User talk:El C

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

---

File:Lock-icon.jpg

This page is not actually protected, this is simply a notice that I am (still) not inclined to be speaking to anyone at this time.

---

I will likely be mostly inactive for some time. I apologize for any inconvinience this may cause to anyone. EI_C 21:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Southern Rhodesia draft:

---

File:Herooflabor.jpg

Archived Discussions

Archive Sam Spade apology

---

RFA section

Thanks for your support on my RfA! (Ryan Norton)

Thanks for your support of my adminship!! I was surprised at the turnout and support I got! If you ever have any issues with any of my actions, please notify me on my talk page! Thanks again! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Nice; congrats! El_C 06:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Jossifresco RfA

תודה רבה על הצבעתך עבורי (hope I wrote it correctly, it has been years since I used the language in writing :) ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 04:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

!בבקשה You still got it. :) El_C 06:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

File:Thanks from jossi.png

Thank you, again!. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 15:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Nice!  :) שבוע טוב El_C 22:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Celestianpower is an admin

Thank you very much for your support - my bid (as you probably know) went swimmingly. I couldn't have asked for a better one. Thank you very much and I just hope I don't mess up! Wehere do I know you from? I think it's you that I've heard lots of nice things about but I can never be sure. There are 30,000 or so of us active Wikipedians! --Celestianpower ^hablamé 13:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

You know of me (as a menace to Wikipedia!). Erm, I mean, congrats! El_C 22:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

More RFA thanks... (Wikibofh)

Thank you for supporting me. I'll try to only do a little bit of evil.  :) Wikibofh 00:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, be good! El_C 22:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Hermione1980's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA; I really appreciate it! I will do my best to live up to the trust you've shown in me. Thanks, Hermione1980 23:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Definitely; well done! El_C 22:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

RfA-related! (Gareth Hughes)

You are the first person I've come across who has set aside an RfA space on their talk page. I'm not quite sure what that means, but I'd like to thank you for your interest in RfA candidates, and especially in my recent candidacy. I've come across you a few times as we've edited WP, and what I've seen is really good. I hope that there's plenty of opportunity for article collaboration in the future. By the way, I do like your cat photos: my cat doesn't pass WP notability criteria yet (he's working on it!), but he's named after Ephrem the Syrian. Have a lot of fun! --Gareth Hughes 19:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The fact that there is no picture of your cat is, frankly, an abomination! But, wow, I am humbled by the number of languages you command (!). Indeed, I have an RfA section because I get easily confused about what's what where (plus, I usually archive them more rapidally than other comments). Anyway, thank so much for the kind words; I am looking forward to collaborating with you on articles of mutual interest. If there's ever any help I could offer with anything, please do not hesitate. All the best, El_C 22:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Cyberjunkie's RfA

Hi El C! Just wanted to thank you for supporting my RfA. I hope I will be able to live up to the confidence placed in me. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 04:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Entirely my pleasure. El_C 22:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank You (Jcw69)

Thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship. It was successful thanks to you. I will strive to an open, approachable and transparent administrator.

Don't forget to sign your user name using four tildes! :D Congrats! El_C 22:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks (Thames)

El C, thanks for your support on my RFA. I very much appreciate it. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to ask. See you around! —thames 18:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Will do, nicely done. El_C 22:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you (Wayward)

I love the picture of your black-and-white cat on your user page. Every time I see a black-and-white cat it reminds me of my cat Bandit that passed away in February 2003. Anyway, I stopped by to thank you for your support of my admin nomination. I look forward to the time when our Wikipedia paths, blended in amity, cross once again. —Wayward ^Talk 05:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. Sorry to hear about your cat. Such black & white symmetry, but how? :) El_C 22:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

My RfA (Wikiacc)

Thanks for supporting my RfA. I will use my new powers wisely! --Wikiacc (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds glued! El_C 22:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks (Anonymous editor)

Thank you very much for your support. :) How was your vacation? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

My pleasure! It's (still) ongoing. I just unselectively went through a round of RfAs — for the thank you notes. I need the human interaction! El_C 22:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Man, that's one looooong vacation. ;) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems to somehow be interrupted by Anonymous editors and/or editor! :D El_C 20:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

the wub's RfA

Thanks a lot for your support on my RfA, I really appreciate it. the wub "?!" 14:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Totally. El_C 20:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Titoxd's RfA

Thank you!

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA. I never thought I would get so much support! Thanks to your help, my nomination was the 10th most supported RfA in Wikipedia history. Now, please keep an eye out on me while I learn the new tools, ok? Thanks again! Titoxd^(?!?) 20:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Fer sure; well done! El_C 20:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your vote on my RFA (Reflex Reaction)

Now that the voting has officially closed, I would like to thank you very much for supporting my candidacy for adminstrator and as of 18:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC) I am an administrator. I will make sure to use the additional power judiciously and I welcome any comments you may have. --Reflex Reaction 19:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Entirely my pleasure. El_C 22:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Tomf688's RfA

Well, it seems I'm now an administrator. I wanted to thank you for your vote of confidence, and, as always, feel free to drop me a line at any time. --tomf688^{talk} 01:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Will do; congrats! El_C 06:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

My RfA (Kirill Lokshin)

Thank you for your support! If you should ever have any concerns about my actions as an administrator, please be sure to tell me! Kirill Lokshin 13:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Will do; nicely done!

Dvyost RfA thanks

Thanks for your support on my RfA! Rest assured that I'll do my best to wield the mop with honor and righteousness. Cheers! --Dave 14:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh no! I've been admiring your work from a distance for some time now. Keep up the good work! El_C 17:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

And double thanks for this beautiful barnstar! I'll sport it with pride. --Dvyost 19:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

You more than deserve it! And I scarcely issue awards. :) El_C 16:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

RFA for Johntex

Hello, I want to thank you for your support of my RfA. I'm looking forward to using the new tools in the fight against vandalism. I hope I see you around Wikipedia soon. Best, Johntex\^talk 00:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure. El_C 11:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

My RfA (Jeffrey O. Gustafson)

Success!!! Thanks for your support! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay! El_C 08:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks from Pamri

Hi, Thanks a ton for voting at my RFA. I am now a wikipedia administrator. I hope I can keep your trust. Thanks again. --Pamri ^{• Talk • Reply} 16:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

My pleasure. All the best, El_C 12:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

RfA thanks (Physchim62)

Thank-you for expressing your confidence in me at my recent Request for Adminship. The final result was 40/0/0, and my "superpowers" have now been activated. I look forward to helping out with the development of the encyclopedia. Physchim62 (talk · contribs)

Glad to have you; that's a solid vote confidence. Best, El_C 12:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my RfA (Alabamaboy)

I know I've been slow in saying this, but thanks for supporting my request for adminship. It was an honor to be both nominated and approved as an admin. If there is ever any adminish (is that a word :-) things you need help with, please let me know. --Alabamaboy 16:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Fer sure; likewise, Alabamaboy. :) El_C 03:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks (Ramallite)

I just wanted to say a word of thanks for your support of my RfA and for your attempts at rebuffing some of the criticism. I greatly appreciate it! תודה רבה Ramallite ^(talk) 03:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

!בבקשה It certainly proved eventful. ;) El_C 10:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

THANK YOU! (Mysekurity)

I'm sorry you're not entertaining callers at the moment, but I'd just like to stress how thankful I am that you voted in my RfA. I consider you an excellent user, and I'm sorry for whatever's bothering you at the moment, but I'd like to say thanks a bunch. I will wield the mop the best way I know how, and would gladly help with any issues you have; just stop by my talk page. Thanks again, [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{04:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)}

Thanks and well done. Yeah, it's been a rough one; will let you know. Congrats again! El_C 10:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Photo Galleries

Dear mr.El_C, you politely asked me (IP : 82.56.183.106) to stop posting my link. ok, but i've read the policies on External Links and they suggest to link only useful content that could be meant for a wide audience. Now, i'm providing for example 160 Publid Domain / GFDL photos i made in Singapore, and i posted the link on Singapore section (which you deleted). I really can't see the reason : My site hosts actually more than 7000 photos from Asia, Europe, and Oceania. The version 2.0 will host more than 25.000, ALL of them under GFDL, with the clear goal of becoming the biggest GFDL archive for travel photography. As you can easily check by yourself, there's no other GFDL resource like that in the web, not to mention that i don't host junk content like stock photography or other lousy "photo galleries" but decent quality pictures divided by continent, country, city, and neighborhood, as well as hundreds of pictures taken from museums. I don't know if you had a look at my site, but nobody can deny that it's quite informative about every subject covered and there's nothing better at the moment from the GFDL world. So, i realize you could have thought i was link spamming, but that's not my intention, nor i can understand what you mean for "you can post your photos in wikiMedia" .. can i post 25.000 photos ??

Thanks, Marco

Hi Marco. My point was that you could upload pictures that are likely to be used in articles onto Wikimedia Commons, but having the website linked in multiple articles (many of which key articles; countries, majoir cities, provinces, etc.) is excessive. I suggest not linking it any article, but rather, add the link into Wikipedia:Public domain image resources. All the best to you with the project. Best wishes, El_C 00:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Pune

Thank you for your contribution at Pune. Please keep it up!!! - P R A D E E P Somani (talk) Feel free to send me e-mail. Thanks! Fun times! :) El_C 12:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

A priori?

I suppose you know my ?politics?, if that is what you're getting at. I am only a conservative when dealing with those that are to the far left. I was wondering about the Che image and the Soviet medal.--MONGO 05:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

My left is far to you. Anyway, your responses had the immediate impact as I outlined, and I did not find them well referenced enough. El_C 05:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

As shown, I saw little effort by 172 to calm things down, and I cited an adequate example of that...and in that example, 172 didn't say hey, you've insulted me or I feel insulted (as I did with you), instead, he agitated the situation with an insult back. Was it necessary to then continue to provide more and more examples?--MONGO 05:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhpas I overlooked something, can you please link the pertinent diff/s? Thanks. El_C 05:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Here...now I understand 172 felt he/she was only defending themself but the fires only burn if they have fuel. I won't take a stand on who is right or wrong...just saw that there was some tit for tat. Anyhoo...nice picture of Glacier.--MONGO 05:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

This is the same diff you placed on ANI, but it can be accounted as a response to the text I cited, was my point. Note the (!). El_C 06:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

It's all part of the same bantering back and forth over the same issues in the same Vfu. I just see someone cry wolf and they should do so immediately, and not respond in kind...you and I know this, though we may not always practice it. I am not trying to defend Silverhawk, just trying to look at the broader picture. 172, is probably justified to file an Rfc or whatever, but I would prefer a good dosage of WP:CIVIL and that they both disengage to avoid it becoming that sort of thing.--MONGO 07:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I, for one, am extremely sensitive to Holocaust analogies directed at myself due to my own family history. There's one personal attack I can see myself responding to with much less moderation than I would normally. Another point: having and responding to a talk page page that is on one's wtahlist does not = stalking, or as I explained to Silverback, hasty charges of impersonation. So I confess to being troubled in seeing your stalking argument on ANI phrased along a similar hasty basis. Thanks for reading. El_C 17:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

172 didn't post on the talk page prior to that unless you start going into Lulu's archives. If 172, or yourself feel threatened or likewise about Silverbacks behavior and believe that the only way to resolve the problem is through arbitration, then you should do so. I myself, guess I don't take matters here all that seriously, but jew baiting, red baiting, and caling someone a Nazi do not have to be condoned in any manner. I was merely attempting to show that 172 is not completely innocent as far as the particular instance brought up on the administrators noticeboard, and I saw in that behavior a rather serious verbal backlash directed at Silverback, that was equal to the items that Silverback had written. Yet, regardless, 172 is the one reporting Silverback...at least this time. I was merely trying to get all parties to find a way out without spending the next two weeks writing endless words over something that may not end up with a result pleasing to anyone...you know what I mean? I initially recommended everyone essentially go to their corner...David Gerard was seeking someone who had an interest in being diplomatic...as an outsider I felt I could do this and I think I did help...I didn't perhaps see the picture in it's absolute entireity as I had no Rfc or other itemized spreadsheet to work off and without spending countless hours searching in areas completely unknown to an outsider, all I could see was the evidence that was presented, recognize that there were two in dispute and seek a way that might show that there is cause and there is effect. I was attempting to show to both parties how they can both win without further insult to each other (an unlikely probablity at this point it seems). Bear in mind, I am not an Admin of course and have no immediate intention of becoming one. Anyhoo, I'll continue to monitor the situation.--MONGO 18:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, I realize your attempt, but I still feel it lacked sufficient references, not that I imply those need to be even remotely exhuastive, but establishing clear causal relations. At any arte, I don't wish to prolonge this debate since I'm uncertain how productive it would prove at this point. Lastly, I have no immediate outstanding issues with SilverBack myself, my point on ANI was a far broader, more profound one. But that goes beyond the scope of this note, and sadly, the comprehension (or inclination toward, at least) of the majority of readership here. El_C 18:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, you know, I do have an education as do the vast majority of contributors here so your reference that something my be beyond my scope of comprehension is alarming. Again, I provided a cited quote twice that showed that 172 also insulted. If you wish to see it otherwise that is up to you. Your citation provided nothing more enlightening than mine. I am not here to defend Silverback or to defend 172, or even you. I was attempting to make a good faith effort to ensure the blood letting would cease. You can't go running to the Admin noticeboard and file a complaint and not expect that a cross examination may ensue. Let's go ahead and get the arbitration going, waste a lot of time on that process and see that it will probably end up in results that are not completely satisfactory to all involved...weeks later, or, lets all analyize our own actions, accept that we are all potentially flawed and opinionated and cease fire. If Silverback and 172 will both agree to stay away from each other for awhile, then perhaps there is a hope that there will be room in this Wiki for both of them.--MONGO 19:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

El C, thank you for the support. It means a lot that you're the one person taking the time to defend my work... If you don't mind, I'd like to make a couple corrections in response to MONGO below.

MONGO, Lulu's talk page was already on my watchlist prior to crossing paths with Silverback; so I did not have to go through anyone's user contributions list to find my way to the discussion. my prior comments on Lulu's talk page El C's talk page, by the way, is also on my watchlist. Second, please reread what you call a "serious verbal bashing." [1] Notice that I am (fairly) characterizing comments, not personalities or making accusations about behavior (such as "abusing power," "supporting authoritarian regimes," "deleting evidence," etc.). At any rate, I will no hard feelings about your charges of "Wikistalking" if you drop them based on the evidence, with no apologies expected. 172 | Talk 19:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

You refer to his comments as a "diatribe" and "spewage", yet this is not to be equated with Silverback's comments...I see them as equally insulting. If you want complete sanctity from rebuttal, the next time (I hope there isn't one) this happens, merely refrain from also adding tit for tat, mention that you feel insulted and if that doesn't stop it, then report it. You two need to avoid each other for awhile...and I will remind him of that. When looking at the conversation on Lulu's talk page, I didn't access the archives so all I saw was that page and I didn't see any imput from you, hence the wikistalking comment which was rude on my part and I do apologize. We all get so defensive when we deal with the written word, so assume I am merely trying to prevent a long and hostile arbitration between you two and leave it at that, okay.--MONGO 19:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

---

I'll respond to the above upon my return. Thanks to both of you (still) for your patience. El_C 22:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

David Irving - amateur historian?

El C, there's an argument over at Holocaust denial over whether or not David Irving can be classified as an "amateur historian". As you are a historian yourself, I thought you might want to comment; you'll find the discussion here. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Am I a professional historian (open question!)...? I'll have a look at it when I get back, Jay. El_C 22:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Silverback

Hello again... You were quoted a few times in the new RfC... I hope you don't mind. Please take a look. BTW, I need a co-signer, if you are interested. 172 | Talk 17:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Endorsed. El_C 22:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon RfC

Hi. I wanted to bring to your attention that an RfC has been posted concerning User:FuelWagon. Please add any comments you believe are appropriate. Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 03:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Certified. El_C 22:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikiholiday

Are you sure the cat will do the job. Take it w/ you or else some vandal would kick her a**! -- Svest 21:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)  The Guardian

Why assume it's a she?(!) Anyway, I hereby appoint you, Fayssal, as official  Guardian of my user and talk pages, and esp. kitties therein! Okay, I'm out the door. Ciao! El_C 22:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I assumed it's a she as my monkey (my page's guardian) is a she! Enjoy your time. Ciao! Svest 22:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;

I love monkeys, too! El_C 22:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey

Just wanted to let you know I'm thinking about you and hoping you're okay. I'd post you a pretty picture, but I have an image policeman on my sorry tail, so I daren't. But I'm imagining a golden beach in the fall at dusk, with the sun a giant ball low on the horizon, and the air full of the smells of an almost-forgotten summer and a lover long gone. Ok, bet that's cheered you up. File:Meh.gif. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you implying I'm not cheerful? Well, I never am anyway, so good call! I could always go for a nice sunset; and, as for love..er, I don't believe we are permitted to speak about love on Wikipedia, it makes for a very biased, nonneutral community. There was that whole wikilove thing during the more idealistic days; now we have very lengthy, slightly incomprehensible user conduct RfCs, and fairuse! But when did I ever care about the rules? (rhetorical: when it suits me). One of the heroes of the toiling masses, Che, has famously remarked that: Dejeme decirle a riesgo de parecer ridiculo, que el revolucionario verdadero esta guiado por grandes sentimentos de amor (Let me say, at the risk of seeming ridiculous, that the true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love). Words to live by, always. Love, El_C 22:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Please help

You are a historian (as I hope to be), please do something here and offer whatever you can, thanks. Molotov (talk)
22:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey. I don't actually know that much about USian history. I did touch on the Nat Turner slave rebellion (also VA) when I was doing my postgraduate, but it was rather cursory. That said, I'll try to have a look at it when I get back. Best, El_C 22:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Away again?

What, away again? This is one long-distance marriage. :-( I hope all is well, take care. Bishonen | talk 23:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Bish, I'm still somewhat around. Actually, I'm considering in becoming a full-time troll, haunting otherwise highly productive and respectable editors with revolutionary slogans. Down with imperialism! Long live armed struggle! Love, El_C 22:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

comment

El C, when I wrote my comment, there were no comments at all under the support section, but very many and very long comments on the oppose side. The situation is still similar. I didn't want to direct the comment specifically against you (and I feel sorry if it sounded that way), but against the general tendendy that I noted on that day, take for example a look at mel etitis comment (the one above you). English not being my native tongue, I can not always be sure if my wording doesn't offend. I didn't want to offend you. Kefalonia.

You did not offend me, not in the least, it's just that your tone ala hating vandals, too seemed a bit untactful. But, no, I didn't think it was a big deal, I just didn't want to have both of us commenting back and forth in the voting space, and as mentioned, am willing to continue the discussion on the article's talk page (please review my comments already placed there). Incidentally, to sign your username with a timestamp, type four tildes (~~~~) and wikicode will automagically convert it. Also, for external links: if you place square brakcets around a link, wiki will automagically convert it into a respective number (i.e. [http://snuh.com] = [2]), or if you place the link in a square bracket, then a space followed by something and enclose that, it will hyperlink the title accordingly (i.e. [http://snuh.com snuh] = snuh). El_C 20:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I see where you were misinformed

Thought of taking a look at your talk page and lo it seems anon editor has brainwashed you by complaining to you first. This was what caught my attention. I think we should first settle what the issue is with Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 that you thought was imbalanced? The fact that I mentioned that the Indian losses were already mentioned or that people cannot misquote as you tried to do? Your statement "Oh, never mind, then. My mistake" for anon's post on Rediff.com that ("It is probably equivalent to a blog site") also shows that you too didn't take the time to know what exactly rediff is about. It is not a forum/blog yet I managed to find a Pakistani source for the same news. 80% of my references are from Pakistani authors/neutral sources to avoid this very conflicts. If anything is added from Indian sources I make sure they are only news related and not opinions since news is always the same irrespective of the side. Yet you choose to read what is only selectively given to read without fully reading the background blaming me. This is clearly reflected in the talk page for his adminship.

I'm guessing you might not even have taken the time to see how many times he's violated the 3RR to curtail anything he finds as "objectionable material" and went on the offensive. Obviously you have been coloured by his story and anything I say can and will be viewed in a negative manner. Still I thought you should know that your comments were not fully thought through. :| Idleguy 14:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not so easily brainwashed on a first-come first-serve basis, actually (rather, I try to do the indoctrination! :p). But, yes, I was pressed for time during that exchange and indeed didn't have a chance to look at it closely. Later, I found out this in.rediff piece had nothing to do with blogs.rediff area and I ended up admonishing AE recently about it being a PTI wire service story. AE didn't lie, he made a mistake, missed the PTI note and mistook it for a blog post. Okay, so mistakes happen, and it isn't as if there aren't many editors to correct these, as is clearly the case here. As for your contributions to the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, I'm sorry, but they did not seem balanced at the time. You wrote a section on losses but it mentioned only those suffered by Pakistan. Reading that section in isolation, a reader can be mis-led to think that India didn't suffer any losses in the war. So it struck me as distorted presentation, which is why I added that bit about Indian losses in the interim which you objected to. As for violations to 3RR, I'm not sure what time you expect me to take (?), if you have pertinent diffs, by all means, submitt these. I do think that both yourself and AE are useful components in terms of the Indo-Pakistani rivalry here on Wikipedia, and that you two should be able to work together with your view complimenting each other rather than being in actual dispute indefinitely. Certainly, I myself take no side in that geopolitical dispute (it isn't relevant to my political orientation), but I do generally agree with AE that there is more pro-Indian than Pakistani editorial bias (if only as a product of sheer number of respective editors), which imbalances those articles. So that remains a concern. As well, I hold no personal allegiances to AE whatsoever, so in the case you're suggesting this, it is false. I'll continue to try my best in looking at any given item with objectivity — this was/is simply an unusual time for me (highly pressed), which is why I didn't pick on the rediff error right away. Finally, I thought that the dispute was resolved or in the midst of being resolved. And I do offer my apologies for that oversight (I am more thorough ordinarily, or so I hope!). But, as for his RfA and Islamophobic tendencies therein, I stand by all my comments, which, at the event though, were not directed against yourself. And I still maintain that your questions were more suitable as comments elsewhere than additional standard questions. El_C 20:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Since you've explained in detail (more than I expected), I must say that you are actually a pretty nice chap. My apologies extended to for trying to paint you otherwise. Also thanx for your initial offer for my adminiship (later rescinded) but I have no intention of being an admin, atleast in the near future. The issue with personal attacks on SlimVirgin was about her misusing fair use tag for almost every photo uploaded by her and so it did get me bothered, especially after she tried to remove the {imagevio} tag and the related listing. Right now it's settled I think. You might have noted that I do sound a bit harsh (even accused of personal attacks) at times, but that's probably because I am concerned about Wikipedia. I don't really intend to insult/abuse; actually when I use similar lines in person with my gestures (I am good at mimicry) most take it jovially however it has the reverse effect in the writen language. :( I am working to reduce the sarcastic tone when I write but it just slips through. Regarding Pakistan related articles, yes it looks lopsided in a few articles and so it seems that the Indian view is reflected but in ones I'm involved with I take care to use a lot of Pakistan sources to negate this. Operation Gibraltar created by me is an example using exclusively Pakistani sources to ensure factual accuracy without compromising fairness - to the extent I didn't even use a single Indian source! I will continue to improve as per your suggestions. Thanx for taking your time to write a detailed follow up and Cheers.

P.S: Can you reduce the size of the images used in talk pages a bit since some might access the net on a slower connection. :) Idleguy 04:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

My pleasure. Thanks for the explanation and for the kind words. The thing with fairuse is that for a long while the policy was ill-defined (now it's just ill!), so many of us relied on it extensively. I still do, there aren't enough tags (for ex., the Hebrew Wikipedia has an IDF-specific fairuse tag, en dosen't). Anyway, I'm glad that dispute was resolved; I'm glad you took my comments constructively; I'm pleased to see you being introspective; and to hear that you attempt to be careful with providing balanced presentation and sources. I hope to look into those articles soon. Lastly, I'm confident that whatever issues you and AE may have, they are resolvable and that such a resolution would prove in everyone's best interests. If such issues exist and/or arise, I am hopeful I could play a positive role in bringing peace. So neither yourself nor AE should hesitate to forward such concerns here. Hmm, and I'm not quite prepared to compromise on the image sizes in this talk page, but am always willing to shift the discussion elsewhere if bandwidth is an issue. Valid point though —I'm glad you haven't clicked on my archives, or should I say, archive(!)— perhaps I should create low-bandwidth pages for those users. But I digress. Thanks again! :) El_C 04:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Heads up

Thanks for the (unintentional, on your part) heads up on Stevertigo's RFA. Didn't realise Haukurth was up for adminship. I might forgive Steve what he said this summer, but H's comments displayed very poor judgement, and hey, RFA's are about whether you think you can trust a person. Guettarda 04:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

True; good point. You're welcome! El_C 04:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The Muslim Guild

I thought you might be interested in joining The Muslim Guild.--JuanMuslim 06:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello. No time at present I'm afraid, but will look into it soon. Regards, El_C 22:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Gibraltarian

Hi Jefe. I am sorry to bother but I witness a very annoying behaviour by a user called Gibraltarian. I believe you already know the user as he used to walk around Spain. Why I say annoying (as I am not involved in the edit warring there - neither anywhere else!) is because he already violated the 3R plus that he uses unacceptable language against his opponents in the edit summary while he never uses something called the talk page. Spoiler is found here [3]. Cheers -- Svest 19:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Greetings. :) I'm afraid I'm not yet back to the extent of dealing with this issue effectively; but hopefuly I will be soon (next week). In the mean time, perhaps you should issue a notice on WP:ANI if things don't improve through dialogue. Let me know. Regards, El_C 22:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Jewish South African history

Hi: Please feel free to add material to the sparse article Jewish South African history. Thanks. IZAK 10:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I'll try to have a look at it next week when hopefuly I'll have more time. Regards, El_C 22:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Rhodesia (disambiguation) Page

Hi there. I have given the Rhodesia (disambiguation) page an overhaul in order to make it more consistent with the guidelines for disambiguation pages and to make the presentation more consistent as well. I figured it would be a five-minute job, but... you know how these things go. :) I have corrected a couple of dates that I am sure were incorrect -- e.g., you had Northern Rhodesia existing until 1963, but if Zambia didn't come into being until October 24, 1964, there's an unaccountable gap there. If I have not taken something into account, please let me know.

However, the main reason for writing is to ask for your help in sorting out some other dates, as I'd rather clear them up between us than have us operating at cross purposes. First I'll start with the good news: all of the dates in the Southern Rhodesia / Rhodesia / Zimbabwe Rhodesia / Zimbabwe section are consistent within that section. (Phew!) But some of the dates in the Northern Rhodesia / Zambia section are inconsistent and multiple dates between the two section are inconsistent.

With respect to Northern Rhodesia, I'm confused about anything before 1911. First, the first two items overlap, and the third item doesn't make sense when compared against the way you originally presented all of the rest of the information -- i.e., who governed North West Rhodesia and North East Rhodesia between 1900 and 1911?

Then there's date consistency between Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia. According to the second item under Northern Rhodesia / Zambia, the Rhodesia protectorate lasted from 1895 to 1900 (second item), but according to the information under Southern Rhodesia / Rhodesia / Zimbabwe Rhodesia / Zimbabwe it lasted from 1895 to 1901 (third item).

I guess what it boils down to is the following:

1. Clarifying the information for Northern Rhodesia before 1911,
2. Clarifying the overlap between BSAC-administered North Zambezia and the Rhodesian protectorate,
3. Clarifying the nature of the northern (small "n") Rhodesian entity after the Rhodesian protectorate and before Northern (capital "N") Rhodesia in 1911, and
4. Clarifying when the Rhodesian protectorate ended.

Thanks very much!

--Craig 14:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I only glanced at your changes; I don't have a lot of time to spare at present. Hopefuly I'll be able to attend to it next week. But on the surface, your changes and questions seem useful and in need of attention. I wrote that piece in 10 minutes or so, but at the time I was doing a lot of that reserach myself elsewhere, so it was fresh in my mind. The pre-1911 period has always been a gap because I've never researched it closely. For now, please have a look at my year-old draft at the top of the page for Southern Rhodesia and see if you can find anything useful in the narrative or reference section (though there is the gap in the early days which is about time was resolved). For Northern Rhodesia (which I am far less versed in), you could refer to Constitutional Development in Northern Rhodesia, 1890s-1964. Otherwise, I will try to get back to you as soon as I can. Thank you again for all your work. I am looking forward to further collaboration with you in the near future! Regards, El_C 22:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't actually expecting a reply until next month, considering you are supposed to be gone until the end of the month. :) If you don't mind, I'm actually going to copy this discussion over to the Talk:Rhodesia (disambiguation) page, as that would seem to be a better forum where other people might notice the discussion and join in. As for your article on Southern Rhodesia -- I have come across it before and seen your comments on other Rhodesia-related talk pages. It does look good and extensive and I will try and contribute if/where I can. --Craig (t|c) 10:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I was supposed to be back last week, the dates keep getting extended unfortunately, but I've been increasingly lurking. :) Yes, please do anything you can with the draft and/or its contents (long overdue since anyone, myself included, has touched it). Anyway, as for the disambig. page, sounds good, I will be joining you there soon! Thank you. :) El_C 17:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Voluntary Wikipedia Questionnaire

My name is Oliver Metz. I am a student at Brent International School, Manila, an International school located in the Philippines. I am doing my last year of school (12th Grade) and I am writing a research paper (about 4000 words) on Wikipedia in ITGS (Information Technology in a Global Society). Of 10 randomly picked people you have been chosen as one. If you are willing and have the time to answer a few questions I would be grateful if you could fill out a short questionnaire of 6 questions.

Some Information about my essay:

My essay topic is about the freedom to collaborate and the usage of the Internet as a tool to do so. I will analyze topics such as Altruism versus Egoism as well as the Product Wikipedia itself.

My Thesis Statement: The Internet is not only a medium for communication, information and marketing but also a place for altruism, collaboration and cooperation. Wikipedia is the product of a voluntary collaborative effort that defies commonly held beliefs about human nature.

If you have any further questions or requests you would like to pose before filling out the questionnaire I'd gladly answer them.

you can write to: taklung@gmx.net (I check this e-mail address regularly)

Questionnaire:

Please answer the following questions by either inserting the answers or sending them to me via e-mail. (*are not necessarily required).

Name*: Age*: Nationality*:

1. How long have you been contributing to Wikipedia?

A. Since Aug., 2004. El_C 06:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Have you or are you planning to donate money to the Wikipedia cause?

A. I expecet Wikipedia to donate money to my cause! :) El_C 06:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

3. When you first heard of Wikipedia and the concepts it is based on, what did you think about it and did you believe it could work? What do you think now?

A. It sounded a bit sketchy and too anarchical (in some respects, it still is), but now that I realize indvidiual diffs (and in the future, possibly versions) can be cited, I can appreciate the level of reliability of information that can be offered by Wikipedia, even at this stage. And it has been a stage of growth (from the top 100 site in the world 3 months or so ago, to the top 50!). Finally, I think Wikipedia (and the name and form may change in the future) will be with humanity, in a sense, indefinitely, including after many crucial contradictions between human beings, how they relate to each other and to nature, have been negated & resolved. As an impetus for greater ideals, its tone, scope and quality of contributions/contributors will flourish and reflect these changes accordingly. El_C 06:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

4. Why do you think people contribute to Wikipedia? With it being voluntary what interests do/did you follow when contributing to Wikipedia?

A. I think there are many reasons, some more noble and altruistic than others. I started with a focus on certain areas of my specialization that were non-existent or barely existing. Now, however, I contribute to a wide veriety of articles: sciences and religions, countries and cities, historical events and persons, wars and conflicts, current news items, cats, and so on. Too many to try to classify in a breath. My watchlist contains many thousands of articles. El_C 06:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

5. Do you think that Wikipedia appeals to Altruism? If yes, do you think such a thing can exist in our society in which greed and consumption apparently drive the world?

A. It does appeal to it, I think, but also to its opposite (and, subjectively, which is which depends on one's vantage point). At the event, I have a grand vision for human society and the greatest confidence it will overcome its contradictions (hopefuly, in our lifetime!). It is difficult to communicate such notions to people in the First World, though (and most Wikipedia contributors are from the 1st World), because generally its inhabitants (many of whom should be seen, globally, as a labour aristocracy) have been so heavily indoctrinated with ideas and ideals that work to promote and enhance imperialism and keep the masses enslaved to the imperialists' destructive and brutal rule over our planet. To my knowledge, I am the only administrator who adopts this anti-imperialist, revolutionary stance. El_C 06:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

6. What do you think makes Wikipedia most beneficial to society?

A. It attempts to provide rationally-organized information on all possible notable subjects for free. Which is as it should be — knowledge should be free. And to a large measure, especially on less politically-charged topics, I think it suceeds, though there is still much work to be done, many topics to create and expand on, also in other languages (I've been inter-wikiing articles to-and-fro the Hebrew one, for ex., an account of which can be found here). El_C 06:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Further comments*:

C. I've met some wonderful people here and developed meaningful friendships (it's unlikely I'd still be here otherwise), and I've been inspired & educated by many others. Finally, I'd like to thank my cat! El_C 06:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

With kind regards,

Oliver Metz

Greetings, Oliver. My answers are indented and signed above. All the best to you with the paper. Any additional help I can offer, please don't hesitate to contact me here or via email. Regards, El_C 06:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, will help me a lot! --TakLung 09:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. :) all the best, El_C 11:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Naming conventions for articles on Jews

As there is a great deal of inconsistency in the naming of articles about Jews, I have proposed that they be made consistent. I'd appreciate it if you could commment on this here: Template_talk:Jew#Name_of_articles_on_Jews. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I will look into it soon, Jay. Promise. Regards, El_C 16:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Grr. I hope. We'll see. El_C 11:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Would you consider weighing in?

Jayjg has been cantly restoring a statement on the Golan Heights having Israel's only ski resort at the Israeli-occupied territories article. You are aware of the fuss he made about how references to anything as trivial as water resources don't belong in that article. My relationship with Jay is such that there is no point in my trying to discuss anything with him, so would you leave him a message at his talk page requesting that he refrain from putting information he apparently considers "crap" back into the article? If he continues to misbehave, your action would complete a step in my formal complaint against him. Marsden 14:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I will weigh in soon; I'm having unexpected difficulties on various key fronts and varying severites, sorry. Yes, the water issues needs to be mentioned, as I already commented (now archived) it's important that it does. But as to what extent, balanced with what, or within the context of (linking to) which article, those are all matters that are yet to be discussed. I'm confident Jay is open to reason on these questions and am hopeful that you will end up modifying your claims of belligerant conduct. I hope that both of you will opt to conduct yoursleves with utmost moderation until a comprehensive solution can be sketched (rather then expending energy needlessly on somewhat-detached increments of it). Hope that makes sense; I'm wriring in haste. Regards, El_C 16:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

In light of the highly dissapointing reoccurence of personal attacks and the acrimonious exchanges I briefly glanced at (& possibly there are others I missed), I find it unlikely I will choose to weigh in in the near future. Far too much conflict and negative energy for me at this time. El_C 11:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Assumptions

See also: TShilo12/RFC/Amalekite El_C 18:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

You wrote on Haukurth's RfAr that, "As for your assumptiveness regarding what I was/am driven by ("hating correctly," and so on; not to mention assumptiveness that I even hate, to begin with!), that reflects poorly on you, I challenge."

I thought I'd move this here. While I said I didn't think it worth pursuing this further, I dislike bearing people animosity and having them bear it towards me. Earlier on Haukurth's RfAr, I was testy and rude, for which I apologise. In truth, I really don't understand what you are driven by, and, in particular, I do not understand why you got so upset about our position on Amalekite. However, most of my anger towards what you've said in the past is because you have also made assumptions about motivations, assumptions that, to me, seem very unfair and unwarranted. You had concluded, for whatever reason, that Amalekite advocates had some sort of "discreditable agenda" and were acting "as far from good faith as is imaginable". You expressed your "revulsion". Think about it — that's actually an incredibly strong thing to have written. Sure, maybe you could have told us that we should have been more supportive of and sensitive to our fellow Wikipedians, or that we had overlooked the gravity of Amalekite's attack on certain Wikipedians, but that we were "as far from good faith as is imaginable"...? It is quite hard to interact amicably with someone who believes such a thing about you, and who, moreover, then goes on to say that it is true "ten-fold". If you argued that myself and others were insensitive, then I also challenge you that your remarks on this have also been insensitive.

I don't know how I could convince you, and I guess it doesn't matter much either way, but I will simply assert that I advocated for Amalekite because I thought he deserved to be treated fairly according to our banning rules, just like anyone else. My agenda and motivation was fairness, and I acted in good faith according to a principle that I hold; namely, that we shouldn't discriminate against someone simply because of their beliefs (regardless of how offensive those beliefs are).

Anyway, I would hope we could bury the hatchet and move on to something more interesting (like writing encyclopedia articles and all that). — Matt Crypto 22:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

If you read my flipside more closely, you will see that I support that notion of fairness. But, I'm sorry, I could no longer assume goodfaith after all the circularities I witnessed on the mailing list, ones which repeated the same arguments but failed to respond to the counter-arguments. As for myself being (counter-)insensitive, of course. But I don't see how I could have accurately communicated that any less forcefuly, nor gone into lengthy elaborations with my protest after all that had already been said on wikien-l. As I said then, I think the principles got mixed —and unfortunately irrationally entrenched, too— with the specifics of the case. It's highly unlikely I will compromise on that point, but I could reiterate and elaborate why that is further, if there is interest. Sure, I'm willing to let the whole thing go; I wasn't even going to comment on his RfA, initially. El_C 23:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Your comment above appears to be that, "you guys read our arguments -- and nobody who read our arguments could fail to be convinced -- so therefore if you persist in opposing our position you must be arguing in bad faith for some nefarious reason". You seem to be saying that we weren't convinced by the mailing-list arguments, and that the only possible explanation for this was that we secretly had diabolical intentions to debate just for the sake of it and stir up trouble. There are, however, plenty of alternative explanations, and it's unclear why you settled on your particular conclusion. For example, maybe we genuinely were just not convinced by the arguments provided by your side — you seem to have discounted that possiblity out of hand. Or maybe we didn't understand your arguments. You point out circularities in our reasoning — maybe we're just stupid. Maybe we were naive in our evaluation of Amalekite. You point out that we didn't address your arguments properly; maybe we are just bad debaters. There's plenty of explanations, but you jumped to just one conclusion — the wrong one, as it happens. Moreover, when you jumped to that wrong conclusion, you expressed it in an very strongly-worded personal attack, and that's quite likely done more damage to Wikipedia and offense to users in good-standing than Amalekite himself ever did. — Matt Crypto 13:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

You reap what you sow. Again, assumptive – about myself not having taken those (& other) considerations into account with my conclusion: from principles to an unprincipled point. And I didn't say secrtely anything (on the contrary, I qualified it in rather heterogeneous terms, in fact). No Jewish editor should have to defend editorial work to —and engage in discussions on these with— editors who profess that they should be killed for genetic reasons. Not to mention after having made it well-known in holding that position and attempted to organize the like-minded via a hit list (real risk) at worse, and (most definitely) a hate list, at best. If that's respecting policy and act[ing] in good faith — I'm out. P.S. Please try your best in aiming at utmost concision. El_C 15:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Note that Matt Crypto's (substantive answer) began with two key words: why not? El_C 11:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi! Maybe I can chime in here too. I think that extended mailing list exchanges tend towards circularity. New people join the discussion and maybe only read the newest letters. Then they miss some of the background that had been established already and may come up with arguments that, one feels, have been countered already. It can be tiring but it's important to keep assuming good faith. I think that the thought comes especially easily to one that the other side is repeating themselves without taking one's own detailed and eloquent counterarguments into account. During the debate on User:Amalekite I personally felt that those in favor of the ban were repeating the same things without properly addressing what the rest of us were saying. Your perceptions were, it seems, exactly reversed. This is natural. It doesn't mean anyone was acting in bad faith. Assuming so is not helpful. Openly declaring one's revulsion with other people is also not helpful. There is no reason to accurately communicate such feelings and much reason to keep them to oneself. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 07:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

There is and was a reason there; your equatations seem subjective, disproportion to the situation, & thereby, self-serving. If that was anything resembling a natural debate, then obviously Wikipedia isn't the place for me but is one for the banned user and associated tactics. Users who, according to an inexplicable fringe minority, was respecting policy and acted in good faith. I feel pretty revulted right now on account of such views. I'm opting to, again, ignore your advice and not keep any of this to myself. As for what amounts to tiring versus a coma and unhelpful vs. needed, it's obvious we still don't see eye to eye; likely we never will. El_C 10:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Excuse my intrusion, but I'd like to comment on something Haukur said here. I followed the entire debate, from start to finish. And my opinion did a 180 flip based on the discussion and arguments made. Initially, while I have no problem with the idea of blocking a nazi, I didn't think off-Wikipedia posts really justified blocking. But once I heard the arguments and saw the stuff he had posted, made the trip over and read the posting and all that - by the time I had seen what it really was about I realised that we had an obligation to do whatever we can to protect editors. Blocking may have limited effectiveness, but it's what we can do. On punitive grounds alone he should have been blocked. El C's other point is equally valid though - you can't AGF someone who has said that you should not exist. Perhaps if you have never felt the sentiment you can't understand it - but to have to work alongside someone who believes you should not exist, simply because of who you are, poisons the environment to say the least. Guettarda 15:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I can appreciate the sentiment. But I'm still hesitant to ban people because they hold unpleasant opinions. Many people believe that everyone who does not belong to their particular religious sect deserves not merely to die but to suffer agonizing pain for thousands of years. To me that's a chilling opinion but many of us interact politely with people who believe this every day. And while they don't try to act upon their beliefs they are tolerated. From User:Amalekite's contribution log and his posts to Stormfront and VNN I see no evidence that he was acting in bad faith on Wikipedia. And we assume good faith unless we have overwhelming evidence to the contrary. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 15:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Not genetically, though, you can't in theory or practice (unlike religion or ideology) convert genetics — that philosophical overtone in inescapable. As mentioned, I'm not interested in hating anyone, not lest "hating correctly, but as for your depiction of such a view amounting to an unpleasant opinion, I want to stress that there is, in fact, a limit where moderation becomes its opposite. If you continue to note these sort of exterminationist notions through such insultingly understated terms, I'm going to have to insist you withdraw from this talk page. El_C 16:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I feel unable to continue the discussion on these terms. Thank you for the correspondence. I hope you continue to edit Wikipedia usefully and tirelessly as you have in the past. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 17:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Rather unpleasent terms they are; abhorent, even. Yeah, same to you. El_C 17:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

---

To the reader: I reverted Matt Crypto's allegations of highly offensive and deeply hypocritical [...] pretty darn Nazi-like comments directed at myself (also reverted him beforehand: here). If he places any further comments here, please treat and revert these as vandalism. TIA. El_C 17:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Note of third reversion. I reiterate my request: please treat MC's edits here as vandalism. TIA. El_C 17:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Note of 4th reversion (the contents of what was reverted are contained in the respective diffs; they are not being purged abysmally within the talk page's revision history, as was insinuated, unfairly, after I added the diffs, which is to say: immediately upon the reversion). I wish for Matt Crypto to refrain from editing this talk page — I am obviously (obviously) not interested with any sort of discourse with him (especially; or anyone, in general) at this time. TIA. El_C 18:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Armenian genocide - Position of the Turkish government

Hi,

Your input would be appreciated on the Armenian Genocide article, there is a section entitled "The position of the Turkish government" which is meant to show the governments official policy. The following sentence was added to that section:

"But although Turkey claims that the Armenian massacres do not constitute genocide because of the aforementioned reasons, its former Turkish Prime minister Bülent Ecevit, in April 2002, accused Israel of carrying out genocide against the Palestinians, and a leading lawmaker from Turkey's governing Justice and Development Party has accused the United States of committing genocide in Fallujah."

I removed that sentence because the view of the former PM and Mehmet Elkatmis were not representative of the government or linked in any way to government policy. They were misplaced personal opinions which are being construed as proving the alleged hypocrisy of the government. I have tried to make clear that Turkey does not have and never has had a policy of accusing the USA or Israel of genocide, those statements are the opinions of the ministers in question and should not be used in an argument trying to imply double standards by the government.

There is a discussion here

Your input would be appreciated. --A.Garnet 11:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello again, A. Granat. I'm afraid I don't see myself becoming active with such disputes and work in the near future, sorry. Nevertheless, I still fail to understand why this needs to be so complicated. You bring forward an important point of not conflating the official Govt. position with non-official, personal comments made by distinguished politicians. Why not simply qualify that: fairly, honestly and objectively? HTH, somewhat. Regards, El_C 11:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes i did not wish for it to become complicated. I have stated clearly: You cannot include something which is not the position of the Turkish government, in a section about the position of the Turkish government. The problem is user:Fadix deflects simple problems by introducing a 101 questions and irrelevant details and then accuses me of having a history of deleting relevant information. Tony_Sidaway shares my view and I will remove it again as i said i would. I dont know what HTH means by the way. Thanks, --A.Garnet 13:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

By HTH I meant hope this helps, A.Garnet. Best of luck to you in resolving the dispute. Regards, El_C 19:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Survey vote

Hi Jefe. I'll be glad to see you casting your vote at this survey; Wikipedia:Western Sahara Infobox/Vote. I hope it's time to find a solution to a longstanding wikipedia conflict. I've avoided it since a long time now but as the warriors from both sides finally decided to solve it by a vote, than it's a great opportunity. Thanks in advance. -- Svest 20:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Greetings, Fayssal. Nice to see a friendly face. :) Thank you for bringing this discussion & vote to my attention. It being (the infobox, that is) an important component to the entire editorial dispute over Western Sahara and how it and its status should be depicted on Wikipedia (and with an overall solution that has long been overdue). I havne't clicked on my watchlist in well-over a week (likely I won't for a few more), so I could have easily ended up missing this. I do promise to offer my opinion, though likely not for a while, but at most in a few weeks (well, at the very least a few days before the polls close). Thanks again. Regards, El_C 21:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Jefe! It's a deal. I see you being busy lately. Just promise me that you won't commit a wiki-suicide and leave the cat alone!!! (ref. to your newly user page) -- Svest 00:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

The love boat has crashed against the everyday. Heartbreaking. All that aside, the-cat-came-back, as per your request. El_C 08:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Zephram Stark

Hi, Fred Bauder has drafted a finding of fact describing the focus of the dispute in the Zephram Stark arbitration case, and has added it to the proposed-decision page at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Proposed_decision#Focus_of_dispute, where it is currently being voted on. It says:

"The focus of this dispute is the article terrorism which according to Zephram Stark deteriorated due to the aggressive editing and other actions of Jayjg and SlimVirgin. He has waged a campaign to restore what he considers an adequate article, free of the complex ambiguities introduced by his opponents, see Talk:Terrorism/Archive_6#NPOV_solutions and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Evidence#ZS.27s_changes_to_Terrorism."

I feel this is not an accurate way to summarize the dispute. Would you mind taking a look, please, and perhaps commenting on it? The discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Workshop#Focus_of_dispute. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Not right now, sorry. But I'm not sure I find it inaccurate as much as I do highly lacking & partial. I'll be happy to discuss this behind closed-doors via email with you. This will also provide us a chance to furhter conspire on how to best silence our opposition elsewhere, in service of those ideals that we share & in dis-service to WP due to the absence of transperency that our insidious, self-serving correspondence will undoubtedly bring upon the project. Exhaustively yours, El_C 21:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway RfC

Hi, I saw you strike out a comment on my RfC. If it's any issue I can help with, don't hesitate to ask. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely, I will, Tony. I need a chance to regain my composure so I'm able to compose myself effectively. Thanks. El_C 21:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I decided I'm not prepared to discuss any of this here beyond the following: The issue is that my confidence in your judgment has been seriously shaken; but this should not impact on our professional relationship. If you do wish to learn more, though, don't hesitate to ask. If not, then no worries, I'm unlikely to make any further edits to the RfC in such an event (not to imply that being a consideration). El_C 08:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Mizrahi Jews

El C, when you're feeling better would you mind taking a look at Talk:Mizrahi Jews and commenting on the "Origins", "Originate" issue here: [4]? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

May be a while before I can attend to it, so I hope you manage to find an interim compromise. As I said before (I think), 'tis largely just a matter of how to present the periodization; which can be remedied without loss of accuracy through a slight rewrite of that passage. Yours, El_C 12:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Note on Silverback's attacks

In the case anyone is reading Silverback's talkpage in isolation, please review this. Thanks. El_C 14:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Please also review the response here --Silverback 10:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I find that very confusing since a. I was unware Silverback accused me (yes, again) of being these users' (who, it's difficult to tell: "Bishonen and that lotus eaters person"?) sockpuppets. And b. My protest pertains to an unrelated attack documented above and elsewhere, namely: support[ing] people and philosophies that think abuse is OK in order to get them what [sic.] what they want and the followup implied insinuation that even indiscriminate support for RfAs can be a strategy for allowing a threshold number of those you agree with to be elected. (italics are my emphasis). El_C 11:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Action, reaction, symposium

I might have seen your point this time. ;-) Been told earlier to read that book, will get around to it now. I remember that I read "1984" when I was a kid (25yrs ago) and thought it was a very slow action novel; I preferred JLondon as his books were more exciting and didn't have any boring politics in them. :-) Yeah; Hegel, Marx.. "the volatile nature of its underlining contradictions" is something that always scares me. Sort of paralyzing though, leads to so many contradictions. In my 'real life' I go through periods of apathy cause I get stuck on the potential consequences of my actions. Around here I tried to attack the nobility as well as being pre-emptive in terms of the second wave; change the paradigm if you will. That was at least the plan. Do you think in terms of paradigms here on WP? I'm no Marxist as I don't believe in the possibility of the synthesis (i.e. utopia, worker's paradise); would perhaps have been one in a previous life but as it is now I've noticed that The Power has learnt to overthrow itself every once in a while to give the appearance of change - a side effect of the constant advancement of technology, increasing consumerism, information, etc. To form any kinds of progressive movements takes time, and it feels like humanity's collective memory doesn't amount to more than that of a goldfish anymore. And as people are no longer the same necessity for production (they even work for free to edit encyclopaedias) the shift of balance is irreversible. That's why I not only admire but also envy Allende, when he did what he did he did better than most, and (naive or not) he died fighting for what was good. I'm no Kant but it gets hard to live if everything is relative and based on what might become. Practicality is hard to measure. Sometimes battles that can't be won are the one that matters the most. Cliches; I'm well aware of, but still. I imagine a paper edition of WP in every schoolroom in Africa, and I see how they read and learn a version of reality that isn't true, but according to the Wikians, will become true once they/we all believe it. What if you have changed a few things/articles here and there? Will they get through the final proofreading? Even if they do, won't they simply lend credibility to the project? Knowing China as I do (not in the biblical sense) I know they will put out their own WP, and then it's the same old war with/over people's minds. This is why I believe in encouraging multiple inter-revolutions all over the place; Jews against Jews, Muslims against Muslims, Americans against Americans, Transsexuals against Transsexuals, and so forth. This was a particularly long and incoherent rant on my part. I would very much appreciate comment/expansion from you, preferable a 10-lines per sentence one.. :-) You can post here, on my user page, or email at dervishtsaddik at yahoo.com. Also, I might have misunderstood what you meant with the phrase; "but so is the volatile nature of its underlining contradictions", which would (possibly) make parts of this post irrelevant, but it's too late to go back now. :-) Will read the book. I, in return, recommend La caverna de las ideas by José Carlos Somoza which also has the author writing both 'the original manuscript' and the footnotes. Regards. --saxet 04:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Again with the moral philosphy! Yeah, it read to me fairly incoherently and all over the place, but that's okay! :) I am willing to give 100 lines for every sentence and answer every question comprehensively, once you read the The Iron Heel (not only to Remember Allende and others, but also to draw lessons). If you wish to tread in waters deep, a literary masterpiece swim is in order. So please read it closely whenever you get a chance and get back to me then for then at length. I'll try to check out that book when I get a chance, thanks for that. Regards, El_C 10:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Finally we're both incoherent and muddled. ;-) And for the record, you invited me to this conversation - the only reason I posted on your user page was because Marsden so rudely kicked us out from his. :-) Yeah, you're likely to find that moral philosophy is something that you will encounter for the rest of your life, even if you do something as mundane as feeding your cats, there will be moral philosophers out there discussing whether it's right to keep pets, et cetera. People who tries to escape the 'confines' of morality tend to be either atheistic psychopaths (I am all that matters) or religious fundamentalists (God is all that matters); some irony in that I think. Like cults, they always fail though. Last Jlondon book I read was The Sea Wolf so I'm looking forward to reacquaint myself with those waters. Talk to you later then. I'd also like to recommend The Island of the Day Before by Umberto Eco, and Dissemination by Jacques Derrida. Best of Luck. --saxet 16:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not being muddled, as will become clear! ;) Simply because I find no practical use for moral philosophy does not of course mean being devoid (or attempting to escape the confines) of morality (nor an inablity to understand moral philosophy), on the contrary. The conclusion is based on an initial false premise, and relates to my view on "philosophy," in general. Will try to check those out. Talk to you then. :) El_C 19:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

to-Kitten ועת Kitten עת-to

לַכֹּל, זְמָן; וְעֵת לְכָל-חֵפֶץ, תַּחַת הַשָּׁמָיִם. Hoping that you'll soon feel up to editing at full steam again, that all wounds can be healed and reconciliation reached I offer you this kitten. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

כי-עת לכל-חפץ, ועל כל-המעשה שם
.(to die) ועת למות (give birth) עת ללדת
,(to uproot) ועת לעקור נטוע (to plant) עת לטעת
;(to heal) ועת לרפוא (to kill) עת להרוג
,(to build) ועת לבנות (to breach) עת לפרוץ
,(to laugh) ועת לשחוק (to cry) עת לבכות
.(to dance) ועת רקוד (to eulogize) עת ספוד
;(to gather stones) ועת כנוס אבנים (to cast stones) עת להשליך אבנים
.(to distance from hugs) ועת לרחק מחבק (to hug), עת לחבוק
,(to lose) ועת לאבד (to seek) עת לבקש
.(to abandon) ועת להשליך (to keep) עת לשמור
,(to stitch) ועת לתפור (to tear) עת לקרוע
.(to speak) ועת לדבר (to keep one's silence) עת לחשות
,(to hate) ועת לשנא (to love) עת לאהב
.(to foster peace) ועת שלום (to wage war) עת מלחמה

It almost makes sense (almost!). Thanks, I appreciate the gesture, esp. in feline form. I'm afraid I remain too shaken from the event to establish dialogue at this time; I think I was more traumatized by developments in and outcome of your RfA than you were. So, I'll get back to you in a few weeks; I still need some time reorient myself with a few issues, and also, somehow, I seem to suddenly be knee-deep in combatting eristic stratagems. We'll see how that works out for me. At any rate, talk to you then. Thanks again. El_C 00:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Block of Marsden

El C, while I'm sure you're not particularly happy to see me posting here, I feel I should ask you to unblock User:Marsden, as it does not fall within the provisions and procedures of our blocking policy. In particularly, personal attacks are not grounds for blocking, and it is very inappropriate to block a user who has attacked you specifically, as it can have the appearance of an admin using his powers to settle personal disputes. If this user's behaviour is problematic, please try one of the normal means of dispute resolution (RfCs, RfAr etc). — Matt Crypto 19:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

That's correct, I'm not pleased to see you. And I disagree with your assessment. He has attacked many others (not just myself) and has been warned multiple times that this counts as disruption. Do not unblock this time; raise the issue on WP:ANI if you have objections. El_C 19:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

---

• Every-single admin on WP:AN concured with my position and against Marsden & Matt Crypto's "normal means of dispute resolution" one. El_C 09:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Whitewashering

I'm Famekeeper, lost my cookie again. Do help me protect WP from the whitewashing: I call for final "arbitration" against Str1977, no more dilly dally , all the way out with him . No reply needed .EffK 03:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like a chance to reply, though (!). Hello, again, Famekeeper. I keep telling you, as I have three times in te past: I am not —nor have I ever been— involved in, not to mention am at all familliar with this dispute (I can't confess being able to recall the name Str1977 – no offence to Str1977; likely the same is true vice versa). Best of luck in resolving it. I'm afraid I'm unable to involve myself at this time. El_C 09:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Fronts and cutouts

After reading the article Agent handling I was appalled by not only the editorial style but also by some "facts" that appear to be Original Research. For example: “The extensive use of cutouts, so long as they are trusted and reliable persons, can become a long chain of individuals. This performs another purpose, similiar to the extensive use of "front organizations"; by their sheer number, it becomes a shell game with counterintelligence investigators, who have finite and limited resources. When suspicion arises, the large number of persons and organizations connected to the conspiracy can devour endless hours and cost, which has the effect of slowing down the process of exposing an espionage organization.” [5]. Would you be so kind and review that article to see if any improvements can be made? Thank you in advance. Dearlove Menzies 16:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Can I suggest changing the above "conspiracy", to "operation"; "conspiracy", presupposes a legal verdict. nobs 19:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

You have been requested to appear as a plantiff an arbitration case. Comments have been added on your behalf. If you wish to add comments please contact me. Here is a link to the case [6] Davidpdx

User:Marsden is back

User:Marsden is back, using his IP address, 69.138.215.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and apparently spending most of his time reverting those he doesn't like, or who he has been asked to revert. I'm considering a 48 hour block for disruption; comments? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

---

---

poetry

Why should poetry not be a slogan?

Why should poetry not be

biased

when life is not at all itself

For life's sake,

I expect a poem to be

a slogan

a dagger

a fist

and a bullet if necessary

---

---

Self-hating Jew

I think some of the current text of this article may have been stolen from the (copyrighted?) Ku Klux Klan encyclopedia entry for "nigger lover." Have a look. 69.138.215.194 17:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)