Metamagician3000 (talk | contribs) |
Headphonos (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 440: | Line 440: | ||
:I rollbacked tens of thousands of entries, authored hundreds of them, blocked thousands of users, deleted hundreds of pages/images, closed hundreds of XfDs, et cetera, etc. Anyway, [[WP:RFDA]] is that-a-way ! [[User:El C|El_C]] 07:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC) |
:I rollbacked tens of thousands of entries, authored hundreds of them, blocked thousands of users, deleted hundreds of pages/images, closed hundreds of XfDs, et cetera, etc. Anyway, [[WP:RFDA]] is that-a-way ! [[User:El C|El_C]] 07:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
::Considering the source, I am undaunted. Regards, [[User:El C|El_C]] 07:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC) |
::Considering the source, I am undaunted. Regards, [[User:El C|El_C]] 07:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
:Here is a new word for your vocabulary [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/discerning DISCERNING] read it and apply it...you might actually be liked again at Wikipedia...but some how I doubt it ! [[User:Headphonos|Headphonos]] 10:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:42, 6 March 2007
Why should poetry not be a slogan?
Why should poetry not be
biased
when life is not at all itself
For life's sake,
I expect a poem to be
a slogan
a dagger
a fist
and a bullet if necessary
If you have the capacity to tremble with indignation every time that an injustice is committed in the world, then we are comrades. – Che.
Archived Discussions
Who are you?
I have edited an Article about Kano but you turned to revert the edition, while I am doing the right thing. Why are you editing when you don't know anything about Kano?
- A better question would be who aren't I? On what basis do you claim it has more people than Lagos? El_C 11:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding World War II
Thanks for fixing the infobox. I forgot to take out the commander as well. --Borgarde 11:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- My pleasure. El_C 11:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
PGG resolution attempt
Hi El_C, an attempt has just begun to resolve the Pontian Greek Genocide dispute through an arbitration committee. Since you have mediated there before, could you please voice your support or objection to such a measure here. Thanks, --A.Garnet 16:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hey. I'll try to review it soon. If the other dispute resolution steps have been followed, then arbitration is a good idea. But the Committee tends to limit cases to conduct rather than content-related disputes. Regards, El_C 17:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Stel.la on Astrology
Please don't remove a legitimate link to Stel.la on Astrology unless you have a valid reason to do so. (Aeon2012 12:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)) Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. El_C 17:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Massive "Anglicisation"
Hello, El C. I'd like to ask you for your input in this - literally thousands of articles have been sloppily "Anglicised" already (changing "région" for "region", for example, without modifying the phrase around it in the least to provide the proper context/meaning of the term) without any prior discussion at all, and one is continuing this rampage in spite of an ongoing discussion and WP:RFC about it. As you are major contributor to France-topic articles, so your input in this case is even important. Please help. You can find the discussion here. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 19:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'll try to look at it soon, but significantly changing thousdands of entry titles without compreensive discussion is highly problematic. Regards, El_C 17:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
TharkunColl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Greetings El C, could you take a look at this editor again? I noticed that you blocked him/her once before and that they've been blocked before for incivility and provocation regarding the Muhammad article. I notice that this user is back to the same behavior. The talk that specifically concerns me is found here and here. On this second edit he writes "Mohamed (sbuh)", I searched on google to see what he was saying with that statement and this is what I came up with. Both of these examples of talk are further unecessarily inflammatory and set up a battleground surrounding this already difficult article. Is there anything that might be able to be done to reduce this negative influence? Thanks. (→Netscott) 02:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hey. Anything new? A community ban appears to be highly likely; if that conduct continues, in the immediate future. Regards, El_C 17:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Carbon dating
Hi El_C. I was wondering if I could have your views on the carbon dating article. I believe it needs to mention that the accuracy of carbon dating is disputed by some groups (often religious groups) as this is a well known fact, and I can cite numberous sources for this fact. But for some reason a user insists on removing both reference to this fact, and any sources to this reference. I'm not sure what the next step would be if this user (vsmith) does not stop. Would it be an rfc against the article or the user? The reason I'm asking you is because I remember you had a level head with regards to a small dispute over the racialism article a while back, so thought I'd ask an "old timer" such as yourself before taking it to a wider community. Thanks for any feedback you can give, --Rebroad 15:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- The question that needs to be answered (and it cannot so long as that addition remains unsourced) is:
- Who is contesting it, specifically?
- On what basis is it being contested?
- Is it only carbon dating (why it; could it be anything specific to it?), or does it encompass other forms of radiometric dating (potassium-argon, Uranium-thorium and so on)?
- I think it will be difficult to find concrete answers from these circles, because that means that scientists are way off about particle decay, half-life, statistical mechanics, molecular physics, et cetera. Would any of these people dare to hit a charged nuclear warhead with a hammer? Because laws that govern the processes behind it are the same. Regards, El_C 17:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Forum Link
I am not sure of what link you are speaking of. - SVRTVDude 10:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hello again. The reference was to the addition of tribemagazine.com forum threads here, here, here, here, and here. Thanks. El_C 11:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Calton/RfC
The discussion party was when I originally made the page....never did one, so I wasn't sure where to put the information. If you can, or if it is needed, can you put that information in it's proper place. Sorry about that. - SVRTVDude 11:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Nevermind, I just seen your edit to the talk page....that works. :) Rock on....SVRTVDude 12:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I just pasted the discssion field from the {{RfC}} template. Thanks. El_C 12:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Like I said, I apologize for the edits. You corrected me (actually I looked, another admin did too) and I apologized and again apologize. I did those good faith, I was corrected. Besides my apologizes for the problems this has caused, Calton and I have not come in contact with each other and I plan on keeping it that way. As for the RfC, I was directed there by User:Jkelly after posting on WP:AN. I don't consider User:Rspeer an enabler, he actually figured that RfC out, cause I didn't get it. I think it was good for everyone to voice an opinion on the subject (my reason behind posting on WP:AN to begin with...didn't know there was an RfC...still new here). Yeah, it would probably be best for us to forget it (I know I want to), but it is out there, so we have to deal with it and once the RfC runs its course, then we move on.
- Again, I apologize for the problems this has caused and I apologize for the way things "look" on my reverting Calton's edits. I assure you, I was doing it in good faith...and as you will notice, I haven't reverted anything by him since...if I was doing it to be annoying, there would be more...there aren't.
- Unrelated sidenote...typing this, you talk page moves quite slow, ya might want to archive so it speeds up. Take Care....SVRTVDude (Yell - Work) 12:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'll try to remember to archive. I think had Rspeer were to mildly chastize you for both the appearence of having stalked Calton as well as for the incorrect reverts —while at the same time mildly chastize Calton for becoming overheated— this might have been over then and there. I don't have a problem with a new user starting an RfC (or it being recommended by someone unfamilliar with the dispute), but I think the experienced editor (Rspeer) should have known better than to certify it. Thank you. El_C 12:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Unrelated sidenote...typing this, you talk page moves quite slow, ya might want to archive so it speeds up. Take Care....SVRTVDude (Yell - Work) 12:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- El_C, I have not responded to the most recent post by Calton on RSPeer's talk page...but he is trying to keep this going...I have stopped and let it go. How long is he going to be allowed to badmouth me on anyone's talk page and try to continue to keep this situation going long after I have walked away. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Work) 00:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hello again. In fairness, he was responding in a mildly inflamatory way to that mildly inflamatory note on your talk page. I think this will all blow over if everyone were to just chill and refrained from talking to or about one another. Thank you. El_C 04:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with YOU editing the section, including your revert, but Calton needs to not engage in an edit war in the complaint section, it's against the RfC rules, and for good reason. Mangojuicetalk 04:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, a talk page comment would have been more helpful than reverting. El_C 04:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Iraq Article.
Provide sources for that bogus information you have reverted back to. It is being removed until you do. CanadianPhaedrus 04:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)CanadianPhaedrus
- See the sources in Al-Anfal Campaign, an article linked to in the passage you removed. El_C 04:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
World War Eleven
I was racing ahead somewhat. ;-D SlimVirgin (talk) 08:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- No doubt, you're nine World Wars ahead of yourself! El_C 08:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Operation Northwoods
<weary tone> Good grief! <end weary tone> --Zleitzen 13:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- All in a day's work, my friend. :) El_C 13:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
AfD tags
Sorry, thought AfD tags worked the same way PROD tags did. My apologizes. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Work) 12:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- You're Welcome:) - SVRTVDude (Yell - Work) 12:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Loadtime should be much faster now. ;) No apology needed. We were all new once. El_C 12:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Sprotect my main user pages
Hey El C, sorry to disturb you but another sock is at it again. Netpeache (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ... could you perhaps put a temporary sprotect on my main user pages? Thanks. (→Netscott) 13:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Done & done. Regards, El_C 13:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Add Netpeache (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Netpeache2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the list. El_C 13:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks again El C. (→Netscott) 13:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Next, Asetgs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)... removing my commentary on different pages. (→Netscott) 13:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Another one bites the dust. El_C 13:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Gutnar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ←hey! He's going to get you to... but seriously this is another that needs to bite the dust. (→Netscott) 13:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- And another one gone, and another one gone. El_C 13:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Another one bites the dust.Proabivouac 11:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- And another one gone, and another one gone. El_C 13:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Gutnar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ←hey! He's going to get you to... but seriously this is another that needs to bite the dust. (→Netscott) 13:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Another one bites the dust. El_C 13:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Next, Asetgs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)... removing my commentary on different pages. (→Netscott) 13:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks again El C. (→Netscott) 13:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Add Netpeache (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Netpeache2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the list. El_C 13:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello El C, thanks for the reverts of my talk page. It is very clear that Observation Post (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet and I'm inclined to believe that the individual socking is User:Kgeza67/User:Wik engaging in POINTed behavior. I've noticed on Kgeza67's socks he typically starts out by putting small message on both his user and talk pages (as this user did). Anyways this sock defied you and further reverted the talk off of my page. On the first removal the sockpuppet is technically correct per WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits but once another individual (like yourself) reestablishes the talk it becomes that other editor's edit and any subsequent reverts are against the third editor. Thanks again. (→Netscott) 13:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I would advise you to just indef. block that sock. If need be I'm sure Jayjg can verify what I'm saying. (→Netscott) 13:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have no idea what's going on! But it seems strange to me that the user made no attempt to bring up the issue with any of the participants (almost all of whom I recognize). Thanks for the feedback. El_C 13:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, again he's just making a POINT. (→Netscott) 13:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Blocked indefinitely. I'll leave a notice on ANI. Thanks again for your help! El_C 13:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- If it turns out that I am mistaken then I'll be sure to apologize to both you and this user. That said, both User:Proabivouac and myself have been engaging User:Kgeza67/User:Wik socks and the timing of all of this is awfully apropos (ergo Pro's message above). (→Netscott) 14:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Blocked indefinitely. I'll leave a notice on ANI. Thanks again for your help! El_C 13:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, again he's just making a POINT. (→Netscott) 13:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have no idea what's going on! But it seems strange to me that the user made no attempt to bring up the issue with any of the participants (almost all of whom I recognize). Thanks for the feedback. El_C 13:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Editors' Barnstar
'The Editors Barnstar | ||
For confronting the excesses of the Arbitration Committee.Proabivouac 10:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC) |
- I am also available for children's parties (still!). El_C 10:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Userpage
I don't like it...but what am I gonna do? Unrelated question for ya....can you tell me why page WRAJ Internet Radio was deleted? It was AfD tagged and I massively updated it to bring it up to code so that it wouldn't be deleted and it was still deleted. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Work) 11:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- No worries, btw, you are still on my "Editors Who Rock" list. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Work) 11:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like it was speedy deleted in the course of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WRAJ Internet Radio. From a cursory glance at the deleted material, I'm not cetain that the rather detailed history you added helped establish the notability of the station (and by virtue of it being an internet radio station, the burden of proof —that it is a noteworthy subject— becomes greater). Basically, to establish notability, you need to provide citations from reliable sources that discuss this station and its work. El_C 11:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sweet juice! :) El_C 11:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I really tried to add all of what I could with it and I thought the "stalker" and "myspace/attacks" sections would give reasons for it to be kept. Oh well. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Work) 12:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think the one story made WNBC...or maybe that was just the link to the MySpace story. Not sure. No worries though. If it ever comes back up or the original author brings it back via deletion review, all that information can be readded. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Work) 12:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sweet juice! :) El_C 11:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like it was speedy deleted in the course of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WRAJ Internet Radio. From a cursory glance at the deleted material, I'm not cetain that the rather detailed history you added helped establish the notability of the station (and by virtue of it being an internet radio station, the burden of proof —that it is a noteworthy subject— becomes greater). Basically, to establish notability, you need to provide citations from reliable sources that discuss this station and its work. El_C 11:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
This thread might interest you
- Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Major / minor edits
- Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Anonymous user in Sarajevo censoring Osli73 -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 16:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing to my attention. Any chance for a brief synopsis? El_C 23:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I've been trying to get the story myself. As I understand it, User:Osli73 is under an ArbCom ruling, and he's supposed to discuss his edits on the talk page before making them. He's not banned from the article, he's just supposed to discuss his edits. An anonymous user has taken to censoring all of User:Osli73's comments on that talk page. If I understand the situation correctly, the anonymous user is being over-zealous, and his censorship of Osli73's comments is simple vandalism. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Do you know which Arbitration case it was? On a cursory glance, I wasn't able to find it. Clearly, it was simple vandalism, whether inadvertant or intentional. Also, I dropped Opbeith a note re: civility and tendencious editing. Thanks again for bringing this to my attention, I probably would have missed it otherwise (just another rollback among tens of others). Regards, El_C 04:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't know what case it was, or what specific restrictions he's under; I've left him a message asking for the details. He seems to be discussing all of his edits on the article talk page. The current dispute seems to be regarding how many people were killed in the Srebrenica massacre. Osli73 made his case here: Talk:Srebrenica massacre#~8000 vs >8300, but his subsequent edits were reverted with an edit summary of "rv". -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 05:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I guess we'll wait for the (RfAr) answer. I'll try to review that (death figures) discussion soon. Thanks again for the explanation. El_C 07:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Jim and El_C, it was an arbcom on the Kosovo article back in Sept-Oct 2006. Unfortunately, I was away during the time and didn' make any statements during the arbitration process. The Kosovo arbcom found that since I had been involved in anedit war on the Srebrenica massacre article (the episode they are referring to is this) for which I had been given a 96 hour probation. This was correct (a lapse of judgement on my part following bullying and personal attacks from some of the other editors on the article, for which I am not proud).
What I can't understand is that the arbcom decided that this warranted putting me on a one year's probation and revert parole. I also don't understand why the Kosovo arbcom considered my misbehavior on the Srebrenica massacre article in their case which clearly concerned the Kosovo article. Regards Osli73 09:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for the detailed explanation. As for your question, it should be directed to the AC, here. El_C 09:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
El_C, will do. As I mentioned, I was away at the time and didn't make any statements in the arbcom process. I didn't know that it was possible to question or challenge the findings of the arbcom or to ask for an explanation of their findings. Regards Osli73 09:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
El_C Unless arb comm decisions are revoked (link added. El_C), probations and paroles are to be enforced. Selective enforcement of wiki rules undermines integrity of wikipedia. If you will not respect wiki rules, if you think you can ignore wiki rules, when what do you expect others to do???
- I expecet you to stop vandalizing the talk page & harassing Osli73. Stop evading blocks. Use WP:AE for Arbitration enforcement querries. El_C 23:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
El_C, please note Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification_on_remedy_of_the_Requests_for_arbitration.2FKosovo my recent comments] to dmcdevit's reply relating to the Kosovo arbcom's decision. Regards Osli73 10:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Noted. Were you User:KarlXII? El_C 10:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
El_C, as I've stated before,[1] yes, I was. The reason was that I had received some threatening emails to my private email address which I had strong reasons to believe were related to the harassment which I had experienced (and to a certain degree, continue to experience) in relation with the Srebrenica massacre article (the message was about my being a "#¤&% Serb" followed by threats and other insults. As it was quite apparent that the sender of these emails knew my full name (due to the prefix of my email address) and that Sweden is a rather small country, where it is not difficult to find personal information (such as postal addresses, etc), I felt it safest to (attempt) to 'change' identities to KarlXII. When I was challenged by some editors on the Srebrenica massacre article about being Osli73 I denied this. Of course this was an incorrect and 'stupid' thing to do, but at the time I was a bit shook up. Regards Osli73 11:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks again for the detailed explanation. El_C 11:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Joe Scarborough
Is there anyway you can temp protect this page from being edited? It looks like there is one helluva revert war going on over there. I reverted it back to the consensus version myself after taking a long look at the talk page...and would protect it myself if I had the power (damn my non-power)...but doesn't look like this revert war is going to end anytime soon. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 19:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Has it subsided now? El_C 23:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sadly, no. I have just reverted it again. It is one or two people who are using "their consensus" as the consensus version to add a section that others (the majority) decided should not be in there. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 05:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, protected. El_C 07:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sadly, no. I have just reverted it again. It is one or two people who are using "their consensus" as the consensus version to add a section that others (the majority) decided should not be in there. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 05:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Page move vandal
I don't understand why the recent page move vandal's block holds for anonymous users only. Doesn't that mean he can still vandalize by logging in? —Angr 06:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think Automatically block the last IP address used by this user, and any subsequent addresses they try to edit from supercedes it. Thus:
- 21:49, 13 February 2007, El C (Talk | contribs | block) blocked TheCars4Life (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (Unblock) (vandalism-only account)
- 21:49, 13 February 2007, El C (Talk | contribs | block) blocked #394892 (expires 21:49, 14 February 2007, account creation blocked) (Unblock) (Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "TheCars4Life". The reason given for TheCars4Life's block is: "vandalism-only account".)
- El_C 08:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Purported innocence
I'm innocent of all charges and so is Zoe! But we do kick ass big time! And so, I suspect, does El C. Theresa Knott
- I want to more than just kick it... ! Erm, I mean, flattery, will get you everywhere, my dear! El_C 13:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Question
I was wondering if it is OK to add a station's webstream to the info box. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 13:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I tend think one external link for the infobox would be enough, but I have no strong opinion. El_C 13:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Help Needed
Got another vandal 68.160.165.46 who is screwing up all kinds of pages. I need some help. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 14:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'll look into it. For the future, see WP:AIV. El_C 14:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Switching like WBZ's owner from CBS to Scripps, [[KCNC]'s owner from CBS to Gannett, massive edits on the Scripps page and the moving of Scripps tower from Cincinnati to Chicago. This user has done this under other IP addresses all licensed to Verizon of Boston. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 14:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Tags
Hello El C. You recently removed a POV title tag from TRNC. That dispute has been going on for months, and I believe that there is a strong case for rename to something like Northern Cyprus. Nevertheless, do you think you could utilize the same principle by which you removed the tag from the TRNC article from the Pontian Greek Genocide article as well? There have been numerous polls there, the latest one still visible on the talkpage was 19 - 5 against changing the title, so I think it's safe to say that the chances of there ever being a consensus to rename it are close to zero. Will the tag by there in perpetuity? Admin User:Future Perfect at Sunrise once said it should not, but the tag's still there. Luckily you've mediated in this dispute before, so you know the facts well enough. Dirak 14:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it has been established as the most common name, so I have some reservations in removing it myself, but I take your point. El_C 14:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- So what do you advise? "TRNC" is hardly the most common name for the whatever it is. It's mainly used in Turkish sources like that without scare quotes or a prefix such as "self-styled" or "self-declared"? Should I remove the tag from the PGG article myself (it may provoke another edit war, as I'm a party to the dispute though, which is why I asked you to do it).Dirak 14:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- The difference is that one is an historical event while the other is a de facto country, with a government which self-titles it as such. El_C 14:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, so? That is a can of worms, who says that this "government" is entitled to name the region? Words such as "republic" and "turkish" are disputed internationally - it's not neutral to say "to be neutral between A and B I'm going to pick A". Khoikoih agreed with me at TRNC's talkpage and used the examples of Nagorno-Karabakh (not "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" because the world disputes it status as a republic), etc. Everyone agrees it is northern Cyprus, not everyone agrees it is Turkish and a republic.Dirak 14:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I, personally, do think it should be Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, but no problem, just add a requested move to N. Cyprus. El_C 14:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- And what if it fails? Can the tag stay there like it is staying at Pontian Greek Genocide?Dirak 14:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I, personally, do think it should be Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, but no problem, just add a requested move to N. Cyprus. El_C 14:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, so? That is a can of worms, who says that this "government" is entitled to name the region? Words such as "republic" and "turkish" are disputed internationally - it's not neutral to say "to be neutral between A and B I'm going to pick A". Khoikoih agreed with me at TRNC's talkpage and used the examples of Nagorno-Karabakh (not "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" because the world disputes it status as a republic), etc. Everyone agrees it is northern Cyprus, not everyone agrees it is Turkish and a republic.Dirak 14:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- The difference is that one is an historical event while the other is a de facto country, with a government which self-titles it as such. El_C 14:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- So what do you advise? "TRNC" is hardly the most common name for the whatever it is. It's mainly used in Turkish sources like that without scare quotes or a prefix such as "self-styled" or "self-declared"? Should I remove the tag from the PGG article myself (it may provoke another edit war, as I'm a party to the dispute though, which is why I asked you to do it).Dirak 14:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikicops
Yes, I know that userpage was offensive before you protected it—that's not the point! Did you read the Village Pump discussion (which is where my own input is)? See for instance [2], [3]. Hope you like your new banner! Bishonen | talk 01:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
- I... don't! Sorry, no, I read little of anything about this. But those fake notices are annoying, Gah! El_C 01:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
/TB2
Without those section headers there are no Edit buttons on the main AIV report page to get to /TB2, all the reports get lumped together, then you click the only edit button on the top of the page and the bot reported one's aren't there. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, let me try another way. Why do you want those headings removed? it makes it harder to get to the bot report page or even to realize it is on the bot report page. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
That section is seldom used. It mostly wastes space. Just link to it without a superfleous section. El_C 14:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Right, bringing it up on the discussion page, as I find it most useful. I see no advantage of lumping all the reports together, if it is not broken why fix it? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think it was slightly broken, or at least somewhat wasteful. I added it to the header instead, which think is the best solution (that way, we eliminate the two sections and only have an alert one). Hope that makes sense to you and thanks for all your patience. Regards, El_C 14:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- I see 2 alert headings, on leads to each page, they look identical. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- I give up. El_C 15:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- It was a good idea, but technical and consensus issues need to be dealt with first. I will gladly help if you setup a sandbox to play with. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Reever2
You recently and correctly blocked Reever2 (talk · contribs). This user contacted the unblock-en-l list, confused about why he was blocked. We explained WP:SPAM and WP:COI to this user and indicated that even if the links were appropriate (which we weren't arguing), this user cannot add the links as it is a conflict of interest. The user has read over these policies and agrees not to add links to his own site and so I have assumed good faith and unblocked the user. Please yell and scream at me if you believe I acted inappropriately. --Yamla 15:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Looks perfectly appropriate. Thanks for running it by me. El_C 15:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Dweller's thank you ode to the helpful admin
- I spend a lot of time patrolling Recent Changes,
- Looking for destruction that's been wrought on our pages,
- There are more silly people than I could possibly handle,
- So thank you blocking this annoying vandal.
--Dweller 14:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- /bows El_C 14:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- "this section should be above, using *internal* links"
Why? —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 04:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: Chile
Hi El C. The 58% comes from adding together the "lower" (38%) and "extremely poor" (20%) classes. The source itself specifically defines poverty as only the latter of the two classes. Maybe we could reword it to "58% at a low income level, with a full 40% of those below the poverty line". Providing comparisons to other first world countries like the US may help (the US, not the least of which because this is English Wikipedia, but also because it's often used for comparisons in the Western hemisphere). The robustness of the economy compared to the rest of Latin America should probably be included too. --Mardavich 09:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. On a cursory glance (again), it looks as if you have a decent argument for including that addition. El_C 09:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Reply
Yes I am the copyright holder of the picture. It was given to my father who is also included in the picture. ROOB323 10:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, good enough for me. But you should prepare for the possibility that others may demand some sort of proof beyond that statement. El_C 10:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for declaring me exempt from 3RR on the Waldemar Matuška page. I wanted to make sure I wasn't doing the wrong thing. Bobo. 12:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. El_C 12:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Blocked troll
Hi El C. Thanks for blocking User:Barringa. I find these diffs since your block very interesting. --Dweller 13:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. Blocked that one as a sockpuppet of the aforementioned. El_C 13:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- You know, you're a generally helpful kind of person. Clearly it was a mistake when they made you an admin ;-). Seriously, thanks for your trollspulsions. --Dweller 16:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The Calton RfC
I meant to say a "long post on someone's talk page", but I didn't...was damned tired when I got in last night. Sorry, teaches me to post when I am tired:) Anyway, it was a HUGE post on User:Sarah Ewart's talk page. I had responded to a question brought up by her in the WP:CN page about User:GordonWatts and Calton responded there. He responded with some 30 links, some from other people's talk pages, one from yours. Now, that is kinda creepy. The last couple posts on his talk page, I was trying to be polite and I was not rude. But when he is posting on other people's talk pages about me and dragging my name through the dirt, yeah, I am going to defend myself. I would rather not have to, as my edits and additions on Wiki have decreased considerably due to him. Calton is going to continue to post on others talk pages bashing me until, I believe, I give up and leave. Which is personally looking like a better idea each and everyday. I am not stalking him, but in my opinion he is breaking a couple important rules and getting away with it with little or no consequence and when I respond to his attacks on me, I am the bad guy. Dude, that ain't anywhere close to fair. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 20:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm having difficulties grasping the periodization (can you provide a better-documented, more pointed account). Basically, I'm interested in an answer to a much more narrow question: who discussed whom first. Thanks in advance. Regards, El_C 13:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually forgot I wrote this:) After my good-faith attempt to save his talk page from being deleted via a mistakenly placed prod2 tag and his going head-to-head with User:Musical Linguist after she admonished him for snapping my head off for trying to save his talk page, he has completely stopped...all is good with the world:) Hope you have a good day....SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 19:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I am horrible with adding links:) The entire story, with all the linkage I could put together is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Calton#Yesterday I hope it works out too:) Hey, I had time to make a userbox and do a couple other things today on Wiki instead of arguing. I like this non-arguing Wiki. Userbox, BTW, can be found on my userpage. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 20:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Stalingrad
There seems to be a conflict in the battle of Stalingrad page, a user who has been blocked several times before and that has a history of attacking ww2 articles which can be seen in his edit history is trying to insert some information which he "has seen in some movie". He has made several threats and a personal attack where he has called me ignorant, and he is directly violating wp:ver. Can you please take a look into this matter Potaaatos 15:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Can you provide a link to the "seen in some movie" bit? El_C 20:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm Confused
I notice that I've been "semi-protected". I'm not even sure what that is. Did I do something wrong or am I being protected from others doing wrong to me? I'm really confused. Loomis 21:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- An anonymous IP posted a pseudo-comment on your talk page and signed it with Barringa. I posted a notice, but since this means that Barringa is evading his block the whole thread was removed, but you can view it by using the page's history. You didn't do anything wrong, Loomis. And, if it's any consolation, the same nudnik posted one of his clever comments on my talk page too, it was reverted too. By the way, thank you El C, for reacting. ---Sluzzelin 21:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Right. It prevents unregistered users from editing the page for the duration (3 days). Nothing to worry about. Sorry for the inconvenience. El_C 21:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks to both of you, Sluzzelin and El C. Clearly you're both very good people with only the best of intentions. However, I've decided that I'd prefer to have Barringa's anti-semitic comments restored to my talk page. As a Jew, this is the type of thing I have to deal with regularly. I'd rather it be exposed than swept under the rug. But otherwise, thanks, it's good to know that wiki is watched over by such decent folk as you two. Loomis 04:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- If and/or when the time will come "our reply shall be couched in terms of lead. In roar of shell and shrapnel and in whine of machine-guns will our answer be couched." And it just so happens that, in this case, policy works in favour of my ideology. That is, comments by blocked users are to, generally, be reverted on sight. But, since you feel strongly about it, I'll restore it. Many thanks for the kind words! El_C 05:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks to both of you, Sluzzelin and El C. Clearly you're both very good people with only the best of intentions. However, I've decided that I'd prefer to have Barringa's anti-semitic comments restored to my talk page. As a Jew, this is the type of thing I have to deal with regularly. I'd rather it be exposed than swept under the rug. But otherwise, thanks, it's good to know that wiki is watched over by such decent folk as you two. Loomis 04:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
16 hours?
user:60.240.254.60 is blocked only 16 hours after being a 25+ vandal only account being blocked before? Would not a longer block than a day be prudent. I mean for all we know they go to bed get up tomorrow and do the same thing. Not my place I guess. Its your call, so be it. I understand... Thanks for your time. --Xiahou 03:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- The duration is over five times the length of the original block; but I didn't give it a great deal of thought. Still, let's see what happens next. El_C 03:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
2 minutes?
You have been blocked for wheel-warring with yourself, aren't you ashamed of yourself, or at least of me? Bishonen | talk 03:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
- Yay, I'm incompetent! I just noticed that we can't rollback while being blocked anymore? That sucks! El_C 04:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
United Kingdom
Given that sleeper accounts now seem to be being used to following the semi protection of this page, do you think its appropriate to file a request for checkuser to discover how many other sleeper accounts there may be? WjBscribe 04:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Replied via email. El_C 05:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:PEDOPHILES
I see what you mean as how this page is a bit reactionary. We don't have a problem with pedophiles, the page seems to think like they are everywhere. The problem I have with myself is I assume that PeeJ is the one who is making us do this, so that is why I mentioned them. I am not sure what more can be done, or said, about this, but let's just see what happens. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. Regretfuly, I no longer am at liberty to make further comments. Regards, El_C 17:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- That is not a problem, at least you were not tearing my head off. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- I wouldn't do that even if you didn't have a valid point, which you did. I hope my responses reflected that understanding, but if I fell short of this, I apologize. At any rate, I've commented since I've written the above —I was a bit confused at the time by David Gerard's comments— my latest thoughts are on his talk page. Let me end by saying that PJ (or the WP:AN thread highlighting its latest) was a catalyst only inadvertantly: I was astonished to learn that, after everything, the practice was still being tolerated, and that some were defending it. As I mentioned to Theresa, the issue isn't about scope or intensiveness, but that it is a liability to the project, PR-wise (forget about PJ site, I'm talking about the main stream media picking up on this). Thanks for reading. Regards, El_C 02:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- That is not a problem, at least you were not tearing my head off. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi El C... just wanted to draw your attention to this... [4]... still having problems with this user... Gsd2000 02:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hey. I'm afraid I don't have much time at the moment, but I'll try to review that account soon. I'll sprotect the page for a little while, for now. El_C 03:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, the checkuser results confirmed my suspicions, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Somethingoranother. I dunno if you think action should be taken against the sockpuppeteer or whether that would be punitive rather than preventative. But the sock account User:Sally-is-the-best has yet to be blocked. WjBscribe 16:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- I blocked the account indefinitely since it was used for the same reversions. Thanks. El_C 17:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, the checkuser results confirmed my suspicions, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Somethingoranother. I dunno if you think action should be taken against the sockpuppeteer or whether that would be punitive rather than preventative. But the sock account User:Sally-is-the-best has yet to be blocked. WjBscribe 16:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Potaaatos and his edit warring at the Battle of Stalingrad article
Well. Dmcdevit did a IP check for me and Potaaatos uses the same IP as Deng. And since the IP check confirmed Potaaatos identity, I include the transgressions of Deng as the transgressions as Potaaatos as well. That's why I said cites policy and not always correctly. Deng has a very very long history of citing policies incorrectly so they match his particular POV. I was not necessarily speaking of this specific case. In the end, if you feel like Kurt should be blocked, block him. I certainly won't object. I blocked Potaaatos based on being another in a long line of SuperDeng socks not necessarily on his specific behavior on Battle of Stalingrad.
As for him claiming he's not SuperDeng, Deng has denied using sockpuppets in the past even after confirmed by CheckUser. But Potaaatos made several comments on his talk page that are pure Deng, including the claiming that Kurt and I are "chummy" despite the fact that I've blocked Kurt in the past multiple times. And Potaaatos complained about casuality numbers being changed, which is Deng's pet peeve about all WWII articles concerning the Soviet Union.
I guess this is my long way of saying that you should take what Potaaatos says with a grain of salt. And as for Kurt, if you feel like he should be blocked, go right ahead. He never has learned to discuss things using talk pages. So he just reverts ad nauseum until someone gets tired of it. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding, to which I am partly to blame — though in fairness (to myself, of course!), I did start my comment to you with "I'm not sure who is whom ... I've never heard of any of the participants nor have I edited the article before." Accordingly, I was evaluating the two editors by their immediate edits in the aforementioned article alone. Which is to say in response to your: "I was not necessarily speaking of this specific case" — I was only speaking of this specific case. But I do understand what you meant now. Essentially, Kurt Leyman kept adding a passage claiming that after the German order to surrender, an entire division (10,000+ German troops) refused to do so and fought to the death. The problem was that (after 6 reverts), he (still) failed to add a specific source to that passage. Despite requests from both Potaaatos, and then myself, to do so (in that narrow sense, then, our requests can be seen as identical). I was (and remain) far from familliar with anything else beyond the edit war in this particular article to (have) comment(ed) on it, so nothing I said about this dispute should be interperted as such. Finally, I'm not inclined to censur Kurt Leyman over this at this point as he did not attempt to revert again following the explanation I provided on his talk page. Anyway, sorry for the length (and due to being short on time, incoherence) of this comment. Thank you for taking the time to clarify your position. Please keep me posted of any developments. El_C 06:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Conventional longform for titles of de facto nations
I'm not so sure if I agree with it. Does this mean that we'd be moving Abkhazia to Abkhazian Republic? The problem with that is that the article is about both the de facto independent republic and the de jure autonomous republic of Georgia. The article has two definitions. If we moved the page, it would mean we'd have to split into two articles. Khoikhoi 08:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- If it makes sense to split ala Western Sahara and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (which would make no sense for the TRNC, for ex.), then why not? I think it's important to emphasize what sort of entity has physical power over an area — that is, de facto supercedes de jure because it is closer reality. I believe we can be consistent about it without becoming inflexible. El_C 08:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- I see what you're saying, but thought Wikipedia rules say we should use the most common names for things. If we split Transnistria, it would mean we'd have to create Transnistrian Moldovan Republic and Stînga Nistrului. I agree with you that de facto reflects the reality, even though some people are in denial and try to paint these countries as "separatist regions". However, articles such as Abkhazia show in the first sentence that it is de facto independent, and provides the secondary meaning further down below. Why would it be necessary to split these articles if it's already made clear? Khoikhoi 08:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- They do, but I think the emphasis needs to be in the title. I don't believe this issue was considered when that guideline was authored. Again, I stress on being flexible. For example, the Abkhazia article dosen't have much to split, so it can be renamed until one day there's enough for a regional entry to be split along the lines of the Republic of China & Taiwan (again, this could not happen for entries such as Northern Cyprus for obvious reasons). I guess I simply don't see why splitting is such a problem — if we have to split an entry (even more than once) so as to emphasize who maintains physical power of a de facto state, so be it. El_C 09:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I suppose you do have a point. Maybe you should state your proposal on all the talk pages of the unrecognized country articles. That way you can get other opinions on this. BTW, you might be interested to know that there actually already are articles called De facto Government of Abkhazia and De jure Government of Abkhazia. Not sure what we should do about them, though. Khoikhoi 09:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- I intend on facilitating a centralized discussion and will place a note on pertinent talk pages at that time (in the next week or two). I shall let you know when this happens as I would very much value your participation in this undertaking. Best, El_C 16:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, I guess it'll have to wait for a little while longer; I just got discharged from the hospital today (was having a rough time :(). Best, El_C 09:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- I intend on facilitating a centralized discussion and will place a note on pertinent talk pages at that time (in the next week or two). I shall let you know when this happens as I would very much value your participation in this undertaking. Best, El_C 16:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I suppose you do have a point. Maybe you should state your proposal on all the talk pages of the unrecognized country articles. That way you can get other opinions on this. BTW, you might be interested to know that there actually already are articles called De facto Government of Abkhazia and De jure Government of Abkhazia. Not sure what we should do about them, though. Khoikhoi 09:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- They do, but I think the emphasis needs to be in the title. I don't believe this issue was considered when that guideline was authored. Again, I stress on being flexible. For example, the Abkhazia article dosen't have much to split, so it can be renamed until one day there's enough for a regional entry to be split along the lines of the Republic of China & Taiwan (again, this could not happen for entries such as Northern Cyprus for obvious reasons). I guess I simply don't see why splitting is such a problem — if we have to split an entry (even more than once) so as to emphasize who maintains physical power of a de facto state, so be it. El_C 09:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- I see what you're saying, but thought Wikipedia rules say we should use the most common names for things. If we split Transnistria, it would mean we'd have to create Transnistrian Moldovan Republic and Stînga Nistrului. I agree with you that de facto reflects the reality, even though some people are in denial and try to paint these countries as "separatist regions". However, articles such as Abkhazia show in the first sentence that it is de facto independent, and provides the secondary meaning further down below. Why would it be necessary to split these articles if it's already made clear? Khoikhoi 08:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Question
With all the majority of vandalism coming from IP-address only members, why not make it that you have to have an account? It would drop vandalism as vandals more-than-likely wouldn't get an account here and the good guys would. Just curious as to why this hasn't been tried before. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 17:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Because Ips also do an enormous amount of positive editing. While there have been numerous attempts to restrict unregistered editing, these all fail by a significant margin due to that fact (I believe that this is the latest attempt). I Hope this answers your question. Regards, El_C 16:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
You are
... an unspeakable nutcase. Bishonen (worried) 20:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC).
- I was dying. But I'm feeling much better now! El_C 09:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I was told...
That you might be able to help me out with getting an article locked. It's being vandalized extensively and I'm not sure what to do about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Rschuyler 16:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
- I directed User:Rschuyler over to you. There is some ongoing vandalism on the Virginia Tech Hokies Basketball page from IP addresses. A established user only block or a completely block may be necessary til things calm down. I have the page on my watchlist til you see these messages. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 21:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey. List it on WP:AIV (or elsewhere on WP:VIP) if it's still ongoing. El_C 09:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Essjay article
While I understand the desire to close this AfD quickly as you probably noticed the New York Times just ran an article on the subject. Moreoever, this piece of information only became known in the last few hours. I therefore think it makes sense to run the AfD for a little while longer and see if that alters anything. JoshuaZ 07:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- I did not feel that, qualitatively, the NYT was likely to change the consensus as it was largely based on different considerations. I expand on that point on the AfD talk page. As well, the a DRV has been filed, so I'm not inclined to revert myself for that reasons, too (i.e. not only because I still feel my closing rational was sound, but since the DRV discussion now considers its merit). All the best, El_C 09:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Surely you're kidding. You closed that with a single sentence, not even bothering to explain your reasoning? Did you read the latest comments regarding the New York Times article on Essjay's resignation and the discussion here? I had just changed my opinion from merge (as you closed it) to keep based on this new and extremely relevant information. I suspect other may as well, yet you choose to close this early? I think you need to undo that. —Doug Bell talk 07:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- I did, in fact, read the NYT article and saw the responses to it, but did not find it is likely to alter consensus in an appreciable way; nor do consider this to have been a speedy close (not to imply that you said this), but in the interests of the project, I believe that the ~three day discussion was sufficient to establish consensus on this. And I thank you for the note. All the best, El_C 07:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- It also just came to my attention that this was not even open for for 3 days (let alone the normal time period). Betweent this and the NYT matter, I strongly suggest you revert your closure (I really really don't think anyone wants a DRV on this- if you refuse to reopen I will not file a DRV someone else almost certainly will ). JoshuaZ 07:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Looked about three days to me; regardless, AfDs do not run on a fixed time limit and 5 days is a general guideline. All the best, El_C 07:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- El_C, maybe this is just me, but I'd never close *fD when pertinent new information has been brought up. It is very hard to see how you can argue that things might not have changed at all when the only two users who so far discussed the NYT matter who were not in favor of keeping both changed their opinions to keep. Furthermore, given how public this matter is and how many different sources are currently paying attention to how Wikipedia handles the Essjay matter we cannot afford to skirt process or appear to be avoiding the issue. And frankly, we don't need any more dram associated with this. Please revert yourself. JoshuaZ 07:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please see my response to your comment above; I think it addresses your point. Thanks. El_C 09:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- El_C, maybe this is just me, but I'd never close *fD when pertinent new information has been brought up. It is very hard to see how you can argue that things might not have changed at all when the only two users who so far discussed the NYT matter who were not in favor of keeping both changed their opinions to keep. Furthermore, given how public this matter is and how many different sources are currently paying attention to how Wikipedia handles the Essjay matter we cannot afford to skirt process or appear to be avoiding the issue. And frankly, we don't need any more dram associated with this. Please revert yourself. JoshuaZ 07:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Looked about three days to me; regardless, AfDs do not run on a fixed time limit and 5 days is a general guideline. All the best, El_C 07:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Essjay
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Essjay. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --RWR8189 07:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, El_C we really don't need this to occur right now. Please just revert yourself and let the AfD have even a few more hours for users to discuss the NYT article. JoshuaZ 07:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Again, please see my response to your comment above; I think it addresses your point. Thanks. El_C 09:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
From the tone of your comments I think you may have been way to close to this one (for whatever reason) to make any decision to wrap up the AfD. Please rv yourself? Thanks for listening (and thanks for trying to be helpful). Gwen Gale 08:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm uncertain as to why you would find my 'tone' anything less than dispassionate. As well, I'm confused and hurt that you would go on to claim that there was "wheel warring" on my part. What basis do you have for that claim? I merely closed the AfD (for better or worse) — are you confused with what the definition of wheel warring is? Otherwise, I thank you for the note; please see my response above regarding your specific request. Thanks. El_C 09:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- You could avoid all appearance of conflict of interest or wheel warring by rv'g your closure. Mind though, I do assume your good faith. Gwen Gale 10:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am not claiming otherwise, but that doesn't at all respond to my comment. El_C 10:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- You might want to fix the spelling errors before too many folks read it. You closed the AfD early in violation of written policy and nothing else you could cite can change that. Gwen Gale 10:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- If I committed spelling errors, feel free to fix them for me; I'm afraid I disagree with your opinion that I violated written policy. El_C 10:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- You might want to fix the spelling errors before too many folks read it. You closed the AfD early in violation of written policy and nothing else you could cite can change that. Gwen Gale 10:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am not claiming otherwise, but that doesn't at all respond to my comment. El_C 10:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wait, El_C (per your comment above) - so one can close an AFD however they like, ignoring and subverting the wishes of some 300 community members (me included) to have a full, open and proper deletion discussion, but anyone who reverts that decision is subject to vague threats of "wheel warring"? This AFD out of any AFDs needed to go the full five days, so we can have no suggestion or allegation of trying to cover up the whole saga. I really can't understand why you thought closing it early was a good idea. I can appreciate that Essjay - a friend of yours as I understand it - has taken enough stick over this incident, but restraining yourself for a further 2 days would have been the sensible thing to do, as evinced by the deletion review underway. Incidentally, if I were closing it, I would have done so the same way, and you worded it very well - I've no issue with how you closed it, just when you did. Neil (not Proto ►) 10:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- The answer to much of your comment already follows from a premise I disagree with, so I'm not sure how useful it would be for me to respond at this time. I am going to sleep for a while, in any event. El_C 10:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- You could avoid all appearance of conflict of interest or wheel warring by rv'g your closure. Mind though, I do assume your good faith. Gwen Gale 10:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Of course you disagree with it. Meanwhile your closure was unilateral and out of process. Please rv it, thanks. Gwen Gale 10:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I am not inclined to do so. As well, I would prefer it if you were to refrain from commenting on my talk page for a while. Thanks. El_C 11:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- As much as I agree that it was out of process, unilateral, representing poor judgement and bad timing, I think the DRV discussion has gone past the point of El C reverting the close. What he should do is add a comment to the DRV removing any objection he might have to overturning the DRV so that another uninvolved admin can speedy close the DRV. El C reverting the closing at this point would just add to the out-of-process actions, not undo them. —Doug Bell talk 11:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Of course you disagree with it. Meanwhile your closure was unilateral and out of process. Please rv it, thanks. Gwen Gale 10:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Chicken soup with birds
El C, get some sleep and some rest and some chicken soup and stuff. Relax. Please. Look at the birds... focus on the birds... you're getting sleeeeepy... sleeeeeeeeeeepy... Bishonen | talk 08:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
- Now I sleep. El_C 09:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Just re-open
I'v never seen such a pile-on, much less for "overturn" at deletion review. Clearly the consensus is that the AFD should continue to rerun, why not save everyone a little time and just unclose it? Milto LOL pia 16:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Forget it. I'm hurt by the responses and am not going to touch it again. Other admins are free to reverse my closure. El_C 16:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- El C, there's no reason to be hurt by it. People make decisions. Not everyone always makes the correct one. In this case, many users thing the decision was incorrect. Don't take it personally. JoshuaZ 23:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- I thought it was the correct decision and I endorsed it in the deletion review, but maybe you should have let it run a bit longer considering the problems that seem to be happening lately when processes are not left to run for their full time or something like it. At the worst, you made an understandable misjudgment. At best, though, maybe it was more like a statesmanslike, Solomonic judgment that was not widely enough appreciated. But there's no way anyone can say it was a stupid decisions or was made in bad faith. I, for one, will not be losing faith in you as a fine, active admin. Metamagician3000 07:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- El C, there's no reason to be hurt by it. People make decisions. Not everyone always makes the correct one. In this case, many users thing the decision was incorrect. Don't take it personally. JoshuaZ 23:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
[un-indent]I don't know what's bugging you, Doug, and indeed I don't even know you, but when somebody here is trying to cheer up someone else who evidently needs it and has expressed feeling hurt, there is little value in a third person interjecting with an uncivil comment. That applies here as much as it does in real life. Enjoy your semi-wikibreak. Metamagician3000 08:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Prevailing historiographical consensus
Can you please provide a link to this consensus, on the WWII discussion page, before you revert the WWII infobox? There's been a lot of discussion and the result there is from an end-vote. I'd like a bit more reasoning to revert away from it. Thanks. Oberiko 17:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. Sure, multiple textbooks (i.e. by historiographical, I of course, meant academic, in general). I would like to see an emphasis on the major / minor military powers (I like how the Hebrew Wiki bolds the former in its infobox). But on closer look, your changes seem fair enough. A bit too minimalist for my liking, but, indeed, I'll try to address that on the discussion page when I get a chance. Thanks for the note. Regards, El_C 18:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Resign
Your deletion of the Essjay article is a farce ! Headphonos 00:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, the joys of being an admin. Don't let comments like these get you down, bro. – Lantoka (talk) 00:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I rollbacked tens of thousands of entries, authored hundreds of them, blocked thousands of users, deleted hundreds of pages/images, closed hundreds of XfDs, et cetera, etc. Anyway, WP:RFDA is that-a-way ! El_C 07:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Considering the source, I am undaunted. Regards, El_C 07:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Here is a new word for your vocabulary DISCERNING read it and apply it...you might actually be liked again at Wikipedia...but some how I doubt it ! Headphonos 10:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)