Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:48, 6 August 2007

poetry

Why should poetry not be a slogan?

Why should poetry not be

biased

when life is not at all itself

For life's sake,

I expect a poem to be

a slogan

a dagger

a fist

and a bullet if necessary

---

---

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

Archived Discussions

Archive 2 3 4

Behind us, we find behinds

I completely missed the latest idiocy until your update to the navbox on Bishy's page... I need to not comment on this right now, because I'm afraid 'One puppy's opinion' might be taken as a weeee tad uncivil were I to not carefully consider phrasing. I may find it impossible to comment at all. KillerChihuahua 00:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Deep breaths. Think timid. :) El_C 00:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL! I confess I'm not doing well at thinking timid right now, and the deep breaths are only causing me to hyperventilate. Thanks tho, I am certain it is good advice. I'm doing the next best thing and getting off for a bit. KillerChihuahua 00:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I was unable to log off in time, alas. KillerChihuahua 00:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

O² is sort of a free drugs! Alas, don't let it upset you, what glued would that do? All the pets, El_C 02:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary

Your talk page could use some archiving though :-) --Anna512 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You're a bit early (it's May 1), but thank you. Yes, it sure can! :) El_C 19:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Happy (Early) Adminversary! Congrats! - SVRTVDude 20:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Adminversary, I like that! :) Thanks! El_C 20:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And it's a series of happy days! Best wishes to la riscossa! ---Sluzzelin talk 05:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

	Happy Adminship	from the Birthday Committee
	Wishing El C a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Misplaced Pages Birthday Committee! -- Extranet 07:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's my little congratulation message here... Sorry I'm a bit late, but have a great day! Extranet 07:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks! :) El_C 18:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You know why

Thanks for the purty flower! :) El_C 22:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

OTRS

Just in case you aren't aware, a policy was recently implemented by the Wikimedia Foundation, regarding access to nonpublic data (see Resolution:Access to nonpublic data) Please note if you do not comply with these rules you should remove yourself from OTRS volunteering where your name is listed. Otherwise, please ignore this message :) Kind regards, Majorly (hot!) 17:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware and, regretfuly, I am unable to comply as I don't feel my personal information can be presumed safe inside the United States. Feel free to remove me. Thanks again for the notice. Regards, El_C 18:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Not very timid

Delete my fix also. :-( Bishonen | talk 19:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

That was a mistake, sorry!; I totally do not hate double negated negatives. El_C 19:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't you, was it ? It was the untimid Mikka who probably wouldn't unanswer, I thought. Bishonen | talk 19:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

I can('t) possibly top that. But Nyes! El_C 20:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Sorry to bug you- but you have strikened the pound symbol that numbers the votes. I'm wondering if you've retracted your vote? Sr13 (T|C) 02:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have retracted my opposition. El_C 02:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis and User:Jayjg

Hi El C,

Please take a look at these , .

User:Jayjg is for example removing the quote from an article published in the reputable journal of Studies in Contemporary Islam (; it is an academic journal published by the Center for Islamic Studies at Youngstown State University).

Jayjg removed the sentence:"Dr. Edward Said rejected the way in which Orientalists like Lewis define Islam as a monolithic entity." which is giving context to its following quote.

He also removed quotes with regarding Lewis's position regarding modern Turkey, which was sourced to "Christopher de Bellaigue states: In The Emergence of Modern Turkey, Bernard Lewis lent his support to that most Kemalist of arguments—namely, that the Atatürk revolution represented the "liberation of the last of the subject peoples of the Ottoman empire.""

--Aminz 00:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop whining. Dr. M. Shahid Alam is an economist, not a historian, regardless of where he got stuff published. The sentence by Said is not about Lewis, it's about other people. And Christopher de Bellaigue is journalist, and the material was inserted as original research. Bernard Lewis is still alive, so WP:BLP applies as well. Jayjg 00:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

M. Shahid Alam is a Muslim voice and has published his criticisms of Lewis's alleged anti-Islam bias in a peer-reviewed journal, academic journal.

Christopher de Bellaigue almost quotes Lewis word by word on that point, and published his review in New York Times. --Aminz 01:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

M. Shahid Alam is an economist. The journalist Christopher de Bellaigue is being used for original research. Jayjg 01:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, your standards are arbitrary. According to you, the conservative Paul Johnson (journalist) is a reliable source, indeed more reliable than Bernard Lewis (note: Johnson's work was not published in an academic press which practice peer-reviewing or whatever- Johnson has a second-lower degree(undergrad) in the Jesuit method but was used as a source on the history of Islam).

Now, we have an article peer-reviewed, accepted, and published in a famous journal. Reputable journals don't accept bad papers (among the manuscripts they recieve, they select some and peer-review them).

I can see your arguments regarding Lewis's view of Turkey is changing. Which part is original research? --Aminz 01:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a WP:BLP, so the standards are much higher, and my argument regarding Turkey hasn't changed. Please stop trolling. Jayjg 01:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to violate WP:own and apply standards of reliability which you yourself do not commit to. I'll restore my edit except the Turkey parts for which I will come back with even stronger sources. The truth about Lewis's instance with respect to Turkey should be there at the end. --Aminz 01:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop modifying your comments after I've responded to them. Johnson is a best-selling historian. Oh, and I've reverted your WP:POINT POV-pushing at Paul Johnson. We don't put a person's degree's in the lead, and especially when we're trying to denigrate them as "lower second class". Have you no shame? Jayjg 03:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

And what was the answer you supposedly gave? Here is your answer:"This is a WP:BLP, so the standards are much higher, and my argument regarding Turkey hasn't changed. Please stop trolling" --Aminz 04:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning the degree of someone is denigrating? Common. WP:BLP doesn't say we can no mention their degree. --Aminz 04:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Aminz, let's see if you're capable of telling the truth; exactly why did you put Johnson's "lower second-class" degree in the lead of his article, and remove the fact that he's a historian? The truth, now. Jayjg 04:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Because I naturally checked his page(after placing the link here) and corrected it. To say that he was graduated from Oxford is too much credit for someone with a second-lower undergrad degree. Either we should not mention anything about his education or say the degree he got, not just "he was educated from Oxford" WOW. The article is still praising him: His teacher was a historian and he took an undergrad course with that historian. That doesn't make him credible.

I removed historian because he doesn't have any academic degree. He is a popular writer (like Karen Armstrong, Robert Spencer, etc etc). --Aminz 04:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Jay, please, heated language is not going to advance the dispute forward. That said, BLP is not a factor to take lightly (unless you're writing about a corrupt Australian police commissioner! Sue us, I dare, I double dare you, Terry Lewis!), Aminz. Let me review your edit point-by-point:

1. I am rather uncomfortable with the term "orientalist" (is it still in use within modern scholarship?) More to the point, where did Said said (Said said, I like that) that Lewis and those like him reduce Islam to a monolithic entity? That claim is not attributed to anything.
2. I don't really mind a quote by an economist, I care about the status their arguments enjoy in the scholarship; although if an economist comments on historiography, that certainly needs to be qualified, which it isn't. A more pressing problem I find with this quote, in particular, and quotations in the article, in general, is their sheer size. An article consisting of such a large collection of quotes, and an addition which is almost entirely a quote, almost always make me uneasy. In other words, more text, less quotations, on all fronts.
3. Who are the "critics further suggest that Lewis intentionally shifted his position to align himself with Turkey as part of a larger effort to cleanse the early history of Turke"? That claim is unattributed to anything. As far as I can see, thus far you've named one.
4. I'm not sure as to the reliability of Christopher de Bellaigue (the abovementioned critic) because I don't know who that is, but I do find that placing that addition breaks the flow of the narrative. So regardless of anything, that is an issue I feel compelled to note.
5. Nearly the entire award from the Haliburton guy (what's his name? Oh yeah, Dick) is written like an editorial: "opponents of the Bush administration raised eyebrows." Beyond that, it needs to relate to his Iraq invasion stance or it simply does not fit in that section.

Anyway, clearly there is much to be discussed and clarified before you restore the edits. BLP is a possible concern, as is, by extension, original research. I, therefore, hope that before reverting all, or part, of these additions, you can both attempt to resolve the outstanding issues. El_C 04:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Number 1. Yes, it is in use: Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy writes:

Orientalism is the branch of scholarship that uses traditional Western methods as a means of understanding and gathering knowledge pertaining to the Orient. The term was also used by Edward Said (1978) to elucidate his own challenge to the validity of such methods.

On the one hand, Orientalism has given us much of what we know about the Oriental world at large. Late nineteenth-century authors are especially worthy of consideration for their contributions to an understanding of foreign cultures and peoples. On the other hand, however, several problems arise from the attitudes and methods used in traditional Orientalist discourse, which in turn has had an impact – often negative – upon Western consciousness. This influences and distorts the framework through which the West approaches the Orient in general and Islam in particular.

I'll answer to the rest in a minute. Thanks --Aminz 04:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

We actually have an article about Orientalism (the concept) and Orientalism (the book), but I'm still unsure about the connotations when applied to modern thinkers. El_C 04:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I know that Edward Said applied the term Orientalist to Lewis and they had debates with each other on that point but I don't know about the connotations when applied to modern thinkers. But this section of the article is in the context of Lewis-Said debate. --Aminz 04:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That quote explain its following quote: Lewis doesn't have much time to spare for the internal dynamics and plurality of every civilization, or for the fact that the major contest in most modern cultures concerns the definition or interpretation of each culture, or for the unattractive possibility that a great deal of demagogy and downright ignorance is involved in presuming to speak for a whole religion or civilization."

Number 2. I don't say that the quote is reliable because the author is a professor but because of the peer-reviewing journal that published his work. But I agree that "the status their arguments enjoy in the scholarship". But I don't know how we can evaluate this. I also have another point. Most academics are not Muslims. I have seen many Muslims(non-scholars) who hold a negative view of Lewis. Therefore "the status their arguments enjoy in the Muslim scholar circles" also matters.

But I agree it would look much better if we summerize the quote while keeping its content.--Aminz 04:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Point 3 & 4: I noticed that some more information is sourcing here (not that the sentences were wrong) and as such didn't restore them in my last revert: . I wanted to find more sources for this. But Tewfik reverted my partial revert .

What most bothered me (in Jayjg's rejection of these two sources) was what I percieved as Jayjg's changing standards. --Aminz 04:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Point 5, I striked that out in my lastest version. --Aminz 04:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

<reset> ElC, please take a look at this my partial revert , I think it deserves to be restored. Please let me know what you think? --Aminz 04:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't respond at the momemnt because I'm gonna watch Days of Glory. Best not to revert anything, for now though. No rush, I hope. Thx. El_C 05:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

1. You wrote "Dr Edward Said rejected the way in which Orientalists like Lewis define Islam as a monolithic entity" (italics are my emphasis) — it's not clear that Lewis (the philospher not the Australian police commissioner description — yes, I will continue to, annoyingly, make that distinction) is being depicted as an orientalist by Said, rather, it sounds like this description is part of the narrative. This implies that the author of the Misplaced Pages article views him as such (i.e. a 19th Century-esque Eurocentric, etc.), as opposed to, say, Middle Eastern or Asian studies-focused thinker. As for the quote, in isolation, it is merely a defense of generalizing on some level (I don't know the context, so I cannot comment; but, regardless, I doubt it is that pertinent to this point of contention).
2. As long as any person and affiliated groups are correctly qualified and we get a sense as to the general scope, yes. I'm writing that as some who is, genuinely, unfamiliar with these debates, so your writing are aimed largely for people like me (but also for people without a cursory grasp of Middle Eastern and Islamic history). Yes, the quotations are excessive, and the dialogical exchanges are problematic.
3. I'm not entirely following that; I'm unsure it responds to my point. 4. Ditto. 5. I hoped for a response, regardless of retractions, but okay. El_C 20:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I removed in my recent edit. I did some research about the word "Orientalist". Yes, Edward Said used it and he was criticized on that point by Lewis:

"In a blistering review, Bernard Lewis, whose considerable and impressive scholarship is subjected to a sharp critique in Orientalism, accused Said of “poisoning” and “polluting” Orientalism’s true history and meaning. Orientalism, he argued, was an archaic term that the Orientalists themselves abandoned in 1973 because it no longer described accurately their scholarly concerns. The contemporary scholarship, he suggested, had become too diverse and bore little resemblance to its nineteenth-century predecessor, which, in turn, also scarcely resembled Said’s Orientalism.... While most early reviews by experts were loath to accept the identification of Orientalism as a discourse of power, Said’s analysis also struck a favorable chord. Michael Dalby, contributing to the review symposium in the Journal of Asian Studies, endorsed Said’s definition of Orientalism as a discourse, and wrote: “At a minimum, I would insist, nobody should think he is making it all up.” Talal Asad pointed out perceptively that Orientalism was “not only a catalogue of Western prejudices about and misrepresentations of Arabs and Muslims,” but primarily an analysis of the “authoritative structure of Orientalist discourse — the closed, self-evident, self-confirming character of that distinctive discourse which is reproduced again and again through scholarly texts, travelogues, literary works of imagination, and the obiter dicta of public men of affairs."

El_C, it seems that you want to address the issue at a deeper level. For that matter, I need to spend time doing research. So, I may be late in my responses. Peace --Aminz 01:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Block of 82.207.116.180

I wish you had not blocked 82.207.116.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), because while cut-and-paste moves are bad, the underlying issue was a content dispute with that other user. While you blocked this person I was protecting both pages and leaving them messages requesting they come to an agreemtnt on page naming. Blocking just one of them makes it appear to favor one side of the dispute. —dgies_c 19:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not block him for just that; the 2ndry block summary is not working, it seems, but my explanation there spoke about the user's refusal to communicate (i.e. removing comments from the account's talk page without comment). El_C 19:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"sigh"

Is there anyway I get ANOTHER block on the Stoopid Monkey page? I have requests into 2 admins (in case one is offline) for assitance in this matter and I am taking it to admin before reverting further, as I am not exactly sure how to handle this. - SVRTVDude 03:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think those logos list belong in the article (about a production company), it looks uneven and resembles {{trivia}}; I don't think he should have been the one to remove it; I don't think you should have been the one to restore it. El_C 18:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion:) I am working with another admin and the users who contributed to the AfD that was once on that page (result was "keep") and we are working on a way to incorporate the explanation lines/links into the Robot Chicken episode list. There is an example in the Stoopid Monkey talk page (first chart, sans the link at the moment). I am honestly trying and not just pointlessly edit warring. - SVRTVDude 22:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Great user page!

Made my day! Now I want to sing:

И Ленин такой молодой,

И юный Октябрь впереди!

Arcfrk 03:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

And the battle continues, comrade!
Fraternally, El_C 04:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Winograd Commission

When referring to the Israeli legislature should one refer to "the Knesset" or just "Knesset"? Perspicacite 05:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The Knesset. El_C 07:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

אולי עדיף:

120 המושחתים ?

Zeq 21:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Works for me; I think כישלונרים is too charitable of a description. El_C 21:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

המפקד

תה יכול למצוא מקור טוב יותר מיהוא

שאלה לי אליך שלא קשורה ישירות

מה אתה מפיק מכך שהסיפור הזה כעת מופיע בצורה יותר מצונזרת באנצקלופדיה

הרי ראית שזה מקור טוב רויטרס ושהם מספרים מה חמאס מחנך

שזה בין היתר להרג יהודים כמוני וכמוך

אז מה בדיוק הנסיון להסתיר חלק מהעובדות נותן לך

אני פשוט מתעניין כי גם אני כמוך נגד הכיבוש ונגד צבא שמוליך ממשלות למלחמה ועוד ועודאבל לא מבין מדוע אנשים כמוך מנסים לסנגר על חמאס תנסה להסביר לי מה אינני מבין נכון תודה Zeq 21:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I am offering no such defense, but that is simply not an encyclopedic summary of Hamas' propaganda arm, and only encompases one of its functions. If you use such a borad title, one expects a much higher level of generalization, not just a single isolated activity (!). בברכה, El_C 21:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

fair enough and logical. see my changes. לילה טוב Zeq 21:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hamas loyalists launched the Al Aqsa satellite channel last year. Bearded young men read the news, often offering live news broadcasts. Islamic music is layered over footage of masked militants firing rockets into Israel. But the channel also broadcasts talk shows, programs about the disabled and cartoons. Zeq 21:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I just watched that clip. That is deeply disturbing. El_C 21:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

אתה מצביע בבחירות ?

מה לדעתך הצבעתי ? בעיניך אני ימין שמאל או מרכז ? Zeq 21:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea, but I would guess centre. No, I do not. The bullet not the ballot. El_C 21:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

yes I figured you don't vote. I am a typical meretz voter more Ran Cohen and Beilin than Galon. I am a big fan of Beilin plan - I guess you would prefer Bishara ? (no offense meant) Zeq 21:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have guessed it from your edits. No, Bishara is a revisionist, I expect more principled conduct when it comes to the red banner. El_C 21:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

is nice cooperation ( thank you) which I never thought would be possible between us.... too bad ArbCom going to cut this soon. I started to enjoy the friendship. Zeq 21:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, I appreciate the kind words. Ask any of the old timers, and they will tell you that I have always been at the forefront of combatting antisemitism and religious fundamentalism, and am resolutely against the arbitrary killings of civilians which I consider to be terrorism (State terrorism too, though), and that such acts are as far apart from revolutionary armed-struggle as is conceivable. בברכה, El_C 22:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

בכיף.

אני נגד כל הרג

אז אם אני מבין אותך נכון אתה תומך במאבק כמו של הנתיב הזוהר או בציאפס אבל לא בטרור של החמאס

אני איתך לחלוטין בקשר לטרור של מדינות

זה לא משנה אם זה ישראל או סודן - מה שעושים לאזרחים זה מחליא. Zeq 05:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I support the PCP; the EZLN were never truly revolutionary, and they've become increasingly reformist as of late. I agree, though I would add that those who criticize Israeli State terror but do not speak out against the much more severe atrocities in the DRC and Sudan likely have a questionable agenda. I adhere to the premise that these all follow from imperialist domination. El_C 21:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

אני מסכים איתך בקונגו המצב הוא מזעזע מיליונים נהרגו שם מאז 2000

זה בדיוק אחת הבעיות שלי - אני מאמין שיש מי שמרכז תשומת לב עולמית בישראל לא שאנחנו בסדר אנחנו גרועים מאוד אבל תשומת לב עולמית שמופנית לכאן מאפשרת לזוועות אחרות להמשיך Zeq 09:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it certainly contributes to the double standard; although there are important (and somewhat obvious) reasons for this emphasis, too. El_C 20:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Japan

• Would you mind discuss before deleate 'cause i've shown proof

• The tone is not encyclopedic. Please use the article's talk page. El_C 23:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Hi, I was just experimenting with editing wikipedia pages, but didn't want to use the sandbox. Is it required that I use the sandbox? Please reply here. Thanks. LionheartX 02:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. No, it just looked funny. Don't worry about it. El_C 02:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Republic of Macedonia

Hi El C,

I'd be grateful if you could have a look at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (Republic of Macedonia-related articles), which is intended to establish a consistent basis for naming RoM-related articles across Misplaced Pages. I'd appreciate your views on it. -- ChrisO 19:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. No problem. I'll try to review it soon. El_C 21:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Heaven of Transnistria

I don't agree with your closure of MFD about my sandbox. It was not a consensus about deletion, this is just part of a harassment campaign against me. I proved that I've used parts of the sandbox in Misplaced Pages articles. If you don't agree to change your mind (as an other admin agreed at Future Perfect at Sunrise request), please tell me how I can ask a review of this MFD.--MariusM 00:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

As proofs that it was no consensus: in first debate proposed by sockpuppeteer Mauco, where deletionist camp cheated (sockpuppet Pernambuco voted also claiming to be "neutral"), majority was against deletion. Then Future Perfect at Sunrise, who participated at first debate, proposed again for deletion, he didn't received support, debate was closed again but reopened at Sunrise specific request . He told that the closure of the debate is "a sensible decision to me". Why is so sensible for Future Perfect at Sunrise the fate of a sandbox? He is not a neutral person, he is harrassing me, as I already explained . Anyhow, even in this second debate, the majority was against deletion: 2 keep, 2 delete and 1 neutral in first week, 4 keep (Biruitorul, Turgidson, The Giant Puffin and Dpotop) and 3 delete after relisting. Obviously, there was no consensus for deletion, please review the closure. I've put a lot of effort in this sandbox, many afirmations there are sourced (for example, the fact that Igor Smirnov was born in Siberia, not in Transnistria, and that members of his family have important roles in the political and economic life of the region - this is one of afirmations that Future Perfect at Sunrise considered OR and POVpushing - is not POV, is the undeniable truth which nobody denied with the exception of ignorants about Transnistria, it was my mistake I didn't provide source at begining, I didn't think that for such a well known fact a source is needed but afterwards I provided also source Official Journal of the European Union), I've used this sandbox for other articles and I want to use it further. I hope we can solve the problem with dialogue, what I am asking is just to accept the obvious result of debate - there was "no consensus", else I am forced to ask a review of your closure.--MariusM 12:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

xfD is not a vote and drafts/workpages are not meant to be so rantish when it comes to an issue as heated as this. This was the opinion expressed, substantively, by those opting to delete, whereas as I deemed the arguments posed by those who favoured keeping the page to have generally been superficial and unresponsive to the nominator original claim. The mere fact that you are continuing with the "campaign of harrassment" rhetoric tells me, as an uninvolved admin overseeing the Transnitrian dispute, of the disruptive impact brought by such a page, which is symptomatic of the mode of interaction between the two side. I, of course, am committed to equal treatment (so if editors from the other side have similar pages, let me know), but am opposed to the lowering of our dispute resolution standards, the reason there is an ongoing arbitration case. On that front, and in answer to your question, you may seek review of the closure either by the Arbitration Committee or at the community's deletion review (or both, I suppose). El_C 19:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have tentatively deleted this page following your consensus finding in the MFD. Don't worry about contacting me if you want to restore it for some reason. Cheers!--Chaser - T 16:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I forgot. El_C 19:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi El C, any suggestion on how to deal with User:Dc76/Sandbox now? It's a virtually identical copy of the same material that I only discovered yesterday. Do we just assume the same MfD decision goes for it too, or do we need to go through yet another MfD for it? The sandbox owner was aware of the ongoing MfD, as he has been discussing it with Marius on his talkpage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, although the material is the same, it is set out as an actual workpage. But, if the articles which it proposes face little chance of being authored (and/or kept), then it needs to go. That it was formed during the MfD is not necessarily problematic, although it may well be — I would have to review the facts closely before forming an opinion. You may launch another MfD if you feel that these warrant such action. El_C 19:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't formed recently, it had been around in parallel with the other one all along since the mainspace article was deleted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; at a glance, it looks likely that MariusM copied its contents and added the recycled jokes and so on. This should be sorted out and accounted for in the arbitration case. Are you going to do this or should I? (the former? Good!) Thanks in advance. El_C 20:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The whole thing including the bad jokes had been authored by Marius and EvilAlex in their mainspace article sometime last year, and then when that was deleted both Marius and Dc copied it into their userspace. I've left Dc a note and am hoping he might be reasonable and agree to removing it voluntarily. I feel he's been relatively constructive in the discussion on the Transnistria article, so I'm not overly keen on branding him as one of the tendentious troublemakers on the Arbcom case because of this issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let me know how it goes. El_C 22:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:MariusM/Heaven of Transnistria. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

I will continue with the "harassment campaign" rethoric because this is exactly how I feel and I consider my right to tell what I feel. Is not my habit to give up at intimidation attempts.--MariusM 12:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You do not have a right to disrupt Misplaced Pages, but that is exactly what you are doing. El_C 18:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sysop

Thanks! For a moment, I got really scared that I would be gone for good.--Jiang 01:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Glad to have you back! El_C 19:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: BetacommandBot

I only leave one notice per image, and Ive fixed the recent in the upload. Betacommand 03:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I just could'nt wrap my mind around that recent. Yes, you're right, that wasn't a duplicate notice, sorry about that. El_C 19:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Shotgun

Hey El C, can you take a look at the shotgun article and let me know what you think of a couple new user contributions on slang and zombie whacking? Looks like vandalism from message board users but unsure so I'm looking for help/opinion on this one.-- I already forgot  talk  16:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look. El_C 19:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Not the help I was looking for but tag you added was much needed. Looks like the user is using multiple socks...I'll take it up on the appropriate page. Thanks -- I already forgot  talk  19:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The Order of Christ Sophia

Hello, We have added references to the article The Order of_Christ Sophia. Could you please let us know if this is adequate and if not, what else can we do? Thank you, Guillaume.

Hi. Sorry, but those look like either unreliable sources, or in other instances, ones that do not touch on the subject, directly. Thx. El_C 18:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The sources we put are independent of the Order and from well known professors in their field. What else would you suggest we add? We thought that readers would have been interested in the research study done on the group. Best,

Well, from these citations (those ones which are reliable, I would like to see quotes that refer to this movement, by name. El_C 20:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello EL_C:

We have made some changes and used quotations from reliable sources. Please let us know if this works for you.

Thank you,

Guillaume

I'm sorry, but that is not coventional. See any other relatively-established entry on a religion to see what sort of format is needed — if you fail to undertake this review, then I will conclude that the conflict of interest is too great for you to approach the topic objectively. At the moment, I'm inclined to delete the entry since there is still no reliable source mentioning this Order (I want a quotations from a reliable source that states the name of the order, let's start with that). I'll give you, say, a week to set that up, but feel free to start now. Good luck. El_C 22:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've been away for a month, but I did get a chance to speak briefly with Prof. Lewis, who did gave me the impression that the subject is sufficiently covered in the professional literature. Now that I'm back, I have the time to more substantively explain to him our standards of notability and how to best meet these for this particular subject (although, I should note, it will not differ from what I have asked for thus far). At any case, I'll attend to it within the next few days and will keep you updated on any developments. Regards, El_C 05:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

first indochina war protection

lol i really wonder on which side you are... :) Shame On You 20:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Please use normal capitalization for sentences; this is not a chatroom. El_C 20:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Ustasa

I seriously doubt that the person with your kind of political affiliations is the one to judge were red army / partisans "liberated" anything -88.85.134.121

Liberation is the term used when it comes to Nazi or Nazi-affiliated forces; your changes are crudely pov. El_C 23:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I call bullshit on that, its nothing more than communist propaganda to say that reds 'liberated' any areas outside russias own. I admit that I could have used a better term but liberation? -Hardly. Just a switch from another occupier to another.

Please exercize greater restraint with your tone. The act of defeating the Nazis is known in the historiography as "liberated," what happened after is another matter. If your sole aim on Misplaced Pages is to change liberated to something else, without drawing on the scholarship, that strikes me as disruptive. El_C 23:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria: Workshop page

Hi, your input on Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria/Workshop will be welcome. Time to get this case forward, I think. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I forgot to respond but I did look at it a few days ago. I'm not sure I have much to add at this time. Looks like a well-rounded approach. El_C 10:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Advice on Cats

Hi El C. Somebody has created a new category which I'm not keen on. I wonder whether you could advise me on what to do since I'm not familiar with the Wiki ways of discussing cats. Thanks, WikiJonathanpeter 21:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. That title is misleading (feline-wise!). Anyway, if you don't feel the new category merits inclusion, you can propose it to be deleted here. El_C 22:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Your intervention re LoPbN

You responded to me at Misplaced Pages talk:Miscellany for deletion/List of people by name#Discussion of suspension of MfD discussion. You've confused me enuf that i'm going to respond here clause by clause:

To your saying:

I am not going to respond at length to this line of argument...

I must comment that i don't remember requesting or expecting response; i you see me as seeming otherwise; please say so & i will find time to review.

El C:

and I caution against being so defensive and plead for greater introspection.

J:

"Defensive" is impossible to respond unless i find myself to have been irrational in my defense of myself, which i do not at the moment. A request for "greater introspection" can be complied with, but i believe myself to be unusually introspective and doubt that plea is of any use to me in that open ended form.

El C:

I did, as well, expect greater efforts toward clear and lucid expression.

J:

Expect of whom?

It's regretful to see that few if any lessons appear to have been drawn.

Unless you are regretful about what you did, please say what you find regrettable, and hint further about who might draw them, and better yet, what lessons.

OK, now i feel defensive, but i've got to run with it: The above is not intended to be sarcastic, nor am i trying to play dumb, but i can't see how to receive what you are trying to communicate if you are going to do it in little more than winks and nudges. Please risk offending me if necessary.
--Jerzy•t 21:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I am opting not to issue a comment at this time, sorry. El_C 22:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Advice on cats (2)

Pet furiously. Bishonen | talk 22:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC).

Now that's what I'm looking for! El_C 22:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

haha! though you made me go through page history to see the proper reply! Thanks again El_C. It appears that many people have beaten me to it but I'll know what to do next time. :o) WikiJonathanpeter 12:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone forgot to add a 2 to the section header! El_C 16:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Advice on caps (1)

Sorry, I knew the headers needed to be different, but I thought the Cats versus cats would do it! Bishonen | talk 01:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

I blame cats who wear caps and are armed with caps. El_C 12:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

References

Thank you for your help with reference I will see if I can't figure it out. KAM 17:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'm sure you will. El_C 17:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Man you are just too quick for me...

...on the old spam hunt. I reckon I only got maybe one or two of old 70.251.55.99's rodeo spam links. I found 'em first - dammit it was my spam, all mine! I thought it was gunna take me half an hour to get rid of them - but nope EI C had smacked the lot in a couple of minutes.
Great job. :-) Paxse 17:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! The magic of rollback: it took me five seconds. :) El_C 17:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Now that definitely makes me jealous - here I am on the Worlds Slowest Net Connection and you're zooming around with super powers - at least you dig Che - so you can't be all bad then. Nice pics on your page too. See ya round. Paxse 18:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, Misplaced Pages was faster for me when I had a 3Mbit connection than the 10Mbit one I have one (also interestingly, I'm paying nearly half for the latter — go figure. No complaints to my ISP, well aside from them being idiots, but none speed or price-wise, at least). El_C 12:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You really don't want to know - 60 bucks a month here buys you a 56k (not a typo) DSL connection with a 400/500mb limit - that's throughput! I'm on a different plan with unlimited (but painfully slow) access from 8pm 'till 8 am and on weekends. That costs an extra 40 smackers. Bringing the total to $100 US per month for this torture. Sometimes I miss the First World :) Paxse 13:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. I'm paying about $30 for 10Mbit. Bandwidth is dirt cheap where I am. They simply can't get rid of it fast enough. El_C 13:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Barnstar

Thanks a lot for this most unexpected barnstar. Writing a physics lead that everyone can agree upon has proved to be a very difficult task. There are many ways to approach physics, whether it be from a philosophical, historical, simple-minded, or mathematical perspective. It is hard to cover all the bases in a lead compliant to WP:LEAD. As such, there seems to be a natural progression of making the lead smaller and smaller, to its current state which mirrors most dictionary definitions. I believe this is probably the best we can do for now.. a few editors have been working behind the scenes on a new article and lead.. we'll have to see how that turns out. I intend to help them where I can. Keep up the good work on the vandal front! Danski14 18:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Sometimes, the only way you can introduce an entry of such an immense magnitude is with a lead that condenses it to the utmost level of generalization. As such, I found your solution to have been rather brilliant. Well deserved! El_C 18:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

For doing what might very well be the most unthankful job

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I award you this prestigious RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your hard work in keeping Misplaced Pages a better place to visit, and looking out for a friend. Keep up the good work, Champion — G.A.S 15:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not often that I'm called champion. I like that. :) Many thanks! El_C 20:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Precedence / consensus

You have deleted "Famous Chandigarhians " section in the Chandigarh article ? Is there a precedence and consensus against there being a personality section in city articles ? If you could let me know of links where this has been discussed and the conclusion arrived at it would help me Haphar 15:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of, aside from being bold in not wanting our city articles to look like lists of people/companies/etc. In some cases, where the list is relatively brief and filled with people who actually have articles, I may leave it alone. Otherwise, I want it scorched with fire. And as for lists of notable people in country articles, those I just nuke from orbit. For some reason the practice is most prevalent —and also most susceptible to spam— on Indian city articles (I know because I have all cities over 500,000 on my watchlist). I have no idea why. El_C 20:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder

If you could, please continue to keep an eye on this article and its talk page. Right now we have two editors (and some IPs) involved in an edit war. One pretty much refuses to discuss any of his unsupported changes and the other hurls personal insults at anyone who disagrees with him (Undog and Simplemines respectively). I just don't know how to start an effective dialog with two people who don't seem interested in compromise and firmly believe that they are the sole possessor of The Truth. Perhaps I'm exaggerating, but I really don't see how we can make that talk page a productive tool to help shape the article. Any help or advice is of course appreciated. AniMate 16:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think you're exaggerating. That talk page is becoming far too heated. I'll see what I can do. El_C 19:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. At this point anything I say is pretty much thrown back at me in the form of a personal attack. It's made debate and discussion impossible, as it looks like Simplemines is more interested in proving that I'm biased or corrupt rather than working on any compromise. AniMate 19:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. There's certainly too much innuendo tainting the debate; I'll try to keep an eye on it. Please keep me posted as well. El_C 19:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Palestine

WikiProject Palestine is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Start by adding your name to the list of members at WikiProject Palestine. Ahlan wa Sahlan! (Welcome!)

Sorry, I don't do wikiprojects, in general. But I'll keep an eye. Thanks for the note. Regards, El_C 20:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Triad

So you are a selfproclaimed master of what the triads are up to and think you know better than the general public. Good work, NOT! Thanks for deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.27.51 (talk • contribs)

We're-doing-what-now? El_C 20:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Happy El C's Day!

El C has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as El C's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear El C! Love, Phaedriel 00:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

Thanks, Phaedriel! Great to have you back, btw. :) Listen, I am facing some harrassment right now, I feel, on the administrator noticeboard. Any attention you could spare the matter would be greatly appreciated. Once again, thanks! Much love, El_C 01:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, that should do it :) Now on to more pleasant stuff! It's great to see you and talk to you again, El C - and I hope you liked the selection of the poem I made specially for you. The very minute I read it, I thought "This is El C!" We have much catching up to do, and I promise we will do it; but right now, it's your special day, and I want you to be the Star today, and enjoy and seize every minute of it. Be happy today, my friend! Missed you dear comrade ;) Love, Phaedriel - 02:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I loved it; great choice! :) Yes, we have a lot of catching up to do; drop me an emailine any time. Thank you for your balanced words on the noticeboard, although I'm afraid that they may be wasted on this red-baiting single purpose editor (who is far from a "common Wikipedian," as he claims) who appears to be facing imminent censur from the AC. He seems to have decided to invoke my userpage as a cause d'célèbre in his failed ethno-national campaign (as always, the ethno-national disputes remain the most difficult articles to deal with on the project, but someone has to do it). Once again, many thanks for your recognition and affection! El_C 19:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope I'm not too late to wish you a happy El C Day! bibliomaniac15 05:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Happy El_C Day! - NeutralHomer 15:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You are not! Many thanks to you both! El_C 19:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Happy Day! sorry I'm late to the party - KillerChihuahua 00:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Khirbet Sharta Reference

Please visit Talk:Khirbet Sharta to explain why you deleted the external link. Thank you in advance.--Funhistory 22:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. El_C 00:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian people

People did not use the time granted by your protection of the article to reach consensus. The edit wars have resumed again. What can be done? Tiamut 14:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The edit wars didn't "resume"; you ignored the Talk: page, and continued in your a-historical way, using bad sources to write original research. Now you're trying to get it protected on your version again. Jayjg 14:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I left this message fopr Jayjg on his talk page, which he also promptly deleted, explaining my problems with his edits: . I need help. This constant deletion of material, even when adequately sourced constitutes vandalism and harassment. How can I get these issues addressed? Tiamut 14:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've explained this many times; you can't build original research based on bad sources and expect it to stay in articles. You're making a-historical claims that substitute faith/politics for history, based on what amateurs wrote in the 1920s and 1930s, or on travel guides written for backpackers. It won't do. And please desist from false claims of vandalism; WP:VANDAL is quite clear, and reverting your attempts to fill Misplaced Pages with biased original research based on bad sources is actually enforcing Misplaced Pages policy. Jayjg 14:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And when you restore introductions that misrepresent sources after it has been painstakingly pointed out on the talk pages, what is that Jayjg? Or when you delete material sourced to an authority on a subject like Rashid Khalidi, what is that Jayjg? Or when you pretend that everything another editor adds is something that is outdated, even though you provide no evidence to back up that assertion, what is that Jayjg? Or rearrange an article completely without discussion? What is that Jayjg? I call it vandalism and I stand by that characterization. Further, you single-minded focus on my edits and your support for User:Itzse's unsourced claims further demonstrates your hypocrisy and shows that you just like to harass me without any solid basis. Tiamut 15:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, Tiamut, you need to execize greater restraint: the "lying," "hypocricy," and "vandalism" charges cross the line. I reiterate what I wrote to you upon protecting the page: that the onus is on you to demonstrate that this view enjoys scholarly consensus if you present it as such. From what I could see, you have yet to begin this process in a comprehensive and comprehensible way. Thus, when Jay asks you "which of your sources come from the 1980s or later, and were written by professional historians or archeologists, and assert that Palestinians are Canaanites?" that's a valid question and it dserves a substantive and pointed answer. El_C 00:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Kerala

Hi! I happened to notice that you removed that web link ("first webpage on Kerala," I think it was). Before you removed it, I was wondering whether or not to remove it myself! Out of curiosity, what made you remove it? --Kuaichik 14:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I saw that it was clearly t's a personal page; was added also to Malayalam language. El_C 21:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Free speech dispute

There is an ongoing free speech dispute here with some editors rallying against the inclusion of links to rat worship saying its offensive. Your input is appreciated. Anwar 16:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try to review it soon. El_C 21:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Your call

Yoy may not be lost but I certainly am. I see you reasoning with Hemlock Martinis - thanks - don't worry too much, the "Curse of Giano" normally descends sooner or later. Giano 09:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Np; and not to worry, I'm not! — but that was a peculiar explanation on his or her part, to sa ythe least. El_C 09:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Pfagerburg

User talk:Pfagerburg - you might like to clarify the block reason, he thinks it was for trolling. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It was for a seemingly unhealthy fascination with Merkey (about 20 out of the account's total of 30 edits). El_C 11:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cool Cat

Although you unprotected the page for it, Centrix is contesting my edits. I was wondering your opinion on the matter. -- Cat 00:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought that there was something broken, but now I realize that that wasn't entirely the case. I'm not comfortable that there is no redirect and that one would have to search through your fairly crowded user page to find out your Coolcat username link (at a glance, I couldn't find it — if it would be immediately visible though, I'd have no problem with this approach). In short, it comes across as trying to cover your tracks, whether that is the intention or not. My advise, then, would be for no one to revert over these changes, but for you to make it much more clear on your userpage that for years you were known as cool, not white, cat. Hope this helps. Best, El_C 00:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I can gladly clarify more. What did you have in mind? I even have links to my former block logs on my userpage.

What I am trying to do is exact opposite of covering my tracks. If I desired such a thing I would just register a new account. At the specific case I was "White Cat" to begin with and still am White Cat. I was merely changing a "/sig" to a "/07" as there are only 3 pages using it. As for User:Cool Cat page I would be more than willing to seek a compromise but other parties are not even willing to consider alternative suggestions. -- Cat 00:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it's at the top of the page. I'm not sure how I missed it. I retract what I said above. El_C 00:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, at all. What do you think of Centrix's revert? -- Cat 00:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not think they were particularly helpful. El_C 01:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, how do you recommend I approach this problem: Special:Whatlinkshere/User talk:White Cat/sig. I want all 3 of those pages to directly link to /07 rather than /sig but centrix won't allow it. -- Cat 01:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend you let it go (and if he were to pose to me the flipside of that questions, I'd say the same thing). Three pages (especially) are just not worth all this time and energy. El_C 01:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

While I would agree with you that they are not worthy it, I also am a perfectionist :). I am merely trying to tidy my "what links here". The edit itself doesn't cost me any time and energy. -- Cat 01:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The fine line between perfectionism and OCD, she is a harsh mistress! ;) El_C 01:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

OCD may be the case :), I really think me editing those two archives should be a no-issue. I also do not want to go to mediation (much less arbitration) over this. I am trying to figure out the right median. -- Cat 01:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a nonissue, as is doing nothing. Sorry, that's about as much energy that I, at least, am willing to devote the issue. G'luck. El_C 01:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Yom111

Hey, thanks for blocking the sockpuppet (of User:Hagos) and vandal Yom111 for me. One question, though. Did you also delete his account? I can't find a deletion of the User page in the deletion log, but none of his contributions come up at Special:Contributions/Yom111. What's more, none of my reverts of his edits show up under my contribution page. Both show up (showed up in the case of Yom111) on my watchlist, though, and one of the edits also included the reversal of a test by an IP on Ethiopia, and therefore should have shown up in my contributions anyway. It can't be database lag, could it? Do you have any idea what's going on here?

P.S. I just checked my contributions after posting this, and neither of my two edits to this page (now three) showed up on my contributions page, so it could be a database problem. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 00:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Yes, database lag. Hopefuly, it will be fixed soon. See this thread for detail. Regards, El_C 00:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Lag

Hey El C, have the Wiki TechGeeks figured out what caused the massive lag or if it'll happen again? - NeutralHomer 02:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey. I dunno. I don't think it caused that much damage. An announcement will be forthcoming, I'm sure. El_C 02:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Okie Dokie....if it is posted on another page (and not a mass post), let me know. Take Care...NeutralHomer 03:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The lag is back. - NeutralHomer 05:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Might just be some residual (sp?) effects. - NeutralHomer 05:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Spam

Hi, El C. Have a look here. He's doing it again. Ekki01 16:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Got it. El_C 18:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Brazil

Hi, I'm trying to edit the article about Brazil. It seems to me that the Brazilian constitution is mentioned way too many times during the entry (as you may verify), and that the footnotes required are actually on quality stuff, not a mere repetition of sources to increase the number of footnotes. No intention to vandalise!

Hello again. My main question: why is it a problem that different articles of the constitution are used as citations many times? It dosen't take much space. At any rate, please use edit summaries so we can better tell the reasons behind each edit. Hope this helps. Thanks. El_C 00:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought bold changes were good and needed. But I agree on the edit summaries point.

They are; still, I'm wandering why you felt citing those articles was a problem. El_C 00:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

They are unnecessarily repetitive - once mentioned, one would know the source. Moreover, I don't believe similar country articles have the same standard for national constitutions. Please see Argentina and Chile for instance.

I don't have a strong opinion for or against their inclusion, but do you not think it is somewhat useful that the reader can corrolate which claim is defined where in the constitution? El_C 00:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The link is in Portuguese anyway, so I wonder to what extent a reader can corrolate what she can find for herself. But if you so believe it should stay, there it shall stay then :) I just suspected that this exponential inclusion of footnotes had to do with some user trying to include the article in the "good article" listing, a self-candidature that didn't work out very well as you can find in the discussion page. Someone had suggested the article had more footnotes and less photos so it could become a candidate again, which sounds random enough a criterion to me. But I might as well be wrong.

Possibly; I think it might be of some usefuleness, but I leave it at your discretion. El_C 03:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Core-Plus article

Thanks much, El C, for your attention to the Core-Plus article. I've kind of been watching over it because opponents had distorted it a bit in the past. Feels like it's more balanced now. Though at some point someone may need to look at the reliability of sources, such as the discussion group postings that are cited. TimidGuy 11:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'm not familiar with the topic at all, I just noticed it on the admin noticeboard and gave it a bit of a facelift. Hope things continue to progress toward a balanced exposition. Let me know if there's anything I could do to help. El_C 20:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, El C. Will do. TimidGuy 11:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to NZB

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Misplaced Pages, as you did to NZB. Misplaced Pages is not a mere directory of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Misplaced Pages uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Thank you. -- intgr  22:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yay, my first spam notice! Time to celebrate! El_C 22:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I replied at user talk:intgr. -- intgr  22:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Replied. Let's continue the discussion there. El_C 22:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Success

You wrote Actually, the "success" is largely rooted in medieval laws that for hundreds of years restricted Jews to, and developed their specialization in, finance, banking, and other interest-related occupations which were prohibited to Christians. That, as well as a tradition which stresses literacy and education, and especially in the 20th Century, the scientific professions. Nothing mystical, genetic, or otherwise racially-dervied to it. Your comment about "hav America by the balls" and so on, is inflamatory and provocational, and the talk page, in any case, is not a chat room. El_C 07:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Throw it on the Jew talkpage, that's what it's there for! Kind regards --222.155.180.100 07:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not what it's there for. I just added {{talkheader}}. Please review the top two sentences. El_C 07:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

To elaborate somewhat: these type of questions, excluding the "got America by the balls" provocations, are better suited for the Reference Desk than an article's talk page (unless it pertains to something that is directly related to the article, in a specific and concerete way). El_C 07:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi! This is most likely an Aukland IP of a blocked user Hayden5650. There also another IP used by him, 202.124.103.146. Should a bureaucrat confirm this? Because this user is breaching the ban with further disruptive edits. Thank you, Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 08:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Not a bureaucrat per se. (they are not mandated to make such confirmations), but feel free to file a user check (although their usefulness often proves rather limited). Let me know if there's any further disruption, pressing or otherwise. Thanks. Regards, El_C 09:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I made a user check at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Hayden5650. Do you think it looks OK the request? The idea is that this user must understand that the disruptive and racist editing cannot go indefinitely. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 09:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

On a cursory glance (and having had little experience with the user), I think it looks fine. Thanks you for efforts! Regards, El_C 09:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks too. Regards, Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 09:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not understand your reasoning

The extrenal link comply with policy. True that there are no other links and thus it is given a "highlighted" place so feel free to add other links but please don't delete material that comply with policy. You may want to read the link I am sure you will find what to add to the article and thuse use the lionk as refernce. Zeq 09:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this somewhat rhetorically-sounding "comply with policy" really advances your argument. Again, I ask: why this link? Would it not be better to keep newspapers as refs and have these as more scholarly-centered. See a somewhat similar argument on Mountain Meadows massacre. El_C 09:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain your logic to remove it ? maybe if I understand we can progress. Have you read the newspaper article ? Zeq 12:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I have not read it closely. But at a glance, it did not seem like an overview of the subject. Do you find it serves such a role? El_C 12:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It adds an intersting view point which started from psychlogical angle and go to direct impression from Palestinian kids. It teaches about the society attitude. maybe some of the direct quote could be added to the article. Zeq 13:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, in my opinion, if it's a more focused piece, then try to summarize some of what it says and use it as reference; if, however, it's a general overview of the subject/practice, then there's no problem with it being the only ext. link in the entry. El_C 13:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I may well have been convinced that it merits inclusion in that section, irrespectively of the above, but I am dissapointed that you reverted before exhausting that possibility. El_C 13:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a lesson that we both learned. If comunication is possible to avoid revert....Zeq 13:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You, as the person who introduced the new changes, should have waited a bit longer. Please be more patient in the future. Thanks. El_C 13:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No I disagree. Don't revert. that is first of all rude. I am not going to run every edit to your approval. If you disagree - discuss. I am open to many changes.

Do you have anything to do with the disapreance of "Pigs and Apes" I can not find the deletion log ? Zeq 17:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what that is, but the log is here. No time to review it, either. I gotta go. El_C 17:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Tnx. Are you having a good week ? Noticed how very few "celebrating" the 40 years "victory" and the mood is more refelctive than festive ? Zeq 06:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I was having a difficult week. Still am. I'm unable to elaborate at this time, though. El_C 20:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the hint

Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Np. I'll respond on your talk page. El_C 12:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

the centralized page has the disadvantage, that admins can just come in and delete it

Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm a big fan in centralizing discussions. El_C 20:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Serbia/ bias

Hi mate, I was the one who put that argumentative edit on the Racak page -- sorry, it was irresponsible of me and you were right to delete it, but don't you think there's a point there? I mean, it just seems unbalanced to only assume the Serbs would be biased when NATO was clearly gearing up for a war with them... (not suggesting that you think this -- actually, I was stoked to see your far-Left imagery :-) -- but it seems to be common to this topic) Anyway, apologies again for the uncool edit -- be interested to know your thoughts though. Cheers 172.216.147.84 15:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I do have an identity -- just hadn't logged in. Chat on my talk page if you want. (Although this is only an invitation, of course! You may not want another discussion :-) Jonathanmills 15:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, they sure DUmped a lot of Uranium. It was, of course, largely a proxy war, with both sides following the orders of their imperialist puppetmasters. El_C 15:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

MEK-related Articles

Thanks for fixing those articles. I don't know if you pay attention, but every month or so someone replaces the articles with content from the group's websites. It gets really annoying after a while. Dchall1 16:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I have not been. Which isn't to say I am not amazed at how low they have sunk, in every possible respect. Please keep me updated. El_C 16:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that IP you blocked (193.219.246.199) is back, and still making the same edits. Could you block him a little longer or semi-protect People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran please? Dchall1 18:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm on it. El_C 20:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

what do you think

about this: Zeq 09:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Brutal. El_C 20:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Reporting user incivility

Hello! I'm having a problem with an uncivil user, user: Dscarth. I met user Dscarth on the yogurt talk page. Dscarth was having a very nasty argument with Danielfolsom about whether the name of the page should be switched and it was going on and on so I thought that by commenting, I could help out. I point out that Dscarth's comment about Daniel may not be fallacious which was true if you look here ]

However, after that Dscarth responds on Daniel's page about me with this: For the record I have no actual anger or ill will towards you. For clarity, by 'you' I mean danielfolsom, not EHC. I think the whole debate was a dead end from the get-go, because if you cant get a reasonably large number of editors one way or the other then nothing happens. I'll keep an eye on it, and if there is a significant push for "no H" then I'll be there.

I only give him a warning for that and tell him to refrain from using incivility towards me, however that doesn't work. He only becomes even more uncivil towards me and responds with 2 more cases of incivility:

1. He writes: Go ahead and report me. I think you need to seek professional medical attention, a psychologist may be able to help you work through what you're dealing with

2. He writes: Furthermore, you are coming up onto our talk pages trying to start shit', and warn me for something I said on a talk page? To quote Wikipedias policy on liking other people, WP:UNCIVIL: "You don't have to like an editor as a person" ... I DONT LIKE YOU.

He can't tell me I can't get involved with a dispute that everyone is supposed to decide on, on the discussion page of an article. It wasn't his dispute. Besides, it was taking up the whole page and someone probably should have got involved with the heated discussion between the two editors. He had no right to make these insults and tell me I can't get involve in decisions that everyone is supposed to help decide. If you would like to see how I responded, it is on his talk page. Thank you EverybodyHatesChris 22:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Btw, he's also just added this a second ago: Don't come up on my talk page to try and start shit with me, end of discussion. Anyone with half a brain can see you are unstable, and seeking professional medical help is probably the best advice you've been given since joining Misplaced Pages.

While some of Dscarth's comments may seem severe based on the selection - EHC has repeatedley threatened to to report Dscarth and has also stated that Dscarth has not been following policies which he clearly has. The only reason I'm giving my input is because he did the same thing to me, and somewhat to the admin Rockpocket (by accusing him of bias for supporting me). I've told this user that should he have to report someone he needs to go to ANI - so sorry this wound up on your talk page when it shouldn't be, I'm not sure why it keeps happening (he also did it to rockpocket). --danielfolsom 02:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No matter how it looks or how EHC paints it, I have no problem at all with Danielfolsom. EHC is trying to be inflammatory. You can safely disregard the issue. --Dscarth 02:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like other admins are attending to it, at any rate. El_C 20:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sea of Japan

I believe the mention of "East Sea" (unbolded, in the intro) was removed in favor of "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" (bolded) in the "dispute" section (at the bottom), in accordance with a previous discussion at Talk:Sea of Japan/Archive 2#Should East Sea be bolded?. Since there was no significant discussion to change that consensus, I will revert your last modification.--Endroit 12:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can see that most tertiary sources (Britannica, Encarta, Columbia, etc., not to mention other-language Wikipedias) have the alternate in their lead. At the event, I just copied the format on the Hebrew Wiki. Please reconsider your approach since it comes across as favouring Japanese nationalism. El_C 20:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User:The Anonymous One

El C, User:The Anonymous One is trolling the talk pages of Muslim editors with massively cross-posted spam. (Though admittedly, I've now cross-posted this compliant to three administrators...)Proabivouac 03:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone else handled this. Regards, El_C 20:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

My RfA :)

Thank you, El C, for commenting on my RfA, which closed successfully with a tally of 76/0/1! I hope I will meet your expectations, and be sure I will continue trying to be a good editor as well as a good administrator :) If I may be of any assistance to you in the future (or if you see me commit some grievous error :), please drop me a line on my Talk page. Again, thank you, and happy editing! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! El_C 20:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Pfagerburg

I can't see why the user is blocked. Could you let me know why he is, please? If I don't hear back, I'll unblock him. Thanks. Neil ╦ 09:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It was for a seemingly unhealthy fascination with Merkey (about 20 out of the account's total of 30 edits). No, you are not to unblock. El_C 09:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? You block him for multiple accounts and now you're claiming something else? This is pointless, we don't block people for having unhealthy fascinations. I'm going to overturn the block. --Hemlock Martinis 09:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Is that a rhetorical question? This counts as wheel warring. El_C 09:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm on IRC and gmail talk if you want to chat. Bishonen 14:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC).

El C, dear, I'm kinda lost here. Who's this gentleman you're talking about, and what's happening? Anything I should know, and how can I help? I'll be around for several hours if you wish to talk, hun, or email me if you prefer, k? Love, Phaedriel - 14:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I blocked this user for being a Merkey-centred SPA. The user offered to be unblocked in return for not editing the user or talk page of Merkey. I asked 'what about the bio and other pages that Merkey frequents,' but before the user responded, the admin whom I chastized for blocking Giano last time and who barely made any recent edits, decides that one of two edits he will make today will be to unblock this user before a response to my querry could be sought. El_C 14:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You've got mail! Love, Phaedriel - 14:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm unable to log in to my email at this time; I'll check it as soon as it becomes available again. Kisses, El_C 14:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd forgotten this was the same fellow who blocked Giano (!) Now he unblocks an attack SPA?

Hemlock Martinis, I strongly suggest you stay away from either button, before people think to take the both away from you.Proabivouac 20:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's because I've been gone for nearly a week, but it dosen't seem that long ago since I chastized him for that. Oh, it wasn't! El_C 20:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Email... again! and count me among those who love you :) Love, Phaedriel - 15:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Copy that! El_C 17:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Brentford

Hi, thanks for reverting the party political links on pages within Brentford. I dropped a note to the editor saying they were likely to be reverted quickly and to consider adding party political links for all local parties to the LBB article, in order to achieve balance. I don't know what your view is, but generally I think they are useful links, but anything less than full coverage incites too much vandalism. Anyway, cheers. Kbthompson 10:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi & thanks for the note. I, more or less, am of the same opinion, which admittedly, I could have phrased somewhat more clearly. Regards, El_C 10:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Nyet ne probleme, perfectly eloquent comrade. Kbthompson 11:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

At last, someone understands me! Thanks. :) El_C 11:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked....

I'm doing something wrong! Why don't I have a couple idiotic indefinite blocks on my block log! Thats no fun!--MONGO 17:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It speaks volume on the lowering of our admin standards. See this talk page for some striking examples. El_C 19:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

El C, I saw your post on the bureaucrats' noticeboard. FYI, the 'crats have no power to desysop someone. There is indication on Shreth91's page that he is retiring and will desysop voluntarily, but if he doesn't and you want to pursue the matter, you need either a steward (if there is a dire emergency situation) or the arbitrators. Newyorkbrad 18:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but I know what I'm doing. El_C 20:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you do, but sometimes it's good for other people to know what you are doing, too. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not following you. El_C 21:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not critically important by any means, but what I meant is that I don't understand why you posted to WP:BN with this concern, knowing that the people who primarily read that board are not empowered to deal with the issue, rather than address the people who do. Newyorkbrad 22:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's just a notice; seemed like as good a plae as any. El_C 22:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: AN taking sides for taking sides' sake

It's not taking sides (for or against) to note that the argument or justification isn't clear enough on reasonable read. If the first read of a situation causes another uninvolved admin to go "huh?", rather than nod head and agree, then the justification and explanation aren't good enough. You're not just writing the conversation for the purposes of the other party - you're also writing it so that other admins can understand what happened and why. If it's confusing enough that we can't tell rapidly, then we have to spend more time looking at it, and it potentially wastes the time of lots of other admins every time you do so.

I don't want to beat on you or single you out in general - that particular case was confusing, but it's usually not an issue. Having worked unblock-en-l for a while, though, the hardest cases are the ones where admins weren't clear and verbose enough and wouldn't communicate effectively with us after not communicating effectively with the blocked party. Do that side of it for six months and a lack of clear and open discussion by admins in admin actions starts to drive you nuts instinctively and on sight... Georgewilliamherbert 19:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

What you should have done was to check back with the admin who was reviewing the {{unblock}} request, before jumping to conlcusion. El_C 20:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

HD 154345b

Hi, El C. Forgive me if this isn't the proper way to respond to your message on my talk page -- I'm not sure how to do it properly.

I have outlined my objections to the HD 154345b entry in the discussion page for Extrasolar Planets and in the discussion page for HD 154345. My primary objection is that the information is completely inaccurate. The technical reason I deleted it is that the information is not supported by the citation. Apparently, I went about changing the page in an inappropriate manner because you undid my changes -- how do I change it properly?

Hello. Well, there was no edit summary, so I wanted to eliminate the possibility of it being vandalism. I have no opinion/objection otherwise. El_C 22:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Tutankhamun infobox

Hi, you've put a note on the Tutankkamun article that the infobox is too wide – not sure whether I can actually change this much due to the contents, but what resolution are you using, and what are you seeing ? Cheers Markh 06:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey. The resolution I'm using isn't relevant (it varies according to whichever help-computa I use per any given instance); what I mean is that it is wider than infoboxes in general, and {{Pharaoh Infobox}}, specifically. See the screenshot above for a visual illustration. Thx. Regards, El_C 07:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks – I will experiment and see what can be done with the hieroglyphs, which I think are making it bigger. Markh 18:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Operation Condor

Hello. I fail to see any source showing that the US was substantially involved in Conder, except that various nations in Latin America used a US installation in Panama for communications. Do you have any more information?Ultramarine 09:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. See for ex. "Tracking the Origins of a State Terror Network: Operation Condor," Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 29, No. 1, (Jan., 2002), pp. 38-60. El_C 09:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Does not mention the US as a key member. Ultramarine 09:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, see the McClintock reference to a classified US Army Special Forces manual. El_C 09:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I can only the the front page at moment which do not list the US as a key member. If there anything more specifi from the US Army Special Forces manual, that would be a very good addition to the article. What does it say? Ultramarine 09:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If there is anything more specific, like what knowledge the US gave or how the US used Condor, that would be an useful addition to the article. Ultramarine 09:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not following that. That's just one random work among many others that speaks about "the counterterror model promoted by the United States" in the context of the operation. Is there any doubt of the backing given to Pinochet and so on? It's a matter of historical record. El_C 09:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Any backing to Pinochet is not necessarily related to Condor. Again, it would be useful to state how the US was involved in Condor, vague allegations are not very helpful. Ultramarine 09:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

See for example "Lifting of Pinochet's Immunity Renews Focus on Opertaion Condor", National Security Archive, June 10, 2004. El_C 09:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That shows the US has knowledge of Condor, not that is shared information as claimed in the map. Similarly, see this: . Again, knowledge of the operation, but the US itself seems uninvolved. Ultramarine 09:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it provides yet "another piece of increasingly weighty evidence suggesting that U.S. military and intelligence officials supported and collaborated with Condor as a secret partner or sponsor." (italics are my emphasis) From "Operation Condor: Cable Suggests US Role" National Security Archive, May 6, 2001. El_C 09:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That is material released in 2001. See this material from 2004: In particular, "The declassified record shows that Secretary Kissinger was briefed on Condor and its "murder operations" on August 5, 1976, in a 14-page report from Shlaudeman. "Internationally, the Latin generals look like our guys," Shlaudeman cautioned. "We are especially identified with Chile. It cannot do us any good."

Shlaudeman and his two deputies, William Luers and Hewson Ryan, recommended action. Over the course of three weeks, they drafted a cautiously worded demarche, approved by Kissinger, in which he instructed the U.S. ambassadors in the Southern Cone countries to meet with the respective heads of state about Condor. He instructed them to express "our deep concern" about "rumors" of "plans for the assassination of subversives, politicians and prominent figures both within the national borders of certain Southern Cone countries and abroad." Ultramarine 09:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Whereas this 2006 Journal of Third World Studies article speaks about how "US involvement in Condor was indispensable to effectiveness." Can this continue on the article's talk page, though? My talk page isn't really the venue for this and it limits the participation of other contributors. Feel free to refractor as you see fit. Many thanks in advance. El_C 10:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Done, see the talk page. Ultramarine 10:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, will do soon. El_C 10:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI

I do hope the "disgraceful word lawyering" was not directed at me? To make my position plain: It is absolutely obvious in my book that users like Alex mond (talk · contribs) belong permabanned on sight. I find it astounding that the same admin who was capable of slapping an established user with a month's block for a borderline 3RRvio decides that a recent trolling account spewing anti-Semitic rants should be blocked for 24 hours. This must be the most consistently deluded admin I have ever come across, whatever were people thinking? However, if the onlookers at WP:ANI do not think the case is as absolutely obvious as I do, I am not going to campaign about it, because if I did that, my wiki-time would be filled with campaigning, not editing. dab (𒁳) 12:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not! I have nothing but utmost respect for you. The comment was directed at Nick & Neil who the second time in one day I found to be on the morally questionable side of the fence. But I regretted expressing that notion outright, therefore, I retracted. All the best, El_C 17:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the vigilance!

thank for keeping an eye on these articles pbut please don't delete other peoples additions don't remove POV tags or request for citation if they delete something that is important revert them but allow them to put forward their arguments we want a fair democratic contest of ideas where the reader can make up their own mind :) .Esmehwp 17:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

but please dont let right-wing americans hijack these articles as Ultramarine intends to do.Esmehwp 17:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

can you please keep an eye on this guy and have a look at his contrib's. he will pull any trick to put his own (USA/Capitalism should rule the world)POV on every political article he can, he is also very persistent and thorough he needs a half a dozen people watching him all the time also I think he has some personal association to Freedom House a right wing think tank cause it seems to be very close to his heart. if he tries sock pupetry he can be caught there.Esmehwp 17:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought that a more incremental, and explanatory, {{fact}} placement will yield better reuslts. El_C 17:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There's not much I can do, he's backed by the Arbitration Committee, Misplaced Pages's governing body. El_C 17:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox3

Thanks, I was just about to put it on WP:MfD. You saved me a lot of bother. --Justanother 11:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm doing-what-now? This better be chipmunk-related! El_C 11:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was pretty squirrelly. (Pretty nutty?) Does that qualify? --Justanother 11:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do love petting chipmunks! (though am not sure and have certain misgivings about the lead: "the common name for any small squirrel-like rodent species"...) I mean, you're welcome! El_C 11:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I love those pics. My 8-year-old boy is away for the summer but I am going to treat him to those pics when he gets back. --Justanother 11:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

House demolition

I appreciate your offer to shorten my block (which was later acted upon by Raul654), and the fact that you agree with me that a week block was inappropriate. The point I was contesting is moot by now, as the article has been re-written, and now has ample examples of very large scale military house demolitions, from 480BC through modern times, which dwarf anything Israel has been accused of, and which makes it clear that the term is not exclusive to, or even particularly related to the I-P conflict in the media or scholarly literature. Nonetheless, if you are interested, the reference I provided earlier, regarding Turkish house demolitions of Kurds explicitly says this was part of a "wide pattern", which is incompatible with describing it as small-scale. Isarig 15:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Of course, it is a modern buldozing mention. I must have overlooked that (hrw) description of its usage by Turkey, thanks. El_C 02:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder ...again

I know you've been keeping an eye on the article, and contributed to it recently, but its been protected again due to people who are fairly unwilling to discuss changes civilly if they discuss them at all. I tried moderating in the past, and was met with insults and bad faith from all sides. For the nonce, I am away from home, crazy busy with work, and unwilling/unable to take time out for wikipedia when I want to be exploring an amazing city with the little free time I have. Haemo has been doing an admirable and unbiased job as of late, but an administrator will hopefully have the clout to encourage productive discussion or at least get the rampant incivility kept to a minimum. AniMate 22:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I havne't been around, either and, as well, am unable to commit to regular on-wiki attendance. El_C 16:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

2-28 Air Battle

I previously wrestled with this article, so I am interested in your views. I was initially drawn in by a POV tag, then ended up spending a fair amount of time trying to research it. I couldn't find any English language sources (online or at the library) using this particular name for the engagement or discussing it.

I don't read Hebrew, but I'm curious about the Hebrew reference and the Hebrew Misplaced Pages article - and I'll accept your analysis :). Do the sources use the name "2-28 air battle" and are there any references independant of the IDF? Thanks for your time.--Kubigula (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I have never heard of that title being used before; I was going to ask about that, but forgot (I did do it now though). I did not intend on retaining that title without some clarification, one way or the other. Yes, there are sources independent of the IDF cited there: Tzi Cohen's The sky is not the limit: the story of the Israeli Air Force (pp. 453-58) and Ehud Yonai's Aerial supremacy: the story of the Israeli Air Force (pp. 246-47). I'm not familiar with either (story of the IAF-subtitled) work though. Hope this helps. El_C 16:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As I suspected, editors on that page confirm it to be an original title. The Hebrew wiki seems to have lower original titles standards than we do here, so I'm open for less synthetical, more descriptive alternatives. Many thanks. El_C 17:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I decided to rename it as the Ofira Air Battle; hope that makes sense. El_C 17:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. With your research, I'm satisfied that the article meets the guidelines. The name change makes it less likely to draw POV criticism, and I'll trust your judgment that it's the name choice most consistent with the references. The only source I can read (the English IAF page) doesn't use any name for the battle. Thanks again.--Kubigula (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. That just denotes the general area where it took place in (I chose not to use a date in the title) — still a bit original, but unlike 2-28, less codified thus less likely to give the false impression of usage of the title outside Misplaced Pages. El_C 18:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to make myself feel better that the name was not original :). Anyway, I can live with it. Hopefully some historian will get around to giving it an "official" name some day.--Kubigula (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

My dear El C

Thank you for all that you have done! How much love resides therein! All one's gifts are never gone: Not seen, perhaps, but stored within. Kindness is an inner sun. Your unspent heart a message sends Of grace and sacrifice hard-won Upon which happiness depends! Thank you so much, my dear comrade! :) Love you, Phaedriel 17:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course, anytime! Glad to learn everything turned out fine. :) All my love, El_C 17:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could say it's over, sweetie... unfortunately, tho she's better, she's not fully recovered, and she won't be for a long time. Tho apparently it's not extremely serious, it certainly worries me (I'm her mother after all!) I'll make more sense by email, I swear. Love you lots, Phaedriel - 17:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that; at least the worse is over. Sounds good. Keep me updated and send her kisses! El_C 17:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Community Sanction Noticeboard

El, hunny, would you consider climbing out from under the chipmunks and closing the COFS thread at WP:CSN? As in, determining consensus, and archiving it? Durova asked me to do it, but I think I've had too much contact with some of the users involved to be a properly "neutral admin". Love, Bishonen | talk 20:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC).

At your command! El_C 21:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You're the best of the best, marry me now (that's a command)! Thanks for this also. Bishonen | talk 13:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC).

Operation Condor, contd.

Hi, would you mind popping your head back into the Operation Condor page? I see you had previous interactions with User:Ultramarine and he and I seem to be at an impasse. Hobomojo 22:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he refractored (at my request) comments which were uttered here. As for the impass, you are far from the only one, but I'm afraid I cannot commit to any substantive review at this time. I would suggest dispute resolution, but I find that process to be rigged in his favour. El_C 22:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Strange edit

Please explain this edit, it appears that you deleted his response to Bishonen that was addressed to him. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes I did. Read it. El_C 01:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you please suggest an appropriate area to address the issues brought up in this situation? Anynobody 02:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I did. Your own talk page. El_C 02:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen has ignored at least two questions I've asked in that manner previously and now indicates even less willingness to work this out, talking to myself on my own page doesn't seem like the best solution.

earlier question

Bishonen's proposal and my reply

Bishonen's response to my reply ::Bishonen's proof and
my response

Bishonen ends the discussion without answering my questions. Anynobody 03:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you feel that there needs to be a "solution," other than finding something else to do? El_C 03:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there needs to be a long standing conflict based on hurt feelings, aside from being petty and dumb it could cause issues for the project if editors don't come to an understanding with one and other that disagreements do not equal bad faith.

Thanks anyway for your time, Anynobody 04:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Intelligence report according to Bavel.jpg

Hi, could you tell me why some editors are trying to delete Image:Aman Yom Kippur 1973 intelligence report according to Bavel.jpg and similar pages like it (scans of old documents)? There's no discussion on the talk pages of those documents so it's impossible to know their justification. Badagnani 22:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Apperently, there's been a new fair use criteria (that nobody but image-editors knows about) that's against the usage of newspaper articles, so from that, the respective image-centred-editors made the leap to exclude recently-declassified military documents from Israel. Go figure. El_C 22:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and of course, my translations will be deleted with it. It seems like a lof of laywerying games to me. El_C 22:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You did the translations? Bravo to you, but I agree that what is going on is terrible because the information contained therein is now public. It's even worse that they don't explain carefully and allow for cogent discussion on the talk page. They just tag, hand it off to the deleting admin, and it's all done without any serious consideration of why it's been done. It robs the world of knowledge in the process. Badagnani 22:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I did, what a waste of time that was. Sadly, that is what Misplaced Pages has become. Obscure processes by self-regulated cliques rule the day. El_C 22:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Images and media for deletion

Please don't add irrelevant headings, as it breaks the correct flow elsewhere. Grouping similar pictures together in one place should be enough, though it's hardly required. --Pekaje 23:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not irrelevant, they're all from the same article. El_C 23:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

So? That happens all the time, for the very obvious reason that quite often a lot of images are nominated in one go, when an editor stumbles upon a page with images that can be nominated. However, adding headings screws up things elsewhere, so please don't change the layout again. --Pekaje 23:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a particularly contencious one; just let it be. The magical plcae that s IfD will not collapse at this inconsistency. Trust me. El_C 23:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what possible purpose that grouping with headings could possibly have. Please reconsider. --Pekaje 00:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It's easier for me to find, plus I linked it from Raul's talk page for his benefit; only the small group of editors who frequent IfD don't mind the mess that each day's subpage is (which is why I created WP:AFDC for article AfDs, it used to be even worse than that). Likewise with precategories AfDs, it has the impact of excluding non-regulars in favour of a small clique. El_C 00:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to be criticized by editors who do not focus most of their edits on images or technical aspects of the wiki? Seems... one-sided. El_C 23:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what you mean by this. Looking through the debate, I have to wonder why you don't just transwiki it to wikisource and be done with it. --Pekaje 23:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I mean anti-me bias. Once again, IDF only alows fairuse and having it as a caption was the ideal solution, even if some seemingly process-minded editors take issue with it for process-related (and I should add, loosely-extrapolated process-related) grounds. Thanks. El_C 23:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Anti-you bias? Sorry, but the rules are the rules are the rules. They're the same for everyone, and you should know that. The other editors have made their point quite well, and to be honest you come off as a bit rude. Your personal involvement makes this understandable, though not acceptable. My advice to you, for what it's worth, is to step back from the discussion for a day or two and consider if maybe the other side has a point. --Pekaje 00:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's a no to the friendship offer. Which, granted, is personal by nature. :( El_C 00:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Western Culture

Sorry I don't know how to talk on this page. I am trying to reply to your questions. In any case, here are my reasons. When I read this article, I don't get the feeling that this article has been written from a Western European point of view. It seems though the article has been written from an American point of view. American society is deeply rooted in the fear of the unkown. "Fear of the black man" and fears of people living in lands far from the USA are some examples. Further, in the United States, skin culture is associated to the definition of culture as opposed to beliefs based on value systems and traditions and history.

I must have made a mistake in trying to edit the section "Contemporary Western culture" Differences. Sorry for that.

Hi. New edits go at the foot of talk pages, see {{talkheader}} for detail. Just make sure that you are not adding your own opinion as fact and that you maintain an objective tone, with well-referenced sentences. See also this page for even more detail. Thank you, and Goodluck. El_C 04:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Questionable award/s

Comments removed by Quadell

See you at the next award ceremony, which should be, what, five minutes from now? El_C 04:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't like to see other users getting awards? – Quadell 04:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear so and so, thanks for towing the party line! This award is intended to inflame an ongoing dispute by telling you how much I approve of your side versus the other side! Best of luck to you in the fight, where I support your side. Yours truly, NFCC#88888888888 04:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the award! – Quadell 04:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't an award, that was an illustration of how your award/s was seen. El_C 04:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As in having too much fun at the expense of others' misfortune. That is not a positive trait. El_C 04:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, El C, it's been fun, but I'm really not interested in talking with you any further. Please do not leave me any further messages on my talk page. Thanks. – Quadell 04:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, we appear to have very different notions of what counts as "fun." El_C 04:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

BenefitSale discussion

Hi, thanks for signing the vandalism warning to this editor that I forgot to add four tildes too - how do you do that? Is there a template that adds the info automatically, or do you look u p the history and code it manually? Many thanks, Lynbarn 10:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, any time. Yes, manually. I simply substituted the {{unsigned}} template like so: {{subst:unsigned|Lynbarn}}. Hope this helps. El_C 10:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks, I've added that template to my toolbox! Regards, Lynbarn 10:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Your question

Hi, what is an El C ;)? It's just nonsense. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 11:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Damn, I was hoping that was your real name! El_C 11:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, and what would you be commandante of? Actually the German surnames Humpel and Schumpel do exist- I obviously amalgamated them subconsciously.... Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 11:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if whether throughout the course of human history, that will become a surname. Because that would be fuckin sweet! El_C 11:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There don't seem to be many Schumpels around so it might be difficult- however there are a lot more Schampels so maybe we could make do with a HumpelSchampel? Or even HampelSchampels ??? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 11:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Still, how do you get to schmumpel, I think that probably would have to come at a much a higher stage of human development. El_C 11:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I knew there'd be an answer . Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere! El_C 12:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

419

I would first choose a subarticle (Crime in Nigeria?) and then move the 419 section AFTER a subarticle is chosen. 419 is a major industry in Nigeria: This Slate article characterizes the scheme as a growing cottage industry: WhisperToMe 13:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, theCrime, or if you can quantify the practice and demonstrate its significance economically, perhaps also the Economy one. I believe that mentions in the main articles are, as well, fine, but should be restricted to brief decsriptions (certainly, an entire section is excessive). El_C 19:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I can go with a sentence :) WhisperToMe 06:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Your move/changes to "Functionalism versus intentionalism"

Hi, I saw you moved and edited the article Functionalism versus intentionalism, stating that the terms functionalism/ist(s) and intentionalism/ist(s) should be uppercase. At the article's talk page I have quoted from the last paragraph of this section of Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters), which says that "hilosophies, theories, doctrines, and systems of thought do not begin with a capital letter, unless the name derives from a proper noun". Would you have any objections to (you or me) reverting the move/changes? Regards, Bwiki 15:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello. No strong objections, but I'm accustomed to them being in upeprcase and I believe that, our Style Guide notwithstanding, generally, this is the practice in Holocaust historiography (although admittedly, my memory might fail me in that regards). At any case, I intend(ed) to undertake more sunbstantive edits to the article, and this certainly wasn't it. So, use your discretion, but give it some thought. Regards, El_C 19:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding warning about canvassing

Template:Books of the Old Testament is used in many articles, thus I felt the need to alert people about the changes being made there. But I will now cease. Thank you. 75.14.208.224 19:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. El_C 20:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Cease vandalism of the Racism page

You said that the phrase in the intro was "too ungrounded" and "anecdotal". Actually, the citations prove it is grounded and they arent the least bit anecdotal. If this is anecdotal then the rest of the intro is, too.

Please sign your username. Please refrain from noting legitimate edits as vandalism. Please restrict discussion of articles to those articles' respective talk pages. Please ensure that you utalize the talk page first when you are the one introducing disputed content. Thank you. El_C 20:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Please cease further vandalism of the legitimate citations. Please use the talk page before removing legitimate citations.JusticeIvory 20:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have already responded to this; you ignored WP:3RR which I warned you of, and your conduct seems increasingly disruptive. El_C 20:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I have not be "disruptive" at all. I merely challenge what is apparently a complete lack of NPOV on your part. I have ignore no rule. I reworded the original to attempt (as if it were needed) even further neutrality. You are censoring legitimate citations that contradict your POV. Misplaced Pages is not your podium for ideological ranting. Please research those citations (I repeated them in the talk page). A truly objective person would have to include them.JusticeIvory 20:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned, I'm no longer interested in having this discussion take place here; that's what the article's talk page is for. El_C 20:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Mozambique motto

Hi, I saw you make an edit about the supposed Mozambique motto so I wrote to the embassy in Washington, D.C. Here's the response:

• Subject: Re: Question about national motto
• Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 14:43:01 -0400
• From: Embassy of Mozambique in the United States

I would like to acknowledge and thank you for the receipt of your e-mail message and inform you that Mozambique does not have a national motto.

Sincerely,

Antonio Rodrigues Jose - Counselor

Badagnani 18:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to correspond with and getting an answer about this from the Mozambique embassy, Badagnani. Best, El_C 05:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hungry

Want Tuna now! Kitty 22:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done! :) Kitty has gotten much tuna since my return, and all is well, and softness. Best, El_C 05:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Guatemala

Noticed you had put in a nice list of books on the Efrain Rios Montt page a while back. Not sure if you have the time or inclination, but the Guatemala page is in sore need of some sprucing up by someone with a nice library. Notmyrealname 19:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I do intend to work on Bolivia first for a bit, but will try to attend to this at some point. Regards, El_C 05:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

seeking advice

Hi, I'm sure you remember how contested/poisoned the editing and debate at the Srebrenica massacre article was. As any attempts at reducing the lenght of the article (it at well >100 kb) or removing POV statements are met with a barrage of attacks (personal and editorial) from the 'Bosniak' editors of the article User:Jonathanmills and I have been discussing the possibility of starting an alternative article (something like this) together with a group of less ideologically motivated editors and then presenting the two of them to an arbitration committee of some sort and let them decide which is preferable as the 'official' Misplaced Pages article. Is such a process at all possible? If so, how would one go about starting it? Any conditions? I'm asking you since I remember that you seemed knowledgeable about Misplaced Pages routines/recommendations. User:Jonathanmills and my discussion on this matter is here. CheersOsli73 07:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello. How were you considering on splitting the entry; that is, in which particular direction? Regards, El_C 05:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Red Army

Would you be so kind to correct sentences you don't like rather than to remove them? Xx236 13:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Providing the sentences contain correct information, presented in a balanced and objective manner, yes. El_C 05:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Advice requested about possible mass move

I've been looking over Category:Murdered American children. For the most part, these people do not have any biographical information that would warrant an entry in an encyclopedia. I came across this after witnessing a minor move war at Samantha Runnion. After my involvement in the craziness over the Murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom entry, I'm almost afraid to even think about getting involved in something that will be controversial, but I feel like living dangerously. Seeing as the majority of these articles are not biographical but are instead about the murder and other crimes committed, and I'm considering requesting a mass move of these articles from the subjects name to "Murder of Subject's Name." It went over relatively well at the Murder of Kelsey Smith entry listed in that category, but articles about crime victims tend to draw out passionate people (especially when that victim is a child). For me, it's mostly about consistency and I think at some point we should get explicit language in the Manual of Style or the notability guidelines to guide us in the future. I guess what I'm asking is do you think making a request for a move like this is actually feasible, or am I asking for a big headache that is going to send me running for the hills. I'm really not all that concerned about the headache part of it, but I'm not going to get involved in something that has zero chance of succeeding. Thoughts?

Also, would WP:RPM be the correct venue for this, or should I start a discussion on the category's talk page, or should I go page by page on each entry and give a head's up to people who have watchlisted them, or one of the noticeboards? AniMate 01:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a worthwhile effort and, speaking for myself, I have always been in favour of the 'topicifation' and against the 'biographization' (if you will) of less than notable (living and otherwise) persons, especially victims, and most especially children. I am confident that, increasingly, more and more established editors are of the same mind frame and are willing to take a stand toward this encyclopedic end away from the tabloid approach which, sadly, plagues many of our entries. In short, you can count on my support. I do note, however, that limiting the changes to United States category seems too narrow, although it is a sizable one so it's a good place to start. My point is that it should not be limited to neither a country nor even an age group, but rather to notability considerations (i.e. was the person notable prior).

As for the practical matter of getting this effort of the ground, I advise on avoiding the policy or guideline pages (these may prove guarded due to unrelated reasons and it's best to approach them, if at all, with an-already well-forged consensus) and instead presenting the case in a centralized venue, while linking to this discussion from the category/ies page/s, WP:RM, etc. I'm unsure if notices should be placed on (in terms of this drive) nonexeceptional individual articles due to the large number of these; perhaps a random sample of, say, 10-20% instead of all of em (I'll leave that to your discretion). In short, live dangerously, and do let me know if there is anything I could do to help. El_C 05:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Naranjo

Sorry about the edit conflict, feel free to delete Naranjo (disambiguation) when you're done. ˉˉ╦╩ 07:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. That works just as well, too, but will do. Regards, El_C 07:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Footnotes

As the page is currently protected (see history of the page), perhaps you should not edit it. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't notice at the time. El_C 08:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make biased edits

El C

I wonder why you undid the source quotations that i had added to PMOI's page regarsing the terrorist designation of the PMOI? there are some comments acusing PMOI for terrorism and there are others that contradict it? Why you insist on just the first part? I would be happy to have an answer from you. Thanks. 193.219.246.250

I removed it because it was phrased in an un-objective, biased manner. Why are you reverting the removal of copyrighted content that you added. If you do this again, I will have no choice but to restrict your ability to edit. In fact, I'm considering doing so now in light of your one-sided edits. Are you here to write an encyclopedia or make the People's Mujahedin of Iran look good? It increasingly looks like the latter. El_C 08:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

hebron talk

1) please note that i have opened a talk page subsection on this issue. 2) please note that you have also removed additions to the article that are not about this paragraph. -- Jaakobou 08:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The onus is on you to rephrase that passage, that "where Hebron is located" is far too sophomoric. El_C 08:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Palestine

"please refrain from removingmaterial if you're without providing a summary and without supplumenting info so it isn't lost — and definitely use edit summaries for edits of that magnitude" ...? You removed a space. Is that what you were trying to do? I looked at the previous few edits and they all added content... Just a little confused. Perspicacite 10:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

My edit of 03:56, 30 July 2007 was in response to this edit 03:50, 30 July 2007. El_C 10:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Smoking fetishism

Um, it's traditional to remove the AfD notice from an article when closing an AfD... Valrith 21:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You are taking far too much liberty with adding {{prod}} to entries. Just edit articles normally. El_C 00:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, before I take this to DRV, why was this AfD closed early, exactly? Valrith 17:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Because the proposal for deletion, and AfD for that matter, was unrelated to notability; you could have simply removed everything up to to the opening paragraph. Prod/AfD are not means to circumvent normal editorial processes. El_C 17:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Reagan transfer of power

Why delete? Redirection is harmless and deletion loses history and violates the GFDL, plus it had no consensus. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Because it's a potentially misleading title; the GFDL will be fine, or → deletion reveiw. El_C 00:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisting AfDs

Next time, to relist an AfD, please use {{subst:relist}}. Thanks. —Kurykh 22:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not obliged to do that, i.e. too orange. But thanks! El_C 00:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course you're not obliged to. :) But putting the relist notice at the top of the AfD screws up the list page, making people believe that the AfD directly above is being relisted, not the actual one. —Kurykh 00:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point; still! El_C 00:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

List of acts labelled as state terrorism AfD

In the same vein, with this edit I assume you meant to actually relist the debate, not just to leave a comment proposing relisting? If so, you should remove it from Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_July_25 and transclude it to the current AfD log instead. It's up for closing now (and I agree that a more thorough discussion would be helpful). Sandstein 17:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Understood. El_C 17:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Vector-images.com image warning

Greetings, You are being contacted by BetacommandBot and by Zscout370. The reason for this message is that you have have uploaded Image:A&B-COA.gif under the following license Template:Vector-images.com. Recently, a decision was made about images and anything not meeting freedomdefined.org will be considered "unfree" for Wikimedia's purposes. The terms of the website do not allow their images to be used now under our new guidelines. You are being given a chance to relicense the image for about two weeks. If you fail to relicense the image, there is a good chance the image will be deleted from Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions or concern, please see Zscout370. Thank you. User:Zscout370 23:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Move

Thanks for doing the Muten Roshi move. Now do you have a bot or program that can update all of those redirects, including the Muten-Rôshi links all over Misplaced Pages? Lord Sesshomaru

No problem. No, no bot programme, sorry. El_C 03:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Need a Little Help, please

Hey El C, I am having a little trouble with User:NE2 who is changing all the Virginia State Route wikilinks from "Virginia State Route X" to "State Route X (Virginia)", a link which just redirects right back to "Virginia State Route X", so it's a pointless redirect.

He continues to cite WP:USSH, which says that the article and links should be "Virginia State Route X" and the title should be "State Route X"...ie: ]. I have told him of his error and what WP:USSH says, but he continues to revert these changes back. I have asked for "other articles" where this is done, but he has shown me none. If you could take care of this, I would appericate it. It is really in violation of WP:MOS as well. Thanks and Take Care....NeutralHomer 03:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm on my way out right now. Will review this when I get back. Regards, El_C 04:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries :) Have a Good Evening! - NeutralHomer 04:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Rollback

Maybe we should go on Bugzilla and ask them if they'll put it back to the way it was? --Deskana (banana) 11:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I applaud your optimism — you really think we're important enough for developers to notice our pleas? ;) El_C 01:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if we really really moan they will ;-) --Deskana (banana) 12:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's do it! El_C 03:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of this article so far?

I created this article (Octaevius Altair) and am trying to get it to NPOV, which is pretty hard on this guy I have to admit. Jmm6f488 05:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see how the subject meets our notability threshold. El_C 05:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It might not, I'm actually on the serial killer task force and usually do that but I came across this guy and was look woo. This guy is one freak. If you want to delete it that's cool. I've actually been looking around the pedo articles because they said on a perverted justice sight that pedophiles were overrunning the place. I have to admit I have seen some editors that are a bit suspect. Plus, Squeakbox joined are project so I looked through his contribs and he seems to do a lot of anti-pedo/victims rights stuff so I just kind of jumped around the sights he was editing. Anyway, I'm rambling but yeah if you want to go ahead and delete it feel free. Jmm6f488 05:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay. In that case, I decided to delete it, because the only sources were some blogs. Regards, El_C 03:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Censoring my talkpage

Hi, what's with ? Digwuren 05:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Banned user. What's with the section title? El_C 05:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Even so, I do not appreciate others deleting messages left to me. If you have concerns, add an appropriate remark, do not delete. Digwuren 03:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not up to you to decide; comments from banned users are deleted per policy, even if those receiving them wish it kept. El_C 03:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD closure

Hi El C, you closed the AfD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of notable Jalpaigurians with a delete, but apparently forgot to delete the article itself: List of notable Jalpaigurians. Just to let you know,

Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I forgot. Thanks, Deskana, for taking care of it. El_C 03:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Muslim urdu names AfD

just wondering about the other articles in the bundle: Muslim urdu names Z, w t b; they've been transwiki'd already, but they still haven't been deleted; just checking if you aware of this --Xorkl000 21:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll delete em now. El_C 03:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

People such as yourself are the reason Misplaced Pages will

Why make such unashamedly biased edits? You clearly have a personal agenda. The edits you made to India history, invasion theory are flawed. Luckily, the advent of modern genetics will force such types as yourself to shut your mouths and accept truth regardless of what you want to believe. Max mullers theoies have long been considered pseudoscience, like basing his hypothetical 'invaders' on biblical creation of the world in 4004BC. It is laughable. Do you suffer the same malady as widespread fear on the dissolution of you personal identity when it is proven that India and Iran was most likely the home of Indo-European languages and people (migration out of India is being proven. See gentic work by Kashyap circa 2006)? If so, I feel sorry for you. And get ready. The books will be rewritten soon by the relevent academic authorities, and the wikipedia muppets like yourself will find a place to learn. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skylightfire (talk • contribs).

"The books will be rewritten soon"? Soon being the key word, I suppose. El_C 17:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hey El C, I read that you have returned after going to Israel. I was afraid that you had left because the image editors deleted your translations- if you had left and they deleted them it would be double the loss. You know, after I first saw those translations and read that article I bought and read The Arab-Israeli Wars: War and Peace in the Middle East from the War of Independence through Lebanon by Chaim Herzog, and those translations really inspired me to study Hebrew. So I've studied what I can in books and on the internet, right now I'm taking Russian however. I haven't taken any courses in Hebrew yet but will when I can. Can you recommend any books for learning Hebrew? Maybe you will get a book deal one day and can publish your translations there. Do you have anymore translation projects underway for Misplaced Pages? Regards, D. Recorder 23:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, D., Glad to be back! Of course, it's the reader's loss — I already know what those intelligence reports said, I'm the one who translated them (!) :p I had an amazing time in Israel; I only wish I could have stayed for longer. I brought a lot of books in Hebrew back with me (because I find reading in English to be so very tedious) and am currently half way through Hard Times (I find myself occasionally marking certain pages and going back to the English version and comparing them); before that it was The Tenants, before that, The Slave (that article needs help!), before that The Fox, in the future, it'll be Steel Ring, Notes on Man's Condition, and many others works. It's so nice to have lots of new (which is to say, used, but new to me) books in Hebrew, finally. I was getting so tired of English. No, no planned Misplaced Pages translations (I have been involved in some print-related ones, however), but am open to suggestions. Sorry, I don't know of any books for learning Hebrew. Glad to learn you're studying Russian (I wish I had the capacity for another language; right now, it would probably exploady my fragile mind, following the old mantra that new knowledge thingies push old ones out!), that sounds interesting! בברכה, El_C 23:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you delete this?

This is the image that went with the article I made that we decided to delete.File:Viamund.jpg

I got an orphan image notice sent to me and I see no reason to keep this freak ass photo without an article to go with it. I would delete it myself but I do not know how. Can you delete it for me Jmm6f488 06:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no problem; I should have done that before but forgot to. Regards, El_C 06:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

How do you completely delete a page. I only know how to blank it but not get it back to its original status. If you could explain how to or point me to the wikipedia explanation page I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks, Jmm6f488 06:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Only users with sysop flag enabled can delete pages, non-administrators are unable to do so. Regards, El_C 06:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

cool thanks for all the help. Jmm6f488 06:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Anytime. El_C 12:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Shia Islam

Hi, A number of us have been battling these anons with the same bit of text. I just wondered if it would be appropriate now to semi-protect the page. Thanks again for your involvement. Regards. → AA — 09:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It's a very high-traffic page, so depends on the intensity of it. It appears to have died down right now, for example. Regards, El_C 10:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Chinese apartheid AfD

Following your recent participation in Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 30#Allegations of American apartheid, you may be interested to know that a related article, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, is currently being discussed on AfD. Comments can be left at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 15:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

See my comment at Talk:Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid#Allegations of Chinese apartheid from a few days ago. El_C 12:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hope

Nice quotation of Blake. Thank you. Of course, he said it better and more succinctly than I. I used more verbiage but then, if I hadn't I wouldn't be Cecropia. ;-) -- Cecropia 16:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You and me both! (my cat is likely to become a great poet (he's a mediocare one, at best) before I'm ever able to rival the eloquence of Blake) My pleasure. :) El_C 12:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Greeting El C, thank you for reverting vandalism on my talk page. Pocopocopocopoco 01:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. Not at all. El_C 12:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Quit

He appears to be deleting all references to Jewish influence and most to Arab influence from the pages Sicily , History of Sicily , and anonymously on Italian people . When I reverted, while attempting to keep his additions, posted a long and uncivil unsigned rant on my talk page. .

has done the same on your talk page .

On Emirate of Sicily he complains that the article is biased , yet his only changes are to remove the following paragraph.

"In addition to Andalusian Arabs and other Arabs, there were Berbers, black Africans, Persians, Greeks, Jews, Slavs and Lombards. Western Sicily particularly prospered with Berbers settling in the Agrigento area coupled with Bedouin, Syrians and Egyptian Arabs in Palermo."

In the end, eems to be removing all references to Jews and black Africans, as well as most references to Arabs and other non-Europeans from these articles.

has also just changed his nick to Scipio3000. I have no desire to get caught up in an edit war, so I am hoping you can provide helpful suggestions. Edward321 23:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Not true I completely moved that whole section(Emirate of Sicily) and consolidated it with more factual summarized version and condensed it into One section like every other section has. Besides I am half Arabic also, so don't act like I am being discriminatory to Arabs. I am giving each section one heading a piece and I am keeping it to historical factual material that is relevant.(Scipio3000 01:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC))

He promised to start behaving, so feel free to pose any challenges you see fit; and keep me updated. El_C 23:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, his latest edit to my talk page is less uncivil, but he's still not addressing why he continues to delete all references to Jews and downplay references to Arabs, Africans, etc. He claims ' My redo on Sicily was the most balanced, non-biased work done on Sicily yet.' which I find problematic. He complains about the Greeks not getting enough coverage, but he isn't adding information about the Greeks, he's adding information about the Normans (which was good) and deleting information about the Jews, Arabs, etc.

That's not all he's deleting, he's also removing some of my comments on your talk page. Edward321 02:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

please cut me a break and quit putting my real name up,I don't think that is fair. I changed my name for a reason can you at least respect that?, thank you.(Scipio3000 02:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC))

El C, Edward321 is using my name in slander and did not even read why I change the section and he is harrassing me, by placing my real nmae up over and over..he even put it as the main title, is that not harrassment, please help me out, this is not fair, I have done nothing wrong and he is maliciously attacking me(Scipio3000 02:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC))

It is not my fault Scipio3000 originally chose to use his real name as his nick. It's all over the edit history of those pages, so of course I used that nick for clarity. As to Scipio's accusations of slander, how is it slander to mention the nick he chose? How is it slander to state the fact that Scipio30000 is removing references to certain ethnic groups from these pages? Edward321 02:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright that is enough, you still are purposely harrassing me...Did you read why I changed it? Or you going to keep attacking me?? What is your problem. If you want to attack me at least read what I wrote and why I did what I did, if not leave me be...besides you have a picture of the confederate flag on your page...some may find that offensive, all I am doing is cleaning up my page and deleting irrelevant sections...if you see what I have done, I actually improved the page for the Arabs, the other section was to random and messy and only talked about the caliph's, I included the whole history so what is the problem...at least read what I wrote, if your not willing please leave me be.