User talk:Interiot/Sandbox/fark

So stop what you're doing, and please instead discuss here, or on AN/I. Thank you for your time. Kim Bruning 22:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That Alex Linder is a Nazi, or at least was a neo-Nazi and still is by ideology, is uncontroversial enough for us to state it in his article. Userspace isn't a playground for anything you want to post, especially libel, but I don't think this is it. Should probably follow El C's lead on this one. Demi ^T/_C 22:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#ZOMG_Userpage_edit_war Kim Bruning 22:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay, please don't be so dramatic — at a minimum, try not to speak of El C like he died. He had good reason to take off but I hope he'll soon find good reason to return. Secondly, half the people involved are restoring the page to how he left it; why would that be "the last thing he'd want"? It's the people who're changing his page while he's away that are acting inappropriately (though even that ain't "a tragedy"). Nobody's being defamed in the banner. Alex Linder is a Nazi and likes it. Please see also

Wikipedia:User page on the wide-latitude userpage culture. Bishonen | talk 22:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC).[reply

]

Agreed. Nobody should have changed his userpage in the first place. Problem solved.--

^(talk) 22:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Like he died. Yeah, that's about how I feel. In mourning. Guettarda 22:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I was not aware that El C was blocked, or I would not have edited his userpage. I don't see why so many are reacting so hostile to my actions. I never used the rollback button, explained my edits every time,and would not break 3RR. I might have been wrong, but threatening to block seems unwarranted. Jacoplane 22:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You make a virtue of going right up against the "electric fence" of the 3RR but not actually breaking it? That action is otherwise known as self-preservation and gaming the rule. Please read all about it in

WP:3RR. Bishonen | talk 23:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC).[reply

]

I removed a notice that I felt was defamation. Then I made a different edit, removing the word nazi, hoping that this would be acceptable to all. Of course, I was reverted using rollback. My intentions were good, perhaps you could assume good faith. Demi's latest change is pretty much in line with what I was trying to do with my last edit. Jacoplane 23:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Altering someone's user page without talking to them about it is hostile (if you had even glanced at his talk page you would have seen the wake going on here). Continuing to do so when a several different people revert the change is edit warring. Guettarda 22:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I should have consulted the talk page before proceeding. I still believe the statement "Was the Wikipedia Review forum founded by neo-Nazi Alex Linder (forum Admin Igor Alexander)?" statement is defamation. Where is the evidence that Igor Alexander is a nazi? Alex Linder is a nazi, I'm not disputing that. Obviously I will not edit the page again, but could someone please show me the evidence, so it is clear that this is not defamation. Jacoplane 22:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demi's version seems to say just the same (what El C meant) without the problem of the original (which did answer itself, in my reading of it) - this seems like a good edit -- sannse (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very good! Now let's go do something useful, please.--

^(talk) 22:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

The irony(?) is that I never intended to have that notice stay up there for more than two days, I simply forgot about it. It's unlikely that Igor is Linder, and it seems much more plauisble he is Amalekite. Next time, Talrias/Jacoplane, a friendly reminder on the talk best should probably be issued before editing the user page. Oh well, live and learn; right, Talrias? El_C 05:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C, good to see you're back. Yeah, sorry for just going ahead there, I did not realize that you were gone on a break, and I never intended to "kick you while you were down" as some have suggested. I hope there are no hard feelings. Cheers! jacoplane 11:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or ask for help at

Note that El C has already responded to this previously. If I'm interprating his comments there correctly, then the image can be deleted without concern.--

^(talk) 21:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Please note that this edit was made automatically by a bot. It's got my name on it because I run the bot, and I've found that if the bot signs, people respond on the bot's talk page rather than mine. --Carnildo 05:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like Carnildo in bot form much better, it seeks clarifications before acting, not the other way around. El_C 05:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war case Raul654 23:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I have restored your sysop rights. Raul654 00:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's right. You're lucky to have me. El_C 05:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help building a Wikipedia in

Will have a look soon, thanks. El_C 05:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Image:Flag of Southern Rhodesia.svg. Greentubing 03:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Are you a robot? El_C 05:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Home Honey I'm Hi! Are you married yet? Bishonen | 美少年 05:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I am — to you! When's the honeymoon? El_C 05:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another betrayal. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your view on monogamy greatly appeals to me! El_C 06:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now now ladies, there's plenty to go around—Plenty of me, that is!--

^(talk) 23:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Mazeltov! Hamster Sandwich 23:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• [Suggestive sexual innuendo re: group ... dancing!] El_C 00:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...I'm not a robot. Why? Greentubing 11:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, your return is the first good news in this place since, well probably since you left. I serious thought about quitting when you left. As for helping me out of this mess - I don't know. I keep coming back hoping for a break in the clouds, and it just seems to get shittier. Odds are I will end up being dragged before the arbcomm for trying to defend article integrity. It would do me a world of good to quit the project, but it's far too heartbreaking to be forced out. It would be nice if people would stop kicking once you're down, but obviously it doesn't work that way here. Maybe I'll quit working on articles and just create userboxes or vote on RFA and AFD. At least then I wouldn't be so upset to be treated as if I was not making any contribution to the project. I'm just really tired of all the crap. At least I learned something valuable - I'm too naïve, too ready to trust people. It's healthy to be reminded from time to time that I'm really not that good at reading people. Guettarda 05:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I greatly appreciated your support! And also, welcome to the club of not-knowing-what-people-will-do-next! So... what exactly happned? Do you need Kim beaten into submission? Because I could do that for you! All the best, El_C 05:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rehashing details here would probably get me blocked my Tony [1]. If you really want to know the whole sad story, I'll drop you an email in the morning. Guettarda 05:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm interested to learn the story, and hopefuly, help resolve the dispute. Email away! El_C 05:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Here is a vote related to Western Sahara. Neutrality of WP is dying, please save it! Daryou 07:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't we just do this recently? I thought it was resolved... Well, I'll try to review it soon. Regards, El_C 08:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering why you reverted the edit by 71.139.188.234. Fairfield is the county seat of Solano County. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 15:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know; I've been there. Must have been by accident, since I do not recall making that edit. El_C 20:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That British Columbia vandal was starting to bug me, I don't like people playing around with my province :) -- Tawker 01:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great province it is; I'm not just saying that on account of all the free drugs! Also the mountains! El_C 01:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Profess can mean "To make a pretense of; pretend". [2]. Readers might think you mean that Haniya was lying when he expressed regret that Israel continues to label Hamas a terrorist group.--68.214.59.199 04:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Thanks for the correction. Regards, El_C 04:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to ancient Egypt Project related articles. They are appreciated very much. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-24 04:12Z

My pleasure. Thank you for the thank you! :) Regards, El_C 04:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flowers, is it, you shameless woman? I'll see your flower and raise you a Tikka masala  ! With herring  ! In your face, virgin! Bishonen | ノート 21:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

So how does it feel, El C, to have Wikipedia's two most attractive and intelligent women (one of whom you adore) fighting over you? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And we both know which one, you lowly odalisque ("the virgin slaves of the harem, where they were at the bottom of the social ladder"). Bishonen | ノート 22:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Not at the bottom of the social ladder if they were "especially skilled in dance, singing, or the sexual arts," as one of us is. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My dear leadies, please,

garden! Love, El_C 01:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Fighting? Can't we all just get along an agree to be in love with me instead?--

^(talk) 23:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Girls are surprisingly territorial, Sean. I'm not sure Bish and I could share. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear interloper, I am looking out for you when I suggest for you to go and date some nice girls; these women are as dangarous as they are enticing (plus, there is the small matter of the law). Yours, El_C 01:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wash your feet they drive me into a frenzy! Bishonen | ノート 01:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

For you, anything! Let's start with a nice, hot sauna! El_C 02:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

!! ברוכים הבאים IZAK 11:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(: !תודה רבה Good to be back! :) El_C 11:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er... what User:IZAK said. Jkelly 19:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you reverted 195.82.21.103's edits to

Hi. Yes to both. Thanks for the notice, I reverted his changes to Pakistan. Regards, El_C 12:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The templates exist to speed up things so we don't have 50 million copy paste windows open, one simply needs to prepend with subst: for example {{subst:test1}}. The reasons for subst'ing can be found @

Add an extra word, then? Why not eliminate the need from the outset. I'm not inclined to read

WP:SUBST as I suspect it to be boring. El_C 04:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Sure, no problem. Yeah, I don't see why you can't become an admin right now. Let me know if you'd like me to nominate you. Regards, El_C 04:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I think I'll have Latinus do it in about a month. Until then, happy editing! ;) -- Khoikhoi 04:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Let me know when it happens so I can offer my support. Regards, El_C 04:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Posted user Logic site the following: "Your childish "Join the Marines" additions interpersed throughout the article, while cute, from a four year old child's perspective, are of no interest to people seeking information on Marines. The site is for information purposes. The Marine Corps has more than an adequate budget not to need Wikipedia for recruiting. Thanks SimonATL 02:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ack! Read your diffs more carefully, friend [3] —El C was in fact reverting a vandal's addition of said interjectives.--

^(talk) 02:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

El C is responsible for most of the U.S. Marine-related vandalism around here, as one of their staunchest supporters. Don't be fooled by diffs, Sean. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so he was reverting his own vandalism? What a clever sausage he is! Cleverer than me, even, which I didn't think was possible.--

^(talk) 03:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

One-two three-four United-States Marine-Corps — one-two three-four, down with imperialism, long live armed struggle! El_C 04:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

82.194.62.22 was driving me nuts. I was really trying to deal with his objections, by making it clear that Rafidi/Rafida is considered a term of abuse these days, but he was unwilling to accept anything except HIS version. I think he may be a Shi'a upset by the shrine bombings.

But why take it out on ME? As I told Gren, I wish I could send the Sunni and Shi'a editors to their rooms and tell them not to come out until they can play nice. Zora 06:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Whatever (and regardless of) the impetus, the editor will have to follow the common scholarly terms and definitions. El_C 06:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shiafy'er

You might want to try to talk him into discussing his views on the article rather than attempting to block him. He's on an open proxy. Vercalos

That has already been suggested to him. Open proxies are to be blocked indefinitely, regardless. El_C 07:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

u make POV articles protected against wikibedia policy--82.194.62.22 09:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You must attempt to discuss the pertinent issues instead of reverting endlessly, that is not permitted (see

WP:3RR). Thanks, El_C 09:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

He has reverted everything. Zora 09:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I semiprotected the articles. Please do not postulate on the editor's emotional state, though. Thanks. El_C 09:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angry Salafi made lot of POV edits

this idiot salafi zora have got angry and made POV edits and cliam there is no need to have proofs !! ( beacuse she think i am shia lol ) so why u do not banned her too or must u wait tell she bomb another 2 towers in US so u will think agian about the level of hate she have - i told her to bring proofs she never did only she add what is in her head - so if u must remove her edits and banned her--82.194.62.22 12:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this presumption of anger on the part of both of you, whether true or not, is unconstructive. Let's try to stay dispassionate. Now, the rules are that the burden of proof is on you (as the editor introducing the changes) that your additions follow the mainstream scholarship. If this is the case, the pertinent citations should not be difficult to produce. I also asked an admin who is an expert of Islam that I know to look into the additions, so hopefuly he'll get back to us soon. Thanks for your patience. Regards, El_C 12:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The anon editor is methodically reverting all my recent edits, whether they concern Islam articles or not (cf.

Christoph Luxenberg). No reasons are given. Is there anything I can do to stop this harassment? Zora 18:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry I'm late El C and welcome back. Yes although not all edits to Islam articles are bad, some of them are not encylopedic. But even without the edits what he's doing by revert warring to include vandalism is blockable. 82.194.62.22 please don't continue like this. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other guy 65.92.130.151 is also anti Salafi but his/her edits, aside from the ones that are vandalism, are not horrible. But vandalism is still the problem there. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) Please take over, I am feeling increasingly out of my depth here. Best, El_C 23:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say good work. I wish you the best of luck :) -

Thanks, much appreciated. :) I've had a good working relationship with both sides, so I'm confident we'll be able to make good progress. El_C 00:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you, but

Hi there. Aucaman is himself in violation of wikipedia rules and regulations. I have even warned him, and he removed my warnings from his

ManiF 04:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello Aucaman and ManiF. I'll need more time to study this dispute, and I'm unsure how rapidally I'll be able to attend to it. In the case either of you feel the situation becomes urgently unmanagable, I would advise you to bring your concerns to

WP:RFC. Regards to you both, El_C 09:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Why did you do a revert on this page just now? The addition looks OK to me and I'm a Computational Chemist. Of course, I wish the editor was not an anon, so we could talk to him properly. However the free product he added is legit. --Bduke 10:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because s/he is placing the same link in multiple pages. If, however, you find it a particularly valuable link (I didn't want to load the filter it demands in order to view it), feel free to retsore it, but I'd rather it be limited to a page or two, at most El_C 10:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only see two exactly the same - "Computational Chemistry" and "Cheminformatics". It fits those. The "Chemical reaction" edit is less appropriate, but not vandalism. I'll see how it looks tomorrow (it is late here in Australia) and I'll try to talk to the anon editor. It is his/her first set of edits. I hope he wants to learn and not just go mad altering stuff he does'nt know about. I do not want to bite a newbie on these pages. Cheers. --Bduke 10:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice any vandalism. The editor only added that external link and I expected this was going to continue. Thanks. El_C 10:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the revert - my first user page vandalism, I feel like a real wikipedian today :D Smitz 15:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! :) My pleasure! Regards, El_C 15:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karmafist absolutely does not have my permission to post that. Thanks for removing it. :) --

My pleasure. I'll have a word with him once he responds. El_C 15:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to edit your latest edition to KF's RFA - your criticism is valid, but draws attention where none is needed. OK? Ben Aveling 15:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, not okay. I'm allowed to strike out my vote, please do not change my comment. El_C 15:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have been more explicit. The bit I dislike is the link to the edit. Rather than linking to what he shouldn't have said, I think it would be better just to repeat the phrase 'unwarrented revealing of personal information'. It has less impact, but linking to what shouldn't have been said just encourages people to have a look. It's a trade off. Regards, Ben Aveling 16:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm speaking to Karmafist on IRC this very minute, so let's leave it to his discretion. El_C 16:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I passionately disagree. Its your diff thats calling attention to it on the RFA, and I'm removing it for now. If there is good reason to keep it (cant think of any) and if

User:Phroziac agrees to the information remaining available, we can revert it later. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 16:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Do not edit other users' comments without their expressed permission. El_C 16:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I must admit I just did. I know its your comment, but I wouldnt be breaking this rule if I didnt think this was much more important. I just dont feel this info should be on there. Maybe you should contact Phroziac instead, rather than me acting as intermediary. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 16:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And remember, we can revert it later if necessary! That would be no big deal. However, if the info is out there, we cant revert that! Please consider this as well. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 16:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She knows, I've been speaking to her all along and am doing so now. El_C 17:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Her problem wasn't the info itself (though it is inaccurate, she is not a minor, in fact), but how it was used to explain her vote. Next time, try to seek clarifications before editing someone elses comment. El_C 17:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, in that case my apologies. In the case of personal info getting out in the open I'd rather be overcautious than not cautious enough. I felt that clarifications might take too long, and like i said, reverting to disclosure was always still a possibility, whereas reverting to secrecy wasnt. But she messaged me now that she's indeed okay with it. Sorry, but hope you understood my concerns. Cheers, The Minister of War ^(Peace) 17:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. But next time, I'd like you to please place greater faith in my discretion. Thanks. El_C 17:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good solve. All the best. Ben Aveling 17:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would be better to direct people to a discussion rather than a permalink diff. I already knew she had no problem with (the diff) revealing the info itself, but again, her problem was how it was used to explain her vote. While at time when I removed the personal info, I did not know this, note that I did speak to her before making that [diff] strikeout edit. If she would have had a problem with the info itself, your and God Minister of War's objections/efforts would be irrelavent, as the info was still viewable and easily accessible, regardless of my stikeout vote and diff. But had this been the case, I would have deleted the page and retsored it without the portion with said personal info. Hope that makes things clear. El_C 17:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I just couldn't stand that anymore. Regardless of what anyone else thinks, right now, due my inability of myself to elucidate my thoughts in an objective way without totally offending a fantastic person, I feel like a monster, I feel like an inferior person. Just like I have, most my life.

If you have a magic elixir of some sort to help me shrug this part of me, to become more aloof and detached, gaining more clarity and elucidation while maintaining my empathy and passion for the assistance of others and the pursuit of truth, well then, please send it over. I'd give anything for that.

Until then, I am worthless in that sphere of Wikipedia, and that is a sad reality that i'm going to have to learn to cope with.

As I kept telling you there (though I realize it might have been difficult to internalize with all the other voices) and I'll reiterate here, don't be so hard on yourself. We all have our flaws, these just manifest themselves differently for different people. I would have you replace a certain popular (or is it populist :p) arbitrator in a heartbeat, for example. So you've made a mistake, but it didn't end up being as severe as I initially suspected (as a possibility), but rather more of a minor slip up. These things happen ($5!). While I understand why you're feeling down, I would like to help you feel better. I can offer no magic potion (though free drugs...), but I think hard work can be very uplifting. You're far from worthless, you're a knowledgable person and the main namespace needs you! My email door is always open. Best wishes, El_C 19:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opening the E-mail Door

Well, it may not be a magic elixir, but I think I might have found at least a partial solution to the way I was feeling before.

I had it in my head to write a Wikibook about my current career, Real Estate Agency. So, for the past hour or so, while i'm here in my Real Estate office, i've been writing that, trying to organize all the things i've learned so far(I still suck to be honest with you) for my own benefit, and for the benefit of others who may follow in my footsteps one day.

Things like that remind of me what I love about Wikis, the sharing of knowledge, the collaboration of knowledge towards new knowledge, it may have been small, but it felt good.

Please remind me of this moment the next time all the cabal crap comes up. That stuff is not my style, but I always get sucked into it because I have such a strong sense of wanting to "fight for justice" and all that.

More later, but thank you once again for your friendship, hopefully all the bullshit of the past year will make me into a person that will be worthy within the annals of human history.

Yase! If by remind you you mean me saying "I told you so", I'm sure I'll be more than happy to oblige! :) It's easy to label someone, I was doing it on IRC earlier with an annoying neverending rant (you missed it) on the stupidity of userboxes and _anyone_ who uses them (and most especally, that curse of a this user somethin-something intro they all have – don't get me started! although once Bish showed up, I went on my Hassan i Sabbah vs. the Islamofacists rant – don't get me started on that, either!), but what is easy is more often than not not wothwhile. That's easy to forget no matter where one stands in relation to whatever at any given time (whatever means relations of power). El_C 20:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, ok Jose, I won't get you started on that ;-) If you need another versus, how about

afist 14:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

The articles shape has changed in a majore way, new uncontrolled materials have been added with very poor English without any previous discussion in the talk page, I would like to correct them, but in many instances I have no idea of what the editor was trying to say and in many other time, it would be changed(the editor changing his mind of the shape etc.) later randering my corrections worthless. While I don't doubt the sincerity of the editors, but I am under the impression that this new shape is worst and the quality of the article overall has declined. I have also some reserve in many ways, hell knows how many materials I have read about the issue, and know all major revisionist works, and some of the materials do seem to reflect the editors opinion rather than the Turkish government one and while I have requested citing sources in my edit summary they were added back, and have never seen a single material published about them. One example is the claim that the Turkish autorities denies having used morphine for mass killing. This can't be comming from the Turkish autorities, first I have never read any author addressing to that, second there can not be such an answer since there is no such claim of mass generalised killing. This is what I had placed in the footnote: Trabzons Health Services Inspector Dr. Ziya Fuad wrote in a report that Dr. Saib, caused the death of children with the injection of morphine, the information was allegedly provided by two physicians (Drs. Ragib and Vehib), both Dr. Saib colleagues at Trabzons Red Crescent hospital, where those atrocities were said to have been committed. This material was documented by Dadrian and the work in which it is included never has been reviewed by any historian of the republic of Turkey, it has been cited elsewhere, and none of those works have been reviewed. It is like the editor reading the article and answering to it in the Turkish government position and attributing his answers as those of the Turkish government. Due to his limited knowledge of English, he interpreted this single citation in the footnote as if it is claimed that the uses of moprhine was generalised and answered to it as if it was by the Turkish government when such issues were even not answered by them. I can cite many other examples, like the cases in which I have reverted the editors mistake between the transit camps nearby the railroad stations and the 'concentration' camps, when even Gurun doesn't make such claim. It is like the author took a look at the map of the camps and then reviewed it with a mistake that even the Turkish government could not have done so. I would like to have your opinion. Fad (ix) 23:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say remove anyting that falls short of

WP:V and note why did so in the talk page. We can't have information from the Turkish side that hasn't been reviewed by the Turkish government or any historian. Far too sketchy. Regards, El_C 01:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

With the amount of pages that have been created by the same editor about the issue, I can't keep track of everything that goes on there. I had to change the POV tag with the totallydisputed one for now. Fad (ix) 04:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Hi Interiot/Sandbox/fark, thank you for your support in my Rfa! It passed with a final tally of 86/0/0. If you need help or just want to talk let me know! Again, thank you! – Dakota ~ ° 21:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Yay! Good to have you! :) Best, El_C 01:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Morwen. El_C 12:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I bear no grudge against you. So up to you. Morwen - Talk 12:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. El_C 12:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that collection of pages can be unsprotected now? I figure that it must be worth trying it after 4.5 days. I also noticed that the IP was static at the time; why not just block the IP? Judging from the talk page, it's one the same editor uses a lot of the time, so a block could have been quite effective. -Splash^talk 14:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Anonymous Editor to take over the admin tasks with that editor, but he dosen't seem to be around. Feel free — note, however, that we have multiple ips coming from this Bahrain Telecommunications Company ISP (for ex. 82.194.62.23, 82.194.62.22 and 82.194.50.97). El_C 14:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reverts. That guy has decided that I'm an evil Wahhabi/Salafi, like the ones that kill Shi'a Muslims, and that therefore all my edits should be reverted. Hoo boy, I'm the

Dar al-Harb! Zora 14:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

This is User:Unbreakable_MJ. I couldn't post any messages to anyone including you and other admins. I couldn't email any admin and I couldn't email you. See this screenshot:

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c125/Mahoozi/Wikipedia%20blocks/Blocked3.jpg

I'm being blocked again (I stopped counting). Here's the message says:

"Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing You were blocked by El C Reason given: block evasion (see our blocking policy)"

Also:

"Your IP address is 82.194.62.23. Please include this address, along with your username (if you are a registered user), in any queries you make."

1. Please read this.

2. Please see the IP82.194.62.23's contributions then compare them to mine.

3. Please read my messages to Pathoschild & Grenavitar.

4. I was scared to edit since I got blocked twice in one day. Today I thought it's over and edited 1 single word (actually just added wikilink) and I got blocked.

5. I posted the unblock request but no one answered so far. I've wasted hours waiting & reading through pages which I couldn't edit.

6. I don't care if you unblock me or whatever. I must give up. Actually don't unblock me at all because I'll get blocked later and I'll start making plans to kill that vandaliser. I don't care about his/her views. One thing though: please help those users who get blocked by mistake.

7. Please change "Open source programs" in Bram Cohen to be "Open-source software".

8. Thank you.

I'm User:Unbreakable_MJ using this IP82.194.62.22 11:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is to be posted I'm confirming that I wrote the message above, but I have nothing to do with the person who got caused my block (the vandaliser) --Unbreakable_MJ 11:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK good I can post now. Please reply in my talk page not the IP and not in your talk page. --Unbreakable_MJ 11:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected typos. Sorry about all that. --Unbreakable_MJ 11:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got this note too late. Sorry, but I'm not around every day of the week and I can't really predict when these days will be; nonetheless, vandals have to be blocked. Statistically, these complications are to be expected for sharedips. You will likely face them again on account of that vandal, albeit we'll see if we can ensure the block durations are shorter and that we set up a profle for it (another day, I'm pressed for time). Please talk to your ISP, because we can't allow one individual to damage key articles such as Sunni Islam and so on, those articles are too important (if it was some pokey-man fancruft articles, let's say, I could not care less about being pargamatic and keeping those articles vandalized, though I don't edit those articles, so I would not face that possibility). Nor can we have those articles semiprotected indefinitely just for that one vandal (for anything, in fact). How can the vandal have access to a few ips from that ISP while you are limited to just that one is another thing you may wish to bring to your ISP's attention, maybe they can assign you an ip that the vandal won't be able to exploit. Best, El_C 13:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't able to reply when I first read your message (it gave me the same block message) but it's fine now. I understand what you're saying and I agree totally with you. As for my ISP, it's hard to get through to someone who really understands simple stuff like this (I can list good & recent examples if you would like). There are illegal ways to go around this IP problem, but I'm not going to list them here nor use them. Just note that it's commonly used between those who make troubles between

divisions of Islam (their actions give any religion a bad name.) I wish there was another ISP, but it's only this one so far. Well thanks again for the reply. --Unbreakable_MJ 14:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, you're distasteful and tasteful as always. Have a sleeping, dreaming, ear-waggling cat for your trouble! Hope you like it. Bishonen | ノート 13:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks! Down with imperialism! Long live the FARC-EP! El_C 17:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello El_c. Thanks for your warning. I am adding some content and articles too and I thought that links are complementary too. I will be more careful later. Regards. Gunebakan 17:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Thanks for understanding. Regards, El_C 17:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I need to contact you by email, but I can not use E-mail this user, it doesn't work for any users, it must be one of the weird thing that my Linux system and browster incompabilities with Wikipedia. Can you email me, it is really important. Regards Fad (ix) 23:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I'm unable to email you since it does not appear that you have entered a valid email address. So, two options: You can email my spam account el_c-at-india-dot-com and I'll disclose my main email address there, or state your email address here. Yours in haste, El_C 02:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

done. Fad (ix) 16:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. El_C 19:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm wondering why you reverted all my edits... I thought I found a few ways in which my home town may have had something positive to contribute to the world at large, and added the appropriate references only to have them pretty much immediately wiped.

The filename extensions and computer terms references I added 1) have some entries that the other listed references lack; 2) have more comprehensive information on some entries than the other listed references, and 3) predate (they go back to '98) some of the other listed references. You don't have to take my word for it. It's very easily verified via archive.org or whatever. The current references that are there are in some cases more suspect than the ones I added. In particular, at least two of them (Sharpened & TechTerms) appear to be duplicated information on different sites. I wasn't trying to delete anything, though, just add (what I think at least) are worthy sources of additional information not already covered.

The Halloween story contest is (AFAIK) pretty unique, and scary stories are a pretty big part of the holiday to many people. There was nothing else like it already mentioned, and again it's an online resource that dates back to '98 with real content. Is this link with 75+ stories really less pertinent than the link with some Halloween (but not strictly Halloween) recipies? Again I thought it was adding information.

The Netiquette essay also contains information not included by the other current sources.

I certainly wasn't trying to spam the index and I strongly believe that the links I added are better than some of the ones already provided. If I did something wrong though please let me know, or if you want more info I'll be happy to provide what I can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.102.22 (talk • contribs)

Hi. All your additions involved adding a link to saugus.net, so that certainly appeared as self-promotion. El_C 15:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, like I said they were all things from my home town, Saugus. There was nothing deeper to it than that. Aside from them looking like self-promotion, are they bad edits? They weren't intended to be. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.102.22 (talk • contribs)

Best not to overlink from one source (except imdb, etc.), but I have no objections now. Regards, El_C 19:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sorry for the confusion. I think Saugus.net would be better compared to a university site (albeit a very small one) than a site like IMDB. It's a site that has different sections worked on by different members of the community. You can kind of see it by going from http://www.saugus.net/PostCards/ to http://www.saugus.net/Photos/ to http://www.saugus.net/Computer/Terms/ They're by different people and follow different styles and rules. They're really more like a collection of cooperative sites all run by Saugonians.

Hi, maybe I didn't trace it right, but it looks as if El C is reverting my corrections/additions. Why is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.109.160.253 (talk • contribs)

All your additions involve adding supermodels.nl link, so it appears to be self-promotion. El_C 19:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While browsing the encyclopedia and reading about the interesting history of the WCG, I came across the article on this person. Originally it was a short stub and then a long, somewhat bizarre text was added just recently. It was mainly a long diatribe against the person and is not proper encyclopedic material. So I edited it back to the short stub adding a few points. I was wondering why you twice reverted it back to the bizarre material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.108.233.65 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, there was no

edit summary, so I mistook it for vandalism. I reverted back to your version now. El_C 19:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I know it is not preferrable, but PLEASE find the IP address of this selfish vandal who's targeting the featured article now and block him for at least a month. I happened to click to read the article the very moment he struck. NicAgent 02:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^(talk) 02:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I'll do whatever I can, but it is using multiple ips. El_C 02:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oaky, fair enough. They are the majority party. While you're at it why don't you rewrite the entire article so as to provide some information that doesn't sound like it was written by the Mossad. anarcho hipster

Sorry, I'm preoccupied elsewhere at the moment. El_C 17:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The specified Armenian timelines are unique contributions of the author. As they are collection of dates and events, and it is the organization of the dates makes it unique to this author. There is no page on the internet that organized these events within these categories. This set of pages are UNIQUE and not copyvios. Thanks for your attention. --OttomanReference 18:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I cannot reconsider the vote since I did not vote, I am the nominator. No, you are incorrect, the content of the articles have been copied (sentence-by-sentence) from the Armenian National Institute. It is not unique; it is plagiarism. Regards, El_C 03:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Initiating the process of disbute resolution.

The same message is posted to fadix; hope this will cover his position --OttomanReference 20:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. How can I become part of a dispute resolution process when I am not privy as to what this dispute is? Thanks in advance. Regards, El_C 03:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karabekirs additions on the Turkish position is moved to the "Position of Turkey" page. Please give your position on its talk page, as soon as possible so that we can unite the section to the main page.--OttomanReference 20:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that this isn't permitted. You must attain consensus first, you can't duplicate a "temporary" article on the article space (for the purpose of a merge? why?), nor can you link from this article space to a draft on your userpage (on the user space). I have deleted the articles, please try to gain the consensus for the split (&merge?) and then (and only then) go on to recreate it. Thanks in advance. Regards, El_C 03:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is very important!

You know there were 11 (if I'm not wrong) man, who were hunted and killed for their crimes. Information in that page was very important, for the story itself. I think we can be on the same page up to here. Are WE?--OttomanReference 05:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what that is in reference to. El_C 05:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have deleted that page for copyvio issues. I checked your link, what ever the reason was I only found one sentence being common. I wish I could have worked on that page so that we could have recovered that information, before you deleted it. I'm willing to write that section, not in detail but a small summary. First; what would be a good title? (deleted page and new one can not have the same title, right?) Second; How should it be organized so that fits your criteria. As the page will have a basic introductory line. Names of the people and assassinated where and by whom. I'm pretty sure there are hundreds of pages that will have one or two lines might match again of this simple page. I prefer you would help me so that my additions would not be deleted too. THANKS.--OttomanReference 05:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not going to cite the plagiarism word-for-word, that is not acceptable. If you wish to author an original article, you're free to do so. El_C 05:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think?

If you help me with a title this is the text. There is no copyvio.--OttomanReference 05:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The punishment ("The Armenian Nuremburg") of executors of Armenian genocide fallowed after the unsuccessful trials. The seven responsible man was found guilty by

In the autumn of 1919, the verdict to punish the executors of the Armenian Genocide was decided by the Ninth World Congress of the ARF. Bucharest Conference was the main platform for the planning to implementation of the process. Tenth World Congress put everything in motion. It was duped as "Special Operation". Whole process was implemented with coordination. Central Committees of America financially funded the process, Constantinople provided manpower and Europe branches give the logistic support.

• Talaat Pasha, assassinated by Soghomon Tehlirian on March 15, 1921. He was released with not guilty verdict of the German Court in June 1921
• Behboud Khan Jivanshir, assassinated by Misak Torlakian on July 28 1921. He was acquitted by British forces in November of 1921
• Sayid Halim Pasha, assassinated by Arshavir Shirakian on December 5, 1921. He was not captured and back in Constantinople.
• Jemal Azmi assassinated by Uhland, Arshavir Shirakian and Aram Yerganian on April 17 1922. They were not captured.
• Behaeddin Shakir assassinated by Uhland, Arshavir Shirakian and Aram Yerganian on April 17 1922. They were not captured.
• Jemal Pasha assassinated by Stepan Dzaghikian, Bedros Der Boghosian and Ardashes Kevorkian on July 25. They were not captured.
• Enver Pasha killed by an Armenian Russian soldier in August 1922

This is not copied from anywhere, hope you like it. I think this information is very important. --OttomanReference 05:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the "The Armenian Nuremburg" ? would it be o.k.?--OttomanReference 05:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has an unclear intro and is not sourced, so I don't really know. But I'd rather entertain such a discussion at a pertinent article's talk page. El_C 05:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've already created it. I do find it rather difficult to follow. Which unsuccessful trials, for example? They are not linked. El_C 06:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! Thank you. It has to be Sultan's. I read about this from another source. I will fix it in couple of days. OttomanReference

Thanks. Keep in mind that we are writing for non-experts. I'm looking forward to reading the finished article. Regards, El_C 06:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in viewing this rfc for the Cuba Pov vandal you have been involved with. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/205.240.227.15 --Colle||Talk-- 23:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it is unlikely that I will participate (for reasons which go beyond the scope of this) unless I myself am accused of something. I think you missed plenty, though. Just look methodically at the user's last fifteen edits to Cuba, for example. Good luck, you'll need it! Regards, El_C 03:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! 1 week time for saving the article sounds ok.Thanks for reminding.I nearly forgot about the article.Bye.--Dwaipayanc 08:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) Sounds good. Ciao! El_C 09:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's already starting develop nicely. -- Samir ∙ (the scope) 23:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'm positively impressed! Well done! El_C 03:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of a few more cities (there are just a few notable cities left), and expanding description in some entries- I think that is going to be enough for sustaining the article for the time being, at least.Samir has done a great job. What do you think?--Dwaipayanc 10:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! GJ! El_C 10:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I made those changes in the Sri Lanka page's history segment because the Mahavansa and the Deepavansa that everyone keeps referring to are not really accurate historical documents.

The 'Sri Lanka has a written history of 2500 years' is a slogan of the right-wing Sinhala nationalists who claim the Mahavansa to be a accurate historical record. The argument about whether the Sinhala people (of Aryan decent) or the Tamil people (of Dravidian decent) were the first inhabitants on the island has been a core component of the conflict between the two groups. The war has claimed more than 60,000 lives over the past 2 decades and this argument on history is one of the things that keep the people from seeking a political solution to the problem. Everyone believes that they are right and that the other group is wrong.

Many of the archaeologiacl evidence points to the fact that the first people's of the island were neither Sinhalese or Tamil. But even the funding to the archaeological department has been controlled by a pro-Sinhala government. Archaeologists in the department have gone on record saying that if they are allowed to dig in th North and East (currently inaccessibvle because of the war), they will find human setllements predating Aryan and Dravidian migrations into the island.

Yes there is a lot of history in the Mahavansa, but before a certain period it gets little fuzzy and unclear. Historians who have read it state that it seems some of the monks who were writing it might have tried to do a little pre-dated writing to make the document seem a lot older than it is.

It's just not reliable.

The article should mention the Mahavansa, but not hype it.

Morquendi 09:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to that, and no affinity whatsoever with Sinhala nationalism (in fact, the more right-wing or nationalistic anything is, the more I'm usually against it – shh, don't tell anyone), but I want to emphasize to you the main problem we are having in this article besides these sort of content issues: we currently have two history of Sri Lanka articles, one in

edit summaries are key for me), but also please help with that effort of normalizing the size and scope of the article's history section and help to expand the main history one. El_C 03:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 09:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I advised Fadix to cease the accusations until (if and/or when) he assembles all the pertinent evidence in a precise and methodic way, with it being presented dispassionately and in the propper place. To the best of my knowledgee, he has agreed and ceased from making them. That aside, I want to highlight the "fact" that, outside of Turkey, the scholarly consensus tends to favour the Armenian position more so than it does the Turkish one. From this follows two premises: first, the article needs to reflect that consensus, and two, the Turkish side cannot be allotted equale representation because it isn't merely the Turkish versus Armenian side. All of that is in the event your proposals cross that imaginary line, but of course, I need to know, specifically, what these proposals are, what they are made out of, especially (a suggestion to "see the archive" dosen't help me). Even then, my background in Turkish/Armenian/Azeri/Greek history may not be enough, but I'll do what I can. Still, there needs to be better intereditorial organization and coherence: the talk page is a mess. It is difficult to wade through and I think much greater effort needs to be undertaken from all sides to express themslves more concisely and intelligably. El_C 03:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I notice you reverted my edition about the Peak Oil theory. I added an external link to the Polish Peak Oil site. There is a link to the hispanic Crisis Energetica and nobody removes it; in this case I see no reason for removing other languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.64.162.135 (talk • contribs)

Hey, I'm not sure who you are. I looked through the article's revision history, but I reverted a lot of ips there recently, so it's difficult to tell who of these you are. Anyway, that link is probably better suited for the Spanish Wikipedia, less so for our readers in the English one. El_C 03:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a profile, but since I lost my password (and retrieval didn't work) I can't log in. My piece of wiki is here: Oil Peak. There are 10 milion Poles living in the USA (we have approx. 40 milion inhabitants in Poland), so in terms of % it's quite an amount. I think it makes sense to put a link to the Polish site in this section. Patriotism, you know :)

i didnot remove it. somebefore had removed it i put it back. please check and see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.247.247.120 (talk • contribs)

How can I tell who this is and which article this took place in? Is this about Sri Lanka? El_C 03:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case you missed this in all the noise on Talk:Machsom Watch: Oh, now I see why you were angry at me. You were right to be. I thought Zeq had added that since I forgot you read Hebrew, and I didn't see your comments above until this moment. I should have checked. Given as you are one of the W/P editors I have the most respect for, I would never suspect you of playing the game that I thought someone else was playing. I apologize unreservedly. --Zero 06:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. I understand now. And thanks for the kind words. I have, indeed, read the Hebrew article, and this was the first I heard of the incident (though maybe I heard of it and forgot), and had no idea how it was concluded. Best, El_C 06:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C. All that happened is some anon pasted the entire

Yikes. I'm... not good. :( El_C 08:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. ;) --Khoikhoi 09:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And obviously I end up deleting History of Azerbaijan. Where is my award of incompetence? El_C 09:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right here of course! Here's an alternate. Take your pick. --Khoikhoi 09:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Thanks! I'm taking it as a compliment, that's how incompetent I am! /bows El_C 09:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias. Btw, I don't think this user is going to know what you are talking about. Did he request that you create a separate page for Iranian Azerbaijan? I didn't bother to read his comment. --Khoikhoi 09:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, no s/he didn't. Good! Oh, and nobody is actually going to read the comment due to lack of capitalization. El_C 09:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously. People are going to read that comment as much as they read this one. --Khoikhoi 09:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, we should introduce the Anon to Iranian Patriot — between the two of them: Capitalization! El_C 09:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good idea. ;) Perhaps they have a caps lock crisis over there. Anyways, I gotta go now. Nice talking to you. --Khoikhoi 09:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Likewise, take it easy. :) El_C 09:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-oh, I guess I was wrong about saying no one would reply to his comment...[4] --Khoikhoi 08:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shiii! El_C 05:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey El C how have you been? I would really like your help in keeping an eye on user

El C, I think that baku87 may have a sockpuppet, the new user's name is druffc. He just joined, and he edited some things on the Military of Armenia article which he claimed as being POV, but then added azeri POV. I am hoping you will take time to look at this problem and if it needs be, protect the Military of Armenia from edits. Please get back to me!--Moosh88 07:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, nice to see you. My time is somewhat pressing, so I have to be brief. Last I glanced at MoA, I didn't see any instances of edit warring by either account. Have you tried communicating with the user/s, and explain to them your objections? If not, do that and see what happens. I will try to look into it soon, but it would be useful for me to have a summary of the main issues involved in the dispute. Regards, El_C 05:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have told them my concerns on the talk page of the

Hi again. Everyone has biases, but it's key to aim toward compromises that retain accuracy while conveying a sensible tone. I don't think the Azeris/Armenians should edit their own article, that isn't a likely solution. Best to discuss the points in dispute one at a time and methodically. I'll try to join in once I get a chance to review the talk page, but I'm not sure when that'll be. Hopefuly soon. Regards, El_C 04:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What else do you think I can edit on the Military of Armenia article?

Also, please don't let user kagan the barbarian act as though he/she has no POV; I saw his post at the bottem and it ironic how he can say others have a POV agenda when he has stated his agenda on his user page. Thanks for your help.--Moosh88 19:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My task is countering chauvinist POV pushers such as you. Your actions are a disgrace to Wikipedia. While you ask Azeris to discuss with you before making any changes to

Military of Azerbaijan page without a debate or warning. One of the Azeri users also suggests you deleted his/her posts on the talk page which I can go through history and verify if I have to. Everybody is free to go through my history and yours to decide who is the PoV pusher. Regards--Kagan the Barbarian 20:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

My goal is not to get into a wiki war, that's a waste of time. I'd like to work this out, but only if all sides are honest.--Moosh88 06:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw that you (kagan) changed your user page and made it less obvious, or you realized how one can easily mistake that sentence as a declaration of hostility.--Moosh88 07:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My feeble advise is to cease all the hostilities and engage the material dispassionately. Let's do it! El_C 07:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Made what less obvious? If I had a hidden agenda why would I make it obvious in the first place? I first edited my page the previous day because Hectorian suggested it and I made the second edit yesterday and added "chauvinist" so people like you don't distort my words as if I have a beef with neutral users. As I said, go through my history and if you find me hurting neutrality, tell me. Now as for your edit history, well now that's what I call entertainment.--Kagan the Barbarian 07:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The material, dispassionately! :( El_C 08:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no more.--Kagan the Barbarian 08:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my edit history would entertain you wouldn't it. Since I like you El C, I will go with your advice.--Moosh88 08:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El C, I need your help again. It seems like user baku87 doesn't know when to stop, thrice already I have tried to stop an argument with him, but he keeps the argument going. On top of that he is editing the Air Force subsection of the

Okay, I'll have a look. El_C 11:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El C please ignore this user moosh88, I really have enough of him and his false comment which he has been spreading accros wiki about me. This moosh88 has been warning all his buddies and now you and saying that Im a POV pushers, etc. But the fact is he has been deleting my comments in the talk page and editing articles without discussing. And yet he claims the one needed to be watched. All Im discussing is the fact that Azerbaijan Republic is occupied by Armenia and this moosh88 is being denying that. If thats his opinion then its fine, but he cant say that its a lie and its not true. This occupation of Azerbaijan by Armenia is as real as its gets. If he doesnt like that then fine, but he cannot say its a lie! I really dont see a problem with discussing topic like that or is there? I think its best if you, El C kept an eye on this moosh88 and please report to be if you see his spreading more lies about me!

Baku87 15:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Baku87[reply

]

I just saw your vote on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Weyes. You are apparently supporting his RfA because you are opposing it. Could you explain this? JIP | Talk 11:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What? Yes! No! Maybe! Okay! El_C 05:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i know if i want to type with CAPITAL words so i can tell you who i was. no ownder, cuba and iran are friends and yes just to lett you know i'm not iranian, because we have a new home —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.171.49 (talk • contribs)

I'm listening, me, but it's difficult to read. Anyway, it's best I make it clear that I'm anxiously looking forward to the inevitable demise of the fascistic, imperialist-lackey Islamic regime at the hands of the Iranian masses. Down with the Islamic regime! Long live armed-struggle! El_C 04:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for revising the

I know, I noticed some of its problematic components. Will try to attend to it soon. Regards, El_C 12:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm doing it right now. El_C 06:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. Hopefully it will last.--Kagan the Barbarian 08:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you, I'm pleased you approve my changes. El_C 03:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good call with the name change mate. well done. have you got any ideas for a more radical change though? it still isn't quite there yet. Veej 02:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Good question, I was wandering about that. Something-something cartoon protest? Regards, El_C 06:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey El C, would you please be able to move the page I'm with You to I'm With You? Some anon kept trying to move it by copying and pasting. I explained to them that it was bad, but they just deleted the comment. Therefore I'm asking you to do the move. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 02:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Np; done. El_C 02:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't know you were online. --Khoikhoi 02:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was on my way out, actually. You were lucky to catch me. El_C 03:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is going to be a long-ish message, and not necessarily the most positive one. For that I apologise up front, but I don't think I have another choice. This is not easy for me to do, but, again, I see no other option.

Your behaviour, attitude, and comments after Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war and the events leading up to it, have been, unfortunately, unacceptable. It pains me to tell you this, but I feel the need to be blunt. I understand why you were upset. That was only natural. That is not my problem. My problem is the way you've taken it personally and contiunally attacked and berated those you who've now considered "enemies", simply because they disagreed with you. You attacked Johnleemk in your response to the ArbCom case on this very page, and the pretty blatant attacks on him on Carnildo's RFA. That's the sort of thing that hurts me to read- I know that you're better than that. It's petty, really. You're taking it personally. But its not personal. Really. The comments, off-wikipedia for the most part, yes, but indicitave of this problem, about Gmaxwell and Mindspillage in reference to the latter's votes in the ArbCom case, and even old, basically resolved disputes with the former- That's not appropriate, and you know that. That's what makes this so difficult. I don't want to sound patronising, but I don't know how else to say this.

I don't expect you to sit back and be lax about conflict, that's not your nature. However, I'm begging and pleading with you to let this go. It happened, and now it's over. Please, please, please try to move on. Maybe you can't ever be friends with Carnildo, fine. But he doesn't have to be your enemy. Please. Remember that I'm telling you this as a friend. I know that you can be very kind, and that you are not typically like this. So I have to plead with you to stop acting this way. I hope you take this message in the way that its intended, which is as constructive criticism. I don't care how you personally feel about the events surrounding that case. But I have to ask you to put the feelings surrounding them in the past, and to move on, because they are adversely affecting the attitude of people around you, and by extension the entire community. It doesn't have to be this way- Please try to get everyone to move on and forget about those things that have happened in the past and are no longer relevant. A good start would be to do that yourself.

I apologise if I've hurt you, because I did not intend to. I also apologise if this note is slightly rambling- it was somewhat difficult to capture the feelings that I wanted to express. Thank you.

Your friend,

El C only made one comment, Sean. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sean, I'm afraid I do not at all subscribe to your interpretation of events above, and I find the basis for your plea to be drastically divorced from reality. I'm happy, of course, to discuss the matter with you (or anyone) in as painstaking detail as you wish. All the best, El_C 12:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, I've directed my comments here rather than on the RFA page. Whilst I respect your opinions, I found your posting to be rather uncivil, and I encourage you to at least retract the tangental portions of it that serve only to attack Johnleemk. Thank you. — Mar. 21, '06 [15:45] <

Well, I find there's a hidden implication behind your at least which I reject outright. I consider my vote comment neither incivil nor tangental; nor, under the circumstances, an attack (rather a defense of myself, and of the project, in general). Thanks for taking the time, though. El_C 12:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey El C, I really need you help once again. It seems that Kagan is bent on removing text which he deems to undermine Turkey. Please take a look at the Mount Ararat edit history, I don't want to go against the 3RR, but Kagan has already made me edit the article twice in less than an hour, please look into this, thank you!--Moosh88 23:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I think it's best to aim at creative, expansive solutions. For example, rather than edit war over that unsourced sentence (a sentence clearly of limited usefulness) back and forth, expanding the history section and noting who throughout history has exercized control over and/or inhabited this Mt region is an infinitely superior (and naturally, labourious) approach. Hope this helps you both. Regards, El_C 12:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bishzilla was a little surprised at all the milk of human kindness being poured out over this sweet newbie. Do you wish to make a temperate remark also, or shall we just get married on the QT? Bishonen talk 22:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Dear comrade wife, remember when I blocked a homosexuality-articles vandal troll for hate speech becase he refused to speak to homosexuals (and since I of course refused to answer his constant querries whether I was one — heh, like I'm going to answer that! answer: Heterosexual, pro-Lesbian & pro-Female Bi, so long as I can get in on that!), and then Rossi objected to the block on the grounds that myself and the homophobic troll were involved in an editing dispute (which was glaringly false) ? Memories, memories. Well, let me thank you again for your invaluable support then. It seems whenever I face opposition for admin actions I take against hate speech (or otherwise hate speech -related), you always got my back, and you're always able to articulate my position so much more eloquently, poignantly and clearly than I'm able to. I don't think I've thanked you enough for all you have done, my wonderful heroine, my wildcard poet whom StormFrontrollboards have yet to zone in on. Erm, sorry, I didn't really catch what you said above, I'm sorta limited to talking about —and thinking of— myself! Love, El_C 10:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How you rattle on, and how you turn my head! I think I will start expressing my enjoyable confusion by signing posts to you with just the tulipface.

My tulip-faced Bastetİsis. ɦΩɯ. With such ease & grace you hover above the earth just-bellow the stormclouds, lightning-fisted. Goddess-like. El_C 12:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey El C, I'd really like thank you for taking the time to vote at my RfA. I withdrew due to certain controversies, but I appreciated your vote and hope to see you here in the future. Thanks again. --Khoikhoi 05:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. I'm sorry it didn't work out as you (and I) hoped. I hope you're not too down over it. All the best, El_C 08:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, El C!
Just wanted to drop you a note to say I agree completely with your assessment at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 2. PedanticallySpeaking 17:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, PedanticallySpeaking! Yeah, I hear that. Had he only made the slightest effort toward dialogue with me; I'm extremely dissapointed with his stance. It was a very destructive experience for me, and I find it unfortunate he utterly fails to appreciate the gravity of his actions, on multiple fronts. Hopefuly, in the future, he will be able to reflect and draw the appropriate lessons. Best, El_C 08:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, we haven't spoken on this subject before, something which will no doubt surprise many people. I just saw your edit here [5] and thought someone should tell you - you are 100% correct. Of course he will apply again and again, but unless I see a huge shift in his behaviour and attitude I shall continue to oppose him. The problem is even if he apologises now, it will be hard not to suspect his motives - so it is going to be very hard to move on for all of us, but I suppose we must try, at leat until the next time! Good luck. Giano | talk 12:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and well said (throughout), too. It may surprise many people, but I scarcely spoken to anyone on the subject. As explained, I am more concerned of a community that would allow his form of (current) indifference than this apathetic attitude itself. Till next time, then. El_C 12:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

for vaguely remembering, El_C. ;-) —Encephalon 16:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YASE! Eventually! Again! :) El_C 10:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Raul654 20:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In less than a minute! My live internet radio is lagging and skipping like there is no tommorow — somehow, though, I was able to get the big four, including the biggest surprise in the election,

Gimla'ey Yisrael, which was expected to get 2 at most (or not pass at all) with eight. Wow, Likud crahses and burns, a slap in Bibiyahoo's neoliberal face: from 44 in the last election down to 11(!). Expect a resignation soon. El_C 20:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I just put a newslink there. Replace it if it's not good. -- PFHLai 20:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've used FU images on ITN before; oh well. My source won't do any real good. It was live IBA radio, but it appears to be dead now. El_C 20:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, although (like haaretz) it appears to cites a figure from all samples, whereas I am only interested in the IBA exit polls (the only real exit polls, and thus, most authoritative to go with until the official results are announced). El_C 20:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C. How would you translate "Komemeiut"? I would have said "erect" or "upright", but User:Zeq says it really should be translated as "rebuilding", "resurrection", "from the ashes". Jayjg ^(talk) 18:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, התקוממות (insurrection) is one of my most favourite words, and note that התקוממות מזוינת could mean both armed insurrection and fucking insurrection! Hm, anyway, as for קוממיות, what Shoshan says is: 1. Erect posture, with head held high, [and in borrowing:] without fright, in glory. 2. Revival. 3. [In our day:] Independent existence, sovereignty, non-dependence on others. Square bracket and font-size in the original. I translated תקומה as revival. Hope this helps! Regards, El_C 10:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sedat Laciner is on Wikipedia contributing under two different usernames, please keep and eye on him, as he has already begun his POV pushing campaign. His user name is Slaciner, I don't know the other name he uses. Please contact me if you have any questions or something important comes up, thanks!

BTW: Sedat Laciner runs the "Journal of Turkish Weekly." It is a biased journal and I fear that he will spread the lies of that publication here.--Moosh88 23:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ankaram? Yes, I know who he is. He will have to keep in mind that the Turkish position is a minority interpertation within the pertinent scholarship, and that this should be reflected in whatever given article/s. But I've yet to be afforded a chance to review Dr. Laciner's edits. El_C 10:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, in a similair vain, I suspect user Hetware to be Germar Rudolf, his edition of one article in particular reffering to Rudolf under the IP address he used before getting an account. [6] This information he added in its description on the affair at Max Plank Institute contains informations a little too descriptive and the exact argument Rudolf used at the time, and now his specific defense on Rudolf article under this account makes me wonder. Had he been a general revisionist he would have engaged in various other articles and not limit himself on Rudolf related issues. Just so you may keep an eye on him. Fad (ix) 20:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to do so. Please keep me informed of any developments on all of the above. Regards, El_C 04:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello El C, how are you? Thanks for your support in my RFA. The final vote count was (88/3/1), so I am now an administrator. I am very humbled by your vote and grateful. Please let me know if at any stage you require assistance, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an administrator. Once again thank you and with kind regards Gryffindor 17:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply ] I'm alright, thanks! NP, my pleasure! :) El_C 10:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was told by another member to contact you in regards to a new member of Wikipedia, User:AkaAtour whose IP address is 75.4.183.229. He continues to vandalize articles(mostly Ashur Soro) and harass members. Thank you for your time --A2raya07 20:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you summarize the basis for dispute for me in a few sentences? Regards, El_C 04:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just watch the sig and feel yourself getting calmer... calmer... calmer... calmer... Bishonen talk 20:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Calm? I'm always calm!!!!!! Great sig, I could look at it all day, and I just might... El_C 13:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You uploaded the image

I'm Bruce Dickinson (probably)! Let me tell you what is or isn't acceptable! But I offer you a truce. Best, El_C 13:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realized there is wrong information regarding the number of ethnic Greeks in Greece on the Greeks article. Albanians, Macedons and Turks are being shown as ethnic Greeks (The number of Greeks in Greece given on the infobox is the entire population of Greece), I corrected this giving my sources [7], [8] but 2 users, who I believe are Greek, apperantly didn't like what I was saying and reverted my edits. And since I am a simple anon there isn't much I can do but I think I am making an important point there. I am asking you to deal with this if you can please. Thank you in advance. Regards.--81.213.75.138 18:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is correct, they can't claim 100% of the population in Greece as ethnic Greeks. Not to mention that this is done within the context of ethnic Greeks in other countries, whereby Greek citizenship makes absolutely no difference. What a peculiar mixup, and is of course borderline vandalism, which I will attend to immediately. Thanks for taking the time. Regards, El_C 00:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep an eye on this [9] as it plays out, and make such interventions as you feel appropriate, Slrubenstein | Talk 18:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks for letting me know; I would have missed it on account of my extended break from my watchlist, or should I say, whoa-list! Best, El_C 00:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you now look at the bottom third of this section Zur Judenfrage) anon. user 85 has laid out three options for revising it - could you review and comment on them? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. I shall review these proposals soon. Meanwhile, I have made some changes to On the Jewish Question. Regards, El_C 20:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings comrade. I am on my way from one drinking-place to another (after all, it's Thursday night), and consequently not entirely sober. Nevertheless, I have had the requested look at Green Line (Israel) and made some changes. You might like to check that what I wrote about Jerusalem was right; I know that this was the effect of the 1980 Jerusalem Law, but did it also apply before then and should the text reflect that? I think so, but in the absence of precise knowledge and the lack of nay libraries being open here until Tuesday in deference to Easter refrained from saying anything of the sort. Also, you refer to citizens of the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem and Gush Etzion being taken prisoner - I think, to be pedantic, as far as the former goes anyway, the male population were made prisoners of war while the women and children were allowed to cross the lines? as well as an offer of the King's protection being made to those who wanted to stay, although doubtless nobody was really expected to take this up. Anyway, over to you. Palmiro | Talk 20:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt help! You've accomplished a lot for being in the wonderful state of not entirely sober! I'll make some immediate changes — I want to briefly reiterate what is said in the overview on Jerusalem in the population section, and also mention the Golan (and the Golan law). The only problem with that is making the Arab population section three times the size of its Jewish counterpart, but it's a price I'm willing to pay in the interests of clarity and organization. In answer to your questions: no, you are not being pedantic at all, that's an oversight on my part which I will be correcting. I'll also add the King's protection bit. As for the 1980 Jerusalem Law, I'll just note it as further entrenched the status of EJ as an annexed area (being a Basic law, approved by the Supreme Court of Israel) — EJ was originally annexed in 1967, in a directive. Thanks again for all your help. I'll go on to translating more soon and will be asking for help at that time. Fraternally, El_C 00:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone over it once more, quickly, but will just point out that the figures you inserted regarding Knesset members are not quite consistent with the Knesset having 120 members! As I'm not sure which parties fit in which category (specifically wrt UTJ and Shas), I can't fix this myself. Also, I've changed your reference to PFLP to one to PFLP-GC, as the PFLP since the Cairo agreement seems in effect to tend more to the Fatah position despite still being fond of the hardline rhetoric from time to time (also, let's not forget: القدس, الدولة, خق العودة خطوط حمرى, which suggests that abolishing the Green Line is not a red line. Palmiro | Talk 12:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The wonderful state of...! That's hilariously incomopetent of me! Especially considering that I'm the author of the of

Immediate impact and coalition prospects (Olmert has 60 without the Arab KMs – i.e. no majority of Zionist parties). Alas, my head hurts too much to feel emberassed right now, and on that note, I'm going back to bed. Tob e continued. El_C 17:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Ah well, if even El Comandante can err, there is hope for all of us. and by the way, there's two "a"s in withdrawal! Palmiro | Talk 22:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me errs? That's unpossible! And by the way, there's two "a"s in Rashid Kalidi! ;) /bows El_C 23:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darn, I have been exposed, and by an incomopetent too, to add insult to injury! Palmiro | Talk 15:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know what they say, you can't spell incompetence without incomopetentence-tence! /adds salt; dances El_C 20:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But he followed our guidelines; it seems wrong for us to punish him for doing so. Moreover, the presence of the links on the Talk pages does no harm to the encyclopædia, whatever we think of his motives or what he might get out of it. The policy against link-spam is surely to protect the integrity of articles, not to police the Internet...

(Hello, by the way — it's been a long time since we encountered each other. How are things?) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I should have said: your message suggested that you were unaware of the message that I posted to

WP:AN/I, and the subsequent discussion. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello! And where are my manners? :) Things are alirght, thanks for asking. I hope you've been well. As for the spam, while my experience with links to that specific site indeed involves removing it from the main namespace, I feel it's pretty bad form to have that same copy-pasted, generic question repeated tens of times. The question is where do we draw the line? If not tens, as in this case, hundreds? Thousands? I am actually againt any sort of copy-paste generic questions of this sort being placed on multiple pages, even if it falls short of tens. You may be right about the guidelines, I'm not really sure. Wikipedia guidelines are often pretty stupid and I've been known to ignore them unless they somehow serve my immediate interests! But I think this toletance of article talk page spammage sets a bad precedence. Also, I don't believe "policing the internet" is an accurate depiction, as opposed to Wikipedia realm of which. So, am I making sense yet? Let me know! :) Best, El_C 20:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To take my above point to its logical conclusion, rather than answering the aforementioned question(s) many tens of times, I suggest removing it from all those talk pages and answering it once on the user's talk page — since clearly it's the same answer in all instances. El_C 20:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had cats lick your face and/or your ears ? I have. Ten of them. Martial Law 00:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

Yes! No! Maybe! What? I am a proponent of

Eskimo kissing, in fact! El_C 20:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Dear El C,

I'd also direct your attention to the

His latest move, the Slashdot post with the link to my usertalk page, was just disturbing enough to prompt a little google research on my part. In case it's not already clear from the points made on

However, to demonstrate this would entail divulging his real-world identity and at least some aspects of his background, which I'm uncomfortable doing for several reasons: 1) He's shown a markedly vindictive nature, and a willingness to prolong and escalate conflict outside of wikipedia. 2) I'm unclear as to what the WP policies are on such matters.

I solicit your counsel, and I hope that what I've said so far does not overmuch stray from protocol.Timothy Usher 04:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Divulging personal details of users is not permitted. Feel free to email me the details, though, and I could go over them in confidence. El_C 05:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sent.Tim 07:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As one of my comments on Talk:Islamism has become an issue, I'd like to highlight some comments made before I'd arrived on this page. I'm can't justify violations of CIV or any other policy or spirit on my part, but I suggest these to be mitigating circumstances.Some comments on Talk:Islam this user had made before I’d ever seen his user name(s):

24.7.141.159/128.97.247.141

Re Vector4F:

• “A reading of this talk page clearly shows that Vector4F has an axe to grind against proponents of Islam.” [10]

To Graft:

• “Ignoring this fact shows that you have never bothered picking up a translation for the Qur'an and are just ignorantly spewing non-sense on these pages.” [11]

• “Graft, knowledge is an amazing thing and it would be in your best interest to go learn something before preaching ignorance here.” [12]

• “I hate to burst your bubble but...”, “I find your desire to differentiate Hasan al-Banna from Mrs. Bhutto to also be ignorant.”, “Have a good day.” [13]

To ObsidianOrder:

• “Umm, I don't mean to be disrespectful but you are completely clueless with this statement”, “Unfortunately, your comment is rather ignorant and uninformed. I'm not going to sit here and try to educate you on where you are wrong because Google has ample amounts of information.”, “Again ignorance.”, “Please, life the blinders off your eyes.”, “It seems like you have a knowledge gap that needs to close before we can have a productive conversation.”, “Have a good day.” [14]
• “Furthermore, judging by your previous contributions to Wikipedia, it is no surprise that you have an agenda to paint Islamic political ideologies in a negative light.”[15]
• “It seems like s/he has a knowledge gap and an unwillingness to read the previous discussion on point s/he is bringing up.” [16]

All the preceding having nothing to do with me, much less Pecher, except to the degree that I'd felt offended at the tenor of discussion on the talk page, and the way in which this user was attempting to intimidate and dominate others through a relentlessly personalized dialogue predicated on the nefarious motives and/or abject ignorance of his fellow editors.

Since you mentioned the possibility of arbcom action, I'm somewhat inclined to post these on ANI, only because my own comment has come under scrutiny, and I feel it relevant, if not wholly exculpatory, to consider the timeline and context, and that assumptions of anti-Islamic motivation and attitudes on the part of other editors, accompanied by overt antipathy, predates any interaction with me, or any post on ANI.

But again, would like your input.Timothy Usher 07:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I've yet to read that talk page to place it into context, so feel free. It was two weeks ago, though. El_C 11:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why context should matter here any more than with the Bouyeri comment, which occured in the context of the above, but it's all available in Talk:Islamism/Archive 4. You can see me uncivilly standing up to an abusive user who'd been bullying everyone else for some time, and to that extent violating WP policy - I'm supposed to run to an admin, but that wasn't my first instinct. As you say, this all happened two weeks ago.Timothy Usher 11:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but without knowing more about this context, I'm unable to advise one way or the other. I will try to study that archive soon. El_C 12:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:User247 has taken another editor’s comments (so they surely were) [17]...and interpolated his own to alter the passage's intent [18]

Unsigned, naturally.

Normally, I'd have reverted, but seeing as he's been carrying on about how I "censor comments by editors critical of my position", I thought I'd run this by you instead.Timothy Usher 00:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice; I'll have a word with User247. El_C 01:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already responded. I never post on Slashdot.org and its up to the accusers to prove it with IP addresses and MAC addresses. Secondly, posting at the Administrator's noticeboard is in retribution for me posting Timothy Usher on there. It is no secret that both Timothy Usher and Pecher are working hand in hand almost to the point that I wonder if it is the same person. I find these attacks very disturbing and I don't understand why you are party to them. User247 03:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That response dosen't look good, User247. El_C 05:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C,

I know this may appear to be rude since it is none of my business, but when surfing I observed your comments on the Timothy Usher's talk page. I don't know what has been happened. I know Timothy since he started contributing significantly in wikipedia (which is not long ago). I found Timothy a very hard working, very willing to hear and accept arguments, and one of the best editors I have ever seen in wikipedia. Moreover, he is very willing to mediate among people and help getting at consensus. I think if you ask Zora, she will tell you about his very good contributions to wikipedia. Though I think he sometimes makes quick judgments, but I found his edits always quite mild. Please note that I am a Muslim editor who has been very active in the Islam related articles. Many "Muslim responses" in several sections of the article of criticism of Islam, is for example written by me. I have had conflict with many Non-Muslim editors but Timothy, I should say, is the most honest one to my mind. --Aminz 07:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a counting. Timothy has started extensively working on Wikipedia since March 12, 2006. Here is the record before:

• He had 97 edits which are on Jan 22-25, 2006. 4-6 May 2004!

Since March 12, 2006 till April 18, 2006: 36(37?) days he has made 619 edits!!!

This is a very high rate! I think with this rate of editing and keeping his good faith, he will be eligible to become an admin soon of which I will strongly support. --Aminz 08:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a Mediation going on Dhimmi and Jizya articles. I remember Timothy made a change to one of these articles which I didn't like. I asked him to join us in the Mediation which he accepted. The Mediation was unsuccessful (I and Farhansher was on one side and Pecher was on the other side); you can ask Tom Harrison about this. Timothy was new but struggled a lot to gather us together again. We had long discussions on the mediation page. He read it and moreover looked into the history of the edits of the Dhimmi article and prepared the following long report:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-02-27_Dhimmi_and_Jizya#Dhimmi_page:_My_Report

The only reason that I gave him a barnstar was because of his tireless work. Currently he is trying to reconciliate me and Pecher on the article of Apostasy in Islam. --Aminz 08:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for the note. Hrana is open to mediation, so we can start in the very near future. I'll prepare a suitable page soon. Regards, El_C 10:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I'm seeing here is that two things I would ask is that the user join in shutting down the Deuterium pages and in removing the Slashdot post. I'm not sure the latter is possible, but I know neither is possible if we maintain the fiction that he's not behind this. Content is far down the list for me at this point, as is the usual type of trolling. I'd like the most egregious violations dealt with first, not to negotiate about content while these behaviors continue by default. Additionally, if we agree to pretend this is not him, that we are "being monitored on an outside forum" and what we say will be posted on Slashdot with links to our user talk pages, it legitimizes this behaviour in the future, for in this pretend reality, this user is not responsible for any of it. I'm not asking for punishment. Amnesty for past offenses is fine, but I'd like the ongoing abuses to stop.Timothy Usher 10:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate those considerations, but will point out that In light of your Mohammed Bouyeri "sarcasm," you may find such a proceeding to be a double-edged sword. It makes no difference to me, of course. Only note, then, that I'm pragmatic and am open to amnesty for all —without an intensive investigation into conduct— in exchange for a workable formula that would prevent any future issues, whereas the Arbitrators will be more strict, in investigating conduct and sanctioning users from one or both sides. El_C 11:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might you explain to me why this comment is seen to take on such importance relative to the ocean of trolling from 247 in which it appeared? I'm not trying to be catty, just wondering what specifically you are getting at. I have to guess that something is seeming very obvious to you which is not at all obvious to me.

In any case, I've little choice, as the maintenance of hit-list-like dossiers (as in Deuterium) and continued external postings with links to my user page is simply unacceptable. Just what exactly is the purpose of posting my name in this forum, and (falsely) labelling me an anti-Muslim bigot? What is supposed to happen? Minimally, harrassment, maximally, what? It's a reasonable question, and one which speaks to the spirit I'd felt from this user which prompted my comment to begin with, a feeling confirmed by the enemies list on the Deuterium page..

If it's arbcom, it's arbcom. All I ask it that the nature of the charges against me be explained in a direct manner, as they've not been so far, so that I might be allowed to directly speak in my own defense.

Perhaps if I hear what is likely to occur based on the Bouyeri comment - I'm sorry that (judging from your quotes) you don't accept my word as sincere - I might change my mind, but at this point, I'm very puzzled as to how anyone could consider the two complaints to be remotely proportionate.

What judgement do you think is likely to be passed upon me in arbcom? I realize you can't know for sure, but would like to know what you're getting at.Timothy Usher 11:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I accept your word, but am not able to tell to what extent that would be deemed obvious enough to the user in question. In any case, I use that example since it's the only one I know of involving your misconduct, but will stress, only as ==an example==. Perhaps there are other instances of misconduct on your part, perhaps not. I'm not able to tell as I havne't studied the pertinent material, nor am I able to equate one side versus the other. The appearence that I'm doing so merely follows from my pragmatic approach. You are of course free to decide such an approach to be in error; perhaps it is, time will tell. Thus, I'm not able to postulate on the judgement; maybe it will be decided favourably for you, maybe not. Again, I'm simply not able to tell. Sorry I couldnt be of more help. Let me know if I could be of further assistance. El_C 12:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

---

test 1 2 3, where does this get stuck?