I don't think a delete result would be likely in any event; as well, my involvement in such a debate seems unlikely. El_C21:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El_C. Thanks for the recent anti-vandalism to X-ray. In the section I added recently regarding units of measure and dosage, I'm struggling to find something more definitive regarding typical exposure due to dental x-rays (having found very varying reports on the web). Was wondering if you might be interested in helping a bit - or if you have any recommendations on where to ask for help. TTFN, --Rebroad10:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can only certify an RfC if you, yourself, had attempted to resolve the dispute at one time or another. It dosen't necessarily need to be a comprehensive or lengthy account, but evidence of such an effort does need to be submitted. Hope that answers your question. Regards, El_C21:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello C ! I removed your qualification of Vichy France as a "puppet state": this is over-simplistic, and overlooks the real independence of Vichy. This independence is actually what makes Vichy's collaboration scandalous: it was not forced to collaborate, but willfully did. Que te vaya bien, saludos ! Tazmaniacs
Thanks for blocking 67.81.102.22. This IP address is really my home IP address, but I asked it to be blocked because my sister threatened to edit my user page. Now I can rest for a year before having to deal with my sister trying to edit my user page once again, perhaps replacing it with "Amos likes Emily Roberts, ooooooooohhhhhhhhhh", in a teasing way (since I like this girl named Emily Roberts). Han Amos00:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you blocked Reedy Bot for its recent mis-tagging spree. Unfortunately this doesn't remedy what has already been done - particularly in the case of the Judaism-related articles that were mislabeled as Israel-related. Is there any way to automatically undo all of the bot's edits and then start from scratch from there? If not, there are literally hundreds of the bot's contribs that need to be examined manually. --DLandTALK23:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, many of the taggings are appropriate - the ones that relate specifically to Israel certainly are. The problem is that enough of them are not that it would be very tedious to go through them one by one and pick out the bad ones. Better, in my opinion, to start from scratch and perhaps fine-tune the bot's algorithms (or whatever mechanism it uses :)) before trying again. --DLandTALK23:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds sensible; still, I'm inclined to allow the bot owner the opportunity to sort this out. Let's wait till tommorow at the very least. בברכה, El_C23:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think undoing all the bot edits for that period is a little extreme, as there over a thousand, and many are relevant (Its not like the majority are incorrectly tagged...?). The articles are due to be assessed (by the requestor of the the tagging), so they would be cleared up then when they were tagged, so inappropriates would be removed then. However, i could make a start going over some of the edits, looking for ones that are mistags, of course, this isnt going to be a quick or simple task. Its strange that in subcategories of the root Category:Israel, there are so many that seem to be incorrectly categorised...?
I would recommend undoing everything and starting from scratch without the subcategories. From a sample glance, you have possibly mis-tagged hundreds of entries (at least ten percent) out of that ~1,000. El_C17:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats fine, if thats what you recommend, it is probably easier. Feel free to revert them. I presume this wont affect the prior tagging i did (Ie the WP Schools or HMM)? Thanks =) Reedy Boy18:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Yes, since you can set the bot up to automatically re-do the edits without these errors, and since otherwise, you do not have a quick solution on removing these, I think it makes sense. Certainly, it will involve only the aforementioned series of edits. בברכה El_C18:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that the former is true; the latter is of little consequence. Otherwise, please refer to my superstupid explanation here. Thanks. El_C03:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine do it your way but still it won't help, if you protected both for a while he would get bored and leave. But if its less than a week he will come back, the only way to comprise is to add his information on Armenia, than he will be quiet thats how I stopped him before now he is back because people removed it, we'll just wait and see for some results, thanks. Artaxiad04:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on adding that passage (which I havne't read closely) to either article, but I do have an opinion against coersion. El_C04:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I almost reverted you (in a page I watch, Talk:Capture of Haifa in 1948) until I thought to look here for an explanation. If you have to do more of these, or a similar task, please use an edit summary that indicates that you know what you're doing, it's part of a project, etc. Thanks, --MCB20:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point, demonstrated above and below, is that the use of rollback is problematic when the reason for revert is not completely obvious. --Mus Musculus20:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand what happened — did you read the thread I linked to above? Feel free to revert any of my Israel-related edits, or you can wait for the bot to do it. I was only interested in removing the 10 percent or so of mis-tagged (unrelated to Israel) entries. I realized from the outset that I was removing ~90 percent of correctly-tagged ones, but this was the best way to repair the bot's hitherto edits considering it involved ~1,500 entires. In theory, I could have taken my time, but then it would have taken me hours to sort it through instead of just one. El_C20:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you removed them from various articles? I can somewhat understand the reasoning with military articles, but for example, why was it removed from Talk:Atlit? -- Ynhockey(Talk)20:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I look at it, t'was 35-minutes of non-stop rollbacking. I am so great, G-R-E-T (& S-M-R-T, too). I hope that answers your question! בברכה, El_C20:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop removing the WP Israel banner. It is much harder to put pages on the list than remove them. I am happy to sort through manually to remove the innappropriate ones. The pages added are in the Israel category and subcategories. PLEASE STOP REMOVING THE TEMPLATE. --יהושועEric22:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Is the template supposed to be reinstated automatically? If not, i'll do it on my own. If so, within what time period is this supposed to take place? Itayb22:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, automatically; once the botowner gets around to it (which will be soon, I presume). Sure, feel free to reinstate the template to any and all Israel-related entries. I wouldn't bother since, as mentioned, it will be autorestored, but it wouldn't do any harm, either. El_C22:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing the reverts. Its funny how when anyone starts doing something, they come on Mass and bug you =). I'll make a start retagging, just not going as deep on the category lists!! Reedy Boy23:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hheheh, fer sure. Actually, I was debating on removing all the pertinent section headers from your talk page and merging them into one (as I did in this section — it used to be five sections of confused peoples!). Anyway, glad to learn that you're re-tagging! All the best, El_C23:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As with everything in wikipedia, some people have problems with what others have done (link), i've stated i shall retag the categories when they've been checked out to make sure they only contain the articles that need tagging. Cheers Reedy Boy00:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff, RB. Thanks for the update. Let me know if there is anything I could to help. All the best, El_C00:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RFA Thanks
I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RFA. As you may or may not be aware, it passed with approximately 99% support. I ensure you that I will use the tools well, and if I ever disappoint you, I am open to recall. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talkpage. Thanks again, ^demon[omg plz]20:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... is the most hilarious thing I've ever seen! I was reading Bishonen's comment on WP:RFAR#Betacommand and I wanted to find out what she meant, and wow, just wow. Man, you are a menace to yourself! Is it really all by accident? Do you only shoot yourself this way, or do you ever get anyone else like that? --AnonEMouse(squeak)01:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have my attention, I will stop adding Appleton's Bio's edited by Stanley L. Klos. Noticed much of the material in many of thes articles was taken from Appleon's -- just trying to add a valuable resource. Have stopped and gone to bed. Will not do it again.
Not at all. It is possible that you will be permitted to continue adding the links — please refer to my query here. In the meantime, since at least one user has affirmed the links merit inclusion, I am undoing my hirthero removal. Thanks again for your time (and sweet dreams). El_C05:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
67.81.102.22
Maybe the IP block did not work. I caught my evil sister leaving a message to an administrator on [Simple English Wikipedia] on his/her talk page, saying that I really like Emily Roberts. I tried to stop my sister but she said "Go away" to me and then chased me out making vomit sounds at me to keep me away from the computer. What should I do? If you find a soultion, please contact me. Amos HanTalk20:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fascinating (the vomit sounds!). Anyway, you'll need to contact a Simple Wikipedia admin for that. El_C20:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
El C, can you please re change the article, i did not revert it the last time but only put the vandalized parts back to the article i guess youre not following the talk page and youre unaware of what is happening there..The reasons for my edits are listed at least for 5 times and Alexius keep damaging them--laertes d22:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see here. It's not unanimous, but a simple first question has the clearest support at the moment. Having never talked to you, I have no idea where the aggression is coming from. Marskell11:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not voting over the voting? Not only is it not unanimous, it is very far from supermajority and the numbers of voters are strikingly slim. El_C11:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Angel388
Hello EI C. Could you tell me why you have reversed the external links provided by Angel388? ([[1]] Travel guide through the WWII battlefronts in Europe with modern day pictures and information) Just curious. Thanks. Que-Can18:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't in English and is probably is more suited for the Dutch Wikipedia. Also, none of the url are related to the specific entires — they are all to main dday-veday.nl one. El_C18:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I need a block put on Stoopid Monkey as AMIB is once again trying to edit a page without consensus via the talk page first. I asked that a conversation be started on the talk page, but it isn't doing any good. So, I request a block on the Stoopid Monkey page until a consensus can be reached on the so-called "trivia" section and that it may remain in place until consensus is reached be it for or against. Thanks....SVRTVDude(Yell - Toil)02:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks...late, but thanks. I got 3RR blocked for trying to reach consensus on that page. There are some days I seriously consider being here, but thankfully those days are few and far between. - SVRTVDude(Yell - Toil)09:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your kind words and supportive comments on my recent RfA. I've been shot down again, so it won't be happening this time. I hope, though, that I can hear from you again next time around - and there definitely will be a next time.
I archived the mess on Stoopid Monkey talk page (archived on the page itself) and redid the requested for opinions below. User:Calton continues to remove those archive wikilinks saying "Discussion? Not over." and ""We"? Not your decision, Sparky." in response to my "Calton, we are not doing this again." revert.
I am trying my best to reach consensus on this page in the most responsible way possible. I archived (on page) the mess of a talk section with AIMB, Calton, and myself and tried again, but Calton wants to continue this arguement. This has got to be breaking some kind of rule. I am about to the end of my rope with him. - SVRTVDude(Yell - Toil)02:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how archiving that section is helpful as oppose to just continuing the discussion normally (it just seems distracting). I'm generally against trivial content, and I suspect this is the tendency among most experienced editors. That said, it was probably a bad idea for Calton to become involved in the dispute, considering the history between you two. Hope this helps. El_C18:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, I would be against a crapload of trivia too. But, in this case, since it has to do with the show....my opinion is for it. But part of me is also wanting the whole thing merged into the Robot Chicken article and the trivia added there, maybe as part of an episode section or such. I will continue to try my best with Calton, but he seriously makes things difficult at times. - SVRTVDude(Yell - Toil)19:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah...and with the episodes being only 11mins (15 if you count the [a s] bumpers) it would be hard to have an episode list, like say "House" or "L&O: SVU", where they can have a short trivia section. I feel a plan to make a Robot Chicken episode list section (ala "House") coming on. Actually, there is one...would you think moving the Stoopid Monkey bits (per respective episode) would be better? - SVRTVDude(Yell - Toil)20:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't call it as good as Family Guy, but it does have it's moments. My apologizes on the asking where you live question. I know other parts of the world don't have [adult swim] but do have Cartoon Network, hence why I asked. - SVRTVDude(Yell - Toil)22:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've already removed the links from the other articles. Would you give your opinion at WP:AN/I
63.151.151.59 and linkspam? I was unsure whether blanket reverting was "a good thing", and so asked there, with no response. Shenme23:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your Support on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 89/1/1. If there's anything I can help with, then you know where to find me. Cheers.
Alright; thanks, although I'm not sure I understood what you said. Is there a word missing or something else incorrect? -- tariqabjotu17:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean with respect to my latest comment on the talk page? If I recall correctly, you've earlier removed a lengthy and somewhat incoeherent but nonetheless sourced note that discussed the population in 1967, etc. But maybe I read it in a dream! El_C17:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah; perhaps you're talking about this, where I moved something from the body to the footnotes. When I wrote that part of the section originally, I intended to put that in a footnote rather than in the body because it sounded like an interjection rather than something that continues the flow of the prose. However, feel free to move it back to the body if you feel it works better that; I'm rather indifferent about its whereabouts. Take your time with responding to the request; it's not really an urgent matter. -- tariqabjotu18:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
=) the site Nazarian is an enclopydia about guns. it has relative information about guns and in this case every link posted here is guided to the actual information wikipedia often use for their own refrence. you are vandalizing and i might guess why, the red-wing images, and a false interp. of nazarian? please read up
Nazarian:
Nazarian (org: Nazarevs, Is: Nazareth) is a common Armenian Family name, origin from INRI (Iesvs Nazarevs Rex Ivdæor = Jesus Nazarian (Nazareth) King (of) judea). Nazarian is not an Nazi organization, our name is not to be mistaken for an Nazi alias, we are just as much Nazis as Ashkenazi Jews now stay off my back.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.108.205.106 (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
You will revert it back.. im currently writing an complain, it will be emailed within 20 minutes if you do not revert back and stop harasing me.. please follow the links and see that they are in fact very relevant to the subject at hand.. in any case you have 20 minutes..
As mentioned, you are free to complain, but there's no "stay off my back" — I, as a Wikipedia sysop, am mandated to enforce our external linking rules. If you wish for another sysop to handle this matter, I have no objection, either. But it's doubtful you'll get a different response. El_C13:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i really dont care who you are! to me you are a guy missusing a power.
wikipedia is an open source enclopydia which my site has contributed to in a big way with information.
my links are helping wikipedia growing even more with relative informatin and cross referance information, you are vandalizing that.
im sure cross refrence information is highly approved and a source of credability to wikipedia, yes i whould like a new sysop to take a glance on it.. and yes i know wikipedia links dossent promote my site on search engines, i add information to be kind and enlighten other people..
you are trying to control that and probably made a misshap on the name and are now sticking to you miss interp. of nazarian, since that is easyer than taking the disgrace on correcting your wrong dooing..
I did not associate the name Nazarian with Nazi, not now, not ever. Please do not assume I'm a liar or an idiot. I welcome outside input. El_C14:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also looked at this and it appears El_C and Guettarda are correct, there has been no violation of the EL guidlines (although I do remind both parties to always remain civil). ^demon[omg plz]20:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've undone your block of User:John Smith's, as the page is now protected. Blocking him only serves to prevent discussion of the issues in question on the article's talk page. You must have missed my note that there was no action... I guess I shouldn't have put it inline with their comments, sorry about that. --Deskana(ya rly)23:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wheel warring is generally unhelpful. My apologies, that was misdirected (although I would have still prefered you'd check with me first). El_C23:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, so's blocking him for 72 hours when the page is protected. He can't violate 3RR anymore. All it does is slow discussions down. --Deskana(ya rly)23:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nor would he have a reason to, since you seem to have ignored his 3RR breach and protected the page on his last version. El_C00:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to revert him while it's still protected, feel free, I won't argue. I don't much fancy doing it though, as it's showing some sort of preference as to a particular page version. --Deskana(ya rly)00:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that by ignoring (i.e. not acting on) his 3RR breach and protecting the page on his version, you are inadvertantly showing some sort of preference to his particular page version. El_C00:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for your hitherto argument, the parties seem to actually need a break from the talk page, too; the discussion seems rather heated at this time. El_C00:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's okay, I'm confident in your abilities to handle the matter without further involvement from myself at this stage. I retract some of my prior statements with apologies, although I trust that you will note my concerns. Best wishes, El_C00:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just left this message to Deskana to ask him to reconsider, and to unblock this page because what we have now is not in the best interests of this article. I don't think Deskana has followed the talk page discussions, and thus is making a mistake in protecting the page again, as well as unblocking the one person who is violating 3RR, again, causing this. As I wrote to Deskana:
"...protecting the page again is unnecessary. There is only one editor who is edit waring with everyone else, and he has been blocked. During the last page protection we discussed the issue at lenght, and there is not much more to discuss. We are only repeating ourselves. He simply thinks that edit waring is an acceptable way to get what he wants, and has pleged to continue. Everone else on both sides of the fence have agreed to include this passage and only John Smith persists in edit waring over it--one person.
I think the correct method is for him to be told he must abide by consensus, or seek a Rfc, etc--not to edit war. Its not fair to keep the whole article hostage with a protection just because of one user, getting his way by breaking the 3RR rule. So, in light of his block, there will be no more edit warring now--and if he comes back and continues he can be warned and blocked again. Edit waring is not allowed. I understand protecting a when there are two groups of people and there needs to be discussion taking place, but this is not one of those situations. The discussion has taken place over and over and its just this one user."
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I'm sure he will read them carefuly. For my part, I'll try to keep an eye on the situation from a distance. El_C00:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the results of the 3RR complaint at [3], is it permissible to remove the warnings from my talk page which I view as bogus in light of the other member of the then revert war removing his, a right which was upheld by two other admins before Awiseman baited the 3RR, etc., and his subsequent warnings per my comments in the admin noticeboard listing? I understand that such a practice is generally frowned upon, but I feel it is justified in light of the reasoning, again, from my comments in the listing. 67.101.243.7403:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the fact that 67.101.243.74 is registered to Corcoran College of Art and may be shared by multiple users, a good idea would be for you to register an account. So please do so; why make this any more complicated than it needs to be? El_C03:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so. I have not, to date, as my editing was infrequent enough that it never became desirable until the past several days. The conflict brought on by Awiseman, which I felt needed to be responded to as he had engaged in some form of directed attacks, has given me reason to do so. That said, can I assume it is permissible to remove the bogus warnings as well as Awiseman's warnings that have been tacitly rejected through the 3RR results? Thank you for your attention. 67.101.243.7403:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hi El C how are you, better I hope?
my attention has been drawn to the blocking of User_talk:Rarelibra#3RR_block, my assumption is regarding the issue of [4]. Apparently the user has been blocked for 31 hours, isn't that a little harsh if that is the case? I also see that the other party involved (I assume this is User:Pmanderson) has not even been warned. I would appreciate your thoughts on this, thank you. sincerely Gryffindor11:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it that you think a user having been blocked for 24 hours in the first 3RR and 24 hours in the second one, is somehow harshly treated when s/he is blocked for 31 hours in the third. Looking forward to your explanation. Thanks. El_C12:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20:36, 4 April 2007 El C (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Rarelibra (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours (3RR) (Unblock)
07:59, 27 January 2007 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Rarelibra (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock enabled) with an expiry time of 24 hours( 3rr on Tenedos) (Unblock)
11:43, 24 March 2006 Phil Boswell (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Rarelibra (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Breach of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule on Talk:Cyprus) (Unblock)
ok, I think I see now what you did. You took into account previous blocks on different topics, one that happened more than a year ago (Cyprus), and another one that happened in January (Tenedos), am I correct? Looking into WP:3RR#Enforcement, sysops can measure differently if they want to take into account previous blocks or not. So in this case you compounded the block because of previous cases, right? Gryffindor15:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - I don't know whether this article that you created is still on your watchlist, but you might want to have a look (not that I'm suggesting you own the article, of course, but you will know the events involved much better than I do). An IP user (User talk:213.219.16.20) made multiple changes, which I spotted whilst on vandalism patrol. I undid the changes with an edit summary explaining why and left a fuller message on the IP's talk page. As the IP user seems to insist on keeping his/her changes, in quite heated language, I thought I should back off and seek outside help. I know nothing about the events and I'm not prepared to take sides, but I thought that the IP's changes were unhelpful. If you don't have time yourself to have a look, can you suggest where I might bring this up for others to see and discuss? (I don't think we're at RFC level yet.) Thanks, Bencherlite12:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot of edits for just to remove two sentences(!). Just restore em and convert to past tense. El_C13:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, when you blocked Cs for edit warring today, were you aware the case was a week old? I'm not quite sure how to handle such cases when they are stale - Back then, it had been Cs who filed the report against his opponent, User:KazakhPol, and he got a week block. Cs's reverting is a bit of a borderline case because he introduced different new text every time and his edits could (with some goodwill) be seen as constructive seeking of compromise rather than sterile reverting. (See previous discussion on User talk:KazakhPol[6]) Fut.Perf.☼13:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Future Perfect at Sunrise is mistaken. Cs did not file a WP:3RR report for the week long block - Dmcdevit decided three reverts in 24 hours merited it. Cs's case is hardly borderline. He repeatedly lied about his edits in his edit summaries, reverting while calling his edits a "fix" or a correction. The fact that the same text was consistently removed shows you he was reverting to an earlier version and then slightly changing the text. I was not aware of the statute of limitations on blocks. KazakhPol15:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blocks are not punitive and any 3RR violtations older than two days is usually discarded, not to mention an entire week. El_C15:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KazakhPol is right about the sequence of events, insofar as Cs didn't file a 3RR report. I apologise, in case anybody feels it really makes a difference. -- But that said, what are we going to do about these two guys? They are back at revert-warring the minute you release them. This has been going on for weeks or months. --Fut.Perf.☼17:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to see that I have been unclear at WP:AN3. Rarelibra did make five exact (and one almost exact) reversions, but to different versions of the original text. What format would be clearer than:
Aivazovsky goes to Baristarim's talk page, questions him why he doesn't have WikiProject Armenia tag on his userpage then decides it is up to him to add it, adds it on his userpage, then comes Bohater asks him the same question with a (!) at the end. I felt they were dictating him, reverted the page twice to Baris' prior version stating what they are doing is "dictation and ill mannered" but they are persistent. Why do you first ask then put it yourself I mean? Anyway that's just the intro. Then I receive these comments. My favourite part is "you already picked on Armenian users by introducing your Armenian terrorism category". I don't like this kind of talk, I think it is quite out of line. For the record I just created the Armenian terrorism cat to collect ASALA and others under one cat. Regards.--DoktorGonzo00:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anyway that you could step in on the Stoopid Monkey talk page. I repeated the same line over and over and over hoping that User:Calton would get the point that I was done and wanted nothing to do with him, but he kept coming back time and time again. No one is going to give opinions and ideas with him around. This whole thing is one big arguement for him and he isn't going to stop unless an admin steps in and stops him. Please...help. - SVRTVDude(Yell - Toil)06:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this is about the nazarian.no links... Looking at Heckler & Koch UMP and a couple of other articles, I see no sign of plagarism. Can you specify which articles you think they plagarized, and let me look into whether they took content from WP or if someone here took it from there? It could easily have gone the other way around; we've had a lot of content come into WP copyvio'ed from nazarian.no and world.guns.ru info pages. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert18:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen a few. Brixia Model 35 (Dec 2004/nazarian), for example. Nazarian dosen't date its entries, but Tronno confirms they copied material from Wikipedia and not vice versa (he complained about this in 2005 and I've asked him to review again for 2007). Anyway, all it takes is one such instance for the site to become unreliable as a ref and less than useful as an external link. Thx. El_C19:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't paid much attention to how much of their material was cribbed elsewhere, but it appears that you're right; I'm seeing a lot from world.guns.ru there. I can't tell from looking at it which direction the info flowed for the Brixia article; it could have been lifted off nazarian, or could have been taken by them from here. The Wikipedia article appeared in a remarkably well formatted first draft, which is a little odd. I will continue to research. Georgewilliamherbert19:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tronno is an excelent frame of reference — he's been creating weapons articles since 2004, so I'm greatly relying on his experience. While he, himself, does not seem to mind that nazraian is plagiarizing himself —see for example, in Ares Shrike 5.56 (2004/nazarian)— I feel it's a very bad idea to continue to link to their entries (see Talk:Type 38 rifle#plagiarized, etc.). Too much confusion. Best to only link to their pdf manuals and mpgs in light of these issues. El_C19:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to "the Wikipedia article appear[ing] in a remarkably well formatted first draft, which is a little odd," you may wish to pass those concern to the creator, User:Riddley, who on a cursory glance seems credible (more so than nazarian; but I invite proponents of the site to offer evidence to the contrary). El_C19:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RE:sermonsfortoday.org
Re: comment - I felt the links I added were genuinely helpful. And you've reverted so spelling mistakes I had corrected. Felt your comment was a little unreasonable.
Hi. All your edits involved adding the sermonsfortoday.org link to major gospel-related entries, which is why I copied the text from {{spam}}. I didn't notice any spelling corrections, but if I accidentally undid those, I offer my apologies. Thanks. El_C19:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand. I do not care about your opinion on whether Al-Durrah died or not whether you dislike my comment. I was asking which policy you were citing and why you feel the comment would ever justify a block. KazakhPol20:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting interpretation of WP:NOT#SOAP. I am glad to see an administrator is enforcing this policy. You will no doubt want to warn SlimVirgin for her violations on Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah[7][8] and of course remove her comments as they, as you are interpreting the policy, violate WP:NOT. KazakhPol21:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you felt a need to re-add Kzrulzuall's comment[9], especially since he removed it on the grounds that it was "disruption." Generally I try to avoid messing with other user's comments, but I guess you feel you can do that. KazakhPol00:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"In the interests of full disclosure" and all that, I do have a history of debate with this user. But I would call out anyone that made a comment like that. Just wanted to say that. Tarc22:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El_C. Thanks for getting involved with this matter, it is much appreciated. I won't say more just now since I haven't caught up with everything that was said while I was away from my computer. I haven't even read Zeq's alleged accusation. Cheers. --Zerotalk01:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. It's been a few months since I've engaged the matter. I'm dissapointed to learn that little to no improvement has been made. El_C01:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing a good break could'nt fix. Sorry, I havne't entirely caught up with the aforementioned ANI thread, but I did leave a statement for the AC with my thoughts just now, which I hope will prove useful. Please let me know if there's anything else I could do to help. All the best, El_C20:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abbreviation
Hi ElC,I don't know what does "mfa" means and I don't know if your comments are addressed towards me or Humus sapiens. Would you please include more details. Thanks --Aminz01:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to semi-protect the Toyota FJ Cruiser article? The external links were recently cleaned up, and an anon user is now continually trying to put one of them back. Thanks! :) Rarelibra19:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Followup: Upon writing the above, there were only one, but now there are many. Figures! I'm still opting to discuss the issue with them before semiprotecting. But, certainly, the rever war (which greatly escalated while I was writing my note to 207.152.xx) must stop now. El_C19:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Understand I was trying to keep the page as discussed on the Talk page when another user helped me clean up all the excessive links. As the links are now is fine, I hope I do not violate by protecting the page with reverting. Rarelibra19:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must applaud his success in correctly spelling my name. Not sure why he decided not to sign his own signature though. Does this count as using Wikipedia as a soapbox?[11] I cant tell. Can I remove it? KazakhPol08:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from pedantic comments and sarcastic overtones here, KazakhPol, about spelling or anything. In answer to the question: it certainly isn't phrased as or is part of a discussion (not to mention the personal attack prelude), so I'd say, yes. As for you removing it, that's really up to the user in question, but I certainly don't envision a problem doing so. El_C09:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you expect me to say? Terrorists and criminal groups from a half of the world are armed in Transnistria. Their accomplice are the dictator, came from the KGB and... the Russian Army", Il Venerdi Italian daily writes it in its last issued. That's your second sentence?(!) I'm sorry but it is grossly pov and well below our standards (not to mention removing the infobox). So much so that your edits can be seen as soapboxing and a provocation. El_C12:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NPA violation and removal of edits in Talk pages
Greetings. I don't know if this is serious enough for the AnI so I would rather try resolving this in a low-profile manner first. It concerns the uncivil and disruptive behaviour of user:Rayis, which in my opinion should not be tolerated by WP. In the beginning I thought he was a new user and tried to be tolerant but apparently it is not the case. Anyway here goes, I'm in the middle of explaining a misconception in the calmest manner possible. The tension starts with Rayis making provokative comments of the type [12] and evolves to uncivil behaviour and personal comments [13]. I answer with a jemenfoutist comment accompanied with a warning on personal attacks, which get instantly removed[14]. Despite numerous warnings, Rayis removed/changed my text several times, so he actually revert-warred in an attempt to shut me up or hide my comments [15],[16],[17], [18]. He went on about an non-existent personal attack. He'll also claim that I also reverted his edits, eventhough I had repeatedly explained to him that this happened during the process of me trying to restore my edits by reverting his vandalism[19]. An admin advised me to leave him a message in his talk page and so I did. I requested for an apology and I received a plain insult and mocking in return [20]. Following this disruptive behaviour (uncivilty, removal of NPA warnings, removal of other editors' edits) I think the user deserves to be disciplined in order to obtain a better understanding of the terms "personal attack" and "civilty" in wikipedia. I'm prepared to take the matter to AnI if you judge that it's relevant enough to the board's scope. I actually feel offended by a disruptive editors I would be pleased to receive an apology from his part. Thanks in advance for your help. Miskin21:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! At a glance, I'm not sure where the user directs personal attacks, although the tone seems mildly uncivil, I don't think it rises to being a pressing issue at this point. Just remind the user to stick to dispassionate and innuendo-free, matter-of-fact comments. Regards, El_C21:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the comment about my "childish behaviour" a personal attack [21]? And what about the user's constant talk-page vandalism due to his own poor understanding of uncivilty? I tried more than once to explain it to him but he responded with insults. I think he needs to hear it by an administrator, he's demonstrated an extremely disruptive behaviour that he's bound to repeat it since he thinks that everything's cool about it. Miskin21:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs I linked above: [22],[23],[24], [25]. He's been removing my edits due to his own poor understanding of uncivilty. This tempts me to reply with comments mind in isolation as well. Except his own should not be viewed in isolation. Miskin22:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Miskin, I am not sure what you are trying to achieve here by posting this to different admins such as Khoikhoi [26], Future Perfect at Sunrise [27], and now here. I deeply regret that you found my comment(s) "provokative" however, the personal attack I removed was very rude and in my opinion, unfounded (WP:AGF). You are free to have your own opinions of course. I am not sure how much longer you wanna stretch this but I would suggest you chill out and we can forget about it, I already have --Rayis22:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not begin to discuss the issues without the personal remarks and incivility and forget about hitherto ones; aim at utmost moderation and dry exposition from now on. And please, nobody remove anyone's comments unless it is extreme (like racist exclamations and so on), and certainly don't strikeout other users' comments — strikeout should be used only on one's own comments, to indicate a retraction, so the effect of striking someone elses comment is highly misleading. Thank you both in advance. El_C23:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. It can get pretty crazy when user breaks a policy themselves and at the same time warns another user about it! Well I shouldn't have crossed it out, it seems like only admins can get away with removal of personal attacks, etc from what I have seen in the past. Never mind, I hope Miskin can understand that we got slightly carried away and we can forget about it. Thanks again for being reasonable, --Rayis23:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. I realize it's easy to get carried away, but from my frame of reference, tis all rather mild and an easily amenable dispute. Some of the disputes I'm asked to look into, I get the feeling that if the parties involved were in the same room, they would fight to the death. And the thing they say to each other... vicious, mean-spirited, intended to produce maximum harm. This is nothing serious, although certainly, I am hopeful I can help to stop it on its tracks. El_C23:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Rayis but I won't forget about it until you receive a formal warning or I receive an apology. Uncivilty and insults are largely not a subjective issue. Despite what you claim, I was the one who was insulted, so I'm just looking for the person who will care enough about it. No offence EL_C, you know how I mean it. Look at Rayis' last comment, he actually thinks "I broke a policy", this is at least laughable. Miskin23:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really urge you to let it go, for now. I think that that is the best course of action; certainly, if further issues arise, please let me know. Thx. El_C23:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I get the joke. You removed the space between Oppose and Neutral so that they would appear as "Oppose Neutral"... I just don't understand the reason for that, or the reason for the subsequent comment under the new "Oppose Neutral" section. LeeboT/C09:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a misunderstanding all around. Hopefully it won't be a bigger deal than it has become. Notice, I am neutral on Tony's RfA for other reasons, so it didn't affect my decision. It's true though that it exposed Tony's less than desirable communication with other editors. LeeboT/C13:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True. At the same time, he could have clicked on my log to see that I blocked hundreds of usres, deleted or protected hundreds of pages to realize how unlikely it is that I'm a vandal. So while I regret not paying attention to realize I was the cause for oppose neutral, if it was my RfA, I would have been much more careful (actually, I faced serious provocation in my RfA by Sam Spade, but I opted not to respond to him, or at all, anywhere). El_C13:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Protection of Bernard Lewis
Hi ElC,
I just wanted to leave a note about the protection of this article. The purpose of its protection is for parties to join the talk page. User:Beit Or first removed the material by this edit [29] arguing it to be "remove blogs, CounterPunch, and uncited material per WP:BLP". I then posted this diff on the talk page [30] questioning Beit Or's arguments. Beit Or's arguments was further questioned by User:FCYTravis here [31]. Since then, I have been asking Beit Or and Karl Meier to join the talk page (please see the section [32]). I further left a note on User:FCYTravis's talk page pointing out that Beit Or does not join the talk page and implicitly asked the user to protect the article.
Since it happened that you incidentally locked the page precisely one minute after Beit Or's revert, I am concerned that Beit Or wouldn't join the talk page at all (I have asked him many times before but he has not posted anything on the talk page) since the article is locked in his version. Thanks --Aminz00:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are a very productive editor. Do you have a bot that is logged in as you ?
If so the bot edits are bundlled with yours, thousands of edits per day and this makes it impossible to seprate your edits from the bot edits.
can you open an ID to the bot (like el-C-bot) ? and see to it that your contribution page Special:Contributions/El_C allow editors to take a look at your ownn contrubution - right now the length of your contribution page makes it practivally impossible to search your contributions. Thank You, Zeq14:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. No, I don't have a bot. I have a watchlist with ~20,000 pages. I don't make thousands of edits per day (now that would be bot-like). Probably more to the order of ~100. Sadly, a sizable precentage of all edits on the wiki are vandalism or tests, so that's why you see so many rollbacks on my contribution list. El_C14:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No Bot, so you are really a productive guy. I did not relaize there is so much vandalism to be fought with. Good luck. You realize that wikipedia would have got rid of all vandalism if it would move to a model by which articles are worked in the background (by all registed editor) and only when stable they are put for general public. The incntive for vandalism would vanish. Zeq18:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, again. :) It truly is an endless volume. Yes, I realize that, but there are disadvatages to that system, too. Still, one of the shifts toward this approach, which was intorudced last year, was to limit article creation and image upload to register users only. El_C19:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have written a brief essay and valuing your sensibilities as I do I wonder if you have the time if you would look at it and make any changes you think would improve it (or, if you don't want to do that, register any comments on the talk page). Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk15:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know if there is something on wikipedia that will tell you the weather? Because it would be nice if I could just look on wikipedia on my userpage or the wikipedia homepage for the weather. "Nothing else matters"01:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note of thanks for your massive help in combating vandalism. I often see something like El C - reverted... It's great to have people like you and your efforts are greatly appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.104.241.75 (talk) 09:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I'm sorry, I still don't get it. But I'm curious to learn. What explanation is in your logs? All I see is several edits to the RfA page [33]/ [34]/ [35], and an explanation I don't quite understand, either. Was it meant as a joke in the first place or were you trying to repair/comment on some autonumbering error? Sorry to bother you, but could you explain? I'm not usually that slow, but I'm at a loss with this one. —AldeBaer11:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't say. That's what the log shows, now I get it. Stupid me. — Of course you're not a vandal, but TonyTheTiger's question at AN was if your edit was vandalism, not an accusation of you as a vandal, or did he? Different things, in my opinion. —AldeBaer11:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so he did accuse you. However, practical jokes are not everyone's favourite flavour. Why did you do it anyway? Why on Tony's RfA? —AldeBaer12:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He has jumped in a completely unrelated case, while I am trying to report an incivility by another user to me, to talk page of another admin, repeating the same things and accusing me "incivility", "poor understanding of WP:POLICY", being "disruptive editor", etc etc. [36] and asking for me to be "warned"... Oh and apparently: [37].
Can you ask him again to let this go or open up a RfC because this is super annoying when I am trying to deal with another case here. I will really appreciate this. Regards, --Rayis14:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I feel that you're a disruptive editor on the loose - this was demonstrated by things you said and did in the near past - things that you constantly refused to take back and mocked at me for requesting you to do so). It is my right to provide my opinion at any moment. If you think that my interference is "super-annoying" then you should have not forbidden me to leave you messages in your Talk page. I never have an content dispute with you, my dispute has been with your behaviour, therefore any case regarding your behaviour is "related" to my case as far as I'm concerned. Miskin15:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What right? your right to go everywhere I go to accuse me of things and feed any trolls I meet on Wiki? This is a clear case of complete incivility and HARASSMENT! --Rayis15:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The right of caring about wikipedia's integrity without being an administrator. Since when are administrators "trolls" in wikipedia? I never spoke to Gerrard77 who quarreled with you, nor did I ever participate in your content dispute, that would have been wikistalking. I only referred to the administrator about your past behaviour, if he thinks I'm wrong then he can simply ignore my claims. That's no more wikistalking that your uninvited appearence in this very talk page. Since you forbade me to leave you messages in your Talk page, you left me with little choice. Miskin15:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Miskin, please give Rayis some space as I requested you to do. If you feel there are pressing issues, please email me. Thanks. El_C03:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Fort Lauderdale neighborhoods edit!
Although I've been on Wikipedia for roughly a year or so, I'm still not quite Wiki savvy. Anyhow, I just wanted to say thanks for editing it & making it look more presentable. I take pride in living in South Florida, specifically in Fort Lauderdale's neigborhood of Riverland Village. ^_^ I think it needs adjusting again though, because some 'tard & a half put Cooper City (a separate city) into Ft. Lauderdale's 'hoods.
You are most welcome. :) Thank you for adding a source (sometimes it's difficult to tell what's what). Glad to have you here. Happy editing! El_C16:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking. I didn't really intend for it to get out like this, as it was initially just brainstorming, but I guess it's too late now. It's something I think has been my common practice for a while.
I was in the middle of an approach like this at Transnistria, which is in terrible shape: [39], [40]. It looks like MariusM and Buffadren have gone back to edit warring again, though, right after you unprotected. I don't think I can follow through personally, since I've already proposed a ban on Marius, who has 5 prior edit warring blocks, elsewhere, and he has apparently reported me to the Foundation, so I want to avoid the appearance of impropriety. I think someone should do something about the persistent edit warring there other than protecting the article to let them continue unreformed. Dmcdevit·t09:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I have not been following an entirely conventional approaches myself; see my response to Geogre on WP:AN. Also, related to your second note, which I'll address momentarily, see my approach to the Transnistria infobox and ensuing exchange with Domitius (now User:Ploutarchos) here. I am of the opinion he should become party to the case. I guess I've already began to mention Transnistria, so I'll conclude by reiterating that it (your essay) is an insightful read and, indeed, it has caused quite a stirr. Which I don't at all think is a bad thing (at least not yet!). Onwards and upwards to Transnistria: I'm dissapointed to learn that revert warring has continued so quickly. I definitely agree that is has gone way out of control. Perhaps an immediate injunction would be in order. I'll submit a note on RfAr page. El_C16:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I may butt in here, this is really a case where I agree with a blocking approach. The warning has been there all along, the behaviour of several parties is clearly unproductive, the situation must be stopped. I'd be prepared to start with a few blocks myself at this point. Fut.Perf.☼16:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the edit warring did look like it subsided (though that's what I said last time), so I was gonna hold off on any action; but I'll leave this to your discretion. El_C17:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with regards to an injunction, and also about Domitius, who I mentioned in my own statement. Hopefully the blocks will cool things down, even that is even possible with these editors. As for my essay, I don't think it's perfect either, or at least not perfectly expressed. I hope people stop calling it "Dmcdevit's method"... ;-) Dmcdevit·t18:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait till we start forming creative jargon idioms from it. "He went all dmc on them". Or: "He dmc'd the article". (Verbing weirds language). Fut.Perf.☼19:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noted the source for the "I. Liviu" on the talk page -- several editions of "Who's Who", summarized at the Biography & Genealogy Master Index at ancestry.com. NawlinWiki22:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Librescu was 76 and not 77 at the time of his death. He was born on August 18, 1930, and died on April 16, 2007, so he would have completed 77 in August of this year. So, he died at the age of 76. Just mentioning, because of your edit where you undid the revision by MultiKoopa. Dimoklit23:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I would have appreciated a chance to mediate the dispute and arbitration does appear a bit premature at this point in time. El_C23:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, should the arbitration request be declined, please do mediate the dispute. I personally don't think it'd help, but if you're willing, I think it's probably worth a shot. --Deskana(fry that thing!)23:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, because of the arbitration request, it looks less likely to succeed, but I'll do what I can. El_C23:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Inadvertantly, of course. I mean, what appears to be JS increasing antipathy toward my involvement. I do think both of us mediating jointly would have been ideal, however. Alas, water under the bridge. Regards, El_C23:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know we had too much of a history together. Maybe I suffer from Amnesia and simply don't remember our history togther. hehe See [43] But, I want to thank you for offering to mediate with Deskana and hope that can possibly still take place if necessary.Giovanni3319:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's... interesting. To the best of my recollection, I did not know you existed until a few weeks ago when I first noticed your userpage. El_C19:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry El C, but I was mistaken - Giovanni doesn't bother checking page histories before he edits. Of course he wouldn't tell you I realised my mistake. However I don't feel comfortable with you as a mediator, so I can't accept you. Thanks for being willing to give up your time anyway. John Smith's19:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, El C - John Smith's is actually here. He'd appreciate it if you talked to him, rather than around him. :) But if that was the case, doesn't that suggest it might not have been easy for you to remain non-partisan? Or were you unable to help Slim then/find nothing terribly wrong? John Smith's21:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it doesn't matter that much now. I think a completely neutral 3rd party without any involvement/knowledge of Giovanni or myself is the best way to move ahead on this - I hope you understand my thoughts on this. John Smith's21:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that the article was protected, but the Reverts and Vandalism by user Dbachmann (aka dab), Rudrasharman (aka rudra), and unknown IP's cut out the text in question, which most of it has been going on for over a month now, and I these 2 plus Paul Barlow has continued to change their Positions/Arguments, and when I ask for source/citation to support his argument (asked them well over 10 times) they ignoring the claims. These guys are ganging-up on users on various pages such as the Aryan Invasion Migrations where user dab even claims to not accept any citations that deal with Genetics (Paraphrased quote from dab on Aryan Invasion Migration). They have shown a direct relationship in supporting each other on various issues dealing "Aryans" and has many other disputes going on in his talk pages. Can you please revert back to the "19:26, 13 April 2007 Anwar saadat (rvv)" and then reprotect the page? The only reason that I'm asking it that there has been 4-6 weeks discussion, in where they keep changing there positions, and don't show supporting evidence to their claims (which I have claimed sounds like an original researched argument). Thank you. P.S: user dab also accepted my contributions, after saying for so long they were irrelevant, but with a biased view. After not getting what he wanted, he went back again, saying he never accepted (but shows he did in fact agreed).
Cosmos41620:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt Dbachmann or Paul Barlow engaged in vandalism, I know them both to be serious scholars & respectable editors. Please follow the steps outlined on WP:DR, aiming at more moderate language. Also, I feel I must decline your request; see m:wrong version for details. El_C01:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go again, seems like your playing this "scholars" card...right...okay...if they are "scholars" can they present some personally complied published research on the subject? Cause you protecting 2 guys who do not show sources, and shown relation., Dab ACCEPTED the edit, and then reserved it. That's alright, I'll find an another admin who is Impartial, unlike you seem to be.
Cosmos41621:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S 'respectable' isn't the right word for these 2, it's the Opposite seeing as they go around various pages, making baseless claims, without sources, and support each other directly in all cases. That biased and not neutral. You sound like a big fan of theirs, ever been to their concerts? Because the amount of BS is incredible. Here's some links showing there non-neutral behavior. From dab's talk page: (dab and rudra are in cahoots with each other) [44][45][46] From out of India Theory: (dab and rudra are in cahoots with each other)
[47] From Indo-Aryan Migration Theory: (dab and rudra are in cahoots with each other) [48]. Enough said. Cosmos41621:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you need to follow WP:DR and outline your objections through the much more comprehensible RfC format. As well, please refrain from needless hostility and innunedo. It is doesn't help you to advance your arguments & creates tension for naught. Thanks in advance. El_C01:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your protection block on the 13th, I think you may have to extend it when it expires on the 20th, as there is a good chance that Cosmos416 (talk·contribs) will persist with re-inserting his absurd material. He is unreasoning, intransigent and hostile, mainly because his bad faith has been repeatedly exposed on the Talk page. His case is not isolated, unfortunately. There are a number of disruptive editors like him plaguing this and related pages, all stemming from a particular politico-religious POV they feel compelled to impose on WP. I'm not sure what can be done, as a piecemeal page-by-page editor-by-editor approach will not address the endemic problem behind all this. rudra16:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A remarkably similar case is Sbhushan (talk·contribs). Another editor, WIN (talk·contribs), is in complete sympathy with their shared POV, but has a different style: for months he treated some Talk pages as discussion forums, posting long rambling screeds and demanding that they be "discussed"; eventually he started adding these screeds to articles, as well as editing them in ways to suggest that mainstream scholarship is ignorant, demented and/or conspiratorial. All of them know how to game the system -- be it slow reverts, or demanding counter-citations in the style of Wikipedia:Astronomer vs Amateur, or claiming that paraphrases/representations of mainstream opinion are "original research", or nitpicking, or preemptive accusations of bad faith, ad hominem and whatnot -- and are not above random insertions into articles that reduce coherent passages to gibberish, if only to make a point. The basic motivation is that they want Wikipedia's voice for their "truth" and therefore anything else is simply not acceptable to them. That explains everything, from sabotaging articles to mulish disputation on Talk pages. It's a mess, and WP policy doesn't really have a defence. rudra18:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the pages related to this one, (AIT), are: Out of India Theory(OIT), Indigenous Aryans(IAT) and Indo-Aryan Migration(IAM). The relationship is supposed to be as follows: IAM is the position of mainstream scholarship; OIT is the specific counter-theory of a pseudoscholarly revisionist school; OIT is a subset of IAT, which more accurately covers the range of these revisionist concerns; and AIT is the historiographical and historical basis of the arguments animating the revisionism. In practice, the articles overlap considerably and indiscriminately, mainly because of the entropic effect of these POV-pushers constantly introducing material in the belief that they have to "refute" mainstream scholarship anywhere and everywhere. (Symptomatically, I don't think Sbhushan (talk·contribs) has edited any other articles in mainspace since he came on board.) rudra19:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are two other slow-revert-type shenanigans at present, one at Out of India and another at Indo-Aryan Migration. The first has Sbhushan (talk·contribs) insisting that a paraphrase of material fully documented at Indo-Iranians is "original research" (background at the Talk page); the second has WIN (talk·contribs) doggedly trying to insert some of his favorite fringe material based on what amount to blogs (the Talk page has some sections on it: here, here and here, interspersed with another "incident" involving Sbhushan.) rudra02:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you could watch this article, I would be thankful. It might need some protection in the close future.
One dispute is over addition of Arafat's view. I have now summerized the arguments we had for its inclusion here [49]. But Beit Or (and Arrow740 who doesn't post anything on the talk page[50] and just reverts to Beit Or Arrow made one edit to the talk page regarding this dispute.) think it is a fringe view and should be excluded. --Aminz23:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. It's important, I think, to illustrate how widely-held views, especially controversial ones, are. I'm not saying there is no room to mention that one, but I certainly could see why they would object so long as it isn't grounded in historiographical consensus. Thank you. El_C01:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. In fact, we have acknowledge that this is a minority-held view. In my version, I wrote it as "Historian William Montgomery Watt finds Arafat's arguments "not entirely convincing." but a few historians such as Jere L. Bacharach have found it convincing."; Str1977 wrote this as "While a few scholars like Jere L. Bacharach have accepted this, Montgomery Watt has called Arafat's arguments "not entirely convincing." In either case, I think the view deserves to be mentioned in one sentence. Beit Or says that since it is a minority-held view, we should remove it. --Aminz01:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's entirely true; edit warring is not good. I tried to add a POV tag to the section until the disputes are over [51] but Beit Or removed it saying: [52]. Without a POV tag, and without mentioning this valid POV, it is hard for me to aviod edit-warring.--Aminz01:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been badly vandalised recently and I'm not even sure it should be here. Best leave it in the hands of an expert! Thanks.
Hello. Looks like it has been deleted as a copyrights infringement of beercook.com. Feel free to restore with original content. Regards, El_C09:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted Nurmir (talk·contribs) on this article with the automated rollback function without any further explanation in the edit summary (I haven't checked elsewhere yet). They claim they're the copyright owners of the images on the help desk and I already told them what to do. Could you discuss this with them and explain your worries to them? 131.211.210.1209:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC) (aka MacGyverMagic -- too lazy to sign in and write the message again)[reply]
There's a couple of other issues here as well. First, it's a duplicate article of Muraqaba, split simply to promote one book or author or school. Second, it's an instruction manual article, which violates WP:NOT. I've nominated it for deletion. I suppose I could have just redirected it, but I didn't discover the other article until after I'd opened the nomination. IPSOS (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The tags were automatically removed then restored (to get rid of some glitches), but it looks like this one got overlooked. Anyway, fixed. El_C20:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pig Latin
I see you've reverted my edits putting Pig Latin into Pig Latin, so I've created a separate page with the English version and a "go-to" at the top of the igPay atinLay page. Is this a suitable compromise? kenifh
No, it isn't. We may cite a few examples, but having the entry itself authored that way is disruptive. El_C06:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about if the main page were to be in English, with a link available from there to a Pig Latin version? Surely, you can't call that disruptive, as the Pig Latin version is just an amusing alternative for anyone who wants to read it?
I've seen humour on articles before, and indeed in the Encyclopædia Britannica. Should I write to them and tell them to stop being amusing? And thanks for sorting out my italics.
No problem. That's a bit too anecdotal for me to comment. At any rate, this is policy here. Again, sorry. El_C07:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for dealing with the Transnistrians. Just FYI, I've also blocked Buffadren now, feel free to adjust as necessary. Fut.Perf.☼08:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C. Two of the images on your userpage, Image:Pr032206a 6.jpg and Image:Pr032206a 1.jpg, which you originally uploaded under a free license, were switched to some sort of unfree license by an 69.142.111.235 (talk·contribs) back on the twelfth of this month. I trust you can deal with this, but I just wanted to let you know that you technically shouldn't have them there right now. Picaroon22:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Picaroon. I appreciate you bringing this matter to my attention. The ip is probably right. Best to be on the safe side and assume that US govt. agencies would choose not respect the FARC's copyrights. Thanks again for taking care of it. El_C06:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request for your views
Thanks for the comments on AN/I regarding my proposal on the Israeli military relations article. I've created Israel-United States military relations partly as a merge of that article, partly as a content fork of Israel-United States relations (which it's intended to parallel) and partly as a chunk of new content sourced largely from Jane's. The format is intended to be usable as a standard template across multiple articles of this type - see the explanation on Talk:Israel-United States military relations. I've not announced it publicly yet because I want to get some views from sensible (!) editors first; could you take a look and let me know what you think? -- ChrisO23:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw you blocking EvilAlex for the usage of word "vandal". Just for you information, today somebody else used the word "vandal" [53]. But he is on the other side of the Force.--MariusM09:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for removing the spamlinks from an IP user on various pages to do with Wicca and Neopaganism. The spammer has added others in the same spree, and I'll try and clean them out later if nobody beats me to it! Kim dent brown09:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my oppinion, the current version of Transnistria article isn't neutral and I would like to ask you a third opinion. I suggested what I think is a better version, but I was reverted, mainly on these arguments. I'll summarise my view here:
The definition Transnistria is a de facto independent unrecognised republic is unacceptable. Among others, de facto suggests Transnistria is not what the international community states it is. Encyclopaedia Britannica defines Transnistria as a secessionist territory [54].
The second paragraph was added by User:Ştefan44(Mauco) and sounds to me like a sophism: My cat functions like a human being, having one mouth, two ears, one nose, a heart and a brain.
I was refering to:"Transnistria fought a war for independence with the help of Russian 14th Army in 1992 and is seeking recognition as an independent state. Its independence has not been recognized, and its legal status continues to be an issue of contention. It functions as a sovereign country with its own postal system and stamps, police, military, currency, constitution, flag, national anthem, coat of arms, and has its own parliament and government."
also: the 1992 war in Transnistria is called war for independence only in the separatist propaganda.
The paragraph I've added to the intro is translated from a verdict issued by the European Court of Human Rights.
I was refering to:
"During the Moldavian conflict (1991-1992), the 14th Russian Army in Transnistria fought on Transnistrian separatist side. Russian authorities contributed both military and political to the creation of a separatist regime in Transnistria, a region which is part of Moldovan territory. Even after the July 21 1992 armistice, Russia continued to sustain military, politically and economically the separatist regime, thus allowing it to survive, strengthening and obtaining certain autonomy from Moldova. Russia continues to maintain illegally troops in Transnistria, breaking the July 21 1992 agreement. This ensemble of elements is liable to prove that "PMR" continues to be under the effective authority or at least decisive influence of Russia and that anyhow "PMR" survives owing to the military, economical, financial and political support which Russia is offering."
Most commonly known in English by its Romanian name Transnistria, its constitutional long name is Pridnestróvskaia Moldávskaia Respública (Moldovan: Република Молдовеняскэ Нистрянэ, Russian: Приднестровская Молдавская Республика, Ukrainian: Придністровська Молдавська Республіка, ПМР, English: Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic). This is abbreviated PMR.
The short form of this name is Pridnestrovie (transliteration of the Russian "Приднестровье").[1]
Several other names are also in common use. Etymologically, they all come down to similar spelling variants of Transnistria, meaning "beyond the river Dniester", or Pridnestrovie, meaning "by the river Dniester".
The name Transnistria is most commonly used, and does not imply the status of Transnistria: region of Moldova or independent state.
The name used in the Constitution of Transnistria is Pridnestróvskaia Moldávskaia Respública (Moldovan: Republica Moldovenească Nistreană, Russian: Приднестровская Молдавская Республика, Ukrainian: Придністровська Молдавська Республіка, ПМР). This is abbreviated PMR.A short form of this name is Pridnestrovie (transliteration of the Russian "Приднестровье").[2]
At referendum section, I think it is better to state first that the referendum was controversial, and second the outcome; otherwise the reader would form an opinion upon numbers which may be wrong.
I've modified Ukraine-Transnistria border customs dispute chapter. For example the phrase "However, the Moldovan/Ukrainian block remains in place, and holds up progress in status settlement negotiations between the sides." suggests that Ukrainian block should be lifted. I've also removed "Cargos of humanitarian aid were sent from Russia in response"; if we enter it, we should also enter the Moldovan side of the story: Transnistrian authorities did not honor the agreement they had with Moldova and Transnistrian authorities claim Transnistria looses from these regulations more than it's GDP...
On March 3, 2006, Ukraine introduced new customs regulations on its border with Transnistria. Ukraine declared it will only import goods from Transnistria with documents processed by Moldovan customs offices, as part of the implementation of the joint customs protocol between Ukraine and Moldova on December 30, 2005. Transnistria and Russia termed the act an "economic blockade". Moldova announced that it created favorable conditions for registration of Transnistria-based businesses: to obtain a 6-month export license is a half-hour simplified procedure.[citation needed]
The United States, the European Union and OSCE approved the Ukrainian move, while Russia saw it as a means of political pressure.
On March 4, Transnistria responded by blocking the Moldovan and Ukrainian transport at the borders of Transnistria. The Transnistrian block was lifted after two weeks. However, the Moldovan/Ukrainian block remains in place, and holds up progress in status settlement negotiations between the sides.[3]
In the months following the regulations, exports from Transnistria nosedived. Transnistria declared a "humanitarian catastrophe" in the region, while Moldova called it "deliberate misinformation."[4] Cargos of humanitarian aid were sent from Russia in response.[5]
On March 3, 2006, Ukraine introduced new customs regulations on its border with Transnistria. Ukraine declared it will only import goods from Transnistria with documents processed by Moldovan customs offices, as part of the implementation of the joint customs protocol between Ukraine and Moldova on December 30, 2005. Transnistria and Russia termed the act an "economic blockade". Moldova announced that it created favorable conditions for registration of Transnistria-based businesses: to obtain a 6-month export license is a half-hour simplified procedure and granted tax breaks and duty exemptions to Transnistria-based companies.[6]
The United States, the European Union and OSCE approved the Ukrainian move, while Russia saw it as a means of political pressure and claims that "Russia's interests are directly affected" as well.[7]
On March 4, Transnistria responded by blocking the Moldovan and Ukrainian transport at the borders of Transnistria. The Transnistrian block was lifted after two weeks.
In the months following the regulations, exports from Transnistria nosedived. Transnistria declared a "humaniatarian catastrophe" in the region, while Moldova called it "deliberate misinformation".[8]
At history chapter, my edit is just a revert of Mauco's edits
The current version of Human Rights is biased; for example, after it is presented the case of Ilie Ilascu (according to European Court of Human Rights, the authorities have broken his right of freedom and safety; also, the treatment he suffered is qualified as torture[55]), the following text: "In 1999, Transnistria banned the death penalty for all crimes. The maximum sentence for any crime is now 25 years in prison." is misleading.
(I copy here my argument against the gallery:)I don't see any reason why we should have a gallery of pictures at the end of the page. There are no such galleries at other articles: Germany, France, USA, Russia. The custom is to have a link to Wikimedia Commons, which we actually have.Dl.goe 19:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I think "de facto independent[,] unrecognised republic" is a useful decsription. What makes an entity "de facto independent" is, largely, control over the coersive arm of the State (primarily the armed forces), or in other words, physical power.
There have been expressed concernes that Transnistria has an occupation army on it's territory(14 Russian army).
It is also a "a secessionist territory" — the terms can be interchangable.
I'm not certain what you are refering to.
Again, I'm not certain what you are refering to.
Actually, I think that not only should there be republic in the infobox, but conventional longform be used for all unrecognized countries; this, following my argument here (one which I posed long before I was asked to look into Transnistria).
I'm not familiar enough with the customs dispute to comment, one way or the other.
Again, I'm not certain what you are refering to.
I'm not sure I'm following that. Why is it misleading?
Thought you might like to know that User:Calton has been asked twice now by other users (not me) to tone his comments down. One, I think was an admin. He, of course, snapped their heads off. I am not going anywhere near this one, I am going to let him dig his own hole on this one. But, I thought I would let someone (who I know is an admin) know that ya might need to step in soon. Again, I am not going anywhere near this one, I am just going to watch the downward spiral. Take Care and Have a Good Weekend...SVRTVDude(VT)20:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfuly, I'm going to ask that you cease from speaking to or about him. Edits like these, for example, are outright disruptive. Best, El_C17:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
