Misplaced Pages

Maybe so. We're all entitled to our opinions, and I stand by my own. El_C

Thinking of you

Just a quickie to say I'm thinking of you for tomorrow. Toes and fingers crossed; and healing thoughts being sent your way. SlimVirgin 22:56, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! It's nice to be in someone's thoughts. I'm a little nervous and apprehensive, but it should end up fine, *knock on cat* File:Wk926591.jpg El_C

Very pleased to hear it! I had a very clear (positive) sense of you this morning (Feb 19) at what would have been 13:00 hrs UTC/GMT. I wondered if you had woken up feeling better or something (yes, I do believe in that stuff). I'm glad to have you back. SlimVirgin 00:36, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

I was sleeping then. Slept for many, many hours. Had some vivid, colourful dreams – perhaps a glimpse of these entered your intuitition, though, of course, I don't believe in those things. ;) Still hurting, but speedy recovery seems very likely, *knock on cat*, again (not that I believe in that either, but so much fun!). El_C 00:54, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

hey,

if you have time could you look at today's discussion at talk:capitalism concerning the introduction, and comment? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:11, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hey, see your talk page, I'll see if I can get to the article talk page later, but I'm still recovering from my ordeal (see above) and this entails keeping stress levels down ;) El_C 00:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your lengthy response. Personally, I agree with you. The problem is, our view is only one of many. In order to avoid an edit war in the intro, my idea is to have a very general description of things people use the word "capitalism" to refer to (hence the bullet points), and then a detailed discussion of the different views of capitalism in the body. When you have the enregy, please look at RJII's comments on the talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I hope you are doing better. If so, I'd still appreciate it if you could look at that talk page and engage RJII directly. See this edit -- My point is (1) not everyone will agree with this definition, and (2) given disagreements of definition, we shouldn't open with a definition but rather discuss different definitions in the body. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:38, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am, much better, thank you, SlR. I responded on the article talk page, I hope you approve of my approach towards the editorial dispute in question. El_C

capitalism

I thought your comment on the talk page was constructive, although I still feel that these issues should be worked out in the body of the article rathe than the introduction. Look, I think there are three issues here:

1. the definition of capitalism -- this is RJII's main concern but I think it is a red-herring. What an article needs is not a definition (definitions are of words, not things, and this is a word that is used in so many different ways) but a description of capitalism and I think any description reflects a theoretical or political position (whether acknowledged or not). To try to come up with one definition, no matter how clever or popular, is a diversion.
2. the structure of the article -- I think encyclopedia articles should be organized differently from dictionary entries or newspaper articles. Dictionaries present the most popular definition first, and progress towards the arcane; newspaper articles begin with the major point, and progress to the minor. I think an encyclopedia article should be more complex (especially when dealing with a complex topic). The introduction of an article should introduce the whole article by foreshadowing (or signaling) what is to come (and I think the current introduction does this quite well.) Maybe in this you and I disagree?
3. basic principles of Misplaced Pages like no original research and cite sources. It seems to me from the talk page that RJII has some strong personal feelings about what capitalism is, but has not actually done any rigorous research into it. He thinks coming up with a definition is easy because "everyone" knows what capitalism is. I think there is almost no point to an encyclopedia article that is about what "everyone" knows -- it should cover things people do not know, and do so based on real research. RJII's ideological reading of Smith -- and his claim that his points are not supported by any citable passage of the book, but rather "the whole book" -- tells me he hasn't done any serious research, and may not even know how to.

I fear that these three different points keep getting mixed up, which doesn't help clear the air. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:03, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, it might be tricky to touch on these in the intro, but I still think a very broad outline (along the lines I proposed at RDII's talk page) is possible, certainly desirable. To address your points more specifically:

1. I tend to agree that it is proving to be a red-herring, but I still think it is paramount to start with the statement that capitalism is an economic system. This is something that all the ideologies (Left, Moderate Left, Moderate Right, Right) acknowledge. Of course, Smith only saw glimpses of capitalism since he was living under, sort to speak, the last stage of feudalism. He never had a chance to see (industrial) capitalism, so this needs to be carfeuly qualified (more on that bellow).
2. This, in fact, was one of the areas of disagreement I myself had with RDII: arguing to him/her that the article needs to be expansive and that it cannot resmeble Simple Misplaced Pages, or Wikitictionary (and I'll add now: even Britanica, Encarta, etc., for that matter). S/he did not, however, seem to strongly object to this when I insisted on the centrality of this.
3. Back to Smith, I tend to agree with that, too. While I don't wish to 'pick sides,' certainly there is a need for him/her to cite passages from Smith's WoN or his ToMS in this extension (esp. when requested).

I hope I will be able to effectively encapsulate to him my opinion on these (and that my above explanation can lead into that). The discussion does seem to have gotten confusing, with several key areas getting mixed, which I agree, is not facilitative of clarity. Hopefuly, then, I can offset his concerns with yours, but I am fairly strict about citing sources and providing propper referncial evidence (a cursory glimpse into any of the articles I authored reveals this), so this is one area I intend to stress and elaborate on to him. In the case s/he ends up seeking my services with this, that is. El_C 00:33, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your response. Regardless of what RJII wants, I think you should be as active in improving the article as you have time for, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:46, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that, but, while I often tread in waters deep, I probably should tread lightly with this one. It can easily consume me – and I mean, literally, as caloric intake! El_C 09:38, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm Back

Hey there, C. I've returned from my trip. Any developments since I've been away? Also, I'd like to get with you to begin discussing how you'd like to proceed with the case. Feel free to e-mail me at Paintball5320–at–aol.com (both corny and AOL, I know, but I'm far too lazy to change the eight year-old account). Wally 23:40, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back, Wally! I hope your trip involved some painball activities and was otherwise a positive experience. No, no developments to report on on this front. I will email you (probably tommorow) with more substantive thoughts. El_C

Hey C, I'm back as well.

I've been working on the Rhodesian Military History/Special Warfare article for the past few months when I have the free time as we discussed awhile back and things are progressing at a slow but steady pace. Since the last time we discussed it I've obtained permission to use information and some pertinent imagery from a very good website that's devoted to the Selous Scouts and as a result, that section of the article's just about finished. Since we were going to incorporate the military history/special warfare section that i'm writing into the SR article, I'd like your thoughts on the preliminary draft of that section. I'll get it out to you sometime today or tomorrow depending on how hectic things are around here. Sorry it's taken awhile to get everything together but with going back to College and all my schedule's become pretty insane.

Again, my humble apologies for the delay.

Scuzz138 09:38, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Down with bullets!

I don't like the bullet thing either, unless there are multiple definitions of capitalism ..then you would need to put each definition in a bullet. But, yes all three bullets, as they were, seemed like they were just trying to skirt around and hint at capitalism instead of actually defining it. It looks like a cop-out to me from someone who is afraid to define it, or avoiding it for some mysterious reason.

As far as saying it's "currently the dominant economic system on the planet"..I think that that is POV. Many people disagree and would say, rather, that the major economies are "mixed economy", each having it's own skew toward capitalism, socialism, or whatever. A good definition of capitalism should be able to stand on it's own as a concept. Whether any particular system in existence accords with that definition is where judgement comes in. I think all we need to do is define the system called capitalism. I think the first bullet there now is ridiculous. RJII

Thanks for your response, RJII. I am pleased to learn that you are also down with Down with bullets! You make some goodpoints here which I adress at some length (but hoepfuly not too much longwindedness) at your own talk page's Down with bullets! section (also self-titled by yours truly). El_C

Yes, I agree with what you are saying there. The only thing I would advise is that the very definition of capitalism should only take one or two sentences. I don't really oppose a statement that the world economies have moved toward capitalism in the intro, just as long as it doesn't leave the impression that it's part of the actual definition. So, I think we are on the same level here. I'm against the bullets. So, one of us needs to get rid of them and then get ready for a bit of conflict if that's what it takes. Feel free if I don't get to it first. RJII 16:06, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Roger that! More (again, sigh: lengthy) thoughts on your user talk page. El_C

Yes Slr and i are getting into distracting disputes. We know what his position is ..he doesn't want capitalism to be defined in the intro. It's obvious that his objective is to disrupt any progress in doing so, naturally. So I'm not going to play into his distractions anymore. If you have a definition feel free to stick it in the intro. Those of us who want a definition in the intro will edit amongst ourselves, while experiencing intermittent reversions by SlR who wants to keep definitions out of the intro. It's the only way I know to do it. RJII 00:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked your comment earlier, RJII. I responded (for once, not so longwindedly) on your talk page. Thanks. El_C 09:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you wanted, you could work on a marxist type definition. My understanding is that capitalism has two definitions ..the marxist-influenced one, and the more common one found in dictionaries. Then we can put them both in the intro. Let me know what you think. RJII 23:26, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

New Webster's Dictionary (print)

Well, I certainly agree very strongly that within the broadest Right-Left generaliztion, the Marxists had the most influence among the Left. Also, RJII, I want you to note and address the (one-sentence) definition by The New Webster Dictionary for English Languages (print; p. 146) : n. Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are privately owned and operated for profit (definition cited in its entirety; bold is my emphasis)

That's one of the two main definitions of capitalism..perfect example. (This is the definition of capitalism I always hear from Marxists, but of course it doesn't have to be labeled as such). The other definition goes beyond that and notes the "free market" aspect ..the private autonomy, which you'll find in the Merriam-Webster dictionary and most other sources. I really think it's important that this distinction is made from the outset in the intro. RJII 01:05, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Again, RJII, I can see the utility in limiting the intro to the Right (as seen by 'Classical' Liberals) and the Left (as seen most prominently by Marxists), but I don't know to what extent it is tenable (in being sufficiently inclusive), nor, to be honest, even desirable. But, of course, I remain open to persuasion and am looking forward to your thoughts. El_C 23:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I put together a bullet-free intro: "While various definition of capitalism exist they typically fall under two categories. The most common set of definitions that abound denote the private ownership of capital, the private nature of economic decision-making, and most often mention the existence of a free market. The other, somewhat prevalant, set of definitions do not refer to the nature of economic decisions or methods of pricing and distribution but, instead, define capitalism as the private ownership of capital. Most of the practices that are considered to comprise capitalism became institutionalized in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries, especially involving the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as "legal persons" (or corporations) to buy and sell capital goods such as land, labor, and money (see finance and credit), in a free market (see trade), and relying on the protection by the state of private property rights and the adjudication by the state of explicit and implicit contractual obligations rather than feudal obligations." RJII 15:36, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User_talk:Sam_Spade#skinhead

Thanks for what I assume was a friendly gesture, but I prefer to respond to such questions directly. I am responding here rather than thru your advocate both because I assume you are in better health, and because I hope your edit to my talk page is suggestive of some progress, however minor. Regardless, where are we @, and where are we trying to go? Is there a best case scenario which we are striving towards? Even if we can't be friends, we can at least avoid each other, or agree to disagree. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:18, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I thank Sam Spade for his comment. The deletion of the comment left on his user talk page which ended with Zeig Heil, was not so much a gesture (not friendly nor unfriednly), no more so than this, rather, it was an action against a personal attack that I noticed on my watchlist. The objection to the deletion is noted and I will refrain from similar future actions. Avoiding each other as much as possible certainly strikes me as a sound suggestion, but whenever discourse becomes unavoidable, I see a best case scenario consisting of professional courtesy (as in professional encyclopedia editors), namely, with Sam Spade adhering to WP:Civility, avoiding deriding chat room exclamations (i.e. "WTF," "LOL," "BS," etc.) and otherwise unecessary emotionalisms (snide rhetorical questions, sarcastic nuances, et cetera, etc.). If there is anywhere to go beyond this, frankly, I do not have the time or energy to expend on such an affair at this time.

I request that Sam Spade continues to refer to my advocate until an agreement or detente is reached, though I should stress that I do not view him contacting me directly –in this instance– discreditably. I am confident that Sam Spade can see the benefit in and will be able to conduct himself in accordance with (and the same goes for myself, of course) the terms I set out above (my advocate can provide further details on these). This whole dispute, therefore, should be concluded expediently. Simply because Sam Spade makes me 'personally' uncomfortable is no grounds for editorial collaboration becoming impossible. It does, however, suggest taking professional courtesy in our discourse to the utmost extreme: limiting it to a technical, humorless, and matter-of-fact exchanges. Again, I thank Sam Spade for his comment, and I refer him to my advocate for any further questions. Based on his response here, I see no reason why this dispute shouldn't be concluded in the very near-future. El_C

Your E-Mail

I'm going ahead (a bit belatedly) and posting your requests to Sam's page, reworded a bit but the same in substance. I'm also posting a request for mediation. Might I request, until then, that you two not argue on my talk page? It clutters things up. Wally 01:50, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you might. ;) Sorry, Wally. And thanks. El_C 04:40, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi! I left a message on S.S.'s page relating to his latest dig at you, but he deleted it very quickly () — I've mentioned it to Wally. I'd have e-mailed you directly, as I don't want to discuss details in public, but it seems you've not set up your e-mail address. If you want to contact me, mine's set up on my User page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just checking in

Have sent you a couple of e-mails, and after no reply, checked here and see you haven't made an edit for three days, so I'm beginning to wonder if you're okay. Let me know how you're doing when you can. If you've been off trying to have a life outside Misplaced Pages, you know that's not allowed. Big Sister may have to send out her thought police. SlimVirgin 22:38, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Sam Spade has asked me to mediate between you and him. I do not even know what the case is about. However, I am willing to give it a go, if you are willing to accept me as a mediator. Please answer on my page. Danny 02:08, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

Southern Rhodesia draft discussion

Sadly, untouched since August. Please write comments on it in this space. El_C

The 1923 Constitution and the British veto

lthough I don't know squat about the history of Southern Rhodesia, your article on the subject has raised the following question in my mind. "Britain could still veto the decisions of its government when it came to 'Native Affairs,' a veto which Great Britain never saw fit to exercize." How was that veto supposed to work? Would it have required a vote in parliament? --Christofurio 16:42, Nov 13, 2004

Someone read my Southern Rhodesia draft, yes! No, I believe that the British Governor in Southern Rhodesia would have advised the British Cabinet (Colonial and/or Dominion Offices). It is somewhat confusing because there is another set of legislation the British could theortically employ which superceded the 1923 Const. Under the '1961 Constitution' of the CAF, unlike the 1923 one, Britain could not block discriminatory legislations, rather, appeals to the quasi-British (In London, but Commonwealth membership) 'Judicial Committee of the Privy Council' could be made on an individual (submitted by individuals) basis. This, argues James Barber (Rhodesia, pp. 96-98), was not, however, the case. While not included in Duncan Sandy’s document (British Commonwealth Secretary, architect of the 1961 Const.), since Southern Rhodesia itself was still formally a British colony, Britain could still override legislations through 'the Colonial Laws Validity Act of 1865.' Sandys appears to agree. Thus, with respect to British law, the specific Self-Governing arrangments (1923) were more good-faith than truly legally binding for Britain. Thanks for taking the time to read my SR draft! El_C

Collaboration with Scuzz138

Hey El C, I got your message about the Rhodesia article and im more than happy to help with the article anytime as long as its fair, which I trust it will be. In fact ill probably start the section about the military history tonight since I dont have to study.

Anyway, Is there anything about the counter insurgency or nationalists that you'd like to know in a little greater detail? If so, drop me a line at scuzz138-ˆt-cfl.rr.com so I can get back to you quickly. Also do you want me to use the old Colonial Names for towns and villages or the post-independence Shona names? Scuzz138

Hi, Scuzz138. I am looking forward to collaborating with you on the Rhodesia series of articles. Yes, it will be fair, and I think thus far it (the draft) is. Please read it closely, afterwhich, I encourage you to modify and edit it as you see fit (or you can write you own draft/s and we could work on integrating these – whatever's good for you, I'm flexible). More than anything, my draft right now needs completion on the BSA Co era, so any help on this front will be greatly appreciated. Back to fairness, I would like to point out that I attempt to leave the politics and polemics to talk pages, and for articles, I aim for consensus. Don't take my word for it, review some the articles listed on my user page, I believe you will find that virtually all the articles I authored or made significant contributions to enjoy overwhleming consensus (and these, like Rhodesia, include controversial areas of study). Periodization-wise, I am not yet at the stage where I am writing on the counter-insurgency aspect, but when I do, I will certainly take advantage of your knowledge in this area. As for the names, I think the correct way to note these would be to use the colonial names and in parentheses the Shona ones for the first time any of these are mentioned; and from then on, just the colonial names (without parentheses). Certainly, I may take you on your offer and email you if the need arises – and I extend the same to you (my email address for the wikipedia email function is valid, so feel free to use it).

More thoughts soon. Best Regards, El_C

I'm more than happy to collaborate in either form, usually im better when I already have something to work with and can modify it to include more information so we'll probably use your drafts as the basis and go from there until we have a finished work.

Now to answer your questions, my expertise is with post-UDI Rhodesia and the ZANU and ZAPU militias but I do know a little bit about the Federation's security services and to answer your question about Troop deployments within the CAF aside from the Miner's strike, I dont believe the Federation troops, ever served as more than what we'd call Peacekeepers nowadays during the uprisings in Nyasaland. They were also used in internal security functions similar to the United States National Guard, like as strikebreakers, police, and as border-guards throughout major border crossings into the Federation. Aside from that im not really sure about the Federation troops during the political collapse of the Federation, if they had a role in it, and what happened to them after the Federation split up, such as if they were integrated into the new national Armies in post-CAF states.

Now Territorial troops from Southern Rhodesia, had a fairly limited but highly effective role in the Malayan Emergency, which is actually where and why the famous(or infamous) Selous Scouts and what would become the Rhodesian SAS were formed, it gave their soldiers vital practical experience in unconventional warfare and pseudo-terrorist operational procedure which would serve them quite well during the chimurenga war a few years later.

More soon.

Oh and I noticed that one of the images of the Rhodesian Flag is missing on the draft article, If you're missing the 1965-1980 flag, I have an image of it and I can add it to the article if you'd like.

User:Scuzz138

Hi. I uploaded the 1965-1968 flag on Aug., and the 1968-1979 one was already uploaded, both are in the current Rhodesia article, but note that my SR draft deals with Southern Rhodesia up to the CAF, whereas the Rhodesia draft (yet to be written) will cover (Southern –Northern no longer– mostly UDI) Rhodesia up to Z-R and Zimbabwe independence. Anyway, I am alright on the flag front, but what I do need is images of notable people, places, and maps. So, if you come across any of these, they could really enhance the article(s).

Thanks for confirming what I thought was the nature of Federal troops within the CAF and their deployment at uprisings consisted of. If you know how many Federal viz. Territorial troops there were (and maybe a brief overview for the composition of the latter), that would be useful; as would a more detailed account of the uprisings in Nyasaland. As for Territorial troops involvement in the British-MRLA conflict (which, admittedly, I know little about) leading to the formation of the Selous Scouts, that certainly could be mentioned (though, number of troops deployed should be noted, if not scope of operations – which could be outlined in the Selous Scouts article, barely a substub). Likewise, counterinsurgency role played (by them, and others) in the Chimurenga war is clearly historically notable and I planned on accounting for it (now with your help) in the Rhodesia draft.

A few words on that. I don't think I will start the Rhodesia article draft until the Southern Rhodesia one is complete, so it might be a while – largely depending how long it will take for the BSA Co. section in the SR draft to crystalize. In a sense, I authored the CAF article largely towards this end (it, in itself, I consider rather draft-like), as a chronological middle-ground, but I feel, for my own orientation with the material, that I must start from the beginning.

At any rate, I will give you time to acquaint yourself with my SR draft and CAF article, and I am looking forward to learning your thoughts on these. El_C

I've got numbers on the Rhodesian troops in Malaya during the conflict there.

Apparently there was only one battalion, called the Rhodesian Army Regiment(odd name considering it was only one battalion) which numbered about the same as a regular light infantry battalion, about 430 people give or take plus their non-combat support staff, bringing the total number to around 500 or so with about 60-80 additional soldiers comprising C squadron (Rhodesia) of the Malayan Scouts, which was renamed C Squadron (Rhodesia) of the Special Air Service in 1958. The RAR concentrated mostly on small, highly mobile units much like Special Forces in most western nations today. I've got some operational information about the Rhodesian troop deployments against the MRLA as well, and per your suggestion, ill make sure to include them in the background on the Selous Scouts and Rhodesian SAS in the appropriate section of the SR draft when I get that section drafted to where I want it to be.

Im still trying to find ratios of Territorial to Federation troops, though I do have a bit of information on the Federation's deployments during the uprisings in Nyasaland which ill be including the Rhodesian aspect of in my draft for the SR article and in-depth information for the CAF article.

Scuzz138 10:36 04 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Archived Discussions

Archive

Self-suspension from article contributions

In sympathy with Comrade Shorne's seemingly-sealed predicament, I am suspending myself from all article contributions until further notice. Out. El_C

2005 Addendum

I am hereby lifting total self-suspension. I feel uneasy that my original (Aug) Rhodesia series has been long overdue. Henceforth, I will begin contributing to Rhodesia-related articles only. Namely, continuing with writing the current draft (or additional one) for the rewrite(s); acquainting myself with the existing articles and its forumaltion/ediotrial histories, and seeing how best these can be combined/integrated. As always, I welcome and encourage feedback on all these fronts (esp. the draft/s). Slightly in. El_C 02:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now also continuing work on The Destruction of the European Jews. El_C

Article Licensing

Moved to User talk:El C/Article Licensing. El_C

Oubangui-Chari map again

You may be amused by the results of my investigation, recorded at Image talk:Oubangui-Chari.jpg. Who needs state archives when you've got ephemera collectors! :-) Stan 17:54, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That is hysterical! I certainly did not expect the source to be that (of all things). Well done, Stan, I really appreciate your efforts (and the good chuckle!). El_C

Aprt-YStar.JPG

Dear sir(?), I am wondering whether you still have the original photograph used in the abovementioned collage on the left-hand side? I am wishing to translate the English 'apartheid' article into Afrikaans (which the lower half of the sign just visible is written in), and it would be most wonderful if I could use the whole sign. Thank you for your time and consideration. Dewet 15:08, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hello sir/madam, here you go. I wish you a productive and engaging translation.

Regards,

El_C 10:23, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Again, my heartfelt thanks! I am indeed in Cape Town, but haven't yet expended the energy to visit said District Six museum. You have, however, provided the inspiration needed to do just that! Dewet 11:09, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I never let you know, but I corrected the perspective and lighting somewhat on that picture, and uploaded it to both the commons and en.wp; I hope that is OK... Thanks again!

With regards to your query on Sir Godfrey Martin Huggins, I'm unable to help; I've consulted my sources, but cannot find a picture reference. Sorry! Dewet 09:03, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I understand, t'was worth a shot. I will find a picture of him yet, mark my words! El_C

Smiling

Just a quick note, El C, to say how much I enjoy your posts when I see them. I've just spotted your entry in an edit history "I'm disendorsing Raul & Blankfaze's disendorsments, though not negating the negation," which I got a lot of pleasure from, and I have fond memories of a correction you made to one editor's angry insult of another (I paraphrase), "in hopes of seeing gramatically correct personal attacks." That one still brings a smile to my face. :-) Slim 14:12, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Slim, for the very kind words! I think the reason I'm still here, despite all the ideological constraints I percieve (and protests thereof), is that there are, nonetheless, interesting, engaging people (and note that I have a fairly short attention span and get bored very easily) here editing the eyncyclopedia, irrespective of ideology. You can count yourself among these. In the few months I have been contributing to WP, I have gotten some very enocuraging feedback from several reputable editors (such as yourself), and I just wanted to note, in this extension, that I greatly value these responses and it is, in fact, a pivotal reason as to why I am still here. Thanks again! Cordially & sincerely yours, El_C

172's courageous ArbCom candidacy

It took a lot of courage for you to run under the current political climate, 172. A belated thanks! I just saw the message. I must've overlooked it earlier. It was more foolishness than courage, though... 172 04:26, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Heh, perhaps. Either way, I view it as a highly creditable effort on your part and I sympathize with what, in turn, you had to endure from certain opponents. El_C

Apocalypse

I appreciate the note, I will look into it more. I think more than anything else it reveals how cosmopolitan Hellenistic Near East was, Slrubenstein 17:57, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My pleasure. I hope it proves useful. El_C

Happy New Year to you

I hope 2005's a good one for you, El C! All the best, Slim 03:51, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Slim! I hope it turns out to be a good one for you, too! Best regards, El_C

Fair and Balanced

Thanks for the humorous anecdote. I needed it... After all, this should be a humorous affair. My work on Russia, such as on History of post-Soviet Russia is consistently loaded with citations from leading Western think-tanks dominated by neoliberals and/or neoconservatives, such as the Carnegie Center, Jamestown Foundation, and Brookings. I refer to notable Cold Warriors like Paul Gregory and Anders ?slund. Shorne and Ruy Lopez should be the ones forcing me to abide by NPOV! They should be ones challenging my sources! But judging by my experiences over the past two years, I suspect that Libertas will convince a number of users that I 'exclusively use Marxist sources' (as if he even understands the role of Marxism in academia). The most active, vocal, and vitriolic on Misplaced Pages are the ones heard in the end... I don't know how long I can deal with this. I'm rapidly losing patience for this project. Happy New Year. 172 12:01, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Happy New Year! You have my sympathies for being forced to endure such brutish and crude (and humorless) neoliberal political agitation, with all the personal attacks which such a campaign always entails. From the left, we have lost Shorne, it seems; and now from the moderate left, we face losing you. Make no mistakes though, driving you out is exactly what these agitators wish for – not only that, they will prey on the moderate right, also. Their aim is to have their POV dominanting (they are largely successful) for a Fair and Balanced WP. El_C

Father forgive us for we have sinned
we traded our soul for just a little powedered gold
just one of many sins
we stood by and let the wicked and the greedy win
we enslaved women
we cut the forests of millions
we imprisoned the free in cages
slaughtered the animals
Daddy we killed the world some more
for my selfishness and greed
cannibal

User:GrazingshipIV

All of my interactions with GrazingshipIV were favorable, perhaps leaving me biased. But I try to judge users and act as an admin on a case-by-case basis. I favor cutting slack to users of all stripes that are knowledgeable and contribute factual content. For example, I stated support for TDC a few times. During the Arbcom race, I also spoke out against sanctions against both VeryVerily and Shorne. So I don't know if it's fair to call me an inclusionist of the left. 172 16:55, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I wasn't questioning that aspect, actually. I did not, in fact, intended on employing the term 'inclusionist' beyond that (aforementioned) type of interaction, but I should have better qualified this. I responded on User talk:GrazingshipIV, I hope it helps to better elucidate my point. Cordially & sincerely yours, El_C

Voting in progress

Please express your opinion at Talk:Israeli violence against Palestinian children#Article title (poll). Thanks. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:38, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Done. What a saga, sheesh. Thank you for informing me of this vote, likely I would have missed it otherwise. Regards, El_C 23:57, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Great, because I hesitated to bother many people. You may want to include WP:RFC, WP:CS, WP:CFD, WP:VFD, WP:RM into your watchlist. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 04:57, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked your response. Feel free to 'bother' me anytime, though I am afraid my watchlist is cluttered as it is and adding these items to it might overload some circuits in my fragile mind. Regards, El_C 12:17, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why was "violence against" dropped?

We've had long discussions, and (I thought) reached consensus. "Violence against" inherently means "intentional", which is highly POV and needs proof. When 95% of Palestinian fatalities are male but the article focuses on children, it smells like old blood libel. BTW, I also moved Palestinian violence against Israeli children. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 11:32, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the really prompt response, Humus sapiens. I applaud the merger (I have for long argued for it), and am pleased to see it take place. I responded with greater detail on your user talk page. El_C 12:10, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The missing U

Thanks for the tip about the "u" in the e-mail address, El C. I had, in fact, already sent it, but it seemed to arrive, albeit u-less. They must have some sort of redirect arrangement so that those spelling Ohio correctly are redirected to the ones in charge, who refuse to do likewise. Hope you are wellu. Best, SlimVirgin 06:11, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Heh, you made me chuckle, you! All the best, El_C 08:00, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Names of God

RE: your comments in Peer Review for Names of God in Judaism.

Thank you for the comments. Feel free to come around and do some edits as per your comments. Just please keep the Ref and Biblio separated as it is customary (Refs are that: referred in the article, Biblio is generic stuff that is supportive of the text.) --Zappaz 06:03, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's my pleasure, Zappaz, I hope it proves useful. Sorry, writing in haste. I'll return with more substantive thoughts soon. Thanks. El_C 12:31, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppets are requested not to get above themselves

El C, your bitterness at being named as 172's sockpuppet, as opposed to 172 being named as yours, is most unbecoming. Your chance to control a sockpuppet of your own will come one day soon, I am sure, when others judge you worthy of it. In the meantime, a little humility would be most appreciated. I thank you. SlimVirgin 23:04, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Wise, balanced and most unironic words from one of –my– sockpuppets! (I'm not schizophrenic, and neither am I! Nor am I paranoid, it's just that everybody's out to get me!). Cordially & sincerely yours, El_C 00:51, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you want me as a sockpuppet you can have me, but I will get you into lots of trouble. :-) SlimVirgin 01:04, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'm out for consultations (with myself!) :p El_C 01:59, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Conflict

I am afraid I don't understand your question on my talk page! Slrubenstein 18:06, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, sweet! El_C 01:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still do not follow you. Yes, I said that the material that I deleted from the Marx article on "conflict theory" should be in its own article -- I hadn't checked to see the actual conflict theory article, and I appreciate your pointing it out, but my main point was that the description of conflict theory didn't belong in the Marx article.

So we are agreed, that I said that the material on conflict theory belongs in its own article.

But when you ask "Who said that" I do not know what the "that refers to (since you know what I said, it can't refer to something I said. But what does it refer to?) Slrubenstein 16:36, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We are agreed. You encapsulated that point well in your comment at the article's talk page. The thing with inexplicable humour is that, unlike wit, slapstick, etc., it is often lost on the respective audience because it does not make sense! El_C

Sorry -- I don't mean to be such a dunderhead. I am cold and tired, and am glad you tried some levity, Slrubenstein 23:06, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. Sleep well, keep warm. All the best, El_C 23:42, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Today marks the 60th anniversary for the liberation of Auschwitz

Re: I don't know how you do it... It's thanks in very large measure to your support. Thank you so much for following my page. 172 21:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(Section self-authored) You are most welcome. I am really quite taken aback by Fred Bauder's comment – I recall you have told him a few months ago about your family's horrific tragedies and murder during the Holocaust, and of all days he picks today to continue with such repugnent statements (ones, which as I noted, are not even key to the issue at hand and are stated rather as innuendo, innuendo which he well knows will upset you). He should know better –and he does– so considering all this, I view his comment with an especial severity and contempt.

Yours always,

El_C 22:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you one again. Fred definitely knows what he is doing. He has been making similar statements for around two years, ever since I started contributing to this site. I may have to request arbitration against him sooner or later. 172 22:32, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For two years?(!) I would have requested arbitration a lot sooner, though I could see how it would be extremely difficult to undertake considering he is so frimly part of the Establishment in the Misplaced Pages hierarchy (in itself, a sad testament to the state of the Misplaced Pages powers-that-be). Perhaps, then, it would be best to wait until he is no longer a member of the Committee – for better chances of a more fair (and less Fair & Balanced) arbitration. El_C 22:48, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Contd.

Fred's been up to some more red baiting on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard. Rather than take him to arbitration, I decided to annouce that I focus entirely on the Russia-related articles from now on. I expect that to be the most fitting form of protest to his behavior. 172 07:52, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(Section self-titled) Sorry, 172, I overlooked your comment. Yes, I actually read some of that in the day where I stalked your contributions as opposed to just your userpage as normal (with some, as you may have noticed, eventfulness ensuing). It saddens me to say that I'm not surprised. Let me know if there is anything I could do to help. Best regards, El_C 11:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Same goes to you. 172 16:08, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm Sorry

Hi "El_C" I noticed this edit you made , and in responce i wish to say sorry to you for my past actions, my temper and general headstrongness gets in the way sometimes...--198 05:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that, 198. El_C 05:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jewish ethnocentrism

Thank you for your most helpful message. I'm not sure what to do now. The article is such nonsense, and it used to be even worse, that I feel it ought to be deleted, but not if it's a legitimate subject. I'll have a closer look around tomorrow. Yours, whether ethnically or not, ;-)

Anytime, Slim. Best of luck with your research. Cordially & sincerely yours, El_C

You're finding good stuff, El C. If this page is not deleted (I still hope it will be, because it's target practice), I wonder whether you'd want to try doing a rewrite. Not a nice job, but if an editor of goodwill were to tackle it, it would look very different. SlimVirgin 03:26, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Hah! Thanks, I appreciate that, but I expected to find more definitive material, actually. I think I overstated my abilities on that front. As for (counterfactually, in case it isn't deleted) leading a rewrite, I simply don't think I can produce a quality piece with such poor access to pertinent Israeli scholarship. Obviously, though, I'm in agreement with you that the article needs to undergo –drastic– change, one way or the other, and that its current form is unacceptable and insidious. El_C

Still laughing

You had me in stitches again with "why are you calling me surely?" though sadly the recipient didn't get it and gave you an English lesson. LOL Also laughing at your observation, sadly true, that the LaRouche editors are discussed more on Misplaced Pages than countries containing millions of people. They also cause more trouble than countries containing millions of people.  ;-) We are going through arbitration with them in case you're not aware of it. I was incredulous when you wrote that English isn't your first language, because it is perfect. Of course, I should have guessed from that alone. When have I ever met a native English speaker with as much control over the vocabulary as you? Not often. Apart your confusion over surely and surly, that is. LOL SlimVirgin 03:39, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Nice! It is really quite refreshing to see that I'm not the only one here who likes Gladiator movies (except, of course, for that movie, Gladiator, boo!)

Yes, I noticed that arbitration case, though I can't say that I have read all the pertinent materials in even remotely comprehensive way. Still, I think the evidence speaks for itself. It is certainly a peculiar form of political agitation, but I can see the rational behind it in terms of the aforementioned impact it has had thus far: unencyclopedic, overrepresentative exposure. I think this is the bottom line; the respective contributors are not idiots, they knew gross distortions would be ironed out eventually, but in the midst of that (and how long it takes) makes all the difference, is really the underlying gains behind that tactic. At any rate, I applaud your considerable efforts to methodically and systemically account for this campaign – it isn't something I would want to be doing, it seems like a relatively thankless, frustrating, oftentimes tedius, and an incredibly time-consuming undertaking. Goodluck and best wishes for an expedited solution with that saga.

Lastly, thanks for the very kind words on my English skills! I do try, of course, but it is, significantly, an intuitive thing (otherwise, it would take me a really, really long time to think –and I do think in English whenever engaged in it– and write in it). So, it's a hit & miss oftentimes, much like my nonsensical sense of humor (read: mostly lame).

All the best,

El_C 05:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

thanks

I just saw your Blazing Saddles joke on the VfD for Jewish ethnocentrism. I haven't laughed so much in weeks. Thanks! Slrubenstein 23:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Two nights in a row you make me laugh! God bless!

I don't even know what I did now! Sadly, you're likely mistaking a serious comment/edit as an attempt at humor. ;) El_C 03:18, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sweet! I'm not quite sure why, but that's actually my favourite line in the whole movie. The look on his face when he says that – pure comedy gold! El_C

Yeah, but there are so many brilliant lines -- the "hold it or the nigga gets it" is one of the most brilliant moments in any movie, ever -- it seems to say almost everything one needs to say about racial politics. Still, I have a real fondness for the time Gene Wilder explains that he's the Waco Kid, Cleavon Little mocks him, Wilder explains the test with the chesspiece, Little says something like, that's ridiculous, and Wilder just says, "yeah, well, anyway ..." (maybe the only moment of understatement in the film) Slrubenstein 23:53, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think it's time for me to rewatch Blazing Saddles for umpth-teen time! El_C

Jokes run amok

I see you're having to explain one of your jokes again. It's not the fault of the jokes, though, El C, just the company they (sometimes) keep. SlimVirgin 05:02, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

(Section self-titled) Poor jokes, all they wanted to do was be their friend. I mean, no comment! Hi! :) El_C 07:09, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, I have read Jon Lee Anderson's work

Yeah, I haven't read that particular biography, but I have heard of it. It's generally considered the best one, though I can't tell you if that's from a leftist perspective. I would read it with a skeptical eye, and maybe ask Leftists who've read it before who can give you better guidance on its strengths and weaknesses. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful. --Che y Marijuana 09:05, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

(Section self-titled) Oh, you appear to have misread me, I wasn't asking for help. I have read it, as I said, recently. More on that at your user talk page. El_C

Oh... sorry. I was very sleepy at the time of reading your post. It was very late. I just may pick up a copy then, thanks :)--Che y Marijuana 20:05, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Not at all, it's my pleasure. El_C 04:14, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Conscious evolution

You may be interested to know that User:Dnagod, one of our Stormfront friends, has created an article on Conscious evolution, which has been proposed for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Conscious evolution. Best, SlimVirgin 04:45, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, Slim. All the best, El_C

npov tag

Hello El C, the edits on Afrocentrism looks much better now thanx a lot :) I'll probably add more stuff when the midterms are over. As for the previous POV version, I guess you gotta take whatever deeceevoice edits with a grain of salt, particularly on matters pertaining to African history. I remember having arguments with him/her on the same thing a couple months ago, on human migration and out of africa stuff. This guy equates everyone who's described as "dark" as "african" and claims it wouldn't be illogical for africans to have founded chinese, greek and indian civilization. ex: black chinese, black pythagoras, black buddha, black Beethoven, black Moors...you get the drift. I was advised by Guettarda not to bother arguing with him. I think I was finally labelled a racist by deeceevoice before he broke off arguing with me. Wareware 06:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the really positive response to my changes, Wareware, I am pleased you approve of them, and you being so graceful in not calling attention to my hitherto incompetence is certainly to your credit. I have yet to engage in any discourse with that editor, so perhaps it would be best if I refrain from making any comments on this front, but I thank you for bringing these concerns to my attention. Best of luck to you with your midterms. El_C 07:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wigdor...

Unless we get more encyclopedically notable material in the body of the article, we should reduce the number of links to the most pertinent ones (strictly for the page's appearence). Cake-me!

Not strictly according to Hoyle use of the edit summary box, but: yes, what you said, in spades. If you could do anything at all to clarify the peer-review/critical assessment/notability issue, I'd be much obliged to you. Trying to hold the ring between Bleedy and 24-dot-dot-dot is a little... well, trying. Some outside input would be much appreciated. Cheers, Alai 07:07, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Heh, I agree, cake is, indeed, quite deliciousness! Slightly more substantive thoughts on your talk page here. Regards, El_C 07:18, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, that's exactly what it sounds like, factional bunfight. If someone were to come up with someone (themselves 'notable'!) to say he's important/unimportant, a surrealist/not-a-surrealist, good/bad, etc, etc, or better yet, one of each of all the above, in some context it'd be appropriate and feasible to quote and reference, I'd be a much happier man. (And it'd be a much happier article, IMO.) Alai 07:24, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I tend to think that those exist (just from having skimmed the lengthy talk page). By holding both the Anon editors equally accoutable, and noting this intent to both of them explitly and clearly, let's hope for goodfaith, and progress that will meaningfuly improve the article; I'm optimistic. El_C 07:38, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm glad to see you're still looking in on Keith Wigdor, sorry sight that it is. If nothing else because hopefully it means there's at least a sane second party if it comes to it, and it becomes necessary to RfC the... persons concerned. Alai 01:02, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ta again. Easy editting, really... Just hard on the blood pressure. I doubt we've heard the last of it, though. Alai 05:17, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

condescension

I thank you for forgiving me, ElC, and my apology was indeed directed at you. I still don't see my remark as particularly unfriendly, but it appears that it was mistaken anyway, so I withdrew it with apologies to you. I also agree that VfD says the redirect should be deleted. I simply don't see the harm of redirecting instead of deleting (but I see it has been deleted now, anyway). Your attitude seems rather belligerent, too, since you appeared to jump all over me for a tangential remark I made. It is important to assume as well as exerting good faith. No harm done at all, but you'll understand that I can't be bothered to follow this issue any further. dab (ᛏ) 16:19, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The t seems this noticeboard is more and more becoming a replacement for both Village Pump and RfC which directly followed my comment, was an unfriendly statement which comes across as territorial and elitist. How am I supposed to respond to that, on the first day that I posted on the noticeboard, ever? 'Gee, dab, thanks for being so gracious, but my comment/s were very topical on the non-content front (unlike yours).' Well, that's pretty much what I said. I don't care about the issue so much as a seeming willingness on your part to ignor ordinary editors (such as myself and SlimVirgin) no matter what they say and instead only look at what the 'Administrators' or the 'official' postings are saying. This is how you are coming across to me, and your explantions are doing little to combat this impression. If you believe this isn't the case, you have the floor. Otherwise, I will not be told what to understand, but I will view your (non-procedural) admin capacity discreditably. El_C 17:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's back, still redirecting to Culture of Critique. The democracy is alive and well, I see. SlimVirgin 19:03, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

FYI SlimVirgin 21:37, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

well, I am sorry I came across this way, and I assure you this kind of 'class thinking' is very foreign to me. If at all, I judge editors by their attitude, not by their 'rank', and I was not aware, at the time of your posting, whether or not you are an admin (there are 400 of them. I don't know them all). I have also never thrown my weight around as an admin, and at no time have I used my privileges controversially. You are still free to dislike me of course, and I'm not going to lose any sleep over that. dab (ᛏ) 09:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am noting these developments (and in general Admin misconduct and territoriality – see above) with grave concerns. Thank you for bringing these issues to my attention. Please keep me posted about the situation (I will try my best to follow its outcomes). I will soon be undergoing certain medical procedures that will likely impact my participation here dramatically; so expect my presence here to be both intermittent and, erm, spaced-out (more so than normally).

All the best, El_C 01:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that, and hope it's nothing serious or scary, and that you'll be back in full working order very soon. The spaced-outedness sounds interesting, though . . . You'll be able to make outrageous edits but then beg community forgiveness on grounds of lack of capacity. Please let me know how you things go for you. SlimVirgin 02:07, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that very much. I hope it will turn out fine (though surgery does seem inevitable), I think it will, it look very likely (I hope I didn't just jingse myself though: corssing my fingers). Yes, clearly, that is one benefit which I overlooked. :) I will keep you posted. Thanks again for your concerns and kind words. I am having a tremendously difficult time with my life right now, and this encouragment really does make a big difference. Cordially & sincerely yours, El_C

I just tried to e-mail you but you haven't left an address, so this is just to say feel free to e-mail me if you ever want to chat. Just click on "e-mail this user" on the lefthand side of my user page, but of course don't feel obliged. I'm crossing my fingers too on your behalf. Yours, SlimVirgin 04:35, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say I'm thinking of you and hoping all is okay. Regarding Bernard, I saw you had added something but in fact I have not checked it out. I had to force myself to drop Bernard because I was in danger of developing an ownership attitude toward him, so I promised I wouldn't look at any changes for a couple of weeks. But I will look very soon. I see Mel made some changes too. So I'll have lots of reverting to do. (No, it's a joke). Best, SlimVirgin 06:14, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Very glad to hear it. Yes, you may say whatever you wish, as you have medical dispensation. SlimVirgin 07:34, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Yay! What the fuck was I talking about though? El_C 07:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As polite as always

We were on good terms at one point. I feel you made a conscious decision to change that here and here. If you regret that, make the necessary internal progress. If not, don't bother complaining about it to me. I am now, and shall ever be, as polite as always. Sincerely, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 19:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I feel that my response to the above will be better communicated through the aid of an advocate. I have submitted such a request for assistance here. I am, therefore, refraining from making comments pending the outcome of that request. El_C 01:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK. For the sake of propriety I think I ought to inform you that there are as few as 2, and possibly as many as 4 or 5 (both numbers including myself) AMA advocates available. You may wish to contact them directly. If your concern would entail a request for mediation, I am likely to accept. Do not feel obligated to respond. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:32, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

AMA Request for Assistance

El C, thanks for your note. If you'd like, I'd be happy to accept duties advocating for you or, alternatively, assist you to find another advocate that suits you. Sam has indicated he'd be willing to try mediation; are you amenable as well?

Also, if you could send me links to relevant exchanges, I'd be grateful. Thanks! Wally 18:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am pleased to have you as my advocate, Wally. The exchanges will be compliled soon, but in the meantime, you should read the contents (and glance at the revision history) of Talk:Racialism, beginning chronologically with the archives. Thanks. El_C 07:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okey dokey, will do. I do have to mention, however (and I am sorry I did not do so before hand) that I will be away from this Friday through next Tuesday at the least and likely Wednesday as well. If you'd like, I could ask a second advocate to join this case and he or she can begin dealing with some of these issues immediately.

Also, bravo to you on your mainpage quote. Dante was a brilliant man — not to mention good with a phrase! :) Wally 04:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A giant; lyrical and poetic genius so masterful, with such immense depth and poignancy, it truly defies comprehension! So, yes, 'good with a phrase!' (as good as you seem to be with understatements! :p). To be honest, I actually wrote that under a narcotically-induced fit of rage; erm, I mean, 'intellectual' rage, of course (this should explain the jump from Inferno to Paradiso -- but the key is in the combination). Still, absolutely incredible passages; and I just did not have the heart to cite a translation for what, unarguably, no translation can do justice for. What were we talking about again? Ah, yes, the plan. I am actually very comfortable with your forthcoming absence; it is ideal, in fact. On Fri. I have to undergo a medical procedure that will leave me drugged-up again (I am now, and have been so since yesterday). For those reasons, I actually want to wait till next Thurs., and this provides a perfect excuse for that. So, no rush from these quarters: it all, then, depends on whether Sam Spade is amicable and is willing to reciprocate by withdrawing from editing those articles and talk pages in which we are both involved (and every indication I have suggests that he is, and so we can proceed along this time frame). Sorry for being so longwhinded (more so than usual) I am pretty out of it. Thanks again, Wally! El_C 09:16, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Sam seems to have indicated that he will avoid conflict for the time being until a settlement is reached; that said, I think it would be good if for at least some time you refrained from editing any articles that might bring you into conflict with Sam. I've already asked him, on your behalf, to do the same.

Also, I agree with you about the translations. As a matter of fact I don't think any poetry can truly be felt in a translated text; a mother tongue carries with it so much more than mere words. Same is very much true for novels, but I suppose in a less significant way; the novels lose something, while the verse loses everything. Wally 20:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Downsides_of_being_Spacedout

I strongly advise you to avoid conflict, particularly while in a state of less than optimal mental alacrity. I have taken note that our differences are not the only ones you've had in the last couple of days, and may be willing to place that in perspective if you back off from editing, or at least from interpersonal shenanigans until your medical issues have been resolved. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 08:32, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade's advise is a sound one, but the reader should note that I have no choice but to respond to charges he continues to make against my article revisions, and since I view his editorial practices as a prominent issue (in that specific article, at least), my responses follow. I would like to take a break from these (common articles, or at the moment, article), but I fear that an absence while ongoing comments by him persist, would work against my best interests. So, I have no choice but to take the obvious risks cited above. El_C

Actually, I made no such charges. It would appear you misunderstood my comment here. In any case, I am not out to crucify you, but I warn you once again, back off from interpersonal conflict. Wait until you are healthy and clear headed, and reappraise the situation. If you must edit between now and then, stay well away from places like Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Socialism and Racialism, and focus rather on obscure and uncontroversial pages. We both know that is in your best interest. As a gesture of wikipedia:truce, I will avoid contact and communication with you for a time. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 09:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But he will he continue to edit Racialism and address my contributions directly, all the while I'm expected to remain silent and concede to outright falsehoods (?).

At any rate, dear readres, bitter foes, and well-wishers, Let the record state that, in fact, I could not give a flying fuck about what is in my best interests right now.

A pleasure :-)

I don't have any time for Nazis. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A well earned image macro award, Ta bu shi da yu. I'm comforted knowing you're out there, promoting peace with vigilance. El_C 12:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Except that it was done because of his opinion. I'm quite a fan of Che myself, and I'll quote him one what I believe: Iconoclast 00:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)