Hello,
You told me I shouldn't revert, but what am I supposed to do when Colour is going around making controversial edits to a bunch of pages. All I did was restore the status quo. For example in the case of Ramot he has made an entirely new edit. Why is his edit more correct than the previous version, and why must I accept that? He even admits in the discussion that none of his sources claim that these places aren't neighborhoods, and one of them, Peace Now, explicitly calls them neighborhoods. His argument seems entirely based on it making sense to him that they can't only be disputing whether or not it is a settlement, but that it must be a discussion of it not being a neighborhood, though no other option is even offered (does someone say that it is a city or town instead, in addition to being a neighborhood). What if something just made sense to me? Why are his changes somehow more legitimate? I hope that you can clear this up because I am getting quite frustrated with the idea that anyone's personal opinion can trump their sources and the reality. Thank you, --RobertRobertert (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your reply - there are only 5-6 Jerusalem neighborhoods that might be called settlements. Was I supposed to be somewhere else? I would still like to hear your take on why he can just come along and add anything he likes on the basis that it makes sense to him, and why the burden of proof to keep the previous and sourced version is on me. Thank you, --Robertert (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello again,
I really wish you could reply. He's again reverted across the board, and I still don't see why his own personal argument, which is contradicted by his own partisan sources, is more legitimate than the previous version, and why I have to let that stand. --Robertert (talk) 08:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about sourced. I'm actually the one who wrote the original, but I just translated what's on the Hebrew wiki article. My main concern is a revert war, not only on the article, but spilling to other ones. Each of you may wish to draft a brief report with your position and an account of this edit conflict, as I may not consistently be around, and even I am having difficulties following the timeline of your dispute. El_C03:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I understand your concern about a revert war, but its odd that the burden of argument isn't on the new change, especially when so many people disagree with it. And I just noticed that Colour reverted four times in 24 hours on Gilo again.
The articles before Colour described them started with a basic "what", this place is a neighborhood of so many people, and then a description of its disputed political status, widely considered an Israeli settlement in East Jerusalem (as opposed to the rest of the West Bank that Israel didn't annex and does consider settlements).
Colour is saying that describing these places as "neighborhoods" is as disputed as calling them "Israeli settlements", and that as a "compromise" we should use both words for the basic "what". The argument seems odd to me because no source claims it is something other than a neighborhood, like a town or something, just like no one claims that Maale Admumim isn't a city because it is an Israeli settlement. He's provided no sources to support that argument, and two sources he has provided contradict him. Peace Now [1] calls the places neighborhoods even though it also opposes them for being settlements. Global Security [2] calls them "disputed neighborhoods". Colour is interpreting the second as meaning there is dispute about whether they are neighborhoods, as opposed to they are neighborhoods whose status is in dispute, and he's saying in the first case that they're only one group, but if Peace Now doesn't hold this strange position, then who does? This turned out to be a lot longer than I meant, but I hope that it helps to solve the problem. --Robertert (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you've done on the various pages. I tried to explain already that the disagreement isn't "settlement" versus "neighborhood". What Colour has argued and needs to prove is that their being neighborhoods is disputed. There is no dispute that many sources call them Israeli settlements and the article already says that. --Robertert (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm pointing out is that you've summarized the dispute as something that neither of the sides has argued. I can save time and demonstrate use of the Israeli settlement terminology being used right now as you've asked - just look at the Peace Now link for example. That isn't what anyone is arguing against so "proving" it is a waste of time. --Robertert (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've given you the benefit of the doubt about your methods since I'm assuming you have experience with solving disputes, but I'm very confused about why you haven't insisted on Colour pointing to sources that support his specific position, or at the very least why you haven't insisted on a concise presentation of his position. --Robertert (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Benefit of the doubt about what your strategy might be since I don't see any response to anyone on the discussion. I've presented short points with direct support from sources and I'm prepared to answer any questions you might have to clarify things. Wouldn't it be productive if you had the other side do the same? Do you have a different idea? --Robertert (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is very fair. I outlined my position in concise terms with sources long ago, which you copied to there. My comments here are aimed at understanding why you haven't made any move to moderate there. If you just want to see the three of us argue then read the Gilo talk page - what good would more of that do? If you meant for something else then say so, but right now I'm very confused. --Robertert (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, you can choose not to participate and instead appeal for someone else whom you feel will apply an approach you deem fair to take over the case. Good luck. El_C21:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused about where what I did say was lost but I didn't say that I don't want to participate and I didn't challenge your fairness. I said that I "did" participate by providing my position as you asked and that I have no idea what else you expect since you have taken no steps to moderate. --Robertert (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the misunderstanding is because I haven't been specific enough. You said that "Long winded debate will be aggressively redacted." You asked the settlement side to provide reliable sources about usage etc. Colour left eight long paragraphs dealing with so many points. Aren't you going to "enforce" your own guidelines to get clear positions from everyone? If not then what sort of response do you expect me to make? --Robertert (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was at the Arbitration Enforcement page. I did aggressively redact it, there. [3] Then, I created the centralized discussion page, where I moved your full comment to. I want you to read what I & others wrote, and engage in discussion, aiming at reaching a compromise. El_C09:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that you redacted my four short paragraphs since that will make it even easier for everyone to understand my position. I was hoping you would do the same to Colour's eight long paragraphs so that everyone can understand his position too. --Robertert (talk) 09:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I've been trying to understand. If you aren't going to direct the discussion then how is it going to be different from the previous attempts on the article talk pages? The lengthy back-and-forth between Colour and Gil doesn't look productive at all. Robertert (talk) 09:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed some idea (at the top of the page); hopefully, the participants will choose to, at some point, try to address and engage these. El_C10:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine and I'll edit my vision in now if you think that will help, but won't that eventually bring us back to the same discussion? Right now both positions are looking at the same sources and coming to different conclusions. Wouldn't it help us along if you confirmed or denied what we saw in the sources? --Robertert (talk) 10:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suicide Note
Don't Worry, It is extremely unlikely that this was a genuine suicide note:
"i am going to kill myself. i have to i am nothing anymore and i wish i was never fucking born. I have a shitload of pills and it will be ok soon. Tell Shonna I Love Her And that I'm Sorry."
The following observations lead me to conclude that this is a hoax:
"I have a shitload of pills", suicide notes almost never contain references to the intended life-ending method.
Suicide notes are almost always written to a specific person.
This message does not contain a rationalization, a reason why this person feels it is ok to end their life.
The note is too short. (The reason why someone writes a suicide note is to basically talk themselves into it. Sometimes a suicide note can can reach 5-10 pages long)
Contrary to popular belief, suicide notes are usually written with a calm, purposeful hand. The disparity between the style of writing at the beginning and at the end is frankly not believable.
Compare this: "i have to i am nothing anymore" with this: "Tell Shonna I Love Her", the sudden capitalization of "I" does not fit. Also, the writing style is more likely get worse as the person writes, than to get better.
The final nail in the coffin, pardon the expression, is this: "I'm", first of all, this is too casual in context with the rest of the sentence. And second of all, contractions are a sign that the person is lying. It is one of the only signs of lying in written prose.
However, This does not discount the possibility that this person may be someone on the brink. These observations would likely be seen in someone who is not yet ready to take their life, which means that we may be able to do some good here
I try not to overanalyze these, and I've encountered tens of them over the years here, as I find it counterfactual and counterproductive. I always respond the same way, with the same three words —I think the last one was November 2007 (messagemy comment)— largely, because I don't know that there's much else I could do, and that response on my part does leave matters openended in case said individual wishes to speak (in the odd chance the message is genuine, or at least reflects great anguish). Thanks for your note, I appreciate it. Best, El_C08:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to butt in again, because what BETA just posted is wrong, wrong, wrong. Unless BETA is a professional in the field of psychiatry AND has observed the "patient" in person, BETA has no right to state the above as facts what-so-ever. They are all wrong, and should be struck out or deleted!
Not even a professional would analyze a note as such. In fact, most suicides never leave a note. Suicide idealization is serious. One where it takes many thoughts in one's mind, that no one can ever see nor know. Many people who speak of suicide, have issues. It's a "cry for help", a serious one, which can led to an attempt, which can then lead to a successful suicide. There are few that succeed on first thought and attempt.
El_C, you're response was right on. It is not nonsense and one should NEVER say that, or that it is a hoax to someone who threatens suicide, EVEN if it is and the person is talking nonsense. Any and all talk of suicide is considered serious. ANY. And to say one almost never tells how one is going to commit suicide is SO wrong. ALMOST is the key word here. Some do, some don't, some you know will, some you would never think would. I know of a successful suicide, one who laid out all her plans, and her method. Just not the date. She had said she had all the pills stashed over a period of time. She finally succeeded after attempts to stop/help her (involuntary commitment, a 72-hour-hold, etc.), were futile. Well, they kept her alive longer, but not long enough. She was determined though, nothing was stopping her. One cannot stop one who is determined, but one can help one who is not sure, and is hurting. There is always a chance one can prevent a suicide, or delay it long enough hopefully, for the suicidal person to "change one's mind", but they are always at risk forevermore. Even if they die of old age. Not even a license psychiatrist would ever say what BETA just said, EVER.
Sorry, to bother you El_C and take up so much room on your page. I just couldn't help not saying something that I see as so wrong and irresponsible. No one should give out medical advice over the internet, nor evaluate another's "symptoms". Again, not even a professional would do that. It is very irresponsible and an arrogant thing to do. ←Gee♥Alice10:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that this is a murky issue with no clear precedented procedure, but why archive the discussions? As WP:SUICIDE says, many editors feel it is appropriate to contact various authorities, and closing the reports makes it difficult to coordinate those efforts. — xDanielxT/C\R22:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not one of those "many editors" and I don't subscribe to everything in that that essay, much of it I find rather misguided. I will continue to archive those notices to reduce potential melodrama. If you feel that this approach on my part reduces coordination of these reports (coordination which I don't really believe is that helpful, anyway), you can try to get community consensus with a policy page to force it. El_C22:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To xDanielx, the archiving is not the troubling part, it was the post by BETA analyzing and advising the situation. Leaving it for the "authorities" is really good advice. ←Gee♥Alice23:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't try contacting the authorities; others should feel free. I don't believe that keeping such notices open is helpful, or related, even. El_C23:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
El C, you're right. The best response, if one is needed, is the one you linked to above, "don't do it" and/or direct them to a "help site". That's all one can do "over the internet". Wikpedia is not the place to determine one way or the other. :) ←Gee♥Alice23:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I offer you a yummy chocolate chip cookie I baked all by myself. :)
I'm sorry if I contributed to you feeling bothered. That was not my intent at all. It was not you who I thought was wrong, it was the post by BETA that bothered me. I over-reacted when I saw him/her posting those "points" above on a few different pages to prove something that cannot be proven in this medium, the interent. I don't agree with the majority of that essay either, nor the "helpful" advice it gives. The essay should just say it's always serious, and do not engage as no one can determine anything online. No heckling, no accusations, no coddling etc., that's it. Then have a short list to links to online help pages, or better, just one link. That's all. I was "sucked in" by the drama because of the poor (and wrong) analysis given. Directing a person talking suicide to a link with a short non-judgmental tone saying "try this link", is all that should be done -- anything more is disruptive and drama producing. That's my opinion, anyway. Best wishes. :) ←Gee♥Alice02:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(←) I'm not sure a policy page would be useful given the lack of uniformity between (suspected) suicide notes, but perhaps the idea is worth entertaining. I haven't heard of a case of repeated disruption via such notes, presumably because those who post them soon understand that it is a serious business with potential ramifications, and often they are blocked anyway. I have no strong opinion on whether notifying local authorities constitutes an appropriate response, but I think those who favor the idea would like to know if other editors have already responded.
Alice, I essentially agree with what you've said... but while "leave it to the authorities" sounds very passive, it really requires that we be proactive in notifying them; likewise for directing them to help sites (which is an interesting idea). I don't mean to say that those responses are necessarily appropriate, and I certainly wouldn't accuse those who oppose them as doing the wrong thing, but thus far our mixed responses as a community have been rather arbitrary and uncoordinated. Perhaps some wider discussion would be a good idea. — xDanielxT/C\R04:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I doubt enough people read this talk page, so such a wider discussion should probably be initiated elsewhere (not on the incidents board, either, though); perhaps there, you will finally explain why exactly "closing the reports makes it difficult to coordinate those efforts." El_C08:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Countyhistorian.com
You can go here and see that my site contains hundreds of articles, categories, etc that I've writen. To convince yourself, that I have not been spamming my links all over Wikipedia or whatever. It's quite silly. The most I ever do, is put something on the TALK page like "here is some more of the family tree of so-and-so" and that's it. No attempt to get any of the information into the actual article space, or ever watchlist it. Just a link in Talk, in case anyone cares to find out more. Period. Thanks for your input. Wjhonson (talk) 10:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't judge from that link much about anything, because I don't know what is representative (i.e. some of the entries are lengthy, some are empty, others limited to an image; it's rather sporadic going from that "all articles" basis). But thanks for summarizing your position. El_C10:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. This link might be a better one, you can see there under the heading Favorite Articles those articles I've worked on the most. For most of these I've never bothered posting a link to the talk page of the article in Wikipedia. You can review a few of them and see the great amount of detail some contain. Were you able to review A.B.'s comment that posting links, even your own, to Talk is perfectly acceptable?Wjhonson (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It depends how many talk pages and how many times the links are added, of course. I'll need to learn more about the specifics. El_C10:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hu12 claims 18, I don't really remember, it's been over like a year-long period. At any rate I think there was only ever one link that was controversial because the situation involved a long term BLP, Npov, OR issue that eventually went to ArbCom and got the main offender Matt Sanchez/Bluemarine blocked for a year. No one else involved suffered any penalties. In fact, in specific conversation with an ArbCom member, he expressed no feeling about the link at all, even when directly presented. There was one other link that someone objected to for a while, because of RS concerns I believe, because I had included within my detailed source-based research, a speculative extension to Mike Huckabee's ancestry taking him back to King Henry I or something like that I don't quite clearly recall. It was all rather silly. The rest of the links, to my knowledge, have never even been discussed or used, let alone challenged, afaik. Of course obviously this doesn't stop anyone from trying to do it now, in retrospect.Wjhonson (talk) 10:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It strikes me that we need to apply a balancing test in this situation. SqueakBox(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) has been an involved party in several contentious editing issues recently, and has previously been the subject of sanction as the result of an RfAr, sanction which was violated more than once, enforced by blocking, and enforced once by blocking his sock. I've asked on AN/I for someone to look at the edit history of the page being deleted (because it was initially deleted under a pretense) and I've offered to waive my objection to the deletion if given an assurance that there were no edits worth keeping in the history. It's not my intent to keep any of Squeak's personal information on Wikipedia, only to avoid pruning his history here in such a way as to distort the record. We've already lost the histories from other pages he's contributed heavily to, and he's had another editor's attempt to catalog his edits speedy-deleted. For these and other reasons, I'm concerned, and I wanted to share my concerns with you in the interest of expanding your perspective on the issue. Thanks for listening. --SSBohio19:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any vital edits being lost, and I get the impression that you are expending too much energy into this issue. Please make a single appeal somewhere and then move on. Pressing on this seemingly indefinitely is too much. Thx. El_C20:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried that at ANI. No one has responded to my concerns, only attempted to stifle discussion by marking an unresolved issue as resolved. SqueakBox has had multiple problematic edits and edit summaries deleted by repeatedly advocating for the deleteion of certain articles. He successfully got a compilation of his problematic edits deleted from another user's userspace. He proposed his userpage for deletion under a false pretense. None of the admins who've taken the time to address me have seen any problem whatsoever with an editor who is willing to make a false claim (WP:VANISH) in order to fraudulently induce an administrator to delete his user page & user talk page. Considering the vast history of SqueakBox's problematic edits, I'm not being unreasonable when I question the propriety of this deletion. If someone would actually address my concerns, I could do other things. By the way, you're the FIRST person who actually stated that nothing vital was being lost. That goes a long way toward alleviating my concerns. As long as this project insists on rewarding people for their misdeeds and shielding them from scrutiny, there's precious little reason to do any actual editing. Even if I wanted to go to dispute resolution with Squeak, I can't, because of all the people eager to delete the diffs I would be relying on. A purported death threat from November is an awfully thin reason to undermine fundamental processes like DR. A false claim of WP:VANISH that morphs into a claim of a purported death threat from November is even moreso. I have actual, good-faith concerns about deleting this users editing history, page by page. I've tried to discuss them in one forum, only to get shut down. This meatball:ForestFire has popped up all over the place, for the most part not by my hand. I'm not a crank; I've been editing here since 2005. It simply galls me terribly to see so many people willing to bend over backward when doing so effectively protects Squeak from the consequences of his edits. --SSBohio00:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the problems that I noticed, on the noticeboard, too, is that your comments tend to be needlessly longwinded. Nearly every one of your comments is quite lengthy. You really need to work on condensing your thoughts if you want people to be responsive. El_C00:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Once I've started, I feel I need to cite evidence and work up to a conclusion, instead of presenting an unsupported assertion and expecting anyone to take it seriously. I can turn on the tap all right, but I can't seem to turn it off. --SSBohio00:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, El, how should I do it differently? What should I leave out? Feel free to edit what I said above as mercilessly as you like; I'm looking to learn how to be more concise, if you'll give me a lesson. --SSBohio02:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope your criticism about posts to PHG's user talk isn't directed at me. He's more active on Wikipedia than on Commons, and he highlights his image uploads at his Wikipedia user page instead of his commons user page. So I figured the best place to contact him about that was on Wikipedia. If you ever do feel like I've crossed the line in some regard, please contact me with your objections. I'm pretty good about withdrawing statements and apologizing if some new angle comes to light. Regards, DurovaCharge!22:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't even notice you on his talk page. If you were communicating to him, that's fine, of course; that's what the talk page is there for! El_C22:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
El C, would your concerns about my own post be addressed, if I simply changed it from third-person to second-person? By my posting on his talkpage, I'm not just "using the page", I'm also obviously trying to make him aware of concerns. Discussing an editor in the third-person is done routinely, such as when a user is blocked, and other users weigh in on the page, discussing whether or not they feel that the block was appropriate. But if my use of third-person bothers you that much, I would be happy to change the wording a bit to make it clear that the intended audience is PHG, as well as others on the page. --Elonka22:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It just strikes me as an overly presumptuous use of his talk page. Try to imagine how it would feel if one were to use your talk page for a couple of hundred of words-worth of a report that criticizes you. It oversteps user talk page etiquette, in my view. Thx. El_C22:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns, and your desire to protect decorum. However, don't you perhaps think that it would do more good to protect Wikipedia? I understand your desire to try and be a bit of a "defense attorney" for PHG here, but you've seen for yourself the damage that he has been causing, such as with this "Mongol conquest of Jerusalem" POV. He has obviously been inserting highly-biased and misleading information into multiple articles, and is causing many other good editors to waste time cleaning up after him. As "rudeness" goes, that's pretty high on my list.
Our job (yours and mine), as administrators, isn't just to protect exact forms of etiquette, but is instead to protect the project from damage. In my opinion, PHG's behavior has been far more damaging to the project than anything I might have done by laying out my concerns in a clear and thoroughly-diffed way.
I understand that you and I have had disagreements in the past, but shouldn't we be agreeing on at least one goal, that of protecting Wikipedia from an editor who is willfully inserting false information? --Elonka23:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not willing to compromise what I feel are fair practices, even toward that end. Especially since it isn't even necessary. El_C23:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Jon Lee Anderson's 800-page biography, Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, is probably the best and most comprehensive work to date. It is neither sympathetic nor antipathetic (and certainly, not hagiographic as some of the books printed in Cuba are), but strenuously honest, with an impressive depth and breadth, including new interview of key individuals. Amazingly, all accomplished in 5 yrs! El_C23:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah poo, they only have a copy in the reference only library, so I can't borrow it, but they do have also have a copy of the FBI's dossier on him there as well =) which should be interesting reading! -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was that comment about me? I did create an account just to reply to you because I didn't want to be impolite... I wanted to add the links as a guest. I am completely new to this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugenefx19 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry about adding links across multiple entries...
I've just emailed you about this too. I've wrote the specifics in the email. Please let me know at your erliest convenience. Thanks.
Why, is there something confidential we can't discuss here? I'd rather do that. I don't check my email that often, I'm afraid. Thank you. El_C23:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sure. I would like to add 2 links to the Kabbalah page. I've added them before but I guess they were deleted. They fit into the Unconventional and non-traditional sites category. You sent me a message twice about putting links across multiple entires (which I will not do anymore.) The last message was about not leaving you a comment (you mentioned it wasn't polite.) I didn't know how to send you a message otherwise I would have. I apologize.
I've visited it a few times and have been enjoying their information. I wa ssurprised it wasn't on Wikipedia like the Kabbalah center's website etc. Also, they have information on mantra so I wanted to add a link to that respective page too... What would you like me to do? How should I approach this?
Well, the content of that website seems to be a bit too promotional and less scholarly than what we are looking for in our external links. And you added it across multiple entries, and even more than once per entry, which for those of us who review high traffic entries tends to, in the vast majority of cases, indicate a promotional effort, one which our pertinent guideline and policy guard against. Hope that helps. El_C00:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
El C for President!
I just wanted to say that I admire your fairness, conviction, honesty, commitment, intelligence and calm demeanor when under stress and controversy. And to thank you for that. :) Have you ever watched the television series 24? As you remind me of the character, President Palmer, who was the perfect US president (In my eyes, and those of many). Of course he was fictional, but I loved that man and wished he was real, for he had all those qualities with just the right amount of humility. He was able to see the value and had compassion for the individual and country as a whole -- all at the same time. Of course he was eventually assassinated. ;/ ←Gee♥Alice01:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, GeeAlice, where have you been all my wikilife! Thank you so much for your many kind words, they are greatly appreciated. In answer to your question, no, I have not seen 24, but a black US president... now I know it's fiction! Best, El_C21:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry...
Hi El C. I was just looking at my talk page and I realised that you left me a message a couple of weeks ago and that I never responded to it. (here) I'm really very sorry about that. I've been on a semi-break since before Christmas for medical reasons and so I've had fairly long chunks of time where I've not being able to come online. Anyway, I just wanted to apologise to you. I wasn't ignoring your message, I guess I just didn't notice it when I got back on 30 January. I had a look at the comments and links you posted on my page and I found them quite baffling. I'm not sure what was "not clear" about your request he simply agree to consult with other admins. It seemed quite straightforward to me. Anyway, I signed the RfC earlier today, but I just wanted to apologise for not responding to you. All the best, Sarah13:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your intervention. I notice the "Shorter RfC" section seems to have been copied to talk twice now. Can you check again? Thanks, Fut.Perf.☼21:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was copied twice to talk, removed from the main page, and then added there again. Now we have three instances of it. Fut.Perf.☼21:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:The_TriZ is a POV-warrior who is only here on Wikipedia to engage in revert wars (and nothing else beyond that). If you check his edit history, not one single edit he has made, have been constructive and of any significance. Also, in his reverts (in content disputes), he calls it vandalism when he removes information he doesn't like. I think this user needs to be receive a warning and perhaps a 24h block or something. Here are two examples: [4][5] He's only here to provoke and nothing else. — EliasAlucard (Discussion·contribs) 13:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Abd 2 for background on this user, and Special:Contributions/Yellowbeard. Blatant SPA with POV intent, probable meat puppetry if not sock puppetry, I think I put links on the RfA Talk page. Obviously, even if I had the buttons, I couldn't use them here (nor elsewhere, at all, anything touching this user, beyond comment like this, would be obvious COI for me.) Thanks for your attention. --Abd (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am disappointed; having an alternate account does not mean a license to act contemptuously. I would have blocked for longer than 24 hours and banned him from the RfA page. Which may still be a good idea if he's active there. El_C03:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Toledano Tradition?
Perhaps you could advise me how to deal with a problem concerning an article called Toledano Tradition. The term is, as far as I know, entirely the creation of Warren Kenton, a popular writer on Kabbalah; and I think it should probabily be merged with his article. I left the message, below, on the article's talk page.
It is my understanding that the name "Toledano Tradition" is really associated with the teaching of Warren Kenton. I know of no one who referred to a specific Toledano Tradition before he started to publish his series of books. If the name was used to describe a specific Kabbalah tradition, in use previous to Kenton, you should site some sources. If it was not used previous to Kenton, you should make it clear that the article is about the views and teaching of Kenton. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Place a {{fact}} tag on the disputed addition/passage, and, if in a week or so no reliable sources are provided that discuss this tradition (i.e. aside from the aforementioned writer), remove it. Hope that helps. Regards, El_C03:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Barry Jameson block review
I had hoped that we'd get some senior admin review of my judgement in calling the situation, but it rapidly turned into the usual pedophillia related dogpile. I think you made the right call in closing and redacting it. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, George. I appreciate your confidence. I am drafting my note to arbcom-l at the moment, including my block of GroomingVictim. El_C03:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask two things: 1. What exactly is a "pedophillia related dogpile"? It sounds as though George is labeling anyone opposing the permablock a pedophile, but I'm sure that couldn't be correct. 2. Why is it "inappropriate" to discuss the block publicly when it was specifically requested to do so?
The appearance is that a vendetta-like shutdown of anything but blind agreement is in progress. I would like to think and certainly hope and want to believe that such is not the case. There seems to be clear support for the Barry block not being indef. The SPA allegation was demonstrated false, but that was redacted.
Can you see why it looks questionable? One of the strengths of Wikipedia has been its transparency, and I hope that we are not losing that. For the record, I agree with the block but recognize that Barry has made some and has attempted to make more decent edits. He's far from perfect and perhaps needs some mentoring, but an indef block is wholly excessive. At bare minimum, though, regardless of the final outcome, I think it would be in everyone's best interests (and Wikipedia's credibility) to not give ANY semblance of a sweep under the rug.
And I certainly hope that the above comment was not meant as a name-calling personal attack. Some might view it that way. I'd prefer not to and would like to have confirmation as such. VigilancePrime (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a matter that's open to public debate. Please direct all related queries to the Arbitration Committee via email. Thanks. El_C05:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a manner for those of us who do not wish to disclose our email addresses? Therein lies the rub. (And I think the two questions are sufficiently unrelated to be answered irrespective of this particular block... they could be answered as they are general in nature, are they not?) VigilancePrime (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so that sortof discourages participation. The questions still remain and the implications of them is somewhat disturbing... If possible, I'd really appreciate some clarification from someone.
In answer to your first question, I don't know what George meant, you should ask him since he was the one who made the statement. In answer to your second question, the Arbitration Committee has decided to treat these issues as confidential, this notwithstanding the fact that some administrators may be unaware of this decision, thus, requesting comment as they would any other block. Thanks. El_C06:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. No problem. Hoping George will also see it and answer here (simpler centralized). 2. I think I understand. Is that the standing routine for all indef blocks and is that new? I ask because I've seen other indef blocks debated on and on before, so my brain is trying desperately to understand the nuances. VigilancePrime (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my comment - No, I don't believe that everyone opposed to the block is a pedophile. At least one of them has had a nuanced but clearly anti-Pedophile stance on stuff I've seen, and I make no sweeping generalization about the rest, though there are a couple I was concerned about.
We've had a policy of "special handling" of problems of this nature for some time - I wasn't aware of the latest no-public-discussion wrinkle that El C cited policy for here, but I am not suprised. This is far from the first time something like this has happened.
We have to be extremely careful with this topic on-wiki. For one, we have kids around, and we have some duty to protect them. For another, this is a Public Relations hot-button-item - online child sexual predation on internet communities is a big deal now. For another, the topic becomes an intensely hot-button item very rapidly in public discussions. Some people are so vehemently opposed to it that anyone with a nuanced point of view more grey than "burn them" is seen as pro-pedophile, and conversely anyone seeking user sanctions against anyone who is not loudly and clearly actually a pedophile is censoring and interfering with people's rights to have opinions and advocate them.
Add to all of this that very few of us volunteers here are in any way familiar in a proper training sense with identifying actual risk factors, so we're running a risk of making mistakes, and need to be somewhat cautious as a result.
The policy as it stands is not really subject to public debate... Jimmy and Arbcom and senior admins imposed it by fiat. A lot of the public objections to the block started to rehash the policy debate related to that policy, which is not OK. It's not a community policy - it's an administratively imposed one, imposed by community leaders.
The question of whether my judgement on Barry's actions in editing was correct or not is something I hope to have reviewed. The question of whether the policy was good isn't, and was a big part of the discussion that ensued. I should have known better, because I've seen it happen several times before, but I honestly wanted more feedback on whether my indef of Barry was an accurate read on the situation. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For my own edification, and because I would hate to make the same mistake unintentionally, may I ask what was "potentially problematic" about GoomingVictim's userpage? I didn't recall anything particularly unusual about it compared to any other userpage and I just read through the last version (before you blanked it for the above concerns) and still cannot figure out what's problematic about it. The only thing I could come up with was that he posted an email address, but Wikipedia allows email through its own system so that doesn't seem all to odd. There wasn't any sort of personal declarations (such as self-identification with forbidden groups, conditions, or beliefs), and nothing I saw as over-revealing of personal information. No advertising, and no personal attacks. What am I missing? VigilancePrime (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The account is indefinitely blocked, and that's reason enough to blank the page. I'm not going to specify beyond that at this time, sorry. El_C06:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you at least clarify to those editors that are befuddled by this block and the method in which it is being addressed why all communication regarding GroomingVictim and the blocking of him is going on in private? I'm not sure why this block deserves this kind of precautions, and public discussion is less likely to feed all the conspiracy theories going around. If this editor did something inappropriate, or edited in a disruptive manner, and hard evidence is provided to corroborate this, I'm sure no one will argue against corrective action. However, as of right now, it's very unclear on what grounds this editor has been labeled as editing in a pro-pedophile activist manner. The thing is that Wikipedia is largely about openness, and it doesn't bode well for the project to have discussion about controversial blocks going on behind the scenes, instead of out in public. How can any kind of community or admin consensus be reached, if ArbCom is the one handling this situation? Hope you don't mind the inquiry, but blocks like these are just confusing, to say the least. ~ Homologeo (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I cannot. Rest assured that if the Committee takes issue with my block, the consequences for me will be severe. Thanks. El_C06:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds too much like a "trust me to be trusted". I realize that it's not you and that it's Wikipedia (or at least a larger admin/policy group), but like Homologeo said, it can start the conspiracy theorists. Is there a place that, when the Committee is "done", they at least post their decisions? Like Wikipedia:Results of secret ArbCom discussions or something? VigilancePrime (talk) 06:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a lot me, too, as I was the one who originally asked for these measures from the Arbitration Committee on their mailing list. I think, when it comes to possible pro-pedophilia activism, we are willing to make an exception, and are far better served in being seen as censors than as moral relativists. Thanks again. El_C07:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean for that to be (too) sarcastic. At least a page like that would make it plain that things got discussed and decided. Is there a place for peasant editors like us to find out what's going on in the WikiIvory WikiTowers? Seriously, I would love to see something like that page where at least the results, even if they were somewhat cryptic (limiting personal details, perhaps) were available. I think it would prevent a lot of repeat problems (learning from others' mistakes) and also enhance the Good Faith feeling of admins in general, for as we all know some people have a low opinion of all of them (as opposed to me... I only have a low opinion of a couple that have demonstrated their poor behaviors, and I haven't run across any like that for quite awhile, which is a good thing). VigilancePrime (talk) 06:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC):-D[reply]
Try mentioning that when you remove the comments. Some little note tucked away on your talk page (which will eventually be archived) isn't really enlightening to the masses. Pairadox (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that if this is going to be policy, it needs to be codified into an actual policy. How about Wikipedia:Don't you dare edit a pedophilia article or Wikipedia:Activism is not allowed, period. (I like the latter...!) VigilancePrime (talk) 06:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC):-)[reply]
I think that's rather hyperbolic. Rather, it is damaging for our reputation to have single-purpose accounts who almost exclusively edit these set of articles and do so in a, broadly, sympathetic manner. El_C07:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Unindent after TWO Edit Conflicts...) I don't think so. I've stated before that POV-pushing should not be allowed. The thing is this: it shouldn't be allowed at all. We shouldn't allow XYZ-Activist editing but allow ABC-Activist editing. Should we allow Creationists to bias articles toward Creationism but forbid (and permaban) non-creationists from biasing articles away from it? No... Neither should be "allowed" to violate WP:NPOV and both should be rebuked. Same with the pro-pedophile activism and anti-pedophile activism. One pushes to allow adult-child sex while the other pushes to vilify people for thought. Neither should be able to push for their "agenda". This applies to anything else... Pro-choice and Anti-abortion, Gay rights and Homophobia, Democrat and Republican. All I want to see is codification and an even application of true WP:NPOV policies across Wikipedia. I think that would help to bolster even more Wikipedia's reputation and credibility. VigilancePrime (talk) 07:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Side Note: Barry and GrooV were not Single-Purpose Accounts. They had focused edits in limited areas, but by no means edited only one track. Barry edited, among others, Rosie O'Donnell! How is THAT related to Perverted-Justice? Exactly.
You don't think so what? Obviously, it was decided to treat pro-pedophilia activism differently. As for them not being single-purpose accounts, I was unable to find in GV's contributions a single edit that's unrelated to pedophilia. But even if there was a few, we do not define single-purpose editing through a rigid criteria of everything or nothing. It'd be self-defeating. El_C07:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can vaguely understand why one type of POV-pushing is bad (and all the others accepted?); it's a politics thing. And while GrooV has a limited focus, he's edited on both Pro- and Anti- articles... not only that, I think that after only 188 edits, it's a little early to determine... I long for the day when a true WP:NPOV will be enacted, so that it doesn't matter WHY or HOW one is pushing an agenda, the mere pushing of an agenda (bad-faith pushing, as some agenda-pushing is usually unintentional in all areas) is cause for concern. Agreed? VigilancePrime (talk) 07:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your current post on WP:AE. When you step back, can you look at the two lower reports related to the same ArbComm case? The admins who have been active on the page in the 48 hours since those reports were edited all consider themselves to not meet the case's definition of "uninvolved admin". So, as far as I can tell, they haven't been investigated yet. (I'm one of the admins declining to investigate.) GRBerry00:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? Because it appears to me as if Rlevse is the one handling it, so I don't want to step on his toes (and any potential solution he has in mind) by blocking the lot of em for a while, which is almost certainly what I would opt for (then, with all that noise reduced, I would look into the basis for the complaint on the other, more substantive fronts). I am interested to learn what you would do, though... El_C07:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not touching it with a ten foot pole for a few reasons. Since I'm not touching it with a ten foot pole, I'm not wasting my time investigating by finding the context for the original diffs. First, back in April 2006 I was involved in a POV balancing dispute on a related article. Not that it reached the level of a dispute needing outside attention or administrative attention, but it was a content dispute - so I've got a related content dispute in my history and don't meet the case's definition of uninvolved admin. Second, I was the admin who said "I am willing to unblock" and got RFAR/Palestine Remembered accepted by the ArbComm - in the end, the blocking admin accepted that the block was wrong so the case settle amicably, but I've been active and could be seen as biased. Third, I was somewhat involved in the Allegations of Apartheid RFAR, becoming involved after that mess got quite incivil at DRV. I don't think items 2 and 3 disqualify me, but some folks could see me as biased because of them. Fourth, I've got a itchy trigger finger where Jaakabou is concerned, and am not willing to anything more active than page protections where he is involved (though I'll comment as I see fit) - I've been attacked by both Jaakabou and PR for being biased in favor of the other during the course of trying to moderate their interactions. GRBerry22:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I, too, am unlikely to be "wasting my time investigating by finding the context for the original diffs," unless I know my help is sought. El_C07:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI (Bishonen's image)
I've mentioned your name here[7]. I do remember seeing you adding that template, I am sure; I remember thinking it was one less image I had to worry about. Risker (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that wasn't me. But that was a strange deletion. Unfortunately, the admin behind it does not appear too inclined to discuss it, either. El_C07:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out it was Nandesuka, and s/he has gotten the image reinstated as far as I can see. I will check to make sure there is a NFUr on the image page and hopefully that will be the end of this silliness. I rather doubt it, however, given Betacommandbot's current schedule. Risker (talk) 07:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not sure what happened there. I added the NFUr template, but beta deleted it anyway. Presumably I got something wrong the first time; I wouldn't mind a second pair of eyes making sure I got the tag right. Nandesuka (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it turns out that it needs an additional tag that actually names the article in which the image appears, so I used one of the templates hanging around, and it shouldn't bounce back up again. The things we do to satisfy that bot... Risker (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, El C. Image:Cheicon.jpg was deemed to be a non-free image, due to its restriction of being used "to propagate the memory of Ernesto 'Che' Guevara". We can still use it in article space under a fair-use claim, but non-free images aren't allowed in user space (such as at the top of this page). I know, it's a little weird, since you are using the image as allowed by the copyright holder, but Wikipedia's rules don't allow it, unfortunately. Sorry to bring bad news. All the best, – Quadell(talk) (random)14:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The rule should say that neither fair use, nor is copyright violation is allowed in userspace. This particular image is non-free, but it is properly licensed for the existing use. This is beyond debate because the image copyright expressly permits, even encourages, this sort of use. - JehochmanTalk15:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was willing to accept the image if it was nonfree in theory but free de facto, as the license tag you placed on the image page suggests. Previously, I didn't investigate the correctness of the tag, I just trusted it was correct.
Now I realize that Korda sued people for using the image, which contradicts the wording of the license tags on the Guevara photo images. It appears to be simply false that any use that reminds people of Guevara is acceptable. I don't see how the image can be considered "free" in any sense after the creator has sued people for using it commercially. This must have been discussed before, right? — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In other cases, even if we have explicit permission to use an image, but the license is noncommercial, we don't classify the image as free. This is why the {{withpermission}} tag looks like it does. Applying that general principle to this image, we would classify it as nonfree because it is noncommercial. It seems that Korda made it clear (based on things I see around on WP) that he did not consider the image free, but had a personal set of criteria that he would use to decide if he permitted each use. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite clear that it's conditional free use: free to use according to the conditions he set; that's why I uploaded it, to fulfill those. El_C01:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is that different than {{withpermission}}? That applies when we have direct written permission to use an image, but we consider it inadequate for noncommercial images. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That wiki-legal-speak is not pertinent. He gave general permission to freely use it if it propagates the memory of Che, which I am doing. El_C01:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am not removing it yet, to give El C a chance to explain. But I am less concerned here with the spirit of Che than the spirit of WP. Our spirit is to be a free content project, which means we refuse to accept special permission to use image the authors won't permit everyone else to use. Honestly - how is this different than {{withpermission}}? — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)This is a user talk page, not part of the free encyclopedia we are producing, so once again while I agree there may be a rule against it, I so no harm to the spirit of our goals. (1 == 2)Until01:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained. The spirit of WP is common sense, the spirit of rules superseding legalistic absolutist application of its letter. El_C01:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The spirit of WP is to be a free content project. So it's the spirit of WP that goes against using nonfree images, not the rules, which permit us to use nonfree images in many contexts. I looked at this archive, where the image was discussed before. My main question at the moment is which forum is appropriate for discussing these images more broadly. I'll let you know when I figure it out. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've used this image for four years without incident. Lately, it has come under attack every two months or so. It's getting tiresome. Only in the Kafkaeque, Orwellian mindset of Wikipedia image philosophy, a conditionally free image like this is somehow not free enough because it cannot be exploited commercially, against the authors wishes. I wouldn't be too eager to call that the spirit of anything, unless you're just, robotically, reciting rhetoric, aimlessly. El_C06:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, nobody is going to sue. I'm only using the images on my userpage (I'm entitled to the 30k in total, no? Do I not do enough to be allowed that much of images that are only for my page?) Obviously, I am following the freeuse conditions that the copyright holder stipulates: "to propagate the memory of Che" and am doing so as a sympathizer. There are plenty of pressing image issue for folks to expend their energies on then a zero risk one such as this. A bureaucratic effort, or one aiming to make an unrelated point (hopefully, certainly not simply to target me so as to cause me grief), are a waste of energy, too. Thanks, everyone, for reading carefully. El_C12:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with nonfree images is not at all related to the risk of us being sued. I assume you are already familiar with the free-content arguments, and are simply ignoring them. The aren't bureaucratic arguments about policy; they are arguments about the mission and purpose of Wikipedia to be a free content project. Images which can only be used by certain people, or only for certain purposes, are not free images, and pull us away from that mission.
I have rarely interacted with you and have no desire specifically to cause you grief. I'm planning to nominate the Che images on WP:PUI to clarify the license situation, but it won't be until next week, since I will be traveling for several days this weekend. I'll add nonfree use rationales to the images at the same time, for the articles in which they are used. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They have already been nominated on WP:PUI; so the constant repetition does seem suspect. On your part, too. But I did have low expectations in being able to reason with you, having seen your conduct on the IRC/RfAr (in fact, I suspect, this is somehow related). El_C13:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a link? I saw the previous discussion on FUR, which came out in favor of calling them nonfree (that's what Quadell came here to report). I'll look for a link, too. This is unrelated to IRC; I am much more idealistic about free content than about online chatting. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop the polemics and any veiled threats. I'm not interested in you personally.
I don't believe that the image was discussed on PUI, but I could be wrong. Mike Rosoft seems to have thought about nominating it on PUI, but changed his mind and put it at WP:FUR instead. Here is the archived discussion. It appears from that short discussion that the consensus was that the image is not under a free license, that the use on articles is acceptable under our nonfree use criteria, and that use on user pages would need to be discontinued. I notice that you didn't participate in that discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Karma is not a veiled threat, but it does not surprise me that you would assume such bad faith to deem it to be that. I think your irrational quest to follow rules blindly, because you feel it fulfills some abstract ideals, will prove self-defeating for you. Just the time that took me to I write this comment, I often get rid of many real copyrights issues, risky issues, not ones with zero-risk and harm. But your disproportionate, non-realist, rigid and dogmatic approach seems to favour some imaginary gains over what is real, attainable progress for the project. I think that's most of it (though, I also suspect I represent in your mind the side you fought against in the IRCRfAr). I find it sad. El_C14:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't identify you with anyone else, and I don't associate you with the parties of the IRC arbcom case. I think that reducing the number of nonfree image uses on WP is a real gain for the project, not an imaginary one. There's a difference between following rules blindly and making concrete actions to advocate for abstract ideals - I'm sure that your use of the Che image here is evidence you can appreciate that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your immediate assumption of bad faith above tends to cause me to doubt your ... disassociation. I think my usage of the two images is fine; if it makes me more productive and poses no risk or real harm, why would you expend so much energy to the contrary? I find it highly suspect. And judging from that assumption of bad faith, now you're so upset at me, you are going to make it a mission to cause me maximum harm. There was no way for me to avoid it, however. El_C14:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to avoid any quid pro quo about assumptions of bad faith or each of our motives here. Can we stick to the matter at hand, which is the Che images? As you must know, "risk" and "harm" are not relevant factors in deciding whether the use of nonfree images is acceptable on WP. Our goal is not to use nonfree images only when it's safe - it's to use nonfree images as little as possible while writing an encyclopedia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I find you claiming that inclination to be credible, since how many time did I repeat myself? Our goal is to write a free encyclopedia, not sacrifice that by applying our rules inflexibly. El_C14:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least we agree the goal is related to writing a free encyclopedia; that's something. My motivation for nominating the images at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images is to have a discussion to try to resolve whether the images are under a free license or a nonfree license. That question seems to be at the heart of the disagreement over both the tags on the image description pages and the use of the images on several users' personal pages. But I won't be able to do that until next week. I'll let you know when I get everything written up. Until then, I won't bother you more about the images. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Israeli-Palestinian conflict sanctions
Just wanted to write and commend you for your work at WP:AE (and elsewhere) in dealing with the I-P editing battles. I noticed that you wrote: "There's no "someone," there's only moi. I highly doubt anyone else would be willing to look into this. These disputes are too time consuming and the Arbitration Committee strict criteria of "uninvolved" means that few admins looking into these issues have the necessary familiarity with the content to speed things up enough. Anyway, both sides are allowed one revert per day, including a talk page comment. .... El_C 07:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)" I hope the situation isn't so dire that it's really only you, but in any case, your work is appreciated. I am curious, meanwhile -- what did you mean by including a talk page comment? Were they reverting each other's comments? Be well, HG | Talk03:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the best title you could think of? Not good... He already made the same complaint a few weeks ago; it was no longer an incident. El_C14:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the title, my imagination does run out a bit.... yes, I understand that. I admit to thinking that an unclosed incident does not cease to be an incident, particularly when it appears to be part of a pattern. Still, I understand the point you were making now. Relata refero (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This diff here shows your abuse of rollback. User:Miltopia may likely be a sock puppet of Blu Aardvark and this was never disproven, only the evidence inconclusive so it should be left as suspected sock puppet as it is possible Blu Aardvark is renting an IP address or using a botnet to hide his IP. Blu Aardvark has done many of these types of things in the past (User:Arkalochori's sock farm are Blu Aardvark socks, too, coming from the same location Oregon as him and sharing the same POV and editing styles) and if User:Archtransit (administrator recently banned for sockpuppetry) resides in the USA then this very well could be Blu Aardvark. Blu Aardvark is known for having many white hat and black hat identities that pretend to be different people but are all him. Blu Aardvark someitmes even talks to themselves with his socks, but many socks are known to do such as Amorrow's socks and this sock of someone else that Fred Bauder proved as a sock [8] and this other sock [9]. The Runcorn socks also talked to themselves. In conclusion, I believe Blu Aardvark has large numbers of sock puppets not blocked and is admin farming, too. 67.150.121.104 (talk) 13:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I use five or six images for my userspace that are mainspace-orphaned (e.g. Image:Bed-claim.jpg, etc.). I guess I have to protect those that get targetted by this orphaned-images bot... Oh well; at least it isn't the legal-technicality argument, that was getting too much. El_C15:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my goodness! That cat looks exactly like Moy (amor), my wife's most beloved of our 3 cats. Not just black-and-white but the markings seem all the same. Moy is, well, your classic black-and-white mega-friendly puss. Thanks, SqueakBox23:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When one clicks the (+) at the top of the page to create a new section, one is not permitted to enter an edit summary. One assumes that the section header is used as the edit summary, but when one is posting an entire conversation with section header intact, one does not get an edit summary at all unless one makes the extra effort to take the section header off of the conversation and put it in the box provided. One begs forgiveness for this incredible lapse. Thatcher22:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trolling on talk page
Howdy El C, I wanted to let you know that I have someone trolling me on my talk page here. I wouldn't really mind, but I don't want it to go unanswered, lest it gets worse. Thanks. FrederickTG (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jews and Socialism
Just read a couple of interesting essays on Jewish radicalism in the early 20th century--for example, the American Federation of Teachers was a "Jewish" labor organization. I belonged to it when I taught some college courses, but I had no idea. The things I didn't know. I come from a long line of Jewish Radicals and Jewish Military leaders. I'm complex. Now I want to find a good book about Jews fighting for the US (or the Allies) in WWII, combine that with Jewish labor leaders of the 20th century, and I'll be even more complex!!!! I'm sure you have some suggestions? OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions00:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're better than Google for me on this stuff. When I was doing Officer training back in the late 70's, there were a lot of officers still around from WWII and the Korean War. I didn't wear my a big yellow Star of David on my uniform, and my last name is not even slightly Jewish, and I would hear all kinds of anti-semitic and overt racism and sexism from the other officers. I didn't think about it until I saw the recent PBS documentary about Jews in America. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions18:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you would have seen it. Here's a link Jewish Americans. It is a typical PBS documentary, very well done. There is a companion book that I picked up which I actually enjoyed much more Wenger, Beth S. The Jewish Americans: Three Centuries of Jewish Voices in America. Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday. ISBN0-385-52139-1.. I need to look at that article. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions18:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[11] many lebaneese civilians were killed when their homes were bombed. about 100 homes were bombed in the first day of the war. Those bombed homes belonged to Hzbulla operatives who hide missiles in their homes. Since those are large families we can assume that there were 4-5 fatalities per such home if not more. Zeq (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a strange way to start a sentence/paragraph, Zeq. Anyway, I'm not that interested in the content of the claim itself here, so much as I take exception to the method whereby a claim is placed before a citation —used for another claim— in an edit summary-less addition. El_C08:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for closing the debate. I guess the issue is too controversial and it struck a nerve. As to what you said that only the author understands its meaning, you might be right about that. It is like a joke told buy a guy which no one understands. Why they do not understand it, is because they were not in the situation where the commedy occurred. So goes the wikidrama of social engineering. Unless you are part of it, it does not make sense. So the WikiCommonSense is not to have wiki social engineering! Igor Berger (talk) 09:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You lost me at "for" (i.e. I'm not sure what this "the issue" is). Certainly, you're welcome. Regards, El_C09:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is your native language, Igor? Equazcion•✗/C •15:50, 7 Mar 2008 (UTC)
RE: Notice
Why was the name of Dpotop removed from the subtitle (and mine was kept) ? Also, the restriction is effective when?Xasha (talk) 12:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you get one revert per two days and you reverted yesterday, so you need to wait another day. I should have added that a talk page comment be added per every revert, but I forgot. Let's see if you guys can manage it, anyway. El_C00:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I consider a move to be a revert, by definition, in that something is supplanted (undone) by something else. El_C02:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As my closing statement reads, the argument — which I need not nor will I be involved in— is to be undertaken at the article's talk page, not at the deletion debate for or anything relating to the userbox. It's impertinent to anything, at this time. El_C19:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, as a request, could you please add {{protected}} after you protect a page? Otherwise it tends to mess up people's watchlists. :/ For some reason, protection tends to mask any other recent edits from showing up on watch, unless a template is also placed to reactivate things. Thanks, --Elonka20:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Template or warning notice for clarity?
Hi El C - I wonder if you think it a good idea to also add a warning notice and appropriate edit summary at Igorberger's talk page - for the benefit of him understanding exactly what the topic ban is and the duration of that ban? Such a warning notice might also help us if/when he ever says he did not understand the extent or true extent of the ban. I would do it myself but I am trying my best to keep at arm's distance whilst he vents his wrath at me all over wikipedia.--VStalk23:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote on my user page that Wikipedia is censored and Wikipedia totalitarian regime. That is my POV and it may be others and maybe not. NPOV is a collection of POVs that is how a consensus is built for NPOV. There is no need for orotection of my user page. If you would have came to my talk page and asked me to remove that I would listen to your argument and other editor's POV to establish a consensus if that should be kept or deleted. I am not edit warring with you or anyone else. I also will not put this back on my user page untill a consesus is established that it can be put back. Please unprotect my user page. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm sorry, I'm not gonna play these tautological games. I'll unprotect the page, but if you continue to add bits to it that attack other contributors — yes, including by insinuation and timing— it will be reprotected. I'd prefer it if you were to not waste anyone's time with this. El_C20:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! You misunderstud what I meant. Protecting the whole Wikipedia from any controversy is a totalitarianism, it is martial law. I am not pointing fingers but talking about how the Internet community percieves us. You have a picture of Guevara on your user page. Are you not making a statment? Igor Berger (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:El C This is my concern Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Fuck_.28disambiguation.29 not a nude picture on a user page, or a political statement on a user page. My consern is some editors come to Wikipedia to impose their social and cultural believes on this project without understanding the governing principles of the project being an encyclopedia, which is not censored and NPOV! I hung out on ANI to watch the discussion and to figure out who is the real disruptive editor. I posted some comment and the disruptive editor would get in an argument with me. It is really a hard job to separate the good from the bad, to keep the project NPOV. I tried to protect the good faith editors from false accusations that some SPA editors have brought to ANI. Was I always right? Well most of the editors that I investigated have been blocked indef. When I entered the ANI discussion, I might have been seen out of place, with what I said, by other good faith editors. Because their first interpertation, was who is this guy! Also not knowing the whole story, I might have even defended the bad faith editor, but as I looked at the case, and examined diferent editor's history I proceeded in the right direction, which many of the admins participating in ANI, might not have time or the dilegence to do. So they are quick to come up with judgement. Anyway I tried to help, thinking of the project and no COI. But maybe I got in the way, and I appologize for that. Actually I am happy that I got banned from Wikipedia namespace for 30 days. I got envolved too much, trying to help, and it has been very consuming. I have neglected important things in my life just to help Wikipedia project. Wikipedia is very adictive! So I hope you understand my envolvement and do not think bad of me. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I mentioned at the announcement of your restrictions that you can appeal at the arbitration page (at ANI: stating at the very end of the announcement that you have unrestricted access to make such an appeal at the RfAr page, of course, and then on your own talk page: If you really object to these restrictions strongly, feel free to appeal at the arbitration page.emphasis added), you still go ask Jehochman to launch an arbitration page on your behalf, claiming you do not want to file the ArbCom hearing request because I fear that will be used as excuse that I violated the imposed ban. It's not adding up. El_C22:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for appeal. It does not matter if I am right or wrong. The community asked me not to edit WP: namespace for 30 days and I will respect that. Igor Berger (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So I Soaped, I am only human..:) You understand how I felt when I was in ANI, right? So I had some WP:TEA and got some common sense! We not here to trash someone are we? Just help them out during hard times of wikidrama! Igor Berger (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Human works both ways, so a little acknowledgment, and perhaps even, I dare say, an expression of remorse toward those primarily targeted by that assumption of bad faith... El_C08:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry if I came up in the wrong way towards you, my issue was never with you, but how many users have been treated on Wikipedia, sometimes not intentionally, but it does look like strong-armed. Maybe in the heat of the moment it is really hard to figure out who is the bad guy, and we just want to prevent disruption to the project. I hope we can get to know each other and put this whole mess behind us. Igor Berger (talk) 09:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed there are quite a few of us around here that deserve a sincere expression of remorse from you Igor - and if given and then coupled with you changing your editing behaviour and lucidity, would go a damn long way to us starting to change our opinions. I mean none of us like to feel as if we are the bad guy simply because we are assisting (read directing) a new editor such as yourself.--VStalk09:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(undent) Well Steve, if you can see me as a good faith editor I would love to work with you, because I am here to help the project and nothing else. I really do not give two hoots about SEI essay or any other articles I tried to write. Igor Berger (talk) 09:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry to user your pixel space El_C - I won't be too wordy) Igor - for me I take a long time to lose my good faith and then some time to gain it back. If you are writing the truth here - and you stay on point (not ramble on) - then I am sure that over a shortish period of time I will see some different edits from you and come to a different conclusion than the one you have forced upon me at this stage. Personally - if I can be bold - I note that when you are stopping (perhaps with TEA) to think about what you are writing - your spelling and grammar improves and you are calm enough to write things that do not grate nor inflame. For me then you have potential and on the proviso given here I am sure I will, in time(!), see you as a good faith editor.--VStalk09:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I accidently encountered Merechriolus (talk·contribs) while I did my usual editing of medical articles, in this particular case, AIDS. The first time I reverted their edits, it was because the citations supported the statement (and it was a minor statement at that) that conservatives are less inclined to accept the cause of AIDS. The number of reliable and verifiable references (both primary and secondary) that support this contention are large. But honestly, it was minor to me, because I try to focus on the medical aspects of articles, cleaning up citations and all.
I never claim to be the most civil of editors, but mostly I try to do the right thing around here, given some of the BS that I see all the time. However, this editor is testing my patience, and I'm about ready to give him the figurative finger soon. I'm hoping you can get him under control. If not, then I've got to move to the really frustrating and difficult to use RfC process, which I have found to rarely actually effect a change when necessary. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions22:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Is this still a pressing issue? I do notice at a glance that a few established editors are now on the scene (Raul654, etc.)... Regards, El_C22:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he's getting worse. See this. I usually do my own battles with difficult editors, but I've been asked to be more civil. It's not in my nature, so I'm hoping someone can kick his tendentious little fanny for me. :) OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions22:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll try to look into it soon, but it looks like others are already there. I doubt I'm as well oriented as the about what's going on. El_C08:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is our problem Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Christopher_Mann_McKayUser:Prester John Is running around the whole project wanting to delete all images from user pages that do not support his conservative POV. I hope he does not MfD your Guevara because it maybe seen as your support for communism..:) That is why I got involved in the Wikipedia talk:User_page Because Prester John tried to delete User:WebHamster image. Yes, Wikipedia is not censored, and we should not be policing user pages! Just policing user pages is censoring Wikipedia and disrupting the project. Do you think I care who has what on their user page? Do you think I need to say Wikipedia is censored on my user page? Just tell this guy to leave everybody alone and go edit some articles and not disrupt Wikipedia to prove his WP:POINT. I hope you understand I am just standing up for Wikipedia to protect NPOV. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 07:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does not concern you specifically; please do not edit that page. Find something else to do. Thanks. El_C08:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to edit anytihng. I just brought the matter to your attention. If we as a community do not want nude, political, religious images on user pages we should add it to our policy. It could be amended to say "While Wikiepdia is not censored, images on user pages that are put to make a statement of sexualtiy, politics, and religion are not allowed; still user boxes that make such references are allowed." This way we do not have to ad hoc censor and police user pages. So if the community by consesus decides to amend the policy it should be amended. Otherwise it looks like selective censorship. This I like this I do not like! Igor Berger (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want me to give serious consideration to your thoughts, you will have to do the same with mine, see two sections up. Thx. El_C08:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These type of issues come up every once in a while. Sometimes, if there's something specific that offends enough people at the given time, it gets removed; other times it doesn't. It's fairly arbitrary, in a sense, and, overall, at the end of the day, not much is changed. I wouldn't worry about it, the discussion will probably be over in a few days; lot's of other things to do, involving articles. El_C09:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Equazcion filed the case because I brought the suspicion
to his attention, but now User:Rachel63 has filed an ANI case against him. I have left the evidence here. User_talk:Equazcion#Anti-AmericanismUser:Rachel63 seems to know a lot about Wikipedia system, even being that she is a new user, she has participated in AfD for Anti-Americanism eventhough she never edited the article. I would like to submit the evidence to ANI so it can be further investigated. Bsharvy nominated the article for deletion, and even after a keep decission she is warring with all editors to have the article deleted. And slowly deleting large chunks of the article. Please let me know if I can add the evidence to ANI or SSP, whichever you think is better. Igor Berger (talk) 11:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make the report because of you, but because of Theo Pardilla, the editor who actually raised the original concern. Igor, you don't need to go around informing everyone whenever something happens. Please cool it. Equazcion•✗/C •11:20, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Equazcion, well nice to know other editors have the same consern, just let me know if you need help. I will leave it in your hands. El C, I will just let Equazcion take care of it. Thanks, Igor Berger (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for taking a principled stand re the Jaakobou incident. You may not be aware of all the nuances of Jaakobou's offence, some of which Nishidani has elucidated at his talk page. I must also agree with you regarding Durova's apparent obliviousness to this offence, and her totally inappropriate and irrelevant gushing over Jaakobou's image manipulation skills.
But basically I just wanted to say that I hope you will not interpret my failure to add my voice to your comments at AE to indicate a lack of support. It's not that I think Jaakobou's actions wouldn't warrant AE intervention, but since he has not restored his offensive notices, and as I prefer not to dramatize misbehaviour, I am now disinclined to pursue the matter any further. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...With a dynamic address, [13] I have already blocked two, but it seems like this is somebody with a grudge against you, any idea who is behind them? - Caribbean~H.Q.23:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. Yeah, I don't think it wants to be my friend. Thanks for staying on top of it during my absence. El_C02:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
image captions
Generally, species-level infobox images don't need a caption. I think for a lithograph, it's a decent idea to put one, but "sitting in a tree, happy" is far from encyclopedic. - UtherSRG(talk)13:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are not allowed to block users whom you are involved in an edit dispute with. You seem to have breached the 3RR in one of the articles. El_C13:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I not block you, if I hit the block button first, see the logic? You reverted WP:3RR in all the articles now. And you blocked me? Wow. El_C13:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and you undid all the resizes? That has nothing to do with caption. Please don't block me so you can undo all my changes. You do know that I have the physical ability to unblock myself, right? But I wouldn't use it. Just like you should not block users whom you are engaged in edit dsipute with. El_C13:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a preference of yours. The other image size is a preference of mine. And in fact, 230px is the standard image size for the taxobox. - UtherSRG(talk)13:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you block me? You reverted more times than me. I'm also an admin; why would I not block you, for reverting even more times? El_C13:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you unblock me so I can launch an arbitration request to desysop UtherSRG? He blocked me in an edit dispute he was involved in(!)El_C13:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he blocked me in an edit dispute he was part of; now he violated 3RR? This is an unrestrained admin. Imagine if he was face with greater stress. El_C13:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is how it looks to me. Two sensible and normally calm admins got into a tiff over nothing. You reverted against normal practice, he blocked when he shouldn't have. Escalating a spat to arbcom would be counterproductive and I will not assist in that. I am willing to unblock if you agree not to go to the AC and stop edit warring. I'll also post a note on his talk page chastising him. Deal ? Theresa Knott | The otter sank13:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doens't mean that. It means just what it says it means. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." The rule preventing me from blocking an editor I'm in dispute with prevents me from maintaining Wikipedia, so I am free to ignore it. - UtherSRG(talk)13:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There doesnt' need to be a policy. I told you it is NOT STANDARD for species-level articles to include captions, unless it clarifies the image. "X sitting in a tree" does not do this. You were wrong to restore the caption after I correctly removed it and told you about the standard. - UtherSRG(talk)14:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If only I could block everytime I felt a content opponent was "wrong." Wow. How did you become an admin again? El_C14:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. El C was adding an image caption not vandalising the article. Whislt a agree that an image caption isn't necessary it isn't a disater either. You were not maintaining wikipedia your were getting into a pettry revert war over nothing. You had no right to block. Theresa Knott | The otter sank13:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me for butting in, but I disagree with the block and its rationale. Please do not ever block someone with whom you are in a dispute; this isn't right. Never, ever block an established user except in the most extreme of circumstances, and especially not one with whom you are in a dispute. Uther, I strongly suggest you lift the block yourself. Thank you, Antandrus (talk)13:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about a cool off period for you. It look like you needed it more. You block someone whom you are involved in a content dispute with (there is no caption policy), and, unlike myself, you violate the revert electric fence that is the 3RR. It's easy to just criticize others. El_C14:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's daring me to do it, outright. I don't think we're dealing with someone who is familiar wit policy, beyond applying IAR to suit his immediate (trivial!) needs. El_C14:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you're willing to block users whom you are in an edit dspute with over something as trivial as a caption, and violate 3RR? Then you patronize me about being cool, when I kept to both those rule while you lacked the restraint to adhere to them. Sounds alarming to me. El_C14:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was asking you to stop working? No. Did this get you to stop? Yes. Did my actions harm the encyclopedia? No. Seems to be reasonable to me. Were there other actions I could have taken? Sure. Some would have been effective, but taken longer. Others would not have been. I took a gamble. What was lost? I pissed you off. The world is coming to an end if that's so terrible. - UtherSRG(talk)14:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you revert yourself? Yes. Is it a content dispute? Yes. Did you block someone whom you were engaged in a content dispute? Yes. Did you violate 3RR? Yes, yes, yes, and yes. El_C14:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He already reverted all my changes; so I guess he's the one who owns those articles, because I refuse to block for trivial reasons or to get an edge in a content dispute. El_C14:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the edit summary wasn't nice. I suspect that he wrote it without thinking. We've all done that (me more than most). But, as you say you didn't use admin tools, so whatya say - forgive him? Theresa Knott | The otter sank14:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's not saying sorry, he is effectively daring me to take steps to have him desysoped (sure, I'll oblige). And now he gets to keep all his versions, because he is abusive with the block button? That's not cool. El_C15:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bishzilla extremely regret arriving too late to undo bad block of little user El C. Would have enjoyed first admin action unblocking little user! See how block violate policy hrair times? Content dispute against policy[14], cool-down block also against policy.[15] See UtherSRG admit cooldown block, [16]? Boo, lousy block. UtherSRG need go read WP:BLOCK. (Read WP:3RR while about it.) Where apology? bishzillaROARR!!16:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Hello, El C! I have several mammal articles watchlisted and noticed your re-sizing the images in the taxoboxes. I wanted to ask why is the larger size necessary? If a user has low resolution, the larger image size increases the taxobox size to approx. one-half of the screen. I think the default size is sufficient; when one wishes to view to image more closely, usually they would just click on the image to see a full-screen version. That's my logic, anyway. I would suggest initiating discussion on WT:MAMMAL maybe.
Also, some of the captions seem rather obvious. If there is a picture of an animal standing, the caption need not state "An animal, standing." However, if the action is puzzling and needs to be clarified ("An animal, scent marking" for ex.), or if the environment is known (such as the London Zoo, Serengeti plains, etc.), that can be helpful. But otherwise, some of the captions seem, well, cutesy. That's just my opinion, of course. Keep on keepin' on. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I presume the average reader has a certain size monitor/resolution, that's not the point — in some of the images, it was too difficult to see the creature in question because they take up a small area of the image. For example, see Uther's unexplained revert two days ago that arguably started the whole thing: you can see that in the high-quality image, the creature is taking 1/10th of the size, whereas in the low-quality closeup they take up most of the space (I liked the full-size for perspective of the rocks ad so on). I don't feel too strongly about situational captions, although what harm to they do (I think we come across as taking ourselves too seriously, it's not an article about a funeral)? Also, I think it's significant to tell the reader the country, etc., as I argued on his talk page. El_C17:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response! I was not referring to cropping, I was referring to the 299px re-sizing. The different images are always bickered about and are a matter of opinion, but the pixel sizing is more of a functional thing, if you will. I agreed in my initial post that location in the caption is helpful, BTW. Not to poke you, but maybe the mammal articles being taken too seriously is a good thing, in a way, you know? Anyway, I just wanted to touch base with you regarding the image sizing in the taxoboxes — I think the default sizing is sufficient, IMO. :) Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was refereeing to it, then (the cropping illustrates the point I made about how much of the picture is taken by the creature itself). Seriousness is good; I'm referring merely to some captions, not the underlying content and structure. Even encyclopedias sometimes aim at a light touch at certain areas. Yes, infobox image_width, sometimes at 299px, sometimes at 277px, sometimes at 244px, one or two times even at 333px. It isn't a big deal for me, I just got upset by being treated so aggressively, and unkindly, by Uther, beyond all proportion to this. I'd never have expected such an extreme and unstable reaction, from him. El_C17:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, let's hope. I've certainly been driven out of that set of articles with astounding abuse that is rarely seen. Regards, El_C18:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You guys seriously put up with a lot of shit that I would never do. And I get the feeling the shit is getting deeper. Anything you can do will be appreciated. I used to go to Guy with these requests, but he's being thrown to the wolves. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions19:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm running on somewhat depleted energy reserves right this moment, but I'll try to look into in the immediate future. In the meantime, can you write a brief summary (i.e. report with diffs)? What does Jehochman think? I notice lately he has been involved in the target article/s. If there's compelling evidence, I am one who is willing to issue a topic ban without a full arbitration case. El_C19:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See what I posted on ANI: I hate getting involved with this stuff, but here you go EBDCM. Here is your false allegation that is both uncivil and a personal attack. This is my reply which clearly states that I have never reverted anything you've written, nor did I call anything that I reverted as "vandalism." I would ask that EBDCM (talk·contribs) be blocked for an extended period of time for personal attacks, threats against me| and legal threatshere along with claiming that Fyslee sent an email to Arthur Rubin, which AR specifically denies happening here. Why do we tolerate this crap? OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions20:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
apology
El C, I apologize for going over the line and blocking you. That was uncalled for. I was reacting to your reaction to me. I hadn't realized you were holding negative feelings about Singing Vole (nor had I even had that article's edits in mind when I reverted your captions today). I also hadn't realized that you were a fellow admin, or I wouldn't have even thought of blocking you.
Now then. Please. Do not add extraneous captions to taxobox images. No matter what lack of policy, the standard is that species-level articles do not get captions unless circumstances demand them. - UtherSRG(talk)22:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that - as you have commented numerous times as to how folk are seemingly unable to present to you specific diffs of DreamGuy's violations of his ArbCom restrictions and incivility - that you might want to take a look at the complaint submitted here. - Arcayne(cast a spell)17:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something serious
Please take a look at this posting to my user talk page. Also, review the edits for Race and Intelligence. I, like Mr. Rubenstein, am very sensitive to anti-semitic sniping by editors. I might overreact. However, reading over the talk page replies and some of the edit summaries (there was no need to utilize Hitler's twin in a summary), there is a general attack by one or two editors against Slr. Moreover, this article is, by any definition, pseudoscience, and should be marked as such. I absolutely despise racism in any form, including those forms that attempt to prove itself with fake science. You and I may be on different sides of the same political tent, but we can use your help here with edits and/or policing (I know you almost have to make a choice between being an editor and being an admin for controversial articles). Thanks. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions23:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there's an editor promoting racialism in that article in a manner which all the other participants find to be tendentious and exhaustive; presenting views which are outside mainstream scientific norms disproportionately, then perhaps a topic ban would be best. To hasten the review process on my part, write me a brief report and I'll consider whether we've reached the point of applying such extreme measures. El_C18:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Persecution_of_Falun_Gong#Article is a POV mess, so do these paragraphs really falls within WP:NPOV? The article is basically abandoned, and edited only by a few pro-Falun Gong editors. I tried to remove such paragraphs and quotes which I consider a neutrality violation, but has been reverted several times, accusing me of "removing sourced content"--PCPP (talk) 04:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reversions seem to almost exclusively be coming from Falun Gong-related single-purpose (or otherwise alternate) accounts. I will remind them of the need to adhere to the terms set by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong (to start with, no reverts without substantive discussion; certainly no automatic ones). So, let me know if such problematic editing continues and we'll take it from there. El_C18:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care about my own convenience, I care about the Wikipedia readership (perhaps, here, in somewhat contradistinction to readers of the mirrors). It has been a year now — haven't those technical glitches been fixed? There's quite a few articles that it will markedly improve. Thx. El_C01:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit overextended at the moment, I'm afraid. But I'll try to keep an eye on developments. And please keep me updated. Best regards, El_C07:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid this won't be good enough. This mess needs full attention of a mutually respected user (who is also equipped with the stick). If you can help finding one, I am open to suggestions. This article has been subjected to too much torture. --Irpen07:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This was going on for too long. If you, or whoever is reading this page just look a the most recent back and forth at talk from this section on (or even from the top (whoever has patience). Note the date of this endless discussion, February 2006. Thanks anyway, --Irpen08:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes. I agree, that's unacceptable. My apologies again for being unable to offer immediate assistance. El_C08:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Israeli-Palestine
You asked for a summary however unfortunately the issues are complex, and both sides have made significant efforts to argue their case, thus to even attempt to reduce this would not do the debate justice. Suicup (talk)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Zeitgest-intro.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Zeitgest-intro.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Unmis18.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Unmis18.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, I reverted your changes and began a discussion in the talk page. I do feel that, in this case, a shorter plot summary makes for a higher quality article. In order to understand the film's context, the reader only needs to understand the main points of the movie since the large majority of the film's notability/context revolves around the film maker's dishonest journalistic research and reporting, rather than the content of the film itself. It doesn't make sense for the criticism section to be shorter than the summary, since the film is only notable via criticism. I was the one that rewrote the article and got it unsalted from Wikipedia and I'd like to keep the content as notable, valuable, and encyclopedic as possible. Let's continue this discussion on the article's talk page. Pdelongchamp (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conversely, I am the admin who kept the last AfD (edit conflict notwithstanding); irrespectively, I think you removed some key detail: the exact content that readers would go to the article to read about, including links to articles that help to better clarify the film, which as per the guide, does have a complicated plot. So, I am inclined to restore most if not all of what you removed. I will try to explain in greater detail, point-by-point, on the article talk page when I get a chance. Because I do not find this redaction is reasonable. Thanks. Regards, El_C15:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
uninvolved ?
Shalom, I maybe misunderstanding all together but I think there was a discussion if you are uninvolved in disputes in the area of the Israel-palestine arbitration. I think given your deep involvment in such issues you can not be considered uninvolved and I would suggest you let others deal with policy violations. I appologize if I misuderstood what takes place. Best, Zeq (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The truth is, your record of trying to label me an involved admin in this area goes back years, and it always failes — I always end up being vindicated. But dealing with you in my capacity as admin does not magically makes me involved so as to allow you to have an admin unfamiliar with your history, which, while I'm sure you would find advantages, is hardly in the interest of the project. The fact is that I am unaffiliated with either group; I think that I am fair and evenhanded, and I intend to continue acting as an admin in all areas, unrestricted. El_C15:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So I see that I understood the issue correctly and all that remain is to show that you are involved in editing conflicts in that area - which you did in the past. I must admit that yor involvment with me was short. I think this was in some of the Gaza or Lebanon articles articles. Are you denying editing articles about the conflict in Gaza or do you deny geting into edit conflicts with me and other editors on the subject of the war in Lebanon ? Zeq (talk) 03:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
El C is a pretty neutral editor on Israel-Palestine issues, and not involved in these disputes. The real issue is not El C, but a set of like-minded editors who edit from a specific POV, and gang up on and reflexively revert Jaakobou (and you), then take him to WP:AE for "enforcement", pretending to be both neutral and representing some sort of consensus. I suggest you focus on their policy violations and WP:AE gaming, rather than El C's interventions. Jayjg (talk)04:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
El C is indeed a very good editor. The issue is his function as an admin. The arbCom rulling asks for uninvolved admin to take action. There are at least 200 admins who could do the Job and El C should accept the fact that he had in the past have been involved in such disputes and that he have strong involvment in this area. As such I madea friendly suggestion to him to avoif using his admin power in place where the rulling calls for an uninvolved admin.
As for the policy violation you mention. I agree there is a gang of reverters and I expect that a truely uninvolved admin (you can not, El C can since both of you are involved) will place restrictions on the gang of reverters. Zeq (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
you are welcome to enforce Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq. Your charaterization of my polite request from you to refrain from acting in place where a different ArbCom rulling require an univolved admin as a "preemptive attack" clearly demonstrate your inability to deal with the issue at the needed level of univolvment.
The issue at hand is not at all my concern about an old rulling (I am live with those restrictions for 2 years now) the issue is a new ArbCom rulling and you will need to obied by that rulling. Zeq (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I ask that you appologize for charterizing my rquest as an attack. This chaterization is a violation of WP:NPA. Please avoid meking charterization of other editors and especially don't attribute to them motives based on a hidden assumation that they are stupid. If I was at all concerned by you suddenly trying to enforce Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq the last thing I would need is to draw your attention to my edits. I am not stupid . I had enouigh intercation with you to know that If I was concerned about you using your admin power the best thing would be to lay low and not do what you falsly claim is "preemptive attack".
By the way : You are indeed welcome to review each of my edits. You will not be the 1st one. many people have enough specific and general arbCom rulling they can apply and they are more than welcome to do so. (and occuasinaly do so at WP:AE. I edit with extreme good faith and welcome any review. For now what you are erquested is to appoogize. Zeq (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Zeq, in my experience, El C tends to act neutrally in this area. I've seen him come down on both "sides," depending on the context, and he's very generous in helping editors who are having problems, which will include you if he sees you're trying to stick to the policies. In your shoes, I'd try to find a way to work with him. SlimVirgintalk|edits04:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slim, with all respect (and there is a lot) I disagree. However the issue is not his neutrality in this area but his involvment. He is involved there is no other way to describe it.
As for him "coming down" on both sides - I don't think this is the issue. The bigger issue for El C editing in this area is his inability to deal with conflicts. El C hardly if ever participate in mediations over the area of Israel-palestine conflict. When he is involved in such editing conflict the editor on the other side may find himself very quickly subject of El C administrative action. - maybe this is what you describe as "come down on" on both sides.
So the issue is not that he does that "come down" on both sides but the fact that he should refrain from using his admin powers in this area.
As for working with him: Of course I will welcome that. I am not against any editor or admin and you knmow I am willing to learn from everyone and cooprate with everyone. (including you:-) Best, --Zeq (talk) 06:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you appear to be saying is not that El C is involved or that El C is biased but that he is an admin using his admin powers in this inevitably disputed area (because the dispute is a real life one). Which makes El Cs actions sounds fair enough, by your own words. As users editing in areas of conflict we don't get to choose the admins who intervene if we stray over the line. Your own statement, I am afraid, merely reinforces that El C should stay as an admin in this area, and be glad you have this admin to help you. Thanks, SqueakBox06:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
exactly because we don't get to choose there should not be a problem if one specific involved admin will refrain taking action. Surly you are not suggesting that an action El C might take is one that he alone would take and no other admin ? btw, I was not suggesting that he refrain from the whole area but that he refrain from being an admin in a specific arbCom rulling that specified "uninvolved admin" Zeq (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Zeq: So far, you are not winning the argument here about the standard of "uninvolvement" required of an admin to the "nth" degree that you are citing and then throwing in El C's direction. This might be a good time for you to take stock, think through what your are really trying to achieve and come up with a more reasonable and relaxed presentation. It would be unfortunate to see an escalation of this "war of words" between such two outstanding and highly knowledgeable and active editors like you and El_C. You need to give him the benefit of the doubt and to WP:AGF because even admins are human and one cannot drive them insane with counterproductive demands. So please, relax and take a few steps back and try to see how you can come up with a line of reasoning that will convince rather than unconvince others. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 10:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do give El C the beefit of WP:AGF on his edits as well as all his actions in wikipedia- but that is not the issue here.
The issue here (despite the fact that all of you disagree) is still very simple: There are enough admins who can take action to enforce an arbitration which require an uninvolved admin. If there is even the apearance of involvment than it is bad. Justice should not only be fair but apear to be fair.
it is by far simpler not to fight with me on this issue and simply acknowledge that other admins could enforce the arbcom if needed. There is something that is not right in arguing for the right of a specific admin to take action. The good of the project is before all of us and violations as well as ArbCom rullings are such that hopelly any admin will arrive to the same conclusions about a possible future violation by this or that party.
I suggest that you all give those who see El C as involved the benefit of AGF and recognize that there are really enough admins to atke action if needed while this one should refrain from taking action on that arbitration.
If the issue was just that of Good faith (which I am sure El C has in all his capacity as editor and as admin) or that of being neutral or that of being "coming down" on both sides - arbcom could have used those words. Instead they used "uninvolved". clearly the apearnace of involvment is key here.
Hmm, hi Zeq, seems that you are veering into WP:LAWYERering here, but why? I am worried that you are having trouble with points 2 and 3 on that page, see "(2) Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit; (3) Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express;" Is it worth it for you to nit-picking like this? Just some thoughts. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Izak,
It is exectly the spirit that bothered me here. uninloved is a very categoric word. Not "lightly involved" but uninvolved. Record is clear and it is important that any one with even the apearance of being involved will not be acting as an admin in an area that require an uninvolved admin. This is not lawyering this is common sense. It is also common sense that 200 other admins could be contacted if the need arrive to take a decision based on that Arb Com rulling.
If there is anyone "wikilayering" here is El C who accused me of taking a "prehamtive attack" to prevent him from taking any future action against me based on a different arbCopm rulling. This is an NPA violation, it is ridiculus (why would go and bother him if I am afrid of him...) and it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. In any case he is free to take action in my case as he did in the past. Zeq (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zeq: Thanks for the feedback. I just wish the two of you would stop being at loggerheads. I do not have much more to add at this time. IZAK (talk) 05:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Izak, I wish that too. I look forward to cooperate with El C in editing any article. it was not me who made this issue to be such "loggerheads". It is common sense that an involved admin will not be enforcing an arbitration that asked for "uninvolved admin". A simple answer from El C could be: "OK I will ask that any enforcment will be refered to one of the many other admins". The one who made this issue to be what it is now was the attcks on me by El C - attcks that he is yet to appologize on them. Zeq (talk) 06:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an opportunity for El C to act as editor or admin to enforce policy or correct articles based on policy.
Wikipedia is not a venue for self publicity. Yet this person: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hisham_Zreiq has been adding[17] links to his art gallery, writing articles about his movie, linkspaming links[18] to the movie and the article in many other wikipedia article. I am surprized that no one has done anything to stop it. Zeq (talk) 07:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Always better to play it on the safe side. But if that's the worse mistake we make today, it's time for a party. You bring the cake! Regards, El_C22:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question, should I tag her as a suspected sock or wait to see her edits? O by the way, just in case I have no admin abilities except rollback Rgoodermote22:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to tell you that I had to smile when I read your comment in the edit summary. Yeah, Pacino tends to overact quite a bit. But he's a great actor. Loved him in Heat. Maybe you happen to remember the great Rod Steiger. Another legend of overacting. And Jack Nicholson, and his hilarious overacting in The Departed... But somehow overactors (or should we say: uber-actors?) have become an endangered species. Nowadays we have all those mumbling people, obviously imitating Marlon Brando. And their voices are often so unremarkable. When you see them at the Academy Awards, you are just appalled at how ordinary some of those actors are. Sometimes those rascals have a hard time even talking properly into the camera! Best wishes, --Catgut (talk) 01:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know the laws of the state of Mississippi! Speaking of Jewison, I was considering watching The Statement (Michael Caine, definitely one of the greats), but the reviews I read were so scathing, I need to muster my courage here, if anything! Yeah, Heat was great. You know what else I liked? The Devil's Advocate. Some fine performances there, despite the perpetual Keanu Reeves dumbfoundedness. El_C21:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on Izak suggestions I wonder if you would like us to translate this ? i did not see an english wikipedia article on this. Zeq (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey El C/generic sub-page8! I'm currently planning the launch of the WikiProject Beijing, depending on if enough other editors would be interested in such a project. I saw you have edited the main Beijing page recently or in several times in the past and therefor might be interested. If you are, please sign: User:Poeloq/WikiProject_Beijing. As I am posting this to quite a few editors, I am not watching your page and would ask you to reply with any comment or questions on my talk page. Cheers, Poeloq (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Poeloq, I am not a member of any wikiproject, though at times I participate in such activities. Thanks for letting me know, though. El_C21:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be writing a more complete analysis in the AfD presently, but the short of it is that even the (very non-notable) rank of Officier de L'Ordre National du Mérite is unverifiable. The very best we can assume PHG did was improperly use a source he did not understand in order to make an unverifiable claim to stave off deletion of an article. — Coren(talk)00:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good; looking forward to reviewing it. I would, however, request that no blocks be issued until the AfD is closed (so as to allow PHG to participate). Depending on how it's closed, we should reopen the AE report and see what formula, if any, is needed. El_C00:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
Hi, thank you for your arbitration closing note as that was the information I was looking for pretty much from the beginning (that only the Arbcom board could overrule an admin). Banjeboi04:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's unfortunate that, seemingly, KKK members can get an unblock from a new admin, so long as they take the effort and request it on IRC. El_C07:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I too am curious as to what part, if any, IRC played in either the unblock of GSTS or the block of OM. Care to elaborate? R. Baley (talk) 07:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I vaguely remembered it being mentioned, but couldn't recall the context. Still, I don't care for sentiments being arrived at on IRC, and then carried out here with minimal foundation. R. Baley (talk) 07:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Compared to on-wiki, IRC-only decision-making tends to produce more inexplicably-bad results by a factor of ten. El_C07:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly certain you're misunderstanding. Lucas isn't saying that this blocked editor came on IRC to request an unblock. There is a channel set up on IRC with a bot that alerts admins in real time when a user uses an {{unblock}} template on their talk page. From how I understand his comment, all he means is that he is verifying that they were on the channel and that the admin asked the other admins there about it before unblocking. (I haven't been following this debate, though; no opinion in that.) Dmcdevit·t08:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thanks for adding the lock to the Yasser Arafat article. I was wondering if you could re-add it with perhaps an expiration date of 3-7 days. After the lock was expired, the page two more times. It wasn't even outright vandalism like "Arafat was bloodthirsty terrorist", they changed the Arabic scripts and slightly moved his year of birth, things other users wouldn't have identified as vandalism. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you show it's part of a concerted attack, I'm unsure it'll help. High exposure entries are subject to a steady stream of vandalism. El_C20:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think?
Maybe I'm smoking dope here? When there's someone who has been recently blocked for crap, who is a single purpose account for editing KKK, and who uses the anti-Semitic "Jew Comedian", am I just so supposed to ignore it and move on? I guess I'm a "Jew Doctor", and I should live with it. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions01:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to take unilateral action, but I'm hesitant in undermining Raymond Arritt. I would have acted more heavy handedly, certainly. El_C04:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting frustrated with this issue. Do your realize there are admins and editors who think that calling a card-carrying member of the KKK a racist is uncivil??? I hate to say this, but I have fired individuals who have made racist comments, I fired a sales rep whose myspace had pictures of her Neo-Nazi skinhead boyfriend, and I slugged a superior officer in the Navy for calling me a Jew Doctor (yeah, I got into trouble, but you can't allow that crap). I don't just say I fight racism, I fight racism with a passion. If I were 10 years younger, I would have been walked with Andrew Goodman, and maybe died with him. Oh, yeah, he was killed by the KKK too. When I see other editors (see User talk:Hersfold) supporting this evil, just because he "may be nice" and I should "assume good faith", I want to scream. OK, I'm ranting. It's not like I can call up my fellow "Jew Doctors" and chat with them about anti-Semitism on Wikipedia, because it would take hours to explain. :) Thanks for listening. What would Che do? OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions18:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a disgrace. While on the one hand, it useful to know who these enablers are instead of having them lurk under a shadow; on the other hand, how does one interact with such persons after? Better not to, under any circumstance. El_C17:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a huge disgrace. Did you see what was written here on my user talk page? I had a very pointed reply, but I would hope someone would kick this guy's ass. Uber. Hmmmm. Very German. Living in California, I just don't hear much anti-Semitism. Hearing it again from enablers and racists and idiots is just sad.OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions18:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Enablers are, at best, morally weak; they don't deserve the dignity of a direct response, although that's what they're after. El_C19:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I changed the caption on the photo of Jin Jing because the first reference was to a video clip, and its interpretation qualifies as original research. The second reference is to a very biased news story. Therefore, I thought it best to merely state the facts - Jin Jing, with the torch, pro-Tibet protester being restrained. What do you reckon? Dancarney (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El_C! As you have probably noticed, I try to stay away from controversial articles in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, mainly because editors today ain't what they used to be. I have noticed that everyone nowadays prefers to edit-war instead of reaching compromises and settling things on the talk page. However, as someone who voted for Lieberman and plans to do so again, I will try to balance out the article, which I think is unfair overall. Hope to avoid any edit wars. Anyway, I'm glad to hear from you again, maybe we can improve this aritcle together. -- Ynhockey(Talk)13:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good to have you back. For now, I'm limiting my role to keeping the edit wars at bay, with limited success. That, and some, apparently, terrible translation skills! El_C14:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I stand behind all my translations, including that one sentence/word which I contend is perfectly fine (I was not persuaded by —nor was I able to even entirely follow— your rather eclectic argument, I'm afraid). For a very partial list of some of my translations, see User:El_C/IDF. El_C17:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano II
Yes maybe you can lend a hand - I've never been more insulted by what a Wikipedian has said. Giano II has indeed made some very degrading and slurring remarks. Lradrama17:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you tell him that the matter has been decided, but it hasn't been decided. So why can't he participate in the decisionmaking? El_C17:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RFA thanks
Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e17:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The additions and move look great. I don't have the time at the moment to expand this to where it needs to be, so I'm glad you've taken this under your wing! I hope to pitch in again at some later date. Cheers, T L Miles (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I explained the error in my edit summary. The Senators sent him a letter on Apr. 10 asking him to resign within two days (did not vote). Then, on Apr. 12, they voted to remove him. Add to that the fact that one of the sources supposedly covering these events is dated Apr. 7! Given that I don't think particularly think his removal merits mention in an article on the global food crisis, and certainly not pride of place in the paragraph, I didn't see why I should go to the trouble to clean up that mess, so instead I reworked it the way I thought best: mention that prices have risen by about 50%, that this led to rioting in Apr. 2008, and that Preval announced a price cut for rice backed by international aid subsidies. Those are the details that seem relevant to me in the context of that article. Everyking (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? It took me 10 seconds to correct that error. Yes, it is a global crisis, but this was a section about Haiti, specifically. El_C11:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was another source being used, from Al Jazeera, that was Apr. 7, but you removed it. If you want this detail in the article, that's fine by me, but I do think you should give it less priority in the paragraph. I think the rise in prices, outbreak of rioting and reduction of rice prices are all more significant for the purposes of the article. Everyking (talk) 12:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think starting off with that benefits the structure, it doesn't necessarily give it priority. But by all means, feel free reorder it, if you wish. *** Okay, I see what you mean now; it looks like that source was a left over copy-paste from the Alexis article. I've since removed it as less than pertinent for our immediate purposes. El_C12:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may not be aware of this, but this article - to which you are a major contributor - has been nominated as a featured article candidate by manchurian candidate - though it does not yet appear to be ready for FAC. Perhaps you could comment on the FAC page? Thanks, --ROGER DAVIEStalk15:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thx, I don't usualy participate in these processes, but I'll be glad to respond if asked something specific. El_C19:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although I did not author it, as the name of the policy, it makes sense for it to be capitalized as such. Hope that answers your question. El_C22:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I think you do not understand WP policy regarding Capitalization. Please go back and Read it. You will then, I think acknowledge that I'm correct. Ludvikus (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Generalization is not helpful. Didn't you notice that (1) the 2nd word of an expression is not capitalized on Wikipedia? And (2) that only a proper name, or title of a book, movie, etc. is? The titles of Wikipedia article are not to have their 2nd word capitalized. If you disagree, at least show me that you understand me, please. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Complementing the task already assigned to you in the directive of January 24, 1939, to undertake, by emigration or evacuation, a solution to the Jewish question as advantageous as possible under the conditions at the time, I hereby charge you with making all necessary organizational, functional, and material preparations for a complete solution of the Jewish question in the German sphere of influence in Europe. Insofar as the jurisdiction of other central agencies may be touched thereby, they are to be involved. I charge you furthermore with submitting to me in the near future an overall plan of the organizational, functional, and material measures to be taken in preparing for the implementation of the aspired final solution of the Jewish question".
Earlier today you moved moved Jewish question (disambiguation) to On the Jewish Question (disambiguation) and left an edit summary that said "fix double redirect". That is not how you fix double redirects. Since you immediately moved the page again, you severely complicated the process of moving the page back to where the MOS says it should be. If you don't know how to fix double redirects, please find someone who does. Moving pages inadvisedly, especially repeated moves can cause problems that are hard to fix. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I notice it's been moved multiple times by other admins since my original move. I'll let them handle it, then. El_C08:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you spent no time on the above. If you work on it, as I hope too also, maybe we can resolve some misunderstandings. It seems to me that this is related to at least 3 concepts/notions/ideas/terms whatever you want to call them. But here they are as I see them: (1) Jewish disabilities which were inheritated from the Middle Ages, (2) Jewish emancipation of the Ninteenth Century wereby Jews were in the process of acquiring civil and citizenship rights rights mostly in response to the French Revolution, and (3) the pejorative sense associated with anti-Semitism. This is the sense of the question: "what is to be done with the Jews"? I don't know what you think on all that - but if you work on the related article this related artcle much friction can be avoided. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I read it, at least recently. Sure, I may look in to it. In answer to your question: some of my own thoughts with respect to the Jewish Question, and in particular, the reasons Jews tend to be overrepresented both in capitalist and socialist circles, can be read here. El_C08:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above FIFTY books is my Gift/Present to you, comrade. I hope it will help you get over your suspicions regarding myself. Remember that Wikipedia requires by its policy that we Assume Good Faith. I hope you enjoy "reading" these 50 books (so to speak). And I give you a little puzle: where, among of these 50 volumes, is the text On The Jewish Question?
I'm so proud of this article that I want to tell you that I wrote it all by myself.
I suspect you're unaware of the discussion bearing on the article(s) in question. I would welcome your views there whether or not they happen to agree with mine. But I do not appreciate your simply removing a tag/notice of mine because you do not agree with me. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On talking to the wall, or should I say, On Talking to The Wall?
Just punning. Or maybe not (there may be something to the above relevant to us).
I've only now discovered that you were talking to me in the middle of the page. I wish would have let me know earlier. Anyway, I'll study more carefully what you have written above later.
It seems we've failed to communicate.
I would like it very much if you visit all the relevant pages and consider what bearing they have with respect to one another. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You keep adding sections to my talk page at a fairly high rate, and largely in succession (all of which I have responded to, incidentally), so I'd rather keep those centralized. A cursory glance at the page's table of content would reveal this, however. El_C22:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand. You mean your changes? I'm afraid I don't find them to be of high-quality. In order of appearence:
You add this "The Final Solution" as bold word alongside the first bolded word: "Final Solution" — that seems redundant and confusing.
You use italics for "solution of the Jewish question in Europe," failing to stop at the ref, also leaving the quotes in place (i.e. instead of using one or the other). Also, the wikified use of "Führer" is not necessary.
Most signfiicantly, you break the flow of the lead paragraph, but superimposing the whole textual topic. Even though an English translation is provided in the caption, you just add that lengthy bit in there (if anything, it belongs in a section later in the body of the article).
You add that fact tag to "there was a discussion held by a group of German Nazi officials to decide on the 'Final Solution of the Jewish Question'" — what's that about.
As a result, the article looks much more sloppy, disjointed and confusing. Sorry. I'll try to fix it, however. Hope it will meet your approval El_C11:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you ckeck out my latest? It's on Bruno Bauer's essay. I'm very interested in your observations/contributions. Please check it out. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a discussion on it (the above) here: [23]Ludvikus (talk)
You removed (or rather, hid as well as inexplicably added nowiki tags to) my disambiguation note, which everyone else seemed to have agreed with, and then you re-add your own note, which has seen some objections. Immediately prior, you changed The Holocaust in said disambig note to lowercase (the Holocaust), which is a mistake. All without a proper explanation. So, when User:The way, the truth, and the light reverted back to my version, but neglected to the fix the lowercase t, well, in that event, I fixed just what's remained in need of fixing. Thus, my agreement with him reverting back to my dismbig note, which you hid without comment, should be seen to be implied. El_C21:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Template text redactedListen, Ludvikus, you simply cannot copy and paste correspondence sent to you by another contributors without proper attrbution. Sorry, but it's just common sense. Here I was about to ask Malik Shabazz why he is sending me a prod template for an article I never edited nor commented on its talk page, only to realize on second glance that he didn't send it to me, but you dod. Please don't do this again. As an aside, myself, I prefer personal notes, anyway, such as 'remember this article I mentioned to you? It has been prod'ed'. El_C21:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Are you sure blocking Rama was the best course of action? Although use of rollback during edit disputes has been increasingly frowned upon, to block a fellow admin over it without warning is excessive, I feel. [Unless I missed something —I only glanced at the incident] Best, El_C12:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It could be excessive and I have no problem with unblocking him of course since he's not involved with the issues there. We've just had a friendly exchange of emails where I explained to him my reasons (why using rollback for reverting a content dispute is not a good idea). However, since blocks are preventive (assuming Rama is not causing disruption- the case of Jaakobou and PR is apart) I believe that there is no reason why to keep him blocked. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 12:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sounds sensible. I'll unblock, then. Incidentally, I support the two other blocks, good call. I'd likely have done the same thing. El_C12:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with your undiscussed move is that there are many other Umm Kulthums, including her namesake, a daughter of Muhammad. Thus, it wasn't clear who was the most notable, although at this moment the singer is very famous. Badagnani (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you had a problem with my uncontroversial move you should have said so months ago (all you said was h), instead of now grasping at straws with "at this moment" [=~half a century(!)], and omitting 'most famous' (by far). Obviously, the main name should go to this person. El_C20:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apolgoize to you for having come across more aggressively and forecfuly than I intended. That said, those other names tend to be known in translated languages as "Umm Kulthum+[somthing]." Usage in all other language Wikipedias conforms to this. El_C11:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Best way of doing it?
Hi,
What is the best way of catching the readers' attention to the potential dangers?
Hello. First, writing about it calmly, with a neutral tone, as is the case in the Close approaches section and citing reliable sources. If the dangers are somehow greatly overlooked (which I'm not convinced they are), then maybe add a bit more about these to the lead. But emphases that look urgent, alarmist, or even hysterical, are inherently problematic. Thanks in advance. El_C20:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This Karl_Marx#On_The_Jewish_Question topic may have been discussed before, but as the only Jewish Marxist I know, I thought you should weigh in with an opinion. I believe that there is insufficient reason to remove the discussion regarding Karl Marx. I've had a bad day. I had an Indian physician accuse me of "Jewing" on a contract. I've always had a strong distaste for that type of language.OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions06:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's been discussed many times; I no longer have the strengh to engage in it for te 20th time. Any mention, if at all, should be brief. Because:
The mature Marx did not revisit to this topic, not even in a brief study. So, why should Wikipedia devote many lengthy paragarphs to it.
Why should these paragraphs (mostly quote; entire paragraphs of quotes) be so one-sided, shouldn't there be balance [i.e. would an African revolutionary be condemed as a self-hated if s/he were to say "N-[words] are afraid of revolution"? Or, wouldn't the qualification that Marx brings up in "On the Jewish Question," that he is not speaking about the religious ("Sabbath") Jews, be worth including?]
More professional bourgois encyclopedias, such Britannica or Columbia, which are of course anti-Marx, wouldn't even have a mention of this topic, due to the fact that Marx, in tens upon tens of thousands of pages of published work, barely touched on the topic. The only time he did was either in his youth, in scarce mention (that can really be coutned on one hand) scattered in two-three personal letters.
All that as per reason. As for the anti-Marx POVs dominating the article and section, it is axiomatic that they... this sentence finishes itself. El_C11:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New Project
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. "-" The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I cannot commit to being available every day or even every week, and when I am around, I tend be already flooded with requests. El_C11:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amor, our black and white cat, whom I have mentioned, sneaked into our bedroom when my wife opened the door at 6am. An hour later I heard the faintest squeak, squeak but kept my counsel. As we got up an hour later I heard sensed more squeakishness but still remained silent. Now everyone knows and they have been moved to the baby suite. Thanks, SqueakBox23:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes well gatito2 is the one who looks like her Mum, and Kitty and Amor are dead ringers, IMHO, as I mentioned before, but apparently Amor didn't want her pic taken this morning. Anyway consider this a mission in process. Thanks, SqueakBox21:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, looking forward to the rest. I just want to kissy him right now! Keep up the great work! El_C21:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Email blocks
Hey, El C. Just a reminder that email should not be disabled as a default when blocking accounts. Per the blocking policy, email should only be disabled in response to abuse of the email function. Thanks, - auburnpilottalk20:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to automatically block email in the case of vandalism-only accounts with no substantive contributions. The odds of them suddenly deciding to send emails that serve a purpose are nearly nil. The odds of them spamming the email account of the person blocking them with ream upon ream of hate mail is relatively high. (I know... I get it regularly.) El_C21:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately this is stated quite explicitly in the blocking policy. If you believe we should change our approach to disabling email, I suggest opening a discussion on one of the WP:PUMPs or on the blocking policy talk page. Until then, however, it is against policy to preemptively disable the email function. Thanks, - auburnpilottalk22:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I can amend the policy to make it a bit less inflexible, if the discrepancy bothers you so much (and I gather it has, since you've been mentioning a lot lately). But, I'm going to use my discretion regardless. Thanks for your concern, have a good day. El_C02:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Country links
Hi El C., i'm very sorry for adding these links to the Wikpedia country sites. I didn't know that there are other wikipedia's in other languages! If I find any country websites that are in other languages other than english, i'll make sure they have an english link to it, if not I won't add them. Once again, i'm sorry. Take care.
Thanks. Just make sure to add a more descriptive title. Basically, just state who the author/entity is behind the site and what its purpose. El_C09:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kabul
I added a more appropiate pictur to Eduction section in Kabul article but you are reverting my edits because your brains are misleading you to think that I did the change of the pic for Islam reason. This is not the case. The older picture is appropiate inside Kabul University because it shows the indside of Kabul University and the same picture is included already there. Mines, however, shows the outside of Kabul Medical University, and the Education section is too small to add 2 pics. Since the main article is about "Kabul" it looks good if we add images that show buildings from the outside if such are available. The inside pics look good in articles that are about the buildings. The Kabul article already has a close-up picture of Afghan women at "Demographic" section, it looks bad to keep showing women's faces in every section. My purpose is to help make articles look professional.--Bistiks (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's happening? I cannot find the text, or use the "undo", so I don't know what's happening. Can you inform me please? --Ludvikus (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "lynching" comment has been removed at my discretion and the editor in question was warned not to repeat such attacks. El_C20:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did I exaggerate at WP:ANI? Imagine him playing these games at the Talk pages of half a dozen articles (because he wants to rename them all) and on the Talk pages of 4 or 5 editors. — Malik Shabazz (talk·contribs) 23:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ludvikus is continuing his incessant attempts to create confusing article, DABS,, etc and proposing a stream of confusing merges, moves etc, plus the usual disruptions of talk pages trying to force his unusual ideas through. In any case, he seems to be violating the move probation hereand here.BoodlesthecatMeow?00:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, it doesn't inspire confidence. I'm willing to overlook moves of entries where he is the only contributor (still, he should have asked). El_C00:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't Moved anything. What are you talking about? The only restriction you gave me was - don't Move! What have I Moved? Oh - you mean rename my own Article? Is that it? --Ludvikus (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. I understand that. However, there was no one working on it yet. Do you mean that if I make a mistake in the name of a stub I create, I cannot change it any more? --Ludvikus (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I need your attention on WikiSkeptic (talk·contribs)'s incivility and personal attacks toward other editors. I first noticed him for his personal attack comment pointing at me[24] at the talk page of the indefinitely banned user's WP:SSP case which I filed.Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Azukimonaka Then he suddenly appeared to take interests in Japan-Korea related articles[25] which I also edited earlier and has been also on my watchlist. I also noticed that he also attacked Flying tiger (talk·contribs) not only at edit summaries of articles and at other user's page. This user has been warned for his extreme incivility and personal attacks. So I need admin's attention. Thanks.--Appletrees (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the caring. I had to report the case at ANI for seeking an immediate action after I reported here to you and found that he searched for his help from admins and an editor who is not related to his case. I really appreciate your time and effort.--Appletrees (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not WP:RM, and anyway, this article seem redundant, a duplicate — unless it's is used to as an undue weight vehicle to promote your World Without Jews title. El_C21:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm extremely surprised you have not expressed yourself on the current issue of the "t"'s in the above article! Are you for, or against the Move: ... T ... → t ? --Ludvikus (talk) 09:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you still adding (poor-quality) edits that have been reverting over and over again? This is becoming highly disruptive. I have not expressed myself about the T vs. t because I have no opinion, or much interest, about the matter. El_C21:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Block of Ludvikus
Curious: Was there a specific reason you chose 2 years? Or just that it was "more than 6 months"? - jc3710:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to suggest that it either be a single year or indef, deferring to your experience of the editor in question. 2 years seems like a bit of a jump.
But thinking about it now, (and since I'm somewhat "late-to-the-game"), I think I'll just directly defer to your experience : )
Hello El C. Could you please indef move-protect this article? There's a dispute over the title, and some users will apparently ignore the result of the recent move proposal and still attempt to unilaterally enforce their views. I would move-protect the article myself, but I participated in the move discussion, so I thought I should ask you. Regards, Húsönd12:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I left Desione a note to respect move request results. Therefore, I'm a bit hesitant to act on that (move protection) now, after having cautioned him on that, but will do so if and/or when another undiscused move takes place. So, I'm inclined to wait and see, but not for long! El_C12:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the name "Invasion of Goa" is NOT a consensus name. Somebody made the move successfully when no one was watching. The original name of the article is "Liberation of Goa" and I am simply restoring the original. The most common english name for this event is "Liberation of Goa" and I have presented evidence for this on the talk pages. Desione (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am still waiting for your response regarding the previous undiscussed move of this article to title "Invasion of Goa" Thanks. Desione (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. But the title that was there at the time —Portuguese-Indian War / Goa Liberation— is not a proper title (and I'm deleting it as a redirect). According to the latest move request, the consensus seems to be that Invasion is the most common English. Moreover, you seem to have been the only editor in that discussion supporting (and initiating) the move request. Sorry. El_C12:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The way I understood it is that the consensus was NOT on changing name to "Liberation of Goa" rather on being on keeping name as "Invasion of Goa". Given that there was no discussion on changing name to "Invasion of Goa" on the first place (and no evidence regarding Invasion of Goa being the common name was given at the time), may I suggest reverting to "Portuguese-Indian War / Goa Liberation". "Portuguese-Indian War / Goa Liberation" is the wrong title, but it would allow for a proper debate as to what the name should be as the current name is their not by consensus. Desione (talk) 08:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed this situation and commented accordingly on the user's talk page. I have had little interaction with this user, but from my vantage point, this user has an agenda, and that includes not working within the community so as to push it. Since it is an especially incendiary agenda that seems to involve living persons, I see an indefinite block as the only eventual next step, but will, in your spirit, acquiesce to the two years, provided that he does not aggravate the situation or create sockpuppets. - CobaltBlueTony™talk15:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I greatly appreciate you having taken the time to review the matter. Absolutely, I am more than happy (read: relieved) to have you take the administrative lead from now on, since, as you can no doubt gather, it's been an exhausting one! El_C15:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to burden you with this matter further, but the user is asking for concise explanations again. Can you provide individual diffs of each individual time the user was warned of behavior or policy on his or any other talk page? I would like the record to be consolidated and clear. At your earliest convenience, of course. - CobaltBlueTony™talk17:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'I won't even begin to try to collect evidence of how many times he has been warned about everything that is discussed there.' Before I spend hours of my time getting the permanent links, go through his talk page from beginning to end, go through my talk page from beginning to end (there's +20 comments from him starting here), then let me know if you still have questions. This line of argument is not unusual for him: "You're too general. Be specific.";" If you don't agree with me then (1) be specific"; "Please be more specific"; "I request that you be specific"; "without any specifics, is DISRUPTIVE in the extreme." This is what he says when various users explain to him that there are problems with his approach to editing. (ctrl f. "specific"; it's all from his talk page) How is it that all these different editors are out to get him with unsupported generalities? Thanks. El_C21:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you consent to an unbiased review of Ludvikus' current block (I don't know where this actually occurs, but I doubt such a procedure is absent from Wikipedia administration)? I would like it to either 1) be solidified in his mind as to the severity of his actions by reason of neutral party affirmation of your administrative action against him; or 2) if there is room for leniency/temperance due to his claims of complete ignorance being accurate, that such be afforded to him. (Though I have a feeling he does know how to follow others' contributions; when he learned this, I cannot say.) I would prefer to keep you out of this aggravation, but I think you would automatically be pulled in anyway, and I would prefer you to be aware waaaay beforehand. - CobaltBlueTony™talk16:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Never mind. - CobaltBlueTony™talk[reply]
Tony, the block was already brought to the attention of the entire community on WP:AN/I. Lots of us have been observing Ludvikus' behavior for a couple years now, and some have only been observing for a few days and came to pretty much the same conclusion. We've bent over backwards to try to work with him, to little avail. If you want, bring it up again on AN/I. Usually, the {{unblock}} template brings in uninvolved admins; he's used it once. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆16:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
?? Why did you strike out your previous comment? Anyway, after a few days the AN/I listing rolled off (no responses in 24 hours.) My last entry on that topic was [27]. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆17:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I deemed it no longer appropriate. I've overextended myself for this user, only to find ample evidence of the extremity of his abuses after the fact. I was lulled by his change in tone, and was unaware of some apparently basic search tools which would have afforded me an accurate history of the events which have led up to the grotesqueness of the whole thing. Moreover, I wanted my request to appear as retracted, but left there so El_C would know what we were continuing to talk about. I would not blame him if he deleted or archived this thread once it has become inactive. - CobaltBlueTony™talk17:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RFA Thanks
Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Oh, and I love the fractals on your talk page, not to mention the sporadic appearance of a certain Kitty… Best, Risker (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Her tacit, and occasionally explicit, support of the racist code-words of others is getting out of hand. I see you've posted to Swatjester's page, but she's not stopping. It's offensive. I don't tolerate racism and anti-Semitism in any form. I'm rather black and white about it, so if I blow a blood vessel soon with some of her code-word racism, I hope you sit shiva for me. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions17:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response from closed ANI discussion
You're ignoring what the actual issue is here and furthering the inane responses that are not helping the situation. We have two articles: White pride and White power. This is obviously a distinction, by definition, and by our own article's. Calling others who think (you actually said: it is mostly racists who draw the distinction) there is a distinction racist, is in reality calling all the editors who would never merge these two articles racist. A strong stance, and in fact, an ignorant one. I don't have your talk page watchlisted. Regards. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is ignorant, rather, to ignore its crypto-racist content. A distinction can be popularized by racists, why not? We have many such articles. El_C08:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see you commenting intelligently on this extremely sensitive issue. Certainly coming face to face with those people in the first pic at the white pride article would, IMHO, leave many people feeling very intimidated, me included. Thanks, SqueakBox13:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Anti-Defamation League does not make the distinction. Of course, I can hear the racists say, "yeah but that's a bunch of Jews." Racism, even couched in pretty language, is still racism. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions16:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It takes an intellectual error of epic proportions to even argue that there is a difference between those two words. My God, these are the admins tasked with overseeing the whole of WP and they are supporting a difference? Baegis (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I take it from the innuendo in SynergeticMaggot's response ("Stop crying," "get over yourself," etc.) that he is done moving my comments (?). It certainly appears that he feels he somehow has a special entitlement to, not only move my comments, but also conduct himself ... less than admirably. I advised him to "try to exercise restraint", but I fear that that comment, too, will be rollbacked. What can I say? He has definitely been discourteous to me throughout, with markedly negative and combative tone. El_C03:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SynergeticMaggot's reply that I "take my own advise" (regarding restraint) inspires little confidence — since I'm not the one moving his comments (thereby effectively censoring them, by placing them outside their context), or resorting to attacks & innuendo. El_C03:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, where have I attacked you? I've only expressed an opinion. Clearly you are more heated than I, and I'm seeing any further post to your talk page is just another "attack", so I won't take this any further. I wish you well and best regards from SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that you're projecting, since: I did not move your edits; I did not call your edits "crap"; I did not tell you to "stop crying" or to "get over yourself" or "thank you for calling me a racist" (which I did not). Thx for the well wishes, however! El_C04:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Roundheads
Hey El C - I see you were doing some stuff on the Roundheads page earlier today. I've played around with it some more and tried to add clarification. If you have a moment to take a look a tell me what you think and/or make improvements, I'd be grateful.Bedesboy (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to know back in May 2007 you closed an RFA for PeeJay2K3 here, can you confirm you did this or did the candidate withdraw their nom.? Its just that on the page nothing is stated. Guess you must have forgotten. Just want to know for reference purposes to add to the list of Unsuccessful RFAs thats all. Its happened a couple of time where a user has closed an RFA and forgot to add it to the list. Thanks Roadrunnerz45(talk 2 me)13:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot recall, but it looks like I closed it early to spare the candidate the grief of a pile on. El_C14:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I forget the policy - is this the kind of joke people are welcome to make on their userpages, or is this the kind of thing that gets reported to AN/I or Jimbo? Slrubenstein | Talk10:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Funny thing, I suggested that you drop by here on this topic when you asked on my talk page. This kind of humor is offensive. I don't know where the line is between mocking Hitler in Springtime for Hitler in The Producers (musical) and seemingly bragging that one is best buddies with Hitler with no sign of sarcasm, but in my mind the former is hysterical (and of course written by a Member of the Tribe), and the latter is just offensive and possibly anti-semitic. This has been dealt with in the past, I can't remember with whom, but it was a top editor here who felt a joke about Hitler's treatment of Jews was appropriate on his user page. Maybe an AN/I to make this person (who is a disruptive editor) and his picture go away. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions12:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is NOT short for Hazard and Operability Analysis, it is short for Hazard and Operability Studies. You are confusing it with Hazan, which is Hazard Analysis. See T. A. Kletz (1983) Hazop and Hazan IChemE, Rugby. Can you please correct the title and heading? Chemical Engineer (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While it is a specialized work (online link added ^), I'm uncertain to what extent the distinction is prevalent in the field. Certainly, there's no shortage of our current usage. (see for eg. the highlighted portion in the International Encyclopedia of Ergonomics and Human Factors) El_C23:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What can I say? Hazop was developed in ICI, and ICI's Safety Officer, Trevor Kletz in the first authoritative publication, stated that it stood for Hazard and Operability Studies. It became standard practice in the UK chemical and process industries, and was eventually taken up by the USA. Perry's Chemical Engineer's Handbook (7th ed, 1997) says (page 26-9) "HAZOP stands for "hazard and operability studies"." Other authorities say the same - Lees' Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Ludwig's Handbook of Applied Process Design for Chemical and Petrochemical Plants, etc. I do not accept that a passing comment in an ergonomics book outranks accepted practice in chemical engineering. Chemical Engineer (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was just a random example; the usage seems widespread enough, also in chemical engineering circles. (see for eg. p. 377 of the 7th World Congress of Chemical Engineering compilation (2005)) As a non-expert, and as someone who did not write the aforementioned article/s (all I did was move the title to conform with the full {{pagename}}, rather the abbreviation — it should be made clear that I am not the author), I'm not comfortable making that change without a more detailed explanation. Failing that, perhaps you can bring in more experts (who are editors here) to this discussion, as this goes beyond the scope of my expertise. El_C21:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This can easily be put right. Put the page back to Hazop, which is the proper heading. By creating the new page and link, you are asserting that your title is the proper one, and Hazop is some kind of casual abbreviation. You have not proven to my satisfaction that googling overwrites history We now have the situation of an acronym standing in its own right. When used adjectivally it means 'Hazard and Operability' e.g. Hazop review, Hazop team, Hazop Analysis. However it is used as a noun. For your information the original abbreviation was HAZOPS, for Hazard and Operability Study, but its apparent plurality led to people talking about "a Hazop". I will then be happy to add information about usage of the term as well as the technique, which I cannot do while the title contradicts it. Chemical Engineer (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is more than one way to pronounce it and enough confusion (see the first section of the talk page) for a note. Feel free to modify or discuss it if you'd like. 67.181.62.180 (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not that. It looks like I made a technical error and hit the wrong button. My apologies. El_C06:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please compare the disputed text with the references. To give a quick example:
From wiki:
"Mr. Li differentiated himself from other qigong masters by wrapping his regimen in a cosmology that promises salvation through the refinement of one's character until the body literally evolves into another form of matter. At that point, the saved person is capable of flying to paradise, which may exist out in the cosmos, or in another dimension.
He said interracial children are the spawn of the Dharma Ending Period, a Buddhist phrase that refers to an era of moral degeneration. In an interview last year, he said each race has its own paradise, and he later told followers in Australia that, The yellow people, the white people, and the black people have corresponding races in heaven. As a result, he said, interracial children have no place in heaven without his intervention."
"Mr. Li differentiated himself from other qigong masters by wrapping his regimen in a cosmology that promises salvation through the refinement of one's character until the body literally evolves into another form of matter. At that point, the saved person is capable of flying to paradise, which may exist out in the cosmos, or in another dimension.
He said interracial children are the spawn of the Dharma Ending Period, a Buddhist phrase that refers to an era of moral degeneration. In an interview last year, he said each race has its own paradise, and he later told followers in Australia that, The yellow people, the white people, and the black people have corresponding races in heaven. As a result, he said, interracial children have no place in heaven without his intervention."
The whole lot is copied verbatim. Note the italics in the second version. That's because when you copy and paste the text directly from browser, that's how the formatting comes out. The second is a c&p from the BBC link provided; not a reliable source anyway, but also violating copyright. Please remedy.--Asdfg1234508:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have removed the NYT and BBC copyvios (i.e. the entire section). El_C08:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed you putting protection on a bunch of deleted talk pages as "Grawp related". It's ultimately none of my business, but unless this is secret/private, would you mind filling me in on what that's about? I'm curious. Reply at my talk page, if you'd be so kind. - Vianello (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing too mysterious, just what the (page-move vandal mentioned directly above) is calling himself. El_C08:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This person user:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog is going around wikipedia and deleting large chunks of information which is often sourced, and when I confront him with it he just ignores it and I think in what he writes and how he is doing it that he is enjoying it to delete lots of information about nazi crimes the most obvious deletions can be seen in the General plan Ost article where he has deleted gigantic chunks of sourced information. And he also deletes comments on the discussion page of articles.
I am not a stalker I am just restoring GIGANTIC massive enromous amounts of information that has been deleted by this person who if you look at his edits and see what he writes such as "John Freeman looked around the countrysides and said "its a good day to do what has to be done by me and help my brother to defeat the enemys" in the edit box can clearly see what he is about namely covering up nazi crimes and calling anyone who does not like it and support the cover up for crazy and a stalker Aheadnovel55 (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the content front: one needs to be prepared to explain their edits, that's not optional (i.e. revert warring instead) most definitely if they involve massive changes, especially if they involve an entire set of articles, and most especially if the general subject is controversial. Bold, revert, discuss is the collaborative approach I would like to see. That also means that the person doing the reverting is actually asking specific enough questions, and dispassionately (i.e. as opposed to bad faith assumptions about information being removed for nefarious reasons), such as: 'what did you try to do with this or that series of edits.' What about this or that content which is now removed from the article/s?' On the conduct front: insults are just out —that includes calling your opponent a Nazi— as are counterinsults. I'm tempted to block you both for truly pitiful behaviour. It has to stop right now. Start discussing the content, stop reverting, and maybe slow down on the massive changes related to this subject until communication gets of the ground. I'll be watching. G'luck. El_C08:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not call him a nazi, I asked if he was one and supports their actions and he said yes, but he DID call me a moron and refuses to have any constructive dialog, so what am I to do about the massive deletions of nazi war crimes, also is it ok for him to delete the sourced information as he has done in all the articles, is that ok? Aheadnovel55 (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was close enough; but, regardless, it doesne't look you've attempted to engage the user in a serious disvussion at any stage. El_C05:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request for advice
Some time ago I was blocked for allegedly breaking civilty under Digwuren ArbCom decision (about which you made me aware some months ago) . Wikipedia Admin Rlevse has noted this block on the log of that ArbCom with the following comment: for racist and disruptive comments. While some could claim I was uncivil (although I think I was civil in the context of European urban common sense), I find highly offensive the allegation that I'm a racist. I consider that this was only because personal attacks bya blocked sockpuppet of banned User:Bonaparte, such as these : [30], [31]. This allegation was not supported neither by my blocker, nor by my block reviewer, and if someone could find any proof of racist attitude or comment coming from me, I'll gladly accept the note in that log. However, since no proof was given, I think that severe accusation seriously damages my reputation, and encourages other who don't like me to use it (like User:Rapido in this edit and this summary - user who, by the way, is very nervous about my request to check him against above mentioned banned Bonaparte: see the last link). I contacted Rlevse about this on his talk page, but until now, he didn't reply (even if he did reply to comments posted after mine). Where should I appeal so that the highly offensive remark proffered by Bonaparte and his likes,unjustly staining my reputation will be removed from that log?Xasha (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually not "very nervous" at all. Please ask someone to check me out; however I think Xasha should be checked out too as it's possible he might be inventing the whole "Bonaparte" thing himself. Xasha added me presumably because he doesn't like my edits... and that's it. He knows that my username sitting on that page will give me a bad reputation with sysops. And the only reason for him to be doing so is surely racism. I call him a "Tighinaphobe" because he will do whatever he can to suppress the one of the alternative names (Tighina) of the town Bendery. Why? Presumably because Romanians use the name and Russians don't. I can't see any other reason. This just starts tensions online - not something Moldovans need. I am happy to use both names in articles, however he currently continues to edit out reference to the name Tighina on the Battle of Cahul page (despite the fact that all the other towns in the paragraph have "now called..." after their names). He also keeps swapping the position of the names Tighina and Bender on a template page, despite that I was the first person to add the names to the article in that order and his supposed justification for the edits is that I am "pushing my opinions". Surely going around dozens of articles and changing Tighina to Bender or to Bendery is pushing an opinion too. But as for removing my name from the checkuser thing, well it just sat there for days, and no-one is bothering to check it. So check me out against Bonaparte, or even against Xasha. Rapido (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, make sure to see if Rlevse replied first; what do you mean "even if he did reply to comments posted after mine"? Yes, that is a serious charge and he is responsible for explaining what he meant by "racism," if he hasn't already (whether he did is up to you to find out). El_C08:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What does adding you to thatlist, even mistakingly, has to do with racism? (unless you mean vis.a.vis Bonaparte himself being racist) El_C08:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't explain it in his summary when he put the note on that log [32], nor he did when he told the blocking admin I should have been put on that log [33]. I meant that after I posted my comment on his talkpage, others posted their comments too (on unrelated matters). He did reply to these editors [34], but he didn't reply to the one posted by me. If he did explain it somewhere else, he should have at least pointed me to where he explained that. I tried to search on Wikipedia using the embedded search and using Google, but that log seems to be the only occasion in which he calls me a racist.Xasha (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the same user is still reverting, i have placed him on the 3 revert admin board, but i still think this page needs protection to stop this abuse. --Rockybiggs (talk) 10:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just that one ip? Because I'm just about ready to block that individual for edit warring (seeing as there's little —if any— efforts to talk). El_C11:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note further reverts have been done (another 3) with 2 diferrent IP address, i think the page does need protection from this vandal.--Rockybiggs (talk) 10:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello El C. I suspect you won't be able to control an IP-switching POV warrior with blocks. I suggest that you consider semi-protection for Indian Empire. This case was already at WP:AN3 due to the edit war, and that's how the full protection came about. To help justify the semi-protection, Rockybiggs should file an WP:SSP, in my opinion. The ANI thread justifying the indef block of DemolitionMan is here. EdJohnston (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as so far there's only two ips, we should try blocking them both first. But, I don't understand why it even needs to be a redirect. El_C18:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
-Zoom.jpg){kind=link}
