User talk:El C: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 15:51, 19 February 2008 editEl C (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators183,806 editsm →Ramot this time: instead opting to do so here, which is making me a bit weary, I confess← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:25, 19 February 2008 edit undoRobertert (talk \| contribs)199 edits →Ramot this time Next edit →
Line 884:		Line 884:
	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? --] (]) 13:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)		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? --] (]) 13:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:My strategy is for you to participate in the ] I set up. You've yet to make a single comment there, instead opting to do so here, which is making me a bit weary, I confess. ] 15:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)		:My strategy is for you to participate in the ] I set up. You've yet to make a single comment there, instead opting to do so here, which is making me a bit weary, I confess. ] 15:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
			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. --] (]) 18:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

	== Suicide Note ==		== Suicide Note ==

Revision as of 18:25, 19 February 2008

poetry

Why should poetry not be a slogan?

Why should poetry not be

biased

when life is not at all itself

For life's sake,

I expect a poem to be

a slogan

a dagger

a fist

and a bullet if necessary

If you have the capacity to tremble with indignation every time that an injustice is committed in the world, then we are comrades. – Che.

Archived Discussions

Archive 2 3 4 5 6

A note

I'm unsure if we've ever spoken before, and it seems to me that we contribute to rather orthogonal parts of the encyclopedia. It does, however, look like you might be stressed at the moment. Don't take it too hard, and remember that not everyone's against you. Hope you have a nice day. --Eyrian 18:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm just tired of double-standards and manipulation. As for my persecution complex, it's doing just fine, thank you very much! Regards, El_C 18:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Madore99

Uhm... His. My name is Zero-Drug, and Madore99 is my brother. He asked me to do this favour by posting this. He thinks that your block was unfair, especially because he received no warning and because the block he can't state his case, apparently. He would like to ask you, El_C, to email him to sort this out, or lift the block. He said there is a reasonable explanation behind his case, and was just wondering if you could contact him or "try to see how unfair it is". Well, thanks I guess. If you can't get in touch with him, please contact me. -Zero-Drug

Restoring edits from banned users

Policy seems to indicate that I can do so if I desire, from the WP:BAN "..Users that nonetheless reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for that content by so doing." Please considering restoring my edits". Respectfully, Navou 20:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the retraction. El_C 06:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

You are being recruited by the Money and Politics Task Force, a collaborative project committed to ensuring that links between government officials and private-sector resources are accurately displayed in relevant entries. Join us!

Cyrusc 16:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I commend you for this project and I will definitely have a look. Regards, 06:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Menudo

Please look into the battle that is going on regards my sourced info on menudo and gay sex and drugs that come from real sourced newspapers and letters by menudo kids and parents to the department of justice and the legal threats made by the Christopher R username. The article is accurate and please look into this Menudo I have placed a call to Jimbo wales cell and hope he calls saturday,--Blue5864 (talk) 04:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to issue the block on your account. Please read what I wrote to you regarding legal threats carefuly. Thanks. Regards, El_C 05:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi El C ... thank you for your help with this one. I'm trying to follow it too, having originally blocked Christopher R for legal threats. Now that both sides have made legal threats, it's become quite clear (at least to me) that Blue is presenting unacceptable and unreliably-sourced materal; in addition he appears to be a role account (see his long post from last night on his talk page). Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

For sure. It's difficult for me because I prefer straight-forward communication, whereas he's dumping pages and pages of text... El_C 15:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

El_C don't leave yet help me with the Menudo article so that is complies with Wiki policy. The stories are sourced and I am in communication with serveral admin via email who have offered to help if you cant but truly the links and Menudo info while scandal are accurate original PDF newspaper stories that reflect history not fiction. People should know what was printed when this international scandal broke. I did not wright this stuff respected reporters did and major publishers printed it. And do not forget the signed letter by MENUDO PARENTS THAT INLCUDED THE SIGNATURES OF MENUDO BOYS claiming Gay sex in Menudo and drugs. PDF original sourced info. Just guide me on this to make sure we do it right. Wiki nor I created these facts history did. Thanks in advance----Blue5864 (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am facing somewhat intensive persecution at the moment on several fronts, so I'm unable to assist you at this time. Sorry. El_C 19:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sceptre/Comment on ANI

"Just as an aside, I also took issues with Neutralhomer placing resolve tags on notices involving himself, but I'm pretty certain (though not positive) I'm not confusing him with Sceptre in this extension."

I am pretty sure you are confusing us, while I did comment on the ANI post about Sceptre, I didn't tag it as resolved and I don't have an opinion on the whole Fasach Nua/Sceptre/Doctor Who image discussion. My whole opinion was the diffs that Fasach Nua presented as Sceptre being disruptive. But I didn't tag it as resolved.

I hope that clears everything up. Take Care and Enjoy Your Weekend.....NeutralHomer 07:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, according to your talk page, you are up to 216KB and it runs slow when typing. Just letting ya know. :) Take Care...NeutralHomer 07:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it was definitely you, just another time. El_C 10:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh...no, it wasn't "definitely" me. Before you accuse me of something, check the diffs. - NeutralHomer 22:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It was, with Calton, a logn time ago. El_C 23:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, that was with Calton...long time ago. Doesn't mean that I tagged this one. You are accusing someone of something, where the diff says they didn't. Calton...months ago. Sceptre/Fasash Nua/ANI discussion...yesterday. - NeutralHomer 23:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to get to it soon! El_C 10:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now archived. Thanks again for the reminder! El_C 23:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop the vendetta against me. You had a point several months ago, but trying to disrupt an RfAr and reopening a thread that two neutral ~~admins~~ long term users (Neutralhomer and Jéské Couriano) agreed was resolved isn't on. I closed it as resolved because I thought the matter was actually resolved because I genuinely thought Fascha Nua was being disruptive, especially with the edits to the image page. Fascha's following post just looks like someone who's not getting their own way. Will 12:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no vendetta against you. Neither of these two individuals are admins, nor have they added anything of substance. As for your claims that I attempted to "disrupt an RfAr," I of course reject that outright, but feel free to submit such claims before the Committee, if you like. Finally, I wish to reiterate that you are to please refrain from closing threads that involve yourself on the admins' noticeboard. Thank you. El_C 15:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Jéské Couriano is an administrator. And the thread didn't involve me directly, I said I was a memeber of the DW project for transparency only, and I closed it because Fascha was being disruptive. Will 15:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I disapprove of your usage of the resolved tag, seeing how you are the one who speedily closed that IfD, it did involve yourself. El_C 15:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I closed it because it was on ANI, not the other way around. I also doubt that Fascha's knowledge of NFCC and its application to episode articles was that thorough - a scan of his contributions shows his only recent contributions to anything in the fiction scope were to that page and Tom Baker. Will 15:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of decorum and appearance of transparency, if for no other reason, you ought to let someone else close it. El_C 15:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Alexia Death

Hey there,

I've lifted the protection on User talk:Alexia Death to allow them to post an {{unblock}}. I'm going to be keeping a close eye on the page, and will reprotect if they step beyond that. — Coren 16:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

With an hour or so to go in the block, I unblocked her as I believe this should be discussed on AN/I. I know all these users have a complicated history; however I believe that "take a breather" for one revert of an ill-advised comment on a user talk page isn't a valid reason for a block, not when the user had only one previous block (overturned in any event).

Yes, I'm aware you and I have a history. I hold no grudge, however, as you were once nice enough to revert some vandalism to my userpage. The greater issue, however, is that we really need a clearer policy as to what sort of edits and reverts are permitted on user talk pages (a couple of other recent incidents have made this clear to me), otherwise we're going to have more of this. Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I am compared to Hitler, but you hold no grudge. I find that hard to believe. El_C 18:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll add your unblock to arbitration case, at any case. El_C 18:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're taking this a bit too personally, El_C. I've lifted the protection at the request of the editor so that they could request an unblock, as it was a reasonable request. This is unrelated to who you are or what any allegations are— and does not imply any sort of endorsement of the editor or place any legitimacy to their complaints. — Coren 20:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. An hour before its expiration is highly questionable. El_C 23:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Then you need to think again. Incidentally, I note you have not yet struck out that wild accusation of collusion to undermine you on the AN/I thread? I suppose it's a little bit my fault; I might have put a little too much diplomatic sugar coating and given the impression that I had made a request that you withdraw that statement. — Coren 07:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Easy Coren. El C is a friend, and I am sure we can sort this out. - Jehochman 07:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I need to think again? I don't think so. Incidentally, I spoke about the timing of unproteting and unblocking within the last hour out of 24 (1 of 24) being somewhat remarkable, and I still think it is, but I made no outright accusation of collusion and secretive conspiracy, which I hardly think is likely. And I don't see why I owe you an apology and not the other way around. You certainly were quick to dismiss my hurt feeling ("taking it a bit too personally" being your immediate response). So, no, you do not get the moral high ground of an apology from me; as in me saying it's mostly my fault and only "a little bit fault." I don't think it's the case, so I'm not going to be pressured into saying that. El_C 10:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hang in there

At times this place can seem like a cross between an insane asylum and something out of a Kafka novel. Hang in there, but please don't take things seriously enough to cause you stress. It's not real life. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I feel like I'm in some sort of a Kafka novel. El_C 23:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies

Hi EL_C, I am sorry I made that comment on the incedent board. I seriously don't know all the details about the recent article about a mailing list and I probably don't want to since its so involved. It just goes to show how feelings can be hurt when an editor doesn't know all the details involved in a dispute and then chimes in. Again, it was written at an attempt at humor but I did see an editor after me took it seriously and even used a "ya, thats right" comment to follow up mine which was uncalled for since I was just being tongue in cheek. I actually thought about using a ";)" or a "j/k" (just kidding) but couldn't see how anybody could take me seriously, but I was WRONG. Again, please accept my apology and if anybody wants me to restate that for the record, they can visit me. The last thing I want to do is upset a regular editor to this project. Cheers! --Tom 22:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Thanks, I appreciate it. El_C 23:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Moving History of Jammu and Kashmir to Kashmir region

Hi El C, I have now moved all the extra material from the History of Jammu and Kashmir to Kashmir region. I guess we can now move the history page to the Kashmir region page. The only problem is: what does one do with the talk page? It would be great if you could move it. Thanks. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're only going to move content, as opposed to the entire article, then the GFDL somewhat demands we leave the talk page in tact. I guess the question is whether you are thinking of still having a History of Jammu and Kashmir article? El_C 23:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Links to Appletons discussion on WP:AN

Do you have any input for this discussion on WP:AN? You were involved back in March 2007. --Versa geek 01:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I made thousands of anti-spam-related edits since, so I doubt I can immediately recall without some reminder (links into my action therein). El_C 01:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

this has the most info --Versa geek 01:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, now I remember. As I recall, Rjensen argued that the links were valuable, so I think I sorta left the matter to his discretion. El_C 01:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: In dispute disputed

But then there's her being disruptive and you responding with a (valid) threat to block, and then the editor in question is responding with an uncivil statement, which makes you in sort of a dispute with that editor. The prior dispute is unrelated to you, I know. As an administrator, you are ensuring that his disruption ends. For this I think you're trying to do the right thing. :) Maser 01:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. There's just not enough of us and not enough time to clue-in the next admin in the que for it to work any other way. Regards, El_C 01:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Blue5864

Take a look at this diff on my talk page Alexfusco5 01:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Oy, that's not good. El_C 01:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you correct your log at Arbcom enforcement please...

Im a she, a female. Thank you.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Why, is that page protected or something? El_C 01:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No, but it is considered polite to allow others to fix their own mistakes. But if you refuse... I do have fingers for fixin it.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 03:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. Everything seems to be in order. I suggest you go work on an article (click here for a random article). - Jehochman 04:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Irpen added the missing 's'-es and I thank him for that.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Abt the different pages for Kathmandu

Most of the people who are editing here do not know the difference between the different usage of the term Kathmandu. So, I think it is better to have Kathmandu as a disam. page rather than any of the four entities for which it is used. It was a terrible idea to redirect Kathmandu Metropolitan city to kathmandu as most of the people edit kathmandu without knowing that they are editing about the metropolitan city only. Please do not redirect the article again.--Eukesh (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not the point. Legally, because we have had hundreds of people contributing to the city of Kathmandu as the entry thus named, the revision history, itself, needs to be preserved and correctly linked to the right topic. Please propose a proper name change, and as soon as there is consensus, or at least no objections (I do not object, but I'm hesitant in just moving it, because I think more opinions are sought — I just don't know enough about these naming conventions), I, or any other admin, will move those pages back for you. I thought I was clear about that before, but I guesss I failed to get the point across. Which is too bad, because now the page is protected. Please confirm that you understand and I'll unprotect right away. Again, I don't really disagree with any of your points, per se. Thanks. Regards, El_C 22:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Smile

enjoy KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 00:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes, Misplaced Pages feels like an acid trip! El_C 14:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

and an other for your enjoyment. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 17:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Young user meets cruel world :-(

bishapod splash! 07:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC).

I don't understand what happened! El_C 14:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Silly me, in fact impossible to see, from that. OK, it was like this: see thread "Santa Claus: Think of the children regardless of our policies," now on WP:AN? Bishapod, or Little Stupid (as the unmaternal Bishzilla calls him) read the thread and enthusiastically brought fishapod plushies for everybody for Christmas. Click on link here, see Bishapod's original post, bringing lots of plushies. But User:Prodego (o woe!) put colons in front of all the images, so they stopped being images. No plushies, just ugly code. See sad sight here. Plushies gone, stuffing tore out of them. :-( (Prodego write "No images pls". O why?) Bishapod, devastated, collect sad toy remnants, tidy up, cross out happy heading and change to sad heading, here. Write sad message to Prodego, Prodego not home. Sad poddie. P. S. Maybe send mommy Bishzilla visit Prodego? Hmmm. bishapod splash! 18:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Little Stupid, I'm the one who should have thought of that name! El_C 21:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocks

I don't agree with your 2 latest block reasons like "Overexcited" and "unfriendly", regardless of what the editor did, it'd probably be a better idea to be more specific and use a reason more relevant to policy. Others like myself might see that and get the wrong idea. Cheers --Charitwo 17:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

But they were overexcited and they were unfriendly, those were the reasons for the blocks. El_C 17:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the block log more closely, most of your reasons are like this. I think it's inappropriate. --Charitwo 17:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I respect your opinion. But I want to distinguish between vandalism marked by aggression than just upper-case exclamative expressions, so I am opting to that over a more robotic (concealed) drop-down approach. El_C 17:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Even so, it should still follow policy. It needs to be clear to both the person being blocked and those who see the block log. Personally, if I was the blockee and I wasn't familiar with policy, seeing a reason like that would be confusing and discouraging. Just seems to me like a trigger finger with whatever's at the top of your tounge. I agree that sometimes dropdown reasons are too robotic, but you can still be specific in your own words in the other reason. Please tell me if I'm making sense, because I'm pressed for sleep lol. --Charitwo 17:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You're making sense, but I'm dealing with a large volume of users daily, so I have to be relatively brief. But "discouraging"? Someone who says "fuck off and die" (to no one in particular, just in an article), realizes well enough they were blocked for being "unfriendly." Someone who says POOOOP!!!!" for the fifth time, realizes they were blocked for being overexcited. Likewise for my "racist epithets", "promoting ethno-national hatred", and various other (less frequent), personalized block notices that I have been using regularly for a long time, and which you're the first to take issue with. El_C 18:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I will remember your decisions and opinions in foresight. Cheers. --Charitwo 14:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:The Prince.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:The Prince.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages 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. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:The Prince.jpg)

Whoa, so eager, and excited! In other words, bot-speak for someone added a better, more authentic image please delete this one. Done. El_C 21:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Sapere aude

Hey El_C, judging by the history of Sapere aude you don't think it's just a lexical definition, either - your input on the talk page would be handy. Neıl ☎ 15:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. El_C 21:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Season's greetings! El_C 21:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Karl Marx: Anti-Semite

When you have time, please drop by Karl Marx and review recent edits by TelAviv (and Vision Quest to a much lesser extent). I have added content to restore NPOV but more work is needed. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Not again. More of the same, I reckon. El_C 21:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

A different editor. Same reckless violations of NOR and V. Telaviv1 seems to be on break but I fear when he returns he will resume the revert war ... I am feeling a little beleagured. I added a couple of comments on the talk page, and content to the section, but what I wrote is pretty weak (even after I went through the old archives for ideas). Slrubenstein | Talk 22:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Andranikpasha

As the mentor of the user (per block log) I think you may want to see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#List of attacks by the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia. -- Cat 20:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You must be confused, I am not the mentor of anyone. El_C 21:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Greetings

Jehochman 22:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

And solsticeations! Hi. Chipetting? El_C 23:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Catpetting, soon. Tiger Lily is sitting atop her perch ignoring me. Jehochman 23:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sitting is important. A ] quick petting break, then? El_C 23:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

why?

Hello, why did you rease the following link?

关于使用和发展维吾尔族语言与文字的提案

I mean, what is it about? How is it helping our readership? El_C 23:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It is about the Uyghur language. It is for Uyghur or Chinese speaking readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.165.240.69 (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not specific enough; if it's just about language, why is it being added to Xinjiang‎, then? Anyway, this is the English Misplaced Pages, maybe it's better if add it to the Chinese Misplaced Pages... El_C 23:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It takes a long time to explain and sorry to tell you that I don't have time to explain. It is a petition signed by 1000 Uyghurs. I've added it to the Chinese wikipedia as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.165.240.69 (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

We can't really have petitions here, just on their own. El_C 23:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmmm, I thought it is helpful for Uyghur or Chinese speaking foreigners... Ok, you can delete it if you want. take care and good-bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.165.240.69 (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. If the petition was notable enough to be mentioned or even have its own article, then it wouldn't be a problem. Regards, El_C 23:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hiyya

... looking for me? I'm here!! :) BTW - the fractals on the bottom of your talk page completely freaked me out. I was mystified as to how they got there after my edit!! - Alison 05:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

They were there before your edit! Okay, I'll question on your talk page. El_C 05:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:So-you-tell-me!.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:So-you-tell-me!.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We requires this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Misplaced Pages, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Dacy69

I'm not even going count on how many articles. "there is no such thing as Artsakh except armenian name of Azerbaijani region. It is clear attempt to legitimaze illegal entity" See here VartanM (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like another admin is on it. Let me know if further violations of supervised editing ensue. El_C 20:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

RFP

If you are "still here", why are you allowing the user to say things like "go to hell" ? An unblock request was declined, and the user continues to be uncivil, where's the line? - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Just give the user some space and let me deal with it, please. Thanks. Regards, El_C 06:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'll just say that it doesn't seem appropriate for you to unblock without somewhat of a consensus, as there are people who do think the block should stick. Like the admin who denied the unblock request for start. I am not sure out of all of the people who commented at ANI are admins, but.....just seems odd to me, that you are even considering an unblock at this point. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It is well within my discretion to lift as it is to impose such a block. El_C 06:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it may be, however I'm just asking you to look at the 2-4 other admins who think an indef block is in order. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, I try to take all views into account. El_C 06:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I seemed a bit agitated by this one...That really has nothing to do with this, but I'm just busy off wiki. Thanks for your explanations and such. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, nothing to apologize for. Hope everything works out elsewhere. El_C 06:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Larua

"Admin hopefuls". Good use of the WP lingo, for such an inexperienced user. This is just a friendly note of caution: This user seems to be very experienced with Misplaced Pages despite the facade. Please don't be taken in by the sobby story. You were right to issue the block. As the reviewer noted, this isn't a new user user in distress. This is someone who wants to disrupt and will play on people's sympathies in order to do it. Thanks for your consideration -- Equazcion •✗/C • 06:06, 2 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Any time; thanks for the note. El_C 06:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use

Hello, I used the fair use rational on the image for the Patria disaster because a message was left on the talk page here, stating that it would be deleted if one were not provided. Hopefully it won't be deleted without one. Not sure how that works though. It seems like it was a bot making the posting, though. Is that bot able to distinguish that it is indeed fair use? Hope so. :-) Thanks. GeeAlice (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. It was marked as fair use since{{PD-Israel}} did not exist at the time; nor did the fair use criteria, which is why it was tagged. Thanks. El_C 22:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

bot edits

thanks, mate. this is really, really crazy. --Soman (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Also, see this. El_C 01:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Republika Srpska

I know you mean well, but if people weren't confused, why would this occur? Perhaps disambiguating to an article that doesn't exist yet is probably justifiable to be remove, but I feel very strongly that the distinguishing needs to be here. It's not a subtle poke at Serb nationalists, before you start. — MapsMan — 19:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A single disambiguation page is a good idea, actually. Let's do that. El_C 17:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Che Guevara

Just wondering, is The Black Book of Communism a reliable source on the Che Guevara article, particularly this? ?--60.242.159.224 (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That depends. In Western modern (as opposed to Cold War) historiography, it is now recognized as a discredited propaganda piece (with, granted, an obvious agenda, but moreover, figures that are tenfold inflated, distortions, anecdotes-based claims, etc.). On Misplaced Pages, which also needs to appeal to the tens of millions of people in the United States, Iran, and so on, who believe the universe was created 6,000 years ago... well, a compassionate physician executing children on a whim might make sense so long as his politics are red, but the source will always be, dark as night. El_C 17:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

a project spawned from the AN fair use image thread

For your consideration: WP:TODAY. Lawrence Cohen 17:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. El_C 17:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Why did you lock the article?

Locking D. James Kennedy after the liberal POV has been restored seems a bit underhanded. Did somebody ask you to lock the article out of band? Thanks. Ra2007 (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It was protected due to edit warring; yes, probably on the wrong version, as is usually the case. El_C 19:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

How can you be so patient with this crap. OrangeMarlin 07:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

How can you be so patient with... patients(?)! I'd have to write a book to answer that... :) El_C 17:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not. Somewhere in the ArbComm BS that I'm dealing with, I mentioned that I usually scream at patients who choose to smoke after heart surgery. I'm not what you would consider civil about those things. I'm not patient with anyone. Well, maybe my cat. OrangeMarlin 20:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

My cat is patient with me! He is so good-natured, it blows people away. Certainly, some people need to be screamed at, calm and patient talk just does not reach em. El_C 20:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't trust dogs. They wag their tails and slobber all over you, and the next thing they do, they chew up your shoes. Cats on the other hand, don't require walking outside in the -10 degree wind chill, if they don't like you, they don't pretend, and kick dogs ass whenever necessary. Besides, I notice that Republicans always have dogs. I can't trust an animal that can't figure out their political leanings. OrangeMarlin 21:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Cats rule, Dogs drool! My cat has been there for me through some rough times. Also, years before I began the excesses of petting chipmunks, kitty on two separate occasions brought chipmunks to the house but held em by the back of the neck, like a kitten, so they weren't hurt (they actually ended up having a chipmunk family above my garage), wanting to bring em into the house to play with. How he knew the difference between the chippie and a mouse (with mice, he'd just play around with them until he'd break their neck — then he'd also brings em to the door, but in non-live form; whereas the chipmunks were not even injured, just terrified —I quickly released them to his disappointment), is the truly impressive feat, as chipmunks are pretty much mice with puffy tail and a stripe (squirrels are rats with a puffy tail). But I digress! El_C 23:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

See, cats are smart enough to determine that chipmunks are cuter than mice. Hence the girl in the pictures (hopefully your girlfriend and not a Republican) is playing with the chipmunks. No one plays with mice. Thereby proving cats are smarter than dogs. I once found an article (serious one, not one written by Creationists) that the estimated IQ of cats was around 5, dogs around 4. That's a 20% difference. I do enjoy your revised taxonomy of rodents. LOL. OrangeMarlin 03:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I swear, kitty has double-digit IQ. And as soon as he goes to school to learn to read and write... El_C 05:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That is one cute cat!!!!! Looks very smart :) OrangeMarlin 06:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks

I appreciate doing this, from a Jewish Socialist to a Jewish Communist. :) OrangeMarlin 07:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Anytime, my friend. לחיים, El_C 17:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion on the rocks

Hi El C. Sorry for all the confusion there. I must admit to doing the deletion to make a point but then other editors ran away with something constructive instead of just reverting me as I expected. Of course there was no reason not to restore the history and you edits were very welcome. I ran away too far with the idea of giving fut perf time to finish their work on the rewrite. I'm sorry for any offense caused. Best Spartaz 19:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. Just some minor confusion. I wouldn't worry about it. Regards, El_C 19:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Communists

So, after coming over to your page and thanking you, I noticed that there was a brief discussion on Marx's supposed anti-semitism. Which led me to the article on Marx, and, as Misplaced Pages enables so well, I started clicking from link to link to link. I then noticed how many of the 19th century Marxists and Communists were Jewish, raised in Jewish families or were ethnically Jewish. When I was younger, all of the Jewish families in the Los Angeles area where I grew up were lefties, and their kids were genuinely left-wing. Of course, when I was younger, Andrew Goodman was my hero; and I knew a lot of college-aged Jewish kids went to the south to help out.

Why is that? Are we educated in a way that makes us economically and socially liberal? Or after a few thousand years of mistreatment by Romans, Christians, Germans, Russians, Greeks, Arabs, Spanish (never mind, too many to list), we're just tired of it all? I remember hearing racist comments amongst officers when I was in the Navy, and I nearly blew out a cerebral artery or two. Time for me to learn more. Any ideas? OrangeMarlin 03:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The answer is a multifaceted but wholly explicable one, one whose facets your question begins to touch on. One such factor I am inclined to start with is the emphasis on education by Jews during (up-to-most-recent) centuries when most inhabitants of all countries where illiterate —i.e. aside from Jews (not all or even most, but disproportionately), you'd have to be wealthy, of noble or cleric status for literacy.

One important specific example: the reason motivating Jews during the Russian revolution in joining the revolutionaries in disproportionate numbers so as to end up comprising over eighty percent of the Bolshevik party (and not just the winning Bolsheviks, but also the Mensheviks, Greens, SRs, etc.), was the fact that under the Tzar, Jews faced horrendous pogroms as well special restrictions such as not being permitted to live in cities and so on. But the reason enabling them to arrive at positions of leadership was this emphasis on literacy.

In On the Jewish Question, Marx revealed how Jews became the winners under capitalism due to being made losers under feudalism. What do I mean by that? Well, hundreds of years of facing Church restrictions from engaging in agrarian labour, historically pushed Jews toward and specialized them in interest-lending (prohibited from Christians) and assorted fields. Which is of course the cornerstone of advanced capitalism: banking and finance. But this also provided conditions for the opposite to arise: disillusionment with this system.

The hatred Jews faced, both of the old kind that brought the original Church restrictions and the newer kind, the money-specialized, interest-extracting Jew, propelled many of them (who, again, decisively, were able to read) to question social reality (and by extension, unscientific views of physical reality, in general). And, thus, it is easy to see why such a minority, in every country, found the equality and universality promoted by writers of the enlightenment appealing. Later, in the 19th and 20th Century, the agrarian dimension of the Socialist-Zionist and Kibbutz movement was particularly geared to shed the legacy of the agrarian-restricted -cum- money-specialized Jew.

Dialectically, it is the culmination of these contradictory antecedents: winning from a loss and losing from that gain —i.e. successes brought from becoming money-specilized due to Church restitutions resulting in further hatred, (because winning under capitalism usually comes at the direct loss of someone else (during proto-capitalism, this becomes much more visible due to localism)— that I think are crucial to understand, and answer, the Jewish Question. And again, I cannot stress enough the impact brought by an emphasis on literacy in a society which for centuries was characterized by vast illiteracy. Another factor, which as a physician may have occurred to you, is hygiene laws. By virtue of the simple step of washing one's hand prior to consuming and... erm, after extracting meals, Jews were able to live & learn for longer (they were also burned on the stake for not dying in diseases as much, but still, overall). I'm unsure how key it was for the overrepresentation of Jews in medicine; possibly it even rivaled Jewish moms from Brooklyn!

The fascists and their ilk are unable to examine history scientifically (because it brings deeper truths which they cannot face), so they just pass everything off to genetics. But the reason Einstein (an 'inferior being' whom the Nazis would have traded the entire Aryan SS to have in their possession) or Freud, etc. were Jewish is due to the economic history of their people. Genetically, there is nothing extraordinary about Jews, for good or bad. When Hitler went to German capitalists asking for support against Jewish communists or when he went to workers for support against Jewish bankers, he used Jews as personification of both the difficulties faced by humanity under capitalism and the difficulties faced in overthrowing it, but of course, he did so in a distorted and cowardly, psychotic way that passes everything off to genetics. My stance is that Jews' being identified both with the new economic system and forces which seek its overthrow by an opposite system, is entirely explicable. The moment a scientific explanation is supplanted or supplemented by a confused (even if well-meaning, including when originating from Jews) mysticism, we begin a march toward a dark road which we have seen before, and may yet again. בברכה, El_C 05:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Now THAT was an article I could read. Try not to delete this, I may need to refer to it. I am writing a book for my kids that explains to them what it means to be Jewish and what we have done for history. I've got some more research to do obviously. I was raised a very secular Jew (and only now have I begun to explore both my religion and my culture)--I had never thought of Kashrut as anything but a quaint tradition. This is beyond interesting to me. OrangeMarlin 06:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Dunno what precipitated this exchange, but I found it very, very interesting. Thanks. :) deeceevoice (talk) 07:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Finally, I have an audience for my ramblings! El_C 21:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Lets turn your rumblings into something productive. You might be able to help us in here and then here. VartanM (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

While I did co-author the On the Jewish Question entry, I'm not sure how knowledgeable I am, specifically, on those more specialized areas. But certainly, I'll have a look. El_C 21:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Your ramblings were pretty informative. I am on this ex-navy Doctor mailing list (and trust me on this, Jewish Navy doctors are as rare as an Intelligent design blowhard believing in NPOV), and I passed along the part of your rambling about why there are so many Jewish physicians. It brought out a lot of interesting commentary. One comment regarding hygiene was that if he were living in Manhattan in the 1900's, he would have only gone to a Jewish butcher. OrangeMarlin 19:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The Jewish doctors bit, that just occurred to me whilst writing the above (I'm not sure how much weight should be given to that hypothesis, though). The loss-gain scenario, however, is something I have given a lot of thought to, including hazy plans for a more in depth study in print. Anyway, an even wider audience for my rambling — that is good! I am always interested in thoughts (and not just in agreement) about what I have written here, and the issue in general, so feel free to include comments from others (and of course, yourself) as you see fit. El_C 19:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's good that you just came up with it, because I was going to embarrassingly ask you where you got that idea, because I must be some kind of idiot for never reading about it. But honestly, not bad for original research. I wonder if you can synthesize that into a published essay or article. Or even a book. :) OrangeMarlin 09:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I just want to add that not just Jews but a lot of minority people living amongst a sort of hostile environment who take to education as a way out also tend to be more leftist than the host population. For example Sri Lankan Tamils in Sri Lanka and Chinese minority in Malaysia. But I am sure this way of expressing your social conscious is not a unique Jewish experience. Given similar circumstance all humans come up with similar reactions, except in the Jewish case it is sort of exaggerated. Taprobanus (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That's just a single component. The Jews' dispersal among many countries and the many centuries-long, restrictions-driven shift towards money-specialization, and then, the few centuries short backlash toward the opposite (specializing in overthrowing the rule of money), is the underlying unique historical characteristic I tried to point at. El_C 06:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Weatherman

Weren't the Weatherman and Students for a Democratic Society (almost universally) lead by radical Jewish leftwingers too? TableManners 06:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Kathy Boudin, for example...my memory serves. TableManners 06:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I used to be in the Students for a Democratic Society in the early 1970's. Lot of Jews in that group, and I believe that Haber was Jewish, but I'm not sure. Can't tell you how much that helped my security clearances. LOL. OrangeMarlin 19:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, I'm not greatly familiar with domestic history of the US. I'll take your word for it. El_C 19:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No doubt. I guess they really had a shortage for doctors! El_C 19:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Navy didn't use me as a doctor, since I had another particular talent that they required. I essentially played Navy doctor by day, and something else in the Navy at night. I didn't promoted very often since I was one of the three leftist Navy officers. The other two got drunk. OrangeMarlin 08:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid to ask; loose lips sink large naval vessels! El_C 06:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Cat mysteries

Our cat Ruby just turned up an hour ago out of the blue after 3 months, to be welcomed by her daughter, Blue. Cheers for everything. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Order of Saint Lazarus

You don't know the history of this page. An editor who calls himself alternately Rawicz, or Turtus, or any number of things is constantly vandalizing the page with bogus info. Check into the discussion page. Gobbschmacht (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What I do immediately see is that your version has less inter-language links. See my edit summary about retaining unrelated additions. El_C 22:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Many of those links are Rawicz's attempts to support a fraudulent history of a fraudulent organization. Gobbschmacht (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Interlanguage, or interwiki, links are links to the same pages in other language wikis (exmaple). El_C 22:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Decision regarding my userpage

Thanks for your level-headed decision regarding the proposed deletion of my user page. Although not overjoyed by the decision, I can objectively see it as a compromise. I still feel that the situation was dealt with heavy handedly considering Stan Shebs and I had both agreed that I would keep the image, and that anonymous editors had since vandalised my user page. The parties proposing the deletion seemed to have absolutely nothing to do with the debate (which had already been resolved with both me and Stan happy with the outcome). Still, I appreciate your looking at the whole argument and not jumping the gun. Thank you. Yeanold Viskersenn (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, I am pleased you approve of my decision. Thanks for the note. El_C 23:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding

In spite of an RfC at Talk:Waterboarding/Definition some folks are pushing weasel words and newspeak edits at Talk:Waterboarding. I view this as an attempt to spin the article for political reasons. One of the participants, User:Shibumi2 was recently blocked and unblocked for checkuser established sock puppetry. Now, single purpose accounts have appeared to dispute the RfC consensus. The RfC also remains open. Could you look at this? Jehochman 20:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What a topic! What's the political reasons about, exactly? El_C 20:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There are reports that the United States may have waterboarded Al Qaeda prisoners. Whether waterboarding is defined as torture or not may have an impact on the US 2008 presidential election. Some folks, such as Dick Cheney, prefer euphamisms like "enhanced interrogation techniques". Various political operatives have been attempting to influence public opinion. Our article ranks first in Google. It is an obvious target for spin. Jehochman 20:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I see. Clearly we can't change scholarly and legal consensus based on election efforts in a country, even if that country is the US. El_C 20:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman has mischaracterized the issues by focusing on a subset of user problems rather tha true content problems. An assumption that his summary of the problems is complete or even that it is the main issue would mislead the average administrator or editor. --Blue Tie (talk) 10:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I note the article is re-protected. I request that the previous template that was applied when it was last protected, be applied again -- pp-dispute. --Blue Tie (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Request granted, somehow. El_C 06:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Tamil Nadu

ok.. i tried to make the topic on Tamil nadu's independence neutral. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.226.79 (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you didn't. You merely restored that same un-referenced sentence as part of another, unrelated sentence, also in the process claiming that sentence's reference for your own commentary. And we do not allow commentaries to begin with. El_C 21:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hidden comment on evidence page

Sorry about that. Obviously I have no idea what I am doing here but I am trying not to make too much of a mess of it.--Filll (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. For evidence section/s, aim at condensing assertions, adding diffs to significant claims. El_C 22:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I guess I botched it up a little and looks like all my stuff is too late anyway to be of any influence. I am just learning and I do not really understand the process at all. It looks extremely fast from what I have seen in the 2 cases I have tried to be involved with, and as though the cases were pre-decided without regard to the evidence. Maybe I will understand better if I see a bit more.--Filll (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Those are exceptional cases, actually. Usually cases last for many weeks, even months. El_C 02:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

RfD talk

Am I missing something here? Is there some sort of a problem with my nomination of a seemingly pointless redirect from Misplaced Pages:GURCH to Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight? - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I dunno; I'm sure there's a joke in there, somewhere! Regards, El_C 02:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy note

FYI, your name was mentioned in passing at an extension request that I filed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Request for extension of restrictions at DreamGuy 2, specifically, my extended report at User:Elonka/DreamGuy report. No action is required on your part, I just wanted to let you know. --El on ka 03:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Your report is inaccurate. The block was for an alleged, un-named 3RR violation that was weeks old. El_C 03:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

My understanding was that diffs were provided, they just weren't provided in the proper format. As for the timing of my request, it is because I noticed yet another Checkuser filed on DreamGuy, who seems to be using yet another anon to evade sanctions. It is my opinion that DreamGuy's actions are in clear violation of WP:SOCK, using anons to avoid scrutiny, and it was time to pull all the information into one place. --El on ka 03:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser request when, where? Filed by whom? Evading sanctions how? No, those claiming there was a 3RR violation refused to prove that there was a 3RR violation (which at any rate, would have been weeks old). El_C 03:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

But isn't that what I said? That the block was overturned because it was old?

Checkuser request link has been provided: Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/DreamGuy

Evading sanctions: Bad faith and uncivil comments. Just look at his contribs

3RR. The diffs were provided, they just weren't done in the proper format. And like you said, by the time that the filing user figured it out, the diffs were "old". But that's all moot, since it's from months ago. If you feel that my report should be worded differently, I am open to constructive suggestions. --El on ka 03:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Asking me, or the Committee, to "just look at his contribs" is a bit much. Why not provide diffs, instead? Also, wasn't there already bad blood between you too. I'm potentially a bit concerned about that. El_C 03:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I recommend that you review my diffs at User:Elonka/DreamGuy report. If you have concerns about any of the facts there, I am ready to review them. --El on ka 03:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not satisfied with that response. Can you not cite a diff or two here? El_C 03:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to keep focused on the most important issue, which is that DreamGuy is continuing to use anons to evade scrutiny. This is an ongoing pattern of behavior which has gone on for over a year, and has resulted in multiple ANI threads, multiple blocks, and multiple admonishments from administrators that he needs to stop this behavior. By the mere fact that yet another user has filed yet another Checkuser on him, is indication enough that there have been problematic edits from another anon.

It is my opinion that as soon as someone who is under ArbCom sanctions resorts to systematic use of anons to avoid scrutiny, it's a problem, and that by the fact that they are using anons, that they have already violated the sanctions. If you disagree with this stand, that is your right. However, based on other threads in the clarification section (for example, check Newyorkbrad's statement in the immediately following section: "Any uninvolved administrator can take action against an editor who sockpuppets to avoid an ArbCom restriction."). The problem is identifying an anon account as someone that is under restrictions. By requiring that DreamGuy edit under his own account, admins can more easily identify if he is on such a list as Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions. And further, it is my belief that by getting this resolved, we will have less disruption on Misplaced Pages, not more. And isn't that the ultimate goal here? --El on ka 04:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you, yourself, qualify as an uninvolved admin. I asked you now four times for a diff of "bad faith and uncivil comments" made by that ip. Please, feel free. El_C 04:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And I will repeat, that I have supplied multiple diffs about my request for an extension, and I'd like to stay focused on that, without getting sidetracked into a debate about a peripheral issue. --El on ka 04:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

?I'm puzzled why you refuse to backup the "bad faith and uncivil comments" claim, directly. El_C 04:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And I am equally puzzled why you are getting so focused on that one peripheral comment, without engaging in debate about the main substance of my request. Perhaps it would help if we talked directly? Do you use IMs? --El on ka 04:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I am focused on it due to the non-answer. El_C 04:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

JAMMU AND KASHMIR

Hey El C there are moderators on here who seem to think its okay to add extra stuff on Pakistani Kashmir articles but paint a softer image of Indian administered Kashmir can you help and make these articles balanced and less pro Indian I understand if you don’t. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.208.195 (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please rewrite the above using normal cpaitalization, it is too difficult for me to read this way. El_C 06:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I forgot to ask: can you link me to what the contentious addition is, specifically? El_C 03:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

MfD

Your mentioned in this MfD Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Neutralhomer/TopDeely and I was wondering if you could give your prior reason for deleting it, as it would help me both frame my comments (WP:OWN, etc) and opinion. MBisanz 22:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No, he does not get to do that. El_C 06:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Quick Question on East German page

Just wondering why the stamp picture was moved back to the section about theater? Doesn't it make more sense to have it in the section about stamps produced in East Germany?

Oh, I thought it was just removed per se. El_C 07:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, corrected. Sorry about that. El_C 07:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks - thought I might have missed something.

I misread something; glad you caught it. El_C 08:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edit at Misplaced Pages:Requests for rollback

Re: The change from 15 to 60 min. here. There has been some discussion on it, probably hard to find amidst all the clamoring. Link is on the talk page here. Just thought you might want to know. R. Baley (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Requests approved in at least 15 minutes (meaning before this, it was happening much faster), and bot-archived minutes after? Bizarre. El_C 08:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

So, this is your talk page, huh?

Pretty spiffy, I like what you've done with the place since I was last here. You might remember, way back in November when I asked you for assistance on how to satisfy your DG ArbCom Enforcement complaint requests? Maybe I posted on Dmcdevit's page because - strangely enough - neither of you chose to respond. Forgive me for ending up feeling that 'something odd was afoot' then.
As i said before, you chose to nix it, Calling it stale (then again, maybe it was Dmd - they all ran together after a while) seemed rather unintuitive, as someone who is specifically trying to conceal their identity is counting on people not uncovering that identity in a timely manner. Why fault the person who discovers the falsehood and not the person who committed the falsehood? It semed less than logical, and I've noted your logic in the past. ergo, as it wasn't logic driving the decision, I had to consider the possibility that logic was not a guiding force in the discussion, and simply walk away, frustrated. - Arcayne () 08:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And yet, here we are again, with DG having his fingers caught using yet another anonymous IP, after being specifcally counseled against doing so by a few RfC's. How much smoke do you need to see before considering the possibility of fire? - Arcayne () 08:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a recent instance of abusive editing on his part that you'd care to provide evidence of? El_C 08:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, my input was to provide historical reference as to my comments as to the situation and my involvement as it concerned you and Dmd. If you are looking for more recent events, i believe that there is an ArbCom complaint and whatnot calling attention to more recent shenanigans by DreamGuy. My apologies if I was perhaps unclear about that. - Arcayne () 08:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That request for extending DG's sanctions that you refer to (and support), it, too, fails to provide recent proof of a violation. El_C 08:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you can explain to me how someone who is specifically acting to conceal their identity before being caught red-handed after the fact is going to reveal timely results? And, as the incident pointed to refers to the anon account being active as late as January 9th, I would consider that somewhat recent, wouldn't you? Last time I checked, socking is still against the rules. In this instance, it was an attempt to bypass ArbCom oversight specifically placed to keep an eye on his actions.

I would invite you to explain to me how I am seeing this matter incorrectly, El_C. That isn't a quip; I am actually hoping you explain how I am wrong here. I see an editor, under rather specific ArbCom guidelines to act civilly under his primary account, repeatedly editing through anonymous accounts (and apparently, uncivilly, at that). I see that behavior as an indication of someone trying to avoid that restriction. I see an editor being told not to edit through anonymous accounts, and him doing so anyway. I also see you and Dmcdevit defending and hampering the legitimate processes that expose this sock puppetry. Explain to me how I am seeing this all incorrectly. - Arcayne () 09:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, do you have evidence for that "and apparently, uncivilly , at that" that's actionable (i.e. recent?). Thanks. El_C 09:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for proving the point, El_C. I asked you for explanation, and you ignore it. As I mentioned once before, the information you are looking for has been provided by others here. Rather than kicking at the shines of those seeking enlightenment, perhaps you might find your time better spent helping to bring a bit o' explanation to the table. I pointed out a pattern. If you don't see one there, then say so, and wxplain to my why there isn't one. I don't think I am asking too much here.

Btw, the word 'uncivilly' was accurately used. - Arcayne () 09:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, now I know. I thought it was "incivil", but I guess it's uncivil. Now I can be uncivil to individuals who bitch that I'm incivil, criticizing them for poor spelling skills. :) OrangeMarlin 02:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd also point out that I think Elonka's request goes a bit too far - the whole 'one revert a day' thing. However, the request to not edit-war seems to fall in line with the ArbCom restriction, as well as the caveat to not edit from an anon account (as it allows the user to sidestep oversight). - Arcayne () 09:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm only interested in recent events. If DG reformed his conduct, then I'm satisfied. El_C 09:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that seems charitable enough. I'll tell you what. If (see what I did there? I gave DG the benefit of the doubt, just for you) DG's behavior regresses back into incivility and edit-warring, i am going to come to you. Specifically you. Would it be unfair to expect you to note that perhaps all the past smoke will at that point prove the existence of fire? I mean, you seem to be convinced that everyone is just picking on the poor lad. I think that if the problems occur again, it isn't untoward of me to expect your direct involvement at that point. Would that be fair to expect of you, El_C? I mean, I know you are busy, but so am I. I have so many other things I would rather be doing that dealing with someone at least two dozen other editors seem to feel is deleterious behavior. I would much rather be working and learning from users like you and Mcdevit, instead of arguing with the two of you. - Arcayne () 10:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

We should assume good faith about DG's conduct having been refomred if there no evidence to the contrary. El_C 10:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(←dent) Like I said, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. If he falls into the pattern that others have noticed, I will come directly to you, and expect you to act on it. Does that seem fair enough to you? - Arcayne () 10:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If there are violations, you are encouraged to bring these to my or any other admin's attention. El_C 10:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

May I remind you that El C and every other admin and arb is a volunteer. Your behaviour here is extemely close to harrassment and as an outside observer may I suggest that you either provide the requested diffs or leave El C alone? Spartaz 11:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

El C, how recent do you want? When I scan the recent contribs of both 68.47.175.159 (talk · contribs) and DreamGuy (talk · contribs), I see multiple examples of incivility and assumptions of bad faith, just in the last couple days. Look at his comments, look at his edit summaries. Are you saying that you're not seeing it, and that you need things further spelled out for you? Or what exactly is the problem here? I have to admit to confusion as to why you are trying to protect DreamGuy, while he continues to level attacks and accusations at other editors. --El on ka 18:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this will be the seventh times I now asked you for recent instances of incivility from a DG ip (couple of days is fine with me). El_C 21:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The 3-tier diff and link series
Misplaced Pages:Simplest diff guide Misplaced Pages:Simple diff and link guide Misplaced Pages:Complete diff and link guide

If these comments exist, it should be trivially easy to provide the diffs. I have added a useful menu for any third party observers who would like further information on the topic. Jehochman 21:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have outlined the lengths to which I went to have claims by both Elonka and Arcayne substantiated: User:El C/Elonka-Arcayne. El_C 22:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the link. I have addressed your concerns there. - Arcayne () 06:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Thanks! BTW - love the fractals. Sophia 23:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure! Thx! :) El_C 23:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection request

can you protect Page Marshal of the Soviet Union? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Staygyro (talk • contribs) 17:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Why, what's happening? El_C 23:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Your page

Can you clarify this comment:

"Interestingly, this is the same AC member who called for special protection for arbitration-restricted Science Apologist"

In what way/s do you feel any conduct I have undertaken on this editor was unusual in comparison to normal best practice?

Thank you.

FT2 02:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Generally, it is unusual for a sitting Committee member to come to the defense of an arbitration-restricted user so strongly, as you did. I, however, am strongly in support of the effort you launched. Still, I'd like to see it extended further for those editors struggling to maintain mainstream scientific semblance against overwhelming pseudoscientific propagation and agitation. El_C 03:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

See questions via email (And note I don't think this characterizes it well). Thanks :) FT2 06:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thx for the detailed note. I take your point and apologize for any grief brought by my confusion. I amended the page accordingly. El_C 10:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comment at RFR

Not that it matters now, but at first glance, looking at his contribs, it seemed as though he was wikistalking that editor and reverting his edits. I guess it's fine. J-ſtan_{User page} 04:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I just didn't see anything suspicious. There was a disagreement, a note left on a talk page, and edits undoing the changes. El_C 10:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the comment. Tkn20 (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I assigned you with rollback permission, too. Hope it helps. El_C 21:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Kashmir

Hi there! Happy New Year! I am still on vacation, with very little access time to Misplaced Pages. Could you please keep an eye on user Magicalsaumy who is adding, what can be euphemistically only be called, "nut-job" edits to the page. These included citations that consist of Indian embassy websites(?) and the like. Thanks. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year. I agree, that verbatim copying of the declaration is unhelpful, and generally, breaking the peace is something I frown on. El_C 21:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeraeph

Regarding your reply to this user, and your deletion of her text on the Sam Blacketer userpage: This user is currently involved in an arbitration, has been blocked multiple times for making personal attacks and baseless allegations, and has left or vanished Misplaced Pages multiple times in an effort to game dispute resolution. Have a look at the arbcom case and her block logs before you involve yourself further. She is currently blocked under her IP, but the blocking admin forgot to block the account name, too (I believe that was Krill who blocked her IP today). Just a head's up so you don't get sucked into this drama too. Jeffpw (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason I removed it was because it was duplicated. I responded on Kiril's page because, regardless of anything, it sounded desperate. El_C 01:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

I'm enjoying my new tool and just wanted to say thanks! : ) --MPerel 00:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see you! My pleasure, glad it's proving useful. El_C 01:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Philosophical Question about Misplaced Pages

One thing I admire about you is you have balls (I meant that metaphorically, since it appears you are a male of the species). I constantly get attacked by religious nutjobs, and I guess I have taken the approach that since the anti-science religious nutjobs can lie, whine and scream, I can at least scream back (I refrain from the lying and whining crap). Now, another creationist POV-warrior, User:Gnixon who has a long-standing feud with me, has begun an attack on my person. Everytime I stand up to him, he goes and moans to whomever will listen, I have to put up with reprimands and admonitions on my user page and I'm getting tired of it. Why do users like him, who has an anti-science agenda, get away with it? And how do you put up with it? Maybe you have admin powers, so the right is scared of you. Nothing worst than a communist with guns I suppose. Or a Jew. :) OrangeMarlin 06:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning: if you're going to continue flattering me, it will go to my head and then I won't be useful to anyone! :) You can have the short answer. The long one is a bit rambling and might be frowned upon by my readership. Let me know! El_C 13:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Who cares about the readership!!!! What is this? A popularity contest. :) However, I'm fairly concerned about your chipmunk obsession. And if you tell me you've seen Alvin and the Chipmunks, I will no longer respect you. More than that, I might vote Republican, become a Creationist, and start drinking apple martinis. Meh. Hey, I'm not flattering you with false praise. That ain't me! I prefer balls around here to the, how can I put this politely....I can't, so I'll just say the lack of balls. :) Wait a minute, I actually came here to say, yeah, I want the long answer. OrangeMarlin 17:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Another satisfied Chipoll signatory. No, sorry, I haven't seen that movie. Not really a fan, they always struck me as a bit yappy, unlike real chipmunks who are much, much more... sitting, happily, with a stripe and a puffy tail. So, the long answer... I think that it takes a lot to rattle me, maybe because I experienced a lot of disturbing things throughout my life, which although fucking me up, I still emerged from with the ability to perceive basic shapes and patterns. Thus, a possible side effect is that conflicts on Misplaced Pages (and elsewhere), as twisted as it may often be, just don't end up shaking me as badly, or visibly, as they do other people. Which is probably not natural. But much of social reality is in direct opposition to the harmony inherent in nature. Keeping my wits about me may have developed as a survival mechanism and now I'm stuck with it (like some fuckin robot, it's bullshit!). And I'm always looking to maximize potential; aiming at a high signal to noise ratio, minimizing unnecessary friction, saying more with less, and so on. So, that leaves me with little room for superfluous chatter. For example, this one time, here I was petting this chipmunk, when suddenly... and happiness ensued. Anyway, I hope all of this has been instructive to you and my idiot readership! El_C 22:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Just cos

Nengscoz416 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Indo Phobia AND Indian parliament attack 2001

Hey EL C han you help me with the indophobia article a indian cannot seem to grasp the fact that indophobia exsists becuase of the kashmir human rights abuses by indians. Also the indian parliament article is being reverting by the same Ghanadar galpa even when sources are given hes trying desperately to make india look good and gives a biased veiw.

hello. please see and Ghanadar galpa (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Is the problem still pressing, or has some resolution been reached? El_C 03:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Humor

Hopefully, you won't be insulted, but this image would be perfect for your Wiki-fights!!! LOL. OrangeMarlin 22:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm insulted by that image. Che is beautiful, and no monkey. Now if it were Bush, that would be different and more accurate. Sorry for butting in. :p ←Gee♥Alice 06:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No he wasn't a monkey. The point was about Evolution, not revolution. It is a subtle slap in the face of Creationists. Nothing to do with Che, Bush, or frankly monkeys. OrangeMarlin 07:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I know! I had my tongue in cheek. Didn't you see it? I do think it is funny. Evolution ==> Revolution. LOL. I got it. I should have said so. But Bush does look more like a monkey, and there needs to be a revolution to put him back on the evolutionary chain where he belongs. Soon, though, soon. ;p Although I do believe Che is beautiful. ←Gee♥Alice 07:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I hate that fuckin monkey image so much, I feel myself de-evolving! Grr! Of course, the distinction between evolution and revolution is a contextual one. In the context of physical evolution, biological evolution is revolutionary; in the context of biological evolution, human evolution is revolutionary. And in the context of human evolution, socialist revolution is, well, revolutionary. Conversely, when libertarians opportunistically propose that we let the Stephen Hawkins perish because they cannot, physically, fend for themselves, they extrapolate natural selection of animals (biological evolution) to humanity (social evolution), ignoring the fact that one disabled Hawkins can amount to the physical power of a million wage slaves, and even beyond (i.e. solution to energy scarcity, etc.). How many countless Einsteins and Hawkins in-potential have we lost among the billions of malnourished, oppressed and exploited people out there, all that so a scant few archbeasts can have their purple ease? That's what Che struggled against, despite all self-serving lies to the contrary. I cherish his legacy. El_C 03:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please advise

I'm having an "edit war" with User:DAGwyn on the Ayn Rand article. He/she insists there is no consensus, but there is plenty. I am new to the article and I've stood up to the reverts, yet he/she continues to revert over and over again. I've left messages to the user's talk page, especially here, and on the article's talk page. I've provided links to the talk page where there is indeed consensus for my edit, yet the user uses misleading edit summaries stating the opposite. I guess I'm just as guilty with the 3RR policy, but if one looks at the talk page, and the links I provide on the user's talk page shows there is consensus for "my" version and not "his/hers". (I know that you are an admin and probably know more on how to handle this). Yes, I'm being hardheaded, but that user is more so, and more importantly... wrong. lol. TIA. ←Gee♥Alice 06:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Just add some {{fact}} tags to the disputed individuals and go from there. Does that make sense? El_C 03:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Adminship request

Any Chance you can make me an admin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Staygyro (talk • contribs) 23:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I cannot, that process takes place through a public request. But why? As an admin, you will not be permitted to use administrative tools in disputes that you, yourself, are involved in. Also, please place new comments at the foot of the page, in a new section, and sign the comment using four tildes. A few times now, you've added a comment to the middle of the page, that makes it difficult to find and disorganized. Anyway, is the problem still pressing now? You may wish to try article comment request or Third opinion. Thanks. Regards, El_C 03:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:I'm_RickJames_Bitch!.jpg

I have tagged Image:I'm_RickJames_Bitch!.jpg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What? No! I'm Rick James!! El_C 03:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this bad?

Is he allowed to add that?--Alisyn 02:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If I had my way, no. But unfortunately, yes. El_C 03:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A question

Hey, nature bwoi. :) There's an anonymous user at Talk: Race of Ancient Egyptians who's been engaging in attack trolling. I've repeatedly deleted his comments on the talk page, and he keeps it up. He's likely a sock puppet of a registered user. What's the best way to deal with this guy? Temporarily block his IP addy? Run a user check? What do you suggest? Thanks. deeceevoice (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that could be a good idea. I'm looking into it. El_C 03:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Another admin, User: Addhoc, visited his talk page and warned him. That seems to have chilled him out. deeceevoice (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure! I left a warning as well and am unlikely to leave another. So let me know if disruption continues. Best, El_C 03:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"... "mentally inbread propoganders that have only the sole intention of furthering their leacherous, parasitical affinty." LOL Is that what he wrote? (I wasn't kidding when I said I hadn't read most his posts. I mean it only took the first few words to know he was just being disruptive.) That what he's saying violates Wiki policy is quite clear. Exactly what he's trying to say, however, is another thing entirely. Jeeze. The man is belligerent and incoherent! In my book, that's a Wiki capital offense. Off with his head, dammit! deeceevoice (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"entally inbread propoganders that have only the sole intention of furthering their leacherous , parasitical affinty ." El_C 04:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you cleaned it up. That was easy. But it still makes no sense! deeceevoice (talk) 04:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to say it, but he's still at it. I think he needs something stronger than a warning. deeceevoice (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Again. :) deeceevoice (talk) 08:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fer sure! El_C 08:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

thank you for half of your suggestion

Thank you for your kind suggestion, at least the first half. It appears threatening in the second half. Your concern for the unblock worries me a bit because you haven't mentioned that Jersey Devil violated an ArbCom directive that admin are not to wheel war, which they defined as the 3rd action of block-unblock-block. The particular ArbCom directive did not define wheel warring as block-unblock.

Furthermore, the decision to unblock was made after notification to Jersey Devil. Prior permission is not a requirement. The decision to unblock was made with consideration of the following comments made by others at ANI such as:

I want to stress that I do not agree or disagree with the block - I just think it needs to be discussed to ensure that there is community support for an action: B

…and may be a tad too controversial about how edits are made, but he/she isn't totally wrong.: Anynobody (referring to the blocked user)

Has CltFn been a party to any form of DR at all?: Anynobody (I think there’s been no DR)

I think an indef. block is a bit harsh, considering what he did. CltFn has, after all, been good for over a year since the last block…I am very confused as to why this disserves an indef. block.: Yahel Guhan

All I am proposing is that we give him one last chance to change before an indef. block after a month. Heck, we give repeat vandals that opportunity all the time, with 1 month, 3 month, 1 year blocks, but almost never indef. Besides, at least he remained on the talk page for the most part this time, rather than in the article, where he is less disruptive, which may mean he might be trying to improve himself: Yahel Guhan

Not that I am trying to sanction what he did, but I do think an indef. time period is excessive, at least at this point: Yahel Guhan

A suggestion for formal WP:DR has been made onthe user's page. Perhaps, given his long-term contributor status, it may be to our advantage to let him try that process?: ThuranX

I am however also happy to endorse Thuran's proposed course of action and comments above also.: Orderinchaos struck by Orderinchaos 17:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC) as it mischaracterises my contribution to the debate

also note:

based on looking through his contributions, if an admin is willing to keep a close eye on a problem user, that's a low risk proposition: B

I don't have a problem with Archtransit's action providing tha the follows through on it. I do have a problem with the same admin who originally made the block reimplementing it.: B (being critical of JerseyDevil’s wheel warring)

Please don't interpret this message as an ongoing fight...

but it is merely a longer explanation made necessary because of your ArbCom mention. Also please note that ArbCom is a busy panel and that they require prior attempts such as mediation before submitting the case. I am willing to have formal or informal mediation with you or others. I am also in the process of making a new and novel suggestion on ANI to resolve the concerns raised above by others (the quotes above). Please remember that I have never advocated for the blocked user but have merely considered comments that others made. I have never supported the user with comments like "the user is not that bad" or even "the user deserves a chance". I am merely trying to bridge the gap between opinions that others have expressed. The reaching of compromise has been my primary goal in this entire episode. Consensus is not one side shouting loudly enough and ignoring the stated concerns of a few. Archtransit (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi again and thanks for the prompt reply. I'm going to respond on your talk page so as to keep the discussion unfragmented. Regards, El_C 20:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Your message is unclear. You ask for a clear yes answer but the question is not clear. I get the impression that the question is "Unless you make a confession, I will bring this to ArbCom". If that impression is wrong, then your message is unclear!

This is not an emergency. In the days since the original ANI post, nothing has happened except discussion.

Let's move on to more productive things. If your question was if I would have done things differently in retrospect, the answer is clearly yes. Archtransit (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm puzzled you find "the question" to be "not clear." I'm just going to copy it, word-for-word, since that's how clear I feel it is. Question: are you prepared, from now on, to commit to discussing unblocks prior to implementing these, and, at least in the next few months, consult a more experience admin before blocking a fellow sysop? Yes, or no? El_C 17:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for highlighting the question from the previous message. The tone of your message seems angry and confrontational. I don't know if this is true or the intention. If it is true, consider stepping back for a while.

Question 1: Are you prepared, from now on, to commit to discussing unblocks prior to implementing these.

Answer: I plan to discuss unblocks as a general rule.

However, some unblocks by others have been done without discussion. Some of these unblocks done without discussion have not resulted in further discussion. I will be more cautious if this path is taken. Some blocks are clearly a mistake and discussion for the sake of discussion only creates delays. For example, I recently unblocked someone and changed the conditions of unblock. I notified the blocking admin but did not have prior discussion. The blocking admin later agreed with my change. Discussion would have only tormented the editor with a delay.

Question 2: At least in the next few months, consult a more experience admin before blocking a fellow sysop?

Answer: Yes.

Comment: The asking of question 2 plays into the hands of those who accuse Misplaced Pages of cabalism. I would not have phrased the question like that.

Archtransit (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you find the tone "angry and confrontational," such was not the intent. That said, I'm looking for a concrete, unqualified commitment (i.e. without additional explanations). Are you prepared to commit to that formula, yes, or no? Thanks. El_C 18:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Write more concisely?

You write: John Nagle, you need to write more concisely. This is unreasonable. El_C 22:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC).

Please note that I was requested by Thatcher (talk · contribs) to provide diffs. I provided diffs. --John Nagle (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Whereas I note that he asked you for "a few key diffs" (italics is my emphasis), not tens upon tens of them, spanning hundreds of words. El_C 00:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There is that. Of course, if I left out any diffs, someone would probably be complaining that I had made a one-sided selection of diffs.

I know that arbitration enforcement is a terrible place to resolve a content dispute. Unfortunately, that's where ArbCom sent us, with their rather vague decision. Once the new mediation group called for in the arbitration is up and running, we may have a better way of resolving some of the content issues. By the way, thanks for taking out the second copy of the rant by Lobojo (talk · contribs). --John Nagle (talk) 01:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE

This should not be marked as resolved - first of all, NE2 was doing the reverting, not Imzadi1979. Imzadi1979 was acting in good faith, and at this point the articles were not disputed. However, NE2 reverted the articles, which was furthering the dispute - thus, it was NE2 who was breaking the injunction and not Imzadi1979. (Furthermore, NE2 is a party to the arbitration, while Imzadi is not.) --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Closing the report is at my discretion. The injunction is not limited to parties, and Imzadi1979 seemed to have been the one to change the scope, in good faith or otherwise is not pertinent to this assertion. Let me know of any further issues. El_C 01:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, NE2's reverts were wrong - he is not an uninvolved administrator. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fine; he explained the removal. No need for him to get someone else (admin or otherwise) to do the exact same thing. El_C 01:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

But this was part of the edit war... NE2 was reverting to his preferred version... of course, hinging on your belief that Imzadi was in the wrong, which I firmly disagree with. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

My view is that it's best not to change anything as per the temporary injunction. The case will be concluded soon enough. El_C 01:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point here - NE2 was in the wrong as well, and you forgot to mention that. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "as well"? El_C 01:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the point is that NE2 is not an uninvolved administrator. Arbcom put "uninvolved administrator" into the language of the injunction for a reason - NE2's reverts just now were furthering the edit war. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right, I missed that. I'll amend the AE notice and issue a warning to NE2. El_C 02:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

How is Imzadi1979 expected to know that? — master son 01:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not following your question. Expected to know what, when? El_C

That there's an injunction on removing banners from article talk pages per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2? — master son 01:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, when? At the time of making the edits: he was not expected to know. Afterwards, NE2 linked to it in his edit summary (Reverted per the restriction at the top of WT:USRD), so now he knows and no harm done to none. El_C 02:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. That's what I was referring to. understood. — master son 02:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; I sort of missed that too; funny how when you're involved with the crafting of a policy you don't bother to check the final version! --NE2 02:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. El_C 02:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

A happy ending

I thought of your kitty when I read this. What a cutie. deeceevoice (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hahah! What a great story. El_C 04:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed white eyebrows

Thanks for uploading Image:Sammo Hung white eyebrows.jpg. BetacommandBot (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. The white eyebrows speak of extraordinary power on the part of the character! El_C 05:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed Heel

Thanks for uploading Image:TIH.jpg. BetacommandBot (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. El_C 06:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Concern

El C, I noticed that you closed and tagged as "resolved" a complaint that I had posted at the Arbitration Enforcement page. For the record, I do not think that this was entirely an ethical behavior on your part, since you are definitely not an "uninvolved admin." You and I were in a dispute recently about the DreamGuy_2 case, and you have been maintaining a subpage where you have obviously been searching through my contribs and twisting statements of mine, as well as threatening to start a new case. If you want to do that, fine, I can't stop you, but I don't think it's appropriate for you to be blocking other actions of mine in the meantime. In the future, I would ask you to please avoid making "rulings" on decisions involving me, as I do not feel that you have the necessary impartiality to make those decisions. --El on ka 17:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Turkish invasion of Cyprus

Cant see the cause of the revert, it adds information. I'm reverting back. Khutuck (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason is that we don't use the word "terrorist" as such a designation here. El_C 21:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeitgeist (props to you!)

Your comment about the bureaucracy of deletion reviews was awesome!

I wasn't around for the multiple deletion reviews on this article, but I read threw part of them and it was ridiculous!

I agree, if hundreds of thousands of people have seen it, it's almost impossible for it not to be notable.

Thanks so much!

VegKilla (talk) 09:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone noticed! And not a word on the atrocious grammar, to boot (I gots to fix that). Many thanks for your praise & recognition. Best, El_C 17:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Available for commenting at your pleasure

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Franco-Mongol alliance now exists. Jehochman 17:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not finished my review. I do, however, recommend you notify John K and request his comment. El_C 17:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Those Mandlebrot sets are very nice. Over here you spelled Elonka's name wrong. Just thought you might like to know. Wjhonson (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, glad you like. Why, is that page protected or something? El_C 19:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The page is not protected, however I would not feel comfortable fixing the spelling myself. There is an unfolding situation at ArbCom, and even this minor change, if I were to effect it, may be taken as something other than merely a grammatical correction. So I'd prefer you do it. Wjhonson (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You are being too paranoid. There's no way it would be taken as anything other than fixing a typo. So, feel free. Thanks. El_C 00:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No good deed goes unpunished.Wjhonson (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Kathmandu

If you want to have a monopoly over article about Kathmandu without even contributing to it (just because you are a sysop), its fine with me. I will stop editing there. However, please see that you control all the other users who confuse Kathmandu Metropolitan city with Kathmandu valley or Kathmandu district and revert edits meant for other meanings of Kathmandu. Kathmandu to denote metropolitan might be fine in britannica as there are no other editors there. However, there are many editors here and they WILL have difficulty choosing between the three or four meanings of kathmandu. I have much better things to do than waste my time discussing with you here for nothing. Please improve the quality of article about Kathmandu. Its up to you Mr/Ms./Mrs sysop. Good luck.--Eukesh (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"For nothing" really described my attempt to communicate with you. You kept copy and paste moving, again and again, and there seem to have been simply was no way to reason with you about that except to physically move-protect the entries. You still haven't submitted a move request, as I suggested you do. You still haven't responded to my assertion on the article talk page that we follow the naming convention of other encyclopedias, like Britannica , Encarta, Columbia, etc., except you saying that that would be "fine in britannica as there are no other editors there." (Editors? We have articles for our readership). And all the articles have links to the disambiguation page on top. So, having failed to respond to my last comment on the article talk page, from last year, you now arrive at my user talk page, seemingly ccompletely out of the blue, waiving around accusations of monopoly, even though it is you who failed to live up to your obligations in the event you're still seeking a move; you fail to address my points substantively, still (i.e. nothing about naming conventions in other major cities, capital cities, etc.). I just hope this forceful and unresponsive approach isn't your modus operandi elsewhere, as you will have a problem editing in this collaborative project in that event. El_C 19:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Your Kabbalah article revert

El C, as far as I know CE and BCE are standard in Misplaced Pages Jewish template articles, instead of BC and AD. I don't want to change your revert without agreement because I have found that can lead to hurt feelings and, eventually to various editing problems. Let me know. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

They both are. If it's a Christian-related topic, it's respectful to use BC/AD; if it's a non-Christian-related topic, it's respectful to use B/CE. El_C 23:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that the problem was with my confusing the change to 'BC' and your revert to 'BCE'. Thanks for your patience. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Anytime. I, too, was wandering what that was about, seeing how it was 69.231.53.148 whom I reverted. Thx for the followup. El_C 23:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT#FORUM

Noted, thanks, I won't copy that passage any more - a simple link to WP:NOT#FORUM itself, without actually quoting the passage, is sufficient. Cirt (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Thanks for understanding. El_C 00:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for being so polite about it all. Cirt (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

'Settlement' and 'Neighborhood'

The most important thing is to discuss and to try to minimize reverts. Further revert wars may result in revert restrictions being imposed. Thx. El_C 21:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks El_C, i have tried, I really have. We are still in the middle of discussing it all over at Talk:Gilo and on their own/our user pages, but whenever i point out a flaw in their argument they just seem to ignore it. I will however endeavor to turn to the talk pages again, hoping we can work this out. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. As I recently mentioned on the arbitration enforcement page: "as far as I'm concerned, anyone editing this set of articles is a breath away from being placed on a revert limitation." Please keep that in mind. Thx. El_C 21:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean and didn't see any addition from your edits aside from fixing the links. The purpose of my edit was to remove those links, since they are all to partisan sites and don't support anything other than that position exists, which isn't what they are being used to prove (that is already in the article). I can't understand why you would revert me then when I explained my reasoning.

The other editor went ahead and warned other people about reverting and then reverted four times away from the preexisting edition while I reverted only twice, nothing was done to stop him, and he's gone around continuing to make these disputed changes on related pages. I understood from the directives that if your change is reverted once you should go into discussion, but as he believes that his new version is right he keeps on reverting. If might makes right then something is broken here. --Robert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.100.134 (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Both of you need to stop reverting so often, regardless of anything. Thanks. El_C 01:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Poverty of India Image

Well, if the two of you are just going to duplicate the same exchange on other users' talk pages , then I'll just link to it thusly rather than have the hundreds of words displayed here. It's not an efficient mode of communication. El_C 10:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha!

Damn I'm glad you are still about. :-) - Tbsdy lives (talk) 11:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Undaunted albeit somewhat dented, my friend! El_C 11:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Phases of the Holocaust

It has no sources, and the uncited tag's been on it since October last year. I'm also not sure there's much in it that's not in Holocaust or couldn't be -- though that page is so long we almost daren't add anything more. However, if you think it was wrong-headed BOLDness, by all means revert. :-) SlimVirgin 20:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess I just got used to it as a fixture. I remember when it was created, the Destruction article already had almost as much written on the stages. It can be sourced easily enough, of course. What struck me, I suppose, was the out-of-the-blue minor edit. I'll give it some thought. El_C 09:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Population figures and percentages - Sierra Leone

Good day, El C. I'm worried about the edits made by 71.163.213.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Editor still doesn't seem to acknowledge messages on his talk page. Perhaps he didn't see them? Some of the edits look alright, but the number changes seem far too systematically coincidental, and no sources forthcoming. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I think the user needs to be blocked for a while; we have to get this individual to acknowledge these requests. I'll attend to that now. El_C 09:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I hope it works. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for my procedural error in editing Sierra Leone, and thanks for correcting it. I have no connection with Sierra Leone, but just became involved when I noticed a strange sequence of edits. How do we find out what is going on here? I have left messages on discussion pages, but none of the "strange" editors respond. Am I in order to keep restoring the 2004 census data? By the way, I think the "strange" editors are moving to changing the percentages in the 2007 Sierra Leone election article. They do add useful articles (though sometimes just copied from elsewhere on the web). I'm not going to become involved in an edit war over this! dbfirs 11:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry what is this about

what are you trying to say Igor Berger (talk) 12:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You failed to correctly indent in relation to the comment you were responding to. El_C 12:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The system save is a bit off. Igor Berger (talk) 12:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Technical question

At the top of the Kabbalah article there is this statement:

This article is about traditional Jewish Kabbalah. For other western Kabbalistic and esoteric mystical traditions see Hermetic Qabalah, Christian Kabbalah, Emanation: Eastern Orthodox Christianity, Kabbalah Ma'asit.

Is there a way to keep the statement, "This article is about traditional Jewish Kabbalah", and move the links to the bottom of the article, without being unfair to people who may be looking for the other articles? The way it is right now the top of the page is rather cluttered, making a difficult subject even more difficult to comprehend.

Thanks. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty conventional to have those on top, actually. And I don't think really find it that cluttered. But, I don't feel too strongly, either way. בברכה, El_C 03:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I will leave that as is. Thanks. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

why the revert?

Why did you do this change?--Rockfang (talk) 05:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It saves me from scrolling up as I fix the template. El_C 05:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.--Rockfang (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Anytime. El_C 05:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

M-95 image

M-95 editing, plz stop changing the http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:M95_interior_shot.jpg - it is M84A4 Sniper interior, but it is used to show what is possible to achieve with the M95 tank if same DBMS is in use. Right now M-95 supports French Thales DMBS, Israelis have provided some assistance with the M95 design, but Thales fire control seems to be best solution for now, Unfortunately we have no Thales DMBS photo to use, for that we'll need to contact Thales and see if they are willing to release the image for Wiki. Mic of Orion.

Yes, well I keep asking you and you change it back without comment. I am not a mind reader. El_C 06:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, nw, I didn't get any of your questions, anyways, article is done, also you asked about reference list if I can translate this in to English, article is in English, you only need to disseminates the article, which is kind of hard as it is a technical paper full of test results and not something average user would understand. I tried to summarize the article in Reference list, but layout came wrong and I deleted my work to preserve the cohesion of the article and layout. Poslovni Vjesnik is a story which speculates whether Kuwait will order additional 66 M84D tanks on top of current order, citing close sources at the Croatian MOD.

Also I have deleted repetitive chapters as they are saying same thing I mentioned in modernization paragraph.

PS, I'd love to put M-95 images in to Wiki Commons, but don't know how, I've never done it before, so if you want to o it for me would be best. No need to create new gallery about M-95 on Wiki commons, just add the images to Wiki Croatian Armed Forces. Mic of orion (talk) 14:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I did ask, twice. Dosen't matter. We should have English titles and name of publication for all the links: the English, the Serbian, and the Croatian. Having just plain urls makes those sections, and by extension, the article, look unprofessional. In answer to your question about images and Wikimedia Commons: you can create a commons account, or I can use my account (click for chipetting) to upload them. But first I need to know the license they are being released under and who the copyright holder is. Hope that helps. Thx. El_C 17:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Yes, football is U.S. centric, but most who read English know what it is. So long as we're editing the English site, I think the mention of football is both entirely pertinent and perhaps even an important note. Don't forget, I also mentioned office and political jobs, which retain pertinence to those unfamiliar with American pastimes. Regardless of all, I thank you for alerting me of any potential mistake. User:Two-face Jackie 2 February 2008. —Preceding comment was added at 18:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not just that "football & baseball are US-centric," it makes for an unbalanced (which is to say, beyond definitional) emphasis on male chauvinism, for no discernible reason. Also, I don't think the lead is the place for specific examples, per se. And it's overqualified with its "often" in the lead sentence. Take for examples how Britannica phrases their intro: "excessive and unreasonable patriotism, similar to jingoism. The word is derived from the name of Nicolas Chauvin, a French soldier who " Or Encarta: "Chauvinism, excessive nationalism and aggrandisement of one's own category or group, often accompanied by a belligerent, aggressive attitude. The word is derived from the name of a French soldier, Nicolas Chauvin, who " Columbia Encyclopedia, perhaps, gives us the best definition with regards to our problematic (but again, no example, into is purely definitional. I'll quote the entire thing: "Chauvinism is 'fanatical, boastful, unreasoning patriotism' and by extension 'prejudiced belief or unreasoning pride in any group to which you belong.' Lately, though, the compounds male chauvinism and male chauvinist have gained so much popularity that some users may no longer recall the patriotic and other more generalized meanings of the words."(italics is my emphasis). Now that, I challenge, is a good direction for our intro. Thx. El_C 00:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Now, we can't rely upon everyone to read an entire article. Surely a person sitting down to search Misplaced Pages for a definition has that time, but we can't be judges of his schedule, and an example may make the research entirely easier. I think an example or two is helpful, if not, necessary. After all, plenty of lengthy articles feature them.

If you believe that 'football' is an unnecessarily biased statement, then we can remove that, but chauvinism is not quite what those sources state it is. They list only part of the whole definition, as chauvinism has been used to describe male boastfulness outside of 'prejudiced belief or unreasonable pride'.

All-in-all, your argument regarding football makes sense, not because of pertinence issues, necessarily, but because of bias. Thank you again, Two-face Jackie (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that. It's not just that; we're doing a dis-service to the reader by giving them a popular definition over the scholarly one. El_C 08:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ramot this time

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)

Can you explain to me how you ended up in the same article to revert him? El_C 00:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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_C 03:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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 http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=61&fld=191&docid=1856 calls the places neighborhoods even though it also opposes them for being settlements. Global Security http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2007/12/mil-071207-voa09.htm 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)

It does seem counterintuitive to call them "settlements" as opposed to "disputed neighborhoods." El_C 07:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

At this point, I'd like to hear from the other side what they think the dispute is about. El_C 10:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Yes, I gathered. This is really not the place the to have such a time saving/wasting debate. El_C 12:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Benefit of the doubt as opposed to doing what? Possibly this might be it. El_C 11:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

My strategy is for you to participate in the centralized discussion I set up. You've yet to make a single comment there, instead opting to do so here, which is making me a bit weary, I confess. El_C 15:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

Hope this helps. --BE TA 06:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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 — 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_C 08:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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♥Alice 10:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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. — xDanielx /_C\ 22:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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_C 22:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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♥Alice 23:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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_C 23:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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♥Alice 23:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Glad you agree. I am bothered by the insinuation that I am doing something wrong here. El_C 23:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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♥Alice 02:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. If I take issue with anyone, it's Daniel and his inexplicable statements. El_C 08:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(←) 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. — xDanielx /_C\ 04:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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_C 08:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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_C 10:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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_C 10:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

I'm more interested in finding out what happened recently than getting into all that. El_C 20:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Protecting the Wikipedian and protecting the Wiki

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 Misplaced Pages, 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. --SSBohio 19:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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_C 20:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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. --SSBohio 00:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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_C 00:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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. --SSBohio 00:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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. --SSBohio 02:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

PHG and WP:RFAR

I hope your criticism about posts to PHG's user talk isn't directed at me. He's more active on Misplaced Pages than on Commons, and he highlights his image uploads at his Misplaced Pages user page instead of his commons user page. So I figured the best place to contact him about that was on Misplaced Pages. 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, Durova 22:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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_C 22:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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. --El on ka 22:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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_C 22:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, and your desire to protect decorum. However, don't you perhaps think that it would do more good to protect Misplaced Pages? 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 Misplaced Pages from an editor who is willfully inserting false information? --El on ka 23:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not willing to compromise what I feel are fair practices, even toward that end. Especially since it isn't even necessary. El_C 23:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Che quote

I really like Che's quote at the top of the page, however, i've don't really know anything about him, suggested reading/viewing? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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_C 23:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh good =) I'll check my uni library. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Just buy it! El_C 03:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Special:Contributions/Raving_Nutter. Lawrence § t/e 23:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I, too, feel uneasy about a single-purpose account being created solely to make that comment. El_C 23:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

No, not about you. About User:Raving_Nutter (linked above). Your new account is welcomed here, which is why I welcomed you. El_C 00:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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_C 23:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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.

Do you mind if I first ask what your relationship is with that website, if any? Thanks again.El_C 23:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've visited it a few times and have been enjoying their information. I wa ssurprised it wasn't on Misplaced Pages 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_C 00:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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♥Alice 01:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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_C 21:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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, Sarah 13:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. Thanks for clearing that up. I hope you're feeling better now. My best wishes with everything. El_C 21:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Refactoring that RfC

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)

Oh? It should not have been copied unless also removed from the project page; I'll look into it. El_C 21:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Who added it again? El_C 21:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Archtransit himself, apparently. Moved it to his original "response" section. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Unbelievable. You would think that one who expresses himself through such formalities, would stick to the formal rules. El_C 22:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

PSst! I think the word you're looking for is "refactoring". :) Friday (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What did I say? El_C 01:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Unblocking

Fair enough. The user was reported to AIV, which was my reason for taking action. Sorry to step on your toes ;) Brianga (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No, not at all. That makes sense. Thanks again. El_C 10:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Were you in fact referring to User:Asifali online? I blocked him, not ‎User:Abdulbaqi2. Brianga (talk) 10:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I got dyslexic on those two, didn't I! El_C 10:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand your mixup now, and the reason for the unblock (I crossed out the message on Abdulbaqi2's talk page). I would appreciate next time you contact the blocking admin first before an unblock. Alexf 11:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As I understand yours. I would appreciate next time you read the talk page of the user you block. El_C 11:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

email

Hi, El C. Please check your email. Bucketsofg 19:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Responded to the latest, yesterday (will refactor on your talk page). El_C 10:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello

User:The_TriZ is a POV-warrior who is only here on Misplaced Pages 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: He's only here to provoke and nothing else. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 13:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this still a pressing issue? El_C 03:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sort of. He's been off for a few days, but his last edit was quite fanatical. He'll be back soon and I suggest you keep an eye on him. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 16:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Yellowbeard has resumed canvassing.

See Misplaced Pages 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)

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_C 03:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

There has been no reply, and I would like to know what would be the best approach for solving the problem. Thanks. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:46, 12 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_C 03:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Thanks, George. I appreciate your confidence. I am drafting my note to arbcom-l at the moment, including my block of GroomingVictim. El_C 03:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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)

This isn't a matter that's open to public debate. Please direct all related queries to the Arbitration Committee via email. Thanks. El_C 05:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

To my knowledge, no, there is no other mechanism. El_C 05:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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.

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?

Thank you for understanding and taking the concerns seriously enough to allay them. VigilancePrime (talk) 06:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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_C 06:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

It is strictly limited to pedophilia-related blocks. It is relatively new. Since April 2007, I believe. El_C 06:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Long-winded explanation

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)

Not long-winded, that was good. Thanks again for the thoughtful comments, George. El_C 08:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

GV

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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_C 06:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Sorry, I cannot. Rest assured that if the Committee takes issue with my block, the consequences for me will be severe. Thanks. El_C 06:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That sounds too much like a "trust me to be trusted". I realize that it's not you and that it's Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages:Results of secret ArbCom discussions or something? VigilancePrime (talk) 06:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

VigilancePrime, while the last part of your comment is funny, please be careful with the sarcasm ;-) Same goes for your comment below. ~ Homologeo (talk) 06:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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_C 07:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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

If they do not say anything, I take it to indicate that the block stands. El_C 07:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing comments from ANI

It would be helpful if you would cite the policy you are invoking to remove comments. Without that, it appears rather arbitrary. Pairadox (talk) 06:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I am removing it per this decision. El_C 06:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Wait, so this somehow became a policy now? Pardon my expression, but what is going on with Misplaced Pages? ~ Homologeo (talk) 06:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Operating procedure, at least. I attached it to User talk:Barry Jameson. I seem to have forgot to add to the GV, sorry about that. El_C 06:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that if this is going to be policy, it needs to be codified into an actual policy. How about Misplaced Pages:Don't you dare edit a pedophilia article or Misplaced Pages:Activism is not allowed, period. (I like the latter...!) VigilancePrime (talk) 06:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC) :-)

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_C 07:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be "our" reputation as a repository for all things pop culture related?

Pairadox (talk) 07:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand that question. El_C 07:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(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 Misplaced Pages. I think that would help to bolster even more Misplaced Pages's reputation and credibility. VigilancePrime (talk) 07:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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_C 07:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

I'm not sure how to respond to that. But, certainly, I think your description is overly simplistic. El_C 07:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Find Kitty

File:Andean Cat.jpg

Where's Kitty? El_C 11:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

A puffy tail! Kitty 12:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE (2)

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.) GRBerry 00:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

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_C 07:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

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. GRBerry 22:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

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_C 07:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI (Bishonen's image)

I've mentioned your name here. 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)

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_C 07:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I'm not really interested in the image, just keeping the talk page free of boTW/etc. noise. El_C 15:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Che image

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 Misplaced Pages's rules don't allow it, unfortunately. Sorry to bring bad news. All the best, – Quadell 14:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

We're not Vogons. If the use is allowed, then we should just leave it be. If the rule is written poorly, it should be rewritten.- Jehochman 14:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This is dumb. This is silly. El_C, WP:IAR here and keep the image if you want. (And I'm a fervent capitalist, FWIW.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI, WP:IAR doesn't apply to our non-free content policy, since it is an official Exemption Doctrine Policy as required by the March 23rd, 2007 Wikimedia Foundation Licensing policy resolution. Changing this rule (no non-free images in userspace) would require a new resolution by the board. I sympathize, but when we play on Wikimedia's servers, we have to play by Wikimedia's rules. – Quadell 15:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Please have a say at Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Salvadorpoliceche0961.JPG, copyright paranoia gone bananas. --Soman (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That link seems to be broken. – Quadell 15:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Salvadorpoliceche0961.JPG. That should work. Dreaded Walrus 16:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

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. - Jehochman 15:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If you place the letter of the law over its spirit, the chipmunks sense that and they will refuse petting. El_C 21:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop hounding me, already. El_C 23:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Yes, it was discussed; I brought it up myself. It is free use, we are not making commercial use of it. El_C 00:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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_C 01:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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_C 01:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps technically the image is not allowed, but a) I don't see any harm, b) it is not illegal, c) I am not going to remove it. _(1 == 2) 01:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

(ec)This is a user talk page, not part of the 💕 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) 01:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I already explained. The spirit of WP is common sense, the spirit of rules superseding legalistic absolutist application of its letter. El_C 01:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Can I get back to editing now, or am I still waiting? El_C 01:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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_C 06:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Not hard to imagine what Che would have thought of this. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)