User talk:El C

---

---

poetry

Why should poetry not be a slogan?

Why should poetry not be

biased

when life is not at all itself

For life's sake,

I expect a poem to be

a slogan

a dagger

a fist

and a bullet if necessary

---

---

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

---

---

Archived Discussions

Archive 2 3 4 5 6 7

---

Ramot this time

Hello, You told me I shouldn't revert, but what am I supposed to do when Colour is going around making controversial edits to a bunch of pages. All I did was restore the status quo. For example in the case of Ramot he has made an entirely new edit. Why is his edit more correct than the previous version, and why must I accept that? He even admits in the discussion that none of his sources claim that these places aren't neighborhoods, and one of them, Peace Now, explicitly calls them neighborhoods. His argument seems entirely based on it making sense to him that they can't only be disputing whether or not it is a settlement, but that it must be a discussion of it not being a neighborhood, though no other option is even offered (does someone say that it is a city or town instead, in addition to being a neighborhood). What if something just made sense to me? Why are his changes somehow more legitimate? I hope that you can clear this up because I am getting quite frustrated with the idea that anyone's personal opinion can trump their sources and the reality. Thank you, --RobertRobertert (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain to me how you ended up in the same article to revert him? El_C 00:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your reply - there are only 5-6 Jerusalem neighborhoods that might be called settlements. Was I supposed to be somewhere else? I would still like to hear your take on why he can just come along and add anything he likes on the basis that it makes sense to him, and why the burden of proof to keep the previous and sourced version is on me. Thank you, --Robertert (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Hello again, I really wish you could reply. He's again reverted across the board, and I still don't see why his own personal argument, which is contradicted by his own partisan sources, is more legitimate than the previous version, and why I have to let that stand. --Robertert (talk) 08:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about sourced. I'm actually the one who wrote the original, but I just translated what's on the Hebrew wiki article. My main concern is a revert war, not only on the article, but spilling to other ones. Each of you may wish to draft a brief report with your position and an account of this edit conflict, as I may not consistently be around, and even I am having difficulties following the timeline of your dispute. El_C 03:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I understand your concern about a revert war, but its odd that the burden of argument isn't on the new change, especially when so many people disagree with it. And I just noticed that Colour reverted four times in 24 hours on Gilo again.

The articles before Colour described them started with a basic "what", this place is a neighborhood of so many people, and then a description of its disputed political status, widely considered an Israeli settlement in East Jerusalem (as opposed to the rest of the West Bank that Israel didn't annex and does consider settlements).

Colour is saying that describing these places as "neighborhoods" is as disputed as calling them "Israeli settlements", and that as a "compromise" we should use both words for the basic "what". The argument seems odd to me because no source claims it is something other than a neighborhood, like a town or something, just like no one claims that Maale Admumim isn't a city because it is an Israeli settlement. He's provided no sources to support that argument, and two sources he has provided contradict him. Peace Now [1] calls the places neighborhoods even though it also opposes them for being settlements. Global Security [2] calls them "disputed neighborhoods". Colour is interpreting the second as meaning there is dispute about whether they are neighborhoods, as opposed to they are neighborhoods whose status is in dispute, and he's saying in the first case that they're only one group, but if Peace Now doesn't hold this strange position, then who does? This turned out to be a lot longer than I meant, but I hope that it helps to solve the problem. --Robertert (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It does seem counterintuitive to call them "settlements" as opposed to "disputed neighborhoods." El_C 07:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you've done on the various pages. I tried to explain already that the disagreement isn't "settlement" versus "neighborhood". What Colour has argued and needs to prove is that their being neighborhoods is disputed. There is no dispute that many sources call them Israeli settlements and the article already says that. --Robertert (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I'd like to hear from the other side what they think the dispute is about. El_C 10:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What I'm pointing out is that you've summarized the dispute as something that neither of the sides has argued. I can save time and demonstrate use of the Israeli settlement terminology being used right now as you've asked - just look at the Peace Now link for example. That isn't what anyone is arguing against so "proving" it is a waste of time. --Robertert (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I gathered. This is really not the place the to have such a time saving/wasting debate. El_C 12:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've given you the benefit of the doubt about your methods since I'm assuming you have experience with solving disputes, but I'm very confused about why you haven't insisted on Colour pointing to sources that support his specific position, or at the very least why you haven't insisted on a concise presentation of his position. --Robertert (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Benefit of the doubt as opposed to doing what? Possibly this might be it. El_C 11:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Benefit of the doubt about what your strategy might be since I don't see any response to anyone on the discussion. I've presented short points with direct support from sources and I'm prepared to answer any questions you might have to clarify things. Wouldn't it be productive if you had the other side do the same? Do you have a different idea? --Robertert (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

My strategy is for you to participate in the centralized discussion I set up. You've yet to make a single comment there, instead opting to do so here, which is making me a bit weary, I confess. El_C 15:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is very fair. I outlined my position in concise terms with sources long ago, which you copied to there. My comments here are aimed at understanding why you haven't made any move to moderate there. If you just want to see the three of us argue then read the Gilo talk page - what good would more of that do? If you meant for something else then say so, but right now I'm very confused. --Robertert (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, you can choose not to participate and instead appeal for someone else whom you feel will apply an approach you deem fair to take over the case. Good luck. El_C 21:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused about where what I did say was lost but I didn't say that I don't want to participate and I didn't challenge your fairness. I said that I "did" participate by providing my position as you asked and that I have no idea what else you expect since you have taken no steps to moderate. --Robertert (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

My answer hasn't changed: I expect you to read and participate in the centralized discussion I set up. El_C 09:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the misunderstanding is because I haven't been specific enough. You said that "Long winded debate will be aggressively redacted." You asked the settlement side to provide reliable sources about usage etc. Colour left eight long paragraphs dealing with so many points. Aren't you going to "enforce" your own guidelines to get clear positions from everyone? If not then what sort of response do you expect me to make? --Robertert (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That was at the Arbitration Enforcement page. I did aggressively redact it, there. ^[3] Then, I created the centralized discussion page, where I moved your full comment to. I want you to read what I & others wrote, and engage in discussion, aiming at reaching a compromise. El_C 09:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that you redacted my four short paragraphs since that will make it even easier for everyone to understand my position. I was hoping you would do the same to Colour's eight long paragraphs so that everyone can understand his position too. --Robertert (talk) 09:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I redacted your comment at AE (see this), I did not touch anyone's comments at the centralized discussion, nor do I intend to at this time. El_C 09:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That is what I've been trying to understand. If you aren't going to direct the discussion then how is it going to be different from the previous attempts on the article talk pages? The lengthy back-and-forth between Colour and Gil doesn't look productive at all. Robertert (talk) 09:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I proposed some idea (at the top of the page); hopefully, the participants will choose to, at some point, try to address and engage these. El_C 10:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That's fine and I'll edit my vision in now if you think that will help, but won't that eventually bring us back to the same discussion? Right now both positions are looking at the same sources and coming to different conclusions. Wouldn't it help us along if you confirmed or denied what we saw in the sources? --Robertert (talk) 10:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Suicide Note

Don't Worry, It is extremely unlikely that this was a genuine suicide note:

"i am going to kill myself. i have to i am nothing anymore and i wish i was never fucking born. I have a shitload of pills and it will be ok soon. Tell Shonna I Love Her And that I'm Sorry."

The following observations lead me to conclude that this is a hoax:

• "I have a shitload of pills", suicide notes almost never contain references to the intended life-ending method.
• Suicide notes are almost always written to a specific person.
• This message does not contain a rationalization, a reason why this person feels it is ok to end their life.
• The note is too short. (The reason why someone writes a suicide note is to basically talk themselves into it. Sometimes a suicide note can can reach 5-10 pages long)
• Contrary to popular belief, suicide notes are usually written with a calm, purposeful hand. The disparity between the style of writing at the beginning and at the end is frankly not believable.

Compare this: "i have to i am nothing anymore" with this: "Tell Shonna I Love Her", the sudden capitalization of "I" does not fit. Also, the writing style is more likely get worse as the person writes, than to get better.

• The final nail in the coffin, pardon the expression, is this: "I'm", first of all, this is too casual in context with the rest of the sentence. And second of all, contractions are a sign that the person is lying. It is one of the only signs of lying in written prose.

However, This does not discount the possibility that this person may be someone on the brink. These observations would likely be seen in someone who is not yet ready to take their life, which means that we may be able to do some good here

Hope this helps. --BETA 06:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I try not to overanalyze these, and I've encountered tens of them over the years here, as I find it counterfactual and counterproductive. I always respond the same way, with the same three words —I think the last one was November 2007 ^{(message my comment)}— largely, because I don't know that there's much else I could do, and that response on my part does leave matters openended in case said individual wishes to speak (in the odd chance the message is genuine, or at least reflects great anguish). Thanks for your note, I appreciate it. Best, El_C 08:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to butt in again, because what BETA just posted is wrong, wrong, wrong. Unless BETA is a professional in the field of psychiatry AND has observed the "patient" in person, BETA has no right to state the above as facts what-so-ever. They are all wrong, and should be struck out or deleted!

Not even a professional would analyze a note as such. In fact, most suicides never leave a note. Suicide idealization is serious. One where it takes many thoughts in one's mind, that no one can ever see nor know. Many people who speak of suicide, have issues. It's a "cry for help", a serious one, which can led to an attempt, which can then lead to a successful suicide. There are few that succeed on first thought and attempt.

El_C, you're response was right on. It is not nonsense and one should NEVER say that, or that it is a hoax to someone who threatens suicide, EVEN if it is and the person is talking nonsense. Any and all talk of suicide is considered serious. ANY. And to say one almost never tells how one is going to commit suicide is SO wrong. ALMOST is the key word here. Some do, some don't, some you know will, some you would never think would. I know of a successful suicide, one who laid out all her plans, and her method. Just not the date. She had said she had all the pills stashed over a period of time. She finally succeeded after attempts to stop/help her (involuntary commitment, a 72-hour-hold, etc.), were futile. Well, they kept her alive longer, but not long enough. She was determined though, nothing was stopping her. One cannot stop one who is determined, but one can help one who is not sure, and is hurting. There is always a chance one can prevent a suicide, or delay it long enough hopefully, for the suicidal person to "change one's mind", but they are always at risk forevermore. Even if they die of old age. Not even a license psychiatrist would ever say what BETA just said, EVER.

Sorry, to bother you El_C and take up so much room on your page. I just couldn't help not saying something that I see as so wrong and irresponsible. No one should give out medical advice over the internet, nor evaluate another's "symptoms". Again, not even a professional would do that. It is very irresponsible and an arrogant thing to do. ←Gee♥Alice 10:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I realize that this is a murky issue with no clear precedented procedure, but why archive the discussions? As WP:SUICIDE says, many editors feel it is appropriate to contact various authorities, and closing the reports makes it difficult to coordinate those efforts. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not one of those "many editors" and I don't subscribe to everything in that that essay, much of it I find rather misguided. I will continue to archive those notices to reduce potential melodrama. If you feel that this approach on my part reduces coordination of these reports (coordination which I don't really believe is that helpful, anyway), you can try to get community consensus with a policy page to force it. El_C 22:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

To xDanielx, the archiving is not the troubling part, it was the post by BETA analyzing and advising the situation. Leaving it for the "authorities" is really good advice. ←Gee♥Alice 23:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't try contacting the authorities; others should feel free. I don't believe that keeping such notices open is helpful, or related, even. El_C 23:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

El C, you're right. The best response, if one is needed, is the one you linked to above, "don't do it" and/or direct them to a "help site". That's all one can do "over the internet". Wikpedia is not the place to determine one way or the other. :) ←Gee♥Alice 23:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Glad you agree. I am bothered by the insinuation that I am doing something wrong here. El_C 23:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I offer you a yummy chocolate chip cookie I baked all by myself. :)

I'm sorry if I contributed to you feeling bothered. That was not my intent at all. It was not you who I thought was wrong, it was the post by BETA that bothered me. I over-reacted when I saw him/her posting those "points" above on a few different pages to prove something that cannot be proven in this medium, the interent. I don't agree with the majority of that essay either, nor the "helpful" advice it gives. The essay should just say it's always serious, and do not engage as no one can determine anything online. No heckling, no accusations, no coddling etc., that's it. Then have a short list to links to online help pages, or better, just one link. That's all. I was "sucked in" by the drama because of the poor (and wrong) analysis given. Directing a person talking suicide to a link with a short non-judgmental tone saying "try this link", is all that should be done -- anything more is disruptive and drama producing. That's my opinion, anyway. Best wishes. :) ←Gee♥Alice 02:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. If I take issue with anyone, it's Daniel and his inexplicable statements. El_C 08:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(←) I'm not sure a policy page would be useful given the lack of uniformity between (suspected) suicide notes, but perhaps the idea is worth entertaining. I haven't heard of a case of repeated disruption via such notes, presumably because those who post them soon understand that it is a serious business with potential ramifications, and often they are blocked anyway. I have no strong opinion on whether notifying local authorities constitutes an appropriate response, but I think those who favor the idea would like to know if other editors have already responded.

Alice, I essentially agree with what you've said... but while "leave it to the authorities" sounds very passive, it really requires that we be proactive in notifying them; likewise for directing them to help sites (which is an interesting idea). I don't mean to say that those responses are necessarily appropriate, and I certainly wouldn't accuse those who oppose them as doing the wrong thing, but thus far our mixed responses as a community have been rather arbitrary and uncoordinated. Perhaps some wider discussion would be a good idea. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I doubt enough people read this talk page, so such a wider discussion should probably be initiated elsewhere (not on the incidents board, either, though); perhaps there, you will finally explain why exactly "closing the reports makes it difficult to coordinate those efforts." El_C 08:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Countyhistorian.com

You can go here and see that my site contains hundreds of articles, categories, etc that I've writen. To convince yourself, that I have not been spamming my links all over Wikipedia or whatever. It's quite silly. The most I ever do, is put something on the TALK page like "here is some more of the family tree of so-and-so" and that's it. No attempt to get any of the information into the actual article space, or ever watchlist it. Just a link in Talk, in case anyone cares to find out more. Period. Thanks for your input. Wjhonson (talk) 10:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't judge from that link much about anything, because I don't know what is representative (i.e. some of the entries are lengthy, some are empty, others limited to an image; it's rather sporadic going from that "all articles" basis). But thanks for summarizing your position. El_C 10:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right. This link might be a better one, you can see there under the heading Favorite Articles those articles I've worked on the most. For most of these I've never bothered posting a link to the talk page of the article in Wikipedia. You can review a few of them and see the great amount of detail some contain. Were you able to review A.B.'s comment that posting links, even your own, to Talk is perfectly acceptable?Wjhonson (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It depends how many talk pages and how many times the links are added, of course. I'll need to learn more about the specifics. El_C 10:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hu12 claims 18, I don't really remember, it's been over like a year-long period. At any rate I think there was only ever one link that was controversial because the situation involved a long term BLP, Npov, OR issue that eventually went to ArbCom and got the main offender Matt Sanchez/Bluemarine blocked for a year. No one else involved suffered any penalties. In fact, in specific conversation with an ArbCom member, he expressed no feeling about the link at all, even when directly presented. There was one other link that someone objected to for a while, because of RS concerns I believe, because I had included within my detailed source-based research, a speculative extension to Mike Huckabee's ancestry taking him back to King Henry I or something like that I don't quite clearly recall. It was all rather silly. The rest of the links, to my knowledge, have never even been discussed or used, let alone challenged, afaik. Of course obviously this doesn't stop anyone from trying to do it now, in retrospect.Wjhonson (talk) 10:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm more interested in finding out what happened recently than getting into all that. El_C 20:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Protecting the Wikipedian and protecting the Wiki

It strikes me that we need to apply a balancing test in this situation. SqueakBox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been an involved party in several contentious editing issues recently, and has previously been the subject of sanction as the result of an RfAr, sanction which was violated more than once, enforced by blocking, and enforced once by blocking his sock. I've asked on AN/I for someone to look at the edit history of the page being deleted (because it was initially deleted under a pretense) and I've offered to waive my objection to the deletion if given an assurance that there were no edits worth keeping in the history. It's not my intent to keep any of Squeak's personal information on Wikipedia, only to avoid pruning his history here in such a way as to distort the record. We've already lost the histories from other pages he's contributed heavily to, and he's had another editor's attempt to catalog his edits speedy-deleted. For these and other reasons, I'm concerned, and I wanted to share my concerns with you in the interest of expanding your perspective on the issue. Thanks for listening. --SSBohio 19:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any vital edits being lost, and I get the impression that you are expending too much energy into this issue. Please make a single appeal somewhere and then move on. Pressing on this seemingly indefinitely is too much. Thx. El_C 20:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried that at ANI. No one has responded to my concerns, only attempted to stifle discussion by marking an unresolved issue as resolved. SqueakBox has had multiple problematic edits and edit summaries deleted by repeatedly advocating for the deleteion of certain articles. He successfully got a compilation of his problematic edits deleted from another user's userspace. He proposed his userpage for deletion under a false pretense. None of the admins who've taken the time to address me have seen any problem whatsoever with an editor who is willing to make a false claim (WP:VANISH) in order to fraudulently induce an administrator to delete his user page & user talk page. Considering the vast history of SqueakBox's problematic edits, I'm not being unreasonable when I question the propriety of this deletion. If someone would actually address my concerns, I could do other things. By the way, you're the FIRST person who actually stated that nothing vital was being lost. That goes a long way toward alleviating my concerns. As long as this project insists on rewarding people for their misdeeds and shielding them from scrutiny, there's precious little reason to do any actual editing. Even if I wanted to go to dispute resolution with Squeak, I can't, because of all the people eager to delete the diffs I would be relying on. A purported death threat from November is an awfully thin reason to undermine fundamental processes like DR. A false claim of WP:VANISH that morphs into a claim of a purported death threat from November is even moreso. I have actual, good-faith concerns about deleting this users editing history, page by page. I've tried to discuss them in one forum, only to get shut down. This meatball:ForestFire has popped up all over the place, for the most part not by my hand. I'm not a crank; I've been editing here since 2005. It simply galls me terribly to see so many people willing to bend over backward when doing so effectively protects Squeak from the consequences of his edits. --SSBohio 00:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the problems that I noticed, on the noticeboard, too, is that your comments tend to be needlessly longwinded. Nearly every one of your comments is quite lengthy. You really need to work on condensing your thoughts if you want people to be responsive. El_C 00:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Once I've started, I feel I need to cite evidence and work up to a conclusion, instead of presenting an unsupported assertion and expecting anyone to take it seriously. I can turn on the tap all right, but I can't seem to turn it off. --SSBohio 00:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

So, El, how should I do it differently? What should I leave out? Feel free to edit what I said above as mercilessly as you like; I'm looking to learn how to be more concise, if you'll give me a lesson. --SSBohio 02:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

PHG and WP:RFAR

I hope your criticism about posts to PHG's user talk isn't directed at me. He's more active on Wikipedia than on Commons, and he highlights his image uploads at his Wikipedia user page instead of his commons user page. So I figured the best place to contact him about that was on Wikipedia. If you ever do feel like I've crossed the line in some regard, please contact me with your objections. I'm pretty good about withdrawing statements and apologizing if some new angle comes to light. Regards, Durova^Charge! 22:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't even notice you on his talk page. If you were communicating to him, that's fine, of course; that's what the talk page is there for! El_C 22:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

El C, would your concerns about my own post be addressed, if I simply changed it from third-person to second-person? By my posting on his talkpage, I'm not just "using the page", I'm also obviously trying to make him aware of concerns. Discussing an editor in the third-person is done routinely, such as when a user is blocked, and other users weigh in on the page, discussing whether or not they feel that the block was appropriate. But if my use of third-person bothers you that much, I would be happy to change the wording a bit to make it clear that the intended audience is PHG, as well as others on the page. --Elonka 22:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It just strikes me as an overly presumptuous use of his talk page. Try to imagine how it would feel if one were to use your talk page for a couple of hundred of words-worth of a report that criticizes you. It oversteps user talk page etiquette, in my view. Thx. El_C 22:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, and your desire to protect decorum. However, don't you perhaps think that it would do more good to protect Wikipedia? I understand your desire to try and be a bit of a "defense attorney" for PHG here, but you've seen for yourself the damage that he has been causing, such as with this "Mongol conquest of Jerusalem" POV. He has obviously been inserting highly-biased and misleading information into multiple articles, and is causing many other good editors to waste time cleaning up after him. As "rudeness" goes, that's pretty high on my list.

Our job (yours and mine), as administrators, isn't just to protect exact forms of etiquette, but is instead to protect the project from damage. In my opinion, PHG's behavior has been far more damaging to the project than anything I might have done by laying out my concerns in a clear and thoroughly-diffed way.

I understand that you and I have had disagreements in the past, but shouldn't we be agreeing on at least one goal, that of protecting Wikipedia from an editor who is willfully inserting false information? --Elonka 23:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not willing to compromise what I feel are fair practices, even toward that end. Especially since it isn't even necessary. El_C 23:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Che quote

I really like Che's quote at the top of the page, however, i've don't really know anything about him, suggested reading/viewing? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Jon Lee Anderson's 800-page biography, Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, is probably the best and most comprehensive work to date. It is neither sympathetic nor antipathetic (and certainly, not hagiographic as some of the books printed in Cuba are), but strenuously honest, with an impressive depth and breadth, including new interview of key individuals. Amazingly, all accomplished in 5 yrs! El_C 23:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh good =) I'll check my uni library. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah poo, they only have a copy in the reference only library, so I can't borrow it, but they do have also have a copy of the FBI's dossier on him there as well =) which should be interesting reading! -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Just buy it! El_C 03:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Special:Contributions/Raving_Nutter. Lawrence § t/e 23:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I, too, feel uneasy about a single-purpose account being created solely to make that comment. El_C 23:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Was that comment about me? I did create an account just to reply to you because I didn't want to be impolite... I wanted to add the links as a guest. I am completely new to this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugenefx19 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No, not about you. About User:Raving_Nutter (linked above). Your new account is welcomed here, which is why I welcomed you. El_C 00:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry about adding links across multiple entries...

I've just emailed you about this too. I've wrote the specifics in the email. Please let me know at your erliest convenience. Thanks.

Why, is there something confidential we can't discuss here? I'd rather do that. I don't check my email that often, I'm afraid. Thank you. El_C 23:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sure. I would like to add 2 links to the Kabbalah page. I've added them before but I guess they were deleted. They fit into the Unconventional and non-traditional sites category. You sent me a message twice about putting links across multiple entires (which I will not do anymore.) The last message was about not leaving you a comment (you mentioned it wasn't polite.) I didn't know how to send you a message otherwise I would have. I apologize.

Do you mind if I first ask what your relationship is with that website, if any? Thanks again.El_C 23:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've visited it a few times and have been enjoying their information. I wa ssurprised it wasn't on Wikipedia like the Kabbalah center's website etc. Also, they have information on mantra so I wanted to add a link to that respective page too... What would you like me to do? How should I approach this?

Well, the content of that website seems to be a bit too promotional and less scholarly than what we are looking for in our external links. And you added it across multiple entries, and even more than once per entry, which for those of us who review high traffic entries tends to, in the vast majority of cases, indicate a promotional effort, one which our pertinent guideline and policy guard against. Hope that helps. El_C 00:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

El C for President!

I just wanted to say that I admire your fairness, conviction, honesty, commitment, intelligence and calm demeanor when under stress and controversy. And to thank you for that. :) Have you ever watched the television series 24? As you remind me of the character, President Palmer, who was the perfect US president (In my eyes, and those of many). Of course he was fictional, but I loved that man and wished he was real, for he had all those qualities with just the right amount of humility. He was able to see the value and had compassion for the individual and country as a whole -- all at the same time. Of course he was eventually assassinated. ;/ ←Gee♥Alice 01:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Gee, GeeAlice, where have you been all my wikilife! Thank you so much for your many kind words, they are greatly appreciated. In answer to your question, no, I have not seen 24, but a black US president... now I know it's fiction! Best, El_C 21:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry...

Hi El C. I was just looking at my talk page and I realised that you left me a message a couple of weeks ago and that I never responded to it. (here) I'm really very sorry about that. I've been on a semi-break since before Christmas for medical reasons and so I've had fairly long chunks of time where I've not being able to come online. Anyway, I just wanted to apologise to you. I wasn't ignoring your message, I guess I just didn't notice it when I got back on 30 January. I had a look at the comments and links you posted on my page and I found them quite baffling. I'm not sure what was "not clear" about your request he simply agree to consult with other admins. It seemed quite straightforward to me. Anyway, I signed the RfC earlier today, but I just wanted to apologise for not responding to you. All the best, Sarah 13:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. Thanks for clearing that up. I hope you're feeling better now. My best wishes with everything. El_C 21:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Refactoring that RfC

Thanks for your intervention. I notice the "Shorter RfC" section seems to have been copied to talk twice now. Can you check again? Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh? It should not have been copied unless also removed from the project page; I'll look into it. El_C 21:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was copied twice to talk, removed from the main page, and then added there again. Now we have three instances of it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Who added it again? El_C 21:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Archtransit himself, apparently. Moved it to his original "response" section. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Unbelievable. You would think that one who expresses himself through such formalities, would stick to the formal rules. El_C 22:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

PSst! I think the word you're looking for is "refactoring". :) Friday (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What did I say? El_C 01:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Unblocking

Fair enough. The user was reported to AIV, which was my reason for taking action. Sorry to step on your toes ;) Brianga (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No, not at all. That makes sense. Thanks again. El_C 10:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Were you in fact referring to User:Asifali online? I blocked him, not ‎User:Abdulbaqi2. Brianga (talk) 10:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I got dyslexic on those two, didn't I! El_C 10:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand your mixup now, and the reason for the unblock (I crossed out the message on Abdulbaqi2's talk page). I would appreciate next time you contact the blocking admin first before an unblock. Alexf⁴² 11:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As I understand yours. I would appreciate next time you read the talk page of the user you block. El_C 11:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

email

Hi, El C. Please check your email. Bucketsofg 19:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Responded to the latest, yesterday (will refactor on your talk page). El_C 10:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello

User:The_TriZ is a POV-warrior who is only here on Wikipedia to engage in revert wars (and nothing else beyond that). If you check his edit history, not one single edit he has made, have been constructive and of any significance. Also, in his reverts (in content disputes), he calls it vandalism when he removes information he doesn't like. I think this user needs to be receive a warning and perhaps a 24h block or something. Here are two examples: [4] [5] He's only here to provoke and nothing else. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 13:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this still a pressing issue? El_C 03:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sort of. He's been off for a few days, but his last edit was quite fanatical.[6] He'll be back soon and I suggest you keep an eye on him. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 16:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can't tell what's what; and in light of our past history, I'm not that inclined to take your word for it. El_C 15:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Yellowbeard has resumed canvassing.

See Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Abd 2 for background on this user, and Special:Contributions/Yellowbeard. Blatant SPA with POV intent, probable meat puppetry if not sock puppetry, I think I put links on the RfA Talk page. Obviously, even if I had the buttons, I couldn't use them here (nor elsewhere, at all, anything touching this user, beyond comment like this, would be obvious COI for me.) Thanks for your attention. --Abd (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I am disappointed; having an alternate account does not mean a license to act contemptuously. I would have blocked for longer than 24 hours and banned him from the RfA page. Which may still be a good idea if he's active there. El_C 03:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Toledano Tradition?

Perhaps you could advise me how to deal with a problem concerning an article called Toledano Tradition. The term is, as far as I know, entirely the creation of Warren Kenton, a popular writer on Kabbalah; and I think it should probabily be merged with his article. I left the message, below, on the article's talk page.

It is my understanding that the name "Toledano Tradition" is really associated with the teaching of Warren Kenton. I know of no one who referred to a specific Toledano Tradition before he started to publish his series of books. If the name was used to describe a specific Kabbalah tradition, in use previous to Kenton, you should site some sources. If it was not used previous to Kenton, you should make it clear that the article is about the views and teaching of Kenton. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There has been no reply, and I would like to know what would be the best approach for solving the problem. Thanks. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Place a {{fact}} tag on the disputed addition/passage, and, if in a week or so no reliable sources are provided that discuss this tradition (i.e. aside from the aforementioned writer), remove it. Hope that helps. Regards, El_C 03:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Barry Jameson block review

I had hoped that we'd get some senior admin review of my judgement in calling the situation, but it rapidly turned into the usual pedophillia related dogpile. I think you made the right call in closing and redacting it. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, George. I appreciate your confidence. I am drafting my note to arbcom-l at the moment, including my block of GroomingVictim. El_C 03:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

May I ask two things: 1. What exactly is a "pedophillia related dogpile"? It sounds as though George is labeling anyone opposing the permablock a pedophile, but I'm sure that couldn't be correct. 2. Why is it "inappropriate" to discuss the block publicly when it was specifically requested to do so?

The appearance is that a vendetta-like shutdown of anything but blind agreement is in progress. I would like to think and certainly hope and want to believe that such is not the case. There seems to be clear support for the Barry block not being indef. The SPA allegation was demonstrated false, but that was redacted.

Can you see why it looks questionable? One of the strengths of Wikipedia has been its transparency, and I hope that we are not losing that. For the record, I agree with the block but recognize that Barry has made some and has attempted to make more decent edits. He's far from perfect and perhaps needs some mentoring, but an indef block is wholly excessive. At bare minimum, though, regardless of the final outcome, I think it would be in everyone's best interests (and Wikipedia's credibility) to not give ANY semblance of a sweep under the rug.

And I certainly hope that the above comment was not meant as a name-calling personal attack. Some might view it that way. I'd prefer not to and would like to have confirmation as such. VigilancePrime (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a matter that's open to public debate. Please direct all related queries to the Arbitration Committee via email. Thanks. El_C 05:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a manner for those of us who do not wish to disclose our email addresses? Therein lies the rub. (And I think the two questions are sufficiently unrelated to be answered irrespective of this particular block... they could be answered as they are general in nature, are they not?) VigilancePrime (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, no, there is no other mechanism. El_C 05:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so that sortof discourages participation. The questions still remain and the implications of them is somewhat disturbing... If possible, I'd really appreciate some clarification from someone.

1. 1. What exactly is a "pedophillia related dogpile"? It sounds as though George is labeling anyone opposing the permablock a pedophile, but I'm sure that couldn't be correct.
2. 2. Why is it "inappropriate" to discuss the block publicly when it was specifically requested to do so?

Thank you for understanding and taking the concerns seriously enough to allay them. VigilancePrime (talk) 06:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

In answer to your first question, I don't know what George meant, you should ask him since he was the one who made the statement. In answer to your second question, the Arbitration Committee has decided to treat these issues as confidential, this notwithstanding the fact that some administrators may be unaware of this decision, thus, requesting comment as they would any other block. Thanks. El_C 06:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

1. No problem. Hoping George will also see it and answer here (simpler centralized). 2. I think I understand. Is that the standing routine for all indef blocks and is that new? I ask because I've seen other indef blocks debated on and on before, so my brain is trying desperately to understand the nuances. VigilancePrime (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It is strictly limited to pedophilia-related blocks. It is relatively new. Since April 2007, I believe. El_C 06:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Long-winded explanation

To clarify my comment - No, I don't believe that everyone opposed to the block is a pedophile. At least one of them has had a nuanced but clearly anti-Pedophile stance on stuff I've seen, and I make no sweeping generalization about the rest, though there are a couple I was concerned about.

We've had a policy of "special handling" of problems of this nature for some time - I wasn't aware of the latest no-public-discussion wrinkle that El C cited policy for here, but I am not suprised. This is far from the first time something like this has happened.

We have to be extremely careful with this topic on-wiki. For one, we have kids around, and we have some duty to protect them. For another, this is a Public Relations hot-button-item - online child sexual predation on internet communities is a big deal now. For another, the topic becomes an intensely hot-button item very rapidly in public discussions. Some people are so vehemently opposed to it that anyone with a nuanced point of view more grey than "burn them" is seen as pro-pedophile, and conversely anyone seeking user sanctions against anyone who is not loudly and clearly actually a pedophile is censoring and interfering with people's rights to have opinions and advocate them.

Add to all of this that very few of us volunteers here are in any way familiar in a proper training sense with identifying actual risk factors, so we're running a risk of making mistakes, and need to be somewhat cautious as a result.

The policy as it stands is not really subject to public debate... Jimmy and Arbcom and senior admins imposed it by fiat. A lot of the public objections to the block started to rehash the policy debate related to that policy, which is not OK. It's not a community policy - it's an administratively imposed one, imposed by community leaders.

The question of whether my judgement on Barry's actions in editing was correct or not is something I hope to have reviewed. The question of whether the policy was good isn't, and was a big part of the discussion that ensued. I should have known better, because I've seen it happen several times before, but I honestly wanted more feedback on whether my indef of Barry was an accurate read on the situation. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Not long-winded, that was good. Thanks again for the thoughtful comments, George. El_C 08:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

GV

For my own edification, and because I would hate to make the same mistake unintentionally, may I ask what was "potentially problematic" about GoomingVictim's userpage? I didn't recall anything particularly unusual about it compared to any other userpage and I just read through the last version (before you blanked it for the above concerns) and still cannot figure out what's problematic about it. The only thing I could come up with was that he posted an email address, but Wikipedia allows email through its own system so that doesn't seem all to odd. There wasn't any sort of personal declarations (such as self-identification with forbidden groups, conditions, or beliefs), and nothing I saw as over-revealing of personal information. No advertising, and no personal attacks. What am I missing? VigilancePrime (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The account is indefinitely blocked, and that's reason enough to blank the page. I'm not going to specify beyond that at this time, sorry. El_C 06:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you at least clarify to those editors that are befuddled by this block and the method in which it is being addressed why all communication regarding GroomingVictim and the blocking of him is going on in private? I'm not sure why this block deserves this kind of precautions, and public discussion is less likely to feed all the conspiracy theories going around. If this editor did something inappropriate, or edited in a disruptive manner, and hard evidence is provided to corroborate this, I'm sure no one will argue against corrective action. However, as of right now, it's very unclear on what grounds this editor has been labeled as editing in a pro-pedophile activist manner. The thing is that Wikipedia is largely about openness, and it doesn't bode well for the project to have discussion about controversial blocks going on behind the scenes, instead of out in public. How can any kind of community or admin consensus be reached, if ArbCom is the one handling this situation? Hope you don't mind the inquiry, but blocks like these are just confusing, to say the least. ~ Homologeo (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot. Rest assured that if the Committee takes issue with my block, the consequences for me will be severe. Thanks. El_C 06:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That sounds too much like a "trust me to be trusted". I realize that it's not you and that it's Wikipedia (or at least a larger admin/policy group), but like Homologeo said, it can start the conspiracy theorists. Is there a place that, when the Committee is "done", they at least post their decisions? Like Wikipedia:Results of secret ArbCom discussions or something? VigilancePrime (talk) 06:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

VigilancePrime, while the last part of your comment is funny, please be careful with the sarcasm ;-) Same goes for your comment below. ~ Homologeo (talk) 06:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a lot me, too, as I was the one who originally asked for these measures from the Arbitration Committee on their mailing list. I think, when it comes to possible pro-pedophilia activism, we are willing to make an exception, and are far better served in being seen as censors than as moral relativists. Thanks again. El_C 07:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean for that to be (too) sarcastic. At least a page like that would make it plain that things got discussed and decided. Is there a place for peasant editors like us to find out what's going on in the WikiIvory WikiTowers? Seriously, I would love to see something like that page where at least the results, even if they were somewhat cryptic (limiting personal details, perhaps) were available. I think it would prevent a lot of repeat problems (learning from others' mistakes) and also enhance the Good Faith feeling of admins in general, for as we all know some people have a low opinion of all of them (as opposed to me... I only have a low opinion of a couple that have demonstrated their poor behaviors, and I haven't run across any like that for quite awhile, which is a good thing). VigilancePrime (talk) 06:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC) :-D

If they do not say anything, I take it to indicate that the block stands. El_C 07:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing comments from ANI

It would be helpful if you would cite the policy you are invoking to remove comments. Without that, it appears rather arbitrary. Pairadox (talk) 06:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I am removing it per this decision. El_C 06:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Try mentioning that when you remove the comments. Some little note tucked away on your talk page (which will eventually be archived) isn't really enlightening to the masses. Pairadox (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait, so this somehow became a policy now? Pardon my expression, but what is going on with Wikipedia? ~ Homologeo (talk) 06:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Operating procedure, at least. I attached it to User talk:Barry Jameson. I seem to have forgot to add to the GV, sorry about that. El_C 06:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that if this is going to be policy, it needs to be codified into an actual policy. How about Wikipedia:Don't you dare edit a pedophilia article or Wikipedia:Activism is not allowed, period. (I like the latter...!) VigilancePrime (talk) 06:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC) :-)

I think that's rather hyperbolic. Rather, it is damaging for our reputation to have single-purpose accounts who almost exclusively edit these set of articles and do so in a, broadly, sympathetic manner. El_C 07:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be "our" reputation as a repository for all things pop culture related? Pairadox (talk) 07:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand that question. El_C 07:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent after TWO Edit Conflicts...) I don't think so. I've stated before that POV-pushing should not be allowed. The thing is this: it shouldn't be allowed at all. We shouldn't allow XYZ-Activist editing but allow ABC-Activist editing. Should we allow Creationists to bias articles toward Creationism but forbid (and permaban) non-creationists from biasing articles away from it? No... Neither should be "allowed" to violate WP:NPOV and both should be rebuked. Same with the pro-pedophile activism and anti-pedophile activism. One pushes to allow adult-child sex while the other pushes to vilify people for thought. Neither should be able to push for their "agenda". This applies to anything else... Pro-choice and Anti-abortion, Gay rights and Homophobia, Democrat and Republican. All I want to see is codification and an even application of true WP:NPOV policies across Wikipedia. I think that would help to bolster even more Wikipedia's reputation and credibility. VigilancePrime (talk) 07:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Side Note: Barry and GrooV were not Single-Purpose Accounts. They had focused edits in limited areas, but by no means edited only one track. Barry edited, among others, Rosie O'Donnell! How is THAT related to Perverted-Justice? Exactly.

You don't think so what? Obviously, it was decided to treat pro-pedophilia activism differently. As for them not being single-purpose accounts, I was unable to find in GV's contributions a single edit that's unrelated to pedophilia. But even if there was a few, we do not define single-purpose editing through a rigid criteria of everything or nothing. It'd be self-defeating. El_C 07:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I can vaguely understand why one type of POV-pushing is bad (and all the others accepted?); it's a politics thing. And while GrooV has a limited focus, he's edited on both Pro- and Anti- articles... not only that, I think that after only 188 edits, it's a little early to determine... I long for the day when a true WP:NPOV will be enacted, so that it doesn't matter WHY or HOW one is pushing an agenda, the mere pushing of an agenda (bad-faith pushing, as some agenda-pushing is usually unintentional in all areas) is cause for concern. Agreed? VigilancePrime (talk) 07:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to respond to that. But, certainly, I think your description is overly simplistic. El_C 07:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Find Kitty

File:Andean Cat.jpg

Where's Kitty? El_C 11:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

A puffy tail! Kitty 12:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE (2)

I saw your current post on WP:AE. When you step back, can you look at the two lower reports related to the same ArbComm case? The admins who have been active on the page in the 48 hours since those reports were edited all consider themselves to not meet the case's definition of "uninvolved admin". So, as far as I can tell, they haven't been investigated yet. (I'm one of the admins declining to investigate.) GRBerry 00:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? Because it appears to me as if Rlevse is the one handling it, so I don't want to step on his toes (and any potential solution he has in mind) by blocking the lot of em for a while, which is almost certainly what I would opt for (then, with all that noise reduced, I would look into the basis for the complaint on the other, more substantive fronts). I am interested to learn what you would do, though... El_C 07:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not touching it with a ten foot pole for a few reasons. Since I'm not touching it with a ten foot pole, I'm not wasting my time investigating by finding the context for the original diffs. First, back in April 2006 I was involved in a POV balancing dispute on a related article. Not that it reached the level of a dispute needing outside attention or administrative attention, but it was a content dispute - so I've got a related content dispute in my history and don't meet the case's definition of uninvolved admin. Second, I was the admin who said "I am willing to unblock" and got RFAR/Palestine Remembered accepted by the ArbComm - in the end, the blocking admin accepted that the block was wrong so the case settle amicably, but I've been active and could be seen as biased. Third, I was somewhat involved in the Allegations of Apartheid RFAR, becoming involved after that mess got quite incivil at DRV. I don't think items 2 and 3 disqualify me, but some folks could see me as biased because of them. Fourth, I've got a itchy trigger finger where Jaakabou is concerned, and am not willing to anything more active than page protections where he is involved (though I'll comment as I see fit) - I've been attacked by both Jaakabou and PR for being biased in favor of the other during the course of trying to moderate their interactions. GRBerry 22:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I, too, am unlikely to be "wasting my time investigating by finding the context for the original diffs," unless I know my help is sought. El_C 07:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI (Bishonen's image)

I've mentioned your name here[7]. I do remember seeing you adding that template, I am sure; I remember thinking it was one less image I had to worry about. Risker (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No, that wasn't me. But that was a strange deletion. Unfortunately, the admin behind it does not appear too inclined to discuss it, either. El_C 07:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Turns out it was Nandesuka, and s/he has gotten the image reinstated as far as I can see. I will check to make sure there is a NFUr on the image page and hopefully that will be the end of this silliness. I rather doubt it, however, given Betacommandbot's current schedule. Risker (talk) 07:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure what happened there. I added the NFUr template, but beta deleted it anyway. Presumably I got something wrong the first time; I wouldn't mind a second pair of eyes making sure I got the tag right. Nandesuka (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it turns out that it needs an additional tag that actually names the article in which the image appears, so I used one of the templates hanging around, and it shouldn't bounce back up again. The things we do to satisfy that bot... Risker (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in the image, just keeping the talk page free of boTW/etc. noise. El_C 15:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Che image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stop hounding me, already. El_C 23:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I was willing to accept the image if it was nonfree in theory but free de facto, as the license tag you placed on the image page suggests. Previously, I didn't investigate the correctness of the tag, I just trusted it was correct.

Now I realize that Korda sued people for using the image, which contradicts the wording of the license tags on the Guevara photo images. It appears to be simply false that any use that reminds people of Guevara is acceptable. I don't see how the image can be considered "free" in any sense after the creator has sued people for using it commercially. This must have been discussed before, right? — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was discussed; I brought it up myself. It is free use, we are not making commercial use of it. El_C 00:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In other cases, even if we have explicit permission to use an image, but the license is noncommercial, we don't classify the image as free. This is why the {{withpermission}} tag looks like it does. Applying that general principle to this image, we would classify it as nonfree because it is noncommercial. It seems that Korda made it clear (based on things I see around on WP) that he did not consider the image free, but had a personal set of criteria that he would use to decide if he permitted each use. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's quite clear that it's conditional free use: free to use according to the conditions he set; that's why I uploaded it, to fulfill those. El_C 01:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

How is that different than {{withpermission}}? That applies when we have direct written permission to use an image, but we consider it inadequate for noncommercial images. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That wiki-legal-speak is not pertinent. He gave general permission to freely use it if it propagates the memory of Che, which I am doing. El_C 01:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps technically the image is not allowed, but a) I don't see any harm, b) it is not illegal, c) I am not going to remove it. _(1 == 2)^Until 01:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am not removing it yet, to give El C a chance to explain. But I am less concerned here with the spirit of Che than the spirit of WP. Our spirit is to be a free content project, which means we refuse to accept special permission to use image the authors won't permit everyone else to use. Honestly - how is this different than {{withpermission}}? — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)This is a user talk page, not part of the free encyclopedia we are producing, so once again while I agree there may be a rule against it, I so no harm to the spirit of our goals. _(1 == 2)^Until 01:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I already explained. The spirit of WP is common sense, the spirit of rules superseding legalistic absolutist application of its letter. El_C 01:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Can I get back to editing now, or am I still waiting? El_C 01:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The spirit of WP is to be a free content project. So it's the spirit of WP that goes against using nonfree images, not the rules, which permit us to use nonfree images in many contexts. I looked at this archive, where the image was discussed before. My main question at the moment is which forum is appropriate for discussing these images more broadly. I'll let you know when I figure it out. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've used this image for four years without incident. Lately, it has come under attack every two months or so. It's getting tiresome. Only in the Kafkaeque, Orwellian mindset of Wikipedia image philosophy, a conditionally free image like this is somehow not free enough because it cannot be exploited commercially, against the authors wishes. I wouldn't be too eager to call that the spirit of anything, unless you're just, robotically, reciting rhetoric, aimlessly. El_C 06:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Not hard to imagine what Che would have thought of this. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

---

It's fine, nobody is going to sue. I'm only using the images on my userpage (I'm entitled to the 30k in total, no? Do I not do enough to be allowed that much of images that are only for my page?) Obviously, I am following the freeuse conditions that the copyright holder stipulates: "to propagate the memory of Che" and am doing so as a sympathizer. There are plenty of pressing image issue for folks to expend their energies on then a zero risk one such as this. A bureaucratic effort, or one aiming to make an unrelated point (hopefully, certainly not simply to target me so as to cause me grief), are a waste of energy, too. Thanks, everyone, for reading carefully. El_C 12:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue with nonfree images is not at all related to the risk of us being sued. I assume you are already familiar with the free-content arguments, and are simply ignoring them. The aren't bureaucratic arguments about policy; they are arguments about the mission and purpose of Wikipedia to be a free content project. Images which can only be used by certain people, or only for certain purposes, are not free images, and pull us away from that mission.

I have rarely interacted with you and have no desire specifically to cause you grief. I'm planning to nominate the Che images on WP:PUI to clarify the license situation, but it won't be until next week, since I will be traveling for several days this weekend. I'll add nonfree use rationales to the images at the same time, for the articles in which they are used. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

They have already been nominated on WP:PUI; so the constant repetition does seem suspect. On your part, too. But I did have low expectations in being able to reason with you, having seen your conduct on the IRC/RfAr (in fact, I suspect, this is somehow related). El_C 13:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a link? I saw the previous discussion on FUR, which came out in favor of calling them nonfree (that's what Quadell came here to report). I'll look for a link, too. This is unrelated to IRC; I am much more idealistic about free content than about online chatting. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're idealistic about targeting me. But what goes around comes around. El_C 13:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop the polemics and any veiled threats. I'm not interested in you personally.

I don't believe that the image was discussed on PUI, but I could be wrong. Mike Rosoft seems to have thought about nominating it on PUI, but changed his mind and put it at WP:FUR instead. Here is the archived discussion. It appears from that short discussion that the consensus was that the image is not under a free license, that the use on articles is acceptable under our nonfree use criteria, and that use on user pages would need to be discontinued. I notice that you didn't participate in that discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Karma is not a veiled threat, but it does not surprise me that you would assume such bad faith to deem it to be that. I think your irrational quest to follow rules blindly, because you feel it fulfills some abstract ideals, will prove self-defeating for you. Just the time that took me to I write this comment, I often get rid of many real copyrights issues, risky issues, not ones with zero-risk and harm. But your disproportionate, non-realist, rigid and dogmatic approach seems to favour some imaginary gains over what is real, attainable progress for the project. I think that's most of it (though, I also suspect I represent in your mind the side you fought against in the IRCRfAr). I find it sad. El_C 14:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't identify you with anyone else, and I don't associate you with the parties of the IRC arbcom case. I think that reducing the number of nonfree image uses on WP is a real gain for the project, not an imaginary one. There's a difference between following rules blindly and making concrete actions to advocate for abstract ideals - I'm sure that your use of the Che image here is evidence you can appreciate that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Your immediate assumption of bad faith above tends to cause me to doubt your ... disassociation. I think my usage of the two images is fine; if it makes me more productive and poses no risk or real harm, why would you expend so much energy to the contrary? I find it highly suspect. And judging from that assumption of bad faith, now you're so upset at me, you are going to make it a mission to cause me maximum harm. There was no way for me to avoid it, however. El_C 14:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to avoid any quid pro quo about assumptions of bad faith or each of our motives here. Can we stick to the matter at hand, which is the Che images? As you must know, "risk" and "harm" are not relevant factors in deciding whether the use of nonfree images is acceptable on WP. Our goal is not to use nonfree images only when it's safe - it's to use nonfree images as little as possible while writing an encyclopedia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I find you claiming that inclination to be credible, since how many time did I repeat myself? Our goal is to write a free encyclopedia, not sacrifice that by applying our rules inflexibly. El_C 14:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

At least we agree the goal is related to writing a free encyclopedia; that's something. My motivation for nominating the images at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images is to have a discussion to try to resolve whether the images are under a free license or a nonfree license. That question seems to be at the heart of the disagreement over both the tags on the image description pages and the use of the images on several users' personal pages. But I won't be able to do that until next week. I'll let you know when I get everything written up. Until then, I won't bother you more about the images. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Israeli-Palestinian conflict sanctions

Just wanted to write and commend you for your work at WP:AE (and elsewhere) in dealing with the I-P editing battles. I noticed that you wrote: "There's no "someone," there's only moi. I highly doubt anyone else would be willing to look into this. These disputes are too time consuming and the Arbitration Committee strict criteria of "uninvolved" means that few admins looking into these issues have the necessary familiarity with the content to speed things up enough. Anyway, both sides are allowed one revert per day, including a talk page comment. .... El_C 07:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)" I hope the situation isn't so dire that it's really only you, but in any case, your work is appreciated. I am curious, meanwhile -- what did you mean by including a talk page comment? Were they reverting each other's comments? Be well, HG | Talk 03:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thx, HG. I appreciate your kind words. By that, I meant accompanying every revert with an explanation on the talk page (a fairly standard practice for revert limitation formulas). Anyway, not only did I create Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Jewish Neighborhoods versus Settlements of Jerusalem as a central venue for discussion, I also created Neighborhoods of the Ring, Jerusalem as a central article about the dispute. How many admins do that for arbitration enforcement? Still, I guess some people aren't pleased no matter what. בברכה, El_C 08:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

On AN/I, Titles, Retitling, and Justice Delayed

Am I to understand thus that you think that civility concerns are a misuse of AN/I? Relata refero (talk) 14:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That's the best title you could think of? Not good... He already made the same complaint a few weeks ago; it was no longer an incident. El_C 14:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the title, my imagination does run out a bit.... yes, I understand that. I admit to thinking that an unclosed incident does not cease to be an incident, particularly when it appears to be part of a pattern. Still, I understand the point you were making now. Relata refero (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

DONT

Don't GIVE me warning mr. Do a favor, remove yourself from Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by THEunique (talk • contribs) 16:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Get in line. :) El_C 16:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Your rollback

This diff here shows your abuse of rollback. User:Miltopia may likely be a sock puppet of Blu Aardvark and this was never disproven, only the evidence inconclusive so it should be left as suspected sock puppet as it is possible Blu Aardvark is renting an IP address or using a botnet to hide his IP. Blu Aardvark has done many of these types of things in the past (User:Arkalochori's sock farm are Blu Aardvark socks, too, coming from the same location Oregon as him and sharing the same POV and editing styles) and if User:Archtransit (administrator recently banned for sockpuppetry) resides in the USA then this very well could be Blu Aardvark. Blu Aardvark is known for having many white hat and black hat identities that pretend to be different people but are all him. Blu Aardvark someitmes even talks to themselves with his socks, but many socks are known to do such as Amorrow's socks and this sock of someone else that Fred Bauder proved as a sock [8] and this other sock [9]. The Runcorn socks also talked to themselves. In conclusion, I believe Blu Aardvark has large numbers of sock puppets not blocked and is admin farming, too. 67.150.121.104 (talk) 13:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

They are not the same person, I know that for a fact. El_C 15:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

FYI [10]. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I use five or six images for my userspace that are mainspace-orphaned (e.g. Image:Bed-claim.jpg, etc.). I guess I have to protect those that get targetted by this orphaned-images bot... Oh well; at least it isn't the legal-technicality argument, that was getting too much. El_C 15:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh my goodness! That cat looks exactly like Moy (amor), my wife's most beloved of our 3 cats. Not just black-and-white but the markings seem all the same. Moy is, well, your classic black-and-white mega-friendly puss. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments needed

If you have the time, would love to hear your input here. Rarelibra (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Still an issue? El_C 15:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Profoundest apologies

When one clicks the (+) at the top of the page to create a new section, one is not permitted to enter an edit summary. One assumes that the section header is used as the edit summary, but when one is posting an entire conversation with section header intact, one does not get an edit summary at all unless one makes the extra effort to take the section header off of the conversation and put it in the box provided. One begs forgiveness for this incredible lapse. Thatcher 22:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Trolling on talk page

Howdy El C, I wanted to let you know that I have someone trolling me on my talk page here. I wouldn't really mind, but I don't want it to go unanswered, lest it gets worse. Thanks. FrederickTG (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Jews and Socialism

Just read a couple of interesting essays on Jewish radicalism in the early 20th century--for example, the American Federation of Teachers was a "Jewish" labor organization. I belonged to it when I taught some college courses, but I had no idea. The things I didn't know. I come from a long line of Jewish Radicals and Jewish Military leaders. I'm complex. Now I want to find a good book about Jews fighting for the US (or the Allies) in WWII, combine that with Jewish labor leaders of the 20th century, and I'll be even more complex!!!! I'm sure you have some suggestions? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My knowledge of US history, in general, is rather dismal. And articles here, on Wikipedia, about the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee or the Jewish Brigade leave a lot to be desired. But you don't want to hear me talkings, anyway, you want readings: so, on the flip side, then, is Joseph W. Bendersky's (history professor and head of graduate studies at Virginia Commonwealth University) 500+ page The "Jewish Threat": Anti-semitic Politics of the U.S. Army (Basic Books, 2000; ISBN 0465006183), which is probably/not what you were looking for (see especially the bibliography); see also his "The Absent Presence: Enduring Images of Jews in United States Military History" (American Jewish History, Vol. 89, No. 4, Dec. 2001, pp. 411-436). [Incidentally, I found out about Bendersky's work through Jonathan Frankel's Dark Times, Dire Decisions: Jews and Communism (Oxford University Press US, 2004; ISBN 0195182243), which although I have disagreements with, still recommends for a broader overview.] So that could work for complexity / complexion / complexes! El_C 17:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You're better than Google for me on this stuff. When I was doing Officer training back in the late 70's, there were a lot of officers still around from WWII and the Korean War. I didn't wear my a big yellow Star of David on my uniform, and my last name is not even slightly Jewish, and I would hear all kinds of anti-semitic and overt racism and sexism from the other officers. I didn't think about it until I saw the recent PBS documentary about Jews in America. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Which documentary? As an aside, I notice we have no article on the Second Jewish Battalion. Perhaps I'll translate it for the English wiki when I get a chance (no mention of it at Jewish military history#World War II). El_C 18:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought you would have seen it. Here's a link Jewish Americans. It is a typical PBS documentary, very well done. There is a companion book that I picked up which I actually enjoyed much more Wenger, Beth S. The Jewish Americans: Three Centuries of Jewish Voices in America. Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday. ISBN 0-385-52139-1.. I need to look at that article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll for those (looks like the soundtrack has been posted on usenet). I'll keep an eye for it. Sounds interesting! El_C 18:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You may not like this

[11] many lebaneese civilians were killed when their homes were bombed. about 100 homes were bombed in the first day of the war. Those bombed homes belonged to Hzbulla operatives who hide missiles in their homes. Since those are large families we can assume that there were 4-5 fatalities per such home if not more. Zeq (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a strange way to start a sentence/paragraph, Zeq. Anyway, I'm not that interested in the content of the claim itself here, so much as I take exception to the method whereby a claim is placed before a citation —used for another claim— in an edit summary-less addition. El_C 08:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:Social engineering Internet

Thanks for closing the debate. I guess the issue is too controversial and it struck a nerve. As to what you said that only the author understands its meaning, you might be right about that. It is like a joke told buy a guy which no one understands. Why they do not understand it, is because they were not in the situation where the commedy occurred. So goes the wikidrama of social engineering. Unless you are part of it, it does not make sense. So the WikiCommonSense is not to have wiki social engineering! Igor Berger (talk) 09:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You lost me at "for" (i.e. I'm not sure what this "the issue" is). Certainly, you're welcome. Regards, El_C 09:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What is your native language, Igor? Equazcion •✗/C • 15:50, 7 Mar 2008 (UTC)

RE: Notice

Why was the name of Dpotop removed from the subtitle (and mine was kept) ? Also, the restriction is effective when?Xasha (talk) 12:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is removed; you are both mentioned Equally. Starting now. El_C 12:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I meant on Talk:Moldova, but now I've noticed another user did the edit I was talking about. Sorry.Xasha (talk) 12:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Please report at that link if there are problems, or if I'm not around and you have questions. El_C 13:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Question: If I reinstate this edit ( addition of an infobox)), would I violate the restriction?Xasha (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you get one revert per two days and you reverted yesterday, so you need to wait another day. I should have added that a talk page comment be added per every revert, but I forgot. Let's see if you guys can manage it, anyway. El_C 00:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Does this apply to moving articles?Xasha (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I consider a move to be a revert, by definition, in that something is supplanted (undone) by something else. El_C 02:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I assume the restriction period ends without an official notification.Xasha (talk) 13:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Xasha

I still don't think this is quite right. It repeats the same sentence twice. MSGJ (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

So why didn't you just fix it, like with me adding the "think" to your sentence above? El_C 11:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Bias

I suspect you of being bias. It's vey suspecting the way you came and 'close' very quickly the debate. BereTuborg (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Tread lightly, BereTuborg. El_C 19:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you able to have a civil conversation or not? Tell me. BereTuborg (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

As my closing statement reads, the argument — which I need not nor will I be involved in— is to be undertaken at the article's talk page, not at the deletion debate for or anything relating to the userbox. It's impertinent to anything, at this time. El_C 19:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Aw, c'mon, can it be more obvious that it's Bonny having a spring aggravation? --Illythr (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Hi, as a request, could you please add {{protected}} after you protect a page? Otherwise it tends to mess up people's watchlists.  :/ For some reason, protection tends to mask any other recent edits from showing up on watch, unless a template is also placed to reactivate things. Thanks, --Elonka 20:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Template or warning notice for clarity?

Hi El C - I wonder if you think it a good idea to also add a warning notice and appropriate edit summary at Igorberger's talk page - for the benefit of him understanding exactly what the topic ban is and the duration of that ban? Such a warning notice might also help us if/when he ever says he did not understand the extent or true extent of the ban. I would do it myself but I am trying my best to keep at arm's distance whilst he vents his wrath at me all over wikipedia.--VS ^talk 23:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Done and done. El_C 19:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hi back - a well put message - I hope he heeds.--VS ^talk 20:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please unprotect my user page

I wrote on my user page that Wikipedia is censored and Wikipedia totalitarian regime. That is my POV and it may be others and maybe not. NPOV is a collection of POVs that is how a consensus is built for NPOV. There is no need for orotection of my user page. If you would have came to my talk page and asked me to remove that I would listen to your argument and other editor's POV to establish a consensus if that should be kept or deleted. I am not edit warring with you or anyone else. I also will not put this back on my user page untill a consesus is established that it can be put back. Please unprotect my user page. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, I'm not gonna play these tautological games. I'll unprotect the page, but if you continue to add bits to it that attack other contributors — yes, including by insinuation and timing— it will be reprotected. I'd prefer it if you were to not waste anyone's time with this. El_C 20:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! You misunderstud what I meant. Protecting the whole Wikipedia from any controversy is a totalitarianism, it is martial law. I am not pointing fingers but talking about how the Internet community percieves us. You have a picture of Guevara on your user page. Are you not making a statment? Igor Berger (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

User:El C This is my concern Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Fuck_.28disambiguation.29 not a nude picture on a user page, or a political statement on a user page. My consern is some editors come to Wikipedia to impose their social and cultural believes on this project without understanding the governing principles of the project being an encyclopedia, which is not censored and NPOV! I hung out on ANI to watch the discussion and to figure out who is the real disruptive editor. I posted some comment and the disruptive editor would get in an argument with me. It is really a hard job to separate the good from the bad, to keep the project NPOV. I tried to protect the good faith editors from false accusations that some SPA editors have brought to ANI. Was I always right? Well most of the editors that I investigated have been blocked indef. When I entered the ANI discussion, I might have been seen out of place, with what I said, by other good faith editors. Because their first interpertation, was who is this guy! Also not knowing the whole story, I might have even defended the bad faith editor, but as I looked at the case, and examined diferent editor's history I proceeded in the right direction, which many of the admins participating in ANI, might not have time or the dilegence to do. So they are quick to come up with judgement. Anyway I tried to help, thinking of the project and no COI. But maybe I got in the way, and I appologize for that. Actually I am happy that I got banned from Wikipedia namespace for 30 days. I got envolved too much, trying to help, and it has been very consuming. I have neglected important things in my life just to help Wikipedia project. Wikipedia is very adictive! So I hope you understand my envolvement and do not think bad of me. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Even though I mentioned at the announcement of your restrictions that you can appeal at the arbitration page (at ANI: stating at the very end of the announcement that you have unrestricted access to make such an appeal at the RfAr page, of course, and then on your own talk page: If you really object to these restrictions strongly, feel free to appeal at the arbitration page. ^{emphasis added}), you still go ask Jehochman to launch an arbitration page on your behalf, claiming you do not want to file the ArbCom hearing request because I fear that will be used as excuse that I violated the imposed ban. It's not adding up. El_C 22:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for appeal. It does not matter if I am right or wrong. The community asked me not to edit WP: namespace for 30 days and I will respect that. Igor Berger (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It hardly responds to unrestricted access-excuse that I violated the imposed ban! El_C 08:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

So I Soaped, I am only human..:) You understand how I felt when I was in ANI, right? So I had some WP:TEA and got some common sense! We not here to trash someone are we? Just help them out during hard times of wikidrama! Igor Berger (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Human works both ways, so a little acknowledgment, and perhaps even, I dare say, an expression of remorse toward those primarily targeted by that assumption of bad faith... El_C 08:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

May apology to you, and I have never assumed bad faith about you or considered you "totalitarian". Igor Berger (talk) 09:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what? I'm just saying, I'd have appreciated a note about that, because it just looked bad. El_C 09:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if I came up in the wrong way towards you, my issue was never with you, but how many users have been treated on Wikipedia, sometimes not intentionally, but it does look like strong-armed. Maybe in the heat of the moment it is really hard to figure out who is the bad guy, and we just want to prevent disruption to the project. I hope we can get to know each other and put this whole mess behind us. Igor Berger (talk) 09:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed there are quite a few of us around here that deserve a sincere expression of remorse from you Igor - and if given and then coupled with you changing your editing behaviour and lucidity, would go a damn long way to us starting to change our opinions. I mean none of us like to feel as if we are the bad guy simply because we are assisting (read directing) a new editor such as yourself.--VS ^talk 09:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Well Steve, if you can see me as a good faith editor I would love to work with you, because I am here to help the project and nothing else. I really do not give two hoots about SEI essay or any other articles I tried to write. Igor Berger (talk) 09:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• (Sorry to user your pixel space El_C - I won't be too wordy) Igor - for me I take a long time to lose my good faith and then some time to gain it back. If you are writing the truth here - and you stay on point (not ramble on) - then I am sure that over a shortish period of time I will see some different edits from you and come to a different conclusion than the one you have forced upon me at this stage. Personally - if I can be bold - I note that when you are stopping (perhaps with TEA) to think about what you are writing - your spelling and grammar improves and you are calm enough to write things that do not grate nor inflame. For me then you have potential and on the proviso given here I am sure I will, in time(!), see you as a good faith editor.--VS ^talk 09:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Steve, I really hope so, because my intent from day one was about the prject, nothing else. Igor Berger (talk) 09:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Some help

I accidently encountered Merechriolus (talk · contribs) while I did my usual editing of medical articles, in this particular case, AIDS. The first time I reverted their edits, it was because the citations supported the statement (and it was a minor statement at that) that conservatives are less inclined to accept the cause of AIDS. The number of reliable and verifiable references (both primary and secondary) that support this contention are large. But honestly, it was minor to me, because I try to focus on the medical aspects of articles, cleaning up citations and all.

Since that time, he has posted uncivil commentary and personal attacks in various locations including here, here, here and here. He has called me and others tendentious editors (and since I edit a bunch of different articles on a wide-variety of subjects, usually in cleaning up references, style, spelling and language, I'd hardly qualify as tendentious), making a wiki-threat, and further accusations of tendentious editing.

I never claim to be the most civil of editors, but mostly I try to do the right thing around here, given some of the BS that I see all the time. However, this editor is testing my patience, and I'm about ready to give him the figurative finger soon. I'm hoping you can get him under control. If not, then I've got to move to the really frustrating and difficult to use RfC process, which I have found to rarely actually effect a change when necessary. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Is this still a pressing issue? I do notice at a glance that a few established editors are now on the scene (Raul654, etc.)... Regards, El_C 22:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he's getting worse. See this. I usually do my own battles with difficult editors, but I've been asked to be more civil. It's not in my nature, so I'm hoping someone can kick his tendentious little fanny for me.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to look into it soon, but it looks like others are already there. I doubt I'm as well oriented as the about what's going on. El_C 08:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I dropped the user a note about the removal. We'll see what happens from there. El_C 08:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Censorship?

Here is our problem Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Christopher_Mann_McKay User:Prester John Is running around the whole project wanting to delete all images from user pages that do not support his conservative POV. I hope he does not MfD your Guevara because it maybe seen as your support for communism..:) That is why I got involved in the Wikipedia talk:User_page Because Prester John tried to delete User:WebHamster image. Yes, Wikipedia is not censored, and we should not be policing user pages! Just policing user pages is censoring Wikipedia and disrupting the project. Do you think I care who has what on their user page? Do you think I need to say Wikipedia is censored on my user page? Just tell this guy to leave everybody alone and go edit some articles and not disrupt Wikipedia to prove his WP:POINT. I hope you understand I am just standing up for Wikipedia to protect NPOV. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 07:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It does not concern you specifically; please do not edit that page. Find something else to do. Thanks. El_C 08:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to edit anytihng. I just brought the matter to your attention. If we as a community do not want nude, political, religious images on user pages we should add it to our policy. It could be amended to say "While Wikiepdia is not censored, images on user pages that are put to make a statement of sexualtiy, politics, and religion are not allowed; still user boxes that make such references are allowed." This way we do not have to ad hoc censor and police user pages. So if the community by consesus decides to amend the policy it should be amended. Otherwise it looks like selective censorship. This I like this I do not like! Igor Berger (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want me to give serious consideration to your thoughts, you will have to do the same with mine, see two sections up. Thx. El_C 08:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

These type of issues come up every once in a while. Sometimes, if there's something specific that offends enough people at the given time, it gets removed; other times it doesn't. It's fairly arbitrary, in a sense, and, overall, at the end of the day, not much is changed. I wouldn't worry about it, the discussion will probably be over in a few days; lot's of other things to do, involving articles. El_C 09:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet case User:Rachel63 and User:Bsharvy

User:Equazcion filed the case because I brought the suspicion to his attention, but now User:Rachel63 has filed an ANI case against him. I have left the evidence here. User_talk:Equazcion#Anti-Americanism User:Rachel63 seems to know a lot about Wikipedia system, even being that she is a new user, she has participated in AfD for Anti-Americanism eventhough she never edited the article. I would like to submit the evidence to ANI so it can be further investigated. Bsharvy nominated the article for deletion, and even after a keep decission she is warring with all editors to have the article deleted. And slowly deleting large chunks of the article. Please let me know if I can add the evidence to ANI or SSP, whichever you think is better. Igor Berger (talk) 11:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever Equazcion thinks is okay with me. El_C 11:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will ask him if he needs me in the discussion. Igor Berger (talk) 11:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't make the report because of you, but because of Theo Pardilla, the editor who actually raised the original concern. Igor, you don't need to go around informing everyone whenever something happens. Please cool it. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:20, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

It is getting a bit much, Igor. El_C 11:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Equazcion, well nice to know other editors have the same consern, just let me know if you need help. I will leave it in your hands. El C, I will just let Equazcion take care of it. Thanks, Igor Berger (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi

How are you? --Silversmith Hewwo 21:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm well. Long time no C! El_C 14:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou

Thankyou for taking a principled stand re the Jaakobou incident. You may not be aware of all the nuances of Jaakobou's offence, some of which Nishidani has elucidated at his talk page. I must also agree with you regarding Durova's apparent obliviousness to this offence, and her totally inappropriate and irrelevant gushing over Jaakobou's image manipulation skills.

But basically I just wanted to say that I hope you will not interpret my failure to add my voice to your comments at AE to indicate a lack of support. It's not that I think Jaakobou's actions wouldn't warrant AE intervention, but since he has not restored his offensive notices, and as I prefer not to dramatize misbehaviour, I am now disinclined to pursue the matter any further. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the support. El_C 11:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Israel-Gaza conflict

Hi El_C: Because of your interest in this subject, and based on your observations and questions [12] closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holocaust of Gaza, I have created a new NPOV (long overdue) lead article for the Israel-Gaza conflict as well as Category:Israel-Gaza conflict that should contain the major articles related to this topic. Feel free to add to or improve the new article. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm impressed, Izak. Well done! I will try to review it closely soon. El_C 06:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC) ,בברכה

Poetry

The poem at the bottom of your page is beautiful. Who wrote it? -- Naerii · plz create stuff 21:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, indeed. It is by Iranian revolutionary poet Khosrow Golsorkhi. Best, El_C 02:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems you have a fan...

...With a dynamic address, [13] I have already blocked two, but it seems like this is somebody with a grudge against you, any idea who is behind them? - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No idea. Yeah, I don't think it wants to be my friend. Thanks for staying on top of it during my absence. El_C 02:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

image captions

Generally, species-level infobox images don't need a caption. I think for a lithograph, it's a decent idea to put one, but "sitting in a tree, happy" is far from encyclopedic. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I just used "happy" for the edit summary, actually. El_C 13:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Even so, the caption of "Pygmy Mouse Lemur on a branch" does not add anything to the image. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop following me around. El_C 13:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following you. I have those articles on my watch list. Please don't add those captions. I'm reverting again. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I will continue to add the captions; I'm reverting again. El_C 13:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not. They are against common practice. I'm removing them again. Please don't make me give you an edit block. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You are not allowed to block users whom you are involved in an edit dispute with. You seem to have breached the 3RR in one of the articles. El_C 13:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:IGNORE. You are blocked for 3 hours. Cool off and come back later. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Why would I not block you, if I hit the block button first, see the logic? You reverted WP:3RR in all the articles now. And you blocked me? Wow. El_C 13:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and you undid all the resizes? That has nothing to do with caption. Please don't block me so you can undo all my changes. You do know that I have the physical ability to unblock myself, right? But I wouldn't use it. Just like you should not block users whom you are engaged in edit dsipute with. El_C 13:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a preference of yours. The other image size is a preference of mine. And in fact, 230px is the standard image size for the taxobox. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a single preference; I tend to increase the size when the image is difficult to see. El_C 14:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did you block me? You reverted more times than me. I'm also an admin; why would I not block you, for reverting even more times? El_C 13:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I help here? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. Common practice is to not have captions on species-level articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Is it really necessary to block him over it though? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you unblock me so I can launch an arbitration request to desysop UtherSRG? He blocked me in an edit dispute he was involved in(!) El_C 13:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration! Is that really necessary? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, he blocked me in an edit dispute he was part of; now he violated 3RR? This is an unrestrained admin. Imagine if he was face with greater stress. El_C 13:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This is how it looks to me. Two sensible and normally calm admins got into a tiff over nothing. You reverted against normal practice, he blocked when he shouldn't have. Escalating a spat to arbcom would be counterproductive and I will not assist in that. I am willing to unblock if you agree not to go to the AC and stop edit warring. I'll also post a note on his talk page chastising him. Deal ? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Your actions are as unrestrained. I issued the block to halt the edit warring. -UtherSRG (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

And, WP:IGNORE allows me to do that. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It would allow me to do it but not you as you are involved. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it doens't mean that. It means just what it says it means. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." The rule preventing me from blocking an editor I'm in dispute with prevents me from maintaining Wikipedia, so I am free to ignore it. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no caption policy. If you don't see what you did wrong, you need to be desysoped. El_C 14:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There doesnt' need to be a policy. I told you it is NOT STANDARD for species-level articles to include captions, unless it clarifies the image. "X sitting in a tree" does not do this. You were wrong to restore the caption after I correctly removed it and told you about the standard. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Standard is not policy. You are not allowed to block for that. El_C 14:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No policy is needed. You were in the wrong to continue when you are told to not put captions up. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If only I could block everytime I felt a content opponent was "wrong." Wow. How did you become an admin again? El_C 14:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. El C was adding an image caption not vandalising the article. Whislt a agree that an image caption isn't necessary it isn't a disater either. You were not maintaining wikipedia your were getting into a pettry revert war over nothing. You had no right to block. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That's why I only gave a 3 hour block, it was only a minor issue. The block was given for him to go cool off. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

And that all said: El C, take 3 hours. Go grab something to eat. Come back later. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me for butting in, but I disagree with the block and its rationale. Please do not ever block someone with whom you are in a dispute; this isn't right. Never, ever block an established user except in the most extreme of circumstances, and especially not one with whom you are in a dispute. Uther, I strongly suggest you lift the block yourself. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I shall, but I disagree with you. A cool off time is always acceptable. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. You're welcome. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What about a cool off period for you. It look like you needed it more. You block someone whom you are involved in a content dispute with (there is no caption policy), and, unlike myself, you violate the revert electric fence that is the 3RR. It's easy to just criticize others. El_C 14:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He's has two other admins tell him he was wrong and has undone his block. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He's going to do it again to someone else, though. That's the problem. El_C 14:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think he is saving face that's all. I'm confident that when he is next in a dispute he will remember this and decide against blocking. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He's daring me to do it, outright. I don't think we're dealing with someone who is familiar wit policy, beyond applying IAR to suit his immediate (trivial!) needs. El_C 14:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm hardly daring you to do it. I think you are in the wrong and I stand by my actions. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

So you're willing to block users whom you are in an edit dspute with over something as trivial as a caption, and violate 3RR? Then you patronize me about being cool, when I kept to both those rule while you lacked the restraint to adhere to them. Sounds alarming to me. El_C 14:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Was asking you to stop working? No. Did this get you to stop? Yes. Did my actions harm the encyclopedia? No. Seems to be reasonable to me. Were there other actions I could have taken? Sure. Some would have been effective, but taken longer. Others would not have been. I took a gamble. What was lost? I pissed you off. The world is coming to an end if that's so terrible. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you revert yourself? Yes. Is it a content dispute? Yes. Did you block someone whom you were engaged in a content dispute? Yes. Did you violate 3RR? Yes, yes, yes, and yes. El_C 14:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Could I make a suggestion. As feelings are still running high could you two stop talking to each other until tomorrow. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He already reverted all my changes; so I guess he's the one who owns those articles, because I refuse to block for trivial reasons or to get an edge in a content dispute. El_C 14:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Take comfort in that. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I will, later. I'm bothered that he is reverting other minor additions of mine, just to try to get to me (and using a revert edits by blocked user as an edit summary — how's that for a blatantly abusive summary!). El_C 14:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the edit summary wasn't nice. I suspect that he wrote it without thinking. We've all done that (me more than most). But, as you say you didn't use admin tools, so whatya say - forgive him? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He's not saying sorry, he is effectively daring me to take steps to have him desysoped (sure, I'll oblige). And now he gets to keep all his versions, because he is abusive with the block button? That's not cool. El_C 15:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He's trying to save face, that's all. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish I could find that reassuring. But it'd only go to further reaffirm to me his aggressive predisposition. El_C 15:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

OK lets take it to my talk page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm alright with that. El_C 15:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

ROARR

Bishzilla extremely regret arriving too late to undo bad block of little user El C. Would have enjoyed first admin action unblocking little user! See how block violate policy hrair times? Content dispute against policy[14], cool-down block also against policy.[15] See UtherSRG admit cooldown block, [16]? Boo, lousy block. UtherSRG need go read WP:BLOCK. (Read WP:3RR while about it.) Where apology? bishzilla _ROARR!! 16:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC).

Hi!! Indeed. Regretfully, I get the impression that UtherSRG is not accustomed to issuing apologies. El_C 16:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Image sizing

Hello, El C! I have several mammal articles watchlisted and noticed your re-sizing the images in the taxoboxes. I wanted to ask why is the larger size necessary? If a user has low resolution, the larger image size increases the taxobox size to approx. one-half of the screen. I think the default size is sufficient; when one wishes to view to image more closely, usually they would just click on the image to see a full-screen version. That's my logic, anyway. I would suggest initiating discussion on WT:MAMMAL maybe.
Also, some of the captions seem rather obvious. If there is a picture of an animal standing, the caption need not state "An animal, standing." However, if the action is puzzling and needs to be clarified ("An animal, scent marking" for ex.), or if the environment is known (such as the London Zoo, Serengeti plains, etc.), that can be helpful. But otherwise, some of the captions seem, well, cutesy. That's just my opinion, of course. Keep on keepin' on. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I presume the average reader has a certain size monitor/resolution, that's not the point — in some of the images, it was too difficult to see the creature in question because they take up a small area of the image. For example, see Uther's unexplained revert two days ago that arguably started the whole thing: you can see that in the high-quality image, the creature is taking 1/10th of the size, whereas in the low-quality closeup they take up most of the space (I liked the full-size for perspective of the rocks ad so on). I don't feel too strongly about situational captions, although what harm to they do (I think we come across as taking ourselves too seriously, it's not an article about a funeral)? Also, I think it's significant to tell the reader the country, etc., as I argued on his talk page. El_C 17:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! I was not referring to cropping, I was referring to the 299px re-sizing. The different images are always bickered about and are a matter of opinion, but the pixel sizing is more of a functional thing, if you will. I agreed in my initial post that location in the caption is helpful, BTW. Not to poke you, but maybe the mammal articles being taken too seriously is a good thing, in a way, you know? Anyway, I just wanted to touch base with you regarding the image sizing in the taxoboxes — I think the default sizing is sufficient, IMO. :) Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was refereeing to it, then (the cropping illustrates the point I made about how much of the picture is taken by the creature itself). Seriousness is good; I'm referring merely to some captions, not the underlying content and structure. Even encyclopedias sometimes aim at a light touch at certain areas. Yes, infobox image_width, sometimes at 299px, sometimes at 277px, sometimes at 244px, one or two times even at 333px. It isn't a big deal for me, I just got upset by being treated so aggressively, and unkindly, by Uther, beyond all proportion to this. I'd never have expected such an extreme and unstable reaction, from him. El_C 17:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. I hope cooler heads can prevail. Best. --Tombstone (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, let's hope. I've certainly been driven out of that set of articles with astounding abuse that is rarely seen. Regards, El_C 18:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Time for some help

EBDCM (talk · contribs) is getting out of hand. This section is filled with threats against editors, including myself. And I'm pretty certain he's a sock. Since you're uninvolved, can you kick some butt? Or get your cat to shed all over his carpet? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to look into it, but, to be honest: I need all the help I can get — see this and this. El_C 19:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You guys seriously put up with a lot of shit that I would never do. And I get the feeling the shit is getting deeper. Anything you can do will be appreciated. I used to go to Guy with these requests, but he's being thrown to the wolves. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm running on somewhat depleted energy reserves right this moment, but I'll try to look into in the immediate future. In the meantime, can you write a brief summary (i.e. report with diffs)? What does Jehochman think? I notice lately he has been involved in the target article/s. If there's compelling evidence, I am one who is willing to issue a topic ban without a full arbitration case. El_C 19:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

See what I posted on ANI: I hate getting involved with this stuff, but here you go EBDCM. Here is your false allegation that is both uncivil and a personal attack. This is my reply which clearly states that I have never reverted anything you've written, nor did I call anything that I reverted as "vandalism." I would ask that EBDCM (talk · contribs) be blocked for an extended period of time for personal attacks, threats against me| and legal threats here along with claiming that Fyslee sent an email to Arthur Rubin, which AR specifically denies happening here. Why do we tolerate this crap? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

apology

El C, I apologize for going over the line and blocking you. That was uncalled for. I was reacting to your reaction to me. I hadn't realized you were holding negative feelings about Singing Vole (nor had I even had that article's edits in mind when I reverted your captions today). I also hadn't realized that you were a fellow admin, or I wouldn't have even thought of blocking you.

Now then. Please. Do not add extraneous captions to taxobox images. No matter what lack of policy, the standard is that species-level articles do not get captions unless circumstances demand them. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

As promised I'm back

Right I said I help with any articles, so what would you like done? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe worth a look?

I thought that - as you have commented numerous times as to how folk are seemingly unable to present to you specific diffs of DreamGuy's violations of his ArbCom restrictions and incivility - that you might want to take a look at the complaint submitted here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Something serious

Please take a look at this posting to my user talk page. Also, review the edits for Race and Intelligence. I, like Mr. Rubenstein, am very sensitive to anti-semitic sniping by editors. I might overreact. However, reading over the talk page replies and some of the edit summaries (there was no need to utilize Hitler's twin in a summary), there is a general attack by one or two editors against Slr. Moreover, this article is, by any definition, pseudoscience, and should be marked as such. I absolutely despise racism in any form, including those forms that attempt to prove itself with fake science. You and I may be on different sides of the same political tent, but we can use your help here with edits and/or policing (I know you almost have to make a choice between being an editor and being an admin for controversial articles). Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If there's an editor promoting racialism in that article in a manner which all the other participants find to be tendentious and exhaustive; presenting views which are outside mainstream scientific norms disproportionately, then perhaps a topic ban would be best. To hasten the review process on my part, write me a brief report and I'll consider whether we've reached the point of applying such extreme measures. El_C 18:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

POV problems at Persecution_of_Falun_Gong

See Talk:Persecution_of_Falun_Gong#Article is a POV mess, so do these paragraphs really falls within WP:NPOV? The article is basically abandoned, and edited only by a few pro-Falun Gong editors. I tried to remove such paragraphs and quotes which I consider a neutrality violation, but has been reverted several times, accusing me of "removing sourced content"--PCPP (talk) 04:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The reversions seem to almost exclusively be coming from Falun Gong-related single-purpose (or otherwise alternate) accounts. I will remind them of the need to adhere to the terms set by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong (to start with, no reverts without substantive discussion; certainly no automatic ones). So, let me know if such problematic editing continues and we'll take it from there. El_C 18:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Scrolling refs

Hi El C, per Wikipedia:CITE#Scrolling_lists, we may not use scrolling lists. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have an idea: let's do it anyway. Let me know what you think. El_C 23:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't. Previous discussion, including the deletion discussion for {{scrollref}}, has determined it isn't a good idea. If you'd like a scroll ref, there is a monobook script you can add to your individual monobook.js page. - auburnpilot talk 00:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about my own convenience, I care about the Wikipedia readership (perhaps, here, in somewhat contradistinction to readers of the mirrors). It has been a year now — haven't those technical glitches been fixed? There's quite a few articles that it will markedly improve. Thx. El_C 01:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

History of Poland

Would you be willing to help in finding an acceptable compromise? --Irpen 07:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit overextended at the moment, I'm afraid. But I'll try to keep an eye on developments. And please keep me updated. Best regards, El_C 07:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid this won't be good enough. This mess needs full attention of a mutually respected user (who is also equipped with the stick). If you can help finding one, I am open to suggestions. This article has been subjected to too much torture. --Irpen 07:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I hear ya. I'm afraid, however, that the disputes at Persecution of Falun Gong‎, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks entries, which I engaged today, tend to preclude my full attention, at least for the immediate next few days. I'm not sure I can find someone else (i.e. I'm a bit uneasy volunteering other people), but perhaps someone reading this talk page... G'luck! El_C 08:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. This was going on for too long. If you, or whoever is reading this page just look a the most recent back and forth at talk from this section on (or even from the top (whoever has patience). Note the date of this endless discussion, February 2006. Thanks anyway, --Irpen 08:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yikes. I agree, that's unacceptable. My apologies again for being unable to offer immediate assistance. El_C 08:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Israeli-Palestine

You asked for a summary however unfortunately the issues are complex, and both sides have made significant efforts to argue their case, thus to even attempt to reduce this would not do the debate justice. Suicup (talk)

Reduce what? What is this? Who is reducing what to what? Only one side has provided a summary. El_C 13:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Continued from here:

I apologize if my response sounded negative to you. That was not my intent. Rather, I intended to make you aware of proper Wikipedia etiquette and also why a response might be short in coming. Just for your information, it was I who requested page protection and asked the other members to discuss the issue on the talk page rather than participate in a revert war. I understand your sentiment when you say that you are "not going to allow that revert war over this passage that has been resurfacing every few weeks to keep on going". However, I find it rather ironic that I am the one to whom you say that. Also, the "When consensus has been reached..." was added by me as part of the discussion/consensus template (see the template for "Palestinian Arabs vs. Palestinians"). Anyway, best of luck. Hopefully the dispute will be resolved soon. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 21:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted, of course. I, however, am compelled to draw your attention to how patronizing that "make [me] aware of proper Wikipedia etiquette" sounds. When I asked the participants (again, not you, specifically) for a summary and you said "look at the article history ... no one here has the time or patience to do it for you" — how is that anything but negative? Obviously, it's optional (a "request," by definition). And obviously several people opted to do so, after and despite your needlessly collectivist "no one" (i.e. had you said "I have neither the time nor patience [etc.]" that would be much closer to following the conventions of Wikipedia's etiquette).

Now, again, I reiterate that if you are able to find an admin who is willing to review the entire (or most, or even just more of the) ten of pages-worth of talk page text that pertains to this dispute alone, by all means, you should feel free. As I said, I'll gladly let someone else take over. I was surprised to see you reject my request so (seemingly) dismissively. No hard feelings; I am more than happy to forget the whole thing, but I did want to explain what I meant by "negative tone," since your apology above appears to have significantly failed to grasp the underlying impetus behind my criticism. Best of luck to you, as well. בברכה, El_C 23:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, again, El C. You have misread your own tone. Though you may have used the term "request" in the title, please take into consideration how the following phrases sound: "I would like to see...", "From what I can see...", "I would like to see...", "It would be beneficial for me...", "I want to see...", "Can I get the executive summary...". A long sequence of phrases which gravitate heavily to the use of "I" or "me" has a tendency to sound self-centered. Additionally, requesting the "executive summary" (as if you were our executive) can be perceived as rather haughty. Your post sounds like a child who says, "I have a request... I want an ice cream cone.. an ice cream cone would benefit me.. I want an ice cream cone..." and is also reminiscent of programming newbies who "request" that forum members do their homework for them. While it is true that there is an occassional parent who will indulge such a child and there is always a guru programmer who will do the homework of newbie programmers, it is good for neither parent/child nor guru/newbie to engage in such activity. Sorry if that was patronizing, however, it is important to be aware of how one's posts might be perceived. Thanks in advance for your understanding. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 01:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)