User talk:El C/generic sub-page7

A note

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

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

Madore99

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

Restoring edits from banned users

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

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

Invitation

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

Cyrusc 16:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Menudo

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sceptre/Comment on ANI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User talk:Alexia Death

Hey there,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hang in there

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

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

Please accept my apologies

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

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

Moving History of Jammu and Kashmir to Kashmir region

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

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

Links to Appletons discussion on WP:AN

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

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

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

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

Re: In dispute disputed

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

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

Blue5864

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abt the different pages for Kathmandu

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

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

Smile

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

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

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

Young user meets cruel world :-(

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

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

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

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

Blocks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Sapere aude

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

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

Seasons Greetings

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

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

Karl Marx: Anti-Semite

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

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

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

User:Andranikpasha

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

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

Greetings

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

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

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

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

why?

Hello, why did you rease the following link?

• 关于使用和发展维吾尔族语言与文字的提案

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hiyya

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dacy69

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

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

RFP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Larua

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

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

Fair use

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

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

bot edits

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

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

Republika Srpska

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

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

Che Guevara

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

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

a project spawned from the AN fair use image thread

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

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

Why did you lock the article?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many thanks

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

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

Deletion on the rocks

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

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

Jewish Communists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weatherman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cat mysteries

Our cat Ruby just turned up an hour ago out of the blue after 3 months, to be welcomed by her daughter, Blue. Cheers for everything. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Order of Saint Lazarus

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

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

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

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

Decision regarding my userpage

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

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

Waterboarding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tamil Nadu

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

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

Hidden comment on evidence page

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

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

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

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

RfD talk

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

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

Courtesy note

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JAMMU AND KASHMIR

Hey El C there are moderators on here who seem to think its okay to add extra stuff on Pakistani Kashmir articles but paint a softer image of Indian administered Kashmir can you help and make these articles balanced and less pro Indian I understand if you don’t. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.208.195 (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Thanks. I forgot to ask: can you link me to what the contentious addition is, specifically? El_C 03:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

MfD

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

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

Quick Question on East German page

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

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

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

Awesome, thanks - thought I might have missed something.

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

Your edit at Wikipedia:Requests for rollback

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

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

So, this is your talk page, huh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, now I know. I thought it was "incivil", but I guess it's uncivil. Now I can be uncivil to individuals who bitch that I'm incivil, criticizing them for poor spelling skills.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Okay, that seems charitable enough. I'll tell you what. If (see what I did there? I gave DG the benefit of the doubt, just for you) DG's behavior regresses back into incivility and edit-warring, i am going to come to you. Specifically you. Would it be unfair to expect you to note that perhaps all the past smoke will at that point prove the existence of fire? I mean, you seem to be convinced that everyone is just picking on the poor lad. I think that if the problems occur again, it isn't untoward of me to expect your direct involvement at that point. Would that be fair to expect of you, El_C? I mean, I know you are busy, but so am I. I have so many other things I would rather be doing that dealing with someone at least two dozen other editors seem to feel is deleterious behavior. I would much rather be working and learning from users like you and Mcdevit, instead of arguing with the two of you. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

We should assume good faith about DG's conduct having been refomred if there no evidence to the contrary. El_C 10:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(←dent) Like I said, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. If he falls into the pattern that others have noticed, I will come directly to you, and expect you to act on it. Does that seem fair enough to you? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If there are violations, you are encouraged to bring these to my or any other admin's attention. El_C 10:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

May I remind you that El C and every other admin and arb is a volunteer. Your behaviour here is extemely close to harrassment and as an outside observer may I suggest that you either provide the requested diffs or leave El C alone? Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

El C, how recent do you want? When I scan the recent contribs of both 68.47.175.159 (talk · contribs) and DreamGuy (talk · contribs), I see multiple examples of incivility and assumptions of bad faith, just in the last couple days. Look at his comments, look at his edit summaries. Are you saying that you're not seeing it, and that you need things further spelled out for you? Or what exactly is the problem here? I have to admit to confusion as to why you are trying to protect DreamGuy, while he continues to level attacks and accusations at other editors. --Elonka 18:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this will be the seventh times I now asked you for recent instances of incivility from a DG ip (couple of days is fine with me). El_C 21:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If these comments exist, it should be trivially easy to provide the diffs. I have added a useful menu for any third party observers who would like further information on the topic. Jehochman ^Talk 21:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have outlined the lengths to which I went to have claims by both Elonka and Arcayne substantiated: User:El C/Elonka-Arcayne. El_C 22:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the link. I have addressed your concerns there. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Thanks! BTW - love the fractals. Sophia 23:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure! Thx! :) El_C 23:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection request

can you protect Page Marshal of the Soviet Union? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Staygyro (talk • contribs) 17:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Why, what's happening? El_C 23:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Your page

Can you clarify this comment:

"Interestingly, this is the same AC member who called for special protection for arbitration-restricted Science Apologist"

In what way/s do you feel any conduct I have undertaken on this editor was unusual in comparison to normal best practice?

Thank you.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Generally, it is unusual for a sitting Committee member to come to the defense of an arbitration-restricted user so strongly, as you did. I, however, am strongly in support of the effort you launched. Still, I'd like to see it extended further for those editors struggling to maintain mainstream scientific semblance against overwhelming pseudoscientific propagation and agitation. El_C 03:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

See questions via email (And note I don't think this characterizes it well). Thanks :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thx for the detailed note. I take your point and apologize for any grief brought by my confusion. I amended the page accordingly. El_C 10:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comment at RFR

Not that it matters now, but at first glance, looking at his contribs, it seemed as though he was wikistalking that editor and reverting his edits. I guess it's fine. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I just didn't see anything suspicious. There was a disagreement, a note left on a talk page, and edits undoing the changes. El_C 10:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the comment. Tkn20 (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I assigned you with rollback permission, too. Hope it helps. El_C 21:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Kashmir

Hi there! Happy New Year! I am still on vacation, with very little access time to Wikipedia. Could you please keep an eye on user Magicalsaumy who is adding, what can be euphemistically only be called, "nut-job" edits to the page. These included citations that consist of Indian embassy websites(?) and the like. Thanks. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year. I agree, that verbatim copying of the declaration is unhelpful, and generally, breaking the peace is something I frown on. El_C 21:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeraeph

Regarding your reply to this user, and your deletion of her text on the Sam Blacketer userpage: This user is currently involved in an arbitration, has been blocked multiple times for making personal attacks and baseless allegations, and has left or vanished Wikipedia multiple times in an effort to game dispute resolution. Have a look at the arbcom case and her block logs before you involve yourself further. She is currently blocked under her IP, but the blocking admin forgot to block the account name, too (I believe that was Krill who blocked her IP today). Just a head's up so you don't get sucked into this drama too. Jeffpw (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason I removed it was because it was duplicated. I responded on Kiril's page because, regardless of anything, it sounded desperate. El_C 01:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

I'm enjoying my new tool and just wanted to say thanks! : ) --MPerel 00:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see you! My pleasure, glad it's proving useful. El_C 01:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Philosophical Question about Wikipedia

One thing I admire about you is you have balls (I meant that metaphorically, since it appears you are a male of the species). I constantly get attacked by religious nutjobs, and I guess I have taken the approach that since the anti-science religious nutjobs can lie, whine and scream, I can at least scream back (I refrain from the lying and whining crap). Now, another creationist POV-warrior, User:Gnixon who has a long-standing feud with me, has begun an attack on my person. Everytime I stand up to him, he goes and moans to whomever will listen, I have to put up with reprimands and admonitions on my user page and I'm getting tired of it. Why do users like him, who has an anti-science agenda, get away with it? And how do you put up with it? Maybe you have admin powers, so the right is scared of you. Nothing worst than a communist with guns I suppose. Or a Jew.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning: if you're going to continue flattering me, it will go to my head and then I won't be useful to anyone! :) You can have the short answer. The long one is a bit rambling and might be frowned upon by my readership. Let me know! El_C 13:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Who cares about the readership!!!! What is this? A popularity contest.  :) However, I'm fairly concerned about your chipmunk obsession. And if you tell me you've seen Alvin and the Chipmunks, I will no longer respect you. More than that, I might vote Republican, become a Creationist, and start drinking apple martinis. Meh. Hey, I'm not flattering you with false praise. That ain't me! I prefer balls around here to the, how can I put this politely....I can't, so I'll just say the lack of balls.  :) Wait a minute, I actually came here to say, yeah, I want the long answer. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Another satisfied Chipoll signatory. No, sorry, I haven't seen that movie. Not really a fan, they always struck me as a bit yappy, unlike real chipmunks who are much, much more... sitting, happily, with a stripe and a puffy tail. So, the long answer... I think that it takes a lot to rattle me, maybe because I experienced a lot of disturbing things throughout my life, which although fucking me up, I still emerged from with the ability to perceive basic shapes and patterns. Thus, a possible side effect is that conflicts on Wikipedia (and elsewhere), as twisted as it may often be, just don't end up shaking me as badly, or visibly, as they do other people. Which is probably not natural. But much of social reality is in direct opposition to the harmony inherent in nature. Keeping my wits about me may have developed as a survival mechanism and now I'm stuck with it (like some fuckin robot, it's bullshit!). And I'm always looking to maximize potential; aiming at a high signal to noise ratio, minimizing unnecessary friction, saying more with less, and so on. So, that leaves me with little room for superfluous chatter. For example, this one time, here I was petting this chipmunk, when suddenly... and happiness ensued. Anyway, I hope all of this has been instructive to you and my idiot readership! El_C 22:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Just cos

Nengscoz416 (talk) 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. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Indo Phobia AND Indian parliament attack 2001

Hey EL C han you help me with the indophobia article a indian cannot seem to grasp the fact that indophobia exsists becuase of the kashmir human rights abuses by indians. Also the indian parliament article is being reverting by the same Ghanadar galpa even when sources are given hes trying desperately to make india look good and gives a biased veiw.

hello. please see [5] and [6]Ghanadar galpa (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Is the problem still pressing, or has some resolution been reached? El_C 03:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Humor

Hopefully, you won't be insulted, but this image would be perfect for your Wiki-fights!!! LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm insulted by that image. Che is beautiful, and no monkey. Now if it were Bush, that would be different and more accurate. Sorry for butting in. :p ←Gee♥Alice 06:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No he wasn't a monkey. The point was about Evolution, not revolution. It is a subtle slap in the face of Creationists. Nothing to do with Che, Bush, or frankly monkeys. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I know! I had my tongue in cheek. Didn't you see it? I do think it is funny. Evolution ==> Revolution. LOL. I got it. I should have said so. But Bush does look more like a monkey, and there needs to be a revolution to put him back on the evolutionary chain where he belongs. Soon, though, soon. ;p Although I do believe Che is beautiful. ←Gee♥Alice 07:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I hate that fuckin monkey image so much, I feel myself de-evolving! Grr! Of course, the distinction between evolution and revolution is a contextual one. In the context of physical evolution, biological evolution is revolutionary; in the context of biological evolution, human evolution is revolutionary. And in the context of human evolution, socialist revolution is, well, revolutionary. Conversely, when libertarians opportunistically propose that we let the Stephen Hawkins perish because they cannot, physically, fend for themselves, they extrapolate natural selection of animals (biological evolution) to humanity (social evolution), ignoring the fact that one disabled Hawkins can amount to the physical power of a million wage slaves, and even beyond (i.e. solution to energy scarcity, etc.). How many countless Einsteins and Hawkins in-potential have we lost among the billions of malnourished, oppressed and exploited people out there, all that so a scant few archbeasts can have their purple ease? That's what Che struggled against, despite all self-serving lies to the contrary. I cherish his legacy. El_C 03:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please advise

I'm having an "edit war" with User:DAGwyn on the Ayn Rand article. He/she insists there is no consensus, but there is plenty. I am new to the article and I've stood up to the reverts, yet he/she continues to revert over and over again. I've left messages to the user's talk page, especially here, and on the article's talk page. I've provided links to the talk page where there is indeed consensus for my edit, yet the user uses misleading edit summaries stating the opposite. I guess I'm just as guilty with the 3RR policy, but if one looks at the talk page, and the links I provide on the user's talk page shows there is consensus for "my" version and not "his/hers". (I know that you are an admin and probably know more on how to handle this). Yes, I'm being hardheaded, but that user is more so, and more importantly... wrong. lol. TIA. ←Gee♥Alice 06:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Just add some {{fact}} tags to the disputed individuals and go from there. Does that make sense? El_C 03:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Adminship request

Any Chance you can make me an admin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Staygyro (talk • contribs) 23:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I cannot, that process takes place through a public request. But why? As an admin, you will not be permitted to use administrative tools in disputes that you, yourself, are involved in. Also, please place new comments at the foot of the page, in a new section, and sign the comment using four tildes. A few times now, you've added a comment to the middle of the page, that makes it difficult to find and disorganized. Anyway, is the problem still pressing now? You may wish to try article comment request or Third opinion. Thanks. Regards, El_C 03:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:I'm_RickJames_Bitch!.jpg

I have tagged Image:I'm_RickJames_Bitch!.jpg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What? No! I'm Rick James!! El_C 03:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this bad?

Is he allowed to add that?--Alisyn^talk 02:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If I had my way, no. But unfortunately, yes. El_C 03:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A question

Hey, nature bwoi. :) There's an anonymous user at Talk: Race of Ancient Egyptians who's been engaging in attack trolling. I've repeatedly deleted his comments on the talk page, and he keeps it up. He's likely a sock puppet of a registered user. What's the best way to deal with this guy[7]? Temporarily block his IP addy? Run a user check? What do you suggest? Thanks. deeceevoice (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"Off with his head!"

Yes, that could be a good idea. I'm looking into it. El_C 03:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Another admin, User: Addhoc, visited his talk page and warned him. That seems to have chilled him out. deeceevoice (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure! I left a warning as well and am unlikely to leave another. So let me know if disruption continues. Best, El_C 03:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"... "mentally inbread propoganders that have only the sole intention of furthering their leacherous, parasitical affinty." LOL Is that what he wrote? (I wasn't kidding when I said I hadn't read most his posts. I mean it only took the first few words to know he was just being disruptive.) That what he's saying violates Wiki policy is quite clear. Exactly what he's trying to say, however, is another thing entirely. Jeeze. The man is belligerent and incoherent! In my book, that's a Wiki capital offense. Off with his head, dammit! deeceevoice (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"[M]entally inbread [sic: inbred] propoganders [sic: propagandists] that have only the [sic: whose] sole intention of furthering their leacherous [sic: lecherous], parasitical [sic: parasitic] affinty [sic: affinity]." El_C 04:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you cleaned it up. That was easy. But it still makes no sense! deeceevoice (talk) 04:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to say it, but he's still at it. I think he needs something stronger than a warning. deeceevoice (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Again.  :) deeceevoice (talk) 08:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fer sure! El_C 08:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

thank you for half of your suggestion

Thank you for your kind suggestion, at least the first half. It appears threatening in the second half. Your concern for the unblock worries me a bit because you haven't mentioned that Jersey Devil violated an ArbCom directive that admin are not to wheel war, which they defined as the 3rd action of block-unblock-block. The particular ArbCom directive did not define wheel warring as block-unblock.

Furthermore, the decision to unblock was made after notification to Jersey Devil. Prior permission is not a requirement. The decision to unblock was made with consideration of the following comments made by others at ANI such as:

I want to stress that I do not agree or disagree with the block - I just think it needs to be discussed to ensure that there is community support for an action: B

…and may be a tad too controversial about how edits are made, but he/she isn't totally wrong.: Anynobody (referring to the blocked user)

Has CltFn been a party to any form of DR at all?: Anynobody (I think there’s been no DR)

I think an indef. block is a bit harsh, considering what he did. CltFn has, after all, been good for over a year since the last block…I am very confused as to why this disserves an indef. block.: Yahel Guhan

All I am proposing is that we give him one last chance to change before an indef. block after a month. Heck, we give repeat vandals that opportunity all the time, with 1 month, 3 month, 1 year blocks, but almost never indef. Besides, at least he remained on the talk page for the most part this time, rather than in the article, where he is less disruptive, which may mean he might be trying to improve himself: Yahel Guhan

Not that I am trying to sanction what he did, but I do think an indef. time period is excessive, at least at this point: Yahel Guhan

A suggestion for formal WP:DR has been made onthe user's page. Perhaps, given his long-term contributor status, it may be to our advantage to let him try that process?: ThuranX

I am however also happy to endorse Thuran's proposed course of action and comments above also.: Orderinchaos struck by Orderinchaos 17:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC) as it mischaracterises my contribution to the debate

also note:

based on looking through his contributions, if an admin is willing to keep a close eye on a problem user, that's a low risk proposition: B

I don't have a problem with Archtransit's action providing tha the follows through on it. I do have a problem with the same admin who originally made the block reimplementing it.: B (being critical of JerseyDevil’s wheel warring)

Please don't interpret this message as an ongoing fight...

but it is merely a longer explanation made necessary because of your ArbCom mention. Also please note that ArbCom is a busy panel and that they require prior attempts such as mediation before submitting the case. I am willing to have formal or informal mediation with you or others. I am also in the process of making a new and novel suggestion on ANI to resolve the concerns raised above by others (the quotes above). Please remember that I have never advocated for the blocked user but have merely considered comments that others made. I have never supported the user with comments like "the user is not that bad" or even "the user deserves a chance". I am merely trying to bridge the gap between opinions that others have expressed. The reaching of compromise has been my primary goal in this entire episode. Consensus is not one side shouting loudly enough and ignoring the stated concerns of a few. Archtransit (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi again and thanks for the prompt reply. I'm going to respond on your talk page so as to keep the discussion unfragmented. Regards, El_C 20:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Your message is unclear. You ask for a clear yes answer but the question is not clear. I get the impression that the question is "Unless you make a confession, I will bring this to ArbCom". If that impression is wrong, then your message is unclear!

This is not an emergency. In the days since the original ANI post, nothing has happened except discussion.

Let's move on to more productive things. If your question was if I would have done things differently in retrospect, the answer is clearly yes. Archtransit (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm puzzled you find "the question" to be "not clear." I'm just going to copy it, word-for-word, since that's how clear I feel it is. Question: are you prepared, from now on, to commit to discussing unblocks prior to implementing these, and, at least in the next few months, consult a more experience admin before blocking a fellow sysop? Yes, or no? El_C 17:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for highlighting the question from the previous message. The tone of your message seems angry and confrontational. I don't know if this is true or the intention. If it is true, consider stepping back for a while.

Question 1: Are you prepared, from now on, to commit to discussing unblocks prior to implementing these.

Answer: I plan to discuss unblocks as a general rule.

However, some unblocks by others have been done without discussion. Some of these unblocks done without discussion have not resulted in further discussion. I will be more cautious if this path is taken. Some blocks are clearly a mistake and discussion for the sake of discussion only creates delays. For example, I recently unblocked someone and changed the conditions of unblock. I notified the blocking admin but did not have prior discussion. The blocking admin later agreed with my change. Discussion would have only tormented the editor with a delay.

Question 2: At least in the next few months, consult a more experience admin before blocking a fellow sysop?

Answer: Yes.

Comment: The asking of question 2 plays into the hands of those who accuse Wikipedia of cabalism. I would not have phrased the question like that.

Archtransit (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you find the tone "angry and confrontational," such was not the intent. That said, I'm looking for a concrete, unqualified commitment (i.e. without additional explanations). Are you prepared to commit to that formula, yes, or no? Thanks. El_C 18:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Write more concisely?

You write: John Nagle, you need to write more concisely. This is unreasonable. El_C 22:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[8].

Please note that I was requested by Thatcher (talk · contribs) to provide diffs. I provided diffs. --John Nagle (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Whereas I note that he asked you for "a few key diffs" (italics is my emphasis), not tens upon tens of them, spanning hundreds of words. El_C 00:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There is that. Of course, if I left out any diffs, someone would probably be complaining that I had made a one-sided selection of diffs.

I know that arbitration enforcement is a terrible place to resolve a content dispute. Unfortunately, that's where ArbCom sent us, with their rather vague decision. Once the new mediation group called for in the arbitration is up and running, we may have a better way of resolving some of the content issues. By the way, thanks for taking out the second copy of the rant by Lobojo (talk · contribs). --John Nagle (talk) 01:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE

This should not be marked as resolved - first of all, NE2 was doing the reverting, not Imzadi1979. Imzadi1979 was acting in good faith, and at this point the articles were not disputed. However, NE2 reverted the articles, which was furthering the dispute - thus, it was NE2 who was breaking the injunction and not Imzadi1979. (Furthermore, NE2 is a party to the arbitration, while Imzadi is not.) --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Closing the report is at my discretion. The injunction is not limited to parties, and Imzadi1979 seemed to have been the one to change the scope, in good faith or otherwise is not pertinent to this assertion. Let me know of any further issues. El_C 01:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, NE2's reverts were wrong - he is not an uninvolved administrator. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fine; he explained the removal. No need for him to get someone else (admin or otherwise) to do the exact same thing. El_C 01:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

But this was part of the edit war... NE2 was reverting to his preferred version... of course, hinging on your belief that Imzadi was in the wrong, which I firmly disagree with. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

My view is that it's best not to change anything as per the temporary injunction. The case will be concluded soon enough. El_C 01:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point here - NE2 was in the wrong as well, and you forgot to mention that. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "as well"? El_C 01:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the point is that NE2 is not an uninvolved administrator. Arbcom put "uninvolved administrator" into the language of the injunction for a reason - NE2's reverts just now were furthering the edit war. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right, I missed that. I'll amend the AE notice and issue a warning to NE2. El_C 02:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

How is Imzadi1979 expected to know that?  — master son^{T - C} 01:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not following your question. Expected to know what, when? El_C

That there's an injunction on removing banners from article talk pages per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2?  — master son^{T - C} 01:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, when? At the time of making the edits: he was not expected to know. Afterwards, NE2 linked to it in his edit summary (Reverted per the restriction at the top of WT:USRD), so now he knows and no harm done to none. El_C 02:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. That's what I was referring to. understood.  — master son^{T - C} 02:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; I sort of missed that too; funny how when you're involved with the crafting of a policy you don't bother to check the final version! --NE2 02:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. El_C 02:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

A happy ending

I thought of your kitty when I read this.[9] What a cutie. deeceevoice (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hahah! What a great story. El_C 04:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed white eyebrows

Thanks for uploading Image:Sammo Hung white eyebrows.jpg. BetacommandBot (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. The white eyebrows speak of extraordinary power on the part of the character! El_C 05:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed Heel

Thanks for uploading Image:TIH.jpg. BetacommandBot (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. El_C 06:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Concern

El C, I noticed that you closed and tagged as "resolved" a complaint that I had posted at the Arbitration Enforcement page.[10] For the record, I do not think that this was entirely an ethical behavior on your part, since you are definitely not an "uninvolved admin." You and I were in a dispute recently about the DreamGuy_2 case,[11] and you have been maintaining a subpage where you have obviously been searching through my contribs and twisting statements of mine,[12] as well as threatening to start a new case.[13] If you want to do that, fine, I can't stop you, but I don't think it's appropriate for you to be blocking other actions of mine in the meantime. In the future, I would ask you to please avoid making "rulings" on decisions involving me, as I do not feel that you have the necessary impartiality to make those decisions. --Elonka 17:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Turkish invasion of Cyprus

Cant see the cause of the revert, it adds information. I'm reverting back. Khutuck (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason is that we don't use the word "terrorist" as such a designation here. El_C 21:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeitgeist (props to you!)

Your comment about the bureaucracy of deletion reviews was awesome!

I wasn't around for the multiple deletion reviews on this article, but I read threw part of them and it was ridiculous!

I agree, if hundreds of thousands of people have seen it, it's almost impossible for it not to be notable.

Thanks so much!

VegKilla (talk) 09:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone noticed! And not a word on the atrocious grammar, to boot (I gots to fix that). Many thanks for your praise & recognition. Best, El_C 17:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Available for commenting at your pleasure

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Franco-Mongol alliance now exists. Jehochman ^Talk 17:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not finished my review. I do, however, recommend you notify John K and request his comment. El_C 17:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Those Mandlebrot sets are very nice. Over here you spelled Elonka's name wrong. Just thought you might like to know. Wjhonson (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, glad you like. Why, is that page protected or something? El_C 19:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The page is not protected, however I would not feel comfortable fixing the spelling myself. There is an unfolding situation at ArbCom, and even this minor change, if I were to effect it, may be taken as something other than merely a grammatical correction. So I'd prefer you do it. Wjhonson (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You are being too paranoid. There's no way it would be taken as anything other than fixing a typo. So, feel free. Thanks. El_C 00:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No good deed goes unpunished.Wjhonson (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Kathmandu

If you want to have a monopoly over article about Kathmandu without even contributing to it (just because you are a sysop), its fine with me. I will stop editing there. However, please see that you control all the other users who confuse Kathmandu Metropolitan city with Kathmandu valley or Kathmandu district and revert edits meant for other meanings of Kathmandu. Kathmandu to denote metropolitan might be fine in britannica as there are no other editors there. However, there are many editors here and they WILL have difficulty choosing between the three or four meanings of kathmandu. I have much better things to do than waste my time discussing with you here for nothing. Please improve the quality of article about Kathmandu. Its up to you Mr/Ms./Mrs sysop. Good luck.--Eukesh (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"For nothing" really described my attempt to communicate with you. You kept copy and paste moving, again and again, and there seem to have been simply was no way to reason with you about that except to physically move-protect the entries. You still haven't submitted a move request, as I suggested you do. You still haven't responded to my assertion on the article talk page that we follow the naming convention of other encyclopedias, like Britannica ^(Concise), Encarta, Columbia, etc., except you saying that that would be "fine in britannica as there are no other editors there." (Editors? We have articles for our readership). And all the articles have links to the disambiguation page on top. So, having failed to respond to my last comment on the article talk page, from last year, you now arrive at my user talk page, seemingly ccompletely out of the blue, waiving around accusations of monopoly, even though it is you who failed to live up to your obligations in the event you're still seeking a move; you fail to address my points substantively, still (i.e. nothing about naming conventions in other major cities, capital cities, etc.). I just hope this forceful and unresponsive approach isn't your modus operandi elsewhere, as you will have a problem editing in this collaborative project in that event. El_C 19:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Your Kabbalah article revert

El C, as far as I know CE and BCE are standard in Wikipedia Jewish template articles, instead of BC and AD. I don't want to change your revert without agreement because I have found that can lead to hurt feelings and, eventually to various editing problems. Let me know. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

They both are. If it's a Christian-related topic, it's respectful to use BC/AD; if it's a non-Christian-related topic, it's respectful to use B/CE. El_C 23:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that the problem was with my confusing the change to 'BC' and your revert to 'BCE'. Thanks for your patience. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Anytime. I, too, was wandering what that was about, seeing how it was 69.231.53.148 whom I reverted.^diff Thx for the followup. El_C 23:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT#FORUM

Noted, thanks, I won't copy that passage any more - a simple link to WP:NOT#FORUM itself, without actually quoting the passage, is sufficient. Cirt (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Thanks for understanding. El_C 00:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for being so polite about it all. Cirt (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

'Settlement' and 'Neighborhood'

The most important thing is to discuss and to try to minimize reverts. Further revert wars may result in revert restrictions being imposed. Thx. El_C 21:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks El_C, i have tried, I really have. We are still in the middle of discussing it all over at Talk:Gilo and on their own/our user pages, but whenever i point out a flaw in their argument they just seem to ignore it. I will however endeavor to turn to the talk pages again, hoping we can work this out. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. As I recently mentioned on the arbitration enforcement page: "as far as I'm concerned, anyone editing this set of articles is a breath away from being placed on a revert limitation." Please keep that in mind. Thx. El_C 21:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean and didn't see any addition from your edits aside from fixing the links. The purpose of my edit was to remove those links, since they are all to partisan sites and don't support anything other than that position exists, which isn't what they are being used to prove (that is already in the article). I can't understand why you would revert me then when I explained my reasoning.

The other editor went ahead and warned other people about reverting and then reverted four times away from the preexisting edition while I reverted only twice, nothing was done to stop him, and he's gone around continuing to make these disputed changes on related pages. I understood from the directives that if your change is reverted once you should go into discussion, but as he believes that his new version is right he keeps on reverting. If might makes right then something is broken here. --Robert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.100.134 (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Both of you need to stop reverting so often, regardless of anything. Thanks. El_C 01:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Poverty of India Image

Well, if the two of you are just going to duplicate the same exchange on other users' talk pages ^(example), then I'll just link to it thusly rather than have the hundreds of words displayed here. It's not an efficient mode of communication. El_C 10:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha!

Damn I'm glad you are still about. :-) - Tbsdy lives (talk) 11:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Undaunted albeit somewhat dented, my friend! El_C 11:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Phases of the Holocaust

It has no sources, and the uncited tag's been on it since October last year. I'm also not sure there's much in it that's not in Holocaust or couldn't be -- though that page is so long we almost daren't add anything more. However, if you think it was wrong-headed BOLDness, by all means revert. :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess I just got used to it as a fixture. I remember when it was created, the Destruction article already had almost as much written on the stages. It can be sourced easily enough, of course. What struck me, I suppose, was the out-of-the-blue minor edit. I'll give it some thought. El_C 09:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Population figures and percentages - Sierra Leone

Good day, El C. I'm worried about the edits made by 71.163.213.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Editor still doesn't seem to acknowledge messages on his talk page. Perhaps he didn't see them? Some of the edits look alright, but the number changes seem far too systematically coincidental, and no sources forthcoming. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I think the user needs to be blocked for a while; we have to get this individual to acknowledge these requests. I'll attend to that now. El_C 09:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I hope it works. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for my procedural error in editing Sierra Leone, and thanks for correcting it. I have no connection with Sierra Leone, but just became involved when I noticed a strange sequence of edits. How do we find out what is going on here? I have left messages on discussion pages, but none of the "strange" editors respond. Am I in order to keep restoring the 2004 census data? By the way, I think the "strange" editors are moving to changing the percentages in the 2007 Sierra Leone election article. They do add useful articles (though sometimes just copied from elsewhere on the web). I'm not going to become involved in an edit war over this! dbfirs 11:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry what is this about

what are you trying to say Igor Berger (talk) 12:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You failed to correctly indent in relation to the comment you were responding to. El_C 12:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The system save is a bit off. Igor Berger (talk) 12:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Technical question

At the top of the Kabbalah article there is this statement:

This article is about traditional Jewish Kabbalah. For other western Kabbalistic and esoteric mystical traditions see Hermetic Qabalah, Christian Kabbalah, Emanation: Eastern Orthodox Christianity, Kabbalah Ma'asit.

Is there a way to keep the statement, "This article is about traditional Jewish Kabbalah", and move the links to the bottom of the article, without being unfair to people who may be looking for the other articles? The way it is right now the top of the page is rather cluttered, making a difficult subject even more difficult to comprehend.

Thanks. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty conventional to have those on top, actually. And I don't think really find it that cluttered. But, I don't feel too strongly, either way. בברכה, El_C 03:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I will leave that as is. Thanks. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

why the revert?

Why did you do this change?--Rockfang (talk) 05:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It saves me from scrolling up as I fix the template. El_C 05:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.--Rockfang (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Anytime. El_C 05:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

M-95 image

M-95 editing, plz stop changing the http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:M95_interior_shot.jpg - it is M84A4 Sniper interior, but it is used to show what is possible to achieve with the M95 tank if same DBMS is in use. Right now M-95 supports French Thales DMBS, Israelis have provided some assistance with the M95 design, but Thales fire control seems to be best solution for now, Unfortunately we have no Thales DMBS photo to use, for that we'll need to contact Thales and see if they are willing to release the image for Wiki. Mic of Orion.

Yes, well I keep asking you and you change it back without comment. I am not a mind reader. El_C 06:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, nw, I didn't get any of your questions, anyways, article is done, also you asked about reference list if I can translate this in to English, article is in English, you only need to disseminates the article, which is kind of hard as it is a technical paper full of test results and not something average user would understand. I tried to summarize the article in Reference list, but layout came wrong and I deleted my work to preserve the cohesion of the article and layout. Poslovni Vjesnik is a story which speculates whether Kuwait will order additional 66 M84D tanks on top of current order, citing close sources at the Croatian MOD.

Also I have deleted repetitive chapters as they are saying same thing I mentioned in modernization paragraph.

PS, I'd love to put M-95 images in to Wiki Commons, but don't know how, I've never done it before, so if you want to o it for me would be best. No need to create new gallery about M-95 on Wiki commons, just add the images to Wiki Croatian Armed Forces. Mic of orion (talk) 14:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I did ask, twice. ^{[14] [15]} Dosen't matter. We should have English titles and name of publication for all the links: the English, the Serbian, and the Croatian. Having just plain urls makes those sections, and by extension, the article, look unprofessional. In answer to your question about images and Wikimedia Commons: you can create a commons account, or I can use my account (click for chipetting) to upload them. But first I need to know the license they are being released under and who the copyright holder is. Hope that helps. Thx. El_C 17:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Yes, football is U.S. centric, but most who read English know what it is. So long as we're editing the English site, I think the mention of football is both entirely pertinent and perhaps even an important note. Don't forget, I also mentioned office and political jobs, which retain pertinence to those unfamiliar with American pastimes. Regardless of all, I thank you for alerting me of any potential mistake. User:Two-face Jackie 2 February 2008. —Preceding comment was added at 18:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not just that "football & baseball are US-centric," it makes for an unbalanced (which is to say, beyond definitional) emphasis on male chauvinism, for no discernible reason. Also, I don't think the lead is the place for specific examples, per se. And it's overqualified with its "often" in the lead sentence. Take for examples how Britannica phrases their intro: "excessive and unreasonable patriotism, similar to jingoism. The word is derived from the name of Nicolas Chauvin, a French soldier who [etc.]"^[16] Or Encarta: "Chauvinism, excessive nationalism and aggrandisement of one's own category or group, often accompanied by a belligerent, aggressive attitude. The word is derived from the name of a French soldier, Nicolas Chauvin, who [etc.]"^[17] Columbia Encyclopedia, perhaps, gives us the best definition with regards to our problematic (but again, no example, into is purely definitional. I'll quote the entire thing: "Chauvinism is 'fanatical, boastful, unreasoning patriotism' and by extension 'prejudiced belief or unreasoning pride in any group to which you belong.' Lately, though, the compounds male chauvinism and male chauvinist have gained so much popularity that some users may no longer recall the patriotic and other more generalized meanings of the words."^[18](italics is my emphasis). Now that, I challenge, is a good direction for our intro. Thx. El_C 00:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Now, we can't rely upon everyone to read an entire article. Surely a person sitting down to search Wikipedia for a definition has that time, but we can't be judges of his schedule, and an example may make the research entirely easier. I think an example or two is helpful, if not, necessary. After all, plenty of lengthy articles feature them.

If you believe that 'football' is an unnecessarily biased statement, then we can remove that, but chauvinism is not quite what those sources state it is. They list only part of the whole definition, as chauvinism has been used to describe male boastfulness outside of 'prejudiced belief or unreasonable pride'.

All-in-all, your argument regarding football makes sense, not because of pertinence issues, necessarily, but because of bias. Thank you again, Two-face Jackie (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that. It's not just that; we're doing a dis-service to the reader by giving them a popular definition over the scholarly one. El_C 08:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)