User talk:El C/generic sub-page6

Now, now...

I just don't appreciate my comments being deleted, thanks. Regardless, he's all yours. The Rambling Man 11:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It was an edit conflict. But your warning didn't make sense as user was already blocked; and bot warning only applied to my page, user signed fine on the other pages he spammed the message on. Let's not be possessive about our text and follow comment sense, shall we? El_C 11:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Purple Heart

For laughing in the face of the United States Government, which I don't encourage but snicker at myself, I award you a ugly, generic, meaningless heart of a purple tent. — Moe ε 12:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I heart your purple heart! El_C 12:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I may have jumped to an incorrect conclusion...

Re: my mail earlier today. After telling Bill what was going on it seems that I may have "fingered" the wrong person. See User talk:BillCJ under "Sorry Bill...". As I noted there, the block and "resulting" e-mail to me may have been coincidental. Still a problem user, just a different problem user! Maury 17:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No probblem. Please keep me updated of any developments. El_C 06:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Objectionable naming

Huh? I didn't. Why did you revert those page moves, and change the links to point to irrelevant articles? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Now I see you've renamed so many other country relations, like Indo-Pakistani relations, etc. You are changing conventional terminologies with forced-neutrality. Please use WP:RM discussion while I struggle to return the status quo. Thanks. El_C 21:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't Again, I didn't move pages when there was objection. I also posted in several places with no comments contradicting me, and in one place, encouraging my moves (why would you move that in contradiction?) Why would you waste several hours moving these pages back to arbitrary names? You could take the approach of the poster above you on my talk and actually discuss instead. Also, you completely ignored the simple and direct question I asked you above. Also, if you could keep this all in one talk or at the very least not post different things in our respective talk pages about the same topic, I would appreciate it. Also, you are simply wrong about WP:RM; I used it, and the pages were immediately moved. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Massive and rapid Massive because there were several articles to be moved; rapid, because I would forget otherwise or get lost. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That's why you make a list with the proposed changes and ask for other editors' opinion, before moving everything in a day. El_C 21:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I objected to moving Sino-Russian relations, and you still moved it without discussion. Many of those names are far from arbitrary, they are the conventional terms used to describe the respective bilateral relations in the pertinent historiography. This need for uniformity does not seem to be at par with our naming conventions. What you should have done was to have a centralized discussion with a list of changing-x-to-y and see what others say. It would take me hours to fix the damage because some of the changes did, in fact, apply to seemingly arbitrary titles whereby the superimposed-uniformity makes sense (as no such title exists in the scholarship, anyway); plus, you go on to mass change redirects in entries that link to these renamed one. And, plus, as mentioned, not once did you seem to change the lead sentence to even conform with your renaming, instead quickly moving to the next renaming. Tens and tens of bilateral-relations entries changed in a day, and now my labour, which could have been quite useful elsewhere, is diverted to this mess. This easily could have been so much simpler, for all concerned, had you taken it slow. El_C 21:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

re:Bilateral relations renaming

Your welcome! I'll make a short list now because I can't remember off the top of my head that were moved twice (it was only like 3-4 pages). Many of the moves were reversing the names alphabetically, which while I would normally agree with, the move log showed on some of them there was a prefered revision after a discussion, so moving without discussion, after a discussion, was counter-productive. There was a couple I agreed with but they didn't have anything to do with the international relations articles. Although there the article that was named "Country A-Country B Friendship" that he properly moved, that was good, other than that the moves were rather improper without discussion. I must say though, these articles are really unmatched (i.e some use "American" "U.S." or "United States" in the title) and that probably is my biggest concern with these articles. — Moe ε 06:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That's why it's best to deal with everything holistically (i.e. a list of all such entries), and at the same time, individually (i.e. no blanket remedy; each entry reflecting whatever it tends to be termed in geopolitics, and in the case there isn't one particular convention, then sure, some sort of blanket remedy along the lines of his renaming). But I digress. As for the other list (the admin moves entries), sounds good. El_C 07:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

By current titles:

• Colombia-U.S. military relations
• India-United States relations

The other couple ones were edit conflicts with you :) Let me know if you see the topic of the naming conventions floating about and I'll participate in the discussion. Cheers! — Moe ε 07:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Really, that's it? I'm surprised. Somehow I thought they'd be a lot more. Copy that! El_C 07:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The move log looks more intimidating than it actually is. 1 article w/ a talk page appears as 2 moves, and through the contributions special page, it makes 4 edits. It's not as many as you think it is. — Moe ε 07:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That I am aware of; I'm just surprised so few needed admin attention (I had to delete at least four on my end). Oh well. El_C 07:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

This had me a bit confused until I figured out what's going on. Thanks for reverting. — Alex^(U|C|E) 07:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. You and me both. Airlines? What airlines? Exactly! El_C 07:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar of Resilience

The Resilient Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For not letting inane POV pushed criticisms get in the way of doing your job, and for apparently being one of few who seems to be truly neutral around here ColdmachineTalk 13:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this barnstar. El C has been a steady influence on Wikipedia for a long time. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks to you both. I greatly appreciate your encoruragment and recognition. All the best, El_C 06:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

NOR/Policy issue

Should this be the object of an RFC? I am going to poll other editors I really respect, but thought you should know. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what's happening (a user conduct RfC?). Please elaborate. 06:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it may be ipremature - or irrelevant. Things have changed around here and I may be missing something myself, but I though RFC's were a very informal and generl way to seek more general attention on any issue. In this case, I think there are a few editors who fundamentally want to get rid of NOR, but in the specific edit above I thin one editor is severly misrepresenting what a policy is and how disputes over policy should be handled ... these are questions that I think more experienced editors would have a lot to say about, and I was wondering if there was a way to attract the attention of more experienced editors to see if they wanted to respond to this editor's comment. Am I misunderstanding RFC? I ask sincerely - there is a lot that has happened at WP over the past two years that I do not understand (largely because life has demanded more of my attention). I was merely looking for a way to open up discussion to a wider audience, not to make a complaint against personal conduct. Is that not possible? Also, I thought given your own experience and commitment to WP you personally might have a comment in response to this editor's claims, in this specific instiance about "policy" in general, and in other recent edits to the NOR page, about NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought article RfCs were limited to main namsespace, but maybe not. WP:VP is one place to get more attention of an issue. Maybe you can summarize the situation with a bit more detail: what is this editor's position on this policy, who supports and who opposes, and why... El_C 11:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary removal of external links

I completely understand what Wikipedia is and isn't and how fickle its guardians are. The links added were to a respected source which offers the latest news on many scientific topics - other links from Wikipedia show that the people that follow existing links from Wikipedia to the articles in Null-Hypothesis tend to read them fully. I understand that to the American mindset the British way of allowing humour to creep in to serious matters does not sit well but to many Wiki readers it does. Null-Hypothesis has many highly qualified authors writing on subjects they have PhDs in - to arbitrarily reject them is somewhat obtuse. Please reconsider and reinstate the information or provide detailed and non-general reasons for Nazi-esque policing of Wikipedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.190.50 (talk) 10:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand you're connected to this website in some way...? Please provide detailed and non-general explanation of what this relation is. El_C 11:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Friends from Bristol University who need help with their informative and fun website that gives many writers their first chance to write professionally. Good people doing good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.190.50 (talk) 11:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Our conflict of interest policy prohibits you from helping your friends promote their website, notwithstanding its purported value or that of its authors. Now, if a disinterested reader were to add a link from that website to a Wikipedia article, that's fine. But to have a user whose edits, from the outset, appear limited to adding many links from that website across multiple Wikipedia entries (and yes, I do take into account they are individually tailored to each one; still), then that is a violation of the aforementioned policy. El_C 12:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I will pass the word to disinterested parties - I'm not sure it's such a great idea; by the nature of 'disinterested' the quality and the appropriateness of the text could well suffer which is not ideal for Wiki quality. In fact, when you think about it, by definition a 'disinterested' person is never going to add a link! Cheers and best wishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.190.50 (talk) 12:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Whom, at that point, will cease from being disinterested parties! ;) More seriously, I disagree that links to the website can't come through more random contributions; I won't get into the situational odds, except in so far as saying: why not? Best, El_C 20:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Because you'd delete them? There does seem to be a recurring pattern here of you deleting links, doesn't there? Perhaps if you read and researched, before making edits we could avoid your usual defacing of wikipedia, and your malicious, and erroneous comments? Perhaps in future you should stick to editing what you know, and leave all else well alone, either that or leave wikipedia to those willing to edit it professionally, and courteously? Further malicious edits will be reported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.63.23 (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Report away. Links to Stormfront do not count as a reliable source, please cease adding these.El_C 23:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Profoundly dumb

[1] obviously trying to evade -- an announcing it, can you beat that? ←Ben^B4 01:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Got it, thx. El_C 11:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Forgotten AfD

Hi. You have closed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chata-hradna some time ago, but the article remains undeleted. Just a friendly reminder: Would you mind deleting that article when you have time? Cheers. Tankred 00:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Roger that. El_C 21:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Email Alert

Please check your email. Thanks....NeutralHomer ^T:C 03:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Roger that. El_C 21:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to your most recent email (one sent about 10mins ago). - NeutralHomer ^T:C 21:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Cuba

At times I drop in on this article's talk page, to see what's being discussed (concerning improvements). In doing so, I've noticed 'El Jigue' has made the talk-page his 'gossip colunm' (Fidel's possible death & Raul's possible retirement plans). Isn't EJ pushing the ignore all rules too far? GoodDay 19:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Certainly he is, but that is not unusual for him. He has been doing this for this for years and years, but nobody can touch him as the Wikipedia (located in Florida, of all places) and its Establishment is viuralently anti-Cuban, so his misconduct is, well... simply tolerated. El_C 21:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Guess 'teflon' EJ controls these pages (Cuban related talk-pages). So much for 'fairness' - PS: I'm not blameing you EL C. GoodDay 22:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

AFM: is this section really necessary?

I don't know who added the "Manufacturers" section, but on things which are mainly used by universities, it is nice to know where to look for further information and tools

The only problem with that section is keeping it from being constantly vandalized, so unless theres a way to restrict edits to authorized users, it might be best to remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Admartch (talk • contribs) 16:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this question. There is no way to semiprotect a section, it can only be applied for the entire entry. I suppose I just did not see the relevance of having a section that lists external links to the various manufacturing companies home pages, per se. — that is, I simply fail to see the encyclopedic merit of such a section. I'm open to persuasion, however. Thanks. El_C 06:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Replied

Howdy, just replied to your email. Navou ^banter 19:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I sent an email? El_C 20:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked user keeps coming back

Based on the contribution period, articles concentrated on, and behavior of removing talk when he is through with it, I believe that User:Manutdglory is a sock-puppet of User:Englandfan7, who was banned indefinitely after sock-puppeting with User:Iwualum05. I'm letting you know as you have dealt with this user before. Thanks! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, dosen't ring a bell (in fairness —to me!— I've blocked thousands of users); maybe ask for a checkuser... Any developments so far? El_C 05:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Ingushetia

Ingushetia is undoing the same section after being warned. Ingushetia's Revision
Does this call for any action?
--DogGunn 07:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

And again... --DogGunn 07:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed. El_C 07:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks

It could very well be in my interest, but not writing an edit summary in talk is no excuse to revert. You cannot revert a page simply because they did not fill out something on Talk or write an edit summary. No problem with the version has been stated. There is no point in making trouble with something that does not need it. --Shamir1 04:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Country articles are too important to endure your normal modus operandi. El_C 04:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you disagree with this change or was that just an oversight? -- tariqabjotu 04:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oversight, sorry. Samir1 appears to be trying to reintroduce reversions from months ago through complex reverts. I'll try to correct it now. El_C 04:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not revert anything to "months back". What is your problem? The "economic competitiveness" was there already.[2] I simply changed "competition" to "competitiveness" to reflect the survey and Wikipedia's summary. That is not reverting or "reintroducing", let alone to months back. --Shamir1 04:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. Well, I'm precluded from making further edits to the article, anyway, and you're probably not that inclined to discuss your changes, seeing how you know that I'm against the article being blatantly pro-Israel and all. El_C 04:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Never Gonna Give You Up

user:Dirtydowntown is vandalising this article you have semi-protected.. OOps, meant to signQuantpole 12:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Arran

Hi. Would you be so kind as to provide a third party opinion on a little dispute we have on talk of Arran (Republic of Azerbaijan)? We have a dispute as to whether sources support the statement that a certain region was a part of a larger one. Thanks in advance. --Grandmaster 12:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Sure, I'll try to look into it later today. El_C 12:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I responded to the question you asked in this Arbitration enforcement notice board [3]. Please read it when you get the chance. I do not wish to dispute your decision regarding Arranis, but I believe my action to revert the name change made by User:Grandmaster from the original Arranis to Caucasian Albanians was legitimate since he never produced any consensus among the editors in that article for the move or any scholarly consensus for such an action. Dfitzgerald 16:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Perhaps you fail to realize the gravity of the AC remedies. Please discuss the underlying issue. El_C 21:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Please See here [4]--VartanM 21:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: AN comment

It's good to be back. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep up the good work! El_C 13:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Andranikpasha

Note: if you do unblock this fellow, subject to mentoring, I do think he should still be subject to revert limitation and probation (or whatever they're calling it these days) for a time-span of at least six months? Best, Moreschi ^Talk 21:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree; actually, I was thinking a year, but six months works for me. Regards, El_C 21:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi El C, thanks for considering unblocking user:Andranikpasha. Just my opinion but it was kind of hastily done considering he is still a newbie and was proven to not be a sock of anyone. I think through this experience, he has already learned much and I, like other contributors, should be ready to help him learn more and guide him. Thanks again. - Fedayee 23:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello El C, I will gladly mentor him, I should have done that a week ago. As for shortage of administrators, you can always make me one, I will clean this place up in no time, joking :). well in any case I'll probably need some mentorship myself in mentoring Andranik. VartanM 02:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

On a second thought, he should probably be mentored by someone neutral. VartanM 07:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it isn't an issue of neutrality so much as evenhandedness, and your record does appears fairly clean, if your block log is any indication. I was, however, considering someone who, on the one hand, is familiar with the issues, and on the other, not involved in these immediate disputes (for example, User:Ali doostzadeh). Why don't you ask him and a few others, and if that dosen't work, I'll ask Moreschi if he's alright with you taking the role of mentor. Thanks in advance. Regards, El_C 02:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, the parole has no time limitations, at least the arbcom decision says nothing about it and all users are placed under supervision indefinitely. --Grandmaster 05:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

El C, please also note that your warning is the second one given to VartanM, he was previously warned by the admin. See [5] At the same time, yesterday 2 editors were placed on parole without any warning at all: [6] [7] It is kind of not fair that some editors get 2 warnings, and others none at all. Grandmaster 09:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but I'm going to follow my own conscience & imperative; I'm a rather tolerant admin and that's just the way it is. Regards, El_C 02:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That's alright. Can I ask for your involvement in the articles like Azerbaijan Democratic Republic? If you remember, we had a discussion in the past [8] that the section about the name of the country should not be duplicated across multiple pages, yet there it is again: [9] Also Azerbaijani people, Azerbaijan, History of Azerbaijan, History of the name Azerbaijan all have similar sections about the name. Grandmaster 05:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

How the...?(!) El_C 11:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, ever heard of a Dr. Levan Urushadze. El_C 11:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I never heard of him. But I see the article about him is being considered for deletion. I believe Georgian Wikiproject might be a good place to seek for more opinion, if it is actually needed. Grandmaster 12:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Just throwing the name out there, thanks. El_C 12:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I forgot another one: Arran (Republic of Azerbaijan). The section repeating the same info with minor variations is called Boundaries: [10] It is impossible to find an article that has any relation to Azerbaijan that does not contain speculations about the name. Grandmaster 12:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Still, or from before? (I'm not seeing the duplication now, sentence-wise). It really is quite incredible. I will be getting to the bottom of this. El_C 19:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The sections were recreated by Hajji Piruz. They have minor variations, but push the same ideas about the name of the country, based on selective use of the sources, despite lengthy discussions we had with Khosrow on your talk and with Hajji Piruz on talk of Thatcher, who also said that the sources differ on the issue and both sides of the argument have their points. [11] Yet Piruz includes one-sided view on the issue in almost every article about Azerbaijan, deleting sources that contradict this view. I don't think that the name issue is the most important thing about the country of Azerbaijan to be dedicated so much space in so many articles, especially considering that there's a dedicated article on the topic called History of the name Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 06:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It is rather suspicious, especially seeing there's yet to be a straightforward answer. El_C 23:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It is very suspicious, especially if we compare the list of articles edited by both users. Those 2 are interested in everything that has something to do with the name of Azerbaijan, including very obscure articles created by Khosrow and picked up by Piruz. --Grandmaster 04:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do, I have been mentoring him via email already. He promised to stay away from controversial articles. VartanM 03:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll unblock, then. Please keep me posted. El_C 04:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What is all of this? Grandmaster is clearly violating WP:AGF and one of the Arbcom requirements: [12]. How am I supposed to defend myself without also breaking WP:AGF? I could also point out that Atabek's, Grandmasters, and Adil Bagruiovs edits all look the same too, and that its strange how Dacy69 pops up just to revert, but no, I've actually been trying to follow the guidelines set by the arbcom.

Its not Grandmasters business to dictate to me what I should and should not be interested in. I can be interested in whatever I want to be, and if that includes the history of the usage of the term Azerbaijan, then whats the problem Grandmaster? You seem to be very interested in historical Armenian figures and removing their Armenian ethnic background, is that supposed to be suspicious too?

I'm shocked at all of these bad faith assumptions. Please assume good faith and follow the guidelines set by the arbcom.

Simply ridiculous... Should I report this to Arbcom enforcement, whose supposed to deal with this violation of WP:AGF?Hajji Piruz 05:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I simply pointed out an obvious fact that both you and Khosrow edit the same articles and most of your edits are related to the naming issue. If it is not so, tell me and I will retract my words. I did not say that Khosrow was you, I just agreed with EI C that this coincidence looks strange. I'm not the only one here who thought that it was suspicious. And no, I’m not interested in ancient Armenian figures and removing their ethnic background, that’s a bad faith assumption. Grandmaster 05:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I simply mentioned the Armenian thing to show how absurd your accusations are, I was being sarcastic (not actually accusing you), and I'm glad that you now understand that. You arent trying to imply that Khosrow II and I are the same person, then what was this check user about: [13]

When you had initially asked for that checkuser, I was confused and couldnt understand why so I didnt even bother saying anything because I knew that no connection would come up, as I'm certainly not that user. So please, retract your words and from now on assume good faith as per the arbcom.Hajji Piruz 05:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I just compared these 2 links: [14] [15] and noticed that Khosrow stopped contributing in early December 2006, and while you were making minor contributions until that time, you sharply increased your activity in late December/early January, as soon as Khosrow was gone. Since you 2 were editing the same articles and interested in the same topic of the name, I filed a checkuser to clear the confusion. Unfortunately, it did not help to clear the confusion, as Khosrow's account was too old to check. But anyway, since no check is possible, I don't claim that you are the same person. It might be a strange coincidence. Grandmaster 06:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech massacre

Thanks for reverting that edit on Virginia Tech massacre. I have no idea why 24.124.109.67 is so insistent on adding that separator into the article. \/\/AYCOOL²⁷_talk 07:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. It's not worth reverting over& over as vandalism. Best to explain why it's stylistically unconventional and revert in a few days. El_C 11:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh snap..

Moe ε has given you the blank stare and no longer cares what you say. Possibly due to Hanlon's razor, which states "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.", or because this user knows he is correct no matter what you say. Spread the indifference by ignoring someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. — Moe ε 11:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

What's on your mind? El_C 11:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Not much, just feeling a little silly after a break from Wikipedia for a day and I thought it might be fun to send this to a few people today, you're lucky(?) #1 ;) — Moe ε 11:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

In that case, welcome back! I'll send a chip your way. El_C 11:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, a chip, as in a munk! Somehow I was expecting some kind of salty potato... — Moe ε 12:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Salt Peanuts? El_C 12:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly! :) — Moe ε 12:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Milky Way

I am not sure why you reverted this article back to some interum version (a brand new version that amalgamated several old versions and seems to ignore all reliable sources) and left the comment "looks a bit more stable presentation". Looks compared to what? There is ample evidence in Talk:Milky Way that this version is wrong in many ways. Are we to toss out all edits and to halt all editing (page lock) untill everyone agrees on the talk page? If so I would assume you should have reverted back to the GA version. I will wait for you to explain your comments befor i revert your edit (maybe there is something I missed). Halfblue 13:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's just my browser, but a few images were overlayed on-top of each other; also, it didn't have an infobox at the very beginning. El_C 19:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

user:Elias Alucard

I disagree with him being blocked. Dab is a blatant vandal. Look at the edit history of Aramaic history and read his reasons for vandalism under the Assyrian people talk page. Sharru Kinnu III 17:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't refer me to the edit history, that's no how things are done here — you provide individual diffs. You, too, if you continue characterizing those edits as vandalism, which comes across as a form of intimidation, will be facing a disruption block. I'm not certain how you two were allowed to carry on in such an incivil manner for so long, but its stops now. El_C 19:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

El Jique

(copied from their IP talk page) I'm not particularly happy with this user's bias, but the lowercase "jews" usage dates back a while in the article (days at least), and doesn't seem to be something El Jigue added. I think you may have been too hasty on that point... Georgewilliamherbert 23:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but I am somewhat confused over the week long block, from what I am reading he was blocked for mispelling "Jew" as "jew", was he warned about not doing this before the block? it just seems trivial maybe it was just a typo, a week seems like overkill. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a long-running issue, multiple admins have concluded he (presumably he not she) is disruptive.

Further info: after tracing it back through the history, it turns out that El Jigue did indeed create the section in question, with the lowercase spelling, but it was back on Sept 5 [16]. I don't see signs that anyone had changed it to uppercase and he'd reverted in between, but there are 200+ edits in there and I didn't spot-check each one. Georgewilliamherbert 00:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't still get it, the most disruptive thing I have seen him do is trying to use talk pages to "blog". - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Voluminous edits with a strong POV is the underlying problem. A lot of them are good improvement of stuff, but there's a tendency to sneak NPOV violations in as well. I don't know that this latest block is justified in particular (hence my coming here) but the pattern has been found problematic by many (including me) in the past. Georgewilliamherbert 00:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll wait for El_C's response, but if the block is based on what has been presented here the lenght of it seems inappropiate. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It was unrelated to the lowercase "jew," which, I neither implied El Jigue authored (I didn't check) nor that he was aware of the modern, mostly-internet-age connotations behind this usage; the block was over his insinuation of racialism/ethnocentrism on my part. ^[17] Just because everyone is afraid to block El Jigue, doesn't mean there isn't a long record of personal attacks, bad faith, and disruptive provocations. El_C 02:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

El Jigue has to shape up, he has been here for years yet he still conducts himself like a week-old newcomer. Since he uses an ip, there's a tendency to let his tendentiousness slide due to fear of biting, but we are long past that stage. El_C 02:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh that clears up some smoke, he was blocked for personal attacks not the "jew" incident, thanks for explaining this further. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

He was blocked for disruption/provocations (including personal attacks, failing to assume good faith, tendentiousness, and so on, all a product of his claim that I have to account for everything else), but that's right, I did not think he knew what the "jew" meant, which is why I explained it to him without insinuations ^[18] (after that edit, the matter of the "jew" was over, as far I am concerned). El Jigue might be a disruptive editor, but I think it is rather unlikely he has anything against Jews, or any ethnicities. El_C 03:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Internet Archive

Dude, you have no idea what Internet Archive is. It is a non-profit organization that works with Project Gutenberg and other Open Source Content contributors. They have over 250,000 public domain scanned books online, besides Google Books it is the single largest book scanning project in the world. -- 71.191.36.194 03:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I know what it is, it just appeared that you were giving one specific work hosted by them (the one by Frederic Duncalf's) undue weight. El_C 03:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh? The work in question deals with multiple topics. Each chapter deals with a different aspect of Medieval history. There is a note telling which chapter to reference. It contains English translations of source texts, backgrounds and issues historians deal with. It's old, but it's a solid academic book and still useful. Why not actually read the source text in question and judge for yourself if its any good or not and should be on Wikipedia, if you have a problem with the quality of the work then we can discuss it in the talk page. Also you deleted more than just that book, you deleted the Poitiers book also, which is also pretty good. -- 71.191.36.194 03:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, point taken. Will do. Thanks for your patience. El_C 03:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Confused

Hi El C. I noticed that you removed the protection tag from Leck mich im Arsch, but you didn't unprotect the article. What did you mean to do? Melsaran (talk) 11:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I meant to revert the protected page; I have re-added the protection tag. El_C 11:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong

Friend,Falun Gong a system of mind-body cultivation practice. And lays emphasis on cultivation of heart-nature on xinxing. Kindly go through the teachings, all of which are available online at http://www.falundafa.org and you can then judge for yourself. The most cruel forms of injustice are being committed against innocent people and their families. And the CCP has spread a lot of lies to justify this persecution. As they say all that is needed for the triumph of evil people is good men not doing anything. Kindly go through www.ninecommentaries.com am sure you will find the articles there tremendously insightful. Thankyou :) Dilip rajeev 11:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear sir, I think this from of advocacy greatly oversimplifies matters, to your own detriment. Falun Gong, like post-Maoist CCP, is an entity driven by material gain of its leaders. Irrespectively, entries need to follow our neutrality policy. Many thanks in advance and best wishes, El_C 11:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The Gordian knot: Kiev or Kyiv

It's all my fault. I created this subpage for discussing the hot-button Kiev-Kyiv naming isue, essentially to keep it all together, plus to keep the Talk:Kiev page itself available for discussing other matters, which had become very difficult. I thought I was being clever... but it's come home to roost. See this appeal on my page. I can't read all that! Especially since I can barely read at all. :-( There are archives, yet! I'm always asking you to bail me out, it seems... but could you possibly drop by Talk:Kiev/naming and bring your masterful Gordian knot-cutter ? Bishonen | talk 12:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC).

I will look into, dear. El_C 22:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Beautiful! Just like a hot knife through butter! Thank you! Bishonen | talk 23:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC).

Anytime! El_C 00:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong

Heartening to know there are still a few "ordinary" wikipedia editors keeping an eye on this article. I was beginning to feel a bit alone fighting blatant POV-pushers. Thanks for stopping by! Ohconfucius 14:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there definitely a greater problem than I thought if that type of editing is tolerated there. El_C 22:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

attack sites

I am not sure whether you know about Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Workshop but I think - when you have time - yours is an important voice that needs to be added there. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Roger that. El_C 22:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

History of the name Azerbaijan

Hello. The history of the name Azerbaijan is not spammed anywhere. Where is it spammed? The information removed from the ADR article was completely relevant, and completely different than the content of the main article itself (it was summarized). Also, I checked the history and User:Khosrow II's "The name" section was completely different than the section removed. I dont even see what Khosrow II has to do with anything, if you warned that person a long time ago about spamming then what does it have to do with me and what was the point of mentioning it? Also, regarding the information, how does that section fall under Wikipedia:Spam? Thanks.Hajji Piruz 20:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You are duplicating the same section, just as he did. That is mainspace internal spam. Again, how did you end up thinking up those edits? El_C 22:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I am very busy during the week, so you can continue this discussion via e-mail if it comes to that. I will briefly address several things regarding the discussion that I have just noticed above on your user page:

User:Grandmaster falsely claims that the section in question on the ADR article is being spammed on articles such as Azerbaijani people and Arran (Republic of Azerbaijan). I'm glad that you yourself noticed that there was no duplicated section in either of these.

The name issue is only brought up in three articles other than the main article, and it is highly relevant to each one of them: A) The Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, the very source of the naming dispute in the first place, B) Republic of Azerbaijan, with the continued usage of the name in our present time, and C) ofcourse, History of Azerbaijan, which covers the history of the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan (thus, the useres need to know the history of the name as well). In all three of these, the section is no longer than two paragraphs, and heavily sourced by neutral third party sources.

Also, there is precedent, as the Macedonia naming issue is also expressed in several articles: [19], [20], [21], [22] ....

Furthermore, regarding the discussion on Thatchers page, read it for yourself: User:Thatcher131/Sandbox1. Users Atabek and Granmdaster engaged in a circular argument in which they did not respond to any of the evidence or any of the assessments and arguments that the other parties (mainly I) brought. Read the discussion for yourself. No matter how much evidence I brought forth, no matter how many times I talked about Wikipedia's policies, no matter how many times they contradicted themselves, no one engages thoroughly enough to make a final decision on the issue.

These two are simply relying on two sources, two sources out of hundreds which contradict them, to justify their claim, yet have not been able to bring forth a single map, a single unambiguous quote, and a single quote without geographic errors, to make their point. They have not done that, not a single time. One of the two sources is ridiculously absurd in its geographic description.

I can bring forth dozens of maps, dozens of quotes, and assessments by modern notable scholars. Wikipedia's policy on undue weight is continuously being broken.

I am busy so I probably cannot continue this discussion on Wiki, as I will not have time to log on, but I can certainly continue this discussion via e-mail with you.

Ask any questions you like, ask for any type of evidence (I have maps, quotes from European and Arabic/Persian language sources (all prior to 1918 ofcourse), etc...), ask me about any historical context, anything you can think of. My e-mail is activated so feel free to e-mail me and I will get back to you as soon as I am able.

Regarding the Khosrow II issue, whats the relevance? Any person with an interest in the region and of Iranian Azerbaijani descent who is interested in the history of their part of the country, probably knows what I know. Tell me, isnt it possible that there is more than one person who will be able to tell you the same facts regarding the history of the state of California, or the state of Himachal Pradesh in India?

I am looking forward to discussing this issue. Thanks.Hajji Piruz 04:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that's pretty lengthy. I'll try to read it soon. I'm just saying it looks suspicious that you repeat his exact same prohibited edits, which is why I asked how you arrived at thinking those up. Please, restrict your answer, briefly, to that limited question. El_C 06:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note, there is more than sufficient evidence to show that no such state as Persia or Iran existed from 8th century A.D. till 16th century A.D. Nevertheless, there is a tendency to refer to people born in the region during this era as born in Iran/Persia. Based on references going back to 12th century the name Azerbaijan applied to the state of Atabegs both North and South of river Araxes. It's clear also that if Consul General of Persia published in 1863, saying that the area north of Araxes is Russian Azerbaijan, the counter claim that the country was first named this way in 1918 is simply void and untrue regardless of how many facts and maps are brought. Atabek 21:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

At this stage, I'm trying to focus on why those sections were duplicated, again. El_C 23:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What Atabek said above is a complete falsification of history. The Atabegs of Azerbaijan ruled of Azerbaijan (Iranian region) and Arran (modern Republic of Azerbaijan), their state was simply called Azerbaijan because Azerbaijan was the richest and most powerful region of all the ones they controlled. I can bring sources attesting to this.

What the west calls Persia (Iran) has always existed as a region, whether it was conquered or its own entity. Maps always labeled Persia, even European maps.

As usual, we see no sources presented, only their own interpretation of history, which violates WP:NOR. El C, read the entire discussion on Thatcher131's sandbox. Everything was made crystal clear there.Hajji Piruz 00:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep evading the question? This is becoming suspicious. El_C 00:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The move at Kyiv

Hello, Could you please explain why the request for Move at the Kyiv page was closed? It seemed that the people in the discussion were willing for it to go on for one week. Thanks, Horlo 23:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. It was closed, notwithstanding that willingness on the part of some, because, I, the closing admin, deemed it, erm, closeable. Regards, El_C 23:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Could you explain why it was closable? Thanks, Horlo 01:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to my closing statements. El_C 03:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I am re-listing the RM for Kiev as it was closed without giving adequate time for everyone interested to participate. The RM notice was only placed on the talk:Kiev page on September 14, 2007, therefore the RM was extended to September 21, 2007. The article is also under review for GA status, so that will bring in some comments as well. I just do not want to see the same mistake made on July 30, 2007 repeated. That RM was closed in 15 hours. A week seems reasonable to me, what do you think? 199.125.109.35 04:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you don't get to do that. We should give that debate a rest, it clearly is not going anywhere. El_C 04:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Not so fast. Please do not close it early. If it does not go anywhere then close it on September 21. There is no reason to just confuse the issue by stifling possible participation by aborting the discussion. Bear in mind that I am an impartial observer. I am involved only to insure that fair treatment is given. I'm sure you can understand that. It is not going to hurt anyone to leave it open for an appropriate period of time, and it is going to hurt to close it early. So here is what I suggest, strike out or remove your edits which in my opinion inappropriately closed the RM. 199.125.109.35 05:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Where do you get that September 21 closing date from? The move rules for "X-days" are at the discretion of the closing admin. El_C 05:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It was clearly announced at Talk:Kiev [23] - it is important to not go changing the rules on folks unexpectedly. "X days" was clearly stated to last until September 21. 199.125.109.35 05:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you did not have the authority to designate the timeframe, that remains at the discretion of the closing admin. El_C 05:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Where do you see that written? How can a closing admin designate a different timeframe from one that has been publicly announced? If you as an admin didn't like the timeframe you can certainly discuss changing it, but to change it with no discussion is just wrong. The whole problem with this mess is that the last RM was closed in 15 hours, with the reason given that it was not opened in good faith. Now you want to close this one in less than 48 hours? That is hardly an improvement, and will become a contentious issue if not rectified. Look you and I both know what the result is going to be, but please, make sure that the process is fairly done. 199.125.109.35 06:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

We do not follow process for its own sake; if you wish to appeal my decision, feel free to do so on the admins' incidents noticeboard. Thx. El_C 06:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I certainly will, but that is a silly way to deal with this simple issue. So before I do, please reconsider. I will not appeal for at least 12 hours. And note also that I was not the first to complain about the RM being closed. Once again, my sole role in this issue is to make sure that everyone has a fair hearing. 199.125.109.35 06:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm unlikely to reconsider, so you may as well go ahead. It seems the issue was extensively discussed before the move request. El_C 06:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope you are not counting Horlo's endless discussion. Question, would you have closed it on the 16th if you had seen the schedule showing that it was going to be open at least until the 21st? Secondly, there are two conflicting policies, common english usage and a specified policy, to use Ukrainian National system. Since I have been moderating this RM it is upsetting to me that it was closed before I had a chance to summarize the various viewpoints and attempt to reach a consensus. You realize I hope that closing it early invalidates the RM? 199.125.109.35 01:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarification?

I'm not clear as to the intent of the second of your comments here.[24] Would it be possible for you to clarify? Thanks - Raymond Arritt 02:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

My intent is to demonstrate tit-for-tat as a distorted impression, a product of those conditions. El_C 03:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I was confused about the "block-log and political-derived prejudice" bit, since (a) I've never been blocked and (b) other editors have often painted me as a leftist or at least a "liberal" (the latter in the American sense). I still don't quite get your point, but it looks like we're having trouble understanding one another so it may be best simply to let the matter drop. Raymond Arritt 03:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No, not your blocklog, his. Him being subjected to the aforementioned prejudice, not by you, but the point I'm trying to advance is that, as a result of these sustained efforts, you mistake evenhanded fairness with tit-for-tat. El_C 03:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I get it now. I'm viewing evenhandedness in terms of process (each case is considered on its individual merits) and you're viewing evenhandedness in terms of result (either both are blocked, or neither). Such differences in outlook are what make the world an interesting place. Thanks for your patience - Raymond Arritt 03:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm looking at the content-end result of an edit war that has been going on for years, with no end in sight; although Druova seems to be leaning on effectively siding with the minority view. El_C 03:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have opened Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Giovanni33 where you are a named party. You may wish to make a statement to the Committee there. Durova^Charge! 03:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Do the "forces which favour banning Giovanni" and "are participants in the Committee mailing list" refer to me? I started the thread, yes, but I was putting the question to the community in order to resolve the problem, not simply blocking. I agreed with you about evenhandedness, (or at least, I raised that worry in the thread, too, and before you did, now that I look back), and I certainly was not happy to see the issue moved to CSN for an attempted vote to summarily ban him and derail productive discussion. I don't use the mailing list to advocate banning of political rivals, (and in this case, I think you might you might be surprised to hear what my political view really are, not that I ever discuss them on Wikipedia). Dmcdevit·t 04:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I shouldn't have said it, regardless, but I appreciate the explanation. I withdraw it with apologies. You were evenhanded, it was unfair of me. El_C 04:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding linkage/parity, you may wish to review Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal where Ilena attempted to build a case against another named party as it was becoming increasingly clear that she was headed for a siteban.[25][26] This effort nearly succeeded, although Fyslee has turned out to be a pretty good editor without that particular disruptive influence. See User:Fyslee/Barnstars.

Also, in the current Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson case arbitrators were moving toward identical remedies for both editors until I dug around looking for evidence of a primary aggressor and requested a checkuser. Turned out Jmfangio was the reincarnation of a community banned editor and a third editor, unnamed in the arbitration case, was a low key long term vandal and had timed an impersonation account to coincide with one of Chrisjnelson's blocks. Both Jmfangio and the Notre Dame vandal are indefinitely blocked now, along with their sockfarms, and the Committee is deciding what to do with Chrisjnelson.

Obviously Giovanni33 and John Smith's are different from Ilena, Fyslee, Jmfangio, and Chrisjnelson. I raise these examples to demonstrate how important it is to examine each editor's behavior separately rather than assume parity in a messy situation. I've expressed this idea in different words at WP:ANI and WP:CSN and all of my actions are consistent with it. So please consider revising your statement at WP:RFAR: a good reputation takes a lot of hard work to build. Durova^Charge! 04:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I came across as if I was questioning your judgment, in general; that was not my intent, and, as far I can tell, it, otherwise, has been exemplary. But I'm bothered with the Giovanni not being given a fair review due to factors which are compounding by nature. Regards, El_C 05:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Images

Hi, I noticed that you help with removing bot tags from the Patria Roja and GUAS symbols, thanks. IMHO, the fair use guideline tagging has gone berserk, and some sort of collective intervention is necessary. I forces thousands of editors extra work, it accidentally leads to deletion of material that definately has a place in wikis and just makes people tired. Rules and regulations must serve a function, at this point functionality is subordinated to regulations. I still cannot understand the logic of having to write an essay to motive something as simple as "this symbol is the logo of xxx, to be used in the article of xxx". --Soman 06:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It prompted me to author this thread at the admin noticeboard. I agree, the system has gotten out of control to become labyrinthine, bureaucratized, counterintuitive, and anti-knowledge, to the extreme. This, I challenge, is due to profit-driven considerations. El_C 06:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Disappearing Commons images

Not that I blame you for this, you understand, but I'm hoping you might have a clue how to fix it. Commons images are being deleted left and right; now Solar System has no lead. Where are these images going and how do we get them back? Serendi^podous 14:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I would hope not! See wp:an#SVG_problem. Regards, El_C 23:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't an attack.

And I don't appreciate you blanking your own talk page to erase my question. I pointed out what he said and I showed it wasn't true. So where is the attack? Sharru Kinnu III 23:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Calling it a "lie" is hostile and is an assumption of bad faith. Please do not do that. El_C 00:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

W/E man symantics. Anyways. Why hasn't he been blocked for his hostile actions? Just read the Assyrian people talk page. I'm not saying to go do so but it just seems odd that something I pointed out [his damage] in the article winds up turning against me. He's going unilatterally and whiping out entire articles and sections of articles and engaging in edit wars with Elias Alucard making it a miserable experience for anyone engaged in the constructive editing of Wikipedia. Sharru Kinnu III 12:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani people

What do you want to see, I will show it to you, just tell me what you need to know, I'll bring sources if thats what you want.Hajji Piruz 00:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

First, answer the question about the duplicated section, why do you keep evading that. How many sections about Azerbaijan do I need for an answer? As for the article, I want to see you gain consensus here before adding the "Arranian." El_C 00:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are direct reference to the language of the Arranis (prior to Turkification, and note, they were not Armenians, but a seperate people who spoke a separate language). NOte that Grandmaster himself initially posted this very evidence in a discussion with the Armenians, using it to show that Armenians did not control the region, and now he refuses to acknowledge the very same evidence:

Al-Muqaddasi wrote in 985:

В Армении говорят по-армянски, а в Арране по-аррански; когда они говорят по-персидски, то их можно понимать, а их персидский язык кое в чем напоминает хурасанский. [27]

In Armenia they speak Armenian, and in Arran Arranian; when they speak Persian, they could be understood, and their Persian somewhat resembles Khorasani.

Ibn-Hawqal wrote in 978:

Что касается до языка жителей Адербейджана и большинства жителей Армении, то это персидский и арабский, но мало кто говорит по-арабски, а, кроме того, говорящие по-персидски не понимают по-арабски. Чисто по-арабски говорят купцы, владельцы поместий, а для многих групп населения в окраинах Армении и прилежащих стран существуют другие языки, как армянский — для жителей Дабиля и области его, а жители Берда'а говорят по-аррански. [28]

Too long to translate, the relevant line is: people of Barda speak Arranian.

Al-Istakhri wrote in 930:

Язык в Адербейджане, Армении и Арране персидский и арабский, исключая области города Дабиля: вокруг него говорят по-армянски: в стране Берда'а язык арранский. [29]

In Aderbeijan, Armenia and Arran they speak Persian and Arabic, except for the area around the city of Dabil: they speak Armenian around that city, and in the country of Barda people speak Arranian.

From the Western scholar Swietochowski:

The Turkic speakering Muslims of Russian held Azerbaijan, commonly known as Shirvanis and sometimes by the medieval name of Arranis... (page 10, Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition)

Now please, ask Grandmaster for his sources and ask him to support his claims.Hajji Piruz 00:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the duplictated section, I thought it was highly relevant to the three articles that it was in, is that really such a huge deal, just three articles? I saw no rule prohibiting such a thing in WP:Spam when I had read it initially.Hajji Piruz 00:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Have I answered your question now? I answered the first time as well. Hope this time everything is cleared up.Hajji Piruz 00:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty strange seeing how I prohibited another user from duplicating the very same sections onto the very same articles, but fine. El_C 00:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

But what does that have to do with me? This is what is confusing me... Anyway, now that this whole thing has been cleared up, can we focus on the main issues now? I will contact you via e-mail if I am busy. Thanks.Hajji Piruz 00:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I guess it's just one of those amazing synchronicities... Sure, no problem. El_C 00:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Piruz, here we see again how you mix up ancient Caucasian Albanians with modern day Azerbaijanis. The Arranians mentioned by Arab chronicles were Caucasian Albanians. See the article about Arran from encyclopedia Iranica:

Early Arran seems to have displayed the famed linguistic complexity of the Caucasus as a whole. Strabo 9.4, cites Theophanes of Mytilene that Albania had at least 26 different languages or dialects, and the distinctive Albanian speech persisted into early Islamic times, since Armenian and Islamic sources alike stigmatize the tongue as cacophonous and barbarous, with Estakhri, p. 192, Ebn Hawqal, p. 349, tr. Kramers-Wiet, p. 342, and Moqaddasi, p. 378, recording that al-Ranya was still spoken in the capital Barda’a or Bardaa in their time (4th/10th century). [30]

Bosworth mentions all 3 sources quoted by you and says that they speak about ancient Albanians. Now Tadeusz Swietochowski writes:

The Turkic-speaking Muslims of Russian-held Azerbaijan, commonly known as Shirvanis and sometimes even by the medieval name Arranis, differed from their ethnic siblings south of the Turkmanchai border in one essential respect: a large proportion belonged to the Sunni branch of Islam.

Albanians were not Turkic-speaking, so we are talking about Azerbaijanis, whose only difference from their ethnic siblings in the south was that there were many Sunnis among them. Shirvani/Arrani/Nakhichevani/Tabrizi, etc was only the regional denomination of Turkic people, i.e. Azeris. Such confusion in terms does not justify edits you make to a number of articles. We should distinguish between ancient people and more recent Turkic-speakers, who despite being descendants of Albanians were still a distinct people with a different language. Grandmaster 06:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you leave out the fact that Arran is also the alternative name for Caucasus Albania. Once again, I will have to point out that in the Arran article of Iranica, the section you point out is talking about the Ancient period, as evident by the use of Strabo as a source in that context. The Arranis we are referring to here are the Turkified Arranis of the 18th and 19th century, not the Arranis of pre-Islamic ancient times.

Your last paragraph is all OR, and is unacceptable. Either debate with facts and sources or do not object to the insertion of sourced material.

Also, for the record, "Tabrizi" is not a regional name. In Iran, last names were not introduced until the 20th century, therefore, to indentify people, they would put the city name after the first name. This was also common in Europe as well.

Arrani is completely different.

Again, we are waiting for your sources to disprove the above, not your original research.Hajji Piruz 15:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is continued at Azerbaijani people. I responded there. Grandmaster 15:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear El C, per your comment here [31], User:Hajji Piruz is formerly User:Azerbaijani and has already been placed to 1RR per week parole by an earlier ArbCom decision [32]. Thanks. Atabek 16:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting for an answer

Question, would you have closed the Kiev/Kyiv RM on the 16th if you had seen the schedule showing that it was going to be open at least until the 21st? Secondly, there are two conflicting policies, common english usage and a specified policy, to use Ukrainian National system. Since I have been moderating this RM it is upsetting to me that it was closed before I had a chance to summarize the various viewpoints and attempt to reach a consensus. You realize I hope that closing it early invalidates the RM? 199.125.109.35 02:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Requests for moves do not have moderators, they have closing admins, which was me. El_C 03:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then I was the person who proposed the RM, however I would like an answer to the two questions, would you have closed it when you did had you seen the schedule, and did you realize that closing it early invalidates the RM? 199.125.109.35 04:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I did see you announce the schedule but I disregarded it (I took it as a suggestion), which by no means invalidate the process. El_C 04:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

And then what's up with an editor with 6,000 edits coming along right after you closed it saying the we can discuss till the cows come home but we have to use Kyiv? 199.125.109.35 04:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I... don't know. What? El_C 04:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

My point is that by not announcing the RM we were not learning information that people like that had to offer. When the RM was finally announced on the 14th it was closed less than 48 hrs later, before I had had a chance to review the discussion and make suggestions, along with other more thoughtful editors. The reason I say it invalidates the process was proved by the fact that additional information was added. Here is what I do not wish to do. One, reopen a brand new RM, two, take this to ANI. Therefore I am asking that the RM be held open for four more days, until the 21st. I think that is enough to bring this to a closure. The idea of starting and stopping and starting and stopping and starting and stopping an RM is not good, but it is probably the best choice available. 199.125.109.35 04:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello El C. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:AN regarding an issue that you may be involved with. The discussion can be found under the topic WP:AN#Kiev/Kyiv RM. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you.

199.125.109.35 01:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Kabbalah article

I think we may have been doing reverts at the same time just now. I hope I did not cause a mix up in the process. Kwork 17:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we're okay. El_C 17:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Warning to vandals

I'm a relatively new vandal fighter. I see that you do a huge amount of reverting vandalism. What I don't see is that you issue warnings to the talk pages of the people doing vandals. Nor do I see that you issue reports of vandalism to WP:AIV. Is there a reason for these omissions? You've been around longer than I so I figure there must be a reason. Sbowers3 17:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I often issue short blocks (20 min.) instead of warnings; in 90 percent of cases that's the end of it. El_C 17:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and it probably makes sense. I don't recall if I have run across vandals after you blocked them but I like to see a warning on the talk page so that I know to escalate my warning. Sbowers3 18:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Now you know to also look at the blocklog. El_C 18:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Finally, photos

Please note: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fucking%2C_Austria&diff=158772811&oldid=157754248 --Otheus 18:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Mentorship

Thanks for the offer on mentorship but the Armenia-Azerbaijan Arbcomm is too complicated and I have a general positive relationship with both sides. On a similar issue, I believe user Tajik has written many positive articles for Wikipedia. I would much prefer though to do whatever I am capable of in getting this generally positive contributor [33] unbanned and I will be serious/hard/harsh on him to make sure that he complies with all Wiki guidelines. If there is anything I can do, please let me know. --alidoostzadeh 02:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lord Peel arrives.jpg

Do you remember where you got Image:Lord Peel arrives.jpg from? Lupo 09:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It was years ago, but if I recall correctly, the Jerusalem Post. El_C 10:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Attention Please

Hey El C, long time no talk. How have you been? I have an issue with two users who seem to not want to accept any of the points, which are cited, that I am bringing up in a article for deletion page. Please look here [34] the two users I am referring to are leoboudv and thanatosimii. It seems that they ignore what I post, and the sources I provide, instead they keep saying, basically the same things to me. Please take a look and thanks in advance for your help.--Moosh88 02:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it was kept, so I presume all is well...? El_C 10:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hajji Piruz

Hi. Hajji Piruz is back after a few days of absence, and these are his first edits: [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] As you can see, first thing he did was reverting a number of pages where his edits had no consensus. Once again, he restored "Etymology" section to the main article about Azerbaijan, which was removed by Ali Doostzadeh in accordance with the agreement we had with you that this issue would be discussed only in 1 article, dedicated to the topic, i.e. History of the name Azerbaijan. What do you think would be the best thing to do in this situation? --Grandmaster 05:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have been gone for a week and you honestly think you can blame me for making reverts of changes that were made while I was gone, taking advantage of my absence? I several times said that if anyone had any issues, they could e-mail me. I recieved not a single e-mail from you or anyone else regarding these removals. Why did no one inform me of such drastic changes?

It was agreed that the Azerbaijan name issue would not be spammed, and would only be mentioned in the Azerbaijan article in a short summary and the rest in the History of the Name Azerbaijan article. That was the agreement, and as per that agreement we removed the information from the History of Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, and other articles.

And lets talk about consensus. Grandmaster, you are the only one that edits and removes information based on OR without a consensus. Its ridiculous how you make it seem like I have to get a consensus when you remove information without getting any type of consensus.

While speaking of consensus, why dont you mention the fact that the information I reinserted was the consensus agreed upon by you and I, along with other users, in the Azerbaijan and Iran-Azerbaijan relations and had been there for months before the information was removed in my absence.

Why not inform El_C about that?

Also, lets talk about how you never support any of your claims with evidence or sources, yet you removed sourced information based on your claims.

I have yet to see a single piece of evidence presented by you here [41]. This happens every time. You quickly make bad faith false accusations and reports to admins regarding discussions where it is impossible to even get a consensus because of the fact that one side argues with OR and continuously reverts sourced information.

I simply wish I had more time to deal with these issues, hopefully this weekend we can discuss this more thoroughly.Hajji Piruz 05:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Piruz, you just made at least 6 rvs to your edits that were removed by others because they had no consensus. And I don't need to present any evidence on Azerbaijani people, it is up to you to prove you point and convince other editors that your proposed edits are appropriate. So far your edits have no support of other users, and User:Tombseye objected to your edits as well. Yet you duplicate them across a number of articles, such as Caucasian Albanians and Shirvanis. Grandmaster 05:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this is absolutely remarkable. I posted the evidence. El C, I hope now you see why so many of the Armenians and I have trouble editing articles and expanding them. I hope now you see how we are being provoked. Because I was gone for a week and had no time to discuss the issue and because no one e-mailed me, suddenly I'm wrong? Because I wasnt here to your reverts and the removal of information is justified? Just because I wasnt here suddenly your right and everything I do is wrong?

Grandmasters accusations and claims are so far from the truth that replying to them will simply be a waste of my time.

Look at this, Grandmaster has just violated our agreement: [42] we had agreed that a short summary would only be included in the Azerbaijan article, and thus we removed the other summaries from the other articles, and Grandmaster has just violated this.

Ridiculous. El_C, tell me what I need to do. No matter how much evidence I present, I'm always committing OR. No matter how many sources I insert into an article, they are removed because I didnt achieve consensus for their insertion. No matter how many times Grandmaster does not present a single source or evidence for his claim, hes always right. No matter how many times they provoke me, I always get reported. No matter how many scholars, sources, maps, quotes, etc... disprove their claims, they're right and I'm wrong. Because I havent been able to participate in Wikipedia for a week and a half, my arguments, the agreements we had come to, my presence, my information, my sources, etc... mean nothing. Really ridiculous. Good night.Hajji Piruz 05:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

May I remind you that initially the section in Azerbaijan article was removed by User:Ali doostzadeh? This IP is his, [43] and so is his consequent edit. [44] I just rvd to Ali, because your edits have no consensus and are controversial. Moreover, you spam the same quotes across multiple articles in violation of our agreement. Grandmaster 06:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Same with Arran (Republic of Azerbaijan) and Iran-Azerbaijan relations: [45] [46] Your edits were removed by Ali, and you reverted him back. I don't understand why you are blaming me when your edits have no consensus on any of the articles you keep on reverting? Grandmaster 06:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Is the above still a pressing issue? El_C 10:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it's already been addressed here: [47] Grandmaster 06:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

You brought tears to my eyes. :) Jeeny 02:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No, thank you! Entirely my pleasure. On so many instances, your replies to him elicited a mental fuck yeah! on my part. All the best, El_C 02:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-substitution oddness

Sorry about that. Thank you for correcting it. I read through the article (WP:SUBST) but have one question; you said it "created havoc". What did it actually do? - Rjd0060 03:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, np. Basically, everytime I edited that section to add another section, it moved it to template. I've never seen an unsubstituted template have that effect. Once it was substituted, everything was normal again. How odd is that? Regards, El_C 03:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wierd. Well, before I read that article (WP:SUBST) I added subst to everything (including cleanup tags). When I was told not to do that, I stopped adding them to everything. Now I read the article and understand where to subst and where not to. Thanks again. - Rjd0060 03:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Why

Why did you delete deeceevoice's user page? I don't think it's fair the way that people are ganging up on her. I think he essay made valid points about wikipdeia. Is this really the kind of place where criticism is censored? It was not a personal attack it was criticism. I may have been wrong, I don't know the facts-- But, it really looks like people are trying to hide and delete criticism. That is not a good precedent to set. futurebird 14:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I just don't have the energy to be dragged into a revert war, especially when I protect a page to stop it. El_C 14:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't my question... ? I understand stoping a revert war-- didn't you remove the text from her page? Or was that the other user? futurebird 14:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"protected to prevent edit warring, Neil has edited it twice; he also unprotected; I want nothing more to with this, or him. Rv back to his version. And he yet to explain it violated that AC ruling)" I get it now! Okay. futurebird 14:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I think I forgot a how in that last sentence, but whatever. Regards, El_C 14:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Energy

I heard you were having a tough time so I thought I would be friendly and drop off some extra energy for you. Enjoy! ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Another (this time retroactive) thanks! El_C 10:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Trichy

On your edits to Notable people section in Trichy, if you had a chance to look at the history, you would see I recently curtailed the section and cleaned it. But an Anon undid it. So, I am reverting back to my edits, a couple of days ago. Feel free to chime in. - RC 13:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey. Let me know if it gets undone again so that we can ensure the stability of this section. Regards, El_C 20:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the eyes

...on my userpage. It's kinda funny though. Mr. or Ms. Satanic ugly ashkenazi Jewface could not possibly have known that two days ago my brother turned me on to this. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Oy! This is awesome, actually! My pleasure; I was already on alert on account of this user. בברכה, El_C 20:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Encouragement message

Heya El C, long time no speak. This is a little random, but I saw a revision of WP:AN where you were baited by another user. It was over a year ago, but I just wanted to say: you are a good admin, and a great editor, with a totally quirky sense of humour that I personally think it fantastic. Stick with it dude. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Tbsdy! Long time, indeed! Thanks for the encouragement note, it really hits the spot and is very kind of you to say. I hope everything been well on your end (anything new and exciting to report? for my part, I've been petting chipmunks and other woodland creatures). I'm still somewhat active here; just don't ask me what the Chipoll means. P.S. I added your signnature to the Chipoll! Thx again & best wishes, El_C 21:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep up the good work

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For seeing things as they are, and doing what any reasonable person would do. Keep up the good work, because certain type of people are going to keep pushing their rather disturbing points of view here. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 23:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[Before I refractor this and add you to the Chipoll (a second time!)...] Many thanks, Until(1 == 2). Sometimes, I feel like I'm hitting my head against a brick wall. Your support throughout this incident has been greatly appreciated. All the best, El_C 23:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Dyskolos

I would like Dyskolos's talk page to be unprotected, so I can post that they were a good editor and that they will be missed, and that they were acting in good faith and their block was not due to trying to push a POV nor due to disruption, but just because they were using a proxy. A.Z. 04:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like my own pony and a small island. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 05:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd give both as presents to you, if I could. A.Z. 05:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The first two words in the revised block log read: "pro-pedophilia troll." I'm not sure how you could mistake that for "good editor," etc. Your note, in fact, is so far fetched it, in itself may be suspected of being a provocation. Request denied. El_C 07:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the block log. Someone dares to write "pro-pedophilia troll" and you say I am the one making provocations! You block someone you have a personal feud with, and I'm the one making provocations! A.Z. 02:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no personal feud with him, or anyone. Take it to the admin who issued the block. You should really pay more attention. El_C 03:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

I appreciate your comments regarding the blank, blank and blankety blank block that was given me over 2RR (yup, 2RR, and I thought I was reverting an edit-warrior, so I thought I was even exempt from 3RR). Anyways, keep up the good work. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Np. I also found it rather blank, blank and blankety blank block. Glad we were able to quickly lift it. El_C 20:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I was added to the Chipolll. So, exactly what did I vote on?  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

As noted yesterday to another user: look at it as interpretive dance of chiprotest (+peanut!). El_C 21:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thank You Note from Jehochman

		Ready to swab the deck!
		Another motley scallawag has joined the crew. Thanks for your comments at my RFA. Arrrgh! - - Jehochman Talk 03:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, my pleasure. El_C 10:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pic

Thanks for the pic of the C-man on my talk page. Illustrations of Lovecraft characters are so much better than even on most of the Arkham jackets, not to mention the dreadful renderings on the Beagle Books (IIRC) of the '70s.

I think it was deCamp who described many of Lovecraft's monsters as resembling an Italian fish dinner. I'm not getting near Cthulhu armed only with bottles of olive oil and vinegar, if you don't mind. Cheers, Cecropia 14:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. True, true. I always thought of him as a humble (hubris-less) Spagetti monster of some sort. Tasty! Speaking of C, have you ceen The Call of? I thought it was a rather brilliant rendition; very atmospheric & quite authentic. Best, El_C 23:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Call Waiting

After you mentioned The Call of ... I looked at the reviews on amazon and ordered it, and I'm now waiting...

HPL movies have been almost uniformly bad, with an occasional effort with some redeemable features, such as the dreadfully named "Die Monster Die" (IIRC) which was a passable (and unreferenced) version of The Colour Out of Space. But I'm looking forward to my "Calling." -- Cecropia 23:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Good stuff! Let me know how you find it to be. Yes, that has been my experience, too, but in this case, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. Speaking of somewhat old, though not quite as old, fiction: I recently read the Hebrew translations (among the books I brought back from Israel a few months ago) of City and The Martian Chronicles. Man, was that ever fun! Best, El_C 06:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson

OK. Let's cool down. When I first began editing here, I found my edits to Tove Jensen rejected by User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson because they were original research. Fair enough. I didn't understand the rules, but now I do, and I'm still learning. I doubt if there's anyone who has a full grasp of all the rules and guidelines. That's a good thing, because WP is an organic entity with fluid boundaries. In the current situation, having kept a close eye on User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson, because I was seriously worried about his objectivity, and his style of admin, I messaged him on his talk page to express my concerns. This was intended to be helpful and to indicate that to ordinary editors such as myself that his style was confrontational rather than constructive. His response was to blank already uploaded images on my user page, without explanation. This is not constructive, in my view, it's revenge. As a result, I remain to be convinced that User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson is psychologically fit to remain as an admin on Wikipedia. I'm sorry, Jeffrey has many good qualities, but in my considered opinion they are outweighed by his apparent God-complex tempered with his intolerance and tendency to snipe. Just my POV, and I'm fairly new, but just look at my edit record. I want WP to be informative and entertaining, without being trivial. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 04:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

(Sorry to butt in!) you should try to speak it up with him again, Jeffrey has been involved in several of this conflicts because of his tendency to bite other users, actually he was temporally de-sysoped because of this not so long ago, if he continues just take it directly to the arbitration comitee since he is repeating the behaviour that caused all that trouble back then. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he was targeting you due to some past interaction (it's possible, but highly unlikely); also, my impression is that he is trying to address the issues that brought on the arbitration (although there does appear to be some potential regression, I'm not sure that applies for this case) — whether these efforts are, objectively, good enough, might be subject to debate. I, for one, believe that the best thing would be to move past this incident. I certainly don't think it makes sense for you to leave over it, so I hope that you will reconsider. Best wishes, El_C 10:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Thinking.jpg

I don't understand the "provided that" that comes with this and wanted to use it. What is the "provided that" I should aim to comply with? Milto LOL pia 00:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[Appreciation for and/or of] softness! Also sitting, happy! (you may refer to this important update). HTH! El_C 06:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Correct JPOV edit

JPOV edit. [48] previous edit. [49] i revert it only previous edit. i did not edit by myself. i revert from old edit. this change [50] lack of "fact" JPOV edit without consensus. so, I remove it this JPOV edit. also, according to Japanese invasions of Korea, japanese samurai casualties(killed -death rate by korean soldier-) much more. so, this edit[51] is not based "fact". remove or modify is better. Replayamong23 10:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

What's JPOV? Why does your version removes links, translations, transliterations, and so on? Thx. El_C 10:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

i don't understand. what are you talking about?

my revert is this.[52]

this is JPOV edit. [53] Replayamong23 10:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

What is JPOV? As you can see, all the internal links vanish from your version... El_C 10:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks. i recover internal links. Replayamong23 10:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

How do I take this comment?

[54] ? Viridae^Talk 12:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Chipoll question

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please modify it. Subsequent comments should not be made in a new section on the talk page. Further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was:

Important

1. K3hK3h 00:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Picaroon (t) 20:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Not important

1. 220.233.185.126 00:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Does not want

1. Shell ^babelfish 02:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
2. VartanM 05:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Grandmaster 05:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Hajji Piruz 05:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Spiritia 10:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Moe ε 12:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
7. Moosh88 01:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
8. Jeeny 02:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
9. Rjd0060 03:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
10. Victor12 00:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
11. futurebird 14:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
12. ((1 == 2) 14:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
13. RC 13:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
14. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
15. CharonX/talk 03:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
16. Muzzamo 02:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
17. Ta bu shi da yu 08:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
18. Eaglizard 09:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
19. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
20. Jehochman ^Talk 03:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
21. SEWilco 13:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
22. Cecropia 14:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
23. Caribbean~H.Q. 04:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
24. Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 04:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
25. Edward321 23:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
26. ĞavinŤing 13:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
27. tariqabjotu 03:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
28. IZAK 15:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
29. Milto LOL pia 00:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
30. Folic Acid 14:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
31. Privatemusings 21:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
32. Samir 23:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
33. Tilskuer 23:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
34. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

• I hope you're proud of yourself. Another milestone in idiocy. Kitty 23:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure whether I fail to disagree with this or not. Raymond Arritt 01:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please modify it. Subsequent comments should not be made in a new section on this talk page. Further edits should be made to this section.

Zoroastrianism.

In your edit summary, you say: "(yes, well, in case you didn't notice, it was linked to the automaker, and you did not revert me, you removed the link altogether)"

I'm guessing that you didn't notice this, where I removed the link added by the anon (which not only lead to Mazda, the car company, but was unnecessary as the previous sentence already had a link to Ahura Mazda).

After that, you continued with this change, which as I'd pointed out was unnecessary per the previous edit's reasoning.

As you'll notice, I did revert you, because I undid the changes you had made and returned to the previous version- that being, the version with no link on "Mazda" whatsoever.--C.Logan 09:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm-doing-what-now? El_C 09:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What? I was pointing out that your last edit summary didn't make sense, considering the history of the page. I explained it above, so what are you confused about?--C.Logan 09:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A telling exchange

Were there any remaining doubt, follow the diffs:[55]Proabivouac 09:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to add these three (1, 2, 3) images to Chipmunk, and make the burrows passage its own section, but it's too brief and I can't fit it! El_C 10:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd always wondered what the "C" stood for! The problem is that the article has been neglected, and is far too short - should be 85k like any other important subject. There's certainly no shortage of sources. Chipmunk burrows should probably be its own article. Alas, the expert problem.Proabivouac 19:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not fair, look how happy he is... to have a burrow... with many peanuts... and happiness. El_C 08:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I managed to add the exiting one to burrow. Seemed obvious... :-) Rejoice! --Ali'i 21:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yase! Someone's on my side today! El_C 21:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Angola

Cabinda is not universally recognised as part of Angola and it is therefore misleading to quote it as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franiel242 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Naturally, we can't get into that at length when noting RoC bordering countries. Briefly, we might say the Angolan enclave of Cabinda — when I authored the lead for Mauritania, I wrote "the Moroccan-annexed territory of Western Sahara" among the bordering countries, which might be a solution here, but I see problems with that, too. Simply omitting mention of it bordering the RoC, however, is no solution at all. El_C 08:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You're answer is even too bland in my view, El C. There's simply nothing to discuss here: Cabinda is internationally recognized as part of Angola, and this can't be compared with the W. Sahara, a separate territory whose international status is highly controversial, and which was not in 1975 part of Mauritania, while Angola was, as was during colonial rule. And it's not the first time this account poses weird points: see Azerbaijan, which in his opinion doesn't border with Turkey. (Oh, and sorry for participating uninvited, but I saw the note you left at BT's page, and thought of venting my opinion; hopes it's OK)--Aldux 09:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, I appreciate it. I probably did express myself with excess moderation (excess moderation, I like that). I agree entirely. El_C 09:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This is admittedly not 'my' part of the continent, but you and Aldux seem right on target. I do pay attention to rebel groups and the Front for the Liberation of the Enclave of Cabinda has never popped up on my radar. It sounds like it would make an interesting story, once sourced, but certainly nothing that would cast doubt on Angola's claim. If every irredentist or separatist claim in Africa was treated as inviolate, half the countries in Africa wouldn't be able to say they bordered their current neighbors. Cheers, BanyanTree 13:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Musings SPA you blocked

Did you block that guy solely for his username or was it in part do to his SPA trolling? I feel he's at it again - Special:Contributions/MOASPN - he's throwing a certain project talk page off the topic with his drama-mongering. Milto LOL pia 19:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I should add that MOASPN is 'Musings of a Semi Private Nature' (per his user pages...) Privatemusings 23:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Solely for the name; although obviously the faux impersonation was rather pointy, I didn't get a chance to look into the matter beyond that. El_C 08:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you can explain

Perhaps you can explain further what administrative power is being exercised by blanking someone's user page? Thank you for you patience in explaining. Basejumper2 19:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I presume he added the tag for a reason. If you object, use the administrators' incidents board. El_C 19:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I also do. The vandelism warning was for blanking the rest of the user page. My understanding is that this is not an administrative priviledge any more than it is a priviledge of anybody else. If I am incorrect, correct me. Also, point me to the mildest vandelsim tag that can be used with a person who has been a member for years. Thank you. Basejumper2 19:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

What is User:Yidisheryid up to here?

Hi El_C, please see this [56] and this [57] by User Yidisheryid (talk · contribs) and my responses at User talk:Basejumper2#Aish Hatorah and User talk:Lookzar42#Reminder what puppets & co really evoke, and finally my last at User talk:IZAK#Sockpuppet?: "NOTE: I must now suspect that perhaps User Yidisheryid (talk · contribs) is involved as a possible suspect since he has also recently been blocked for sockpuppeteering, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Yidisheryid, and of all things he finds it worthy to leave messages of "comfort" to both User:Basejumper2 [58] and to self-admitted sockpuppet User:Lookzar42 [59]. So much for his antics. IZAK 13:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)" Maybe a Wikipedia:Checkuser of all three, User:Yidisheryid, User:Basejumper2 and User:Lookzar42 would be helpful and in order. Thanks a lot, IZAK 13:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Your time will come

I'm assuming you're the same Moroccan faggot (retard) that edits as FayssalF? Well, I am saddened that you have surfaced from what should have been a deadly, bloody accident. I am further annoyed by your plastering of Che's image, poor Che..he would have shot you dead long ago. I am, however, rather amused by your flaunting of the revolutionary spirit, as I am certain you haven't an iota of it in you. We will find out whether or not you do, however, when we visit you in the near future (yes, we know who you are and how you look). You will undoubtedly tremble with fright! I hope your blind and ignorant admin tools do not fail you then but I know that they will. Until then, on with your anti-intellectualism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.219.208 (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You (plural) are going to "visit [me] in the near future," and you also "know who [I am] and how [I] look [like]." I'm shaking in my boots. El_C 03:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Who is this "we" you speak of? Some sort of group? A club, perhaps? Or maybe it's your quilting circle? I'm just curious - it's not often I see people referring to themselves in the 1st person plural.  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  03:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at this and this. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Read that with an evil voice, pure comedy. VartanM 04:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Some people have all the fun. Why don't I ever get entertainment like that? Raymond Arritt 04:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well then you have to be aware of the rules of the game. You have to know about her identity and vice-versa. I don't know if it would be a good idea to contact the local police in her neighborhood in Houston, TX or not because it is getting silly. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

3 months are enough. But no worries, she became notorious and many admins are blocking on the spot. It is just dynamic but we can live w/ that. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't run a whois; I just saw that you issued a 3-month block for her floating ip/s, and I followed suit. El_C 08:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

CEPEJ

The submission did not give any third party reliable sources, and only provided the commission's own website. AFC has the rule that any submission without a reliable source can't be accepted. If you'd like to find some news articles about the organization, and you're sure of its notability, feel free to create it. Ariel♥Gold 10:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That website is sufficient. El_C 10:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can relate to being lazy, I'm not normally lazy, but I am quite ill at the moment, and was not up to searching around for info on this thing I'd never heard of! lol. So I just went off the three biggies: The submission was A.) Written as an advertisement, B.) Did not assert notability, and C.) Provided no third-party reliable sources. I'm sorry if you feel I made a mistake, but as you requested, I did remove the decline, adding my comments for someone else to review. I'm not familiar enough with the subject to attempt to create the article, I hope you can understand that, and forgive whatever misunderstanding there is. (By the way, I just adore that picture of the sleeping kitty on your userpage!) Ariel♥Gold 11:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's fair enough. Hope you like pics of my → Kitty! ← El_C 11:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL Omigosh, I love Schrödinger's cat! That's just the most awesome physics illustration out there, there's a whole book on it that's one of my favorites! (And thanks for creating that article!) Lemme dig around in my bag here... yes, here it is, you deserve this! Ariel♥Gold 11:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

His love for physics is almost matched by his love for napping, and sitting! El_C 11:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

And tuna! Kitty 11:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh goodness yes, let us not forget tuna! It's chicken, don'tcha know? ~*Snork*~ Ariel♥Gold 12:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

My Account

As I told CambridgeBayWeather in the email that has not been addressed, it shall be my policy to never again contribute to Wikipedia. I shall only use my account to remove my statements from talk pages - such as the offending statement associated with the blocking of my account.

Wikipedia has lost this editor FOR EVER.

William R. Buckley —Preceding unsigned comment added by William R. Buckley (talk • contribs) 00:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Why did you need to be unblock to edit your talk page? You were editing it while being blocked just fine. Anyway, I hope you reconsider. El_C 02:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I was not solely concerned with my talk page. How could I remove legal language while being blocked from altering the affected page. Also, I don't buy the notion of an immediate block. Quite the opposite, in fact. From Neil's own statement on my talk page is this -

Specifically "If you make legal threats, you may be blocked from editing so that the matter is not exacerbated through other than legal channels. Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely, while legal threats are outstanding."

I should like to point out that the word *may* does not mean *must* and hence I should have had a chance to alter things without being blocked. It looks to me as if Neil did not follow the rules. Administrators who fail to follow the rules of Wikipedia should be removed from their position as an administrator. And, I will not reconsider. I am an expert, practicing in the art, respecting self-replicating machines. Wikipedia will NEVER get another contribution from me. Indeed, not even a direct appeal from the great Jimbo Wales will change my mind. William R. Buckley 21:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm sorry to have lost you. I think it was ill-thought for other amdins to disregard my warning and immediately block. Best, El_C 18:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't tell me about it. Take the issue up with other admins. Indeed, you should probably bring the issue up with Jimbo. Further, admins should have blocked Charles Michael Collins from posting libelous statements. That such action was not taken belies the notion of preventing escalation of interpersonal battles between editors. It is absurd to block those who work against the inclusion of libelous statements into Wikipedia, even if they do warn of possible legal action. Indeed, the tack taken places Wikipedia in the dubious position of supporting the work of those who introduce libelous statements into Wikipedia. The governance of Wikipedia is inherently illogical. William R. Buckley 00:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they want to hear what I have to say. El_C 08:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:The Prince.jpg

I looked at this image. The issue was just that it didn't name the article where the rationale is supposed to apply (WP:NFCC#10c). I fixed that. If you want, you can unprotect it, since that is the only issue I see with the rationale. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's annoying. Thanks! El_C 02:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments regarding you at the help desk

A discussion involving you has been going on at the help desk. link. Just to let you know. Woodym555 17:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I get the executive summary? El_C 23:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Happy to as it is really quite long now :) Summary: You reversed the edits by User:124.157.236.30 (who was actually User:NYerkes who forgot to log in), who had sourced those edits to the link [60]. diff to F11C Goshawk, diff to O2U Corsair. He says he has attempted to open communications with you and has been thwarted somehow. User has then got slightly worked up about the whole thing and is decrying the "speedy deletion of edit" process which you used: (reverts). Most of the posts are decrying the role of God like administrators deleting content. Woodym555 23:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I left the user a note, but s/he failed to respond to it, either on his or her talk page, or my own. El_C 23:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the editors who responded to his posting have noted this and said that there was absolutely no reason why he would not be able to post on your talk page. He may have come across a database lock? or edit conflict? He also says that he tried to email you but couldn't. Woodym555 23:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ips cannot use the email function; and anyway, s/he'd have to tell me to check my email on my talk page for a prompt reply, as I don't check it that often. But why would email be necessary, there's nothing confidential about this? Anyway... El_C 23:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It has all blown a bit out of proportion really. I think it came from a basic misunderstanding of how wikipedia works. New users don't know that e-mail is for confidential use or how reverts work. He/she just got a bit heated i think. He seems to have retired for the day and hopefully he will bring any concerns to you. Just thought you should know there was a discussion regarding your actions going on. Woodym555 00:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

For sure, well said. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Regards, El_C 00:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Factual Information via Bots

I was advised via the Help Desk to attempt to contact you again. Yesterday you used Bots to remove all posts I had made apparently without looking at the content. The information regarding Thailand's purchase and use of Hawk IIIs and Thailand use of the Corsair V93S model (an export model of the O3U) posted to the article is factual yet you chose to wipe all of it out. Yet, the article's claim that China used the Hawk III and the suggestion that only China used the Hawk III remains. You claimed there were products for sale on the website I had linked photos from. What products? Meanwhile you continue to allow blatantly commercial sites such as War Bird Alley (sells merchandise, advertising, etc.), Motor Books (sells aviation books among others) and Temora Aviation Museum (sells everything from jewelry to stuffed animals) to continue to link to some of the articles where you deleted my posts. Temora Aviation Museum actually has their own article. That behavior suggests a double standard is at play here. While I would like to make additions to articles that provide factual information and enhance Wikipedia, it appears anything I post will be automatically deleted. NYerkes 02:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the policy, it's sometimes called WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS — just because someone else might be misusing Wikiepdia, does not mean that I could be aware of every single other instance of misuse out there(!), nor that, due to this lack of a supermind, your own potential misuse should be permitted. I'm not sure why you need to link this website across multiple articles to establish any of these claims. Instead, you choose to engage in lognwinded exchanges at the helpdesk, rather than speak to me directly at the your talk page or my own. Only now you do this. Why is that? You appear to have wasted a lot of time and energy, I think, by not opting for a straightforward, direct approach. Also, what is your relationship with said website? Thx in advance. El_C 03:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have calmed down and will answer your questions. First however I want to make a comment. While you may not understand this, reverting an article to eliminate verifiable factual text is insulting to a user. As stated in the Wikipedia help page, "It is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor. If you use the rollback feature for anything other than vandalism or for reverting yourself, it's polite to leave an explanation on the article talk page, or on the talk page of the user whose edit(s) you reverted."

I could understand eliminating links, even more so now that a thoughtful person took the time to write asking me to try and work out the issues and explaining how Wikipedia works. The wholesale elimination of verifiable factual text without as much as a comment why as stated is as good as a slap in the face. It may be unjustified but I got angry. It is telling me and anyone else you do this that our participation is not wanted. I didn't like it and I doubt anyone else would. In one instance the revert now creates a factual inaccuracy.

In answer to your question, I own the photos and thousands more related to aviation and other points of interest in Thailand. I live here. I own a business here. I have a work permit here that allows me among other things to take photographs and shoot video nationwide. I have spent a substantial amount of time doing research into aviation (a hobby) and my commercial endeavors. I own over 1000 generic domains. Like the one in question most have natural type in traffic whether or not there is a developed website or not. I am also reasonably competent at SEO. My other developed domains which are not linked to Wikipedia are doing just fine without it. Of the domains I own, some of my domains are undeveloped, some are commercially developed others like the domain in question are developed but not commercially. The only reason I linked that domain is that the photos of those aircraft do not presently exist on Wikipedia and I do not want to give up my copyright by offering to share them with Wikipedia users. The thoughtful person who wrote me suggested licensing them under the commons license. After reviewing policy, for reasons I don't understand, Wikipedia appears to require a copyright owner to allow commercial use of copyrighted visual material if it is to be shared with Wikipedia users. I have no problem whatever with people reusing the information I add to article for any purpose. I am happy to provide it. In the future I simply won't add photographs when I don't want to release the copyright.

Meanwhile, after adding useful information about a couple of aircraft and their usage by Thailand in the French-Thai war I find the material removed and no one can assure me you won't do another wholesale deletion of legitimate material. You did not even offer that assurance when I first posted to your talk page. After reviewing your reverts and you do a lot of them I must say that nearly all I have seen protect Wikipedia particularly from vandalism. You are to be commended for that. However, in the future, please don't insult new editors by deleting copy even if they have made errors in their posts. If there was one error that must be deleted do that and leave the rest intact. Talk about what needs to be fixed in the remainder if anything.

Also, the links I mentioned to you remain. Personally I find two of them useful though they probably shouldn't be linked if the rules are to be equally enforced. One site however is pure unadulterated advertising including a copy of their Ebay articles for sale. There is no free information whatever on that site. Is there any reason they remain? ThanksNYerkes 11:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair that you'd write to me at such length. Briefly, you appear to be violating our conflict of interest policy. I hope that you would stay to contribute, and that you release those images directly under the GFDL or some other free license, but at this point, I don't see why we should allow you to add your site across multiple entries; and, seemingly every edit you have made entailed this. Please demonstrate that you are not here to promote your website, by making edits that do not involve adding it to articles. Thanks in advance. El_C 18:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I just want to say thank you for fixing up the vandalism on my user page today :) is much appreciated Floorwalker 06:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem, anytime. El_C 06:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

whats the problem?

I was surprised to see both Neil and yourself baiting each other in that thread, hence my "what the fuck". The "stop this" comment was directed at both of you. It wasn't related to the thread and my response it wasn't directed at only you it was directed at both of you. You appear to have mistaken my comments as directed at you only in support of Neil which wasn't the case. Viridae^Talk 09:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Mount Kilimanjaro

Thanks for that mate - you're right! Gormenghastly 11:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Anytime; my pleasure. Regards, El_C 11:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and a request

Thanks for reverting the changes to my talk page, and blocking the user. But I have a request, also -- could you take a look at this for me? It seems there's a whole mess of socks adding unsourced material to various articles, including (especially) that one. Because of the username similarity, it seems obvious enough to simply tell an admin, rather than filing a sock report. There are some other socks as well, I think -- I'll see if I can root them out. Gscshoyru 13:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's another page with a bunch of socks -- go back in the history, they go back a couple pages. Gscshoyru 13:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

another There's tons of pages like this, actually. Each person leads to more pages leads to more people. I'm at a loss as how to deal with this. I can't even see why he's socking. Gscshoyru 13:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Sure, I'll try to look into that soon. Regards, El_C 13:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

My block of Jeeny

Hey El C. I've been trying to read up on a lot in the last hour or two; I see that you disagree with my block of Jeeny, correct? Do you want to discuss some alternate solutions to this issue either here or via email? I'm open to suggestions about better ways to deal with the dispute. Picaroon (t) 20:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey. No, that's incorrect. I wish to restore your original block as I feel that Swatjester's one-week extension for post-block incivility on the user's own talk page is a bit problematic (in that it appears somewhat punitive) and ratehr should have been supplanted with protecting the talk page for a while, instead. Regretfully, I have been met with unexpected hostility, including but not limited to him "losing great respect for [me] and an admin" as well as asking me to "source [(!)] that people are more volatile when blocked?" Perhaps you can have a word with him, as I appear to be getting north of nowhere, fast. Boating prohibited. Hope that makes sense. El_C 10:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no objections to your unblocking when the 48 hours are up. Picaroon (t) 00:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I have done so. Regards, El_C 09:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Uranus images

I have just been contacted by an editor of the German Wikipedia who is translating the English Uranus article, and she would like to know if we would be kind enough to upload our remaining images onto the Wikimedia commons. Problem is, I have no idea how to upload an image onto the Wikimedia commons, so I'm not sure what to do. Could you point me in the right direction? Thanks. Serendi^podous 12:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Depending on which images remain and whether they are of a license that's compatible with commons. If you want to list these here one by one, I can tell you. Of course, there's always the help page. El_C 12:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Legalism (Chinese philosophy) worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. wj32 ^t/c 07:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops

Please ignore the previous warning :) --wj32 ^t/c 07:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

So, are we keeping these? Because that site was added to several other key articles. El_C 08:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I dunno. --wj32 ^t/c 08:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent Revert

I made a good faith edit on the page "Theory" which you reverted. I was wondering why. Any information would be appreciated. -- Thanks, AikBkj 15:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You made a major edit, but marked it as minor, and you did not use an edit summary. El_C 15:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry , I didn't think of it as a major edit. I'll redo it. Thanks, AikBkj 15:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Generally, a major edit pertains to a meaningful change; it may be limited to a single word. El_C 15:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I will make my edits in smaller chunks explaining each as I go. In the first edit, I eliminated the word misguided which was used to describe the common usage of the term, theory. A common usage of a term is a legitimate usage while misguided is a pejorative judgement of that usage. Thanks, AikBkj 15:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Make it as sizable as you wish, but you minimize additional risks when you use an edit summary. El_C 17:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Nyaya

I am not a registered contributor. I had added external links to the Nyaya page, why were they removed ? Whats wrong with putting up multiple sources of information? Google search on Nyaya does not yield sufficiently good results...

They were removed because a forum post fails our reliable sources and external links threshold. El_C 17:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Dispute

Somebody is continuously trying to add un-encyclopedic material to the Jammu and Kashmir article. See [61]. I have told the user to create a separate article on Human rights in Kashmir and not to create a sub-section on the topic as it does not meet Wikiproject Indian States guidelines. But he/she is not listening. Can you please help. Thanks --Lokantha 17:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I know, I've seen a few months ago and told the user then to do so, as well as to not quote so much and aim at neutrality. If s/he continues to disregard, some from of censure seems inevitable. Let me know next time it happens. Regards, El_C 17:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandal: Cacaboo

Thanks for fixing my user page. I really don't understand the satisfaction these people get. Illinois2011 18:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem, anytime. El_C 18:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I am sorry to let you down. You guys have all been nice to me. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Uninvolved clarification

I hope this was meant in jest. It's not entirely obvious that it was. Raymond Arritt 02:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

:( El_C 02:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Jimbo's userpage

ok.. sorryy.. Thank you for your kind reply. Will not do it again.Bharathwaaj 08:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. El_C 08:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Not permitted?

Since when?

I normally wouldn't dream of touching another editor's talk page, but Jayjg has been absent for three months and people keep leaving him messages. I simply blanked it to draw attention to the fact that he's apparently quit the project, so that people stop wasting their time trying to get input from him. Gatoclass 11:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That's really not up to you to decide. He can blank it, if he so chooses. El_C 11:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You said blanking the talk pages of other users is "not permitted". I haven't come across such a policy, could you please point it out to me? Gatoclass 12:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Please just don't do it. El_C 12:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I see. There is no such policy. It's just your opinion that I shouldn't have done it.

Thanks for clarifying that. And by the way, I really don't appreciate having an edit I made in order to be helpful to the community reverted as presumptuous and disruptive. Gatoclass 12:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It means we use common sense here and that not every single obvious thing is written down. You do not get to blank Jayjg's talk page without securing permission from him to do so. End of story. El_C 12:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see, you think you have a mandate to dictate to me what I can and cannot do on Wikipedia on the basis of what is "obvious" and "common sense". And you have the hide to call me "presumptuous"? Thanks for the laugh. Gatoclass 12:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, feel free to get a second opinion from any other admin. El_C 12:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's one. To El C: your edit summary was angry, I wish you'd started out by assuming good intentions on Gatoclass' part, because I'm sure they were. To Gatoclass: I don't understand why it was necessary to blank the page, considering that the wikibreak notice at the top looks pretty conspicuous to me. Also, Jayjg's "E-mail this user" feature is active still, did you try e-mailing him to ask if he wanted it blanked? To both of you: I think you both meant well, and you really don't have any reason to be squaring up to one another like two alpha baboons. Now please collaborate nicely in posting an NPA template on me for calling you names. Bishonen | talk 12:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC).

It was neither "angry," nor did I fail to assume good intent. But it was presumptuous and disruptive. El_C 12:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Bishonen, I quite agree that the wikibreak notice looks "pretty conspicuous" but apparently it isn't conspicuous enough, since people keep leaving him messages. I've followed up several such messages to the users in question to let them know about Jayjg's absence, I just got a bit sick of it and thought it might save me the trouble if I simply blanked the page to draw more attention to the notice.

As I said, normally I wouldn't dream of editing someone else's user page, but after three months absence it's hard to see what harm it could do. And it's not as though Jayjg isn't Wiki-savvy enough to restore the blanked content himself if and when he returns. Gatoclass 13:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, it's just not done. I've been here for years and years and I have never seen it happen (and it's unfair to force people to return from semi/retirement to un-archive, which is why it makes sense to secure their permission to archive, or have them temporarily return to do it themselves). Now Bishonen was incorrect; I wasn't angry, but I do admit that I was a bit suspicious. And I would bet you anything, anything, Jay would rather you not archive his talk page for him in this way. El_C 15:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Portugal

Re [62]: You asked for proof. I provided proof in the form of a government web site, in both English and Portuguese. The article now has proper and authoritative citations for Portugal's official name in both English and Portuguese. Do what you want with other articles (which I highly question but won't involve myself in, for now at least), but don't change the wording on Portugal, as it is correct. Why you would question the accuracy of a government's own web site about its country's official name I cannot fathom. —Nricardo 14:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Why? For the reasons stated. I thought you'd be interested, in the interest of accuracy, but oh well. El_C 14:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

By all means, please provide proof that the designation is inaccurate, and I shall reconsider. —Nricardo 14:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Proof that God doesn't exist? I showed you all those other articles, ones that are much more closely and accurately maintained. El_C 15:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

What does what other countries choose to call themselves have to do with what Portugal (officially, the Portuguese Republic) choose to call itself? —Nricardo 15:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I simply do not have the energy to repeat everything over again, sorry. El_C 15:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I made a mistake thinking you'd be interested in the likely possibility that a webmaster for one of their govt. sites made an hilariously incompetent error (not that I haven't seen worse errors on govt. sites of other countries), but I guess not. El_C 15:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks (drink-related)

In appreciation for a hand, please have this drink from me. --Irpen 22:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Drink responsibly! El_C 22:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

..and never before editing WP:ANI :). Yes, I know that much. --Irpen 22:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Say, do you remember the link to the Republic of Macedonia-naming MoS page, I always forget what's it's called. I should add WP:MACEDONIA or WP:FYROM as a shortcut. El_C 22:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no idea. Was never involved with Macedonia-related articles. --Irpen 23:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Future perfect will know. El_C 23:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no "fyom", you're missing an "r". The link you're searching for is WP:MOSMAC, and deals with all Macedonias. NikoSilver 23:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, the r stand for republic! Thanks, I'm gonna create those two shortcuts. El_C 23:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol, first you're missing an "R", then you're adding an "S"! [63] What's more, "-sko"/"-ski" etc are typical endings of (FY)ROM surnames... Man, I hope you're not making a political statement that this Greek here has Slavic roots! :-) (not that he would mind if you did, all people are born equal of course...) I added those new redirs to the MoS page too. NikoSilver 23:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

El_C may be under the influence of that drink Irpen gave him. He'll sober up soon. lol ~Jeeny ^(talk) 23:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, where I am adding an S? I am so confused; need more booze! El_C 01:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see: Nisko! I'm just a never-ending typo machine today! Gah! El_C 01:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

In Remembrance...

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 02:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No one expects a Pigman admin!

		Wallowing in my RfA: This time it's personal...
		My sincere thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 51 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. Doubtless it was an error to put one of the government-bred race of pigmen in any position of authority, but I hope your confidence in me proves justified. Even a man pure of heart and who says his prayers at night can become a were-boar when the moon is full and sweet. Fortunately, I'm neither a were-pig nor pure of heart so this doesn't appear to be an imminent danger to Wikipedia for the moment. Fortunate as well because were-pig hooves are hell on keyboards and none too dexterous with computer mice. If ever I should offend, act uncivil, misstep, overstep, annoy, violate policy, or attempt to topple the fascist leadership of Wikipedia, please let me know so I can improve my behaviour and/or my aim. I am not an animal; I am an admin. And, of course, if there is any way in which I can help you on Wikipedia, please do not hesitate to ask me. Despite my japes, I am indeed dedicated to protecting and serving Wikipedia to the best of my foppish and impudent abilities. I will strive to be an admirable admin, shiny and cool, reasonable and beatific. Pigmanwhat?/trail 05:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Post Scriptum: I believe my collaged graphic at left, which incorporates the WP globe and mop image, falls under the rubric of parody for my purposes here. Or is it satire? Regardless, it's a legitimate and legally protected First Amendment usage under US law. Complaints and allegations that this is an improper "fair use" image will be entertained on my talk page, probably with fruit juice, finger food and exotic coffees.

That doesn't look Kosher! El_C 16:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your tips!

Thanks for your tips on the use of internal links etc! Wschaap —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wschaap (talk • contribs) 09:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. El_C 16:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Some thankyou spam, glorious spam

Thankyou for supporting my successful rfa which closed with 58 supports. If i am honest i am rather humbled by the unanimous support and i hope to live up to everyones expectations. If you ever need any help, don't hesitate to ask. Thanks again. Woodym555 15:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Good luck. El_C 16:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Dreamguy complaint and subsequent block

I was wonderingif I might ask for a procedural question. In the ArbCom Enforcement page, a complaint was filed against Dreamguy for uncivility and edit-warring. As well, I was concerned that he was edting under a few different anonymous IP addresses. When asked about the alternate IP's, DG said it wasn't important. Admitedly, my contribution was loooong, to illustrate my point (and boy, do I wish I could replace it with a more succinct argument). Admin Jehochman noted as much, and suggested I post to SSP and RFCU, which I did. Because I had posted notices of the SSP and the ArbCom Enforcement complaint (which another user had failed to do), Jehochman reported me to AN/I, thinking I was picking on DG for "sport." In the unsuing AN/I, I was asked to present evidence of edit-warring, which I did to the satisfaction of Jehochman. As well, the SSP report indicated that DG was using an anonymous IP to edit-war in Jack the Ripper article, and supporting those edits, violating 3RR. Another admin, Gnangarra, noted the similarities between the edits, and blocked DreamGuy. In your response in the ArbCom enforcement, you asked for "the organization? The coherence? The intelligibility?" Were you looking for more than the links to the appropriate conversations in AN/I and SSP? I don't mind providing the infor provided in the linked discussions, but I wasn't sure what precisely you were asking for. Let me know, and I will act on it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The key with evidence accounts such as that is simplicity, organization, coherence, and lack of obscurity. Your report was simply too difficult to sort through. The onus is on you, however, to make its contents immediately intelligable. El_C 08:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond to me. I have provided, in cogent format, the Diffs you asked for. I was overthinking the problem. My apologies. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

And thank you for not paying any attention to the diffs. I realize that the interpersonal relationships between the admins is an important one to maintain, but perhaps you let those considerations override the complaint, which did evolve into what you were asking for. I'm fairly good at reading people, but I'm not telepathic. Nor am I a magician; I went out for the evening, and I find that you demanded DIffs and didn't bother waiting for them before unblocking someone who in my opinion was in sore need of one.

Sorry, I had to get that off my chest. While your mistake in this was about on par with my poorly-written additons to the complaint, it was anotehr admin who clusterfucked the process by aborting the RFCU. You guys aren't perfect, cie la cie. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You report a user in an extremely convoluted way, including, belatedly, a 3RR report that is three weeks old, and this is my mistake? I realize some oversights are expected when one is new, but concise exposition is not unique for Wikipedia. We are a volunteer organization and cannot expend unlimited resources. You want my free labour to be actualized as skilled labour then you must do the same, by applying your skill, and not just raw output, to refining your reports, so that they're readable. El_C 16:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Click there to open your card! → → →

Dearest El C,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 137 supports, 22 opposes, and 5 neutrals. Your support is very much appreciated and I look forward to proving you right. I would like to give special thanks to The_undertow and Phoenix-wiki for their co-nominations. Thank you again and best regards.

Lara❤Love 19:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Credits: This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor's RFA thanks which was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

My pleasure. El_C 16:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman: I am your sockpuppet

Dear El C,
Responding to his bad block of my IP, Jehochman 1) accuses me of being you[64] 2) removes "unwanted conversation” about his block[65] 3) and protects his talk page against "trolling"[66].24.19.33.82 07:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it certainly wasn't me as I was sleeping at the time. El_C 07:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You certainly don't have to convince me that I'm not you.24.19.33.82 08:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Who are you, though? If you don't mind me asking... El_C 16:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Bizarre behavior from Jehochman

Please be aware of this inquiry,[67] which Jehochman blanked earlier.[68]24.19.33.82 03:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What happened to that thread? It's not linking me. El_C 16:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The editor who started it has been banned, and the thread was archived. ANI has also been semi-protected to prevent further disruptions. You can ask WJBscribe for the details. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

What, no link to the archive? Okay. A month semiprotection? Are you serious?(!) That's unprecedented. I'm reducing it to one day. El_C 16:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't do this, nor did I request it. WJBscribe took the action. You may want to chat with him about the circumstances. He may have reasons we are unaware of. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No, that wasn't him. El_C 16:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, somebody else touched it since I last looked. They were resetting move protection to indefinite. WBJscribe protected it before that. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Still no link to the archive? I presume it was manually archived at the last increment? El_C 16:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think so. I did find it there in the most recent archive file. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted in its entirety as being frivolous, then restored so that it could be archived, then archived manually. --健次(derumi)^talk 16:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess I had too high expectations to have the acrhive thread linked for me here, like linking it this way. Also, I notice it was a fairly lengthy discussion, so it is a bit peculiar that no record was made as to it being manually archived, and by whom. That would be helpful, I think, if one were to be attempting to convey a measure of accountability and so on, at least. Oh well. El_C 17:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies; sometimes I need something as subtle as a brick to the head to see what someone's getting at. :) Initial removal by Tony Sidaway (diff), re-enstatement by Neutralhomer (diff), removal for manual archiving by Neutralhomer (diff). I thought it was an odd exchange. --健次(derumi)^talk 17:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That does not inspire confidence. Maybe it was for the best (I haven't read it), but many have taken issue with Tony Sidaway refractoring methodology, including the Arbitration Committee. And Neutral Homer was probably just following suit rather than leading. It is odd that, with so many participants, no record is left in the live archive. El_C 17:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdenting)

Hey, El_C, just an update.. I wasn't the one who removed it either time (that was Tony and Neutralhomer), but I do agree with them that the discussion had pretty much outlived its usefulness (I did tag it as discussion top/bottom)... if you want to insert a live link to the archive (to be rotated out by the bot as normal, I have no problem with it. Just the level of IP's causing problems (Ryulong took care of several apparent Tor proxies trying to continue the fight) caused ANI to be temporarily semi-protected.Don't see how the "discussion" would do any good, but you may see it differently. SirFozzie 20:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Email User:Kirill Lokshin for further information, El C. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• If it ever let's me log in, I might! El_C 20:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• The matter is quite interesting and you may have useful information to provide. Email me if you like. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Now you got my attention, again! El_C 21:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The thread was deleted and I thought that all ANI threads were to be archived (didn't know that what the user was trying to do was to deny recognition...that one's on me). I reverted to copy the massive thread, archived it in it's proper place and then redeleted it. If it looks "bizarre" it was not my intention, just trying to archive. Hope that clears up the "bizarreness". Take Care...NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It isn't that related to my query, actually; but I'm sure interested parties will fill me in. El_C 03:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Since this need not be continued on AN/I

• I stated several times that I was not endorsing either the 'evidence', or the manner of its presentation, but merely pointing out the location of the 'evidence', and summarizing what I believed to be the main offence.
• This was done purely for your convenience, since it appeared that you objected to the confusion in presentation.
• The only reason I read it anyway was because I am currently thinking over a major policy revision at WT:SOCK that affects the behaviour of people when logged out, and I wondered if there was any relevance to that discussion of DG's behaviour, perhaps as an example one way or another.
• When I saw that the main accusation was not merely that DG had been accused of editing while logged out after "being asked at an RfC not to", which I would have strenuously objected to, but that DG was accused of editwarring, I thought that that was unclear, and so when I saw someone else apparently struggling, I thought I could help them along.
• I see nothing suspicious in this.
• I've asked you several times for an explanation; I would not care except that I notice that your unblock notice advertises me as a particularly nasty practitioner of groupthink, which is really irritating as that is precisely what I try and avoid here; in fact, I rarely comment either at AN/I or at AfD these days unless I believe that a point has not been made by anyone already in the discussion.
• Your last response was "no evidence, no consideration", which I think is a perfectly fair remark, but not really a response to a request for clarification of what you consider suspicious.
• Even if you do not wish to either retract or explain that remark, I would at the least like you to acknowledge that, when reviewed as above, my actions do not fit in with the "groupthink" hypothesis. As I said in the discussion, I have the greatest distaste for arbitrary blocks being cheerfully gone along with by large numbers of others - the incidence of which I am currently trying to reduce at [[WT:SOCK], by the way. Relata refero 09:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I can appreciate that. I do, however, think you're placing too much weight on the word "suspicious." I'm just saying, it's rather odd to say "pretty bad 3RR violation", then when pressed repeatedly, fail to provide the evidence for that. And with the "groupthink" I, generally, meant going with the flow of finding someone guilty on the basis of evidence which hasn't been examined, or presented, closely. In fairness, only myself, then Dmcdevit, objected to this seeming conformist overtone among virtually all participants. El_C 10:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite so. I certainly did not object; I had no opinion on the merits of the block, per se. As I said, I intended merely to restate the central accusation, that there appeared to be a pretty bad 3RR violation; I did not intend that to be any form of agreement with the interpretation. Given that, I naturally didnt respond to your demands for evidence, since I didn't feel that my statement required me to back it up with any evidence, (other than Arcayne's interpretation which I was attempting to summarize). If you wanted to evaluate the diffs yourself, you knew where they were; as I was not endorsing the block, merely pointing out the stated rationale in case you missed it, I felt no responsibility to discuss specific diffs with you, especially when I couldn't understand what you were implying about my role. If you feel that was incorrect, then that is certainly OK. However, I seem to think that all this was determined by your original misunderstanding of the intent of my first statement, which misunderstanding I hope I have succeeded in correcting.

However, please do not imply again - or state baldly in an unblock notice - that I am subject to groupthink. It angers me more than most accusations, because it is particularly unjust. Relata refero 11:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes, one is just in the wrong place in the wrong time, like when making an unreferenced accusation immediately after someone asks to reference accusations. So one bears some responsibility for that. As for the groupthink, that impression was generally derived from the event, not for naught, I didn't think. But, then again, I did not reference you, specifically, in that extension. El_C 11:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

El C, please listen: it was not meant as an agreement with the accusation, merely a restatement, as a reporter would do. As I said, I had no opinion on the merits of the block. If I was making the accusation, I would have backed it up. (In any case, I never make accusations.)

I agree that this block, like so many others, had too many people piling on. THat being said, you did reference me specifically and rather insultingly in your unblock notification, which is why i am unwilling to let it go. Relata refero 12:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there was a misunderstanding, then, in which case I of course apologize. El_C 12:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I assure you that all I hoped was for you to recognise the possibility of a misunderstanding. I'm sorry to have kept pushing, but I genuinely was very, very dismayed at the prospect that anyone would think I was subject to groupthink. Relata refero 12:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, that is a given. Sorry I failed to articulate that earlier. Regards, El_C 12:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. Incidentally, here's what I think of groupthink. Matter closed as far as I'm concerned. Cheers, Relata refero 17:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Incidentally, what happened to that thread? It's not linking me. El_C 16:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

We'd all like to know what happened to that thread; I was also a little concerned that the original complaint was cheerfully forgotten in the midst of all the subsequent drama. I made a few points on the mailing list about that, but nobody noticed, of course. I don't know if its worth my while to write in to the arbitrators' mailing list, because I suspect they're only interested in the archiving, and not in the original debatable block. Relata refero 19:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Trinity

I'm assuming you're on top of the latest edits. Let me know if you need any help. Oh -- and I don't know anything about Biblegateway. Was he giving links to verses? Tim 18:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not on top of it at all, actually. In the past, there was an excess of Biblegateway links, to the extent it seemed promotional. I haven't looked to see if this user added any to those entries, that was just an aside discovery. El_C 18:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Cuba2

Hello El C. I've tried over and over, to get El Jigue to stop gossiping on the Cuban related articles. Just moments ago at the Cuba page, I slightly lost my patients with him. Perhaps there's a slight 'language barrier' involved with EJ's inability to comply (maybe he doesn't quite understand what I'm telling him). Could we get somebody who speaks Spanish to talk with him? Maybe then he'll understand. GoodDay 21:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I would be up for that, drop me a line. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

blocking User:Tawhid Jihad

Hi, I remember you as a helpful admin. We have a User:Tawhid Jihad who, apart from meeting Wikipedia's requirements for inappropriate user names (it's a play on an Islamist terrorist organization) also engages in off-topic and offensive discussions over at the Bosnia and Herzegovina article. Just some examples here, here, here and here. Could you block this guy or how would one go about getting it done? CheersOsli73 09:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. El C can't attend to your request right now. User:Tawhid Jihad has already been blocked for inappropriate username, requested a new name, and been unblocked, but has again edited under the old name. I have blocked him again, and warned him against continued soap-boxing if/when he manages to get unblocked once more. (It's all on his talkpage.) Bishonen | talk 16:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC).

OK, thank's for the update.19:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Osli73 19:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Brownies for you

Some brownies for El Commendante. How about people let him eat a few in peace, please? Have a brownie, everybody. Bishonen.

*kisses*

Thanks for the laugh

[69] Good stuff, even if it is sort of unorthodox. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 10:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's just the usual fare: many tens of my blocks are titled "unfriendly" (when there's hostility) or "overexcited" (nonhostile all uppercase). Now, "spreading untruths about squirrels" ^{(log)( diff)} or "grammatically unintelligible greeting" ^(log)(diff) are more unique. El_C 10:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahh thanks for those, they have been enshrined! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 11:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yase, I'm Almost Famous! El_C 16:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

David Livingstone

I've received an appeal to semi-protect the article David Livingstone. I see you've reverted vandalism there a couple times recently. What are your thoughts? I see that IP vandalism is north of 25% of recent edits, but there was also a good IP edit recently and the overall volume appears to be at the annoying but manageable level. GRBerry (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing too remarkable, but maybe for a few hours, if it continues. El_C 14:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll add it to my watchlist and explain what we are thinking to the requestor. GRBerry (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for protecting Jammu and Kashmir. Apparently, the same user have been vandalizing Indophobia and Anti-Pakistani sentiment. Please take appropriate action. --AmJay (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Both of em seem be using shifting ips, to boot. El_C

Kitty

being deleted. Miranda 06:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this a test? Because I think I failed it. The most important in retrospect was making the password to be Kitty. :/ El_C 09:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

And then it was hijacked by that ethno-national vandal; that was bullshit. Kitty 09:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not my fault, he had a bot. He swallowed some of the most sought after names, now non usable. El_C 09:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm usable. Kitty 09:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, kinda. El_C 09:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Khurshidbanu Natavan

Hi El C, Can please re-examine your warning for my edit warring on Khurshidbanu Natavan. Where a picture was being used as a source. All I did was just back and forth editing and discussion all aimed at NPOV-ing the article

• Septemer 5th

My first edit was to ask for a rewrite [70]

I was reverted by Ehud who also added a quote from the De'Waal

• September 6th

I removed the bogus source(image)and added couple of fact tags [71]

Ehud Leser reverted me

Grandmaster made 2 minor edits (bogus source was not reverted)

I replaced just the bogus source with a fact tag [72]

Parishan reverted me

My first revert [73]

Atabek reverts me and accuses me of removing sources [74]

• September 7th

My second and last revert [75]

Ehud Leser reverts again

Grandmaster makes a minor edit to fix the bogus source [76]

• September 9th

I tried to rewrite it myself and moved the so-called source to the external links [77]

Ehud again reverts me

• September 10th

I give up and add POV and fact tags to the article

• September 18th

Per discussion with Grandmaster on the talkpage the section title is changed.

The article is still POV, but I remove the tag and the article from my watchlist.

Now do you think I edit warred? or tried and failed to bring balance and neutrality to the article. Ehud Leser, Grandmaster, Atabek and Parishan all edit warred, tried and succeeded in include the unverifiable image as a source. I really appreciate if you could re-examine your decision to warn me for edit warring and post your reply here Thanks.VartanM (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, I don't think users who are restricted by parole and 1RR per week, are quite capable of revert warring, while you were having no such restriction and actually warring. At Talk:Khachen, Talk:Sahl ibn-Sunbat and Talk:Shusha, in particular, myself and Grandmaster tried to and engaged in lengthy discussions with you and other contributors. Yet the result was always your POV pushing, removal of sourced material and/or dispute tags from the articles before reaching a consensus. Such conduct is not constructive. As you well know from talk pages, all of us have shown capability to engage in constructive discussions and provide references. So, I think having equal editing restrictions will only facilitate the process of ceasing edit wars and actually discussing what material can be incorporated to preserve neutrality. Looking forward to work together on articles in a constructive manner. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

How is this not harassment and wikistalking? Do you still think using unverifiable images as a source is neutral? VartanM (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, you haven't left unanswered a single one of my posts on any Wiki board, whether related or unrelated to you. So please, let's not talk about wikistalking. You use my name in your post, it's my right to respond and address your accusation. So please, assume good faith. I was talking about referenced material (quotes to books, articles, etc.) as well as dispute tags that you feel free to remove from any article without any consensus or agreement. That's very disruptive. Atabek (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You were pretty much already under restriction, if not formally, then in spirit. I'm not sure that the material you cite above convinces me to withdraw the warning behind that. Sure, we may let a few 2rs slide, but not systemically, and certainly not 3rs; especially, seeing how most of your direct opponents (and most of everyone, for that matter) were under the 1r restriction. Thanks. El_C 19:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I perfectly understand that, and I acted in that spirit by engaging in the talk page and always justified my reverts. I just don't see why I was warned, when I was only trying to make the article good. I wasn't pushing POV, I wasn't edit warring. I was actively discussing the problem in the talk page. My actions were in line with WP:V and WP:Reliable, while four users kept adding the same image as a source to a claim that the statue was destroyed by Armenians. The image that shows that the statue was damaged isn't reliable for number of reasons 1)It could be any other statue. 2)It isn't showing anybody destroying it. 3) If it was destroyed the picture actually disproves their claim. The issue about my supervision has been resolved and no further explanations are needed. Thanks for your time. --VartanM (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I cannot immediately recall what was happening at the time, specifically. Sorry. El_C 21:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If you've got a moment...

You might want to take a look at this. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone else took care of it. Regards, El_C 01:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

For this. The thought is much appreciated. Remember, though, you had one way of preventing this and I had several, although I didn't realize the mistake at the time. Regards, Durova^Charge! 01:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I did not realize my presnece there would be so crucial, otherwise, I'd have activated an email address for it long ago. Regards, El_C 01:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait, you "own copyright on the report Giano II posted" — I'm asking you to release it. What's going on? El_C 03:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Durova, the report is available on Wikipedia Review already. It would be much better to position it on a reputable site where people can see it without all that negative spin. Let your mistake serve as a lesson to others, and take the issue away from your critics. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to Misuse of Persia

Firstly Persia is not archaic, it was used solely as Iran’s official name until 1935, we still have people living from that era!

Secondly, as I have displayed the reference, Iran and Persia can officially be used interchangeably. Please search for Prof. Ehsan Yarshater and his work on this matter.

But most importantly is that I as an Iranian-American always call myself Persian, all Iranians call themselves Persian, we have the Persian Gulf, Persian Rugs, Persian cuisines, Persian cats and many more present usages of Persia that undoubtedly reflect the Iranian people and culture.

As a summery, Iran is Persia solely until 1935, interchangeably since 1935, and commonly used in many vocabulary in Present English. Therefore, it is rational to place an indication of this undisputable connection of words as the name of the article at hand.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Argooya (talk • contribs) 01:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

See the Britannica articles (^{[78] [79] [80]}), they draw the same distinction. It does not makse sense to treat it as if it remains the modern name. Who still uses Persia for Iran was the question (you were asked for one modren source, as opposed to original synthesis). El_C 01:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thinking of you

Hello El C, Jeeny has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

- Jeeny ^(talk) 01:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Kisses* El_C 01:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Last stands page

Thanks, sorry, I felt like a doof right after I made it--I didn't see that there was a list AFTER the references section. Normally, that's the last part of the page. When I saw it I tried to go back and edit, but it had already been changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.22.77 (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that, too, but I was unable to fix it. I submitted a request for assistance. Regards, El_C 21:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you fully protect page Marshal of the Soviet Union please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Staygyro (talk • contribs) 15:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Why, what's happening? El_C 15:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: your comment

[81] Did I neglect an e-mail? If so, it was unintentional. I've been swamped for a week. Very hard to keep on top of everything. Durova^Charge! 22:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Not an email. You thank my for my evidence, but you fail to respond to my request.

So, now there is no reason for you not to respond, for better or worse. Regards, El_C 22:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I did respond at the workshop where another editor posed a pretty similar question. At the pace the case progressed I had no time to assemble half my evidence, much less respond to every question. I'm one human being with ten fingers who types 75 words a minute when well pumped with coffee. You ask too much. Durova^Charge! 22:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying... you thank me for my evidence, which was rather brief; well, this request is point 3 of 3 in my evidence (I also asked for it earlier, but that's besides the point). Then I go on to repeat it on my talk page. Now I repeat it again on my talk page! Regards, El_C 22:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

here[82] Durova^Charge! 23:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

So your answer is 'no,' because "it was obtained and distributed by deception and coercion." Sorry, I don't find that credible. El_C 23:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

El C, are you aware that Durova has resigned? [83] - Jehochman ^Talk 23:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware. I would not have raised the issue had I known. El_C 03:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In light of today's events ^[84] which I have just now learned about, I will not press on the matter further. El_C 23:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

the imagey thing

The fractal orange image thing covers the options at the bottom to click on so I can see your contribs etc. If I try and get at them from there, I just get the pic. Could you possibly move it up a bit? Maybe it's just when viewed by firefox, which some people, like me, use?Merkinsmum (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I also use firefox; I'm not sure I understand your problem; Interiot set it up for me and I pretty much did nothing to know what it is about. El_C 22:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I mean the last image on this page hides some of the options such as 'view user contribs' etc. It's ok though.:)Merkinsmum (talk) 02:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yum

For making me laugh one of those big belly laughs that hurt after a while, you know the ones.

Platinum and gold. As always I appreciate em. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 00:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Those are hardly on the the believe in sexy ancient beasts! level, but everyday is a new day! Best, El_C 00:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No not quite, but dis one and dis one come pretty close. :) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 00:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I always wondered what would happen if I were to say it three times! Mom as a reference is a plus! El_C 00:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: cooperate on the Bosnian Genocide article

Hi, I've got a problem with a couple of editors cooperating/coordinating their edits which I feel really amounts to ganging up. See below:

==cooperate on the Bosnian Genocide article==

That is what we should do, not revert each other's versions. The newest version (mine) is perfectly fine, although the intro could be better rephrased. So work with me on protecting my version (which practically includes your version as well).Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC) [85]

Would this be tantamount to breaking any WP rules of etiquette?Osli73 (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

What's with people not bothering to create sections lately (see the person immediately before you ^[86]) In answer to your question; I'm not sure I understand the problem with that passage, which seems to call for cooperation, something that I presume we are all for... Regards, El_C 16:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Return to ArbCom enforcement

I think I have to file a complaint against DreamGuy in ArbCom Enforcement, of personal attacks and incivility. As you took issue with the method by which I introduced evidence last time, might I ask for your guidance in filing it correctly? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You ought to know this: one or two examples of misconduct. I need proof that it exists, recently. El_C 09:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Fork substitution

As the blocking admin, I draw your attention to [87] and I seek your acquiescence in the edit proposed. You may also wish to comment here, if you choose: [88] Alice.S 10:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Out of everyone whom you contacted, I'm probably the one most familiar with Rhodesia-related topic, having written several related articles ^{([89][90], etc.)} Instead linking, why not try to briefly explain what the dispute is about, content-wise? El_C 09:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I know you're a very busy editor, but that first link takes you straight to the article discussion page where the four content quibbles are exactly explained. If you still can not understand, then please ask me on that article discussion page because if you can't understand what I've written there, then I doubt nobody else can either. Alice.S 13:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I would rather have this summary submitted here, actually. El_C 13:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit baffled by your link to [91] as a "related article" was that a whoopsy?

Oops, I guess I copied the wrong field, it was supposed to be Rhodesia (disambiguation). El_C 13:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

OK,you asked for it: Although User:Perspicacite has been warned many times before (eg: [92], [93]) about claiming ownership of articles and subsequently reverting editors without examining the damage he is causing to our texts, he continues to refuse to engage in dialogue on his own talk page.

Instead, he just removes without adequate and appropriate reply (eg: [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99]) or comment (apart from mendacious edit summaries) relevant questions, which is why I am asking other editors here if there are any reasonable justifications for continually reverting (eg:[100] and [101] and [102] and [103] and [104]) to versions of our article which have errors such as:

1. "Southern Rhodesians ruled themselves until 1923" rather than the more correct text "Southern Rhodesians ruled themselves after self-government began in October 1923 under the first Premier, Charles Patrick John Coghlan."
2. incorrect cite template usage: it is unnecessary to include (just) the "accessyear" if you have already included the full ISO format "accessdate".
3. changing Central Intelligence Organisation (spelled correctly according to our article and that organisation) to "[[Central Intelligence Organization]] (spelled incorrectly with a z according to our article and that organisation)
4. replacing the disambiguated [[Consul (representative)|Consulate-General]] with just the redlinked [[Consulate-General]]

? Alice.S 18:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have examined both versions and I think that user Alice.S's is more appropriate. JRDarby (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Because, with the many irrational reverts it has become quite difficult to maintain our Rhodesia article in an error-free state, I have begun to maintain a fork in my user space: User:Alice.S/Rhodesia.

You and any other editor are very welcome to edit that fork (with the sole exception that all changes to the fork must be made by editing the forked version and not by using revert or undo tools or substituting the entire fork). The current forked version, at the time of making this comment is this, and I intend to substitute this better version for Perspicacite alias Jose João's version during the next few hours - obviously I will update it with any appropriate edits made there (and/or to the main article) in the meanwhile. Alice.S 10:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I wanted a new summary, not for you to copy and paste the talk page. And, up to 1923, the administrative ruler was the BSA CO., not Southern Rhodesians self-rule. I've long neglected my Southern Rhodesia draft, but feel free to consult it. I suppose I'm just not seeing a fundamental content dispute. What are the underlying content differences? I'm not really interested in typographical arguments and so on. El_C 13:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Since there was no effective self rule before 1923, I can not understand why P wises to continually revert to "Southern Rhodesians ruled themselves until 1923"

I sincerely believe that the version I wish to introduce again:

"Southern Rhodesians ruled themselves after self-government began in October 1923 under the first Premier, Charles Patrick John Coghlan."

is more accurate. Please note the distinction between "until" and "after".

Changing "[[Central Intelligence Organization]] (spelled incorrectly with a z according to our article and that organisation) and other trivial changes, are just mentioned for the sake of completeness and to emphasise that P is reverting because of the editor and NOT the content. I regard this as a content dispute, he regards this as a war to get an "enemy" banned. Alice.S 14:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, no more bold font, it's too much. At any rate, it doesn't appear to be an insurmountable dispute. I would like to hear his side of it. El_C 14:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Query

While I applaud your closing of the MFD page on RFC/U and the suggestion that it should be improved, it appears that little improvement is forthcoming. What is your opinion on this matter? >Radiant< 23:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm beginning to realize that —due to size of Wikipedia and by extension, the usage seen by RFC/U— we need to set up a 'clerkship' of sorts. Each user RfC will need a dedicated uninvolved admin overseeing it, and, perhaps, only they will be the one to approve, or delete/delist it. Which is to say, user rfc do have a formal structure, but because of the influx in size, we need another formal mechanism to keep the former operating by-the-rules (as much as I dislike formality and proceduralism, due, again, to the influx in size, I think we are long overdue for something of the sort to keep that apsect of DR running smoothly). El_C 09:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

While that sounds like a reasonable idea, isn't that precisely what Mediators do? >Radiant< 17:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Reuse of existing bureaucracy is not a bad idea. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Mediators only deal with voluntary participants; a user RfC may take place against the subject's wishes (hence the challenge). El_C 12:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Uninvited Company

Did you happen to see this older message of mine to UC, also on the Proposed Decisions talk? Bishonen | talk 10:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC).

Yes; as I recall, I noted that you should not hold your breath for a response. I gathered you didn't. El_C 10:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right, so you did, silly Zilla forget! [Expels radioactive breath with mighty explosion of relief. Face returns slowly from dark blue to normal scaly green.] bishzilla _ROARR!! 10:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC).

Incidentally, why is email no-entrency and unhappy? El_C 10:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't know, Commendante. No-entrency for you only, it seems. Why, oh why? What to do? bishzilla _ROARR!! 13:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC).

I would like to be considered an invited company, to share your tymes! El_C 13:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Jammu and Kashmir again

Please have a look at this. There is another edit war between me and him. Can you intervene and protect the page? --Jai Dixit (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What, on your version? You change Indian-occupied to Indian-administered and switch to the Pakistani-occupied redirect from Pakistani-administered, whereas the floating ip does the exact opposite: changing Indian-administered to Indian-occupied and switching to the Pakistani-administered from Pakistani-occupied redirect. Or is it the other way around? There's something quite dialectical, and lame, about the whole thing. Okay, so enough with the obviously dispute-inducing redirects, then? Good. El_C 12:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The present version is great. Have no problems. BTW, if you look at this version, I had changed Pakistani-administered Kashmir to Pakistan-controlled Kashmir and at the same time changed Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir to India-controlled Jammu and Kashmir. So, you can't accuse me of bias. I tried my best to find a middle-ground. Fact remains, that the anon user would have reverted your version too if you were an Indian, and that is precisely the reason why I asked for your intervention because you didn't belong to any party. --Jai Dixit (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no point in using the Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (or Indian) without the referred by India as (or Pakistan) qualification, which is why the anon changing it to Pakistan-administered ^[105] made sense and that part of it should not have been reverted. El_C 22:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to revert it to the Pakistani-controlled version. My bad here. --Jai Dixit (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. What a difference that makes, right? Glad to learn that. El_C 01:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This edit is very interesting. It shows that the anon had made-up his mind to revert any changes I made to the article. Never mind, I am glad we have reached a consensus and the concerned article looks better now. Thanks --Jai Dixit (talk) 07:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

HEY THANKS EL_C FOR BEING FAIR AND NEUTRAL ON THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR ISSUE LETS HOPE NO INDIAN CHANGES AT AGAIN VIVA LA REVOLUTION —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.100.224 (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

re:Kashmir etc.

No problem at all. Actually, I wrote most of the article a while ago (early 2007?) and, since no one really gave me much feedback, I put it on the back burner and sort of forgot about it. Glad that you are taking interest, and I hope we can improve the article. Didn't realize that on some other Kashmir-related pages (as evident from the posts above) major edit-wars were in progress. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, I appreciate your reasonableness, and certainly, could make use of your expertise. Exactly, there has been major edit wars there for as long as I can remember. Again, I had to make little changes to the parts you've written, aside from moving some text around. But my immediate reaction was not to my credit. I do need to make greater efforts in telling partisans from serious, scholarly contributors. El_C 14:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

PS BTW, Is El C, short for "El Comandante?" I vaguely remember Che being referred to as that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, El Commandante. You are one of the few who guessed this correctly (most think "El_Che," but I do have some humility!) El_C 14:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)