User talk:Cecropia

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Welcome to my Talk Page. Please use the box above, or manually enter new messages at the end of my page so I can find them easily. Thanks!

Please see archives for earlier talk

March 2004 and earlier | April 2004 | May 2004 | June 2004

July 2004 | August 2004 | September 2004 | October 2004 | November 2004 | December 2004

January 2005 | February 2005 | March 2005 |

April 2005

Dessertion

Talk:Desertion -==SV 22:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ABCD

I note that you haven't voted. Perhaps you should, since as you note the vote is close. It's a tough case because both the support and oppose votes seem to be well-founded. If there are no further votes by the deadline, I would be inclined to promote, because of the moderately large turnout, because one of the oppose votes has no reasoning, and because the overall reasoning of the opposition is based on volume of activity rather than any sort of track record of problems. My two cents. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:04, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BMT Eastern Division directions

I've been talking to someone recently who says that the Jamaica and Myrtle Avenue Lines now have south as towards Manhattan. Do you know anything about this? --SPUI (talk) 15:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Franklin map

Am I correct about the pre-reconstruction configuration there (with the westbound track merging with the eastbound, and one track to Franklin)? And if so, where was the platform?

I did include the non-revenue and removed tracks, but unfortunately chose a bad shade of gray. --SPUI (talk) 23:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks. How far west does the current platform at Franklin Avenue extend? Is it as wide as the old eastern one? --SPUI (talk) 02:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've updated the map. --SPUI (talk) 02:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Culver Line

Would you object to covering the part south of the Culver Ramp in BMT Culver Line and only the IND-built part in IND Culver Line? Operationally it seems to be part of the BMT; it just happens to only have an IND service on it. --SPUI (talk) 22:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course nycsubway.org calls the IND part the Crosstown Line. Anyway, I'll get working on the split in a bit. --SPUI (talk) 23:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your welcome; I can see that I have a lot of quiet study to do before I start reading aloud from the admin spell-book. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:10, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

3rr

I recently stumbled across your comments re: 3rr on Jimbo's talk page, and wanted to voice my agreement with them. I've never been a fan of 3rr blocks, and while I'm willing to accept that they may have their place, I share your concern that they are being applied without thought. I also believe that editors are learning to game the system in various ways, and that 3rr is being used both for editorial leverage and as a means of settling scores. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:59, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chamaeleon's RfA

Since he has withdrawn his request, should it be archived, or should it still stay the full week? Thanks. Guettarda 22:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your information

Hi Cecropia, thanks for the information and wishes. I'll definitely excercise care and caution in using the sysop powers. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 04:07, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Greetings Cecropia, and thank you for the note and link; I'll be reading it through shortly. Btw, enjoyed your commentary under "Cecropia Lite"; it's quite to the point. Best, Antandrus 04:18, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Adminship standards

I like the statement in your adminship standards about edit counts. That is true; I have written articles offline and then posted them in one edit before (for instance, Guarantee Security Life Insurance Company, which I wrote for my Accounting class). Rad Racer | Talk 19:10, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If people continue to remove information the public deserves to know, I will no longer post to Wikipedia.

Wingover

NYC Subway infobox

Yeah, that sounds good (assuming that was the first of the predecessors). Strangely, the oldest right-of-way on which subway trains run is the Staten Island Railway. --SPUI (talk) 14:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chick Publications protection

Hi Jim, I've been watching this article from a distance now. Seems that the last edit on the talk page was nearly four days ago. Do you think it's a good idea to remove protection and see if editing will proceed smoothly now? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Question on Ruses of War

Hi Cecropia,

Thank you for your great articles! I'm currently developing a short curriculum on war crimes and laws of war for high school students, and found your article on Ruses of War especially helpful. Right now I'm working on a handout that will challenge students to think critically about what is and is not legal war conduct, based on the laws of war. The students will have to analyze a number of brief warfare scenarios and decide whether or not they are acceptable under the war laws. I was wondering if you have citations for your examples of "legitimate ruses", or if you could recommend me a book/publication I can use as a source for generating more scenarios of legitimate/illegitimate ruses of war. Any help you could give me would be most appreciated! Thank you much.

My primary source, and one I would highly recommend, is "Laws of Land Warfare" U.S. Army Field Manual FM 27-10. I think there are copies online, but I came up dry just now. If you have a little time, you can readily obtain a copy cheap on eBay.

A good discussion of Ruses of War can be found online in The Military Law Review at [1]. I especially point to the comment therein: "military necessity 'admits of deception, but disclaims acts of perfidy.' " This covers a lot in addition to the specifics. If the enemy is watching your movements, and you make believe you are going to attack "here," but instead attack "there," that is a perfectly legimitate ruse of war. You have no responsibility to allow the enemy to obtain an accurate report of your movements or intentions. OTOH, when you effectively ask the enemy to trust you (raise a white flag, then trap the opposite side in an ambush" that is perfidy and a war crime). The key element is betrayal of trust.

The central issue in much other of the Laws of Warfare is shockingly simple (and ignored in the modern media and among partisans worldwide): "I won't do it to you and you don't do it to me." Sad to say, multilateral organizations have greatly mudied this simple truth with bias toward one side or the other. Hope this helps. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Biekko's RfA

I think you cut short my nomination for adminship. It was supposed to end 18:45 UTC but you closed it at 06:20 UTC. --Bjarki 13:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RFA

I wasn't the one who re-added Biekko's nomination, but thanks for the credit anyway. :-)

Anyway, wrt the broader issue, I don't have strong feelings one way or another. I too have promoted early in the past, but like you I tend to leave non-promotions and close calls for the full duration. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to thank you for admining me so quickly. Cheers. Burgundavia 08:42, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Tips for archiving a talk page

Hello. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and would like some tips on how to archive a talk page. The one for Burkhard Heim is over 112 kilobytes long! I wanted to put some effort to summarize the discussion, and split the talk page into different topics as appropriate. However, I would like to be able to preserve the history as well. Do you have any advice for this? Thanks for your help! HappyCamper 14:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Uberarticles

First off, the subway car articles were all there; I just organized them.

The problem here is that the common name varies in different places. There is a lot of overlap between streetcar and tram, for example, and creating a fork because of regional differences makes no sense. --SPUI (talk) 20:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your main argument attacks the name. You suggested rapid transit as an alternative. Would you have any objection if I had made what's at urban heavy rail at rapid transit instead? If so, please argue about that issue, rather than what should be a minor issue of what to name the article. --SPUI (talk) 20:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If light rail is a neologism with no specific meaning, then it should be a short page describing its use, AND should have very little linking there, as calling something light rail is meaningless. Would you like to fix the links?

Feel free to post the poll, but the wording could use a bit of work. First, tram and streetcar were both separate articles. There should be a separate option about merging those two and having light rail as a short article about usage (since many light rail lines are called trams, like the Midland Metro. And Polls are evil, especially since there was meaningful discussion before you came in and made your demands. --SPUI (talk) 20:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

By the way, note how I combined some subway services like the 1-9, F-V and J-Z. This is a similar case. --SPUI (talk) 20:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They do not have discrete meanings; in effect European tram+light rail is equivalent to U.S. streetcar+light rail, with the division between each being fuzzy. Thus there is very significant overlap between streetcar and tram, and keeping the two separate makes no sense. As for light rail, that's so ill-defined that it should either be a redirect to its most common meaning of whatever streetcar+tram becomes, or should be a short page explaining usage. --SPUI (talk) 20:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Metro et al.

Obviously I'm not the one to protect them, as I'm now involved myself. I do consider you an involved admin as *you* seem to be the one disagreeing with SPUI. This is fine, and it's not a big deal. Just go to IRC or the Admin Noticeboard and ask someone to protect, I'm sure they will. Also, if SPUI has violated the 3RR, report it in the appropriate location. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:20, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

No harm done, C. :) I'm glad to see people working together amicably. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:00, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Eh, I apologize for anything excessive I've done, though I do believe firmly in the merging of these articles. There seems to be a decent discussion now on Talk:Streetcar. --SPUI (talk) 22:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My adminship

Hi Cecropia. Thanks for dealing with this promptly. I promise to be prudent, wise, sagacious etc etc etc. Cheers, Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just to echo Smoddy's sentiments but re:my own adminship, of course. I will do my best to live up to the responsibility... now to start thanking everyone who voted for me... --khaosworks 07:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

re: JonGwynne

Hi - just noted your unblocking note re: JonGwynne on 3rr. I presume you looked at the other two 3rr complaints currently on that page regarding JonGwynne. Your comment was on the first which had had no action taken. Look on down the page for the other two. He has also been subject to another 3rr ban just recently (Apr 20 - although the archive doesn't seem to be there?[2]). JonGwynne has been gaming the system quite regularly and I wanted you to consider the whole story :-). Regards Vsmith 03:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think he's just complaining because his requests to have me blocked have been rejected as being without merit.--JonGwynne 04:59, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

my adminship

Thanks! Having that block-thing right next to all edits will take some geting used to, but I'm sure it'll come in handy sometimes. And the rollback-thing rocks. Already tried it. It doesn't allow me to insert further comments to the revert, so I'll only use it when that is blatently obvious. But that's most of the times, i guess. Thanks for doing this task! Shanes 02:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BB&CI

Yeah, my bad on that - I have noticed other errors in Poor's and Moody's manuals (the source of the database). I'll change it back. --SPUI (talk) 23:29, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! (my adminship)

Just in the case you might overlook my comment on my own talk page, Jim, I wish to personally thank you for the welcome. Incidentally, have admired your consistently high-quality contributions for quite some time now, and I am hopeful we will get a chance to colaborate on interesting articles in the future. All the best, El_C 05:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Confrontational

I really would like to offer an apology as I feel this has become too confrontational. I think you do a good job and I don't have anything against you. Really I just want to have a logical discussion about whether or not voting to "tip the scales" and then close is right or not. Hopefully this can be better defined for future cases. Cheers. CryptoDerk 00:10, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Apologies

Cecropia, after reading Kim Bruning and Raul654's comments, I feel I need to apologize. I didn't vote because I didn't know Minghong, and I consequently didn't have an opinion either way on the subject. Of course, I then preceeded to get involved in a discussion about that vote... I'm sure being a bureaucrat is a difficult job, and I'm sure you do an excellent job (I don't know much about you either, actually...argh). I resolve to only get caught up in things that I actually know stuff about from now on; keep up the good bureaucratic work, or whatever. Take care. --Whimemsz 00:26, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

"conspiracy theory" in titles

Hello, Cecropia, just to clarify you support the status quo of articles titled with "conspiracy theory"? Why exactly, you noted big differences between "conspiracy theory", "conspiracy"?

Also, in my opinion you can ignore the bottom most proposal that Willmcw created, he seems to be intentionally tangenticizing the issue to me. zen master T 07:18, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

The GM article is not included in the list of proposals, see the main page Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory for the best summary of the arguments. The issue primarily exists when "conspiracy" and "theory" are combined together. The combined phrase has multiple definitions, one of which has negative connotations and therefore is not neutral enough for use in a title. Why use such an ambiguous phrase when better and simply stated alternatives exist? zen master T 07:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia e-mail

Cecropia, the wiki e-mail feature is highly unreliable in my experience, so I have to ask: did you get my message a couple of days ago? Bishonen | talk 20:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

blocking a vandal

Can you help me with how to block a vandal who is on a roll? Of course, it's an IP address, and I realize it will only be temporay. Several other users who are not admins (which i am) haver requested help. I have routinely chased and reverted vandals, but never blocked one. Thanks, Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 20:37, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thanks for the advice. Mark in Richmond, Vaoverland 13:40, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

why Exterminate?

Why did you exterminate my categories at WP:RfA/Bishonen? You noted: "Please DO NOT format RFAs like an article - it messes up the TOC. What is a TOC? :) --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 20:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Requests For Kitchen Appliances

Thanks, Cecropia! I wonder if I should have left a list at one of the major kitchen appliance stores? :-) --Bishonen | talk 14:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

rfa Apollomelos

Hi Cecropia - I see you just removed the rfa tally for Apollomelos. Sadly, it appears to be moot in any case... the debate became so heated that Apollomelos has apparently quit as a Wikipedian. Grutness...wha? 02:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Admins who voluntarily relinquish their admin powers

Hey Cecropia - I wanted your opinion. What's our policy w/ regard to people who have voluntarily given up their admin powers? If they want them back, do they need a full RFA, or can we expidite them? Apparently, we have precedents for both expiditing them (with PMA) or doing a full request for adminship (Evercat and Tabu). What are your thoughts? →Raul654 18:47, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for eavesdropping...jeeze, tell them to stop "relinguishing" their "powers" in the first place. It's not like they're on the clock, or anything. ;-) func(talk) 19:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Cecropia and Raul, may I request that, if you're going to change past practice, that you allow the votes that had started to proceed, and introduce this change for any new votes, and after a wider discussion? Raul wrote on Ugen's nomination page that, if memory serves him right, there's no need for Ugen's re-nomination, and yet there seems to be no current policy to that effect. I would like the vote for Ugen to go ahead, as I feel there are some legitimate concerns. I also feel that admins have the choice to simply be inactive for a time, and if they specifically choose to be desysopped for whatever reason (e.g. Evercat felt he'd abused his position), then it's only fair, in my view, to ask them to be re-elected if they change their minds. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:31, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

Thanks! Finally. I will take some time to learn all the new gadgets before I start with the chores.--Wiglaf 18:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

9

Thanks to the help of others, I think it's all been taken care of (along with the N returning to Coney Island). --SPUI (talk) 03:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Malbone Street Wreck

I would tend to consider the trains in the Amagasaki rail crash and the Yokohama rail crash to be commuter trains, since they are full-sized trains which run completely above ground (but however has stations quite close together in certain areas), with maximum typical speeds of around 100 km/h; however, commuter trains in Japan are also not that different from, for example, Tokyo Metro, which simply has a significant number of their stations below ground, and their trains are just as full-sized - and indeed, it has services that are extended into other companies' systems of above-ground stations and run along their lines. The distinction is quite blurred, I think. But whether or not Amagasaki rail crash is considered rapid transit or not, it is not the deadliest - if it is rapid transit, the Yokohama one should also be considered rapid transit and is deadlier; if it isn't, then this Malbone Street Wreck would still be deadliest. -- KittySaturn 00:46, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

Barnstar

You seem to be the most active bureaucrat , so I think you deserve a barnstar. If you accept, put with whatever caption you want on your page. Howabout1 02:34, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

thanks!

Thanks for handling my promotion to admin, and especially thanks for your good wishes. It's been a real morale boost to get such warm support from Wikipedia folks in the RFA process. All the best, FreplySpang (talk) 01:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Harro5

Hey Cecropia!

I just noticed that your edit statement said that Harro5 was promoted, but then I saw that there wasn't any concencus. Hehe, which was it? Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 03:48, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

All's well that ends ... -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you and Question

Hi, thank you for the congrats. I've been so busy writing articles that now I happen to notice that my User Page still doesn't have any of those wonderful administrator buttons. I'm not in a hurry, just curious. How long do you think it would be before my power buttons appear? Thank you and have a nice day Marine 69-71 06:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for answering but, I logged in and there's still no "buttons" on my page. Help! Marine 69-71 14:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for sysopping me, and also for your congratulations. JYolkowski // talk 18:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Cecropia, just thought I should drop by and thank you for promoting me. Cheers, →Ingoolemo← ^talk 03:42, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

Voting contiues on archive

I've noticed that several users have voted after the close of the deadline, Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Michael Hardy. This first caught my attention when Michael reverted a vote, a few days ago, I think. I noticed that another user has since voted, and I was going to revert them as well until I noticed that there were other users who had voted afterwards as well. I realize the votes don't count, but what since the other votes have not been remove— what exactly is the policy on late votes? -JCarriker 08:37, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

RfA/administration

Many thanks! I will indeed read those, and I am very glad to have been elected. Schissel : bowl listen 04:53, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

Thank you very much. Guettarda 04:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Headings for very long pages

Cecropia, it is extremely difficult to add a contribution to a page when one has to scroll forever and ever inside the little edit window. One gets lost, the text all looks the same, etc. The headings bring up the section edit links, which are so incredibly convenient. In your edit summary, you said "We do not use subheds in RfAs", but you didn't state why. Just wondering. func(talk) 07:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The burdens of bureaucracy

Cecropia, you've been working hard at promoting new admins. I hope you're not tired. Do you need help?

What do you think of using subsections for prospects who have several dozen response lines? Does it help to divide into yes/no/maybe sections - as I did for Ta bu shi da yu? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 13:10, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Subheds in RfA

Hi Uncle, I also heard from func on this. I guess it's not such a big deal to use subheds, so do it if you think it will help and we'll see if it becomes a problem somehow or anyone complains. Cheers and felicitations, Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's really your call - based on the principle that whoever works the hardest gets to make the rules. If there's just a few votes it's not needed, but when 50 people vote yes, it's hard to scroll down (in the edit window) to find the end of the yeses. (The tools are meant to serve us, not limit us.) All the best. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 03:12, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

No big thing, Ed. Of all the things that keep me awake at night, subheds on RfA don't quite make the radar. If it can help voters vote, and it doesn't bother anyone else, why not? -- Cheers! Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you for promoting me, especially when it was such a close call.  Grue  05:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Theo RFA

Thank you for the promotion. I am slightly taken aback since I did not expect anything to be enacted before the stated deadline but I am delighted by this develeopment that is "no big deal". NO big deal for the community I hope but most affirming for the subject.—Theo (Talk) 06:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Polls

I find your pattern of starting polls whenever you and I disagree on bureaucratship matters to be unhelpful, particularly since you often start them prior to any discussion taking place. One might even conclude that, by rushing to a vote, you are trying to discourage any meaningful discussion. Perhaps you would be willing to remove your poll until a few days have passed to allow for some comments. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you further...

Hello!

I've left a message for you at:

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Renomination_experiment.

Kim Bruning 17:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RfA

Cecropia, I actually did repond to all of these concerns on the RfA talk page about an hour before you cast your oppose vote. I hope you'll read that (more elaborated) justification and explanation of why I did what I did. I apologize for the confusion and realize now that I should have explained myself better to begin with; that way we could have avoided all this guessing about my intentions (which I obviously failed to make clear in the first place). Again, my sincere apologies for raising tensions like this in unproductive ways. -- Seth Ilys 22:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cecropia, would you be able to answer my comment on your oppose vote? I'm not sure if you're against me as an admin or if you're against the renomination system. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 17:03, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Linuxbeak

Looks like the page was deleted while I was editing it, and so I recreated it. Should I delete it again? I had no intention of recreating it. Guettarda 17:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looked at the deletion log, realised Linuxbeak deleted it himself - so I re-deleted it. Guettarda 17:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WP:RFA

I have posted a response to your 'Oppose' vote to my renomination. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 17:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thanks for certifying the consensus and processing my adminship. And for all the other maintenance that you do. Cheers, -Willmcw June 28, 2005 21:58 (UTC)

Thanks :-)

I appreciate your support on my RFA! Lots of people to respond to :-) Ta bu shi da yu 1 July 2005 05:07 (UTC)

Weyes nomination

The Weyes re-vote is up again. The vote is very similar to the previous one - i.e, inconclusive. However, given the extended time period and revotes, can I suggest that there is not going to be a consensus to award adminship at this time and that Weyes is not promoted, but of course encourage another nomination in a couple of months? Would like to hear your opinion, Warofdreams 1 July 2005 16:13 (UTC)

Iraq

There are no easy answers, Cecropia. I can see both sides of the argument about invading Iraq (though it would be nice if we weren't lied to about WMD as a justification). Yes, Saddam's reign of terror has certainly be ended, though at one hell of a price. I don't know whether the events in Iraq represent a net loss or a net gain in human life. Neither do you.

In any event, I was simply pointing out the absurdity of wanting to join the military "to kill those responsible for killing innocent people", as if the military never did any such thing. Evercat 7 July 2005 15:01 (UTC)

---

Hmm. The war certainly could have been avoided if it had been about WMD as claimed. Weapons inspections were going on, after all.

If it was really about preventing Saddam's reign of terror against his own people, it would have been nice to have been told this, and been invited to weigh up the benefits of lives saved vs. lives lost.

However, you make it sound as if the war in Iraq has reduced the threat to the U.S. and the rest of the Western world. But it's rather unclear how. As far as I can see, there was no threat to us at all from Iraq.

As far as reducing the risk of terrorism - I'm quite certain the opposite is the case. Hatred of the West can only grow in the Islamic world as a result of this (the quote at the top of my page is my view here). Evercat 7 July 2005 15:26 (UTC)

You see, it is rather difficult to find common ground when we operate from different assumptions. The WMD argument (and we know Saddam has WMD, we just don't know whether we still had them at the beginning of the war) doesn't concern me personally, because Iraq for me was never about WMD. As to the risk of terrorism because of hatred of the west, it is a big assumption that a soft hand in dealing with Islamic extremists will make the situation better. Remember that the active advancement of the conspiracy in the U.S. that resulted in 9/11 began in 1995, after the U.S. had already responded to the first World Trade Center attack with prosecutions instead of war. And 9/11 occurred at a time when the U.S. was not focusing on terrorism, there were no wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the U.S. had bombed the hell out of a former alley on behalf of the Muslim population of Kosovo. No brownie points earned there. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 7 July 2005 15:49 (UTC)

This is, I grant you, a good point. Evercat 7 July 2005 15:58 (UTC)

Although having said that, the U.S.'s undying support for Israel, not just morally, but in terms of actual money and military hardware, isn't exactly helpful... it seems to be in the billions of dollars. [3] The other grievance Bin Laden seems to have is the presense of U.S. troops in the "holy land".

I have to deal with the U.S.' "undying support" for Israel separately. If Israel didn't have the firm support of the U.S. it would probably have been toast by now. Is that a good idea? Is that moral? You see, I have a problem with Europeans' undying advocacy of the Palestinians; not because they are less worthy of freedom than anyone else in the world, but because Europe does not have the kind of history and intimate relations with Arab people (except in a colonial sense) that it has with the Jews. There wouldn't be a "Jewish problem" in the mideast if the Jews hadn't had a "European problem" for centuries, culminating in the murder of the great majority of European Jewry with the help or complicity of a large number of non-German European nations, and the effective expulsion of most of the survivors. How do you think an objective historian will view this period one hundred years hence. Will he or she say "yes, the Europeans were so continually hostile to the only Jewish state in the world, funding and advocating for its enemies as a simple civil rights matter, for the suffering of the Palestinian people (while being blase about the sufferings of other Muslims in Muslim countries, not to mention the underdogs in much more murderous conflicts around the world) and this has nothing to do with the Europeans' historic hatred of the Jews.

BTW, none of this is supposed to justify anything. I don't really take sides in the Israel/Palestine thing much these days (both behaving as bad as each other), and why the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia etc should be such a big deal is beyond me, but it's clear to me that people don't become suicide attackers simply because they hate things like Western freedom and democracy, etc. To become a terrorist, I think one has to feel a deep sense of injustice and anger about something. Ultimately we will have to do something to remove that feeling of injustice, otherwise the "war on terrorism" simply cannot be won, because new terrorists will always emerge. Certainly the way to proceed isn't to invade Iraq whilst giving reasons that turn out to be completely false. Evercat 8 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)

"why the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia etc should be such a big deal is beyond me". Ah, Man of the Western Mind (to paraphrase Dickens), do you believe Usama or not when he says that he was first inspired to action against the U.S. because of its military presence in Saudi Arabia? Why is it a big deal? The Saudis and their followers openly state that all of Saudi Arabia is holy land. Jews (not "Israelis") are not permitted in the Kingdom at all. The Christian soldiers who were there to protect them in the first Gulf War could not openly show or practice their Christianity; Christmas celebrations (such as they were) had to be carried out quietly, privately, where it was certain no Saudi could observe it and be offended. When these people say "infidel" they are not making a joke.

Next (again Western materialist thinking) you say "To become a terrorist, I think one has to feel a deep sense of injustice and anger about something." Well, that is one issue, certainly. But what is really provoking them? Yes, a Christian or Jewish presence in the midst of an otherwise Muslim Sea would anger many. In the West we call this Racism (though more properly ethnocentrism or religious bigotry). What about the rulers of Muslim nations who accumulate wealth to themselves while their people starve and suffer and feed their people the story that it is the Infidel in Iraq and the Jew in Palestine that is the cause of their suffering. In the Americas we had a not inalogous situation when (pre-Reagan) most of the countries were ruled by dictators who exploited their people in much the same way. The people there did not have a whipping boy nation in their midst to refocus their displeasure, and most of those rulers (remember Samoza?) are history.

Then you say "Ultimately we will have to do something to remove that feeling of injustice." Be positive with me. Give me some specifics. How do you propose to do that? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 8 July 2005 23:32 (UTC)

---

One last thing while I'm thinking about this. In advocating a less "hawk-like" attitude, I'm aware I'm open to accusations of "appeasement", etc. But the situation is somewhat different from the 1930s. The number of Germans available to Hitler to be used as soldiers was mostly constant. But the number of terrorists available to Bin Laden is variable. And, for the most part, he doesn't control the number. We do.

Anyway, I'm sorry for any offense caused. I don't actually like getting into arguments, but I do have strong views, I suppose. Evercat 7 July 2005 15:38 (UTC)

No need to apologize to me personally--this is in the context of the give and take of a debate or argument.

As I said above, we have a fundamental difference in perspective. You believe that the potential for terrorist is reactive--i.e., don't bother them; they won't bother us. I disagree. Who is the target at any given moment may be influenced by events, but in an important way this is like the 1930s. Those who translate their grievances into military action (and terrorism is usually that, though unsanctioned by international law) test to see what they can get away with, and at how low a price to themselves. The grievances of the Islamists run much much deeper than whether the U.S. or Britain are in Iraq, or Israel exists or not. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 7 July 2005 15:49 (UTC)

OK, I understand we disagree about how to react to terrorism in general, but what baffles me in this specific case is what the link between terrorism and Iraq is supposed to be...? As far as I'm aware, top U.S. agencies are of the opinion that there was no significant link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Evercat 7 July 2005 15:57 (UTC)

The difference in perspective is in your saying that you are baffled by "the link between terrorism and Iraq" but no in the next say there was no significant link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. So you imply that terrorism = Al Queda. I would say that Iraq was one of the links in the chain or terrorism, which is supported not simply by Usama pulling strings in Afghanistan, but by a network of recruiters, trainers, financiers and sympathizers. For a variety of reasons Iraq was a central link in this chain. Perhaps I could put it this way. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the U.S. went to war with Japan, but it also went to war with Germany and Italy. Hitler didn't attack the U.S.; Mussolini didn't attack the U.S. Bu that they were Japan's allies, half a world away, was enough. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 7 July 2005 16:18 (UTC)

Hmm - I'm sure there is a network of terrorism, but it's a global thing. Why haven't we attacked Saudi Arabia, for example? It would seem to be a bit more central to Islamist terrorism than Iraq. Evercat 7 July 2005 16:27 (UTC)

War has tactics. If Saudi Arabia can be kept down to a dull roar without military intervention, there is no problem without disrupting the biggest source of crude oil for the entire western world, and during wartime no less. Plus if you think getting a war resolution on Iraq through the U.S. Congress was a tough sell, imagine making war on a putative "ally"? And the west attacking Saudi Arabia is the one place (with Mecca and Medina and the whole country a "holy site") is the one specific event that probably would have inflamed the muslim world. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 7 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)

OK, another fair point. Still, in Iraq you've removed the regime, but I'm sure there will still be "recruiters, trainers, financiers and sympathizers" there. Evercat 7 July 2005 16:50 (UTC)

There is more to it than that. There are several legal and military issues that made Iraq the logical next target (not in order of importance):

1. Geography. Iraq was the natural bridge state between Saudi Arabia, Syria and sympathizers in the middle east and hot spots such as Afghanistan, Chechnya, Indonesia and Pakistan.
2. Safe Haven. A variant of the above, Saddam provided safety for militants who were nationals of other states.
3. International Law. You may consider that ironic, but it was a factor. Saddam signed an armistice to end the first Gulf War. An armistice is not a permanent end to hostilities; it is a cessation of hostilities, with conditions, pending a peace treaty. If any of the parties (usually the "loser") break those conditions, the war may be resumed at any time, without further declaration. Saddam broke those terms multiple times, as acknowledged by the UN.
4. Symbolism. Saddam was an open financier of terrorism and grew increasingly aggressive as he looked to see how far he could go. His open defiance of the UN made trash of world resolve to force him to terms. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 7 July 2005 17:01 (UTC)

You may well be correct, but can you give me some sort of source for Saddam giving terrorists a "safe haven" and being an "open financier of terrorism"? Evercat 7 July 2005 23:57 (UTC)

---

(starting a new section, since this is getting hard to follow...)

I'm not "advocating the Palestinians". I'm advocating neutrality in other people's conflicts, unless there's some strong reason to prefer one side to the other. If there was no aid to Israel, and it actually was invaded, then of course it should be defended, in a similar manner to Kuwait the first Gulf War.

Do you also recommend that Europe be neutral in the Middle East?

Even assuming you don't consider insurrection by non-Nationals to be an "invasion," who would defend Israel under your definition. Who would commit troops? Germany? France? Britain? Even assuming that these nations did not obstruct a defense of Israel, it would be on the U.S. Israel is one of the few smaller states in the world that puts its on troops on the line. So you feel that to satisfy European sensibilities, the U.S. should again endanger its own troops?

I really don't see this invasion of Israel as a realistic possibility today. Nobody's going to invade a nuclear power. So this is largely hypothetical. But European forces did fight to liberate Kuwait.

While there certainly used to be a worry about Israel being a soft target, I doubt there's any worry now, with it's well-armed military, modern fighter planes, tanks, suspected nuclear weapons, etc. Yet the military aid continues.

One supplies support for its allies. The U.S. is Israel's only ally. The Arab nations have plenty, including diplomatic and monetary aid from Eruope.

Well I know nothing about this, but I would be surprised if there were any European states giving military aid that they knew was going to be used against Israel.

I'm having a little trouble finding sources on the web, but it seems that the U.S. used to provide military aid to Taiwan, but doesn't any more (I could be wrong on this point). But the threat that the U.S. keeps up - that it will defend Taiwan from China if necessary, seems to be sufficient.

I don't know about U.S. aid to Taiwan, but it is a different situation anyway. This is more comparable to the cold war standoff and not really a model for the middle east. China is one country with a unitary leadership. The Arab nations are many. The U.S. should threaten war with them all under your scenario?

One other thing - the fact that, historically, some Europeans have been hideous genocidal anti-semites does not mean that other Europeans, completely innocent of such crimes, are somehow obliged to give total support to the Jewish state. That's absurd.

I said no such thing. I asked the origin of such overwhelming support for the Palestinians and such universal condemnation of a people who Europeans have a long historic record or oppression and murder against.

Perhaps the origin is in the fundamentally more left-wing nature of European politics. People look at Israel with its well armed military, and it's Western looking cities and modern ways of living, and then at the Palestinians with their pathetic weapons and their squalid dwellings and their poverty, and, notwithstanding the fact that Palestinian acts of terrorism against Israel are to be condemned, it's still pretty obvious which side is getting the worst of it. The left is naturally sympathetic to the poor.

You seem to be hinting there's some not-so-subtle anti-semitism behind it.

Anti-Semitism? I don't think so insofar as anti-semitism is a politicised social construct. I think it's much more fundamental than that; an ancient sense of Jews as "the other" ingrained in European cultures for many centuries.

(Quote:)

Then you say "Ultimately we will have to do something to remove that feeling of injustice." Be positive with me. Give me some specifics. How do you propose to do that? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 8 July 2005 23:32 (UTC)

Pull troops without a good reason for being there out of the middle east. Currently they do have a good reason for being in Iraq and Afghanistan (they can hardly leave right now) but they should leave as soon as practical. They should certainly get out of Saudi Arabia - I seem to recall reading that this was actually being done? - and anywhere else where their presence merely causes resentment. Don't launch any more unprovoked wars (by which I mean, like Iraq. Afghanistan was provoked). Treat Israel like it's a foreign county (but with whatever necessary assurances about it's defense as above).

This began around the issue of the attacks in London, you really think those suggestions will satisfy the Islamists? So where does that leave us?

Perhaps you could give me some specifics about how you expect the War on Terror to end? I mean, what's the "endgame", as all those analysts love saying. You can't seriously expect to end terrorism by a series of wars, can you? As I try to point out, wars seen as unjust cause the very problem you're trying to solve. And the stakes are very high - if this keeps up, I won't be surprised if there's a terrorist attack in my lifetime involving biological or even nuclear weapons, leading to deaths in the 6 or 7 figure range. Evercat 9 July 2005 00:17 (UTC)

Yes, there may well be a terrorist attack as you describe. Everything you say seems to point back in the same direction I identified at the beginning of this discussion. You feel that the terrorists are reactive. They would leave the west alone if their demands were met. I think not. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:15, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

And this comes back to my original point. Maybe some hard core of fanatics will be willing to wage Jihad no-matter what, but, all in all, the number of "Islamist" terrorists in the world is a number we have a fair degree of control over. As part of an effort to combat terrorism, Iraq (inter alia) was counter-productive.

Anyway, we're not going to convince each other. I respect your views - you at least have sensible arguments for much of what you say. But perhaps we should call it a day... Evercat 23:28, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's been a good game between honourable opponents, even if it ended in a stalemate. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

William Connolley

No doubt you've been followed the adminship request for User:William M. Connolley. I believe the final results of user comments are now in, with 70% supporting and 30% opposing (not counting neutral comments).

What the heck do we do now? I don't want to alienate one of Wikipedia's few bona fide scientists - one who has the courage to use his own name. But is it really about NPOV (or endorsing Dr. C's slant on climate), or merely being trusted to use features like rollback of simple vandalism and page deletion?

I doubt William is that thin skinned. While I was the one to nominate him, and while I think he can be trusted to use admin powers responsibly (which is, IMO, the only real criterion for adminship) I don't think that one should act out of fear of offending the person. There's a critical mass of people who voted oppose on the basis of his being under an ArbComm injunction - which is a fair reason to oppose. What bothers me is that people voted oppose on the basis of expertice or due to the fact that he is an "active editor". Without those votes you might have had consensus to promote, but on the other hand, those voters would not have been an issue without the experienced editors who voted "no" based on the ArbComm ruling. I would say that, while I am unhappy with the outcome and bothered by several of the votes, overall the process isn't broken (yet). Guettarda 15:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I hear all you're saying, but so far we haven't empowered bureaucrats to make those kinds of value judgments, so I've got to consider that consensus hasn't been reached. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 16:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but it hadn't been reached in your case either. What if I just use my judgment on this one? Can you trust me to certify that Dr. William C. Connolley is trustworthy? Uncle Ed 16:45, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page, I think this would be deeply inappropriate behaviour, Ed. It is not for bureaucrats to go against the community consensus - or community precedent. Especially for someone so closely involved with the user. Are you joking here, or are you serious? -Splash 16:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

This is not a joking matter. Uncle Ed 16:55, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Well, Ed's a very very long term Wikipedian and used to make all the promotions, but this is opening a very broad area. If it were almost anyone else but Ed, I would say "no way." But if he's willing to take the considerable heat, I won't obstruct him. See my reply at Chez Ed. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll buy some of the popcorn you'll be selling. However, mere userling that I am, I feel I must point out here that Bureaucrats are servants of the community, and not its rulers, no matter how long they have been around. -Splash 17:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, Ed comes from the era before "bean counting." It is only within my time that numbers have been more-or-less formalized. I 'm going to watch this with great interest, -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I too will watch this with interest and have weighed in with my opinion on the RFA page. I have left messages for Raul654 and Warofdreams and look forward to their comments. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

And I left a note with Angela. Like Ed she is a very early (and trusted) Wikipedia and has made dozens of promotions. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. Angela isn't really a "very early" Wikipedian, though, she arrived only a month or two before I did. Ed, on the other hand, is one of the half dozen or so people who've been here from the beginning and stuck with it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The Spitting Image

I just saw your comments on talk, and all I can say is well put man!

I cannot tell you how uncomfortable some vets feel in certain company. TDC 00:47, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

Thank you for the kind/helpful notice! I'll read all the admin literature straight away. thanks Bluemoose 15:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice too :) Hashar 16:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you as well. It's a steep learning curve indeed. :) Garrett^Talk 10:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

reappeared admins

Hi - As a side effect of updating WP:LA based on current activity (with a script), I noticed a few relatively long gone admins have reappeared (see this diff). WP:FAITH would imply this is a good thing, however it could also be that one or more long dormant accounts have been cracked. I looked at the recent contribs and didn't notice anything suspicious, but I thought I'd bring this to your attention so someone might watch the activity from these accounts. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:04, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

Thanks for the promotion and for the friendly/helpful message on my talk page. I appreciate it. --Canderson7 16:33, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary

On your edit summary in RfA you said rm Agent0003, Humblefool, no consensus. However Humblefool is not removed, is probably going to be promoted, and doesn't end for two days. Was it a typo? Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 15:00, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 20:58, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral Wikipedia?

Dear Wikipedia administrator

I am writting you about the issue of Macedonia, Republic of Macedonia, Macedonian Slavs (like Wikipedia calls the Macedonians) and the problem between Macedonia and Greece about the term Macedonia. I am aware that this issue is largely discussed here, at Wikipedia, and Wikipedia claims that it is trying to take a neutral side. But, that is not the case. Wikipedia is everything except neutral in this question. In the following lines I will explain you why.

From the text in Wikipedia most of the people will conclude that Macedonian nation appeared during the World War 2 and Tito was the one who 'invented' us. The family of my wife (she is Mexican) read this and asked me is it truth. That was actually the first time I read what Wikipedia says about my nation, which was a direct reason for my reaction. My grandfather is born in 1911th. Yesterday I had a talk with him. He took a part in the strugle for independence since 1925th and he took a part in the 2nd world war. He is alive and personal prove that Wikipedia is full of bullshit and lies about our origin. He spent half of his life proving and fighting for that. He was shot 3 times, all 3 from the Bulgarians who wanted to ocupy Macedonia in the Balkan wars and in the WW1 and WW2. Just a 1 min with him will show you how many lies you suport in Wikipedia.

I tried to edit some of the text few days ago, but everithing I wrote was deleted. And all I wrote were facts. Fact 1. Macedonians (or Macedonian Slavs, like ONLY Wikipedia, Greece and Cyprus calls us) is the only nation of many living in the area concentrated inside the borders of the geographical region of Macedonia. This is a pure fact, something that you can even find on the CIA web page. Can you give any fact to deny my fact? If you can not, why you erased it from Wikipedia? Fact 2. Republic of Macedonia has diplomatic relations with about 150 countries in the world. Wikipedia says that "at least 20" countries recognize Macedonia under the name Macedonia. Guess what? That number is more than 100. And this is an officially confirmed by our ministery for foreighn affairs. Fact 3. Wikipedia says that my country Contraversialy calls itself Republic of Macedonia. This is a pure example of taking a side in the problem. Why you don't say that Greece contraversialy deny us the use of the name Macedonia? If you intended to be neutral, just write that we have the naming problem with Greece, but do not call my name "contraversial"!!! Fact 4. While explaining about the antient Macedonia, its kings etc. you highly support the claim for their Greek origin. I can give you 1000s of facts that that is not truth and I beleive that some Greek guy can give you 1000s facts that those claims are truth. That was 2400 years ago and there is no chanse for us to know the real situation. We can only guess. But, when you give the Greek suported version, why you ignore the version suported by the newaged Macedonians? In this moment I can give you 10 names of internationally respected scientist supporting our theory. If you are neutral, why you ignore it? Fact 5. Wikipedia says that the Turkish Empire were calling us Bulgarians. Strange, because the Turks were recognizing the uniqueness of our nation since the moment they occupied the teritory of Macedonia. Actually, the Turkish history archives are the biggest prove of our existance, history and culture. Did anyone of you ever read anything from those archives? Even on the birth certificate of Khemal Ataturk says that he is born in Bitola, Macedonia. And his autobiography is full of memories of his childhood spend with the Macedonians. Fact 6. Wikipedia ignores the egsodus of the Macedonian people from Greece and says they were running because they were supporters of the comunists. 1/3 of the Macedonians have origin from this part of Macedonia. They were runned away from there by force and you can find many historical proves for that. Again, big part of my family has origin from there. As a matter of fact, my grand-grand father was married to a Greek woman, my grand-grand mother. But, no matter of that, his house was burned and he was forced to run away for his life and the life of his family. How dare you deny this? Do you know that even today my grand father is not allowed to visit Greece, because he was a kid when his family runned away from there? Fact 7. There are about 500 000 Macedonians that live outside Macedonia, mostly in Canada, Australia, USA, Sweden etc. At least 1/3 moved there before 1930s. If we were a product of Tito, how can you explain that even they feel of Macedonian nationality? I have a family in USA which moved there in 1927th. Their ancestors (my cousins) do not even know how to talk Macedonian well. But, they still feel Macedonian. One of them is even one of the financiers of the party of the Macedonians in Bulgaria, trying to help their strugle to keep their national identity. I repeat, first time he visited Macedonia was in 1995th, far after Tito. And his family moved in USA in 1927th, far before Tito. Fact 8. Wikipedia claims that the book of Macedonian songs by Dimitar Miladinov is actually Bulgarian. Have you maybe seen a original copy of the book, printed in Croatia? IT says clearly "Macedonian". Not to mention that the same author wrote one of the most important books in the Macedonian history "For the Macedonian issues", again printed in Croatia, where it clearly talks about the Macedonian nation and non-Bulgarian origin.

All this was simply erased from the database. I didn't erase anything when editing these pages, I support the other side and I do not want to hide their facts. But why Wikipedia wants to hide our facts, which show that we are not a product of Tito's ambitions for the Aegean Sea. In Tito's time, the Yugoslav army was far superior in the region. If he wanted the Aegean Sea, he would get it very easily.

Many things in Wikipedia are very offensive for the nowdays Macedonians. Wikipedia simply ignores us, gives us a new name and supports the theories of denial of our existance, culture and history.

I will try to give you an example that includes with Mexico. I beleive that you know that the Maya civilisation was invaded by the Spanish kingdom. Spanish were ruling Mexico for centuries and millions of Spanish people moved at Mexican teritory. Later, after the liberation war, Mexicans formed its own country. Fact 1. Mayas were living in Mexico (same as Antique Macedonians). Fact 2. Spanish invaded them and great number of Spanish people moved to Mexico (The Slavs moved on the theritory of Macedonia and there was no reported fights or movements of people away from the teritory where the Slavs settled). Fact 3. Nowdays, everyone of the Mexican is aware that they are partly Spanish, but they still have Mayan origin (Wikipedia says that the people living in Republic of Macedonia are Slavs. When there was no reported resetling of the Antique Macedonians, how is possible they not to mix with the Slavs? It is a fact that the nowdays Macedonians are not same as the Antique Macedonians, but they certanly have a significant part of their genes. Same as I beleive that Greece has a part of their Genes, but they are definitly not their direct ancestors). Fact 4. Mexican speak Spanish. Reason: The Spanish culture was superior in that time. (The Antique Macedonians accepted the Helenic culture, including a variation of the Greek language. Reason: the Helenic culture was superior in that time. Everyone who knows at least little history will know that Hellenic and Greek are not synonims. Greek is nation, Hellenic is religion/culture. USA and England both speak English, both are mostly cristians, but they are SEPARATE nations. Aren't they? Same happens to Germany and Austria, or Serbia and Croatia, or Canada and France, or Brazil and Portugal, or the rest of Latin America and Spain)

And here is a comment about the claims of the Bulgarians, that the Macedonians are actually Bulgarians. If that is truth, I am going to kill myself. Bulgarians through the history made the worst for my nation. During the strugle of the Macedonian people for independence from the Turkish empire, at the end of the 19th and begginbing of the 20th century, the Bulgarians were the ones who killed the most of our revolutionaries, including 4 members of my close family which were members of the Macedonian revolutionary organization (VMRO). Whis is not something that I was told by Tito. My grandfather (the same grandfather from above) was in fact a member of the same organization. He personaly knew many of the revolutioners that Bulgarians claim are theirs, including 2 of the leaders: Goce Delcev and Gorce Petrov. They were Macedonians and they all gave their lives for free and independent Macedonia and they had nothing to do with Bulgaria. There was a part of them who were Bulgarians inserted in the organizations, who were actually the killers of the real Macedonian revolutioners, because it was in Bulgarian interest to weaken the organization, so they could take the lead in the organization and later put Macedonia in the hands of the Bulgarians. Thanks god, they did not succeed. Wikipedia claims that VMRO was pro-Bulgarian and the revolutioners were Bulgarian fighters. You suposed to see the face of my 94 year old grandfather when I told him your claims. Neurtal Wikipedia? I do not think so.

At the end I have to ask for Wikipedia NOT TO TAKE A SIDE IN THIS. I am not asking to remove the Greek and Bulgarian side of the story. But, why you ignore our claims, which are suported by many non-Greek and non-Bulgarian scientists and very largely through the web. There are just about 2-2.5 million Macedonians around the world. We do not have enought influence and strenght as Greece has, which is much more powerful and richer country than Macedonia. The Macedonian-Greek question is too hard and too complicated to solve. History can be interpreted in 1000 ways, especially on a teritory like the Balcany, where there are so many nations on so little space. Fortunately, DNA testings are getting more and more reliable and soon it will be possible to be used to acuratelly show the origin of our nations. I hope that then the denyal of me, my history, culture and existance will finaly stop. It is very disapointing that Wikipedia takes a part in all that.

With all the respect, Igor Šterbinski Skopje, Macedonia is@on.net.mk

Ted Kennedy Page

Can you help with the discussion on the Ted Kennedy page? Thanks 24.147.97.230

Lucky6.9's adminship vote

Ed Poor has just removed Lucky's adminship application, stating that he didn't think Lucky made it. I don't really know Lucky all that well, though I did vote in his favour, but when I look at the vote itself, 71 votes in favour, and 78% approval, it looks to me like he made it, or if nothing else, that the vote should have been left open. Thoughts? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, Ed had strongly voted against him, and also made other comments. And various other irregularities outlined on the Talk: page. Not that it really matters any more, since there was major drama while I was away, all settled now. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

OMG!

How can I begin to thank you? Ten minutes ago, I was crushed. Had the pages blanked, walked away and a few stubborn users stepped in to push for this. Words escape me. I need to come down off this crazy emotional rollercoaster I'm riding since I have a lot more thanking to do!!! Best, - Lucky 6.9 02:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Lucky6.9

Well done. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Func's RfA :)

Cecropia, thank you for making the tough call on my RfA. :) Very much appreciated.

Please never hesitate to let me know if you have concerns with any administrative action I may make.

P.S. Cecropia, I'm sorry that you didn't make ArbCom last year, (what a mess that election was). Do you think you will still be interested? My previous endorsment is still good. :)

Func( t, c, e,  ) 17:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Greetings!

I just wanted to say hello, and to thank you for the even handed approach you take. I am a relatively new user here, and I appreciate the experimental nature of this project as much as I have enjoyed reading and contributing to it. Its a constant learning experience, not only for the articles, but also from the dialogue, the community and consensus. It has been said that WP may not be the most accurate or complete source of information, but it is a good starting point. I would concur with this statement. Not meaning to take up too much of your time, but again thanks for the work you do here, I appreciate it. See you 'round the wiki! Hamster Sandwich 18:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Please advice urgently

Dear Admin,

User --Ragib and --Mel Etitis are contionusly vandal the article rohingya. please see it in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rohingya&action=history. Such Violaton shall be stop . please keep wiki standard updated .violations would not be accepted by any reader of wikipedia . go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism. please advice. Thanks,--Bobjack 14:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: Congratulations!

Re: [4]

Thanks Cecropia, I'll be sure to read up on the info you provided. -Loren 07:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Cecropia. Thanks for doing the promotion legwork and for your note welcoming me as an admin. Cheers! --Ngb 18:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

RfA infighting

Cecropia: I'm interested to hear your thoughts on infighting at RfA. I've noticed recently that a few RfAs have taken on a "supporters/nominators attack anyone who doesn't vote support>" While I know a certain amount of this is normal, I also think it is destructive, as it takes the focus off the candidate and potentially chases some voters away (for fear they will also be attacked.) Since you're the "Father of RfA," I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the practice. -- Essjay · Talk 03:44, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I really don't like pointing anyone in particular out as "misbehaving," but the ones that prompted my question were Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lupin, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HappyCamper, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gkhan, and to a lesser extent, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ground Zero. It just seems as though there is a rush to attack anyone who votes oppose or neutral; while I agree with striking out anons and disregarding socks, I think legit contributors are entitled to thier votes (and I have faith that b-crats like yourself are capable of deciding what to count and what not to). I for one put a note at the top of my RfA asking that such abuse not take place, because I think it is counter to WP:AGF and WP:NPA.

As for what to do about it, when I've seen it and been able to, I've put in a note of the "lets not attack one another" variety, hoping to quell the flow. However, I don't know that it does much good. I agree with you that a word to the wise is the best choice; perhpas it would be best coming from you, since (at least in my opinion) you are the most respected voice on RfA. Is that something you feel comfortable doing? -- Essjay · Talk 04:59, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Cecropia

I used to have a Cecropia Moth as a pet when I was very young :) Only thing that has made me smile all day is your name. Agriculture 04:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Cecropia

I used to have a Cecropia Moth as a pet when I was very young :) Only thing that has made me smile all day is your name. Agriculture 04:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Only one I can remember, it was a long time ago. We found it in the yard when I was a kid as a catepillar, and then raised it to a moth. I still have photos somewhere I suppose, probably at my parents house. Maybe I will find them and send them to you. Agriculture 04:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Fernando Rizo's RfA

Cecropia, thanks for executing my RfA and giving me all of these shiny new buttons to press. I'll do my best to make you proud. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

RfA

Wow...do you spend all day on the Rfa page? How do you manage to promote that large a proportion of candidates? Cheers. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 14:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately, I don't have the luxury of sleeping at odd times (of course I do love to sleep from 2 AM-12 PM) as school starts tomorrow! I've made it a point to browse the RfA pages lately, do some RC patrolling (CDVF), and work with some cleanup-needy articles. Hope to see you around. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 16:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, it is an honor to be bestowed such a responsibility and it appears I have much reading to do. One question I had is regarding page protection; when it is considered acceptable to vprotect a page and when should such a protection period expire? Best regards, 16:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

HappyCamper's RFA :-)

Hi Cecropia! Thank you for making me an administrator per the community consensus. I had no idea that it would take this long for me to get to your page and say a personalized word of thanks, but it has been a very worthwhile experience writing 30+ thank-yous!. I'm sure you have been told many times from the community how appreciative they are of your efforts, and this Wikipedian is no different :-) Thank you for your due diligence and measured approach - you are certainly an example for many to follow! Take care, HappyCamper 12:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

WikiBreak

Have a good vacation, Father of the RFA. :) You've earned it. Acetic Acid 00:33, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Best of luck with getting the bunch of stuff done, Jim. :) Aug. 30 already? Yikes! El_C 00:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

I have created a new project page at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard, which Secretondon suggested that I tell my fellow bureaucrats about. It's designed as a forum where users with bureaucrat rights can discuss difficult situations, either beforehand (for advice about what to do) or after taking action (for review and feedback). It's similar to another page I created, which is starting to catch on (e.g., Jimbo used it this August): Wikipedia:account suspensions, which is not for 3RR or simple vandalism but for close calls and disputed blocks.

Username changes

Hi Cecropia. There is currently an open discussion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names/Trollderella regarding the recent actions of Uncle Ed. While I understand that being WP:BOLD is one of our guidelines, I feel that this particular move was unwarranted and against the community's wishes. At your convenience, would you please review this RFC and help bring this issue to a close? Hall Monitor 19:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

more re-active admins

Hi - I left you a note a while ago about re-active admins (detected from a script I've written to update WP:LA based on activity). I just updated the list again and noticed some more recently re-active admins (specifically Vicki Rosenzweig, Goatasaur, Jake Nelson, Sugarfish, and Oliver Pereira). Again, I'm not sure if this might be a problem or not but thought I'd let you know. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:21, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Request for advice

Over the weekend I received a note from User:WikiDon. [5] How would you respond to something like this? Hall Monitor 18:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the sound advice. My main concern in this case was not when to block, but the "Mean what you say" comment. In my opinion, it was uncalled for. The anon who was vandalising had stopped at {{test4}} and then resumed vandalism at a later time while I was offline. If I were near a console I would have gladly honoured my word, but it seems that he overlooked the possibility that some of us take time off from editing. Hall Monitor 19:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

See also [6] Are you familiar with this person? Hall Monitor 20:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! By the way, I like your signature. =) -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 02:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you very much for promoting me to an administrator. I have my new dustbuster, and it is ready to be put to good use.  Denelson83  23:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

this month's list of re-active admins

Hi - Not sure if you like me letting you know about these or not, but this month's list of re-active admins can be found by looking at this diff. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Justinc's RfA

I fixed Justinc's RfA to show that the request was succesfull. You originally closed it as failed, but I thought that an approximately 95% support ratio, and the fact that you sysopped him yourself, are a pretty good sign that it was supposed to be closed as successfull. — JIP | Talk 10:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Inactive Bureaucrat

Ha! When I typed up that RfB you were an inactive bureaucrat. Don't smite me! ;-) Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 19:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

A lovely watch in light of your service. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 02:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Admin involved in "vandalism"

I'm just tired now, so I'll keep it simple. I was involved in tagging some images uploaded by User:SlimVirgin as copyvios (tagged as fair use) but he keeps reverting to his fair use tag regularly across all his images. This is a blatant case of Avoidant vandalism as per Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism. I tried to reason with him that a few images being listed as fair use is ok, but listing ALL of them is not. For eg. he's uploaded 1/2 dozen images on animal rights when 1-2 would do the job, a case of excess propaganda? You'll find that he has reverted all my edits containing the "imagevio" tag. I've reported it accordingly in vandalism in progress.

The problem is I noticed just now he's an administrator and I suspect he'll have his way, so I thought of reaching for an active bureaurcrat like you. All my conversations are visible in his and my talk pages and I'm currently fed up that some here in Wikipedia are starting to abuse their powers since they feel they can't be blocked. I've deleted similar articles and images as per copyvio, but this user is an admin, so pl. help. Idleguy 12:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)