. El_C07:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have it marked as closed - speedy delete but you haven't deleted it yet. I almost deleted it but figured given how controversial the matter is it might make more sense to wait for you to do it and/or make sure that you intended for it to be deleted. In any event, I think deleting following by making a redirect might make more sense since it seems like a reasonable search term for the matter. JoshuaZ00:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously telling me that you are buying into the notion that i created the article in bad faith as a pov fork? As an, admin you should know about the very first line of WP:POV fork: A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject.
On what grounds are you accepting that i created the article in bad faith? Did you even contact me? This is totally irresponsible, also, wikipedia policies demand that history is kept for merges. And if that is not enough, by pure chance, i happened to create the article that had a NPOV name. I urge you to reconsider your decision to close as a delete, speicaly considering that most people argued for a keep. In fact, the only reason (as i see) for closing delete is that a user that got blocked for 24 (48 for his sock) hours for this very issue influenced you.
It was a fork; I wasn't intimating intent, just that it was one. I left the entry undeleted for a few hours, which should have been enough time for merging anything pressing. El_C07:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, it was Daniel.Bryant that argued for the speedy delete. Well, i argue that both should have been speedy merge. There is no facts supporting the argument of me creating it as a POV fork, it was a content fork. I feel offended that an admin accepts such an strong accusation as truth without any facts supporting the accusation. Specially when it results in the deletion of part of my edit history on wikipedia--Striver00:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just seeing this now, but for the record, I take great offense that a POV pusher like Striver is now accusing me of having a "sock" of someone else. It seems to me just one more tactic by someone who has no interest in real, encyclopedic, NPOV articles and is trying to make them as nasty as possible towards one side. RunedChozo16:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Operation Summer Rains
I noticed you moved it back to the name "2006 israel-gaza conflict" and blocked future moves saying that it was moved there months ago, and while this is true, we actually held a discussion and decided that this was the incorrect name. The Al Aqsa Intifada is the wider conflict for which Operation Summer Rains is a part, it is not a new conflict in and of itself (unlike in Lebanon, where there was no ongoing armed conflict.) It was talked about here specifically. It would be good if you could either bring up your objections there so we can discuss it, or you unblock it from moves so that it can be placed back in its proper place. ~Rangeley (talk)22:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with what you are saying is that there is a confusion between armed conflicts and general animosity towards each other which is labeled a conflict. The 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict was an armed conflict which has ended, and was in turn part of the general Israel-Lebanon conflict, a specific part of the general Arab-Israeli conflict. In the case of both the Israel-Lebanon and the Arab Israeli conflict, these could not be viewed as wars, but instead, sort of like the Cold War, were states of animosity between parties in which conflicts and wars were a part. The 1973 Yom Kippur War is an example of an armed conflict within this general conflict. An individual operation of the 1973 Yom Kippur War could not be viewed as a new conflict on its own, but instead would be billed correctly as a part of the pre-existing armed conflict. This is the situation we are in with Operation Summer Rains. There is no such thing as the 2006 Israel-Gaza Conflict, because the armed conflict under which Operation Summer Rains began under was also pre-existing. This armed conflict is the Al Aqsa Intifada. Other operations that were begun in this armed conflict have been Operation Days of Penitence, Operation Rainbow, and many more. When each one began, they were not labeled brand new conflicts, but instead were included correctly in the Al Aqsa Intifada. Operation Summer Rains, which has already ended [78], was no different then Operation Days of Penitence in that it too was merely a part of the Al Aqsa Intifada, though it did seem to get more press coverage. Operation Autumn Clouds is not a sub operation in Summer Rains as Summer Rains has ended. As operations within an armed conflict are not armed conflicts within themselves, labeling them as such is inaccurate, despite it being done in hopes of acheiving neutrality. In cases like this, just like in cases of operations within the Iraq or Afghanistan wars (such as Operation Medusa, Operation Swarmer), the operation names are used as article names because they really cant be named differently. This is ofcourse different than with the armed conflicts themselves, but we are not dealing with the armed conflict itself, but instead merely operations within these conflicts. ~Rangeley (talk)22:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect, it has not ended; these are suboperations, see the IDF website or the Hebrew Wikipedia which lists them as such in its lead (מבצעי משנה). The reason it is called the 2006 conflict is, in part, due to disengagement a year before. El_C22:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is ended! You trust Hebrew wikipedia? well, me too. So I went there and what I saw? This list is there, but there is no single reference for it! But someone started it! Do you know who? I'll tell you. It was User:Newlast. Is there a summary, why he did so? no there's, none. May be we could ask him personally? unfortunately, his last edit was 4 month ago, on 18 of July, 2006 (and first one on 3rd of July, 2006 btw). So, there is still another source, which you were announcing all over the English wp. The only thing is - it's not official, so what I can easily imagine - journalist went to Hebrew wp and found there non-sourced ideas posted by inexperienced editor. I'm still asking you for a decent official source. Otherwise - that conflict is over! and not only it - that list of sub operation would be an original research! And conflict would be over in July!!!! Cheers and good luck -- tascwordsdeeds11:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, do you have an official source where a formal announcement is made that OSR has been concluded? Yes or not? El_C11:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some of you seem to think that proving a negative is fair request, asking me to find an official source that OSR has-not-been concluded. But it is you who maintain it was concluded (in August), so where is the official source with the formal statement? El_C11:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
EL_C! I'm talking now about OSR consisting from other operation! do you have a single hint from IDF official website regarding it? or we have to trust your reliable source. -- tascwordsdeeds12:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you not answering the question? It strikes me as fairly straight-forward. Operation Samson's Pillars was presented as part of OSR. But they seem delete some stuff as they update. El_C12:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, evil idf, deleting proof. May be you could find them in google cache? Anyway, let's divide our discussion into two parts. 1st - i gave enough proof I think to show that OSR consisting from few other operations idea is flawless. It was invented by user in the middle of the night, and 4 month later published by journalist, who doesn't care to check sources. 2nd - Whether OSR is over. I don't have official statement from IDF. And you don't have a single update regarding OSR since beginning of August. -- tascwordsdeeds12:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the IDF site does not cache. If they do not announce it to be over, I consider it ongoing, especially since operations continue. The onus is on you to find them stating that it has been concluded. El_C12:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not, one of its objectives (Shalit) has not been met, and it is no longer summer. This dosen't mean it was concluded. Again, you are asking me to prove a negative. Again, where is the announcement it has been concluded? El_C12:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You assume that all information is freely available which might be not true. I stick to the fact - if three month officials don't mention operation, we could easily say that it's over. Of course it doesn't mean that it's over. We have quite a number of never ending events. -- tascwordsdeeds12:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I don't have confirmation that OSR is over, but it doesn't mean that it's ongoing. What we can say is that - end of OSR wasn't officially announced, but no updates were released since August.
And I like El_C how you totally ignoring fact of original research you're promoting. OSR doesn't consist from all these operation! You don't have a single official info! -- tascwordsdeeds12:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So it's over without being officially announced? Sounds like a guess. You did not review the sources closely (see the Air Force ref, for ex). El_C12:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The actions of another editor has caused me to review the policies regarding stalking. In the article it stated there were hundreds of editors to assist in monitoring problem editors, but when I clicked the link, it took me to the same statement. The article did state that you opposed the self-nominated mediator request of Coolcat; so I am contacting you for assistance. If I should go somewhere else, please direct me.
The editor in question is Duke53. He seems to show up on many of the articles I edit[79] calling edits vandalism, he copies my edits from other articles into other articles[80], copied from here[81]. He states that he was aware of the edit because it is on his watchlist, but when I did a "what links here" and a search, Duke53 did not come up. He comments on pages where he has never participated and made inappropriate comments[82]. He insists that only his point of view will remain and threatens that I and all others will be reverted[83]. I have made numerous warnings on his talk page, but without any change in behavior[84][85][86][87]
I have not attempted to make an exhaustive or complete list of incidents, but just a brief overview. I am obviously biased because of ongoing conflicts with this editor, but I do request that someone track his future edit history to determine if he truly is culpable of stalking and other forms of harassment. Storm Rider(talk)02:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What article was that? Yes, I remember refusing Coolcat as mediator. I did so because we were already engaged in official mediation at the time and already had a mediator assigned to the case (Danny). I'll try to review the above soon, but in the event of a specific (current/ongoing) incident, you may bring this to the incidents noticeboard's attention. You may also pursue other forms of dispute resolution, such as a conduct RFC where the dispute can be presented in a more organized and comprehensible format. Hope that helps. El_C04:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"If you have the capacity to tremble with indignation every time that an injustice is committed in the world, then we are comrades. – Che.".
Excellent.
First accept my apology for mentioning mischievous non-Hindu editors. I just wanted to refer the anonymous editor involved in nefarious activities as mischievous non-Hindu editor and was not meant in general sense.
I can see the above sentence to be at top of your values. I want you to be my comrade in protecting Hinduism from nefarious activities of other religionists. Some anonymous editor included some nefarious external website links in Hinduism. I removed it. The editor, placed the same for discussion on talk page. It met strong opposition. I removed the links even from talk page as it is subversive way to place such nefarious links, intentions of which can not be presumed to be good. Abecedare strives to have them on talk page in the name of Wikipedia policy. Should something malice be allowed to remain on talk page under Wikipedia policy? Should Wikipedia policy be allowed for convenient interpretation to support un-rightous moves? How can you help? Will you kindly see the page where you put your comments and talk page of Hinduism for anti-Hindu rubbish?
Hello. I need some background information first, because I am not fammilliar with this dispute. What did you find most questionable about the links, specifically? Also, what was the problem with them being linked —and in what context were they linked— on the talk page? Regards, El_C04:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you are interested here is the background discussion on
And here are (some) of the diffs I objected to: [88], [89] And even though I consider this information irrelevant: I was not the anon. user who posted the original message and links. I'll let you read and come to your own conclusions. Abecedare05:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Israel intro re-write
I've restored the consensus version for now; your version was intensely political, which distorts what Israel is really about. Let's work something out in Talk:. Jayjg (talk)23:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's highly dissapointing. If I'm just going to be blindly reverted, I'm wasting my time. A travel/ranking guide is not an encyclopedic lead. El_C23:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, thanks for your note. I don't particularly want to get involved in editing this article, particularly as I know some other people see me as being hostile to the topic - not that I would accept this - but I have made some comments on the talk page. I am intrigued, though, by the idea that a version which gives a basic and undisputed historic background is intensely political, while a version which instead devotes space to the merits of Israel's political system compared with those of its neighbours isn't. Palmiro | Talk23:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've written lead paragraphs for many tens of country entries, but I'm beginning to realize that this is a(n intensely political) lost cause. El_C23:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you're looking for something else to do, Syria and Lebanon both need attention (not so much the leads, but bloat and lack of balance in the articles themselves) that I don't have the time to give them... Palmiro | Talk23:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not willing to give up so quickly. While I wrote the lead paragraph for Lebanon (the pre-2006 conflict one, at least), I have not looked into the detail of the entire article. I'll try to give both entries a glance soon. El_C23:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
El thanks
I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me at RFA (especially from someone of such established Wikipedia tenure), and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future. Cheers! -- nae'blis23:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had my doubts about a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the way it caught fire and inexorably drifted to the ground in flames, causing quite a stir on its way down. Still, it was encouraging to see the level of support and confidence. Thank you for yours, and I hope I'll still have it the next time around. KafzielTalk13:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou El C for your consistent contributions to modern conflict articles on WP. BigHaz kindly nominated this article. I know you write a lot, so in future, feel free to self-nominate like the majority! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as you indefinitely block Daniel575 (who identified himself as being dutch with every opportuniy), 217.132.130.193 comes and starts taking up all of Daniel575's old causes. I checked, and 217.132.130.193 is a Dutch IP address. Some of his edit explanations are oddly similar to Daniel's, and his discussion comment (the one I checked) is exactly the same style as Daniel575's (down to the ridiculing). I think 217.132.130.193 is a sockpuppet, and should similarly be banned. Thanks.--Meshulam15:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
as it stands your closing, looks really odd, you appear to have introduce a new point to the debate & closed it because of that point at the same time. were you aware that it had been resubmitted 2nd dec, so it isn't 5 days yet? ⇒bsnowball11:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Four days is fine. And that wasn't a new (or any) point, it was a random example where the term is used. I can find many others like it. El_C11:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Azerbaijan
Hi EI C. I have a problem with User:Khosrow II, who keeps including his personal interpretations of facts into the main article about Azerbaijan. Would you mind to have a look? It’s been discussed endlessly, but he keeps on inserting the same baseless statements in the etymology section. Thanks in advance. Grandmaster13:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Universalgenius has just moved lots of posts from several different topics on two different User Talk Pages to the Discussion Page on the France 24 article. I object to my posts being moved here, and the whole thing is extremely incoherent. Could you please remove this addition to the France 24 discussion page ? --Aquarelle09:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But what would be the tune? "Way Down Upon the Swannee River? "America the Beautiful"? "The British Grenadier"? "Roddy McCorley"? "She'll Be Coming 'Round the Mountain"? "Sweet Betsy from Pike"? "The Patriot Game"? None of these quite fit -- either the number of syllables is wrong or the emphasis is wrong ("niceNESS" unstead of "NICEness"). Once again we must resort to "Greensleeves", with its generous allowances for multiple syllables per note or vice versa. ("Deletionist" takes up three notes, "Kittens" one, "Nice" two.)
A- las, my lo-ove, you do me wro-ong,
Dark Mis-tress of the De-le- shnist Ca- bal
to cast me o-off dis-cour-teous-ly...
a-gainst Kitt'ns, Smi-lies, and Ni- ice- ness.
I would welcome suggestions for any better fitting tune. – SAJordantalkcontribs11:24, 7 Dec 2006 (UTC).
Hi. I'm acting as advocate for an editor who has been having issues with Mitsos. As part of the DR process, we have opened an RfC in order to get community input on behavior that several users feel is uncivil and biased. Seeing as how you have interacted with Mitsos in the past, we would appreciate any input you may have on the matter. Please visit the Request for Comment page and leave your thoughts. Thanks very much, →Bobby←15:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Why did you delete the lumanarium links in the Donne article? They are not greatly important, but I found them useful. Rintrah13:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am astonished you took it on yourself to remove such a mass of very useful Links. The question is NOT how many are there NOR do I care who put them on. The only question is - have they improved Wikipedia? Answer - Yes! I think you have made a big mistake and now each article affected is much the poorer. I am sure whoever placed those Links will be very baffled and very annoyed. Can you explain?. By the way I have no connection with the Links, I just want to see the best possible Wikipedia. The task of restoring the lot will be huge - Adrian Pingstone14:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All the links have advertisement. Some of them pointed to Project Gutenberg links already noted in the articles. Best to stick to selected insertions. Not every existing luminarium entry needs to be linked to its respective Wikipedia article. El_C15:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there are links to adverts, but these are offset by the usefulness of the main material. I very strongly disagree with what you have done but will have to leave it at that. - Adrian Pingstone15:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, if you're familliar with specific instances in which you found these to have been helpful, you are invited to restore the links. You can also submitt a list of these entries here and I'll auto-restore them for you. But I am not, however, inclined to restore all of them at this time. El_C15:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I read the discussion, and agree you were warranted in deleting them the first time; a user adding links en masse as his only contributions should be suspected for unsolicited advertising. The lumaniarium article on Donne is well written, and though I do not like advertising, is useful. I think this link should be restored. Thank you for referring me to the discussion. Best wishes, Rintrah15:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. If you know of others like it, please restore those, too. Above, Arpingstone has strongly objected to the removal, which prompts me to question and to seek wider review on this action. El_C15:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see this more broadly discussed, too. I'm not entirely thrilled with Luminarium (it certainly could be better written), but it seems generally accurate and well-researched, and has a lot of good materials. It is tricky to decide just what we should do in terms of linking to other basically encyclopedic materials. If there is a discussion on this somewhere, could I ask you to ping my user talk page & let me know where? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk18:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding [90], the problem is that far too many administrator's aren't following these instructions or even aware of the recent additions to the Shared IP template collection. It's causing a lot of unnecessary angst for first time editors and extra work for us at unblock-en-l. -- Netsnipe ► 14:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the problem is that admins active on AIV now have to scroll down further. Maybe it would be better to place the notice on WP:VIP. El_C15:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings El_C. You may wish to have a look at this article and its talk page, some questions have been raised there and I'm not sure that I'll have the time to answer them in the immediate future. Palmiro | Talk22:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. Those questions are not particularly clear. It would be better if the editor were to identify specific areas rather than remove half the article on the grounds that "this section is not verified." At any rate, I restored the article and added a reference for background. Best, El_C23:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully one of you will have time to look at the discussion page. I am a new user and it was my understanding from reading WP:5P&WP:V. Specifically I stated what I was going to do on the Talk page and I used the hidden tags on the parts I could not verify as well as stating on the Talk page why I did so. So on one hand I do as the wikipedia verifiability policy says. Hide the content and open a discussion on the talk page. Then the change I do is undone and no verification is given. The crux is this then, perhaps the wikipedia verifibility policy is wrong and needs to be rewritten. If so please tell me what the correct procedures are to get the content of this article either verified or fixed. El_C I will attempt to answer your questions concisely on the discussion page, however according to wikipedia policy as I find it the onus is on you to provide verification for the statements in those sections, not on me to provide other info. I would not have asked for verification if I had found it on the page. I still tend to think the article goes past what it should for the subject, indeed that much of the article has to do more with the Israel/Palestinian problem in general rather then the green line. I assume you do not want the discussion here. Wmb195702:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It makes little sense to hide so much; as I gather, you discovered that verify/cite templates are more helpful. I added refs to the taged section, as well as a Further reading section I can draw on for additional citations. Hope that helps. El_C01:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of Elaragirl RFC
Just curious since I don't know, but is deletion of the page the way that unaccepted RfC's are typically handled? It seems inappropirate to me as the record of the RfC having been brought, even if not accepted, should not be summarily deleted. —Doug Belltalk02:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, see the instructions on {{RfC}}: "If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page, the page will be deleted." El_C03:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The short answer is: um.. bad. The long answer is: BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD! (parodying Jon Stewart) :)
Seriously though I feel like the horde is after me... It is like a stampede...
There was a 'delete happy' group of people who were trying to delete the Star Trek articles which was quite stressful. There was one casuality. That seems to have settled... I am a deletionist myself but I do not create pages like this. I do not make a big deal of it. I dared to complain about their incivility and that went... interesting...
I have a number of trolls lurking on ANB/I attacking me and et all. They practically are accusing that Bastique is my pet Pokemon or something. :P
Toolserv is down so commons is a drag... Don't want to delete anything w/o toolserv there.
Basicaly... Too many trolls... Lots of injustice... :(
El C - with respect, Booyaka is a vandal. The persistent use of tags in bad faith has been warned with the appropriate warnings, and he has ignored those warnings. Could you explain how this is not vandalism? He is interfering with the good operation of Wikipedia - that I have no doubt about. An incident has already been reported as has a complaint in another area. To no effect. Curse of Fenric07:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
El C, I note that you are an admin. The mediation has failed. Booyaka is a threat to Wikipedia in my view, and must be dealt with. The database of independent wrestling in Australia, New Zealand, Hawaii and the United Kingdom is under threat from this vandal. Please? Curse of Fenric20:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there seems to be an excessive use of tags, but I am not familliar with the topic (and subjects' notability), so I'm hesitant to block for vandalism at this time. I suggest bringing this issue to the attention of other editors who are familliar with the topic and starting an RfC. El_C22:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, El C - this has gone beyond that. The mediation has failed because Booyaka simply refuses to listen. Sir Fozzie can verify this. Booyaka has even started attacking my reasonable attempts to notify people like Normy of the deletion tags - [104] and made a false accusation of a personal attack. Curse of Fenric00:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but what I was trying to point out is that even though he didn't remove anything, he still moved the entire section. Even though this was a new action for him it was something that had been done by other users in the days prior, and thus constitutes a revert. I am aware that by now it would be unlikely for him to be blocked due to statute-of-limitation type precedents but I would still appreciate it if you could re-examine the circumstances. Thank you.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk11:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I did not see an indication such a move to the criticism section took place prior or I would have counted it as a revert. El_C19:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually am fairing quite well, if you look through my contributions you will see I write in good faith, this includes the seeming vandalism of my own template here, re the comments made in the TFD discussion. Anyone offended by any comment I make is free to take it up with me instead of crying to sysops. In the past I have conceded in discussions as required. frummer15:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You do not seem to be fairing well. Personal attacks such as "humorous attempt to downplay his chronic paranoia" also violate WP:NOT and WP:POINT. Please read those policies carefuly. I can block you for 7 days, if you like (as per your request). Let me know. El_C15:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El_C, there is something i would like you to clear up for me. Perhaps our Greek editors will take you more seriously than me. Does having an article on an defacto entity of the above name violate the undue weight policy? A number of Greek editors seem to think so, they have in the past removed in the infobox stating it implies legitimacy, asked for it to be renamed to northern Cyprus, made clear their preference for it to be deleted and now add a pov-title tag to it, all on the basis that simply mentioning TRNC or writing about it is "pov". I'd appreciate your view. Thanks, --A.Garnet20:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very misleading summary, but whatever. Neutral views are always welcome... we're are discussing it on the talkpage, but Garnet has been reluctant to participate. Don't forget audi alteram partem, EL C - shalom. Cool userpage by the way... :-) //Dirak21:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. By which I mean, thanks a lot, now I can't do the why are you refering to yourself in 3rd-person? bit. Bing bang, bing-bing bang! El_C03:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With no question a sock and possibly several, but very smart and hard to catch. People like this scare me, the pattern of edits indicates there is something strange going on. It is not normal for someone to edit an article on Gateshead and design a logo for Islam. There is an underlying agenda, but what? He does have an ego, and it's a weak spot, that is why he lost his temper. Why did User:Renegade Replicant want to be adopted by him - it almost looked like that is a sockpuppet? --198.172.203.20308:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not using "Palestine" or "Palestinian" for Talmud and rabbis to avoid confusion
Note: Many articles about the rabbis of the Talmud and Mishnah are derived from the archaicJewish Encyclopedia, published between 1901-1906, over one hundred years ago (when the Middle East was still under the thumb of the Ottoman Turks) and which used the archaic expressions "Palestine" when referring to the Land of Israel, and to the Jews living in the areas of the historical Land of Israel as "Palestinians." This is a big mistake that requires constant attention and correction, especially when copying and editing articles from the Jewish Encyclopedia or from similarly archaic sources such as Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897). At this time, no-one uses the term/s "Palestinian/s" (in relation to anything associated with Jews or the land they lived in and which they regarded as their homeland) nor by any type of conventional Jewish scholarship, particularly at the present time when the label "Palestinian" is almost entirely identified with the Palestinian Arabs who are mostly Muslims. Finally, kindly take note that the name Palestinian Talmud is also not used and it redirects to the conventional term Jerusalem Talmud used in Jewish scholarship. Thank you. IZAK13:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not using "Palestine" or "Palestinian" for Talmud and rabbis
Makes sense, I'll try to remember. However, there was a period when everyone referred to the land of Israel as Palestine. Therefore, to say something like "in 1940 Shlomo Pines emigrated to Israel" would appear to be an anachronism. Don't we have to use the term "Palestine" during a certain period for historical accuracy? What is this period? From Roman conquest until 1948? Thanks. Dfass15:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dfass: Note: The term "Land of Israel" is an old one of Biblical origin, whereas the name "Palestine" is considered offensive by many Jews because it was coined by the Romans after they crushed the Jews of Judea-- and needless to say today it refers exclusively to the Arab Palestinians and never to Jews. Note also that the "Land of Israel" article is not the same as the "Israel" article because the latter refers to the modern post-1948 Jewish state. My main concern was about rabbis from the Mishnaic and Talmudic eras, up until about a hundred years ago being called "Palestinians" on Wikipedia as a follow-through from the many articles that have been copied and pasted from the old Jewish Encyclopedia and which collectively create the wrong impression. Such are the hazards of relying on dated information, long-discarded terminology, and unsuitable writing and communication styles. Wikipedia as a modern encyclopedia should not be relying on archaic terms such as "Palestinian rabbis" that could potentially cause grave misunderstanding. I think that from the time of the British Mandate of Palestine, also shortened to "the British Mandate" and sometimes "Palestine," that Jews were associated with those terms from 1923 until 1948 when the modern State of Israel was declared. I hope that you have noted that I am most definitely NOT saying that whenever the Jewish Encyclopedia uses the term "Palestine" that the single word "Israel" should be used -- obviously I do not mean that because when Israel is used alone on Wikipedia it refers to the MODERN State of Israel only. On the other hand, what I am saying is that when the word "Palestine" is used in archaic sources that predate modern Israel, and when writing about Judaic topics that relate to the Middle Ages, Talmudic, or Biblical times, then the better, more accurate, less controversial term for Wikipedia to use is "Land of Israel" which is historically what the Jewish people, and everyone else in academic life, have and do still call it. Hope I have clarified myself, and thanks for caring. IZAK12:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I get the drift. I will pay attention to it in the future. (Don't be so down on the Jewish Encyclopedia though! It's an incredible work, written by some tremendous scholars. I think these articles significantly raise the quality of Wikipedia, whether their English is somewhat archaic or not. If you compare a JE-borrowed Wikipedia article to one written by "the masses," you can't but be struck by the difference in quality and scholarship. The typical Jewish Wikipedian (myself included) is not capable of producing articles of anything like that caliber. Most Wikipedians cannot even be bothered to cite the sources for the couple of factoids they manage to dredge up from their memory of 10th grade.) Thanks again for the clarification. Dfass15:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dfass: I am not down on the old Jewish Encyclopedia at all, and I fully agree with you that it is a more than masterly work of scholarship. But is was written in the context of the culture of over a hundred years ago as a product of the nineteenth century! My specific concern at this stage was only about how the meaning and application of the word/s "Palestine" and "Palestinian" are getting "lost in the cut-and-paste process" because one hundred years ago, "Palestinian" was used as an academic adjective as for example, together with "rabbis" ("Palestinian rabbi/s") or the Talmud ("Palestinian Talmud"). Up until 1948 the words "Palestine" and "Palestinians" still had application/s to Jews because of the existaence of the British Mandate of Palestine until 1948 in the territories of historically Jewish Land of Israel. Since then, the name "Palestine" and "Palestinians" has shed any connection to Jews and the modern Jewish State of Israel which was set up in contradistinction to an Arab Palestine. Particularly since the rise of the PLO (the Palestine Liberation Organization), following the 1967 Six-Day War, the term and notion of "Palestine" and "Palestinians" has become thoroughly and exclusively connected with the Arab Palestinians to the point that no-one (not in politics, academics, the media, religion, etc) associates the name "Palestine" and "Palestinians" with the Jews or Judaism, so that it can safely be said that the notion of a "Palestinian Jew" is an archaic anachronistic discarded notion. So when cutting and pasting articles from the one hundred year old Jewish Encyclopedia, one should not fall into a "time warp trap" by blindly pasting articles from it without some sensible updates, and not to inadvertantly recreate and foster terminology for Jews and Jewish Israelis that neither they nor the world accepts or recognizes. One needs to be conscious that the term "Land of Israel" is a well-established name that has survived for a long time and is still the preferred term of choice when speaking in modern terms, so that Jews not be confused with Arabs and vice versa. By speaking of the Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel, meaning rabbis (or any Jews) associated with a historic geographic area, one also avoids problems such as calling pre-1948 rabbis or people "Israelites" -- used only for people in the Biblical era or "Israelis" -- which refers to citizens of the modern State of Israel. Thanks for your input. IZAK07:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, let me get this straight. Not only can a cooperating group of editors control an article's POV, but they can block the insertion of dispute tags by rotating their reverts? 'Cause when a group of editors is ignoring Talk Page discussion, tags're the only way to note dissent on Wikipedia. 66.211.32.5012:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do need further help. If dispute tags are meant for demonstrating dispute over an article's content, but can be removed by anyone and are subject to 3RR, what is their point? 66.211.32.5003:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the tags are misused (whether through insertion or removal), this may be addressed in following the steps outlined in the link above (i.e. facilitating a discussion on talk page/s, submitting a Request for Comment, etc.). Does that answer your question? El_C10:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tel, Tell, Tellllll
El C, when you don't edit for a few days I worry that the imperialists have gotten you ;-) I'm glad you are back. Well, I noticed that you (02:00, 19 בספטמבר 2005 El C (שיחה | תרומות) (en:Tumulus)) made an iwl for the he:תל article to tumulus, then YurikBot added the rest. Someone told me at Talk:Tell that a tumulus is a burial mound, whereas a tel is a settlement mound. This person probably spells this tell instead of tel though. I thought I would ask you before changing this on he: since you know more than me. What do you think about moving tell to tel on en:? DVD+ R/W02:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
T'was a close one! Let me (not) tell ya! Basically, that editor is correct on all fronts. It is an artifical mound covering an ancient settlement, which may or not involve a tumulus. Archeologiccordingly, I opted for barrow, but I think what happned was that I accidentally clicked on tumulus there and later blindly transwiki'd it, forgoting I had done so. Tell works even better, though (I glanced at an English-Hebrew dictionary just now and apperently that word exists as such, and it has two lls). Oops! !חנוכה שמח El_C02:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks El C, I have a small list of articles (mostly about buildings and adrichalim) from he: to translate if you are interested. DVD+ R/W04:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
he:אדריכלות בירושלים which was mostly written by Deroravi. Hmmm, now that I look again it is pretty list heavy and we probably don't have articles on all the linked articles. Many of the images are from the LOC Matson collection, which is PD and I can upload to the commons. Also he:קבר בני חזיר would be good for another article I'm doing some research for rock cut architecture. But there are many many more. One huge favour would be if you could copy the article to El C/Articlename then translate bits so I learn from it by looking through the history. !חנוכה שמח to you too, DVD+ R/W07:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is peculiar about Hazir, I didn't know it meant that, my vocabulary is really limited. If you want to start one that is more recent, since you missed Shrine of the Book, how about he:מוזיאון הסובלנות? It isn't even built yet. Thanks again, DVD+ R/W06:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You might (or might not) want to take a look at the comments on your oppose !vote here. Of course you have the right to comment/!vote however you wish, but I believe that all that might be involved in this instance is a simple misunderstanding over terminology. Regards, Newyorkbrad03:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments, and more importantly the candidate's, on the RfA if you're interested. Basically all it means is that he strongly disagreed with the admin who closed one particular AfD. Newyorkbrad03:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As in the correct law was not applied? Anyway, that DRV felt overly incriminatory and assumptive. I am a professional historian, so I am not unfamiliar with scholarly standards, which policy attempts to acculturate. I would not be able to publish the entry based on the evidence provided in the first AfD. There was no abuse of discretion and it is best to refrain from legalese, especially if the jargon contains the word "abuse" — how many people know what it means? In my mind, this (and other) response(s) epitomize the reason why I created WP:AFDC — since I felt 'regulars' were increasingly treating XfD it as a quazilegal rather than an editorial mechanism. El_C04:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It just struck me as harsh to oppose a seemingly well-qualified admin candidate based on one DRV diff, especially given that part of the issue was just terminology. It's still 57-1, so it doesn't matter much, and of course YMMV. Regards, Newyorkbrad04:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, I got a bad vibe from the whole thing — even his response now, it almost seems purposfuly devoid of regret (but maybe I'm misreading the tone). He's invited to comment at any time, of course. Regards & Season's Greetings, El_C04:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A request
El C, can I ask you for a favor? I would like to get Abu Nidal up to featured article status, and one of the things I would like to add is a freely licensed photograph of the house he was raised in in Jaffa. According to Yossi Melman, Abu Nidal's biographer, the building is now the Tel Aviv Israeli military court. Could you post a request for me on the Hebrew Wikipedia, asking whether there is anyone who lives near there who would be prepared to take a photograph and release the rights to it? In case it's helpful, there's a photograph of the building opposite page 22 of Yossi Melman's The Master Terrorist: The True Story Behind Abu Nidal, Sidgwick and Jackson, 1987. ISBN 0-283-99452-9
Any help with this would be much appreciated, and you would get to bask in the reflected glory if the thing ever gets FA status. And I hope this finds you well. :-) SlimVirgin(talk)20:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's three military courts in Tel-Aviv: the Military Court of Appeals, the General Staff, Sea Corps and Home Front District Military Court (Jafa), and the Central Command and Air Force District Military Court (Jafa). The latter two are located on the same street, but I can't recall if they're both on the same buidling (the house nos. are 83 and 78, respectively, at any rate). I left a note on שיחה:יפו, so we'll see if anyone responds. Oh, and you should know by now that I don't actually give a FAC about the WP:FARC. Long live the FARC-EP! Best, El_C10:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Melman doesn't say which court it is. He just calls it "the Tel Aviv Israeli Military Court," as though there only is one. In case you know what the courts look like, this one has tall iron gates leading into it. The building itself is square, dull looking, actually not what you'd think was someone's former home, because it looks purpose built. It's hard to tell how many floors there are, because there are what look like outside doors on each floor (possibly leading to ex-verandas), and then smaller windows. So it could be three floors, including the ground floor (I'd say this is most likely), or if you judge it by counting the windows, it could be five.
The good news is that Melman has agreed to release the image under a Creative Commons license, so now I just have to scan it in and upload it. Thanks for posting about it to the Hebrew Wikipedia. SlimVirgin(talk)23:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
dear jim i know that he article was deleted previously. but now i think there is a good reason for it to be created on wikipedia. i would like to reapeat what user jordi said here "Sorry folks, but "This page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: previously deleted" does not sound like a good reason too me since I cannot see the criteria followed to delete the page in the first time (since I did not write it). I do not see any reason why this page is wrong. Some reasons for keeping this page: - This page describes a free software/open source project like many other pages at Wikipedia. - OpenBravo, like Compiere and Adempiere is a free ERP. All of these projects release software regullary, have their communities behind them and are used by many users and are commercially backed. I do not see why Compiere or Adempiere can be in Wikipedia and Openbravo not" also the reason given for deletion previously was that there were not enough google search results for the same. now there are more than 40,000 results and 63,000 downloads for openbravo. so please restore the page smsSiddharthmukund03:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, Siddharthmukund. Who is Jim? I request that you use punctuations and capital letters; English is not my first language and I'm finding your comment difficult to read. In answer to your querry, please refer & respond to my comment on the entry's talk page. Thx. El_C12:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re Execution of Saddam
I'm not sure what you mean by this. You want the title to the site (included as "title="), to the news article (included as "work=", and translated too), or ...to the statement of Bakoyannis? The latter, I'm afraid, I can't find. For the rest, maybe we could swap the fields? NikoSilver17:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care about the fields (I never use cite.php, because it sucks), I just want an English title (see the ref here as an example). El_C18:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cite.php and the fields of Template:cite web and are two different things. The latter does not suck, it's really helpful. Check that your example will be implemented if I just swap the fields (it links [url title] rather than [url work]). Happy New Year! ;-) NikoSilver18:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm always looking through Recent Changes, I'll find a vandalization, and by the time I get to it, somebody has already caught it and warned the editor. :) User:Zoe|(talk)19:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed a mention of the "Lydda-Ramlah massacre" in the Lod article, so I decided to create an article on the subject. However, I noticed there already was: Lydda and Ramle during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. The problem is, the article is pretty crappy and I'm not sure if it should be split-up, renamed, or deleted. There used to be an article at Lydda massacre, but it was redirected. What do you think we should do? What is the most common term to describe these events? (I know it definitely isn't "Lydda confusion") As an Israeli historian, I'm sure you know something about the subject, right? :-) Happy new year, Khoikhoi06:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I'm not actually, in a scholarly sense, an Israeli historian, unless you mean an historian with an Israeli citizenship (I've got one of those along with a few others). Otherwise, I'm a South-Eastern African historian, though it does seem as if I've written as much about Central Africa on Wikipedia. But I do know a thing or two about Israeli history. I'm not entirely sure what the accepted term is, but I notice that Nur Masalha, in his "A Critique of Benny Morris" (Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 21, No. 1, Autumn, 1991), mentions the Lydda-Ramala expulsion, so maybe 1948 Lydda-Ramala expulsion would be a good title. Expect, though, that the pro-Israeli side might argue that Lydda and Ramle during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war is more neutral, while the pro-Palestinian side will argue that expulsion is more moderate than massacre and that a non-desriptive title is non-npov. So it can end up being ... really quite lively. Happy New Year! El_C04:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I guess I just assumed you were Israeli because you're a native Hebrew speaker. :-) Anyways, perhaps "Lydda-Ramle expulsion" would work, although Morris is the only source that I can find using this term. I don't have the time right now to look into it, but I suppose I'll eventually ask some other people. Cheers, Khoikhoi06:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A two-day hangover is always bad news! (Alarmingly frequent bad news, these days. I'm beginning to suspect it's a symptom of approiaching middle age. Urghh. Time for more booze.) Palmiro | Talk22:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
with the displayed prominently. Honestly, of all of Hinduism's symbols' did this one have to get "headline" billing on these templates? Alternatives are aplenty if one were to look around on articles listed on {{Hindu Deities and Texts}} where there are dozens of less offensive symbols that could be chosen for the same purpose. While the swastika may be ok with some Hindus, it should not be flashed around "in all innocence" because for the rest of the world that was caught up in World War II it was the symbol of literal EVIL, DEATH and DESTRUCTION emanating from the Nazis. It was Hitler's personal diabolical "symbol of choice" and for that reason it is VERY far from neutral, no matter in what context it is used. It violates Wikipedia:Civility to have it displayed in such an "in your face" fashion on these Hindu templates, giving it a dubious "place of pride" it does not deserve. Need one say more? IZAK23:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you remember some time ago i asked if you could consider whether using the title Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus violates undue weight? Well the article is getting quite chronic now with Greek editors applying the disputed title tag. I'd appreciate your comment on the article talk page if possible. Thanks, --A.Garnet23:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El_C, yes a pov-title tag has been put up and left there. The same tag was put up some time ago but removed after the same editors reached a [consensus] with admin Future. It was only after the Greek editors reapplied the tag that i learnt part of that consensus was linking the removal of the tag on TRNC with a removal on the Pontian Greek genocide article. I find it quite unnaceptable that we start bargaining with dispute tags, it is my position that the pov-title was added in violation of WP:Point (if you remember during your mediation in the Pontian article, some of the Greek editors had already linked the TRNC with the Pontian article, mainly because they both lack political recognition, even though they are like chalk and cheese imo!). Anyway, i'd appreciate a comment on whether TRNC should be a disputed title. Thanks, --A.Garnet23:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think restoring his comment was a good idea. Not only was it extremely incivil and highly disruptive, but there was also unanimous consensus on ANI to ban him from Talk:Tokusatsu and any related articles, due to the massive amount of disruption he's been causing. jgpTC13:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The incivility does not strike me as extreme. Best to point out to the user the specific instances of incivility as well as address the content. Neither are possible if the comment is removed. El_C13:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad's RfA
Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad20:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of fafblog. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
I have edited an Article about Kano but you turned to revert the edition, while I am doing the right thing. Why are you editing when you don't know anything about Kano?
Hi El_C, an attempt has just begun to resolve the Pontian Greek Genocide dispute through an arbitration committee. Since you have mediated there before, could you please voice your support or objection to such a measure here. Thanks, --A.Garnet16:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I'll try to review it soon. If the other dispute resolution steps have been followed, then arbitration is a good idea. But the Committee tends to limit cases to conduct rather than content-related disputes. Regards, El_C17:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stel.la on Astrology
Please don't remove a legitimate link to Stel.la on Astrology unless you have a valid reason to do so.
(Aeon2012 12:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC))
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. El_C17:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Massive "Anglicisation"
Hello, El C. I'd like to ask you for your input in this - literally thousands of articles have been sloppily "Anglicised" already (changing "région" for "region", for example, without modifying the phrase around it in the least to provide the proper context/meaning of the term) without any prior discussion at all, and one is continuing this rampage in spite of an ongoing discussion and WP:RFC about it. As you are major contributor to France-topic articles, so your input in this case is even important. Please help. You can find the discussion here. Thanks. THEPROMENADER19:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to look at it soon, but significantly changing thousdands of entry titles without compreensive discussion is highly problematic. Regards, El_C17:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings El C, could you take a look at this editor again? I noticed that you blocked him/her once before and that they've been blocked before for incivility and provocation regarding the Muhammad article. I notice that this user is back to the same behavior. The talk that specifically concerns me is found here and here. On this second edit he writes "Mohamed (sbuh)", I searched on google to see what he was saying with that statement and this is what I came up with. Both of these examples of talk are further unecessarily inflammatory and set up a battleground surrounding this already difficult article. Is there anything that might be able to be done to reduce this negative influence? Thanks. (→Netscott)02:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Anything new? A community ban appears to be highly likely; if that conduct continues, in the immediate future. Regards, El_C17:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Carbon dating
Hi El_C. I was wondering if I could have your views on the carbon dating article. I believe it needs to mention that the accuracy of carbon dating is disputed by some groups (often religious groups) as this is a well known fact, and I can cite numberous sources for this fact. But for some reason a user insists on removing both reference to this fact, and any sources to this reference. I'm not sure what the next step would be if this user (vsmith) does not stop. Would it be an rfc against the article or the user? The reason I'm asking you is because I remember you had a level head with regards to a small dispute over the racialism article a while back, so thought I'd ask an "old timer" such as yourself before taking it to a wider community. Thanks for any feedback you can give, --Rebroad15:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question that needs to be answered (and it cannot so long as that addition remains unsourced) is:
Who is contesting it, specifically?
On what basis is it being contested?
Is it only carbon dating (why it; could it be anything specific to it?), or does it encompass other forms of radiometric dating (potassium-argon, Uranium-thorium and so on)?
I think it will be difficult to find concrete answers from these circles, because that means that scientists are way off about particle decay, half-life, statistical mechanics, molecular physics, et cetera. Would any of these people dare to hit a charged nuclear warhead with a hammer? Because laws that govern the processes behind it are the same. Regards, El_C17:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion party was when I originally made the page....never did one, so I wasn't sure where to put the information. If you can, or if it is needed, can you put that information in it's proper place. Sorry about that. - SVRTVDude11:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I apologize for the edits. You corrected me (actually I looked, another admin did too) and I apologized and again apologize. I did those good faith, I was corrected. Besides my apologizes for the problems this has caused, Calton and I have not come in contact with each other and I plan on keeping it that way. As for the RfC, I was directed there by User:Jkelly after posting on WP:AN. I don't consider User:Rspeer an enabler, he actually figured that RfC out, cause I didn't get it. I think it was good for everyone to voice an opinion on the subject (my reason behind posting on WP:AN to begin with...didn't know there was an RfC...still new here). Yeah, it would probably be best for us to forget it (I know I want to), but it is out there, so we have to deal with it and once the RfC runs its course, then we move on.
Again, I apologize for the problems this has caused and I apologize for the way things "look" on my reverting Calton's edits. I assure you, I was doing it in good faith...and as you will notice, I haven't reverted anything by him since...if I was doing it to be annoying, there would be more...there aren't.
Sorry, I'll try to remember to archive. I think had Rspeer were to mildly chastize you for both the appearence of having stalked Calton as well as for the incorrect reverts —while at the same time mildly chastize Calton for becoming overheated— this might have been over then and there. I don't have a problem with a new user starting an RfC (or it being recommended by someone unfamilliar with the dispute), but I think the experienced editor (Rspeer) should have known better than to certify it. Thank you. El_C12:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
El_C, I have not responded to the most recent post by Calton on RSPeer's talk page...but he is trying to keep this going...I have stopped and let it go. How long is he going to be allowed to badmouth me on anyone's talk page and try to continue to keep this situation going long after I have walked away. - SVRTVDude(Yell - Work)00:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. In fairness, he was responding in a mildly inflamatory way to that mildly inflamatory note on your talk page. I think this will all blow over if everyone were to just chill and refrained from talking to or about one another. Thank you. El_C04:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with YOU editing the section, including your revert, but Calton needs to not engage in an edit war in the complaint section, it's against the RfC rules, and for good reason. Mangojuicetalk04:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello El C, thanks for the reverts of my talk page. It is very clear that Observation Post(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) is a sockpuppet and I'm inclined to believe that the individual socking is User:Kgeza67/User:Wik engaging in POINTed behavior. I've noticed on Kgeza67's socks he typically starts out by putting small message on both his user and talk pages (as this user did). Anyways this sock defied you and further reverted the talk off of my page. On the first removal the sockpuppet is technically correct per WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits but once another individual (like yourself) reestablishes the talk it becomes that other editor's edit and any subsequent reverts are against the third editor. Thanks again. (→Netscott)13:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what's going on! But it seems strange to me that the user made no attempt to bring up the issue with any of the participants (almost all of whom I recognize). Thanks for the feedback. El_C13:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like it...but what am I gonna do? Unrelated question for ya....can you tell me why page WRAJ Internet Radio was deleted? It was AfD tagged and I massively updated it to bring it up to code so that it wouldn't be deleted and it was still deleted. - SVRTVDude(Yell - Work)11:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it was speedy deleted in the course of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WRAJ Internet Radio. From a cursory glance at the deleted material, I'm not cetain that the rather detailed history you added helped establish the notability of the station (and by virtue of it being an internet radio station, the burden of proof —that it is a noteworthy subject— becomes greater). Basically, to establish notability, you need to provide citations from reliable sources that discuss this station and its work. El_C11:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really tried to add all of what I could with it and I thought the "stalker" and "myspace/attacks" sections would give reasons for it to be kept. Oh well. - SVRTVDude(Yell - Work)12:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the one story made WNBC...or maybe that was just the link to the MySpace story. Not sure. No worries though. If it ever comes back up or the original author brings it back via deletion review, all that information can be readded. - SVRTVDude(Yell - Work)12:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to get the story myself. As I understand it, User:Osli73 is under an ArbCom ruling, and he's supposed to discuss his edits on the talk page before making them. He's not banned from the article, he's just supposed to discuss his edits. An anonymous user has taken to censoring all of User:Osli73's comments on that talk page. If I understand the situation correctly, the anonymous user is being over-zealous, and his censorship of Osli73's comments is simple vandalism. -- Jim Douglas(talk)(contribs)00:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know which Arbitration case it was? On a cursory glance, I wasn't able to find it. Clearly, it was simple vandalism, whether inadvertant or intentional. Also, I dropped Opbeith a note re: civility and tendencious editing. Thanks again for bringing this to my attention, I probably would have missed it otherwise (just another rollback among tens of others). Regards, El_C04:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't know what case it was, or what specific restrictions he's under; I've left him a message asking for the details. He seems to be discussing all of his edits on the article talk page. The current dispute seems to be regarding how many people were killed in the Srebrenica massacre. Osli73 made his case here: Talk:Srebrenica massacre#~8000 vs >8300, but his subsequent edits were reverted with an edit summary of "rv". -- Jim Douglas(talk)(contribs)05:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess we'll wait for the (RfAr) answer. I'll try to review that (death figures) discussion soon. Thanks again for the explanation. El_C07:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jim and El_C, it was an arbcom on the Kosovo article back in Sept-Oct 2006. Unfortunately, I was away during the time and didn' make any statements during the arbitration process. The Kosovo arbcom found that since I had been involved in anedit war on the Srebrenica massacre article (the episode they are referring to is this) for which I had been given a 96 hour probation. This was correct (a lapse of judgement on my part following bullying and personal attacks from some of the other editors on the article, for which I am not proud).
What I can't understand is that the arbcom decided that this warranted putting me on a one year's probation and revert parole. I also don't understand why the Kosovo arbcom considered my misbehavior on the Srebrenica massacre article in their case which clearly concerned the Kosovo article. Regards Osli7309:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
El_C, will do. As I mentioned, I was away at the time and didn't make any statements in the arbcom process. I didn't know that it was possible to question or challenge the findings of the arbcom or to ask for an explanation of their findings. Regards Osli7309:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
El_C Unless arb comm decisions are revoked(link added. El_C), probations and paroles are to be enforced. Selective enforcement of wiki rules undermines integrity of wikipedia. If you will not respect wiki rules, if you think you can ignore wiki rules, when what do you expect others to do???
I expecet you to stop vandalizing the talk page & harassing Osli73. Stop evading blocks. Use WP:AE for Arbitration enforcement querries. El_C23:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
El_C, as I've stated before,[112] yes, I was. The reason was that I had received some threatening emails to my private email address which I had strong reasons to believe were related to the harassment which I had experienced (and to a certain degree, continue to experience) in relation with the Srebrenica massacre article (the message was about my being a "#¤&% Serb" followed by threats and other insults. As it was quite apparent that the sender of these emails knew my full name (due to the prefix of my email address) and that Sweden is a rather small country, where it is not difficult to find personal information (such as postal addresses, etc), I felt it safest to (attempt) to 'change' identities to KarlXII. When I was challenged by some editors on the Srebrenica massacre article about being Osli73 I denied this. Of course this was an incorrect and 'stupid' thing to do, but at the time I was a bit shook up. Regards Osli7311:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anyway you can temp protect this page from being edited? It looks like there is one helluva revert war going on over there. I reverted it back to the consensus version myself after taking a long look at the talk page...and would protect it myself if I had the power (damn my non-power)...but doesn't look like this revert war is going to end anytime soon. - SVRTVDude(Yell - Toil)19:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, no. I have just reverted it again. It is one or two people who are using "their consensus" as the consensus version to add a section that others (the majority) decided should not be in there. - SVRTVDude(Yell - Toil)05:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Automatically block the last IP address used by this user, and any subsequent addresses they try to edit from supercedes it. Thus:
21:49, 13 February 2007, El C (Talk | contribs | block) blocked TheCars4Life (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (Unblock) (vandalism-only account)
21:49, 13 February 2007, El C (Talk | contribs | block) blocked #394892 (expires 21:49, 14 February 2007, account creation blocked) (Unblock) (Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "TheCars4Life". The reason given for TheCars4Life's block is: "vandalism-only account".)
Switching like WBZ's owner from CBS to Scripps, [[KCNC]'s owner from CBS to Gannett, massive edits on the Scripps page and the moving of Scripps tower from Cincinnati to Chicago. This user has done this under other IP addresses all licensed to Verizon of Boston. - SVRTVDude(Yell - Toil)14:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tags
Hello El C. You recently removed a POV title tag from TRNC. That dispute has been going on for months, and I believe that there is a strong case for rename to something like Northern Cyprus. Nevertheless, do you think you could utilize the same principle by which you removed the tag from the TRNC article from the Pontian Greek Genocide article as well? There have been numerous polls there, the latest one still visible on the talkpage was 19 - 5 against changing the title, so I think it's safe to say that the chances of there ever being a consensus to rename it are close to zero. Will the tag by there in perpetuity? Admin User:Future Perfect at Sunrise once said it should not, but the tag's still there. Luckily you've mediated in this dispute before, so you know the facts well enough. Dirak14:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it has been established as the most common name, so I have some reservations in removing it myself, but I take your point. El_C14:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what do you advise? "TRNC" is hardly the most common name for the whatever it is. It's mainly used in Turkish sources like that without scare quotes or a prefix such as "self-styled" or "self-declared"? Should I remove the tag from the PGG article myself (it may provoke another edit war, as I'm a party to the dispute though, which is why I asked you to do it).Dirak14:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that one is an historical event while the other is a de facto country, with a government which self-titles it as such. El_C14:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so? That is a can of worms, who says that this "government" is entitled to name the region? Words such as "republic" and "turkish" are disputed internationally - it's not neutral to say "to be neutral between A and B I'm going to pick A". Khoikoih agreed with me at TRNC's talkpage and used the examples of Nagorno-Karabakh (not "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" because the world disputes it status as a republic), etc. Everyone agrees it is northern Cyprus, not everyone agrees it is Turkish and a republic.Dirak14:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And say what? It's been discussed again and again (KBs of text). I'm removing it for the same reason: "if someone wants to rename it, then go to WP:RM".Dirak15:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that userpage was offensive before you protected it—that's not the point! Did you read the Village Pump discussion (which is where my own input is)? See for instance [113], [114]. Hope you like your new banner! Bishonen | talk01:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Without those section headers there are no Edit buttons on the main AIV report page to get to /TB2, all the reports get lumped together, then you click the only edit button on the top of the page and the bot reported one's aren't there. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)14:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let me try another way. Why do you want those headings removed? it makes it harder to get to the bot report page or even to realize it is on the bot report page. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)14:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, bringing it up on the discussion page, as I find it most useful. I see no advantage of lumping all the reports together, if it is not broken why fix it? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)14:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was slightly broken, or at least somewhat wasteful. I added it to the header instead, which think is the best solution (that way, we eliminate the two sections and only have an alert one). Hope that makes sense to you and thanks for all your patience. Regards, El_C14:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a good idea, but technical and consensus issues need to be dealt with first. I will gladly help if you setup a sandbox to play with. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)15:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reever2
You recently and correctly blocked Reever2 (talk·contribs). This user contacted the unblock-en-l list, confused about why he was blocked. We explained WP:SPAM and WP:COI to this user and indicated that even if the links were appropriate (which we weren't arguing), this user cannot add the links as it is a conflict of interest. The user has read over these policies and agrees not to add links to his own site and so I have assumed good faith and unblocked the user. Please yell and scream at me if you believe I acted inappropriately. --Yamla15:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C. The 58% comes from adding together the "lower" (38%) and "extremely poor" (20%) classes. The source itself specifically defines poverty as only the latter of the two classes. Maybe we could reword it to "58% at a low income level, with a full 40% of those below the poverty line". Providing comparisons to other first world countries like the US may help (the US, not the least of which because this is English Wikipedia, but also because it's often used for comparisons in the Western hemisphere). The robustness of the economy compared to the rest of Latin America should probably be included too. --Mardavich09:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, good enough for me. But you should prepare for the possibility that others may demand some sort of proof beyond that statement. El_C10:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, you're a generally helpful kind of person. Clearly it was a mistake when they made you an admin ;-). Seriously, thanks for your trollspulsions. --Dweller16:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to say a "long post on someone's talk page", but I didn't...was damned tired when I got in last night. Sorry, teaches me to post when I am tired:) Anyway, it was a HUGE post on User:Sarah Ewart's talk page. I had responded to a question brought up by her in the WP:CN page about User:GordonWatts and Calton responded there. He responded with some 30 links, some from other people's talk pages, one from yours. Now, that is kinda creepy. The last couple posts on his talk page, I was trying to be polite and I was not rude. But when he is posting on other people's talk pages about me and dragging my name through the dirt, yeah, I am going to defend myself. I would rather not have to, as my edits and additions on Wiki have decreased considerably due to him. Calton is going to continue to post on others talk pages bashing me until, I believe, I give up and leave. Which is personally looking like a better idea each and everyday. I am not stalking him, but in my opinion he is breaking a couple important rules and getting away with it with little or no consequence and when I respond to his attacks on me, I am the bad guy. Dude, that ain't anywhere close to fair. - SVRTVDude(Yell - Toil)20:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having difficulties grasping the periodization (can you provide a better-documented, more pointed account). Basically, I'm interested in an answer to a much more narrow question: who discussed whom first. Thanks in advance. Regards, El_C13:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually forgot I wrote this:) After my good-faith attempt to save his talk page from being deleted via a mistakenly placed prod2 tag and his going head-to-head with User:Musical Linguist after she admonished him for snapping my head off for trying to save his talk page, he has completely stopped...all is good with the world:) Hope you have a good day....SVRTVDude(Yell - Toil)19:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a conflict in the battle of Stalingrad page, a user who has been blocked several times before and that has a history of attacking ww2 articles which can be seen in his edit history is trying to insert some information which he "has seen in some movie". He has made several threats and a personal attack where he has called me ignorant, and he is directly violating wp:ver. Can you please take a look into this matter Potaaatos15:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that I've been "semi-protected". I'm not even sure what that is. Did I do something wrong or am I being protected from others doing wrong to me? I'm really confused. Loomis21:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An anonymous IP posted a pseudo-comment on your talk page and signed it with Barringa. I posted a notice, but since this means that Barringa is evading his block the whole thread was removed, but you can view it by using the page's history. You didn't do anything wrong, Loomis. And, if it's any consolation, the same nudnik posted one of his clever comments on my talk page too, it was reverted too. By the way, thank you El C, for reacting. ---Sluzzelin21:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right. It prevents unregistered users from editing the page for the duration (3 days). Nothing to worry about. Sorry for the inconvenience. El_C21:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you, Sluzzelin and El C. Clearly you're both very good people with only the best of intentions. However, I've decided that I'd prefer to have Barringa's anti-semitic comments restored to my talk page. As a Jew, this is the type of thing I have to deal with regularly. I'd rather it be exposed than swept under the rug. But otherwise, thanks, it's good to know that wiki is watched over by such decent folk as you two. Loomis04:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If and/or when the time will come "our reply shall be couched in terms of lead. In roar of shell and shrapnel and in whine of machine-guns will our answer be couched." And it just so happens that, in this case, policy works in favour of my ideology. That is, comments by blocked users are to, generally, be reverted on sight. But, since you feel strongly about it, I'll restore it. Many thanks for the kind words! El_C05:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16 hours?
user:60.240.254.60 is blocked only 16 hours after being a 25+ vandal only account being blocked before? Would not a longer block than a day be prudent. I mean for all we know they go to bed get up tomorrow and do the same thing. Not my place I guess. Its your call, so be it. I understand... Thanks for your time. --Xiahou03:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The duration is over five times the length of the original block; but I didn't give it a great deal of thought. Still, let's see what happens next. El_C03:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that sleeper accounts now seem to be being used to following the semi protection of this page, do you think its appropriate to file a request for checkuser to discover how many other sleeper accounts there may be? WjBscribe04:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean as how this page is a bit reactionary. We don't have a problem with pedophiles, the page seems to think like they are everywhere. The problem I have with myself is I assume that PeeJ is the one who is making us do this, so that is why I mentioned them. I am not sure what more can be done, or said, about this, but let's just see what happens. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)16:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't do that even if you didn't have a valid point, which you did. I hope my responses reflected that understanding, but if I fell short of this, I apologize. At any rate, I've commented since I've written the above —I was a bit confused at the time by David Gerard's comments— my latest thoughts are on his talk page. Let me end by saying that PJ (or the WP:AN thread highlighting its latest) was a catalyst only inadvertantly: I was astonished to learn that, after everything, the practice was still being tolerated, and that some were defending it. As I mentioned to Theresa, the issue isn't about scope or intensiveness, but that it is a liability to the project, PR-wise (forget about PJ site, I'm talking about the main stream media picking up on this). Thanks for reading. Regards, El_C02:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I'm afraid I don't have much time at the moment, but I'll try to review that account soon. I'll sprotect the page for a little while, for now. El_C03:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Potaaatos and his edit warring at the Battle of Stalingrad article
Well. Dmcdevit did a IP check for me and Potaaatos uses the same IP as Deng. And since the IP check confirmed Potaaatos identity, I include the transgressions of Deng as the transgressions as Potaaatos as well. That's why I said cites policy and not always correctly. Deng has a very very long history of citing policies incorrectly so they match his particular POV. I was not necessarily speaking of this specific case. In the end, if you feel like Kurt should be blocked, block him. I certainly won't object. I blocked Potaaatos based on being another in a long line of SuperDeng socks not necessarily on his specific behavior on Battle of Stalingrad.
As for him claiming he's not SuperDeng, Deng has denied using sockpuppets in the past even after confirmed by CheckUser. But Potaaatos made several comments on his talk page that are pure Deng, including the claiming that Kurt and I are "chummy" despite the fact that I've blocked Kurt in the past multiple times. And Potaaatos complained about casuality numbers being changed, which is Deng's pet peeve about all WWII articles concerning the Soviet Union.
I guess this is my long way of saying that you should take what Potaaatos says with a grain of salt. And as for Kurt, if you feel like he should be blocked, go right ahead. He never has learned to discuss things using talk pages. So he just reverts ad nauseum until someone gets tired of it. --WoohookittyWoohoo!05:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding, to which I am partly to blame — though in fairness (to myself, of course!), I did start my comment to you with "I'm not sure who is whom ... I've never heard of any of the participants nor have I edited the article before." Accordingly, I was evaluating the two editors by their immediate edits in the aforementioned article alone. Which is to say in response to your: "I was not necessarily speaking of this specific case" — I was only speaking of this specific case. But I do understand what you meant now. Essentially, Kurt Leyman kept adding a passage claiming that after the German order to surrender, an entire division (10,000+ German troops) refused to do so and fought to the death. The problem was that (after 6 reverts), he (still) failed to add a specific source to that passage. Despite requests from both Potaaatos, and then myself, to do so (in that narrow sense, then, our requests can be seen as identical). I was (and remain) far from familliar with anything else beyond the edit war in this particular article to (have) comment(ed) on it, so nothing I said about this dispute should be interperted as such. Finally, I'm not inclined to censur Kurt Leyman over this at this point as he did not attempt to revert again following the explanation I provided on his talk page. Anyway, sorry for the length (and due to being short on time, incoherence) of this comment. Thank you for taking the time to clarify your position. Please keep me posted of any developments. El_C06:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conventional longform for titles of de facto nations
I'm not so sure if I agree with it. Does this mean that we'd be moving Abkhazia to Abkhazian Republic? The problem with that is that the article is about both the de facto independent republic and the de jure autonomous republic of Georgia. The article has two definitions. If we moved the page, it would mean we'd have to split into two articles. Khoikhoi08:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it makes sense to split ala Western Sahara and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (which would make no sense for the TRNC, for ex.), then why not? I think it's important to emphasize what sort of entity has physical power over an area — that is, de facto supercedes de jure because it is closer reality. I believe we can be consistent about it without becoming inflexible. El_C08:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're saying, but thought Wikipedia rules say we should use the most common names for things. If we split Transnistria, it would mean we'd have to create Transnistrian Moldovan Republic and Stînga Nistrului. I agree with you that de facto reflects the reality, even though some people are in denial and try to paint these countries as "separatist regions". However, articles such as Abkhazia show in the first sentence that it is de facto independent, and provides the secondary meaning further down below. Why would it be necessary to split these articles if it's already made clear? Khoikhoi08:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They do, but I think the emphasis needs to be in the title. I don't believe this issue was considered when that guideline was authored. Again, I stress on being flexible. For example, the Abkhazia article dosen't have much to split, so it can be renamed until one day there's enough for a regional entry to be split along the lines of the Republic of China & Taiwan (again, this could not happen for entries such as Northern Cyprus for obvious reasons). I guess I simply don't see why splitting is such a problem — if we have to split an entry (even more than once) so as to emphasize who maintains physical power of a de facto state, so be it. El_C09:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I suppose you do have a point. Maybe you should state your proposal on all the talk pages of the unrecognized country articles. That way you can get other opinions on this. BTW, you might be interested to know that there actually already are articles called De facto Government of Abkhazia and De jure Government of Abkhazia. Not sure what we should do about them, though. Khoikhoi09:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I intend on facilitating a centralized discussion and will place a note on pertinent talk pages at that time (in the next week or two). I shall let you know when this happens as I would very much value your participation in this undertaking. Best, El_C16:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I guess it'll have to wait for a little while longer; I just got discharged from the hospital today (was having a rough time :(). Best, El_C09:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question
With all the majority of vandalism coming from IP-address only members, why not make it that you have to have an account? It would drop vandalism as vandals more-than-likely wouldn't get an account here and the good guys would. Just curious as to why this hasn't been tried before. - SVRTVDude(Yell - Toil)17:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because Ips also do an enormous amount of positive editing. While there have been numerous attempts to restrict unregistered editing, these all fail by a significant margin due to that fact (I believe that this is the latest attempt). I Hope this answers your question. Regards, El_C16:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That you might be able to help me out with getting an article locked. It's being vandalized extensively and I'm not sure what to do about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Rschuyler16:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
While I understand the desire to close this AfD quickly as you probably noticed the New York Times just ran an article on the subject. Moreoever, this piece of information only became known in the last few hours. I therefore think it makes sense to run the AfD for a little while longer and see if that alters anything. JoshuaZ07:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not feel that, qualitatively, the NYT was likely to change the consensus as it was largely based on different considerations. I expand on that point on the AfD talk page. As well, the a DRV has been filed, so I'm not inclined to revert myself for that reasons, too (i.e. not only because I still feel my closing rational was sound, but since the DRV discussion now considers its merit). All the best, El_C09:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you're kidding. You closed that with a single sentence, not even bothering to explain your reasoning? Did you read the latest comments regarding the New York Timesarticle on Essjay's resignation and the discussion here? I had just changed my opinion from merge (as you closed it) to keep based on this new and extremely relevant information. I suspect other may as well, yet you choose to close this early? I think you need to undo that. —Doug Belltalk07:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did, in fact, read the NYT article and saw the responses to it, but did not find it is likely to alter consensus in an appreciable way; nor do consider this to have been a speedy close (not to imply that you said this), but in the interests of the project, I believe that the ~three day discussion was sufficient to establish consensus on this. And I thank you for the note. All the best, El_C07:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It also just came to my attention that this was not even open for for 3 days (let alone the normal time period). Betweent this and the NYT matter, I strongly suggest you revert your closure (I really really don't think anyone wants a DRV on this- if you refuse to reopen I will not file a DRV someone else almost certainly will ). JoshuaZ07:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looked about three days to me; regardless, AfDs do not run on a fixed time limit and 5 days is a general guideline. All the best, El_C07:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
El_C, maybe this is just me, but I'd never close *fD when pertinent new information has been brought up. It is very hard to see how you can argue that things might not have changed at all when the only two users who so far discussed the NYT matter who were not in favor of keeping both changed their opinions to keep. Furthermore, given how public this matter is and how many different sources are currently paying attention to how Wikipedia handles the Essjay matter we cannot afford to skirt process or appear to be avoiding the issue. And frankly, we don't need any more dram associated with this. Please revert yourself. JoshuaZ07:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, El_C we really don't need this to occur right now. Please just revert yourself and let the AfD have even a few more hours for users to discuss the NYT article. JoshuaZ07:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From the tone of your comments I think you may have been way to close to this one (for whatever reason) to make any decision to wrap up the AfD. Please rv yourself? Thanks for listening (and thanks for trying to be helpful). Gwen Gale08:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uncertain as to why you would find my 'tone' anything less than dispassionate. As well, I'm confused and hurt that you would go on to claim that there was "wheel warring" on my part. What basis do you have for that claim? I merely closed the AfD (for better or worse) — are you confused with what the definition of wheel warring is? Otherwise, I thank you for the note; please see my response above regarding your specific request. Thanks. El_C09:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could avoid all appearance of conflict of interest or wheel warring by rv'g your closure. Mind though, I do assume your good faith. Gwen Gale10:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to fix the spelling errors before too many folks read it. You closed the AfD early in violation of written policy and nothing else you could cite can change that. Gwen Gale10:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I committed spelling errors, feel free to fix them for me; I'm afraid I disagree with your opinion that I violated written policy. El_C10:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, El_C (per your comment above) - so one can close an AFD however they like, ignoring and subverting the wishes of some 300 community members (me included) to have a full, open and proper deletion discussion, but anyone who reverts that decision is subject to vague threats of "wheel warring"? This AFD out of any AFDs needed to go the full five days, so we can have no suggestion or allegation of trying to cover up the whole saga. I really can't understand why you thought closing it early was a good idea. I can appreciate that Essjay - a friend of yours as I understand it - has taken enough stick over this incident, but restraining yourself for a further 2 days would have been the sensible thing to do, as evinced by the deletion review underway. Incidentally, if I were closing it, I would have done so the same way, and you worded it very well - I've no issue with how you closed it, just when you did. Neil(not Proto ►)10:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to much of your comment already follows from a premise I disagree with, so I'm not sure how useful it would be for me to respond at this time. I am going to sleep for a while, in any event. El_C10:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I am not inclined to do so. As well, I would prefer it if you were to refrain from commenting on my talk page for a while. Thanks. El_C11:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I agree that it was out of process, unilateral, representing poor judgement and bad timing, I think the DRV discussion has gone past the point of El C reverting the close. What he should do is add a comment to the DRV removing any objection he might have to overturning the DRV so that another uninvolved admin can speedy close the DRV. El C reverting the closing at this point would just add to the out-of-process actions, not undo them. —Doug Belltalk11:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chicken soup with birds
El C, get some sleep and some rest and some chicken soup and stuff. Relax. Please. Look at the birds... focus on the birds... you're getting sleeeeepy... sleeeeeeeeeeepy... Bishonen | talk08:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC). [reply]
I'v never seen such a pile-on, much less for "overturn" at deletion review. Clearly the consensus is that the AFD should continue to rerun, why not save everyone a little time and just unclose it? Milto LOL pia16:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forget it. I'm hurt by the responses and am not going to touch it again. Other admins are free to reverse my closure. El_C16:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
El C, there's no reason to be hurt by it. People make decisions. Not everyone always makes the correct one. In this case, many users thing the decision was incorrect. Don't take it personally. JoshuaZ23:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was the correct decision and I endorsed it in the deletion review, but maybe you should have let it run a bit longer considering the problems that seem to be happening lately when processes are not left to run for their full time or something like it. At the worst, you made an understandable misjudgment. At best, though, maybe it was more like a statesmanslike, Solomonic judgment that was not widely enough appreciated. But there's no way anyone can say it was a stupid decisions or was made in bad faith. I, for one, will not be losing faith in you as a fine, active admin. Metamagician300007:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, it was probably not the right place for me to quibble with Metamagician's silly absolutes. I didn't mean to impinge upon your meditation, especially as I'm on semi-wikibreak right now. Later, —Doug Belltalk07:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[un-indent]I don't know what's bugging you, Doug, and indeed I don't even know you, but when somebody here is trying to cheer up someone else who evidently needs it and has expressed feeling hurt, there is little value in a third person interjecting with an uncivil comment. That applies here as much as it does in real life. Enjoy your semi-wikibreak. Metamagician300008:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prevailing historiographical consensus
Can you please provide a link to this consensus, on the WWII discussion page, before you revert the WWII infobox? There's been a lot of discussion and the result there is from an end-vote. I'd like a bit more reasoning to revert away from it. Thanks. Oberiko17:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Sure, multiple textbooks (i.e. by historiographical, I of course, meant academic, in general). I would like to see an emphasis on the major / minor military powers (I like how the Hebrew Wiki bolds the former in its infobox). But on closer look, your changes seem fair enough. A bit too minimalist for my liking, but, indeed, I'll try to address that on the discussion page when I get a chance. Thanks for the note. Regards, El_C18:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I rollbacked tens of thousands of entries, authored hundreds of them, blocked thousands of users, deleted hundreds of pages/images, closed hundreds of XfDs, et cetera, etc. Anyway, WP:RFDA is that-a-way ! El_C07:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I intended to remove both, actually, but it looks like I forgot to do so for the former. The reason for the removal is that the link fails our image guideline. Sorry. Regards, El_C12:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, on what point does it fail the image guideline? The only point i can imagine is it being a personal website, however the website, besides having many photos and video of madagascar (of nature, people and wildlife) serves as a resource for tourists, as explained on http://www.8thcontinent.nl/about.html
[sic] It's also a country under great threat - the rainforests are rapidly disappearing due to deforestation, pushing the remaining species towards their extinction. Tourism is one of the things that can help halt this process by encouraging the conservation of what little is left for future generations. That brings me to one of the reasons I made this website; my aim is to offer people an impression of what it's like to travel around the Great Red Island and perhaps inspire them to take the step that I took.
I think its a useful resource (keeping in mind the extensive image database) and a good addition to the article. Its by no means a commercial website!
It simply does not appear prominent enough in relation to the subject (a country). I also removed most of the other links from it as well. Again, sorry. Best, El_C13:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be more blunt, the resolution of the images on your site is too low (i.e. 1024x768 would be acceptable). Feel free to release them to Wikipedia under the GFDL. El_C13:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closure of Essjay AfD
Even if no one else did, I supported your closure. Whether or not the article should be deleted is not a part of the question, I would still support your decision regardless of how I felt about the article in question.
Your edit here show that you deleted Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Voice of All. As the case of Essjay demonstrates there is no real need to follow to the letter a structured RfC. The guidelines for RfC removal are stipulated on the RFC Request comment on user section. Your reason is not there. Frankly I consider such a speedy deletion, without a formal discussion, to be lacking in wiki policy and rules. In particular I feel that you achieve a "Petty exemple" of violating WP:CIV by personally targeting my "Good faith edit" which where intended to try and resolve a conflict. WP:CIV states:
"Silent and faceless words on Talk pages and Edit summaries do not transmit the nuances of verbal conversation, leading to small, facetious comments being misinterpreted. One uncivil remark can easily escalate into a heated discussion which may not be focused objectively on the problem at hand. It is during these exchanges that community members may become uninterested in improving articles and instead focus on "triumphing" over the "enemy"."
In fact if you read through the RfC there was evidence that showed an attempt to try and resolve the issue. I ask that you please appologize for, as WP:CIV states, the greater "stress" you have caused and that you undelete the page. --CyclePat14:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but that does not respond to my comment on your talk page, and I am not inclined to undelete the page in light of this. El_C14:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
p.s.: On top of that I just find out you're are the clossing admin for Essjay's case and you deleted this RfC. Humm... We call that trying to remain at arms lenght and I think you may have failed in this one. --CyclePat14:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is certainly subject to debate, but much less so in the case of your "RfC," I think. This, since you've neglected an essential step of the process. El_C15:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question you ask regarding "failing to discuss and resolve the issue" can be found in the delete page. If you undelete the page I will be happy to reformat the text so it can be highlited. Again though, you have not provided any wiki guideline that indicates it is mandatory to follow the RfC template and I have in fact provided a precedent where the format was not follow. Please undelete. --CyclePat15:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you first attempt to resolve the dispute with VoA instead of attempting to revive the RfC? It increasingly looks as if you're treating it as an indictment. El_C15:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard of VoA let alone it being a process for wikipedia conflict resolution. Is this a new? Nevertheless I'm still waiting for an answer to my question. Though your close relationship with user:Voice of All and the Essjay case does not help either I believe simply undeleting the page should be sufficient. It would be the most honorable thing to do at this point and would allow for the afformentioned corrections. Another administrator could handle the situation from WP:ANI if necessary. Again I believe you lack arms lenghts on this one and it doesn't help our situation. I ask you again, Please undelte the page so I may fix the issues we discussed. --CyclePat15:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said the other night, I don't see an RfC relating to the closing of the prior RfC, about a user who is no longer active, as a sensible use of our contributors' time and efforts. Please consider dropping the matter. Newyorkbrad16:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
