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.

---

Southern Rhodesia draft:

---

File:Herooflabor.jpg

---

Archived Discussions

Archive 2 Sam Spade apology

---

Hello!

Good day to you again, can we talk someplace private? (IRC maybe? You should be non-banned) Kim Bruning 21:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

IRC?! Are you mocking me? ;) Note, though, that Linuxbeak has lifted NichoalsTurnbull's ban a few seconds after it was implemented. I'm not worried about it. I just don't know if I have the energy anymore. I've spent over an hour speaking to Linuxbeak yesterday [everything said there is kept confidential by request] and nothing positive has come of it. I could have written several articles,

instead. Discretion does not appear suited for this case anymore, I'm inclined to have discourse that's open, that's on the record, that takes place on-wiki. Regards, El_C 21:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to hear your having trouble here El_C - i think your efforts have been appreciated by many people, hope you solve the problem. --A.Garnet 21:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. The solution appears daunting right now, so I'm either going to give up or keep to myself. Regards, El_C 21:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

But I am not yet withdrawing from the pertinent debate, lest some mistake this for "victory." El_C 21:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather not see people infighting over this on-wiki. That's not helping anyone. I specifically recommend against any kind of action against Linuxbeak at this point in time.

I will talk with NicholasT when he comes online to ascertain what happened on irc.

Please reconsider private conversation over this matter. That way we can quickly eliminate a large number of possible misunderstandings quietly, which would otherwise cause us both great harm in public. Kim Bruning 22:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Kim, but I'm not inclined to do so at this time. I expected an apologetic note, not to have an "however slight" so crudely offsetted with a "most people I respect are indefferent about this situation." The public damage has already been done and appear likely to continue. El_C 22:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that private conversations are the root of this problem. Guettarda 22:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

El, I've read the log, and disagree strongly with the action of kicking you, in fact I feel rather inclined to join you in staying away from the channel. Btw, Kim no longer needs to ascertain what happened on IRC, as I have told him in full. Bishonen | talk 22:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC).

I also disagree with El_C getting kicked, mind you. Kim Bruning 22:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Child reports? What? Now you got suit dummies makin' up big fancy word papers about me being a bad father because i'm rich now? This is bullshit Lucy! I'm not a bad father am I Trinity? El_C 22:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Quick note for the benefit of Guettarda: private conversations go wrong about as often as public conversations. When you mess up a conversation in private, you look like an idiot in private. When you mess up a conversation in public, you look like an idiot in public.

Thus, private conversations are much more useful when mediating or negotiating things. :-) Kim Bruning 23:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No doubt - I should have said the last things I said to you (Kim) in private, rather than in the public square. But when private conversations result in decisions that cost us some of our best editors, public conversation begins to look much more appealing. Guettarda 23:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Kim's law:

Public conversations are larger, slower, and less subtle. Misunderstandings arise more quickly. Therefore, when a public conversation fails, a private conversation can make things better. When a private conversation fails, a public conversation can make things worse.

Kim Bruning 07:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better...

I know it may mean nothing to you, but I happen to think IRC has the possibility of being harmful to WP. It can cause a sense of Cabalilty and Secretosity. It isn't "open". I know you are not inclined to head back at this moment, but I just thought I'd pass along a little comment. If you decide not to return, don't worry. I for one have never even used IRC and I seem to get along just fine. I haven't had any problem keeping up with the Jolie-Pitts. My RfA flew through just fine. And all without calls of a Cabal. Well, don't know if this has any effect on you, or if you even care, just thought I'd pass it along. See you around. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 23:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Same here, LV, I've only been on IRC 10 (well, barring the times I just go to see if Bishonen is around, but then I just pm with her and don't pay attention to the main channel) or so times, and it has not negatively impacted anything related to myself. Yeah, I may return sometimes in the future, that's not the issue. The issue is, as you said, "the possibility of it being harmful to Wikipedia." We'll see what people think. We'll also see whether my IRC-pile-on theory becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.El_C 23:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Meh, IRC is just a network, and a communications tool like many others. Use it or not as you wish. (personally I don't think much of wikien-l, and so avoid *that* even though wikien-l is technically supposed to be authoritative.) Kim Bruning 23:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Each communication tool has different attributes. I'm interested in limiting some types of decision-making which takes place with "IRC approval" and then immediately implemented on Wikipedia. But I'm not drafting that policy. I did the AfD categories one (that I came up with while speaking to you, on IRC no less!). It's your turn. Oh and regarding the AfD one, any news about the tech prospects? El_C 23:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "IRC approval". Upstart wikipedia users discover this at their own peril. (recalling some embarrasing memories)

So I'm not even writing policy on this. :-P Let people turn red once or twice, they'll learn quickly enough.

As for AfD, I asked TAW to look, but he wasn't interested in helping out, so I'm not sure who to look for to help you out. See if you can find a different developer. Your ircphobia is not helping here :-(. Kim Bruning 07:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

1. There's no such thing as "IRC approval". Upstart wikipedia users discover this at their own peril. (recalling some embarrasing memories) — controversial actions need to be brought before and approved on Wikipedia, it's that simple.

   Indeed it is. And people find that out the hard way, every once in a while. <innocent look> Kim Bruning

Why can't we have either guidelines or policy to respond to that, though? El_C 10:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

1. So I'm not even writing policy on this. :-P Let people turn red once or twice, they'll learn quickly enough. — only presupposing the hopelessness of the above.

   Which is quite a hopeless thing indeed. Kim Bruning

Oh, come on Kim! As Ricky famously said: "I'm not a pessimist, I'm an optometrist."

1. I asked TAW to look, but he wasn't interested in helping out, so I'm not sure who to look for to help you out. See if you can find a different developer. — That's too bad.

   Yuppers. Kim Bruning

2. Your ircphobia is not helping here :-( — if ircphilia proves a hindrence, I could always spam the developers with pleas for help on the foundation wiki itself. Maybe bring it to the attetion of the board. They could even hire someone for that one task if need be. I wonder if I'll be the first editor to get banned from there! But nonetheless, the AfD policy enjoys support by a supermajority (and also from Jimbo), so it's difficult to envision how my criticisms of certain IRC-related practices (ones shared by others) should be seen as a factor in any of this. But it would be funny! El_C 08:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

   'Tis not your criticism. I just thought that if you really hated irc, you wouldn't have the will to go back there with me and lassoo us some devs ;-) Kim Bruning 10:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, after my the 'the truth hurts' (as I see it), I'm unsure how welcoming of an enviornment it would be, so I leave that domain to the tens of other people who supported the proposal. But I meant, hypothetically, in case a majority of devs are from the IRC camp that opposes my & others position as illustrated above. But, yes, I misread that; although it was fun to entertain a devs conspiracy theory. Back to practicalities: we try to find a dev soon, and if too much time passes without one, we go through higher and higher channels until it happens, protest, have a march or a carnival, and so on. But the sooner the better, is the point. El_C 10:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Not cool

We can disagree civilly, but this edit was not cool. Raul654 01:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yet you made no comment when he used that phrase originally to refer to the "situation" involving the departure of six valued admins. That is not cool. Regards, El_C 01:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Linuxbeak made such a comment? Raul654 01:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. "[T]there are those who strongly disagree with me. Some include some of the people that I put the utmost respect in. Others that I have the utmost respect for have supported my efforts. Still more people that I respect have stated that they are indifferent to the situation but wish me the best of luck." Regards, El_C 01:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

His comment simply noted that there are people he respects who have no opinion of the matter (which I strongly suspect is true). Your comment, it appeared to me, was kicking someone when he is down. How are those two comments in the same league? Raul654 01:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not simply, he has to exercize sensitivity. On to you, Raul, if I learn that this course of action was, in fact, discussed on IRC, then we're certainly facing the danger of it continuing to serve as more exclusive place for these sort of controversial actions than Wikipedia itself — in a case that already epitomizes IRC used in such a way. Regards, El_C 01:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I admit I discussed this with both Linuxbeak and Blu Aardvark in IRC before doing the unblock (and during the storm the brewed following it). It seemed the prudent course of action, and considering Blu's ban, on-wiki discussion was impossible. Raul654 01:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't see how you can argue an on-wiki discussion was impossible, then effectively keeping it secret until the implementation and predictable wheeling that ensues. I'm at a loss for words. El_C 01:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

In retrospect, my approach wasn't the best. The question about whether blu aardvark should be allowed to edit again or not is contentious, and I suspect it won't have a definitive answer unless decided by the arbom. What do you think of that? Raul654 01:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Good, thank you. I have no opinion about whether the arbcom should be the deciding body so much, what I do want to see is a clear and unequivocal apology and rejection of all the Nazi hate speech that he allowed to take place on the old WR. Had he listened to me then, as it happned and immediately after, that would not be a factor today. Not to mention partipating in the Brandt harrassment. Blu, in his apology, is rejecting exactly what I asked of him following the racist hate speech on the old Wikipedia Review: "find[ing] assum[ing] [some] responsibility. Regards, El_C 02:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

As for sensitivity, I have already stated I will not use my admin powers again in this situation. I simply wanted to give Blu a probationary period (per my belief that admins should be given discretion to conduct such experiments), and I didn't appreciate it when (after I spent 30 minutes unblocking Blu due to a mediawiki bug) Lethe casually redoes the block. Beyond that, I think I have been quite civil in explaining my position. Raul654 01:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

No, that was re: Linuxbeak and the whole 'most users that I respect were indifferent about this situation." El_C 01:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Injury picture

I had to sign out to write this, but I have to say that, FWICT, you are ridiculously hot... 69.212.18.213 02:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[mutters] Please, please, please be female! El_C 02:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The spectre of Raul's 8th law rears its ugly head once again :) Raul654 02:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

A compliment is a compliment, even if it (sadly) sees no action. :/ Btw, Raul, what do I get for reasonably explaining the eighth law: quite simply, Wikipedia [also] provides an anonymous enviornment where homophobic hate speech and other forms of these types of systemic abuses (which should be called "racist") are not tolerated. It makes perfect sense, actually. HTH! :) El_C 02:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I regret to say that I am indeed not female. On the other hand, you've displaced Rudy Koot atop my "hottest Wikipedians" list. 69.212.18.213 04:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I do?

"Kim disagrees with me that this can realistically be reflected in a policy/guideline." Kim Bruning 12:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, okay, now I understand, so you're just not prepared to be the one who drafts it. But, again, it is your turn, since I drafted the AfD one... El_C 13:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"the wub's first law: The impossible holy grail of Wikipedia policy is a complete definition of common sense. It follows that anything less is flawed by comparison." ;-) Kim Bruning 10:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 00:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

ITN

And I caution you against talking out of your ass and giving me baseless "cautions". What the hell was that all about? --Golbez 20:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Please exercize some restraint before perssing submitt. Appearences make a difference was my point, and I reiterate it. No harm done by refraining from that "every happening in the world" comment. I am going to write the article, then add it to ITN. Hope that's okay with you. El_C 20:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

What appearances? I removed the World Economic Forum because it had no updated article, with the note that ITN is not the place to mention every going-on in the world. That is hardly Afrophobic, and I demand you retract both that comment, and your "caution" to me for it. By all means, write the article - but don't add it to ITN before you do, and don't slander me. --Golbez 20:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how I slandered you. It's obvious that ITN is not the place to mention "every going-on in the world," after a few tens of thousands of edits and quite a few ITN entries (not all had fully updated articles, some were written shortly after), it would be safe to assume that I know this, but regardless, that "every going-on" can also be interperted as minor things, therefore, it could be inadvertantly "read as" marginalizing. Nothing impropper with cautioning someone of mistakes they may inadvertantly commit. El_C 21:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not inadvertantly commit jack. Show me where in my comment I expressed a fear of Africa or its people? --Golbez 21:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I felt it could be read as marginalizing, sorry if the choice of words was imprecise. El_C 21:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Good. And I disagree that it's marginalizing, but at least that wasn't a baseless appeal to racism. Consider your words more carefully in the future. --Golbez 21:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, sure, but that is what I attempted to convey to you. I'm trying to avoid baseless appeals to racism on the part of those who may feel it has anything to do with perpetuating the underexposure of African stories. And I accept and welcome your point of having an updated article beforehand, and I thank you for your corrections. El_C 21:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

He's back!

Hey El C, remember the anti-Armenian vandal 193.140.108.152? I just found out yesterday that apprently, he's back (Under a different IP). Can you block him when he starts up again? Thanks. —Khoikhoi 22:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat. Keep me posted about any transgressions. Regards, El_C 23:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment requested

Hello El C. I'm wondering if you can check out the heading at the top of User talk:Anwar saadat please? He has been asked by myself and a few others to not make such specific comments. He seems to have been restricting himself to dose of Boothyism of late, but there are somewhat aggressive comments he adds also.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. My impression is that it's a bit annoying in that it's not funny, though it tries to be funny by coming across as mockingly misleading and offensive against those under 18, virgins, and senior citizens with faint hearts. But mostly, it's just stupid, so I would'nt worry about it. Best, El_C 08:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

IAF replacement

I saw your comment on Danny's talk page. I whipped up image:IAF.png. How about using that instead? Raul654 22:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Raul! Looks good and works for me. See, this is the sort of help I would expect. I've written or translated close to 40 IDF-related articles in the last few weeks, including the 80% missing from {{Israel Defense Forces}}, and I sort of feel I've earned some leeway on really obvious things, like the IDF allowing fairuse. Even if that specific image somehow fell outside of fairuse, it's not like it seems likely the IDF would disallow usage of it, not to mention threat legal action over it. If anything, the IDF would thank me for doing what they have yet to do, update & better organize their site — in Hebrew, let alone English. But the Hebrew Wikipedia has done it (to varying degrees of comprehesibility and accuracy). So now I'm bringing that to onlined English-speaking people through en.wikipedia.org, and I'm not asking for praise or recognition, just less obstruction and more help. And I thank you again for yours. Best, El_C 22:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. If you want any more issues, just drop me a line. Raul654 02:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Let's hope the IDF url will satisfy orphanbot as a fairuse rational, or else this conflict will resurface again. So long as I am not facing any further interaction with its owner, whatever problems become greatly minimized. El_C 08:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide

Yeah, the user added all that stuff right before the page got protected (actually, come to think of it, that was the reason it got protected in the first place, because of an edit war over his edits). BTW, don't you think the caption "Armenian Genocide victims" might be a bit POV? I tracked down the source of the image to an extremely anti-Muslim and racist website (BibleProbe.com) It had the caption as:

Turkish soldiers proudly posing with bodies of their Christian victims. To these Muslims, the "Christians were like animals to be hunted."

Perhaps we could change it to something like:

Turkish soldiers posing with Armenian bodies.

What do you think? —Khoikhoi 01:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that if the picture depicts victims of what is conventionally understood as the Armenian Genocide, my caption is quite accurate and objective. It's not relevant how it's used elsewhere online, so long as we know its true origins. Is its source noted on that site? (I didn't look) El_C 01:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

There still is many issues to make of it NPOV I think, Francis presented some examples to be addressed before Karabekir made his edits, so there is still the issues addressed by Francis, the additions of Karabekir, and the introduction of POV by some apparently Armenian editors, more particularly in the lead, but I just checked and that seem to have been corrected(at least for the lead), but whatever or not the tag should stay, I don't know, I think I am to implicated to judge. El_C, I really think that two Administrators should follow that article and its talkpage, I am really losing control on this, and I know that a RfAr will not rule positvly for me on the bases of incivility and assume good faith policy, so maybe it is not wise for now, but everything not related to the article should simply be removed. Regards. Oh and, thanks for the unblock. Fad (ix) 02:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate you taking the time to explain your take of it for me. Oh, and as for the unblocking, it's my pleasure. El_C 02:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

El C, I see what you're saying now. No, I didn't see a source either. —Khoikhoi 04:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

dear EL C as you said the picture is lacking credibility and i am ready to prove that it is not what it is said to be. But I want your guarante that after I show its doubfull nature you will back me up so that it will be removed. because many people there see it as a war and never come to an agreement in anything despite evidence.neurobio 20:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Proving is a strong word, I won't have any problem with removing it, since I removed it myself in the past because it was not appopriate and that its sources is unclear. There was a more appopriate picture which Coolcat kept adding the delete tag to, and which was deleted while I was out from Wikipedia. El_C, could you undelete it? That picture was sourced and there was no copyright on it, a picture taken in late 1910s by the Russian's is not copyrighted. Also, as Raffi said, he had an answer from the organization who hold the copyright of Wegner pictures, the organization is permitting Wikipedia to have them here. And such pictures [1] are at least confirmed and we know who took the pictures, while the picture on the lead in my opinion is of duvious source. Fad (ix) 22:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Any helps into figuring out & demonstrating the picture's true origins will be greatly appreciated. El_C 22:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

it is good to see that you already know they are not Turkish soldiers. I said I am ready to prove it is not what it is said to be. in many sites it is presented as Turkish soldiers posing in front of their victims but obviously these are Russian soldiers. all pictures except Wegner are doubtfull. Actually I am totaly agains putting any pictures.neurobio 22:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Cent

Hello, I see you've recently edited {{cent}}. This is quite all right and I encourage you to help keep it current. But please don't forget to log your changes at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Template log. This will help us stay all on the same page -- no pun intended. Thank you. John Reid 21:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Are there instructions to do so anywhere? (if so, I overlooked these) Regards, El_C 21:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

IDF images

Hello. Sorry, but it was impossible for me to know about the specific circumstances regarding IDF images. You quote their web site, "The user may make 'fair use' of the protected material as set out under the law." However, a few sentences later, it says clearly, "Subject to the law of copyright, User may not copy, redistribute, retransmit or publish protected material, without the prior written consent of the IDF." To save yourself this hassle, you should probably create a fair use image tag for IDF images, or have some boilerplate fair use rationale text saved in a text file that you can just copy and paste when the images are uploaded. Regards, howcheng {chat} 06:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. I had no such expectation on your part. Just asking you to let me know when you encounter those images/url from now on, until someone creates the template (the Hebrew wiki already has one, designed as a single article fu, whose contents I'm happy to translate). As for the sentence which follows The user may make "fair use" of the protected material..., that obviously dosen't apply to fair use usage (or why would allowing fair use be mentioned prior? unlikely for mere kicks, I assure you!). Regards, El_C 07:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam again

Religion_in_the_United_Kingdom HG has begun adding links again after you removed protect tag. I have removed some. What to do about this [2]? Its better suited in Hinduism_in_the_United_Kingdom. Plus that is a Vishnu temple (not Shiva temple) patronised by north Indians only (not south Indians). So it misrpresents facts. Anyway the same image is found in another related article. Anwar 21:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Please link individual diffs (and other links) as per my instructions. Where is the evidence for the misrepresentation? Where is the evidence for the links addition. The arrangment was for you to provide these for me. Please do so, then I'll look at it. El_C 02:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

IET again

HG is again linking to Indian POV which I removed like this. Also, in some cases, his links don't seem to even support his wild conspiracy theories (like annihilating Hinduism). Anwar 22:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a fair request. He should be able to provide evidence of statements to that [annihilating Hinduism] effect, including precise quotations. El_C 02:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. I have edited it now to present point clearly based on ref. [3] - Holy Ganga ^talk 10:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Anwar's attempt

Hello EI_C,

• I think this is enough to proove that Anwar's edit's are based on his personal ideology against Hinduism. He has even removed BBC citation for the Picture with a reason remove more. Is it wrong to provide refrences for the claims made in the article? He was asking for citations in article "Islamist extremist terrorism" by calling it conspiracy (which have been provided now!) but at the same time he removed BBC citation in this article without any reason. [4]

• I'm not sure what the WP:MoS says about references in an image caption, actually. El_C 08:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• In an article on religion in uk, is it wrong to provide just 1 link which is giving information of 144 religious places of a Hinduism. [5]. He is not ready to tolerate even 2 links of Hinduism in that article most probably because they were added by me and they are related with Hinduism. This link is equal to many links put together because it is not only giving information about minority religion, it's 144 major centers in UK but also about largest temple of europe in UK. Now, religion in uk also means minority religion in Uk and for that just 2 links are not too much. Only he has the problem with it. If you can't link more than one link (even if it is logical and important), then we should remove separate religious sections from External links. Regards, - Holy Ganga ^talk 10:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• While I reiterate that it isn't linkspam, Islam has three times more adherents, so why should it only have one link, he could argue. A list of Hindu temples might be better suited to Hinduism in the United Kingdom, he may also argue. This is a legitimate content argument, which I since pointed out to him needs to be phrased less aggressively. Let's hope he took it to heart. El_C 08:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• He once again reverted this by giving illogical reasons.[6] I don't understand how exactly this constitutes Indian POV, or what the problem with the links is. Some another admin has already reverted his edits with this reason. TimesofIndia and Yahoo are one of the reputed news sites and i don't understand whats Anwar's problem? - Holy Ganga ^talk 11:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• That indeed appears to be problematic, since he removed cited material. We'll see what he says. El_C 08:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Pontian Greek Genocide

Hi El_C, if everything is ok, could you please have a look at the talk page of this article. I have tried to get another admin involved but little has been achieved. I have argued the title is a Greek pov, and there is no academic merit for it, but i am facing the usual nationalist rhetoric of attempting to "cover up another Turkish genocide" etc. Any involvement would be appreciated. --A.Garnet 14:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, A.Garnet. I will try to give it (at least a preliminary) look this weekend, hopefuly. Regards, El_C 23:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

A request

Hello El C,

I have a request. Could you please have a look at Dhimmi#Some_evidences_that_the_article_is_still_disputed. The question is whether "Jewish Encyclopedia" could be cited in wikipedia (Pecher argues that it is outdated). Your input is appreciated. Thanks,--Aminz 09:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Certainly, I don't believe it's so black & white (unlike a certain kitty who we love); I'm sure it can be cited for some purposes while it can be seen as outdated for others. What is specifically disputed as outdated on JE's part? Regards, El_C 09:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much El C. The story is that on Dhimmi article, Pecher thinks the article is both factual and neutral and wants to remove the disputed tags. However several arguments (at Dhimmi) has been made to show the article is not undisputed (using JE). Pecher believes JE is outdated and can not be cited in wikipedia. So, all those arguments simply go away. My idea was to request some admins for comments on reliability of JE. I will appreciate your input. Best wishes, --Aminz 10:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure. It appears likely that some portions of it could be cited (i.e. those which do not conflict with today's scholarship, 100 years later). El_C 10:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

El C, Pecher is simply rejecting all passages cited from JE (arguing that they are all out-dated). For example, he thinks all conversions to Islam were either forced or because of the situation of Dhimmi's in Muslim lands (something clearly contradicted by JE, but he thinks it is outdated!). --Aminz 18:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

While the JE could be cited for the more obvious expressions of scholarly consensus, if that consensus is disputed (i.e. not deemed obvious), we turn to the modern historiography. If the depiction for the pattern of these conversions is seen to follow the type of historical trends mentioned by the JE, it is not unreasonable to expect modern confirmation or lack thereof. El_C 20:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Aminz 21:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

193.255.230.227 (talk · contribs)

Hi El C,

You told me to inform you of any updates about this user—since the last time I talked with you they've changed the number of Greeks in Turkey from 20,000 to 2,000 without citing their sources, and also removed info w/o any explanation from the Armenians in Turkey article. Could you please talk to them? They're showing no desire to stop. Thanks. —Khoikhoi 06:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'll drop the user a note. Regards, El_C 07:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks El C. Are you starting to remember him/her now? [7] [8] —Khoikhoi 08:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, sorry. I notice from the above I've warned the user against inserting fabrications and that I ended up blocking him/her for it, but I do not recall those events taking place. At least we know that you didn't hallucinate it! El_C 08:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

That's always good to know. ;) —Khoikhoi 08:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Did I ever tell you about the dreams where my cat speaks to me...? (Dreams!) El_C 08:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No...do tell! —Khoikhoi 08:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I love them, but they sort of freak me out (he is a feline, after all!). El_C 08:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Man, you're gonna have to tell me tomorrow, I gotta get some sleep. Ciao! —Khoikhoi 08:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

That's actually the end of the story. :) Sweet dreams! El_C 08:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Arrrrrrg! They're back, but this time under a different IP! It appears they've left Argentina back to their home in good 'ol Ankara. You'll notice that 193.255.230.227 also has a history of editing Turkey & East Timor-related articles. Can you give their new IP a warning? —Khoikhoi 18:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

And more! [9] [10] —Khoikhoi 21:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Got it. El_C 21:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh

Hi. Would you mind to have a look at Nagorno-Karabakh? Edit war over the intro of that article resumed after a certain editor returned after the long absence. Maybe you can help to resolve the dispute again. Regards, Grandmaster 10:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I have no memory of that editor. Will try to do so soon. I'm supposed to look into Pontian Greek Genocide this weekend, but I've yet to do so (I'm a bit behind on things). Perhaps you could also have a look there if you get a chance. Regards, El_C 10:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately I'm not really knowledgeable on Pontian Greek subject, so I can’t be much of help. Regards, Grandmaster 10:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Nor am I. Misadventures undoubtedly will ensue. El_C 10:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Might be. I just don't know why every mass killing or deportation is called a genocide nowadays? The same in our region. Grandmaster 10:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

El_C, you are welcome to look at the article, I just would like to clarify something. I am sorry for modifying an edit made by you a few months ago, but I truly saw a particular phrasing troublesome for NPOV reasons. I fully explained my change in the talk page, and it was agreed to by administrators and other editors on the article. User Grandmaster, currently blocked for 3RR violation, started reverting my and others' edits without as much as a discussion or an edit summary. The current version is actually supported by most editors active on the article, including the moderators. It is neutral and factual. Yet Grandmaster's uncompromising stance has locked any progress on the article. As before, he refuses to discuss, and makes wholesale reverts as a first resort. I and others have made numerous compromises, and we are very close to a neutral permanent solution, the only obstacle honestly being his inflexibility.--TigranTheGreat 12:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You didn't change anything I've written, but I will be restoring most of my previous lead rewrite, which did enjoy consensus at the time but was nonetheless changed at some point. And I think you two should slow down on the reverts and speed up on the sources. Thanks. El_C 21:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

BoNM

I, Ynhockey, hereby award you the Barnstar of National Merit for your extensive contributions to Israel Defense Forces-related articles.

P.S. I usually put awards on users' pages, but your user page is structured in a way which would make it awkward. In any case, thanks for your work and please keep adding information to IDF articles :) -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you very much! Much appreciated. Not to worry, I'm not done yet. :) El_C 21:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hope this does not ruin your page

Thank you for helping out. Could you also take a look at his deletions at Wikipedia:WOT? Again he removed several parts of that page. As an aside, what is the value of this "poll" considering the vote-spamming and the deletion of a massive parts of the page (kizzle made a very good case against including Iraq, however you will not find it on the page due to the smoke and mirrors guys). Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

May I bother you again. After restarting his deletions[11] I reported to AV, however this was deleted without contacting Zero.[12] How do I proceed? I also posted a question at the admin's page since he refers me to AN/I where already this has been reported. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I will remove any attempt by this user to add anything to the opening part of the poll. 20+ people have voted already and voiced their opinion. This user does not agree with the poll, he wants it to be about more then it is, however 20+ have already made their decisions and comments, changing the very idea behind the poll now is misleading and misrepresenting those peoples views and votes. I have warned him that this is vandalism and I will revert continued acts. He has also been warned by Rangeley. He can participate all he wants, but he cannot rephrase the context after people have already spoken about it. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not see why you keep following me around Wiki, we already agreed you would stop the stalking. Second, deleting the introduction that was there from the start(!!) seem a bit silly. Third, a poll is a discussion and deleting editors comments surely is manipulating such a poll. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop reffering to me, and I would not have to defend myself of your accusations. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, no matter how often you choose to ignore that you were attempting to change the foundationof the poll after 20+ people have voted, its still vandalism. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm blocking both of you for a (rather symbolic) six hour (nexst time, it will 24) for violating the 3RR rule. Please stop edit warring. Thanks. El_C 21:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Again I ask you to intervene. My RFC was deleted, I restored it but Zero is now altering it again. Please intervene since you do not allow me to counter his vandalism. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You removed my comments from it, and I am the one altering it? [13] stop lying to people. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Your comments were altering the RFC, you disallow my comments in your manipulated poll but when I do the same you sream bloody murder. Again double standard. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

First its not a RFC, this is like the 8th time I have told you this. 2nd of all I never changed your question, or changed any of your basis for it. That is what you were attempting to do to the other poll. Also you were summarizing 10+ votes into one sentence that fit your intended goal, that is manipulation. I put up a version that includes the votes and questions and again you try to add a summary of everyones votes according to how you want it to be. But all 10 people did not say that, its misleading. Also the polls are about the infoboxs not about the Iraq War and WOT being linked. People including myself have posted on your user page, if you want to talk and help reach a concensus then fine, if you want to say you will not beudge even though only 3 other users out of 30 agree with you, then that is just sad. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest filing a conduct RfC; I'm unable to follow what happned this latest round. Thanks. El_C 19:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advise, there already is a RFC against this user and I have decided not to take part in any user related RFC since after my experience in this RFC I concluded that these are more a popularity contest than a objective assesment of grievances. Anyway, I have decided to stop editing any article this person resides since he is unwilling to engage in serious attempts at reaching consensus but vehemently tries to get his POV endorsed. This makes the matter at hand moot. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 21:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

The SCAG has been created if you like to help out feel free to apply or stand for Councillor. Geo.plrd 20:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I think you misunderstood my note. You are not permitted to recreate the Justice Court, and it appears that Zoe has since deleted the page (but I did reveiew at the deleted entries). At the event, I'm already Chair of OiHA. Thanks. El_C 21:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Help

A user User:Pecher had been made multiple personal attack against me. I have recently decided to warn him 3-times as suggested at [[14]] so that I can report him eventally at [[15]]. Hence when I had written the warning message on his talk page herethen he had removed it. I restore it again and he removed it again. What I suppose to do? I am afraid that he will soon archieve the talk section and I will not able to find the warnings. Looking for your advice. Can you please restore the warning?--- Faisal 22:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs to aforementioned personal attacks...? Sadly, WP:PAIN is unlikely to relive its days of glory (4th edit). Regards, El_C 22:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I see it. I don't think this counts as a personal attack, it was in response to your "I being a Muslim will not like to read hate-speach and other wrong words said against prophet Muhammad. Prophet Muhammad is a blessing to the whole world [etc.]" So his observation that your rationals are not grounded in policy (rather, in faith) strikes me as rather accurate, no offence intended. El_C 22:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Norm Coleman

Hi, I am sending this message to serious contributors who may be interested in articles related to U.S. politics. I believe I am receiving an unreasonable response-- and at times insulting and rude-- from the editors of Norm Coleman article, who refuse to remove a section that may offer some interesting trivia for Wikipeidia users, but is irrelevant to people interested in reading an encyclopedia article on a member of U.S. Senate. If you have time, please take a look at the article. Regards. 172 | Talk 03:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. Here are some links of interests: U.S. State Dept. Abuse Wikipedia, which as per this particular topic relates to Cathy_Cox#Wikipedia_controversy; and offtopic, it appears the US State Dept. has plagiarized me specifically, and Wikipedia, in general, on Cameroon (State Dept. version). Totally offtopic is the article involving, who else but Dr. Carr. The things people send me... Best, El_C 03:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of plagiarism and Cameroon, this major edit [16] by banned editor user:Primetime is undoubtedly plagiarized (I haven't identified the source yet, but every significant edit was copied). Even though we should remove the material, I hate to leave such a large hole in the article. Any interest in Cameroonian geography? Regarding Norm Coleman and invisibility - was that a rhetorical question or was I supposed to address your point? Cheers, -Will Beback 09:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's from the Encyclopedia Americana. It was a rhateorical question but I also wanted you to address my point. Regards, El_C 09:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, good detective work. I've responded to your point on the talk page. Cheers, -Will Beback 00:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"officially" happy

hello El C,

I don't know why you are suggesting that an "edit war" be started? The topic has been discussed and a vote held which was approved with a majority. I don't see any need to start an "edit war" about an approved policy, nor am I interested in opening up this topic again. with kind regards Gryffindor 07:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The topic has been discussed and a vote held which was approved with a majority Without me, though. Link? El_C 08:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

El C, what do you want me to say? There was a discussion and a vote was held, the discussion was open to everyone. If you missed it then I'm sorry. Even with your vote it wouldn't have made a difference. The link? you provided it yourself on my talk page, [17], it's all in the discussion, please read through it. I would obviously be happier if you were on board as well, there are no "loosers" and "winners", but I really don't understand why this seems to be such a problem. You want "official" name as the entry, and others don't, like me. Gryffindor 08:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That's the approved policy?(!) Majority? I'm sorry, but this dose't strike me as an intellectually honest approach. Dissapointing. El_C 08:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah of course, and now I am getting accused, what else? I guess it doesn't matter how one tries to do it, somebody will always be dissapointed and not be able to accept decisions. There was a discussion. In which you participated. There was an honest exchange of ideas, including reading yours. There was ample time to discuss the issues. There were various suggestions made. And in the end an agreement came out of it. I am highly dissapointed (and hurt) that you accuse me in such a way, why are you talking to me like this? Gryffindor 12:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Because you are misrepresenting policy, voting and consensus; because I'm dissapointed you didn't inform me of the new proposal; because I don't know if you will ever respond to my point regarding the "official longform" and official shortform. I was the one who pointed you to that page, I was the one who reverted your first set of edits. Please work on being more communicative — there was only three of us really involved in the original discussion. This somebody will always be dissapointed is a deflection, I find. I would have informed you of my proposal if the role were reversed. Since that sentiment does not appear reciprocal, my faith in your judgment is shaken. A simple note is all it would have taken. El_C 01:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't wanna fight about a sentence in an article either, it should not degenerate. And your vote should have been included when we drafted up the agreement, you are right. You seemed to have been absent from Wikipedia for quite a while. But a message should have been passed on to you, I'm sorry about that. Since you were the only regular participant during the discussion who was consistently against the idea (if my memory serves me right), however other users agreed, the proposal was passed. I can understand your dissapointment, however I hope you can understand the other side as well. Of course your contributions are important, no one is denying that. If you really want to reopen the issue and if that would burry the hatchet then I'm fine with that, it should all be fair game and I don't want you to feel slighted. Gryffindor 06:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for the thoughtful note. Yes, I want to reopen it, but it has nothing to do with burying the hatchet (that's already done), but advancing my (revised) point and guaging on others' feedback. Thanks again. Best, El_C 10:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, El C. A few words about that Gryffindor. I have seen her/his work earlier, and also how (s)he behaves and does this work. I believe you are mostly in right, and that this is again one example of Gryffindor's style. It really has been her/his modus operandi to allege that anything (s)he wants to get enforced, is a policy. Gryffindor, albeit possibly undertands the difference, does not openly recognize that much of the instructions here are guidelines, and some things agreed by concerned editors are just customs. We all know that only a limited number of things, fundaments of WP if I describe them, are actually policies. There seems to be a pattern of wanting to make new and/or inexperienced editors to believe Wikipedia woks in a way Gryffindor wants it to work.
I have seen very often that this Gryffindor does not contribute anything really maningful. Her/his doings are very often just repetitive "corrections" (s)he wants to put to a number of articles, to make them follow her/his desired direction. Those are things (s)he very gladly calls policy.
You possibly do not know, but i realized very recently that Gryffindor has changed username. There may be some her/his sockpuppets somewhere out there. But in some article talks I found a bit disturbed opinions written under a username something like "Antares". When I clicked that, it led directly to Gryffindor's page. That Antares seems to have wanted to create certain novel policies (about some highly "celebrity-type" issues, namely concerning royals, particularly royal women), and seems to have been, how I say it, highly disappointed when other editors did not obey her/his wishes. Reading those outbursts is a bit saddening thing. Also, there appears to be many articles that person now known as Gryffindor had created as forks and/or moved by cut-and-paste, when others opposed her/his attempts to move them.
I have sensed that there is a pattern in how Gryddindor works: behind the backs of others. there seems to be "votes" where something got "accepted". Circumvention seems one correct concept in many instances. In these situations, Gryffindor seems to enforce some majoritarian power. Discussing with Gryffindor seems sometimes like talking to a stone wall - I sense high doses of conservatism and lack of imagination, lack of creativeness there.
I am sure that you are correct when assessing that something Gruffindor produced is stylistically "clunky and almost unreadable". Similar patterns repeat themselves in article names Gryffindor often has chosen, and/or defends even by warring: there are often an overabundance of names and/or titles for persons, and often a habit of deliberately using something else than English, such as German words "zu", "von" when they are not necessary or can rather be "of". Some products of Gryffindor taste like (s)he is a German and does not understand what those things familiar to her/him are really in English. All in all, I believe you are correct in (at least most of) your criticisms related to Gryffindor. Marrtel 13:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm displeased about how he approached the country leads, I will drop you a note about my proposal when it's ready. Yes, he is way off base about that 4-person vote counting, not only as consensus but as outright policy (!). My jaw dropped when I read that. Regards, El_C 19:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well you can close your jaw again. User:Marrtel, I don't know who you are, nor do I remember any kind of dealings with you, however after reading your talk page and the comments users left and watching your contributions and your penchant for moving pages completely disregarding rules/conventions/guidelines, I don't really care if you badmouth me further. I am warning you though to cease moving pages without prior discussion, other users have warned you as well. El C, of course the guidelines/rules/whatever you want to call them on the Wikiproject are guidelines. If someone adamantly opposes them to one particular country (or two), no point in trying to force the issue. However, these guidelines exist for one reason: in order for the articles to be uniform and to follow a similar pattern. Now of course we can say "well to hell with them...". fine. but then we don't really need these guidelines now do we, we might as well drop them altogether. So I'm not quite sure why are accusing me of obtusing anything. The main point is that these guidelines should be followed, why else would we have them? I also suggest that we take our discussion somewhere else instead of plastering it on each other's talk pages, it's probably best to post it on the discussion page of the country project, where each users concerns should be. sincerely Gryffindor 15:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

An arrangement reached on a wikiproject by 4 people does not count as Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Guideline has a specific meaning on Wikipedia — for it to become a (policy or) guideline, you need to actually propose it as a (policy or) guideline, or add it to an existing one, which you have not done. First you call it an "approved policy," now you're (almost) calling it a guideline. My argument is that you need to be much more careful in the future with your choice of words, because inexperienced users might end up being misled, thinking it is an approved policy or a guideline, when it isn't. Do you understand now? Regards, El_C 03:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

want to help me

Ah a marxist I assume. We can argue later, if you like, we have a common cause together now, and must dispense of peity rivalries:

viva la revolucion!

On an unrelated topic, first of all, do you like my collage?

Now onto the subject at hand:

Want to help a sharp tongued wikipedian? I am compiling all of the articles on the senate scandal.

Can you research and make a list of:

1) the other people who were caught changing their wikipages?

2) those wikipages which state that these other people who were caught changing their wikipages?

I want to add this below the article section, to bolster our argument.

All of the articles list other names, which have been caught doing the same thing:

http://bailey83221.livejournal.com/88566.html

http://bailey83221.livejournal.com/88246.html

Message me on my talk page, let me know if you want to help.

Signed:Travb (talk) 12:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hasta la victoria siempre! I do, but to be honest, I don't follow U.S. politics (short of geopolitics) that closely, and know of but one other Wikipedia controversy involving a US politician is mentioned above on ^*gasp* User_talk:El_C#Norm_Coleman, involving Cathy_Cox#Wikipedia_controversy. That's all I know of or can recall right now. Please keep me informed about the effort, nonetheless, though. Perhaps I'd be able to help in other ways. Regards, El_C 12:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hasta la victoria siempre! I will take your word for it--I have no idea what that means. Best of luck. Travb (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It means until victory always! Good luck to you as well. I will keep an eye on the discussion. Possibly, a Wikipedia entry awaits your efforts. Let me know when you have the material compiled. El_C 12:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

File:Farcflag.PNG

Viva!

At this point, the wikipedia scandal involving Norm Coleman appears to have subsided. The scandal will stay in the article, which we both wanted. I have no interest in this article now, since I trust that you will guard this information, and let me know if another edit war begins or you need help. You seem more interested then me in the article, I had a passing interest. I have unwatched the article. My contribution to the article, for now, is done. Best of luck. Let me know if i can help again.

viva la revolucion!

signed:Travb (talk) 04:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't actually have interest in that article, either. It's unlikely I'll keep an eye on it. I only checked it out at the request of 172, or it's unlikely I'd have heard of the subject/article. This is besides the point re: an article about Wikipedia Congressional controversies, in general. If you're still interested in compiling the info for that, I'm willing to help, is what I meant. El_C 04:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Same bias, but we fight like cats and dogs

Re: On the extraordinary "mandate" of Adam Carr

Seems like we have the Same biases, but we fight like cats and dogs. Also seems like we share some of the same opinions about some of the same editors.

I stumbled upon your subapge which is quoted here: [Wikipedia Review link removed]. I have never argued with Carr, but i have argued with many of his "cabal" as wikipediareview.com calls it.Travb (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

User:General Tojo was clearly stalking me, so I'm not entirely satisfied with the above comment. But it dosen't matter, live and learn. El_C 11:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

If you have time, I'd really appreciate comments and suggestions concerning the new draft of the capitalism article. [18] Regards. 172 | Talk 07:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as it being a (relatively) politically moderate academic effort, which I reject less so than Ultramrine's one-sidededness, nice try! El_C 10:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Why Nominators cannot vote

Hi El_C, I'd like to learn which wikipedia policy states that a nominator for deletion of an article,template, category etc.. cannot vote? could you kindly direct me on this.  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 18:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure which policy states this (if at all). El_C 10:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It makes sense now

Due to obvious political differences, I hadn't expected to request your opinion on anything, but I was reminded yesterday of something you said, and I'm beginning to see what you mean. More details to follow via e-mail. — Jun. 26, '06 [14:03] <freak|talk>

Thanks for the note. I'm pleased you're beginning to understand. :) I'll respond to your email soon. Regards, El_C 10:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Jus me

Sorry, I didn't mean to screw anything up. I saw, while reading the never ending discussion pages on the Capitalism article, that there was an edit war. I was asked, via email, by Lulu to help NPOV the article, since he knows I have no vested interest in it. I saw the edit war and protected the article, posting that I had protected the article on the discussion page and stressing that I do not support any given version. Shit, I don't know anything about Capitolism theory or the history of the article...all I can do there is keep the peace, examine the links provided to see if they back up the information posted, and fix typos. My word is not law...if you think Ultramarine should be blocked then feel free...evidence suggests that she/he is a long time contributor that knows the rules...I'm just a little leery from other stuff as of late, so now maybe I'm being too soft. Bset wishes.--MONGO 12:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the note. I can appreciate your confusion, I just hope you can see my point about the 3RR version being protected — Ultramarine is not even seeing the problem with his complex partial reverts, and he has been here for years. Also, his rhetorical "I don't think this board should be about," are clearly questionable. But the ArbComm has a soft spot for him in its heart because the thrust of his revert warring has been so markedly anti-communist in nature, which reflects their pov. No, I am unable to take administrative action in this case, even with you not objecting to it, since it involves an editor who, on Wikipedia, is above all other things, an anti-communist. Best, El_C 12:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to note for you, El_C: I put a comment on Talk:Capitalism explaining to Ultramarine that "commodities" was not a "Marxist" word, prior to her 3RR violation. In that note, I was pretty explicit and detailed about all the neo-Ricardians, Keynesians, Smithians, and the rest you also use the term in the broad way the lead sentence does. But as you note on the 3RR report, Ultramarine believes that everyone who's not a Heritage Foundation member is therefore a Marxist. FWIW, while I was careful not to 3RR myself during the edit history, I did skirt it by putting in more encyclopedic lead three-but-not-four times... so MONGO very justifiably requested that I not edit the article for a day, to which I wholly agree. I still don't think a 3RR block on Ultramarine would be a bad thing, but I'll leave it to you admins to determine that. LotLE×talk 16:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. As mentioned, I disagree with 172's moderately pro-capitalist version, but find Ultrmarine's approach to be strikingly ahistorical, capitalist triumphalism & apologism pov. But I'm limiting my participation to avoid self-destruction. Best, El_C 03:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Limit your participation, okay ... but please, do not absent yourself from the page altogether! Slrubenstein | Talk 13:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting a strong sensation of déjà vu! :) El_C 03:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Crazy talk page antics

Hi El C, there are some antics occurring on the Fidel Castro talk page. No it's not a content dispute surprisingly, it's a user named User:Teemu Ruskeepää attempting a radical experiment in talk page restructuring. He's trying to have all comments pinned to his "discussion tree", rather than in the traditional chronological manner. He tried this on the blocked Cuba page which had some merit - but subsequently attempted it on the busy Castro page. Users gave it a go but universally became bamboozled by the lack of clarity and the apparent loss of comments.

Teemu took this badly. He tried to move everyone's comments to various points of the page - unilaterally rejected the concept of archiving and insisted that he had the answer to wikipedias problems. Of course, a consensus poll proved otherwise. This has not deterred young Teemu, and he is now adding lengthy polls to each discussion! With some rather uncivil comebacks to users calling for him to come down from his "discussion tree". I've laid out a programme of response if he continues causing talk page chaos [19], but need an administrator to enforce the will of the people if he continues. Do you know of any such admin?--Zleitzen 12:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Zleitzen. That sounds like a misuse of the talk page. I placed a note on WP:ANI about it. Regards, El_C 19:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Your moves of June 27 request

Hi, please also see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza. I do not believe the moves you intend to carry out have consensus. NSLE 11:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: Or, at least, that I assume you intend to carry out, given this comment. Apologies if I'm wrong. NSLE 11:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong. All I intended to do, at that point, was to support the notion that articles should not be titled as military operations unless these are ongoing operations (i.e. active on the operative level), or when they are events overwhelmingly known by the operation title (Operation Colossus vs. Operation Lightfoot). Certainly this common sense holds no weight over the consensus of US nationalist systemic bias. El_C 12:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, then please accept my apologies. NSLE 12:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. I prefer to become involved in the debate rather than in the administrative end of it. El_C 12:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Operation Summer Rain

Sorry if I was unclear - I recognise that I have some unusual speech patterns, but I use precise language because I want to be clear. To be perfectly frank, arguing The Israeli government calls it X thus we must call it X is using Wikipedia as a propoganda arm of the Israeli army, and I'm inclined to call a spade a spade. It may not be the most sensitive language - but I am not a subtle guy, and I suspect I'm far too old to be taught new tricks. WilyD 14:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You must place more efforts into explaining your arguments. Why would the IDF care if it's mistranslated as singular by some sources? How does that impact its (propaganda & otherwise) interests in any way. I suspect you failed to explain that because it dosen't. El_C 14:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it seemed fairly clear to me the argument The official source says it's called X, thus we must call it X as well is propaganda in such a straightforward manner I normally wouldn't explain how this flows grammatically, it seemed to be a basic step such that's there's nothing to explain. I can't seriously imagine the IDF cares one way or the other about the pluralisation on the Wikipedia article, which I never implied nor ever meant to imply. I regret letting myself get caught up in the hostile tone that follows, but I felt my response was the easiest way to get past all the misconceptions that arose. The arguments I made remain sound, even if the tone was less than ideal. WilyD 15:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm no longer interested in discussing this issue with you. If you want to review a non-trivial ex., see the section directly above. El_C 19:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

For helping out with the Legion of Honour item. I know a lot about Napoleon and orders of knighthood but i failed to get the lay-out of the article and the "Dissimbag" stuff right. Moving the two presidents to the Fifth republic and deleting a picture where Napoleon is King of Italy, look at he picture carefully and note the green border on his ribbon,improves the lay-out. With the aid of the Wiki community the aricle could become a showpeace! Not having proper pictures of the changing designs of the order through the fases and revolutions of France is the articles weakest point. Copyright is the problem! Maybe a collector will help us and photograph ssome items in his collection. I do not posess a cross of the Legion.

Greetings from the Netherlands,

Robert Robert Prummel 14:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Can I use the " Hero of Labour" star as an illustration on the Dutch Wiki? ( Article on socialist orders)

My pleasure, glad to to be of service. Yes, you sure can! Just internally link it, it's on commons. Good luck with those efforts. Regards, El_C 14:23, 30 June 2006 (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

---

---

3RR

You are in violation of 3RR in summer rain. I want to give you a chance of self reverting since I think you may have not been aware of the number of your reverts. Zeq 12:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)