I completely missed the latest idiocy until your update to the navbox on Bishy's page... I need to not comment on this right now, because I'm afraid 'One puppy's opinion' might be taken as a weeee tad uncivil were I to not carefully consider phrasing. I may find it impossible to comment at all. KillerChihuahua?!?00:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! I confess I'm not doing well at thinking timid right now, and the deep breaths are only causing me to hyperventilate. Thanks tho, I am certain it is good advice. I'm doing the next best thing and getting off for a bit. KillerChihuahua?!?00:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case you aren't aware, a policy was recently implemented by the Wikimedia Foundation, regarding access to nonpublic data (see Resolution:Access to nonpublic data) Please note if you do not comply with these rules you should remove yourself from OTRS volunteering where your name is listed. Otherwise, please ignore this message :) Kind regards, Majorly(hot!)17:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware and, regretfuly, I am unable to comply as I don't feel my personal information can be presumed safe inside the United States. Feel free to remove me. Thanks again for the notice. Regards, El_C18:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bug you- but you have strikened the pound symbol that numbers the votes. I'm wondering if you've retracted your vote? Sr13(T|C) 02:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jayjg is for example removing the quote from an article published in the reputable journal of Studies in Contemporary Islam ([4]; it is an academic journal published by the Center for Islamic Studies at Youngstown State University).
Jayjg removed the sentence:"Dr. Edward Said rejected the way in which Orientalists like Lewis define Islam as a monolithic entity." which is giving context to its following quote.
He also removed quotes with regarding Lewis's position regarding modern Turkey, which was sourced to "Christopher de Bellaigue states: In The Emergence of Modern Turkey, Bernard Lewis lent his support to that most Kemalist of arguments—namely, that the Atatürk revolution represented the "liberation of the last of the subject peoples of the Ottoman empire.""
Stop whining. Dr. M. Shahid Alam is an economist, not a historian, regardless of where he got stuff published. The sentence by Said is not about Lewis, it's about other people. And Christopher de Bellaigue is journalist, and the material was inserted as original research. Bernard Lewis is still alive, so WP:BLP applies as well. Jayjg (talk)00:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
M. Shahid Alam is a Muslim voice and has published his criticisms of Lewis's alleged anti-Islam bias in a peer-reviewed journal, academic journal.
Christopher de Bellaigue almost quotes Lewis word by word on that point, and published his review in New York Times. --Aminz01:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg, your standards are arbitrary. According to you, the conservative Paul Johnson (journalist) is a reliable source, indeed more reliable than Bernard Lewis [5] (note: Johnson's work was not published in an academic press which practice peer-reviewing or whatever- Johnson has a second-lower degree(undergrad) in the Jesuit method but was used as a source on the history of Islam).
Now, we have an article peer-reviewed, accepted, and published in a famous journal. Reputable journals don't accept bad papers (among the manuscripts they recieve, they select some and peer-review them).
I can see your arguments regarding Lewis's view of Turkey is changing. Which part is original research? --Aminz01:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to violate WP:own and apply standards of reliability which you yourself do not commit to. I'll restore my edit except the Turkey parts for which I will come back with even stronger sources. The truth about Lewis's instance with respect to Turkey should be there at the end. --Aminz01:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what was the answer you supposedly gave? Here is your answer:"This is a WP:BLP, so the standards are much higher, and my argument regarding Turkey hasn't changed. Please stop trolling" --Aminz04:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning the degree of someone is denigrating? Common. WP:BLP doesn't say we can no mention their degree. --Aminz04:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Aminz, let's see if you're capable of telling the truth; exactly why did you put Johnson's "lower second-class" degree in the lead of his article, and remove the fact that he's a historian? The truth, now. Jayjg (talk)04:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because I naturally checked his page(after placing the link here) and corrected it. To say that he was graduated from Oxford is too much credit for someone with a second-lower undergrad degree. Either we should not mention anything about his education or say the degree he got, not just "he was educated from Oxford" WOW. The article is still praising him: His teacher was a historian and he took an undergrad course with that historian. That doesn't make him credible.
Jay, please, heated language is not going to advance the dispute forward. That said, BLP is not a factor to take lightly (unless you're writing about a corrupt Australian police commissioner! Sue us, I dare, I double dare you, Terry Lewis!), Aminz. Let me review your edit point-by-point:
I am rather uncomfortable with the term "orientalist" (is it still in use within modern scholarship?) More to the point, where did Said said (Said said, I like that) that Lewis and those like him reduce Islam to a monolithic entity? That claim is not attributed to anything.
I don't really mind a quote by an economist, I care about the status their arguments enjoy in the scholarship; although if an economist comments on historiography, that certainly needs to be qualified, which it isn't. A more pressing problem I find with this quote, in particular, and quotations in the article, in general, is their sheer size. An article consisting of such a large collection of quotes, and an addition which is almost entirely a quote, almost always make me uneasy. In other words, more text, less quotations, on all fronts.
Who are the "critics [who] further suggest that Lewis intentionally shifted his position to align himself with Turkey as part of a larger effort to cleanse the early history of Turke"? That claim is unattributed to anything. As far as I can see, thus far you've named one.
I'm not sure as to the reliability of Christopher de Bellaigue (the abovementioned critic) because I don't know who that is, but I do find that placing that addition breaks the flow of the narrative. So regardless of anything, that is an issue I feel compelled to note.
Nearly the entire award from the Haliburton guy (what's his name? Oh yeah, Dick) is written like an editorial: "opponents of the Bush administration raised eyebrows." Beyond that, it needs to relate to his Iraq invasion stance or it simply does not fit in that section.
Anyway, clearly there is much to be discussed and clarified before you restore the edits. BLP is a possible concern, as is, by extension, original research. I, therefore, hope that before reverting all, or part, of these additions, you can both attempt to resolve the outstanding issues. El_C04:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Number 1. Yes, it is in use: Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy writes:
Orientalism is the branch of scholarship that uses traditional Western methods as a means of understanding and gathering knowledge pertaining to the Orient. The term was also used by Edward Said (1978) to elucidate his own challenge to the validity of such methods.
On the one hand, Orientalism has given us much of what we know about the Oriental world at large. Late nineteenth-century authors are especially worthy of consideration for their contributions to an understanding of foreign cultures and peoples. On the other hand, however, several problems arise from the attitudes and methods used in traditional Orientalist discourse, which in turn has had an impact – often negative – upon Western consciousness. This influences and distorts the framework through which the West approaches the Orient in general and Islam in particular.
I know that Edward Said applied the term Orientalist to Lewis and they had debates with each other on that point but I don't know about the connotations when applied to modern thinkers. But this section of the article is in the context of Lewis-Said debate. --Aminz04:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) That quote explain its following quote: Lewis doesn't have much time to spare for the internal dynamics and plurality of every civilization, or for the fact that the major contest in most modern cultures concerns the definition or interpretation of each culture, or for the unattractive possibility that a great deal of demagogy and downright ignorance is involved in presuming to speak for a whole religion or civilization."
Number 2. I don't say that the quote is reliable because the author is a professor but because of the peer-reviewing journal that published his work. But I agree that "the status their arguments enjoy in the scholarship". But I don't know how we can evaluate this. I also have another point. Most academics are not Muslims. I have seen many Muslims(non-scholars) who hold a negative view of Lewis. Therefore "the status their arguments enjoy in the Muslim scholar circles" also matters.
Point 3 & 4: I noticed that some more information is sourcing here (not that the sentences were wrong) and as such didn't restore them in my last revert: [6]. I wanted to find more sources for this. But Tewfik reverted my partial revert [7].
What most bothered me (in Jayjg's rejection of these two sources) was what I percieved as Jayjg's changing standards. --Aminz04:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<reset> ElC, please take a look at this my partial revert [8], I think it deserves to be restored. Please let me know what you think? --Aminz04:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote "Dr [Dr. is superfluous] Edward Said rejected the way in which Orientalists like Lewis define Islam as a monolithic entity" (italics are my emphasis) — it's not clear that Lewis (the philospher not the Australian police commissioner description — yes, I will continue to, annoyingly, make that distinction) is being depicted as an orientalist by Said, rather, it sounds like this description is part of the narrative. This implies that the author of the Wikipedia article views him as such (i.e. a 19th Century-esque Eurocentric, etc.), as opposed to, say, Middle Eastern or Asian studies-focused thinker. As for the quote, in isolation, it is merely a defense of generalizing on some level (I don't know the context, so I cannot comment; but, regardless, I doubt it is that pertinent to this point of contention).
As long as any person and affiliated groups are correctly qualified and we get a sense as to the general scope, yes. I'm writing that as some who is, genuinely, unfamiliar with these debates, so your writing are aimed largely for people like me (but also for people without a cursory grasp of Middle Eastern and Islamic history). Yes, the quotations are excessive, and the dialogical exchanges are problematic.
I'm not entirely following that; I'm unsure it responds to my point. 4. Ditto. 5. I hoped for a response, regardless of retractions, but okay. El_C20:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I removed [Dr.] in my recent edit. I did some research about the word "Orientalist". Yes, Edward Said used it and he was criticized on that point by Lewis:
"In a blistering review, Bernard Lewis, whose considerable and impressive scholarship is subjected to a sharp critique in Orientalism, accused Said of “poisoning” and “polluting” Orientalism’s true history and meaning. Orientalism, he argued, was an archaic term that the Orientalists themselves abandoned in 1973 because it no longer described accurately their scholarly concerns. The contemporary scholarship, he suggested, had become too diverse and bore little resemblance to its nineteenth-century predecessor, which, in turn, also scarcely resembled Said’s Orientalism.... While most early reviews by experts were loath to accept the identification of Orientalism as a discourse of power, Said’s analysis also struck a favorable chord. Michael Dalby, contributing to the review symposium in the Journal of Asian Studies, endorsed Said’s definition of Orientalism as a discourse, and wrote: “At a minimum, I would insist, nobody should think he is making it all up.” Talal Asad pointed out perceptively that Orientalism was “not only a catalogue of Western prejudices about and misrepresentations of Arabs and Muslims,” but primarily an analysis of the “authoritative structure of Orientalist discourse — the closed, self-evident, self-confirming character of that distinctive discourse which is reproduced again and again through scholarly texts, travelogues, literary works of imagination, and the obiter dicta of public men of affairs."
El_C, it seems that you want to address the issue at a deeper level. For that matter, I need to spend time doing research. So, I may be late in my responses. Peace --Aminz01:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Block of 82.207.116.180
I wish you had not blocked 82.207.116.180(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log), because while cut-and-paste moves are bad, the underlying issue was a content dispute with that other user. While you blocked this person I was protecting both pages and leaving them messages requesting they come to an agreemtnt on page naming. Blocking just one of them makes it appear to favor one side of the dispute. —dgiestc19:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not block him for just that; the 2ndry block summary is not working, it seems, but my explanation there spoke about the user's refusal to communicate (i.e. removing comments from the account's talk page without comment). El_C19:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"sigh"
Is there anyway I get ANOTHER block on the Stoopid Monkey page? I have requests into 2 admins (in case one is offline) for assitance in this matter and I am taking it to admin before reverting further, as I am not exactly sure how to handle this. - SVRTVDude(VT)03:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think those logos list belong in the article (about a production company), it looks uneven and resembles {{trivia}}; I don't think he should have been the one to remove it; I don't think you should have been the one to restore it. El_C18:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your opinion:) I am working with another admin and the users who contributed to the AfD that was once on that page (result was "keep") and we are working on a way to incorporate the explanation lines/links into the Robot Chicken episode list. There is an example in the Stoopid Monkey talk page (first chart, sans the link at the moment). I am honestly trying and not just pointlessly edit warring. - SVRTVDude(VT)22:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
מה אתה מפיק מכך שהסיפור הזה כעת מופיע בצורה יותר מצונזרת באנצקלופדיה
הרי ראית שזה מקור טוב רויטרס ושהם מספרים מה חמאס מחנך
שזה בין היתר להרג יהודים כמוני וכמוך
אז מה בדיוק הנסיון להסתיר חלק מהעובדות נותן לך
אני פשוט מתעניין כי גם אני כמוך נגד הכיבוש ונגד צבא שמוליך ממשלות למלחמה ועוד ועודאבל לא מבין מדוע אנשים כמוך מנסים לסנגר על חמאס
תנסה להסביר לי מה אינני מבין נכון
תודה
Zeq21:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am offering no such defense, but that is simply not an encyclopedic summary of Hamas' propaganda arm, and only encompases one of its functions. If you use such a borad title, one expects a much higher level of generalization, not just a single isolated activity (!). בברכה, El_C21:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hamas loyalists launched the Al Aqsa satellite channel last year. Bearded young men read the news, often offering live news broadcasts. Islamic music is layered over footage of masked militants firing rockets into Israel. But the channel also broadcasts talk shows, programs about the disabled and cartoons. Zeq21:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yes I figured you don't vote. I am a typical meretz voter more Ran Cohen and Beilin than Galon. I am a big fan of Beilin plan - I guess you would prefer Bishara ? (no offense meant) Zeq21:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have guessed it from your edits. No, Bishara is a revisionist, I expect more principled conduct when it comes to the red banner. El_C21:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[9] is nice cooperation ( thank you) which I never thought would be possible between us.... too bad ArbCom going to cut this soon. I started to enjoy the friendship. Zeq21:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, I appreciate the kind words. Ask any of the old timers, and they will tell you that I have always been at the forefront of combatting antisemitism and religious fundamentalism, and am resolutely against the arbitrary killings of civilians which I consider to be terrorism (State terrorism too, though), and that such acts are as far apart from revolutionary armed-struggle as is conceivable. בברכה, El_C22:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
בכיף.
אני נגד כל הרג
אז אם אני מבין אותך נכון אתה תומך במאבק כמו של הנתיב הזוהר או בציאפס אבל לא בטרור של החמאס
Yes, I support the PCP; the EZLN were never truly revolutionary, and they've become increasingly reformist as of late. I agree, though I would add that those who criticize Israeli State terror but do not speak out against the much more severe atrocities in the DRC and Sudan likely have a questionable agenda. I adhere to the premise that these all follow from imperialist domination. El_C21:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
אני מסכים איתך
בקונגו המצב הוא מזעזע מיליונים נהרגו שם מאז 2000
זה בדיוק אחת הבעיות שלי - אני מאמין שיש מי שמרכז תשומת לב עולמית בישראל
לא שאנחנו בסדר
אנחנו גרועים מאוד
אבל תשומת לב עולמית שמופנית לכאן מאפשרת לזוועות אחרות להמשיך
Zeq09:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it certainly contributes to the double standard; although there are important (and somewhat obvious) reasons for this emphasis, too. El_C20:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Japan
Would you mind discuss before deleate 'cause i've shown proof
Hi, I was just experimenting with editing wikipedia pages, but didn't want to use the sandbox. Is it required that I use the sandbox? Please reply here. Thanks. LionheartX02:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with your closure of MFD about my sandbox. It was not a consensus about deletion, this is just part of a harassment campaign against me. I proved that I've used parts of the sandbox in Wikipedia articles. If you don't agree to change your mind (as an other admin agreed at Future Perfect at Sunrise request), please tell me how I can ask a review of this MFD.--MariusM00:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As proofs that it was no consensus: in first debate proposed by sockpuppeteer Mauco, where deletionist camp cheated (sockpuppet Pernambuco voted also claiming to be "neutral"), majority was against deletion. Then Future Perfect at Sunrise, who participated at first debate, proposed again for deletion, he didn't received support, debate was closed again but reopened at Sunrise specific request [10]. He told that the closure of the debate is "a sensible decision to me". Why is so sensible for Future Perfect at Sunrise the fate of a sandbox? He is not a neutral person, he is harrassing me, as I already explained[11]. Anyhow, even in this second debate, the majority was against deletion: 2 keep, 2 delete and 1 neutral in first week, 4 keep (Biruitorul, Turgidson, The Giant Puffin and Dpotop) and 3 delete after relisting. Obviously, there was no consensus for deletion, please review the closure. I've put a lot of effort in this sandbox, many afirmations there are sourced (for example, the fact that Igor Smirnov was born in Siberia, not in Transnistria, and that members of his family have important roles in the political and economic life of the region - this is one of afirmations that Future Perfect at Sunrise considered OR and POVpushing - is not POV, is the undeniable truth which nobody denied with the exception of ignorants about Transnistria, it was my mistake I didn't provide source at begining, I didn't think that for such a well known fact a source is needed but afterwards I provided also source Official Journal of the European Union), I've used this sandbox for other articles and I want to use it further. I hope we can solve the problem with dialogue, what I am asking is just to accept the obvious result of debate - there was "no consensus", else I am forced to ask a review of your closure.--MariusM12:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
xfD is not a vote and drafts/workpages are not meant to be so rantish when it comes to an issue as heated as this. This was the opinion expressed, substantively, by those opting to delete, whereas as I deemed the arguments posed by those who favoured keeping the page to have generally been superficial and unresponsive to the nominator original claim. The mere fact that you are continuing with the "campaign of harrassment" rhetoric tells me, as an uninvolved admin overseeing the Transnitrian dispute, of the disruptive impact brought by such a page, which is symptomatic of the mode of interaction between the two side. I, of course, am committed to equal treatment (so if editors from the other side have similar pages, let me know), but am opposed to the lowering of our dispute resolution standards, the reason there is an ongoing arbitration case. On that front, and in answer to your question, you may seek review of the closure either by the Arbitration Committee or at the community's deletion review (or both, I suppose). El_C19:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have tentatively deleted this page following your consensus finding in the MFD. Don't worry about contacting me if you want to restore it for some reason. Cheers!--Chaser - T16:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, any suggestion on how to deal with User:Dc76/Sandbox now? It's a virtually identical copy of the same material that I only discovered yesterday. Do we just assume the same MfD decision goes for it too, or do we need to go through yet another MfD for it? The sandbox owner was aware of the ongoing MfD, as he has been discussing it with Marius on his talkpage. Fut.Perf.☼18:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, although the material is the same, it is set out as an actual workpage. But, if the articles which it proposes face little chance of being authored (and/or kept), then it needs to go. That it was formed during the MfD is not necessarily problematic, although it may well be — I would have to review the facts closely before forming an opinion. You may launch another MfD if you feel that these warrant such action. El_C19:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it wasn't formed recently, it had been around in parallel with the other one all along since the mainspace article was deleted. Fut.Perf.☼20:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; at a glance, it looks likely that MariusM copied its contents and added the recycled jokes and so on. This should be sorted out and accounted for in the arbitration case. Are you going to do this or should I? (the former? Good!) Thanks in advance. El_C20:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The whole thing including the bad jokes had been authored by Marius and EvilAlex in their mainspace article sometime last year, and then when that was deleted both Marius and Dc copied it into their userspace. I've left Dc a note and am hoping he might be reasonable and agree to removing it voluntarily. I feel he's been relatively constructive in the discussion on the Transnistria article, so I'm not overly keen on branding him as one of the tendentious troublemakers on the Arbcom case because of this issue. Fut.Perf.☼20:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:MariusM/Heaven of Transnistria. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
I will continue with the "harassment campaign" rethoric because this is exactly how I feel and I consider my right to tell what I feel. Is not my habit to give up at intimidation attempts.--MariusM12:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I just could'nt wrap my mind around that recent. Yes, you're right, that wasn't a duplicate notice, sorry about that. El_C19:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shotgun
Hey El C, can you take a look at the shotgun article and let me know what you think of a couple new user contributions on slang and zombie whacking? Looks like vandalism from message board users but unsure so I'm looking for help/opinion on this one.-- I already forgot talk 16:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not the help I was looking for but tag you added was much needed. Looks like the user is using multiple socks...I'll take it up on the appropriate page. Thanks -- I already forgot talk 19:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Order of Christ Sophia
Hello, We have added references to the article The Order of_Christ Sophia. Could you please let us know if this is adequate and if not, what else can we do? Thank you, Guillaume.
Hi. Sorry, but those look like either unreliable sources, or in other instances, ones that do not touch on the subject, directly. Thx. El_C18:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sources we put are independent of the Order and from well known professors in their field. What else would you suggest we add? We thought that readers would have been interested in the research study done on the group.
Best,
We have made some changes and used quotations from reliable sources. Please let us know if this works for you.
Thank you,
Guillaume
I'm sorry, but that is not coventional. See any other relatively-established entry on a religion to see what sort of format is needed — if you fail to undertake this review, then I will conclude that the conflict of interest is too great for you to approach the topic objectively. At the moment, I'm inclined to delete the entry since there is still no reliable source mentioning this Order (I want a quotations from a reliable source that states the name of the order, let's start with that). I'll give you, say, a week to set that up, but feel free to start now. Good luck. El_C22:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've been away for a month, but I did get a chance to speak briefly with Prof. Lewis, who did gave me the impression that the subject is sufficiently covered in the professional literature. Now that I'm back, I have the time to more substantively explain to him our standards of notability and how to best meet these for this particular subject (although, I should note, it will not differ from what I have asked for thus far). At any case, I'll attend to it within the next few days and will keep you updated on any developments. Regards, El_C05:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt that the person with your kind of political affiliations is the one to judge were red army / partisans "liberated" anything -88.85.134.121
Liberation is the term used when it comes to Nazi or Nazi-affiliated forces; your changes are crudely pov. El_C23:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I call bullshit on that, its nothing more than communist propaganda to say that reds 'liberated' any areas outside russias own. I admit that I could have used a better term but liberation? -Hardly. Just a switch from another occupier to another.
Please exercize greater restraint with your tone. The act of defeating the Nazis is known in the historiography as "liberated," what happened after is another matter. If your sole aim on Wikipedia is to change liberated to something else, without drawing on the scholarship, that strikes me as disruptive. El_C23:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I forgot to respond but I did look at it a few days ago. I'm not sure I have much to add at this time. Looks like a well-rounded approach. El_C10:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Advice on Cats
Hi El C. Somebody has created a new category which I'm not keen on. I wonder whether you could advise me on what to do since I'm not familiar with the Wiki ways of discussing cats. Thanks, WikiJonathanpeter21:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. That title is misleading (feline-wise!). Anyway, if you don't feel the new category merits inclusion, you can propose it to be deleted here. El_C22:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to respond at length to this line of argument...
I must comment that i don't remember requesting or expecting response; i you see me as seeming otherwise; please say so & i will find time to review.
El C:
and I caution against being so defensive and plead for greater introspection.
J:
"Defensive" is impossible to respond unless i find myself to have been irrational in my defense of myself, which i do not at the moment. A request for "greater introspection" can be complied with, but i believe myself to be unusually introspective and doubt that plea is of any use to me in that open ended form.
El C:
I did, as well, expect greater efforts toward clear and lucid expression.
J:
Expect of whom?
It's regretful to see that few if any lessons appear to have been drawn.
Unless you are regretful about what you did, please say what you find regrettable, and hint further about who might draw them, and better yet, what lessons.
OK, now i feel defensive, but i've got to run with it: The above is not intended to be sarcastic, nor am i trying to play dumb, but i can't see how to receive what you are trying to communicate if you are going to do it in little more than winks and nudges. Please risk offending me if necessary. --Jerzy•t21:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
haha! though you made me go through page history to see the proper reply! Thanks again El_C. It appears that many people have beaten me to it but I'll know what to do next time. :o) WikiJonathanpeter12:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...on the old spam hunt. I reckon I only got maybe one or two of old 70.251.55.99's rodeo spam links. I found 'em first - dammit it was my spam, all mine! I thought it was gunna take me half an hour to get rid of them - but nope EI C had smacked the lot in a couple of minutes.
Great job. :-) Paxse17:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that definitely makes me jealous - here I am on the Worlds Slowest Net ConnectionTM and you're zooming around with super powers - at least you dig Che - so you can't be all bad then. Nice pics on your page too. See ya round. Paxse18:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, Wikipedia was faster for me when I had a 3Mbit connection than the 10Mbit one I have one (also interestingly, I'm paying nearly half for the latter — go figure. No complaints to my ISP, well aside from them being idiots, but none speed or price-wise, at least). El_C12:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You really don't want to know - 60 bucks a month here buys you a 56k (not a typo) DSL connection with a 400/500mb limit - that's throughput! I'm on a different plan with unlimited (but painfully slow) access from 8pm 'till 8 am and on weekends. That costs an extra 40 smackers. Bringing the total to $100 US per month for this torture. Sometimes I miss the First World :) Paxse13:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. I'm paying about $30 for 10Mbit. Bandwidth is dirt cheap where I am. They simply can't get rid of it fast enough. El_C13:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RE: Barnstar
Thanks a lot for this most unexpected barnstar. Writing a physics lead that everyone can agree upon has proved to be a very difficult task. There are many ways to approach physics, whether it be from a philosophical, historical, simple-minded, or mathematical perspective. It is hard to cover all the bases in a lead compliant to WP:LEAD. As such, there seems to be a natural progression of making the lead smaller and smaller, to its current state which mirrors most dictionary definitions. I believe this is probably the best we can do for now.. a few editors have been working behind the scenes on a new article and lead.. we'll have to see how that turns out. I intend to help them where I can. Keep up the good work on the vandal front! Danski14(talk)18:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Sometimes, the only way you can introduce an entry of such an immense magnitude is with a lead that condenses it to the utmost level of generalization. As such, I found your solution to have been rather brilliant. Well deserved! El_C18:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For doing what might very well be the most unthankful job
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I award you this prestigious RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your hard work in keeping Wikipedia a better place to visit, and looking out for a friend. Keep up the good work, Champion — G.A.S15:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have deleted "Famous Chandigarhians " section in the Chandigarh article ? Is there a precedence and consensus against there being a personality section in city articles ? If you could let me know of links where this has been discussed and the conclusion arrived at it would help me Haphar15:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I am aware of, aside from being bold in not wanting our city articles to look like lists of people/companies/etc. In some cases, where the list is relatively brief and filled with people who actually have articles, I may leave it alone. Otherwise, I want it scorched with fire. And as for lists of notable people in country articles, those I just nuke from orbit. For some reason the practice is most prevalent —and also most susceptible to spam— on Indian city articles (I know because I have all cities over 500,000 on my watchlist). I have no idea why. El_C20:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you could, please continue to keep an eye on this article and its talk page. Right now we have two editors (and some IPs) involved in an edit war. One pretty much refuses to discuss any of his unsupported changes and the other hurls personal insults at anyone who disagrees with him (Undog and Simplemines respectively). I just don't know how to start an effective dialog with two people who don't seem interested in compromise and firmly believe that they are the sole possessor of The TruthTM. Perhaps I'm exaggerating, but I really don't see how we can make that talk page a productive tool to help shape the article. Any help or advice is of course appreciated. AniMate16:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think you're exaggerating. That talk page is becoming far too heated. I'll see what I can do. El_C19:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. At this point anything I say is pretty much thrown back at me in the form of a personal attack. It's made debate and discussion impossible, as it looks like Simplemines is more interested in proving that I'm biased or corrupt rather than working on any compromise. AniMate19:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. There's certainly too much innuendo tainting the debate; I'll try to keep an eye on it. Please keep me posted as well. El_C19:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Palestine is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of members at WikiProject Palestine. Ahlan wa Sahlan! (Welcome!)
So you are a selfproclaimed master of what the triads are up to and think you know better than the general public. Good work, NOT! Thanks for deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.27.51 (talk • contribs)
El C has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as El C's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear El C!
Thanks, Phaedriel! Great to have you back, btw. :) Listen, I am facing some harrassment right now, I feel, on the administrator noticeboard. Any attention you could spare the matter would be greatly appreciated. Once again, thanks! Much love, El_C01:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that should do it :) Now on to more pleasant stuff! It's great to see you and talk to you again, El C - and I hope you liked the selection of the poem I made specially for you. The very minute I read it, I thought "This is El C!" We have much catching up to do, and I promise we will do it; but right now, it's your special day, and I want you to be the Star today, and enjoy and seize every minute of it. Be happy today, my friend! Missed you dear comrade ;) Love, Phaedriel - 02:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I loved it; great choice! :) Yes, we have a lot of catching up to do; drop me an emailine any time. Thank you for your balanced words on the noticeboard, although I'm afraid that they may be wasted on this red-baiting single purpose editor (who is far from a "common Wikipedian," as he claims) who appears to be facing imminent censur from the AC. He seems to have decided to invoke my userpage as a cause d'célèbre in his failed ethno-national campaign (as always, the ethno-national disputes remain the most difficult articles to deal with on the project, but someone has to do it). Once again, many thanks for your recognition and affection! El_C19:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People did not use the time granted by your protection of the article to reach consensus. The edit wars have resumed again. What can be done? Tiamut14:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The edit wars didn't "resume"; you ignored the Talk: page, and continued in your a-historical way, using bad sources to write original research. Now you're trying to get it protected on your version again. Jayjg (talk)14:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I left this message fopr Jayjg on his talk page, which he also promptly deleted, explaining my problems with his edits: [12]. I need help. This constant deletion of material, even when adequately sourced constitutes vandalism and harassment. How can I get these issues addressed? Tiamut14:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained this many times; you can't build original research based on bad sources and expect it to stay in articles. You're making a-historical claims that substitute faith/politics for history, based on what amateurs wrote in the 1920s and 1930s, or on travel guides written for backpackers. It won't do. And please desist from false claims of vandalism; WP:VANDAL is quite clear, and reverting your attempts to fill Wikipedia with biasedoriginal research based on bad sources is actually enforcing Wikipedia policy. Jayjg (talk)14:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And when you restore introductions that misrepresent sources after it has been painstakingly pointed out on the talk pages, what is that Jayjg? Or when you delete material sourced to an authority on a subject like Rashid Khalidi, what is that Jayjg? Or when you pretend that everything another editor adds is something that is outdated, even though you provide no evidence to back up that assertion, what is that Jayjg? Or rearrange an article completely without discussion? What is that Jayjg? I call it vandalism and I stand by that characterization. Further, you single-minded focus on my edits and your support for User:Itzse's unsourced claims further demonstrates your hypocrisy and shows that you just like to harass me without any solid basis. Tiamut15:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, Tiamut, you need to execize greater restraint: the "lying," "hypocricy," and "vandalism" charges cross the line. I reiterate what I wrote to you upon protecting the page: that the onus is on you to demonstrate that this view enjoys scholarly consensus if you present it as such. From what I could see, you have yet to begin this process in a comprehensive and comprehensible way. Thus, when Jay asks you "which of your sources come from the 1980s or later, and were written by professional historians or archeologists, and assert that Palestinians are Canaanites?" that's a valid question and it dserves a substantive and pointed answer. El_C00:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I happened to notice that you removed that web link ("first webpage on Kerala," I think it was). Before you removed it, I was wondering whether or not to remove it myself! Out of curiosity, what made you remove it? --Kuaichik14:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is an ongoing free speech dispute here with some editors rallying against the inclusion of links to rat worship saying its offensive. Your input is appreciated. Anwar16:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yoy may not be lost but I certainly am. I see you reasoning with Hemlock Martinis - thanks - don't worry too much, the "Curse of Giano" normally descends sooner or later. Giano09:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Np; and not to worry, I'm not! — but that was a peculiar explanation on his or her part, to sa ythe least. El_C09:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although you unprotected the page for it, Centrix is contesting my edits. I was wondering your opinion on the matter. -- Catchi? 00:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I thought that there was something broken, but now I realize that that wasn't entirely the case. I'm not comfortable that there is no redirect and that one would have to search through your fairly crowded user page to find out your Coolcat username link (at a glance, I couldn't find it — if it would be immediately visible though, I'd have no problem with this approach). In short, it comes across as trying to cover your tracks, whether that is the intention or not. My advise, then, would be for no one to revert over these changes, but for you to make it much more clear on your userpage that for years you were known as cool, not white, cat. Hope this helps. Best, El_C00:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can gladly clarify more. What did you have in mind? I even have links to my former block logs on my userpage.
What I am trying to do is exact opposite of covering my tracks. If I desired such a thing I would just register a new account. At the specific case I was "White Cat" to begin with and still am White Cat. I was merely changing a "/sig" to a "/07" as there are only 3 pages using it. As for User:Cool Cat page I would be more than willing to seek a compromise but other parties are not even willing to consider alternative suggestions. -- Catchi? 00:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
You're right, it's at the top of the page. I'm not sure how I missed it. I retract what I said above. El_C00:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, at all. What do you think of Centrix's revert? -- Catchi? 00:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, how do you recommend I approach this problem: Special:Whatlinkshere/User talk:White Cat/sig. I want all 3 of those pages to directly link to /07 rather than /sig but centrix won't allow it. -- Catchi? 01:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I would recommend you let it go (and if he were to pose to me the flipside of that questions, I'd say the same thing). Three pages (especially) are just not worth all this time and energy. El_C01:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I would agree with you that they are not worthy it, I also am a perfectionist :). I am merely trying to tidy my "what links here". The edit itself doesn't cost me any time and energy. -- Catchi? 01:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
OCD may be the case :), I really think me editing those two archives should be a no-issue. I also do not want to go to mediation (much less arbitration) over this. I am trying to figure out the right median. -- Catchi? 01:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
It's a nonissue, as is doing nothing. Sorry, that's about as much energy that I, at least, am willing to devote the issue. G'luck. El_C01:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for blocking the sockpuppet (of User:Hagos) and vandal Yom111 for me. One question, though. Did you also delete his account? I can't find a deletion of the User page in the deletion log, but none of his contributions come up at Special:Contributions/Yom111. What's more, none of my reverts of his edits show up under my contribution page. Both show up (showed up in the case of Yom111) on my watchlist, though, and one of the edits also included the reversal of a test by an IP on Ethiopia, and therefore should have shown up in my contributions anyway. It can't be database lag, could it? Do you have any idea what's going on here?
P.S. I just checked my contributions after posting this, and neither of my two edits to this page (now three) showed up on my contributions page, so it could be a database problem. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia00:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm trying to edit the article about Brazil. It seems to me that the Brazilian constitution is mentioned way too many times during the entry (as you may verify), and that the footnotes required are actually on quality stuff, not a mere repetition of sources to increase the number of footnotes. No intention to vandalise!
Hello again. My main question: why is it a problem that different articles of the constitution are used as citations many times? It dosen't take much space. At any rate, please use edit summaries so we can better tell the reasons behind each edit. Hope this helps. Thanks. El_C00:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought bold changes were good and needed. But I agree on the edit summaries point.
They are unnecessarily repetitive - once mentioned, one would know the source. Moreover, I don't believe similar country articles have the same standard for national constitutions. Please see Argentina and Chile for instance.
I don't have a strong opinion for or against their inclusion, but do you not think it is somewhat useful that the reader can corrolate which claim is defined where in the constitution? El_C00:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The link is in Portuguese anyway, so I wonder to what extent a reader can corrolate what she can find for herself. But if you so believe it should stay, there it shall stay then :) I just suspected that this exponential inclusion of footnotes had to do with some user trying to include the article in the "good article" listing, a self-candidature that didn't work out very well as you can find in the discussion page. Someone had suggested the article had more footnotes and less photos so it could become a candidate again, which sounds random enough a criterion to me. But I might as well be wrong.
Thanks much, El C, for your attention to the Core-Plus article. I've kind of been watching over it because opponents had distorted it a bit in the past. Feels like it's more balanced now. Though at some point someone may need to look at the reliability of sources, such as the discussion group postings that are cited. TimidGuy11:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'm not familiar with the topic at all, I just noticed it on the admin noticeboard and gave it a bit of a facelift. Hope things continue to progress toward a balanced exposition. Let me know if there's anything I could do to help. El_C20:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to NZB. 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 attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Thank you. -- intgr#%@!22:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote Actually, the "success" is largely rooted in medieval laws that for hundreds of years restricted Jews to, and developed their specialization in, finance, banking, and other interest-related occupations which were prohibited to Christians. That, as well as a tradition which stresses literacy and education, and especially in the 20th Century, the scientific professions. Nothing mystical, genetic, or otherwise racially-dervied to it. Your comment about "hav[ing] America by the balls" and so on, is inflamatory and provocational, and the talk page, in any case, is not a chat room. El_C 07:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Throw it on the Jew talkpage, that's what it's there for!
Kind regards --222.155.180.10007:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate somewhat: these type of questions, excluding the "got America by the balls" provocations, are better suited for the Reference Desk than an article's talk page (unless it pertains to something that is directly related to the article, in a specific and concerete way). El_C07:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Not a bureaucrat per se. (they are not mandated to make such confirmations), but feel free to file a user check (although their usefulness often proves rather limited). Let me know if there's any further disruption, pressing or otherwise. Thanks. Regards, El_C09:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On a cursory glance (and having had little experience with the user), I think it looks fine. Thanks you for efforts! Regards, El_C09:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The extrenal link comply with policy. True that there are no other links and thus it is given a "highlighted" place so feel free to add other links but please don't delete material that comply with policy. You may want to read the link I am sure you will find what to add to the article and thuse use the lionk as refernce. Zeq09:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how this somewhat rhetorically-sounding "comply with policy" really advances your argument. Again, I ask: why this link? Would it not be better to keep newspapers as refs and have these as more scholarly-centered. See a somewhat similar argument on Mountain Meadows massacre. El_C09:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain your logic to remove it ? maybe if I understand we can progress. Have you read the newspaper article ? Zeq12:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have not read it closely. But at a glance, it did not seem like an overview of the subject. Do you find it serves such a role? El_C12:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It adds an intersting view point which started from psychlogical angle and go to direct impression from Palestinian kids. It teaches about the society attitude. maybe some of the direct quote could be added to the article. Zeq13:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, in my opinion, if it's a more focused piece, then try to summarize some of what it says and use it as reference; if, however, it's a general overview of the subject/practice, then there's no problem with it being the only ext. link in the entry. El_C13:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I may well have been convinced that it merits inclusion in that section, irrespectively of the above, but I am dissapointed that you reverted before exhausting that possibility. El_C13:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a lesson that we both learned. If comunication is possible to avoid revert....Zeq13:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You, as the person who introduced the new changes, should have waited a bit longer. Please be more patient in the future. Thanks. El_C13:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No I disagree. Don't revert. that is first of all rude. I am not going to run every edit to your approval. If you disagree - discuss. I am open to many changes.
Do you have anything to do with the disapreance of "Pigs and Apes" I can not find the deletion log ? Zeq17:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tnx. Are you having a good week ? Noticed how very few "celebrating" the 40 years "victory" and the mood is more refelctive than festive ? Zeq06:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi mate, I was the one who put that argumentative edit on the Racak page -- sorry, it was irresponsible of me and you were right to delete it, but don't you think there's a point there? I mean, it just seems unbalanced to only assume the Serbs would be biased when NATO was clearly gearing up for a war with them...
(not suggesting that you think this -- actually, I was stoked to see your far-Left imagery :-) -- but it seems to be common to this topic)
Anyway, apologies again for the uncool edit -- be interested to know your thoughts though. Cheers 172.216.147.8415:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I do have an identity -- just hadn't logged in. Chat on my talk page if you want. (Although this is only an invitation, of course! You may not want another discussion :-) Jonathanmills15:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing those articles. I don't know if you pay attention, but every month or so someone replaces the articles with content from the group's websites. It gets really annoying after a while. Dchall116:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have not been. Which isn't to say I am not amazed at how low they have sunk, in every possible respect. Please keep me updated. El_C16:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I'm having a problem with an uncivil user, user: Dscarth. I met user Dscarth on the yogurt talk page. Dscarth was having a very nasty argument with Danielfolsom about whether the name of the page should be switched and it was going on and on so I thought that by commenting, I could help out. I point out that Dscarth's comment about Daniel may not be fallacious which was true if you look here [[16]]
However, after that Dscarth responds on Daniel's page about me with this: For the record I have no actual anger or ill will towards you. For clarity, by 'you' I mean danielfolsom, not EHC. I think the whole debate was a dead end from the get-go, because if you cant get a reasonably large number of editors one way or the other then nothing happens. I'll keep an eye on it, and if there is a significant push for "no H" then I'll be there. [<--- End of Dscarth's comment]
I only give him a warning for that and tell him to refrain from using incivility towards me, however that doesn't work. He only becomes even more uncivil towards me and responds with 2 more cases of incivility:
1. He writes: Go ahead and report me. I think you need to seek professional medical attention, a psychologist may be able to help you work through what you're dealing with[<--- End of what he wrote]
2. He writes: Furthermore, you are coming up onto our talk pages trying to start shit', and warn me for something I said on a talk page? To quote Wikipedias policy on liking other people, WP:UNCIVIL: "You don't have to like an editor as a person" ... I DONT LIKE YOU.[<--- End of what he wrote]
He can't tell me I can't get involved with a dispute that everyone is supposed to decide on, on the discussion page of an article. It wasn't his dispute. Besides, it was taking up the whole page and someone probably should have got involved with the heated discussion between the two editors. He had no right to make these insults and tell me I can't get involve in decisions that everyone is supposed to help decide. If you would like to see how I responded, it is on his talk page. Thank you EverybodyHatesChris22:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, he's also just added this a second ago:
Don't come up on my talk page to try and start shit with me, end of discussion. Anyone with half a brain can see you are unstable, and seeking professional medical help is probably the best advice you've been given since joining Wikipedia.
While some of Dscarth's comments may seem severe based on the selection - EHC has repeatedley threatened to to report Dscarth and has also stated that Dscarth has not been following policies which he clearly has. The only reason I'm giving my input is because he did the same thing to me, and somewhat to the admin Rockpocket (by accusing him of bias for supporting me). I've told this user that should he have to report someone he needs to go to ANI - so sorry this wound up on your talk page when it shouldn't be, I'm not sure why it keeps happening (he also did it to rockpocket). --danielfolsom02:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how it looks or how EHC paints it, I have no problem at all with Danielfolsom. EHC is trying to be inflammatory. You can safely disregard the issue. --Dscarth02:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the mention of "East Sea" (unbolded, in the intro) was removed in favor of "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" (bolded) in the "dispute" section (at the bottom), in accordance with a previous discussion at Talk:Sea of Japan/Archive 2#Should East Sea be bolded?. Since there was no significant discussion to change that consensus, I will revert your last modification.--Endroit12:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can see that most tertiary sources (Britannica, Encarta, Columbia, etc., not to mention other-language Wikipedias) have the alternate in their lead. At the event, I just copied the format on the Hebrew Wiki. Please reconsider your approach since it comes across as favouring Japanese nationalism. El_C20:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, El C, for commenting on my RfA, which closed successfully with a tally of 76/0/1! I hope I will meet your expectations, and be sure I will continue trying to be a good editor as well as a good administrator :) If I may be of any assistance to you in the future (or if you see me commit some grievous error :), please drop me a line on my Talk page.
I can't see why the user is blocked. Could you let me know why he is, please? If I don't hear back, I'll unblock him. Thanks. Neil╦09:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was for a seemingly unhealthy fascination with Merkey (about 20 out of the account's total of 30 edits). No, you are not to unblock. El_C09:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding me? You block him for multiple accounts and now you're claiming something else? This is pointless, we don't block people for having unhealthy fascinations. I'm going to overturn the block. --Hemlock Martinis09:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
El C, dear, I'm kinda lost here. Who's this gentleman you're talking about, and what's happening? Anything I should know, and how can I help? I'll be around for several hours if you wish to talk, hun, or email me if you prefer, k? Love, Phaedriel - 14:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked this user for being a Merkey-centred SPA. The user offered to be unblocked in return for not editing the user or talk page of Merkey. I asked 'what about the bio and other pages that Merkey frequents,' but before the user responded, the admin whom I chastized for blocking Giano last time and who barely made any recent edits, decides that one of two edits he will make today will be to unblock this user before a response to my querry could be sought. El_C14:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unable to log in to my email at this time; I'll check it as soon as it becomes available again. Kisses, El_C14:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd forgotten this was the same fellow who blocked Giano (!) Now he unblocks an attack SPA?
Hemlock Martinis, I strongly suggest you stay away from either button, before people think to take the both away from you.Proabivouac20:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for reverting the party political links on pages within Brentford. I dropped a note to the editor saying they were likely to be reverted quickly and to consider adding party political links for all local parties to the LBB article, in order to achieve balance. I don't know what your view is, but generally I think they are useful links, but anything less than full coverage incites too much vandalism. Anyway, cheers. Kbthompson10:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi & thanks for the note. I, more or less, am of the same opinion, which admittedly, I could have phrased somewhat more clearly. Regards, El_C10:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
El C, I saw your post on the bureaucrats' noticeboard. FYI, the 'crats have no power to desysop someone. There is indication on Shreth91's page that he is retiring and will desysop voluntarily, but if he doesn't and you want to pursue the matter, you need either a steward (if there is a dire emergency situation) or the arbitrators. Newyorkbrad18:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not critically important by any means, but what I meant is that I don't understand why you posted to WP:BN with this concern, knowing that the people who primarily read that board are not empowered to deal with the issue, rather than address the people who do. Newyorkbrad22:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not taking sides (for or against) to note that the argument or justification isn't clear enough on reasonable read. If the first read of a situation causes another uninvolved admin to go "huh?", rather than nod head and agree, then the justification and explanation aren't good enough. You're not just writing the conversation for the purposes of the other party - you're also writing it so that other admins can understand what happened and why. If it's confusing enough that we can't tell rapidly, then we have to spend more time looking at it, and it potentially wastes the time of lots of other admins every time you do so.
I don't want to beat on you or single you out in general - that particular case was confusing, but it's usually not an issue. Having worked unblock-en-l for a while, though, the hardest cases are the ones where admins weren't clear and verbose enough and wouldn't communicate effectively with us after not communicating effectively with the blocked party. Do that side of it for six months and a lack of clear and open discussion by admins in admin actions starts to drive you nuts instinctively and on sight... Georgewilliamherbert19:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, El C. Forgive me if this isn't the proper way to respond to your message on my talk page -- I'm not sure how to do it properly.
I have outlined my objections to the HD 154345b entry in the discussion page for Extrasolar Planets and in the discussion page for HD 154345. My primary objection is that the information is completely inaccurate. The technical reason I deleted it is that the information is not supported by the citation. Apparently, I went about changing the page in an inappropriate manner because you undid my changes -- how do I change it properly?
Hi, you've put a note on the Tutankkamun article that the infobox is too wide – not sure whether I can actually change this much due to the contents, but what resolution are you using, and what are you seeing ? Cheers Markh06:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. The resolution I'm using isn't relevant (it varies according to whichever help-computa I use per any given instance); what I mean is that it is wider than infoboxes in general, and {{Pharaoh Infobox}}, specifically. See the screenshot above for a visual illustration. Thx. Regards, El_C07:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks – I will experiment and see what can be done with the hieroglyphs, which I think are making it bigger. Markh18:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Operation Condor
Hello. I fail to see any source showing that the US was substantially involved in Conder, except that various nations in Latin America used a US installation in Panama for communications. Do you have any more information?Ultramarine09:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can only the the front page at moment which do not list the US as a key member. If there anything more specifi from the US Army Special Forces manual, that would be a very good addition to the article. What does it say? Ultramarine09:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there is anything more specific, like what knowledge the US gave or how the US used Condor, that would be an useful addition to the article. Ultramarine09:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following that. That's just one random work among many others that speaks about "the counterterror model promoted by the United States" in the context of the operation. Is there any doubt of the backing given to Pinochet and so on? It's a matter of historical record. El_C09:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any backing to Pinochet is not necessarily related to Condor. Again, it would be useful to state how the US was involved in Condor, vague allegations are not very helpful. Ultramarine09:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That shows the US has knowledge of Condor, not that is shared information as claimed in the map. Similarly, see this: [17]. Again, knowledge of the operation, but the US itself seems uninvolved. Ultramarine09:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is material released in 2001. See this material from 2004: [18] In particular, "The declassified record shows that Secretary Kissinger was briefed on Condor and its "murder operations" on August 5, 1976, in a 14-page report from Shlaudeman. "Internationally, the Latin generals look like our guys," Shlaudeman cautioned. "We are especially identified with Chile. It cannot do us any good."
Shlaudeman and his two deputies, William Luers and Hewson Ryan, recommended action. Over the course of three weeks, they drafted a cautiously worded demarche, approved by Kissinger, in which he instructed the U.S. ambassadors in the Southern Cone countries to meet with the respective heads of state about Condor. He instructed them to express "our deep concern" about "rumors" of "plans for the assassination of subversives, politicians and prominent figures both within the national borders of certain Southern Cone countries and abroad." Ultramarine09:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whereas this 2006 Journal of Third World Studies article speaks about how "US involvement in Condor was indispensable to [its] effectiveness." Can this continue on the article's talk page, though? My talk page isn't really the venue for this and it limits the participation of other contributors. Feel free to refractor as you see fit. Many thanks in advance. El_C10:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do hope the "disgraceful word lawyering" was not directed at me? To make my position plain: It is absolutely obvious in my book that users like Alex mond (talk·contribs) belong permabanned on sight. I find it astounding that the same admin who was capable of slapping an established user with a month's block for a borderline 3RRvio decides that a recent trolling account spewing anti-Semitic rants should be blocked for 24 hours. This must be the most consistently deluded admin I have ever come across, whatever were people thinking? However, if the onlookers at WP:ANI do not think the case is as absolutely obvious as I do, I am not going to campaign about it, because if I did that, my wiki-time would be filled with campaigning, not editing. dab(𒁳)12:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not! I have nothing but utmost respect for you. The comment was directed at Nick & Neil who the second time in one day I found to be on the morally questionable side of the fence. But I regretted expressing that notion outright, therefore, I retracted. All the best, El_C17:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi thanks for the vigilance!
thank for keeping an eye on these articles pbut please don't delete other peoples additions don't remove POV tags or request for citation if they delete something that is important revert them but allow them to put forward their arguments we want a fair democratic contest of ideas where the reader can make up their own mind :) .Esmehwp17:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
can you please keep an eye on this guy and have a look at his contrib's. he will pull any trick to put his own (USA/Capitalism should rule the world)POV on every political article he can, he is also very persistent and thorough he needs a half a dozen people watching him all the time also I think he has some personal association to Freedom House a right wing think tank cause it seems to be very close to his heart. if he tries sock pupetry he can be caught there.Esmehwp17:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do love petting chipmunks! (though am not sure and have certain misgivings about the lead: "the common name for any small squirrel-like rodent species"...) I mean, you're welcome! El_C11:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I love those pics. My 8-year-old boy is away for the summer but I am going to treat him to those pics when he gets back. --Justanother11:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
House demolition
I appreciate your offer to shorten my block (which was later acted upon by Raul654), and the fact that you agree with me that a week block was inappropriate. The point I was contesting is moot by now, as the article has been re-written, and now has ample examples of very large scale military house demolitions, from 480BC through modern times, which dwarf anything Israel has been accused of, and which makes it clear that the term is not exclusive to, or even particularly related to the I-P conflict in the media or scholarly literature. Nonetheless, if you are interested, the reference I provided earlier, regarding Turkish house demolitions of Kurds explicitly says this was part of a "wide pattern", which is incompatible with describing it as small-scale. Isarig15:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Of course, it is a modern buldozing mention. I must have overlooked that (hrw) description of its usage by Turkey, thanks. El_C02:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know you've been keeping an eye on the article, and contributed to it recently, but its been protected again due to people who are fairly unwilling to discuss changes civilly if they discuss them at all. I tried moderating in the past, and was met with insults and bad faith from all sides. For the nonce, I am away from home, crazy busy with work, and unwilling/unable to take time out for wikipedia when I want to be exploring an amazing city with the little free time I have. Haemo has been doing an admirable and unbiased job as of late, but an administrator will hopefully have the clout to encourage productive discussion or at least get the rampant incivility kept to a minimum. AniMate22:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I havne't been around, either and, as well, am unable to commit to regular on-wiki attendance. El_C16:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I previously wrestled with this article, so I am interested in your views. I was initially drawn in by a POV tag, then ended up spending a fair amount of time trying to research it. I couldn't find any English language sources (online or at the library) using this particular name for the engagement or discussing it.
I don't read Hebrew, but I'm curious about the Hebrew reference and the Hebrew Wikipedia article - and I'll accept your analysis :). Do the sources use the name "2-28 air battle" and are there any references independant of the IDF? Thanks for your time.--Kubigula(talk)03:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I suspected, editors on that page confirm it to be an original title. The Hebrew wiki seems to have lower original titles standards than we do here, so I'm open for less synthetical, more descriptive alternatives. Many thanks. El_C17:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into this. With your research, I'm satisfied that the article meets the guidelines. The name change makes it less likely to draw POV criticism, and I'll trust your judgment that it's the name choice most consistent with the references. The only source I can read (the English IAF page) doesn't use any name for the battle. Thanks again.--Kubigula(talk)18:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. That just denotes the general area where it took place in (I chose not to use a date in the title) — still a bit original, but unlike 2-28, less codified thus less likely to give the false impression of usage of the title outside Wikipedia. El_C18:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to make myself feel better that the name was not original :). Anyway, I can live with it. Hopefully some historian will get around to giving it an "official" name some day.--Kubigula(talk)21:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My dear El C
Thank you for all that you have done! How much love resides therein! All one's gifts are never gone: Not seen, perhaps, but stored within. Kindness is an inner sun.
Your unspent heart a message sends Of grace and sacrifice hard-won Upon which happiness depends!
I wish I could say it's over, sweetie... unfortunately, tho she's better, she's not fully recovered, and she won't be for a long time. Tho apparently it's not extremely serious, it certainly worries me (I'm her mother after all!) I'll make more sense by email, I swear. Love you lots, Phaedriel - 17:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
El, hunny, would you consider climbing out from under the chipmunks and closing the COFS thread at WP:CSN? As in, determining consensus, and archiving it? Durova asked me to do it, but I think I've had too much contact with some of the users involved to be a properly "neutral admin". Love, Bishonen | talk20:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Actually, he refractored (at my request) comments which were uttered here. As for the impass, you are far from the only one, but I'm afraid I cannot commit to any substantive review at this time. I would suggest dispute resolution, but I find that process to be rigged in his favour. El_C22:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bishonen has ignored at least two questions I've asked in that manner previously and now indicates even less willingness to work this out, talking to myself on my own page doesn't seem like the best solution.
I don't believe there needs to be a long standing conflict based on hurt feelings, aside from being petty and dumb it could cause issues for the project if editors don't come to an understanding with one and other that disagreements do not equal bad faith.
Apperently, there's been a new fair use criteria (that nobody but image-editors knows about) that's against the usage of newspaper articles, so from that, the respective image-centred-editors made the leap to exclude recently-declassified military documents from Israel. Go figure. El_C22:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and of course, my translations will be deleted with it. It seems like a lof of laywerying games to me. El_C22:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You did the translations? Bravo to you, but I agree that what is going on is terrible because the information contained therein is now public. It's even worse that they don't explain carefully and allow for cogent discussion on the talk page. They just tag, hand it off to the deleting admin, and it's all done without any serious consideration of why it's been done. It robs the world of knowledge in the process. Badagnani22:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did, what a waste of time that was. Sadly, that is what Wikipedia has become. Obscure processes by self-regulated cliques rule the day. El_C22:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't add irrelevant headings, as it breaks the correct flow elsewhere. Grouping similar pictures together in one place should be enough, though it's hardly required. --Pekaje23:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So? That happens all the time, for the very obvious reason that quite often a lot of images are nominated in one go, when an editor stumbles upon a page with images that can be nominated. However, adding headings screws up things elsewhere, so please don't change the layout again. --Pekaje23:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a particularly contencious one; just let it be. The magical plcae that s IfD will not collapse at this inconsistency. Trust me. El_C23:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's easier for me to find, plus I linked it from Raul's talk page for his benefit; only the small group of editors who frequent IfD don't mind the mess that each day's subpage is (which is why I created WP:AFDC for article AfDs, it used to be even worse than that). Likewise with precategories AfDs, it has the impact of excluding non-regulars in favour of a small clique. El_C00:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to be criticized by editors who do not focus most of their edits on images or technical aspects of the wiki? Seems... one-sided. El_C23:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely sure what you mean by this. Looking through the debate, I have to wonder why you don't just transwiki it to wikisource and be done with it. --Pekaje23:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I mean anti-me bias. Once again, IDF only alows fairuse and having it as a caption was the ideal solution, even if some seemingly process-minded editors take issue with it for process-related (and I should add, loosely-extrapolated process-related) grounds. Thanks. El_C23:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-you bias? Sorry, but the rules are the rules are the rules. They're the same for everyone, and you should know that. The other editors have made their point quite well, and to be honest you come off as a bit rude. Your personal involvement makes this understandable, though not acceptable. My advice to you, for what it's worth, is to step back from the discussion for a day or two and consider if maybe the other side has a point. --Pekaje00:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I don't know how to talk on this page. I am trying to reply to your questions. In any case, here are my reasons. When I read this article, I don't get the feeling that this article has been written from a Western European point of view. It seems though the article has been written from an American point of view. American society is deeply rooted in the fear of the unkown. "Fear of the black man" and fears of people living in lands far from the USA are some examples. Further, in the United States, skin culture is associated to the definition of culture as opposed to beliefs based on value systems and traditions and history.
I must have made a mistake in trying to edit the section "Contemporary Western culture" Differences. Sorry for that.
Hi. New edits go at the foot of talk pages, see {{talkheader}} for detail. Just make sure that you are not adding your own opinion as fact and that you maintain an objective tone, with well-referenced sentences. See also this page for even more detail. Thank you, and Goodluck. El_C04:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear so and so, thanks for towing the party line! This award is intended to inflame an ongoing dispute by telling you how much I approve of your side versus the other side! Best of luck to you in the fight, where I support your side. Yours truly, NFCC#8888888888804:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, El C, it's been fun, but I'm really not interested in talking with you any further. Please do not leave me any further messages on my talk page. Thanks. – Quadell(talk) (random)04:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for signing the vandalism warning to this editor that I forgot to add four tildes too - how do you do that? Is there a template that adds the info automatically, or do you look u p the history and code it manually? Many thanks, Lynbarn10:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if whether throughout the course of human history, that will become a surname. Because that would be fuckin sweet! El_C11:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Still, how do you get to schmumpel, I think that probably would have to come at a much a higher stage of human development. El_C11:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would first choose a subarticle (Crime in Nigeria?) and then move the 419 section AFTER a subarticle is chosen. 419 is a major industry in Nigeria: This Slate article characterizes the scheme as a growing cottage industry: [22]WhisperToMe13:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, theCrime, or if you can quantify the practice and demonstrate its significance economically, perhaps also the Economy one. I believe that mentions in the main articles are, as well, fine, but should be restricted to brief decsriptions (certainly, an entire section is excessive). El_C19:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your move/changes to "Functionalism versus intentionalism"
Hi, I saw you moved and edited the article Functionalism versus intentionalism, stating that the terms functionalism/ist(s) and intentionalism/ist(s) should be uppercase. At the article's talk page I have quoted from the last paragraph of this section of Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters), which says that "[p]hilosophies, theories, doctrines, and systems of thought do not begin with a capital letter, unless the name derives from a proper noun". Would you have any objections to (you or me) reverting the move/changes? Regards, Bwiki15:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. No strong objections, but I'm accustomed to them being in upeprcase and I believe that, our Style Guide notwithstanding, generally, this is the practice in Holocaust historiography (although admittedly, my memory might fail me in that regards). At any case, I intend(ed) to undertake more sunbstantive edits to the article, and this certainly wasn't it. So, use your discretion, but give it some thought. Regards, El_C19:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You said that the phrase in the intro was "too ungrounded" and "anecdotal". Actually, the citations prove it is grounded and they arent the least bit anecdotal. If this is anecdotal then the rest of the intro is, too.
Please sign your username. Please refrain from noting legitimate edits as vandalism. Please restrict discussion of articles to those articles' respective talk pages. Please ensure that you utalize the talk page first when you are the one introducing disputed content. Thank you. El_C20:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have already responded to this; you ignored WP:3RR which I warned you of, and your conduct seems increasingly disruptive. El_C20:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have not be "disruptive" at all. I merely challenge what is apparently a complete lack of NPOV on your part. I have ignore no rule. I reworded the original to attempt (as if it were needed) even further neutrality. You are censoring legitimate citations that contradict your POV. Wikipedia is not your podium for ideological ranting. Please research those citations (I repeated them in the talk page). A truly objective person would have to include them.JusticeIvory20:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned, I'm no longer interested in having this discussion take place here; that's what the article's talk page is for. El_C20:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mozambique motto
Hi, I saw you make an edit about the supposed Mozambique motto so I wrote to the embassy in Washington, D.C. Here's the response:
Subject: Re: Question about national motto
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 14:43:01 -0400
From: Embassy of Mozambique in the United States
I would like to acknowledge and thank you for the receipt of your e-mail message and inform you that Mozambique does not have a national motto.
Many thanks for taking the time to correspond with and getting an answer about this from the Mozambique embassy, Badagnani. Best, El_C05:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm sure you remember how contested/poisoned the editing and debate at the Srebrenica massacre article was. As any attempts at reducing the lenght of the article (it at well >100 kb) or removing POV statements are met with a barrage of attacks (personal and editorial) from the 'Bosniak' editors of the article User:Jonathanmills and I have been discussing the possibility of starting an alternative article (something like this) together with a group of less ideologically motivated editors and then presenting the two of them to an arbitration committee of some sort and let them decide which is preferable as the 'official' Wikipedia article. Is such a process at all possible? If so, how would one go about starting it? Any conditions? I'm asking you since I remember that you seemed knowledgeable about Wikipedia routines/recommendations. User:Jonathanmills and my discussion on this matter is here. CheersOsli7307:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. How were you considering on splitting the entry; that is, in which particular direction? Regards, El_C05:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Providing the sentences contain correct information, presented in a balanced and objective manner, yes. El_C05:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Advice requested about possible mass move
I've been looking over Category:Murdered American children. For the most part, these people do not have any biographical information that would warrant an entry in an encyclopedia. I came across this after witnessing a minor move war at Samantha Runnion. After my involvement in the craziness over the Murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom entry, I'm almost afraid to even think about getting involved in something that will be controversial, but I feel like living dangerously. Seeing as the majority of these articles are not biographical but are instead about the murder and other crimes committed, and I'm considering requesting a mass move of these articles from the subjects name to "Murder of Subject's Name." It went over relatively well at the Murder of Kelsey Smith entry listed in that category, but articles about crime victims tend to draw out passionate people (especially when that victim is a child). For me, it's mostly about consistency and I think at some point we should get explicit language in the Manual of Style or the notability guidelines to guide us in the future. I guess what I'm asking is do you think making a request for a move like this is actually feasible, or am I asking for a big headache that is going to send me running for the hills. I'm really not all that concerned about the headache part of it, but I'm not going to get involved in something that has zero chance of succeeding. Thoughts?
Also, would WP:RPM be the correct venue for this, or should I start a discussion on the category's talk page, or should I go page by page on each entry and give a head's up to people who have watchlisted them, or one of the noticeboards? AniMate01:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a worthwhile effort and, speaking for myself, I have always been in favour of the 'topicifation' and against the 'biographization' (if you will) of less than notable (living and otherwise) persons, especially victims, and most especially children. I am confident that, increasingly, more and more established editors are of the same mind frame and are willing to take a stand toward this encyclopedic end away from the tabloid approach which, sadly, plagues many of our entries. In short, you can count on my support. I do note, however, that limiting the changes to United States category seems too narrow, although it is a sizable one so it's a good place to start. My point is that it should not be limited to neither a country nor even an age group, but rather to notability considerations (i.e. was the person notable prior).
As for the practical matter of getting this effort of the ground, I advise on avoiding the policy or guideline pages (these may prove guarded due to unrelated reasons and it's best to approach them, if at all, with an-already well-forged consensus) and instead presenting the case in a centralized venue, while linking to this discussion from the category/ies page/s, WP:RM, etc. I'm unsure if notices should be placed on (in terms of this drive) nonexeceptional individual articles due to the large number of these; perhaps a random sample of, say, 10-20% instead of all of em (I'll leave that to your discretion). In short, live dangerously, and do let me know if there is anything I could do to help. El_C05:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why you undid the source quotations that i had added to PMOI's page regarsing the terrorist designation of the PMOI? there are some comments acusing PMOI for terrorism and there are others that contradict it? Why you insist on just the first part? I would be happy to have an answer from you. Thanks. 193.219.246.250
I removed it because it was phrased in an un-objective, biased manner. Why are you reverting the removal of copyrighted content that you added. If you do this again, I will have no choice but to restrict your ability to edit. In fact, I'm considering doing so now in light of your one-sided edits. Are you here to write an encyclopedia or make the People's Mujahedin of Iran look good? It increasingly looks like the latter. El_C08:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"please refrain from removingmaterial if you're without providing a summary and without supplumenting info so it isn't lost — and definitely use edit summaries for edits of that magnitude" ...? You removed a space. Is that what you were trying to do? I looked at the previous few edits and they all added content... Just a little confused. Perspicacite10:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because the proposal for deletion, and AfD for that matter, was unrelated to notability; you could have simply removed everything up to to the opening paragraph. Prod/AfD are not means to circumvent normal editorial processes. El_C17:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you're not obliged to. :) But putting the relist notice at the top of the AfD screws up the list page, making people believe that the AfD directly above is being relisted, not the actual one. —Kurykh00:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the same vein, with this edit I assume you meant to actually relist the debate, not just to leave a comment proposing relisting? If so, you should remove it from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_July_25 and transclude it to the current AfD log instead. It's up for closing now (and I agree that a more thorough discussion would be helpful). Sandstein17:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, You are being contacted by BetacommandBot and by Zscout370. The reason for this message is that you have have uploaded Image:A&B-COA.gif under the following license Template:Vector-images.com. Recently, a decision was made about images and anything not meeting freedomdefined.org will be considered "unfree" for Wikimedia's purposes. The terms of the website do not allow their images to be used now under our new guidelines. You are being given a chance to relicense the image for about two weeks. If you fail to relicense the image, there is a good chance the image will be deleted from Wikipedia. If you have any questions or concern, please see Zscout370. Thank you. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)23:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Move
Thanks for doing the Muten Roshi move. Now do you have a bot or program that can update all of those redirects, including the Muten-Rôshi links all over Wikipedia? Lord Sesshomaru
Hey El C, I am having a little trouble with User:NE2 who is changing all the Virginia State Route wikilinks from "Virginia State Route X" to "State Route X (Virginia)", a link which just redirects right back to "Virginia State Route X", so it's a pointless redirect.
He continues to cite WP:USSH, which says that the article and links should be "Virginia State Route X" and the title should be "State Route X"...ie: [[Virginia State Route 277|State Route 277]]. I have told him of his error and what WP:USSH says, but he continues to revert these changes back. I have asked for "other articles" where this is done, but he has shown me none. If you could take care of this, I would appericate it. It is really in violation of WP:MOS as well. Thanks and Take Care....NeutralHomerT:C03:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might not, I'm actually on the serial killer task force and usually do that but I came across this guy and was look woo. This guy is one freak. If you want to delete it that's cool. I've actually been looking around the pedo articles because they said on a perverted justice sight that pedophiles were overrunning the place. I have to admit I have seen some editors that are a bit suspect. Plus, Squeakbox joined are project so I looked through his contribs and he seems to do a lot of anti-pedo/victims rights stuff so I just kind of jumped around the sights he was editing. Anyway, I'm rambling but yeah if you want to go ahead and delete it feel free. Jmm6f48805:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article deleted does not alter the fact that Octaevius Altair did go to the Supreme in order to preserve the integrity of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (something that is unique to Canada). There is no personal bias in reporting a fact. This should not have been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.24.197 (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, I do not appreciate others deleting messages left to me. If you have concerns, add an appropriate remark, do not delete. Digwuren03:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not up to you to decide; comments from banned users are deleted per policy, even if those receiving them wish it kept. El_C03:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People such as yourself are the reason Wikipedia will [something not good, etc.]
Why make such unashamedly biased edits? You clearly have a personal agenda. The edits you made to India history, invasion theory are flawed. Luckily, the advent of modern genetics will force such types as yourself to shut your mouths and accept truth regardless of what you want to believe. Max mullers theoies have long been considered pseudoscience, like basing his hypothetical 'invaders' on biblical creation of the world in 4004BC. It is laughable. Do you suffer the same malady as widespread fear on the dissolution of you personal identity when it is proven that India and Iran was most likely the home of Indo-European languages and people (migration out of India is being proven. See gentic work by Kashyap circa 2006)? If so, I feel sorry for you. And get ready. The books will be rewritten soon by the relevent academic authorities, and the wikipedia muppets like yourself will find a place to learn. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skylightfire (talk • contribs).
Hey El C, I read that you have returned after going to Israel. I was afraid that you had left because the image editors deleted your translations- if you had left and they deleted them it would be double the loss. You know, after I first saw those translations and read that article I bought and read The Arab-Israeli Wars: War and Peace in the Middle East from the War of Independence through Lebanon by Chaim Herzog, and those translations really inspired me to study Hebrew. So I've studied what I can in books and on the internet, right now I'm taking Russian however. I haven't taken any courses in Hebrew yet but will when I can. Can you recommend any books for learning Hebrew? Maybe you will get a book deal one day and can publish your translations there. Do you have anymore translation projects underway for Wikipedia? Regards, D. Recorder23:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, D., Glad to be back! Of course, it's the reader's loss — I already know what those intelligence reports said, I'm the one who translated them (!) :p I had an amazing time in Israel; I only wish I could have stayed for longer. I brought a lot of books in Hebrew back with me (because I find reading in English to be so very tedious) and am currently half way through Hard Times (I find myself occasionally marking certain pages and going back to the English version and comparing them); before that it was The Tenants, before that, The Slave (that article needs help!), before that The Fox, in the future, it'll be Steel Ring, Notes on Man's Condition, and many others works. It's so nice to have lots of new (which is to say, used, but new to me) books in Hebrew, finally. I was getting so tired of English. No, no planned Wikipedia translations (I have been involved in some print-related ones, however), but am open to suggestions. Sorry, I don't know of any books for learning Hebrew. Glad to learn you're studying Russian (I wish I had the capacity for another language; right now, it would probably exploady my fragile mind, following the old mantra that new knowledge thingies push old ones out!), that sounds interesting! בברכה, El_C23:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you delete this?
This is the image that went with the article I made that we decided to delete.File:Viamund.jpg
I got an orphan image notice sent to me and I see no reason to keep this freak ass photo without an article to go with it. I would delete it myself but I do not know how. Can you delete it for me Jmm6f48806:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do you completely delete a page. I only know how to blank it but not get it back to its original status. If you could explain how to or point me to the wikipedia explanation page I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks, Jmm6f48806:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, A number of us have been battling these anons with the same bit of text. I just wondered if it would be appropriate now to semi-protect the page. Thanks again for your involvement. Regards. → AA(talk) — 09:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. It's a very high-traffic page, so depends on the intensity of it. It appears to have died down right now, for example. Regards, El_C10:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice quotation of Blake. Thank you. Of course, he said it better and more succinctly than I. I used more verbiage but then, if I hadn't I wouldn't be Cecropia. ;-) -- Cecropia16:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You and me both! (my cat is likely to become a great poet (he's a mediocare one, at best) before I'm ever able to rival the eloquence of Blake) My pleasure. :) El_C12:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka07:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On Emirate of Sicily he complains that the article is biased [27], yet his only changes [28]are to remove the following paragraph.
"In addition to Andalusian Arabs and other Arabs, there were Berbers, black Africans, Persians, Greeks, Jews, Slavs and Lombards. Western Sicily particularly prospered with Berbers settling in the Agrigento area coupled with Bedouin, Syrians and Egyptian Arabs in Palermo."
Another part he keeps deleting from these articles is “Jewish settlements were established in Italy as early as the Roman Republic and survive to the present day."
In the end, Scipio3000 seems to be removing all references to Jews and black Africans, as well as most references to Arabs and other non-Europeans from these articles.
Now for the edit history.
He starts by claiming the deletion of the sentence about Jews was an
accident [29]. Yet he never restored it and his next edit in the same minute was to delete the paragarpah about Arabs, Jews, etc from Sicily[30] and from History of Sicily a few minutes after that [31].
He gives the lack of information on the Greeks as reason for his edits[32][33] , yet his edits do not add infromation on the Greeks, the delete ifnromation on the Arabs and add information on the Normans.
He called me a child [65] juvenile [66] bully [67] a racist [68] , said I was sick [69] and threatened to report me [70][71][72] while saying ‘What have I done, except sdefend myself?’ [73]
Scipio3000 has claimed ‘My redo on Sicily was the most balanced, non-biased work done on Sicily yet.’ [74].
Scipio3000 has edited his comments to eliminate signs of his bias [75] and remove accusations he has made [76][77][78][79][80]. He has deleted content from my attempt to get help from this issue [81][82] including changing it to make look like I had made the deletions I complained about [83]
Can I have a summary of the summary? ;) I'm distubred to learn that he accused yet another person of racism and so on, that makes three so far, including us two. You may wish to drop a note at the ANI thread. If material is being removed without sufficient explanation (and I note that the user has not used a single edit summary whereas his talk page comments often stray from being factual and degenrate to what appears to be nothing more than 'I'm defending my heritage' self-righteous rants), they need to be reverted. If the user is, sort to speak, ayan-izing articles, I would view it most severely. I'm still trying to keep an open mind, and extend good faith toward that user, but it is becoming increasingly difficult. El_C19:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, followed your suggestion and posted this to the incident page. Could you please remove the 'resolved' tag from it, since Scipio3000 continued to attack the other editor after it was supposedly resolved. Sorry, about the summary length. Of course, since I didn't add links for Scipio3000's talk page, it's actually an abbreviated list. ;) Edward32104:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RFC/Eyrian
Hi. What should I do with this case now that it has been deleted? Do I apologize somewhere? Do we just go on our ways? I will post a message with User:Eyrian. Bearian15:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I remember having a weird interaction with this person as well. Check out this revision of the user page, which says "..became an admin on December 3, 2005, one of the youngest to ever be granted that status: at the age 14 years, 1 month and 19 days." This is why we should not sysop children. Can we be surprised to see immaturity and poor judgment from someone who's not yet remotely an adult? Friday(talk)21:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that interpretation. I don't think I would have been up for the task when I was at that age. El_C22:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sicily protection request
I am not the only person who noticed something not quite right about the edits. Please keep in mind that I didn't delete any of his additions I just fixed the dates and added the 660-668 entry when sicily was the residence of the Byzantine Emperor. and Syracuse was almost proposed the capital of the Empire. I consider Sicily a unique distinguished part of Italy.
I was curious to know why Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian was deleted. I'm not suggesting it was the wrong decision, merely curious about the procedure. Most discussions are kept visible: is the procedure different for User RfCs? AndyJones 13:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC
From {{RfC}}at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts ... if this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page, the page will be deleted. One of the users failed to do this whereas efforts by the other were deemed below par. El_C01:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that User:RookZERO continues to make tendentious edits without leaving edit summaries, even after your admonition. He's also blanked out his talk page to hide the vandalism warnings and other complaints. Not sure if you're an admin or not (you just seem rather adminly) :) but if you are, perhaps you can take a look. wikipediatrix16:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm an admin. I haven't reviewed the user's edits closely, but at a glance, at least, I'm not sure I'm seeing anything wrong. Sure, I'd like to see more edit summary usage, but it isn't mandatory. And, blanking a talk page, even if it has a fair bit of warnings, is also okay. Now, if future content on the talk page is similar, then that would be a different story, but for now, good faith for lessons learned does no harm. Of course, if there is anything specific I missed that you'd like me to look at, I'd be more than happy to do so. Thank you again for your note. El_C18:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Thanks for clarifying. It's not improper, but I may lift the block (since you do not object), I haven't decided yet. Thanks again. El_C00:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I was looking at the time stamp that Miranda issued that 3rr warning and noticed the 4th edit was done after the warning was issued. It was hard to sift through all the discussions that took place, my apologies. Seems you and Miranda are handling the situation as best you can.¤~Persian Poet Gal(talk)00:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Yes, of course! I'm a shouting magnet, anyway. ;) He's been blocked for 48 hrs for 3RR; I was thinking of unblocking him, however, and letting him work on the article in a subpage for that time length. What do you think? Best regards, El_C00:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
F***ing Austria
You gotta admit, though, it was rather funny[85]. :) (and no, it wasn't me)) BTW: I plan to visit, maybe even on Sunday. It's a bit hard to get to. Would you like me to mail you a postcard or such (if I find such a thing). You can e-mail me a response if you chose. --Otheus14:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as vandalism go, it was pretty fuckin awesome! I thought about you, upon reverting it, to boot! Nice, you're going there; another dream come true! :) I'd love a postcard. Maybe you could scan one, or even a GFDL-released image of a sign or something, and award me the "Fucking barnstar" (I don't ordinarily ask for awards, but there's one that would..., well, would truly make my fuckin day! All the best, El_C17:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, pictures I can certainly do. But if there's no postcard of the town per se, I hope you'll settle for one mailed from the village. Just need an address, but if you don't get me one, I'll send it to myself, scan that, and post it. :) Otheus17:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you have Google Earth, you can click here to do a flyover of the last leg of my journey, which will be on bicycle, assuming I can rent one and take it with me on the train and it's not raining. Otherwise, I'll have to wait till I'm in the area with a car or stay the night in Salzburg. Otheus
Oh, man, I had a great time on my Fucking excursion!! I didn't steal any Fucking signs, but I took several pictures of the Fucking signs, village, and surrounding countryside. I'm telling you, the Fucking countryside is gorgeous. I also got a Fucking tan. Oh, and I saw some really cute Fucking cows, who, sadly, were not at the time engaged in any mating rituals. I greeted a Fucking farmer, who greeted me back in his Fucking Austrian dialect. Soon as I can, I'll upload my Fucking pictures and perhaps spruce up the Fucking article a bit. :) --62.47.203.1213:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why? So he can break some more rules without consequence without any report from anyone? User:Riana took the one email part down, the discussion is pretty much over. I am just frustrated that admins allow this user to break every rule in the book with zero consequences. Calton and I have not spoke to each other in awhile and I plan on keeping it that way, which is what everyone has told me to do. - NeutralHomerT:C06:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's best you stay away and let others deal with it, nonetheless. There's just been too much bad blood between you two. Regards, El_C06:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have archived the discussion on WP:ANI, since User:Riana took care of the main point being the email address. If you think others would like to chime in, you, of course, can revert the archive, but I think that discussion has gone as far as it will go. - NeutralHomerT:C06:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I think that user forfeited that email account with that message, which for the unaware reader was:
From: StraferOfTruths <email@removed.com>
To: Calton
Subject: Fuck You, Asshole
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 03:18:12 GMT
YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL YOU ARE THE TROLL
From: StraferOfTruths <email@removed.com>
To: Calton
Subject: Hey, Dumbfuck
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 02:17:24 GMT
You are the real troll, I wasn't even abusing my talk page. I abhor your totalitarian censorship, you worthless scum. It is a good thing you are wasting your life, such as it is, on Wikipedia, so you can't do any damage in the real world.
Which isn't to say that the address should have been disclosed (perhaps that was a simple, unintended oversight). I don't think it's a big deal, though. But that strays from my point, though, that there's been so much bad blood between you two, it might just be best you both refrain from mentioning each other. I am not trying to take sides, I just want to see both of you move on. Regards, El_C06:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mujahideen = fundamentalists
Look, I'm not trying to idealize the Afghan Mujahideen, far from it, but neither is it correct to say they were all fundamentalists. There were seven Mujahideen parties based in Peshawar. Four of them were islamist parties(Jamiat, Hezb, Ittihad, Khalis). Of these only two (Hezb and Ittihad) were really fundamentalist, the other two were considered "moderate"(Massoud was a member of jamiat). The three other parties were'nt even islamist: two of them(NIFA and Jabha) were royalist, and the third(Harakat) had no clear ideological stance, and was labeled "traditionalist". That's why it isn't correct to say they were all, or even mostly fundamentalists. Raoulduke4720:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Four of seven can still be largely, and even Massoud was Islamic, though not Islamist. But what needs to be focused on is the role of and extent to which each one fought rather than a mechanical count of "parties." Point is, Islamist charachter of most (and yes, even by mechanical, four of seven) should be noted. El_C17:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User Scipio Vandalism
Hi,
I am contacting you because you had experince with this user. He started to remov images I added to the article after he added new images (then he claimed there is too much clutter!). And he proceeded by removing the Image of the Idrisi 1154. And relocated the Tomb (written in Greek, Arabic, Hebrew and Latin) to the Emirate period although it belongs to the Arab Norman period 1148AD (an attempt to deny the existance of Arabs and Jews during teh Arab Norman period!). The user claimed in posts before that he is Syrian, now he is saying that he is 75% sicilian and he is leaving posts to members of the Lombard league (Northern Italians who have ill feelings towards Sicilains) he is claiming that he wil bring experts to change the article! (change history?). --Thesicilianist09:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'd just like to point out that your reason for reverting History of Japan is not valid. The community had a vote on that in the past and rejected the idea that it should be reserved for Christian articles. John Smith's18:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you show me where the general consensus is to use BC for Christian-related subjects (populations, countries, cities, ideas) and BCE for the rest of the world/'s history can be found? As I said, the only time there was a vote on such a view was when a proposal was rejected here. That rather suggests you're wrong. You were, however, justified in reverting the user's edit on Mumbai because he had changed it for no reason from BCE/CE when it had been established in a consistent state. John Smith's18:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I can't show general consensus, not one established over the course of years. But this has been the general trend, and for a good reason. Having close to 25,000 articles in my watchlist, is where I gained this insight. El_C18:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I notify El C when it's clear he didn't want to contribute in the discussion? Besides he's already editing the page - it's not as if he can't use his eyes on the talk page. John Smith's18:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are contributing, why did you revert? You're taking part in an edit war yourself, the sort of thing as an admin you should not be doing. John Smith's18:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That ip should not have reverted without an edit summary. Other comments should be taken to the noticeboard. Thx again. El_C19:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so you're saying you won't revert between users using an edit summary. Cool, thanks for the clarification. Sorry about the confusion - I thought you were taking sides and getting involved in the argument. John Smith's19:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dreamguy RFC
You're doing as good a job as one could hope on the Dreamguy page; it's going to be a c-f for anyone, no matter who. Though Dashakat *was* incorrect in their method of reacting to the endorsements of Bish's outside view, I would personally appreciate it if you would refactor all the extra commentia in the endorsements, the same way you did for the other people who were going out of control early on with the chat in the endorsements. It really isn't the place for it, from either side. All I'm hoping for right now is to come out the other side sounding sane still. Hope you get the same. --Thespian05:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thx I appreciate the support. I do not, however, feel that accusations of this nature merit refractoring. El_C05:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite think it's reached the level of "circus" yet, although as I indicated in my last posting we're all talking past each other (as I sort of expected to happen). I have some mediation proposals I'm working on; I will probably be posting them tomorrow. Daniel Case05:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a bad call, I agree (frankly, until I reread it, I had forgotten I said that). But you could have just removed or commented out that one sentence. Removing two entire paragraphs seems like punitive overkill, more like trying to make a point rather than keep a debate civilized. Daniel Case05:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but that is quite the audacity, I find, for you to say this now. Is this really how you talk to people you don't know?(!) El_C05:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just thought it was unduly harsh, especially given it was in the context of an RfC where a user's wholesale removal of comments from a talk page is one of the matters under discussion. I did understand what you were trying to accomplish; however without directly informing me that you were reverting the entire comment it could have been perceived by others as indicating some sort of disagreement with the entire comment, not just one way of expressing a sentiment within it. I really prefer that messages of that nature be conveyed directly in talk messages rather than through edit summaries per WP:ES ... I am certainly not immune to doing that myself, but I shouldn't have had to click to the page itself to figure out what you were talking about. Or even a difflink included with your post on my page. Or you could have followed up with a request that I apologize and strikethrough the remark; I would certainly have done so.
I am trying not to turn this into a urination contest (to coin a phrase) between me and him. There's enough of that already with the other users. So deleting that comment (which I didn't purposely choose to upset him, but you are right that that would have been the effect) is fine with me. I am not taking his abuse personally.
I can't say if he's subjected to that sort of treatment from other users. He seems to have some trolls, but the whole point of the RfC is that, understandable or not, you're still not allowed to be this uncivil on a regular basis (and especially right off the get-go ... he hasn't given me much benefit of the doubt, has he? Not that I expected differently, based on his edit history. So I do not take his accusations personally). If you have a coworker who's popping off at everyone because of a bitter divorce, you certainly understand but at the same time you can't let it go because you need to have a harmoniously functioning workplace. Discipline the other offending users, to be sure, but don't overlook the problem on their account. Daniel Case06:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Is this really how I speak to people I don't know"? Not really. I wouldn't say I don't know DreamGuy at this point, but he has a serious problem with grandiosity; I was reacting to that, rather harshly.
I find your coming down on me to be, while deserved, rather selective. You reverted the comment, I changed it, and apologized. Then you use an edit summary to cast aspersions on my adminship and comment again on a two-day old comment. I am the only user you have mentioned by name anywhere. If I were in charge of the page I'd have rebuked at least some of DreamGuy's defenders as well.
I do agree that the page is now creating more heat than light (I wasn't ultimately surprised_, and I think this one really needs to go arbitration, where some neutral parties can look it over. I will post to that effect, and no more. Daniel Case13:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, yes you did. You were right to come down on DashaKat for an out-of-his-butt sockpuppetry allegation (did you revert the comment entirely, though? I didn't check). And I did see you badgering PhilWelch. But you came down on me late Saturday, and then again on Monday for the same thing without any fresh misconduct on my part. I feel that was a little excessive. Asking me to rephrase myself was fair; questioning my adminship and then accusing me of a non-apology apology was not.
If you want a measure of how I talk to people I don't know, you're getting it right now. You have been far more civil than DreamGuy.
Hi! Recently several users: Leavepower, Likes and 211.59.108.42 have kept adding possible personal research and unverified statements to the article's history section. Majority of these newly added contents are very poorly written with bad prose and hard to understand sentences. In general, there should be concensus before any of these potentially controversial contents could be added. I hope you keep an eye out for the Manchuria article. --Balthazarduju08:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; the prose is scarcely intelligible, which is a problem. They are welcome to bring ideas to the talk page and wait for input there. El_C08:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you look at the article's talk page, there's a whole history of disputes involving some users inserting informations similar to this. The problem is, not only are those contents these users added problematic and with a strong POV as well as disagreed by some users, but these users are very stubborn (reverts continuously).--Balthazarduju08:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Unless you can point directly to the reprimand, I don't know what you are talking about. (2) As far as disruption, I still don't know what you're talking about. Kindly be more clear. Thank you. --DashaKat16:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually in the context of the discussion and the closure of the AfD by a non-admin, I think the decision was perfectly reasonable. I was just passing by to pass on my thanks to El C when I saw this, so I'll add it here: thanks for resolving it! ColdmachineTalk13:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please self overturn here. The real reason for overturning is that the discussion never was transcluded in any of the daily page logs. This was an honest mistake by the nominator, but it means that the consensus in the discussion is meaningless. (Even more so given that there are sockpuppet concerns about some of those who did participate.) GRBerry13:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I hope it doesn't get overturned over technicalities, because that'd be a lot of potential disruption that, we could do without. El_C15:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with GRBerry and request that you restore the article and re-list the AfD. The sockpuppets and COI SPA accounts disrupted the discussion and made it impossible to find consensus. If it is relisted, then we can get wider participation and if the repeated SPA arguments start up again, we can be more vigilant to keep the page more focused, and avoid the long rambling diversions. I have no vested interest and have not edited the articles, but I saw a lot of improper behavior in that AfD and I do not believe there was consensus or that the results could be reliable anyway due to the disruptions and lack of wider attention. --ParsifalHello18:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about that; that is a distraction. I'm talking about approving the most ridiculous AfD close I have ever seen. El_C21:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that's simply a matter of opinion. I think that the result was actually no consensus, so while I agree GlassFET should have waited, I disagree that he made the wrong conclusion. I fully expected the reaction to GlassFET action to simply be a relist, which was needed anyway on procedural grounds and explicitly recommended in the same WP:AN post you've referred to . IPSOS (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Approving an involved user closing an AfD in the direction of their !vote is totally bizarre, in my view. I made it clear. El_C21:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True. But I did not reverse because of that. And had it been a correct conclusion, I would have echoed it. El_C21:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, I forgot, you're an admin so your opinion is automatically more right than a non-admin's, even after you make it clear from subsequent comments that you didn't look into the matter very deeply and discounted the keep votes of at least five regular editors simply because you disapproved of the actions of one or two. IPSOS (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disapprove of your actions now. No, I don't think that. I took 30 min. to review the debate. Those users did not strike me as established editors, but everyone's opinions were taken into account. El_C21:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to be taken as an established editors, Parsifal, avoid absurd partisanship.
First, that's not a partnership, it was my considered opinion of what GlassFET did, based on my reading of WP:DPR and the fact that after multiple requests, no administrator was closing the AfD and the wasteful arguing was going on and on and going nowhere. I've never even met him before. I am willing to acknowledge that my conclusion about his closing of the debate might have been mistaken, but that doesn't suddenly make my thousands of edits on wide varieties of topics working for the good of Wikipedia disappear.
I'm sure as an administrator you're very busy and have lots of demands on your time and sometimes you may have to move very fast. But your comments about me and some of the others in this particular situation are not examples of the high standards we depend on our administrators to portray, in particular with regard to WP:CIVIL. I do not mean that as an insult. It is my honest observation of how you handled the communications about this series of events. --ParsifalHello21:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, El_C. I realize that you had decided to delete this page so that it might be appropriate to being this to your attention.
As you know, established editors have determined to delete The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. and enforced the decision in deletion review: [89]. However, without consensus or any comment on the talk page, user:IPSOS has now unlilaterally merged the majority of what was that article into the main Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn article and reversed a decision made by editors previous in consideration for the neutrality of Wikipedia made a year ago here: Talk:Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn/Archive 3 . It seems clear to me that user:IPSOS is more interested in portraying a partisan view of the contemporary direction of the historical organization (which bears no direct historical relation to the original Order)rather than in reaching a stance of neutrality for Wikipedia and for the main article, Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. As it even says at the top of the article "this article is about the historical organization of the 19th century." I take that back. User:IPSOS has now changed this as well against previous consensus. He says on the talk page that consensus can change, but one user is not enough for consensus. He didn't even start a discussion on it before making such edits which I would consider disruptive. Can you take a look at this behavior? Kephera97518:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kephera975, please stop your continued personal campaign against User:IPSOS and your constant attempt to control all Golden Dawn articles.
You also are not accurately describing the situation.
IPSOS did not merge the article, he dropped half the information and all of the self-references, leaving only solid third-party references.
There is a discussion section on the talk page and there is more than one editor agreeing with his changes.
The consensus you claim happened a year ago only involved two editors.
If you don't like the way the article is written and you believe you are correct, then instead of attacking IPSOS, try going to the various related Wikiprojects and inviting more neutral editors to join the discussion and improve the article. --ParsifalHello19:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I object. You just chose sides by reverting before protecting. There is a new consensus on the talk page, and you should respect it. IPSOS (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the several false statements you have made on WP:DRV, I'm afraid that I simply don't believe that you do. Please don't take this as an accusation of intentionality. I think you simply didn't look deeply enough into and rushed into a delete. That fact that you claim that no established editors !voted keep ascertains that. IPSOS (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mea culpa but no established admins were bothering to respond. I suppose we're now supposed to cheer on your knee-jerk reaction. Bah. GlassFET20:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I truly did not want to ask for arbcom enforcement as I feel all POV's should be permitted, so long as we abide by the rules...I had most of my evidence collected a month ago, and decided to let it go for awhile and work on an article I want to see featured...namely Yellowstone fires of 1988...anyway, I got the article mostly completed and then resumed editing some of the areas I had been forced to retreat from to protect my sanity and to evade the incessant baiting and other nonsense from this guy. I'm not "after him"...I just don't like ban evaders evading their ban and resuming right where they left off. Had he gone and just created articles like the ones he has on his userpage and left well enough alone...in other words, not seek to get hostile with the exact same people that he had as NuclearUmpf, and then I would have been more than happy to ignore him. We all know, what, how many banned editors resurface...and why do they get banned again? Because they resume their same tactics and battles...that is why a number of them are relatively easy to detect. That is how I IDed User:XP as banned editor Rootology...he came right back to the same haunts he had been at before. This has nothing to do with politics...and everything to do with what is just. If arbcom and or the community decided that Nuclear was to be banned then if he returns and resumes his same old nonsense, then that is unacceptable. I can't make the connection right now and don't have time...but do you remember Rex? RyanFriesling was convinced for a long time that Nuclear was Rex...that seemed odd to me, since I remember Rex being an ultra conservative and Nuclear was much more of a centrist. But I know Ryan,,,she is a pretty smart gal and I highly doubt she would be flinging mud at Nuclear, and potentially wrecking her reputation here with an allegation that Nuclear was the notorious Rex. Well, oddly, it dawned on me that Rex, Nuclear...they weren’t really political at all...they were just quarrelsome....just for the sake of being so. As odd as it sounds, there may be a growth cycle here in which this guy has evolved from being conservative to liberal...and then again, maybe, as I suspect, it has more to do with being quarrelsome. I'm not going to take it to arbcom....what for...if this connection is true...it would be the third arbcom case against the same exact editor. Ryan complained about that just as I am doing now.--MONGO15:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had a chance to review the evidence and am not familiar with any of the individuals mentioned. I just took issue with the extent of the phishing with respect to this account (SoD); it just seems excessive that every other day he is accused of being another banned user's sock. Maybe yours is just bad timing, but there have been far too many cries of wolf for me to tell what's what. With the Committee conducting an investigation, at least there will be thorough review. I really am not in a position to comment beyond that (I just don't know). El_C15:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure..I maybe could have post what I had a month ago, but the thing is, his editng them had fewer edits to go on, so a decent comparison was less convincing than now. The only way we can deal with ban evaders if they resurface beyond the checkuser limitations is to document the diffs and compare them, as you are well aware. I have much better things to do so I didn't collect all the diffs and sort through all his contributions just to silence a "political opponent"...I don't operate that way. I can understand that the numerous RFCU's seem like they were done perhaps frivilously, but I can't imagine that this is due to some cabal rationalization...people see him as a sock account and the only question was whose...well, I do not have one ounce of doubt about that now. I wish more people knew the limitations of checkuser...which in itself has not always been completely accurate and it would have avoided the associated drama of requesting checkusers on stale accounts.--MONGO15:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll jump in here... I was the one who filed RFCU, regarding FAAFA and Rootology, based on suspicions MONGO and others had. Jumped the gun on that, and it was a mistake.
the requests were stale, so RFCU was pointless anyway.
when I looked at the editing pattern, time of day, for FAAFA and Rootology, they were totally different. clearly not a match. Time of day isn't 100% proof that SevenOfDiamonds is a match for Nuclear, but it eliminates other possibilities. With that, one can then look at the editing behavior and style in detail and see many other characteristics that match and make a more convincing case here.
SevenOfDiamonds has something against me [90][91], from the outset, the way Nuclear did, such as this exchange [92] on a page I had been watching for 1+ years and Nuclear just came on days prior, and asks me to "stop following his edits" and "Try not to poke and prod." I never really interacted with Rootology or FAAFA, so they wouldn't have any issues with me the way SevenOfDiamonds and Nuclear have.
As for Lovelight, I knew immediately it was not a match. Tbeatty should have known better. First of all, Lovelight's edits are stale by now. Anyway, the editing styles totally do not match, as well I know the geographic location and IPs used by Lovelight (not at all a match). That's why I asked for that request to quickly be closed.
It's taken a while to pour over the evidence, but this is by far strong evidence when it's all considered collectively. Any one individual bit of evidence wouldn't convince me, but all the pieces together. Unlikely coincidence that this is a new editor and someone other than Nuclear. This is not about politics or anything, but simply that he became quarrelsome and disruptive, as has SevenOfDiamonds. This mess has been a distraction for MONGO and others, to keep having sockpuppets come back and arbcom decisions and bans not enforced. The drama and disruption needs to stop. We've seen a number of good editors forced to leave the project because of trolling and stresses involved [93][94] If I were in MONGO's situation, I would have quit a long time ago. I suggest looking past the numbers RFCUs here (many were mistakes or naive), but look at the collective evidence. Regards. --Aude (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thx for note. It's a lot of material (I am totally unfamiliar with) to study, so it may take me a while to respond properly. Will let you know. El_C20:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit, I do not feel your statement reflected my position accurately. See my response on the page, which I'll submit momentarily. El_C21:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Please review my recently-submitted, knotted statement for details of that, and, hopefully, other insights. Best wishes, El_C21:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand point 3 on your list. I never said that Giovano33 was banned nor ment to imply that SevenOfDiamonds was shown to be any of those users. I was simply trying to show that a large number of checkusers had been done. Theresa Knott | The otter sank21:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was prefaced with "he has been accused of being the sockpuppet of a number of different banned users," so I felt it was a bit unqualified. El_C21:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On your user page is very cute. I would like to know more about him. I have 2 tabbys, plus a ginger one, and my sadly no longer with us one, Merkin, is the basis for my username. The Che Gavara is inspiring too.Merkinsmum22:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm very sorry to hear about your cat. That's not actually my cat, it's Essjay's (he 'vandalized' my userpage a few years ago); for my cat, see User:Kitty (there are also a few scattered pics of him at the Chippeting page). Indeed, Che is inspiring. If you ever get a chance, I highly recommend Jon Lee Anderson's Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life as the most up to date, authoritative biography (even though I agree with one review which argues that "it lacks an informed Marxist point of view that in the final analysis leaves the subject something of a mystery," [95] I still found it a thorough and honest work; amazingly enough, the entire heavily referenced 800+ page book was compiled —including travels around the world and never before heard interviews— and authored in a mere five years!). All the best, El_C11:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well we have a sockpuppeter war, the editor that wrote this is one of the sockpuppeters the other one is User:EdwinCasadoBaez they both had a few flame (and apparently edit) wars over the Dominican Republic's article, the anon user got blocked for it and Edwind didn't a now he reopened a sockpuppetry case because he wants him blocked, that's about it in a nut shell. Tony the Marine reviwed the case and decided to give them both a final chance (sort of a probatory time period) but the anon user wants blood and insists that he wants another admin to review the case, I figure that's the reason he contacted you since his demand has gone ignored until now. - Caribbean~H.Q.06:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man, I hope you're doing alright. I noticed that you helped defend the article on Wahhabism from some recent vandalism. The same user is continuously inserting the same edit in the related Salafism article even after being warned, i'm watching over the article myself though more help from concerned editors is always welcome. Also, you might want to think about archiving your talk page. MezzoMezzo18:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese soviet republic is the name that they used, "jiangxi soviet" is the nick name that the foreigners invented for that country, so why do you protect it? that doesn't make sense, you know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tastetrees (talk • contribs) editing as 71.156.40.239
What's wrong that you can't change titles by copying and pasting, that seriously messes up our system. And even if it didn't, you have to make sure the title links, which you failed to do here and in your first attempt, redirecting the page nowehere (i.e. Chinese soviet republic is a deadlink, only Chinese Soviet Republic links). So, you need to be precise. But also, it's a major change, so you need to use the existing talk page and ask other participants what they think about making what is currently the primary title 2ndry. Myself, I tend to agree with you, but others may not, so please propose this on the talk page (you'll need an admin to move it, since one title overrides another). Thx. El_C02:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i was going to save them one after another, until you jumped too quickly. here is a link for you, [96], so you know that csr is the proper name, "jx soviet" is an invented name by someone that no one knows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tastetrees (talk • contribs) editing as 71.156.40.239
It messes our system in a technical sense to copy and paste moves, which is why you need to use the "move button, but since both titles are in-use, one will need to be temporarily deleted. No, I did not read the talk page, but 2003 was four years ago. Still, if no one objected then, I wouldn't mind moving it now. But it has to be done correctly, so please stop being so impatient. Complex systems, such as Wikipedia, demand some effort to grasp how to do things correctly and reflexive counteraction works to defeat cooperative collaboration. El_C02:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it looks like two users supported renaming in 2003, and two support renaming it now (you and myself), so I just went ahead and did it. El_C02:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RFC disruptions, etc.
El C, help me out here. I'm still not sure exactly what you meant by "disruptions" in the RFC. Point me at a few diffs? And as to the draft RFAr being "clandestine" I still don't get your point, but I did follow your advice, as you noted. Dicklyon23:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can see where I missed that edit comment and the dog comment that Daniel edited out; I don't review every diff, and I was on the road this weekend so had only limited times to see what was going on. I see you really got into a tiff with Daniel, and now I can see what provoked it. Thanks for filling me in; when you talked about an offensive metaphor, I couldn't quite see why treating a nutshell as marzipan, or whatever he said, was offensive; now I get it. It's too bad people lose it and go off making such distractions. I could use a lot less support in these discussions sometimes. Dicklyon23:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that Fourdee vandalized your page. I do not think it is my fault, but I am partly responsible in that my e-mailing you, I believe, is what directed his attention to you. Slrubenstein | Talk16:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If a non-admin repeatedly puts warnings, culminating in
"This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people." (plus the red hand)
on someones page or directed towards someone, even when they haven't necessarily made a personal attack, and the editor doing that has no way of knowing if the person really would face being blocked, as they're not an admin. However, the person says, 'carry on like this, and I'll make sure you are blocked,' that's not really an ok way to behave is it? This is really a moot point as I think the 'warned' user may end up blocked for other offences. So I'm not having a go at anyone. But just curious how much you think this would be ok?Merkinsmum22:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like dealing with hypotehtics, but those template warnings often tend to work against establishing dialogue in conduct disputes. El_C22:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I was just testing the waters there:) I'm thinking of someone's use of such warnings on Talk:Alpha_et_Omega and User_talk:Rondus. The same is happening with sockpuppet tags on people's userpages- not particularly against it being done with that user as there are issues there, but also done to several other users. It just seems dodgy for a non-admin to be tagging someone else's userpage with 'this user is a suspected sockpuppet of'. I've seen sockpuppet debates before but never seen anyone else really use that tag to be honest. The only one like that I've seen used is after a sockpuppet debate and if an admin decides to ban that user, such as on the page of User:999. It just seems wrong to have a tag there before a persons been 'found guilty.'Merkinsmum00:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the last thing he said to me was "Oh, sorry, I forgot, you're an admin so your opinion is automatically more right than a non-admin's," while I said in response that I disapprove of the manner in which he conducts himself. It'a regrettable to see that he is, seemingly, carrying himself as aggressively with other users. Maybe he should just move on to another topic...? Anyway, I'm not seeing any personal attacks. El_C10:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or me, that's the problem! Just the normal lack of good faith you often see on talk pages:) It's not like anyone there has called anyone an !%*!:)Merkinsmum11:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right; though personal attacks are not limited to name-calling. It's best he lays off the template warnings in conduct disputes, at any event. El_C11:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Timeline
I have included the Timeline in theHistory part of the life in the Arab League, to decrease the Lists in the main AL article and to include more detailed information in the History, sorry i didnt summurize my edit... slipped my mind...cheers.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arab League (talk • contribs) 11:38, August 22, 2007 (UTC).
Silently scouting the #wikipedia channel, you have probably found it fit to intervene. There is nothing disputed there. Such marks are inappropriate for a professional encyclopedia! I have written this article from the ground up, beginning 8 months ago, and I want it to remain FREE of illegal material - and that includes linking to material which describes the inner workings of the product, which could be obtained only through ILLEGAL means. There is no bias there, as some drawbacks of the product are mentioned as well. These actions of yours only further display the nature of WIKIPEDIA, being anti-commercial and anti-DRM, and a playground for an anrachy of knowledge. You lack respect to the the work of other people. Instead of resolving the disputes on the discussion page - you silently block it from being edited, how noble of you.
And as in our mother tongue: הבתייש לך. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.155.54.130 (talk) 14:26, August 22, 2007 (UTC)
You need to explain that on the talk page; don't expect mindreading. Blank edit summaries are unhelpful. And the word is spelled התבייש. El_C14:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, although you could infer that this was a typo. Thank you for the correction. On the talk page of the article, I described the nature of my edits, on various occasions. No one was there to listen, they were blinded by their ANTI-DRM ideology. The same happened when I attempted to remove ANTI-DRM content from the StarForce article, people cried foul - "YOU ARE RELATED TO STARFORCE". All this ANTI-DRM campaign is repulsive. Also, with other DRM-related articles, come instructions on defeating the schemes: See 'SafeDisc': "UnSafeDisc circumvents and decrypts SafeDisc encrypted files by opening the ICD file format" - is this fair? whom in his right mind would insert such instructions or pointers to a respectable source of legitimate knowledge? if this is not anarchy, what is then? It is rather saddening that a massive resource of information such as wikipedia would be flooded with anti-commercial ideas. I am pretty much sick of this mess, and this marks the end of my continuous contributions to Wikipedia. Be good.
I did infer it was a typo. That talk page is a mess, because users often fail to sign their names (as you are doing here, right now), so it becomes rather difficult to tell what's what and who is who, when. Again, you cannot expect mindreading, or digital forensics, for what should be standard talk page communication. It needs to be much more intelligible. El_C14:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Morning, it seems you have given me a final warning for adding links to maps for various African countries! Just wondering as too why, none of these links are related to products, just map links. I have read and re-read the spamming terms and the only section where I seem to have gone wrong is "repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed" section of External link spamming. Could you please advise so I do not do it again. Thanks - a confused newbie —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingjimZA (talk • contribs) 11:33, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Those are advertisement-intensive websites and we already have free maps on the articles themselves. Also, it's generally seen as suspicious when a single account adds external links across multiple entries; in terms of its possible promotional and conflicted nature. El_C11:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi and thanks a million, I've got it - it is those google ads and banner that sites like lonelyplanet are carrying. My mistake, it never once dawned on me that I was promoting there ads (ooops). Just a quick question, if I find (non ad carrying) sites that have road maps, destination maps, could I add those? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingjimZA (talk • contribs) 13:34, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
Anonimu
A) He prefers people not to be posting on his talk page. B) Regardless if Jimbo Wales himself said it, calling an editor's (contributing) opponents a nazi hate group is a serious personal attack. As a contributor with nearly 20,000 edits, he should know not to use the word "nazi". Will(talk)11:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Jimbo Wales himself said?" Please. Let's try to think and express ourselves more independently than that (it comes across as a platitude, I'm afraid). Anyway, the topic in dispute involves how to describe forces hostile or sympathetic to Nazi Germany, so at a glance, the word appears to be on-the-WWII-topic. And he is more than capable on refractoring his own talk page. You already have an antagonistic history with this user, so please just find something to do that does not involve him. Thx. El_C11:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should've said Mike Godwin for the irony factor, but still, calling an editor a "nazi" is a personal attack unless the editor himself outs himself as one. Will(talk)12:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then, but he did say "nazi sympathiser", which inherits the term's negative connotation. Still, I see no justification at all for using the term "hate group" either, which is a personal attack. Will(talk)12:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I notice from his discussion page that Fourdee has had a problem with your user page in the past. He currently has a problem with mine (I suspect because I have disagreed with him in a dicussion elsewhere). Please can you verify (as an admin) if there is a problem with the antifacist userbox I have on the user page I use. My interpretation of the guidelines are that a) They are guidelines and b) the problem is with substantial content. If you feel that it is inappropriate I will remove it, I'm not all that attached to it, it is Wikilawyers and passive-aggressive bullies I have a problem with. I thought it best to seek admin guidance as I was in danger of becoming uncivil and I really do prefer to remain upbeat and polite. Thank you very much for taking the time to read this and I'll understand if you are too busy.AlanD13:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Others have now joined in. I don't understand where this has all come from. He has now started with personal attacks too. Sorry to have bothered you, I guess it just attracted more attention.AlanD21:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have comprimised and modified the tag after reverting Fourdee's vandalism (warning placed). He has also attacked me on his user page but frankly I've had enough and I'm washing my hands of the whole thing. I do need to apologise it was wrong to approach you and it smacks too much of trying drag you in which was not my intention.AlanD22:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appeal for Administrative Examination
Please carefully examine what is happening on the history of the reopened Afd discussion for The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc as well as on the related HOGD discussion page that you recently protected. The arguments of regular editors from one side of the discussion were silenced by a controversial 'sock puppet' decision on the same day that Afd was reopened, whereas the 'sock puppetry' case (Jmax555 et al) involving allegations of what appears at least be coordinated activism, if not outright meat puppetry, from the other side were dismissed as 'retaliatory,' apparently without due investigation. Subsequently, activists have completely removed divergent argument from the renewed Afd discussion (see history) as well archived it on the HOGD, Inc. talk page and are presently attempting to eliminate ALL links to organizations other than the corporation and its affiliates from the main HOGD page (see discussion). Unless there is a deeper examination of this situation by an administrator, activists may yet turn Wikipedia into an advertising vehicle for a corporation whose COMMERCIAL website includes a Paypal link soliciting for 'donations' and appears to be little more than a advertising site for the books, tarot cards, and the seminar business of its principle corporate directors. I would not be surprised if they were even so bold as to try and remove this appeal from your talk page!--Pleasereviewcarefully19:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I view your presence in disputes involving himself as problematic; to the point where, one time, you even supported one of the tens of sockpuppets Bonaparte has unleashed against him, and every step of the way, you have been calling for the most draconian penalties to be imposed against him, trying to find the admins whom you think are most severe, and ignoring the equally disruptive conduct of his opponents. You are out of his dispute, effective immediately. El_C12:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find his contributions as problematic. I've proven time and time again that he's a POV pusher who won't stop. Besides, the only people who can unilaterally tell me to stop in good-faith disputes are paid employees of the Foundation and ArbCom members. Having a sysop bit does not give you authority. If a consensus of editors requests that I stop, or a specific policy or guideline, then I will stop. Will(talk)13:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not wordlawyer; you are not allowed to try to get a rise out of him, since its obvious you make no criticism as to the disruption by his opponents at any time, your involvement appear wholly one-sided. El_C21:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thought. The more I watch Will the more it reminds me the early Ideogram drama. It ended sadly for Ideogram in the end. I hope Will is reformable but I really don't know what to do. But someone should, I think. Otherwise we will all first loose some nerves and waste some time and in the end the Wikipedia will loose a user. My 2c. --Irpen06:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing
I beg your pardon? I do not believe that I have posted any wiki-message at all to your address. with the exception of an e-mail in response to one you sent me; e-mails are private communications and not part of the wikipedia framework. I suspect that the first part of your comment relates to a message I left at User talk:Anonimu. I assume that you are two seperate people, so presume that he can make a query about his own pages if he chooses to?--Anthony.bradbury"talk"21:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My friend, you have been an admin longer than I have, and I have no wish to fight. I, for my part, offer my apology for any unintentional insinuation that I might have appeared to make. I recognise that I could have done nothing at all here, but I really wanted to communicate with this editor, and in the light of his statement on his user talk page, which really amounts to a refusal to accept communication at all, I judged my action appropriate. It was only a 24-hour protect. I could have been wrong, but as the user had expressed an intention not to edit on his talk page I judged that it could do no harm. If this seems to you not to be the case, then my bad and I apologise. --Anthony.bradbury"talk"22:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tony, I appreciate that. Hey, remember who supported you in all your adminship requests. I always had a very high opinion of you, which is why I felt especially hurt, and moreover, astonished, even, upon seeing your curt response (which is fine; you are not obliged to become involved beyond any particular depth or outside any one forum) to my substantive email detailing some of the more problematic components with this case, then seemingly followed by an on-wiki request that his friends not canvass. [I hoped, in fact, that you would take the lead in overseeing the dispute involving this user — as I said a few sections above: 'I leave the matter to Anthony.bradbury's discretion'] If that [canvassing, friends] was not, however, directed to myself, then I clearly made a mistake and have offended you for naught. With regards to your protecting his page: it's not a big deal and I almost considered doing the same when he kept removing my 3rr warnings (he asked something in the edit summary to the effect of: 'did you not read the disclaimer?'; and I responded by saying that I opted to ignore it). So, yes, it is a problematic disclaimer. But I should note that the more I study his case, the more disturbed I become at the unremitting attacks he, seemingly totally alone, is facing, from relatively new Romanian users, from those who appear to bear a personal grudge and refuse to review his opponents such as Scpetre, and from banned users, mainly Bonaparte (which reminds me to get on my daily proxy block run). So I just wanted these factors to be taken into account, because hardly anyone appears to be doing so; the response from the community has generally echoed Sceptre's approach (although perhaps not as sophomorically hostile and obviously one-sided), which is a concern. Thus, I think all sides should undertake dispute resolution, but it does need to be an even-handed attempt if it's to work. Best wishes, El_C22:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slim Virgin allegations
I think it was reasonable for someone to point out the claims made, and reasonable for us to investigate it. We could have hoped for more decorum while people were looking at it, though... Georgewilliamherbert02:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I strongly disagree. I think we could have hoped for some sort of private forum, such as the Arbitration Committee's mailing list, first. El_C02:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the claims originated with someone outside the community, I don't see that it would have worked to do that. We can't un-make the blog entry... Georgewilliamherbert02:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I agree with El C, decorum amongst a trusted group is one thing but in an open forum like wikipedia and re this particular difficult subject that strikes at the heart of our work decorum is unrealistic, SqueakBox02:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in spirit, but we have to be realistic. The claim was made on an external blog. We can't take it down, can't do anything about it. It was public, and unless you censor all discussion of it, it would be locatable and talked about once someone noticed. The cat was out of the bag.
I saw it and thought the claims looked somewhat trumped up, so I went down the list of edits they said were abusive investigating. And because it was a public discussion, and not going to stop being one (realistically), I thought that was the most responsible thing that could be done. Don't speculate, don't take an opinion position, collect the facts and report them. So I reviewed all the edits, one at a time. At least one person commented after the first one turned out to be a pretty bogus abuse claim; it may well have helped calm things down.
This is an aspect of a real world PR problem. You can't snuff stories. This was a story. All you can do is spin it or provide accurate information. A lot of people spun it; some of us provided accurate information. That's the best we could do... Georgewilliamherbert02:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be in the trusted group i imagine, George, and your comments were indeed a reaction to this situation. But while I also commented in a reactive way on AN/I I do think El C has a point of "lets try and keep this behind closed doors". Wikipedia is very difficult in certain points right now, and unfortunately one of those points is called Slim. If its not 9/11 its Lockerbie, if its not Lockerbie its factory farming, etc, etc, and at the end of the day as an admin interested in this you are right on the front line, SqueakBox03:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it had been someone inside "the trusted group" who came up with it, maybe we could have done that, but as it was an external critic, who took it public from the beginning... The trusted group had no way to control the info being out. All anyone can do when that happens is provide accurate info. That's my point. I'd be upset if Cyde had originated the data and just released it, but he didn't, it came from Out There... Georgewilliamherbert04:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Archiving
Seems like if someone is editing to remove the 'archive' template, that's a pretty safe indication that the conversation is still active. We're admins, not part of a central committee. SirFozzie is entitled to continue that conversation without you using your rollback button on him as a bludgeon. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi... I noticed that your main user page is covered with Communist propaganda, so I'm going to assume that (1) you don't mind talking about Communism, and (2) you are Communist. So, pretty much every Communist state that I know to ever have existed has either collapsed or has been forced to abandon Communism. A quote on your page says, "Parliamentarism does not eliminate, but lays bare the innate character even of the most democratic bourgeois republics as organs of class oppression," even though that's exactly what Communism ends up being every time. The masses are oppressed by a new elite. The main difference is that the oppression is many times greater and life is much harder. Lenin, Castro, Mao, Pol Pot, etc., were all from aristocratic families. Every single Communist and even Socialist country has been hurt economically by its policies. Social structures, like the church, family life, and intellectual activity are also destroyed. I also noticed that you speak Hebrew. If you're from Israel, then I hope you understand just how hard the USSR tried to destroy that country and how much it persecuted Jews in it's own. Gnfgb205:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Don't be so quick to assume. I'm not actually too inclined to do so. I don't agree with your many generalizations, ones which I find merely echo the self-serving propaganda and indoctrination that has been spoon-fed to Westerners since birth. But I can't write books here. El_C05:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem in responding to the sheer volume of assertions you forwarded above, is that they place the responding party (myself) at a great disadvantage, because I have to address so many complex issues seemingly simultaneously. So how can I possibly do that? Should I discuss the rise of the capitalist class within communist parties and how that can be combated in the future; or how Pol Pot wasn't a communist; or the role of the Jews within capitalism and socialism; or the role of the church; or about social structures; or whether oppression did, in fact, become "many times greater," and where, and when; et cetera, etc. You bring forth all these concepts, and then, even if I condense my thoughts to the highest possible level of generalization, I still need to devote whole paragraphs to what you, in my opinion haphazardly, utter in a word or two (which, unlike myself, you are able to do with relative ease, since your premise is channeled through notions that are familiar to Westerners, whereas what I have to say, by contrast, needs careful elaboration by virtue of it having been hidden and distorted). That's what I mean by 'I can't write books here.' Now, if you are truly interested to learn more about my position, I can recommend some works to get you started, then it would be possible for us having a discussion of the level you seem to have envisioned above, without me doing all the work (which would be a lot of work, without fully knowing to what extent you are truly willing to reciprocate), and again, writing books-worth simply because I don't know how far your familiarity of these topics extends (looking at your comment, however, I deduce that, from my intellectual/political vantage point, not that far; though I could be wrong). Now I hope that you are able understand, somewhat better, where I'm coming from, having written so much here merely to explain the problematic nature of answering your question(s) in full. I could have simply expressed some quazi-theistic- sounding affirmations in my convictions. That, of course, I am able to do in a breath, easily, but it would not be scientific, nor of much value. El_C05:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK if you don't want to debate the issue. But, realize that things are both complex and simple at the same time. I am not a professional historian, although I have read about the Cold War extensively from secondary sources. The ability to summarize what you know in multiple levels of abstraction is an indication that you understand a subject. You seem to argue that in order to evaluate Communism I need to do primary (or at least extremely granular) research and read some books from non-Western sources. I disagree as I am perfectly comfortable trusting scholars in the West, where there is a freer exchange of ideas. Scholars from Communist countries tend to write what their governments want to read. So, I would not agree to a debate where I second-guess the scholarly consensus. (I guess I'm not sure whether you were planning on telling me that certain events did not actually happen.) We can go into more details if you like (not at the book level of course), but I won't push the issue.--Gnfgb209:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. Whether Pol Pot was a Communist, Maoist, or Fascist is a debate over semantics. The bottom line is that he was much more of a Communist than a capitalist.[reply]
I don't think you mean that the politico-geographic origin of such works really makes a difference but that it's their ideological character does. It's a bit assumptive to guess what I would recommend, however. The very first work I always recommend to start with is literature and it is Jack London's The Iron Heel. But beyond that, the point is, if you only trust or, forget that, even simply review one side, as you're alleging to evaluate both, well, that then limits your true choice, from the outset. I read both, as a matter of undogmatic principle. As well, I would not say that you need to do primary research (I'd never suggest that); 2ndry sources will more than suffice. But I want to hammer down the point that scholarly consensus should always be second-guessed (healthy skepticism is essential; scholarly consensus used to argue that non-Whites and females are inferior to white-males,it argued that for centuries and millenias). As for Pol Pot, I'm not sure about how you treat those definition, but he wasn't supported by the US, post-Maoist PRC, and Thailand for his socialist tendencies. What's obvious to me is that he very obviously contradicted communist theory's, which is pro-science, pro-intellectual, pro-people-living-in-cities and producing industrial goods, pro-literacy, anti-genocide, etc., so the manner in which you say he was more this than that, to me, seems to follow more romantic, and rhetoric propagandistic notions than well-considered facts. El_C09:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this editor whom you blocked may be editing again under other IP's and edit warring by the use of sockpuppets on the article Afrocentrism. I make this accusation due to these diffs: [98], [99], [100], [101]. Note that this editor is a confirmed sock of Runtshit (talk·contribs) who is indefinitely blocked. --Strothra14:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
_-_Not_Too_Much_To_Carry_(1895).jpg)
