User talk:El C

---

---

poetry

Why should poetry not be a slogan?

Why should poetry not be

biased

when life is not at all itself

For life's sake,

I expect a poem to be

a slogan

a dagger

a fist

and a bullet if necessary

---

---

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

---

---

Archived Discussions

Archive 2 3 4 5 6

---

A note

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

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

Madore99

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

Restoring edits from banned users

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

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

Invitation

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

Cyrusc 16:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Menudo

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sceptre/Comment on ANI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User talk:Alexia Death

Hey there,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hang in there

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

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

Please accept my apologies

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

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

Moving History of Jammu and Kashmir to Kashmir region

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

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

Links to Appletons discussion on WP:AN

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

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

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

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

Re: In dispute disputed

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

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

Blue5864

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abt the different pages for Kathmandu

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

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

Smile

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

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

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

Young user meets cruel world :-(

[1] [2] bishapod splash! 07:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC).

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

Silly me, in fact impossible to see, from that. OK, it was like this: see thread "Santa Claus: Think of the children regardless of our policies," now on WP:AN? Bishapod, or Little Stupid (as the unmaternal Bishzilla calls him) read the thread and enthusiastically brought fishapod plushies for everybody for Christmas. Click on link here, see Bishapod's original post, bringing lots of plushies. But User:Prodego (o woe!) put colons in front of all the images, so they stopped being images. No plushies, just ugly code. See sad sight here. Plushies gone, stuffing tore out of them. :-( (Prodego write "No images pls". O why?) Bishapod, devastated, collect sad toy remnants, tidy up, cross out happy heading and change to sad heading, here. Write sad message to Prodego,[3] Prodego not home. Sad poddie. P. S. Maybe send mommy Bishzilla visit Prodego? Hmmm. bishapod splash! 18:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Blocks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Che image

Greetings, El C. Image:Cheicon.jpg was deemed to be a non-free image, due to its restriction of being used "to propagate the memory of Ernesto 'Che' Guevara". We can still use it in article space under a fair-use claim, but non-free images aren't allowed in user space (such as at the top of this page). I know, it's a little weird, since you are using the image as allowed by the copyright holder, but Wikipedia's rules don't allow it, unfortunately. Sorry to bring bad news. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

That link seems to be broken. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The rule should say that neither fair use, nor is copyright violation is allowed in userspace. This particular image is non-free, but it is properly licensed for the existing use. This is beyond debate because the image copyright expressly permits, even encourages, this sort of use. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Thanks for uploading Image:The Prince.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Thanks for uploading Image:The Prince.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Thanks for uploading Image:The Prince.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 03:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Thanks for uploading Image:The Prince.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 15:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Thanks for uploading Image:The Prince.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Talk:Sapere aude

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

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

Seasons Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 04:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Karl Marx: Anti-Semite

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

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

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

User:Andranikpasha

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

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

Greetings

Jehochman ^Talk 22:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

why?

Hello, why did you rease the following link?

• 关于使用和发展维吾尔族语言与文字的提案

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hiyya

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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

Dacy69

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

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

RFP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Larua

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

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

Fair use

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

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

bot edits

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

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

Republika Srpska

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

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

Che Guevara

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

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

a project spawned from the AN fair use image thread

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

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

Why did you lock the article?

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

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

How can you be so patient with this crap. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is one cute cat!!!!! Looks very smart :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks

I appreciate doing this, from a Jewish Socialist to a Jewish Communist.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Deletion on the rocks

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

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

Jewish Communists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weatherman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Order of Saint Lazarus

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

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

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

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

Decision regarding my userpage

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

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

Waterboarding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tamil Nadu

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

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

Hidden comment on evidence page

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

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

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

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

RfD talk

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

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

Courtesy note

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JAMMU AND KASHMIR

HEY EL C THERE ARE MODERATORS ON HERE WHO SEEM TO THINK ITS OKAY TO ADD EXTRA STUFF ON PAKISTANI KASHMIR ARTICLES BUT PAINT A SOFTER IMAGE OF INDIAN ADMINISTERED KASHMIR CAN YOU HELP AND MAKE THESE ARTICLES BALANCED AND LESS PRO INDIAN I UNDERSTAND IF YOU DONT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.208.195 (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

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

MfD

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

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

Quick Question on East German page

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

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

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

Awesome, thanks - thought I might have missed something.

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

Your edit at Wikipedia:Requests for rollback

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

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

So, this is your talk page, huh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Btw, the word 'uncivilly' was accurately used. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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