---

---

poetry

Why should poetry not be a slogan?

Why should poetry not be

biased

when life is not at all itself

For life's sake,

I expect a poem to be

a slogan

a dagger

a fist

and a bullet if necessary

---

---

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

Archive 2 3

My AfD for the Essjay controversy was speedy-closed. How long should we wait until we try again and should we do something different the next time, to make a delete result more likely? TMF Information 20:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a delete result would be likely in any event; as well, my involvement in such a debate seems unlikely. El_C 21:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First as dynamic IPs signing in under his old name, now as user:Leasing_Agent. This has taken up considerable time at the reference desks, see also discussions here and here. Take care. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. El_C 21:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'm not very familiar with policies, and thanks to Dweller's advice (and initiative) the problem has meanwhile also been described at WP:AN/I#Possible_return_of_User:Barringa. Take care. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I'll drop a note at that ANI thread. Best, El_C 21:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El_C. Thanks for the recent anti-vandalism to X-ray. In the section I added recently regarding units of measure and dosage, I'm struggling to find something more definitive regarding typical exposure due to dental x-rays (having found very varying reports on the web). Was wondering if you might be interested in helping a bit - or if you have any recommendations on where to ask for help. TTFN, --Rebroad 10:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You mean in terms of rads? I really have no idea; this is way outside my field. Sorry. Regards, El_C 21:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is my add to gangster's rfc adequate? Obviously I haven't gotten into the revert war as much as ideogram. Blueshirts 21:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can only certify an RfC if you, yourself, had attempted to resolve the dispute at one time or another. It dosen't necessarily need to be a comprehensive or lengthy account, but evidence of such an effort does need to be submitted. Hope that answers your question. Regards, El_C 21:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the current state of the RFC approved or not? --Ideogram 01:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barely, but I'll allow it. El_C 18:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello C ! I removed your qualification of Vichy France as a "puppet state": this is over-simplistic, and overlooks the real independence of Vichy. This independence is actually what makes Vichy's collaboration scandalous: it was not forced to collaborate, but willfully did. Que te vaya bien, saludos ! Tazmaniacs

This was actually a straight translation from the Hebrew Wiki's lead, which seemed sensible. El_C 18:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking 67.81.102.22. This IP address is really my home IP address, but I asked it to be blocked because my sister threatened to edit my user page. Now I can rest for a year before having to deal with my sister trying to edit my user page once again, perhaps replacing it with "Amos likes Emily Roberts, ooooooooohhhhhhhhhh", in a teasing way (since I like this girl named Emily Roberts). Han Amos 00:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Best of luck to you with Mz Roberts. ;) El_C 00:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, comrade, for your copy editing and award.Giovanni33 01:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! El_C 20:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you blocked Reedy Bot for its recent mis-tagging spree. Unfortunately this doesn't remedy what has already been done - particularly in the case of the Judaism-related articles that were mislabeled as Israel-related. Is there any way to automatically undo all of the bot's edits and then start from scratch from there? If not, there are literally hundreds of the bot's contribs that need to be examined manually. --DLand^TALK 23:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can do so. Do you think there is consensus to undo all of them? El_C 23:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, many of the taggings are appropriate - the ones that relate specifically to Israel certainly are. The problem is that enough of them are not that it would be very tedious to go through them one by one and pick out the bad ones. Better, in my opinion, to start from scratch and perhaps fine-tune the bot's algorithms (or whatever mechanism it uses :)) before trying again. --DLand^TALK 23:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds sensible; still, I'm inclined to allow the bot owner the opportunity to sort this out. Let's wait till tommorow at the very least. בברכה, El_C 23:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you're right. --DLand^TALK 00:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think undoing all the bot edits for that period is a little extreme, as there over a thousand, and many are relevant (Its not like the majority are incorrectly tagged...?). The articles are due to be assessed (by the requestor of the the tagging), so they would be cleared up then when they were tagged, so inappropriates would be removed then. However, i could make a start going over some of the edits, looking for ones that are mistags, of course, this isnt going to be a quick or simple task. Its strange that in subcategories of the root Category:Israel, there are so many that seem to be incorrectly categorised...?

What would your reccomendation be? Thanks, Reedy Boy 17:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend undoing everything and starting from scratch without the subcategories. From a sample glance, you have possibly mis-tagged hundreds of entries (at least ten percent) out of that ~1,000. El_C 17:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine, if thats what you recommend, it is probably easier. Feel free to revert them. I presume this wont affect the prior tagging i did (Ie the WP Schools or HMM)? Thanks =) Reedy Boy 18:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Yes, since you can set the bot up to automatically re-do the edits without these errors, and since otherwise, you do not have a quick solution on removing these, I think it makes sense. Certainly, it will involve only the aforementioned series of edits. בברכה El_C 18:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you do that? the guy has unlimited accounts and ips. Artaxiad 03:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that the former is true; the latter is of little consequence. Otherwise, please refer to my superstupid explanation here. Thanks. El_C 03:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine do it your way but still it won't help, if you protected both for a while he would get bored and leave. But if its less than a week he will come back, the only way to comprise is to add his information on Armenia, than he will be quiet thats how I stopped him before now he is back because people removed it, we'll just wait and see for some results, thanks. Artaxiad 04:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on adding that passage (which I havne't read closely) to either article, but I do have an opinion against coersion. El_C 04:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. It's good to know you're still here too. Guettarda 05:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fer sure; glad to see someone appreciates a picture of my cat, thinking! :) El_C 05:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HarryHasAnEgo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Hi. I saw that you posted on this user's talk page, but I can't see what the post is about. Anyway, I've had a request to block this user as a troll and would welcome your opinion. --kingboyk 17:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. El_C 18:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why you reverted the addition of a WikiProject Israel notice to Ami James? It seems relevant. --Mus Musculus 19:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See above. The bot will redo the relevant entries once I'm finished. El_C 19:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I almost reverted you (in a page I watch, Talk:Capture of Haifa in 1948‎) until I thought to look here for an explanation. If you have to do more of these, or a similar task, please use an edit summary that indicates that you know what you're doing, it's part of a project, etc. Thanks, --MCB 20:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am finished now. The rollback function provides an automatic edit summary. El_C 20:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point, demonstrated above and below, is that the use of rollback is problematic when the reason for revert is not completely obvious. --Mus Musculus 20:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. You should assume that an administrator knows what they are doing. El_C 20:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand what happened — did you read the thread I linked to above? Feel free to revert any of my Israel-related edits, or you can wait for the bot to do it. I was only interested in removing the 10 percent or so of mis-tagged (unrelated to Israel) entries. I realized from the outset that I was removing ~90 percent of correctly-tagged ones, but this was the best way to repair the bot's hitherto edits considering it involved ~1,500 entires. In theory, I could have taken my time, but then it would have taken me hours to sort it through instead of just one. El_C 20:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you removed them from various articles? I can somewhat understand the reasoning with military articles, but for example, why was it removed from Talk:Atlit? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I look at it, t'was 35-minutes of non-stop rollbacking. I am so great, G-R-E-T (& S-M-R-T, too). I hope that answers your question! בברכה, El_C 20:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No... I guess. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that as a yes! El_C 20:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In your revision of the Azmi Bishara talk page as of 18:50, 23 March 2007 you deleted the WikiProject Israel template, which Reedy Bot had inserted. Why did you do so, please? Itayb 22:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See above. El_C 22:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing the WP Israel banner. It is much harder to put pages on the list than remove them. I am happy to sort through manually to remove the innappropriate ones. The pages added are in the Israel category and subcategories. PLEASE STOP REMOVING THE TEMPLATE. --יהושועEric 22:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the above to realize why your note is absurd. Sorry, ABSURD. ;) El_C 22:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Is the template supposed to be reinstated automatically? If not, i'll do it on my own. If so, within what time period is this supposed to take place? Itayb 22:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, automatically; once the botowner gets around to it (which will be soon, I presume). Sure, feel free to reinstate the template to any and all Israel-related entries. I wouldn't bother since, as mentioned, it will be autorestored, but it wouldn't do any harm, either. El_C 22:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the reverts. Its funny how when anyone starts doing something, they come on Mass and bug you =). I'll make a start retagging, just not going as deep on the category lists!! Reedy Boy 23:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hheheh, fer sure. Actually, I was debating on removing all the pertinent section headers from your talk page and merging them into one (as I did in this section — it used to be five sections of confused peoples!). Anyway, glad to learn that you're re-tagging! All the best, El_C 23:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As with everything in wikipedia, some people have problems with what others have done (link), i've stated i shall retag the categories when they've been checked out to make sure they only contain the articles that need tagging. Cheers Reedy Boy 00:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff, RB. Thanks for the update. Let me know if there is anything I could to help. All the best, El_C 00:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RFA. As you may or may not be aware, it passed with approximately 99% support. I ensure you that I will use the tools well, and if I ever disappoint you, I am open to recall. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talkpage. Thanks again, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure; g'luck. El_C 01:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... is the most hilarious thing I've ever seen! I was reading Bishonen's comment on WP:RFAR#Betacommand and I wanted to find out what she meant, and wow, just wow. Man, you are a menace to yourself! Is it really all by accident? Do you only shoot yourself this way, or do you ever get anyone else like that? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 01:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by accident. I'm... not very good! El_C 01:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astonishingly, no one but myself... so far! El_C 01:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Appleton bios of presidents are good quality 19th century scholarship and should be kept as links Rjensen 04:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. I'm trying to get the user's attention. Perhaps you can join us at his/her talk page here. El_C 05:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have my attention, I will stop adding Appleton's Bio's edited by Stanley L. Klos. Noticed much of the material in many of thes articles was taken from Appleon's -- just trying to add a valuable resource. Have stopped and gone to bed. Will not do it again.

Not at all. It is possible that you will be permitted to continue adding the links — please refer to my query here. In the meantime, since at least one user has affirmed the links merit inclusion, I am undoing my hirthero removal. Thanks again for your time (and sweet dreams). El_C 05:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the IP block did not work. I caught my evil sister leaving a message to an administrator on [Simple English Wikipedia] on his/her talk page, saying that I really like Emily Roberts. I tried to stop my sister but she said "Go away" to me and then chased me out making vomit sounds at me to keep me away from the computer. What should I do? If you find a soultion, please contact me. Amos Han ^Talk 20:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fascinating (the vomit sounds!). Anyway, you'll need to contact a Simple Wikipedia admin for that. El_C 20:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dealing with the vandal on my page and his colleagues. Keep up the good work. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any time. Thanks! :) El_C 21:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El C, can you please re change the article, i did not revert it the last time but only put the vandalized parts back to the article i guess youre not following the talk page and youre unaware of what is happening there..The reasons for my edits are listed at least for 5 times and Alexius keep damaging them--laertes d 22:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove that portion without comment? How could have I seen it as anything but vandalism? El_C 22:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here. It's not unanimous, but a simple first question has the clearest support at the moment. Having never talked to you, I have no idea where the aggression is coming from. Marskell 11:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not voting over the voting? Not only is it not unanimous, it is very far from supermajority and the numbers of voters are strikingly slim. El_C 11:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello EI C. Could you tell me why you have reversed the external links provided by Angel388? ([[1]] Travel guide through the WWII battlefronts in Europe with modern day pictures and information) Just curious. Thanks. Que-Can 18:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't in English and is probably is more suited for the Dutch Wikipedia. Also, none of the url are related to the specific entires — they are all to main dday-veday.nl one. El_C 18:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct. You'll see, however, that the Dutch website has an English link on the home page (top left, see US flag). Angel388 should have used the the url for the English-language website, i.e., http://www.dday-veday.nl/overig/index_en.html.Que-Can 19:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, that's right. El_C 19:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This is for all the anti-vandalism work that you do here! You are great! I have seen a lot of your reverts in article histories. Keep it up:) James, La gloria è a dio 21:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If you answer do so on my talk page. Peace:) --James, La gloria è a dio 21:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Appreciated! Many thanks! :) El_C 17:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need a block put on Stoopid Monkey as AMIB is once again trying to edit a page without consensus via the talk page first. I asked that a conversation be started on the talk page, but it isn't doing any good. So, I request a block on the Stoopid Monkey page until a consensus can be reached on the so-called "trivia" section and that it may remain in place until consensus is reached be it for or against. Thanks....SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 02:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that is quite the edit war. Done. Regards, El_C 17:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...late, but thanks. I got 3RR blocked for trying to reach consensus on that page. There are some days I seriously consider being here, but thankfully those days are few and far between. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 09:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good. See bellow. El_C 18:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that vandalism on Tabula Rasa. I'd been editing at school and apparently forgot to log out. Stupid me. Splamo 20:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Regards, El_C 20:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support in my recent successful RfA. --Anthony.bradbury 10:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. El_C 18:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear El C,

Thank you very much for your kind words and supportive comments on my recent RfA. I've been shot down again, so it won't be happening this time. I hope, though, that I can hear from you again next time around - and there definitely will be a next time.

Best wishes,

-- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 20:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. El_C 18:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I archived the mess on Stoopid Monkey talk page (archived on the page itself) and redid the requested for opinions below. User:Calton continues to remove those archive wikilinks saying "Discussion? Not over." and ""We"? Not your decision, Sparky." in response to my "Calton, we are not doing this again." revert.

I am trying my best to reach consensus on this page in the most responsible way possible. I archived (on page) the mess of a talk section with AIMB, Calton, and myself and tried again, but Calton wants to continue this arguement. This has got to be breaking some kind of rule. I am about to the end of my rope with him. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 02:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how archiving that section is helpful as oppose to just continuing the discussion normally (it just seems distracting). I'm generally against trivial content, and I suspect this is the tendency among most experienced editors. That said, it was probably a bad idea for Calton to become involved in the dispute, considering the history between you two. Hope this helps. El_C 18:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I would be against a crapload of trivia too. But, in this case, since it has to do with the show....my opinion is for it. But part of me is also wanting the whole thing merged into the Robot Chicken article and the trivia added there, maybe as part of an episode section or such. I will continue to try my best with Calton, but he seriously makes things difficult at times. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 19:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, trivia is always related somewhat to the subject, but it dsoen't look like an episode list. El_C 20:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...and with the episodes being only 11mins (15 if you count the [a s] bumpers) it would be hard to have an episode list, like say "House" or "L&O: SVU", where they can have a short trivia section. I feel a plan to make a Robot Chicken episode list section (ala "House") coming on. Actually, there is one...would you think moving the Stoopid Monkey bits (per respective episode) would be better? - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 20:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. I've never heard of either it or the robot before. El_C 20:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You live in the States, right? It comes on tomorrow tonight on Cartoon Network about 12:00am and 12:15am. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 21:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have added what "Stoopid Monkey" cards that I can to the respective episodes. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 21:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No comment. If it's as good as Family Guy I could make a half-ass effort. El_C 22:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't call it as good as Family Guy, but it does have it's moments. My apologizes on the asking where you live question. I know other parts of the world don't have [adult swim] but do have Cartoon Network, hence why I asked. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 22:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...for the block on WP:AIV. I appericate it. I got to get a RfA. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 22:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see it listed on WP:AIV, but no problem. El_C 22:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've already removed the links from the other articles. Would you give your opinion at WP:AN/I 63.151.151.59 and linkspam? I was unsure whether blanket reverting was "a good thing", and so asked there, with no response. Shenme 23:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I responded there. Thanks. El_C 03:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your Support on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 89/1/1. If there's anything I can help with, then you know where to find me. Cheers. - Michael Billington (talk) 07:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. El_C 17:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have seen your name pop up in the history of the Jerusalem article a couple times recently, I'm requesting your input at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jerusalem and/or Talk:Jerusalem#Please don't remove any references. Thanks in advance. -- tariqabjotu 16:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don't actually do WP:FARC, unless it's FARC-related; but I'll have a look. Regards, El_C 16:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright; thanks, although I'm not sure I understood what you said. Is there a word missing or something else incorrect? -- tariqabjotu 17:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean with respect to my latest comment on the talk page? If I recall correctly, you've earlier removed a lengthy and somewhat incoeherent but nonetheless sourced note that discussed the population in 1967, etc. But maybe I read it in a dream! El_C 17:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you did read this in a dream; I don't seem to recall this occurring (was this a couple months ago?). The discussion now is over the long footnotes entitled "largest city" and "Since the 10th century BCE. I shortened them and used the census as a reference (to this version), following Pharos's note at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jerusalem. Jayjg reverted the shortening (and a couple of unrelated items, perhaps inadvertently), resulting in the discussion on the talk page. -- tariqabjotu 17:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was two or three days ago. Okay, I'll try to review that and the above soon. El_C 17:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah; perhaps you're talking about this, where I moved something from the body to the footnotes. When I wrote that part of the section originally, I intended to put that in a footnote rather than in the body because it sounded like an interjection rather than something that continues the flow of the prose. However, feel free to move it back to the body if you feel it works better that; I'm rather indifferent about its whereabouts. Take your time with responding to the request; it's not really an urgent matter. -- tariqabjotu 18:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it wasn't a dream, afterall! :) I'll look into it. El_C 18:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to drop in to thank you for your moral support at the most recent RfAr regarding Billy Ego's fascism-related userspace content. It is much appreciated. Sandstein 19:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, any time. Thank you for all your efforts. Best wishes, El_C 19:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please stop vandalizing my work or i will complain.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.108.205.106 (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You are free to complain, but you must stop adding the link, or I will suspend your editing privileges. El_C 13:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Link are Relative, why are you removing them?

Relative to what? See WP:EL. El_C 13:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

to where they are added, why are you removing them?

Relative? That makes no sense. Do you mean relevant? Maybe, but it looks like self-promotion of the nazarian site, which is not permitted. El_C 13:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

=) the site Nazarian is an enclopydia about guns. it has relative information about guns and in this case every link posted here is guided to the actual information wikipedia often use for their own refrence. you are vandalizing and i might guess why, the red-wing images, and a false interp. of nazarian? please read up

Nazarian: Nazarian (org: Nazarevs, Is: Nazareth) is a common Armenian Family name, origin from INRI (Iesvs Nazarevs Rex Ivdæor = Jesus Nazarian (Nazareth) King (of) judea). Nazarian is not an Nazi organization, our name is not to be mistaken for an Nazi alias, we are just as much Nazis as Ashkenazi Jews now stay off my back.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.108.205.106 (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I know it's an Armenian name and I am not one to confuse the Flag of Norway with the Flag of Nazi Germany (!) Anyway, if there is somehow extraordinary value in the site which merits its inclusion in multiple entries, feel free to bring it up at a central place, let's say Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. If you get support there for it, then I have no objection. Thanks. El_C 13:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will revert it back.. im currently writing an complain, it will be emailed within 20 minutes if you do not revert back and stop harasing me.. please follow the links and see that they are in fact very relevant to the subject at hand.. in any case you have 20 minutes..

As mentioned, you are free to complain, but there's no "stay off my back" — I, as a Wikipedia sysop, am mandated to enforce our external linking rules. If you wish for another sysop to handle this matter, I have no objection, either. But it's doubtful you'll get a different response. El_C 13:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will not revert back; this is not a negotiation. El_C 14:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i really dont care who you are! to me you are a guy missusing a power. wikipedia is an open source enclopydia which my site has contributed to in a big way with information. my links are helping wikipedia growing even more with relative informatin and cross referance information, you are vandalizing that.

im sure cross refrence information is highly approved and a source of credability to wikipedia, yes i whould like a new sysop to take a glance on it.. and yes i know wikipedia links dossent promote my site on search engines, i add information to be kind and enlighten other people..

you are trying to control that and probably made a misshap on the name and are now sticking to you miss interp. of nazarian, since that is easyer than taking the disgrace on correcting your wrong dooing..

I did not associate the name Nazarian with Nazi, not now, not ever. Please do not assume I'm a liar or an idiot. I welcome outside input. El_C 14:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

new sysop as u mentioned where is he??

Excuse me? Is that supposed to motivate me to help you?? El_C 14:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kk.. thats it. im fileing complaint. bye bye..

El_C is correct. There is no abuse of power. He acted in accordance with our guidelines on external links. Guettarda 14:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also looked at this and it appears El_C and Guettarda are correct, there has been no violation of the EL guidlines (although I do remind both parties to always remain civil). ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder that WP:BITE is not an immunity from basic human decency. A newcomer is not an alien. El_C 21:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wanted a link to what the Kinslayer said, well here you go. [2]

Hmm, certainly there's room for greater civility. El_C 21:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out against the recent vandalism here. --Otheus 23:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime. Always pleased to helpout with Fucking! ;) El_C 23:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone your block of User:John Smith's, as the page is now protected. Blocking him only serves to prevent discussion of the issues in question on the article's talk page. You must have missed my note that there was no action... I guess I shouldn't have put it inline with their comments, sorry about that. --Deskana (ya rly) 23:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel warring is generally unhelpful. My apologies, that was misdirected (although I would have still prefered you'd check with me first). El_C 23:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, so's blocking him for 72 hours when the page is protected. He can't violate 3RR anymore. All it does is slow discussions down. --Deskana (ya rly) 23:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nor would he have a reason to, since you seem to have ignored his 3RR breach and protected the page on his last version. El_C 00:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to revert him while it's still protected, feel free, I won't argue. I don't much fancy doing it though, as it's showing some sort of preference as to a particular page version. --Deskana (ya rly) 00:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that by ignoring (i.e. not acting on) his 3RR breach and protecting the page on his version, you are inadvertantly showing some sort of preference to his particular page version. El_C 00:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for your hitherto argument, the parties seem to actually need a break from the talk page, too; the discussion seems rather heated at this time. El_C 00:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to undo my actions if you really disagree with my actions that much. I won't undo you twice. --Deskana (ya rly) 00:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's okay, I'm confident in your abilities to handle the matter without further involvement from myself at this stage. I retract some of my prior statements with apologies, although I trust that you will note my concerns. Best wishes, El_C 00:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just left this message to Deskana to ask him to reconsider, and to unblock this page because what we have now is not in the best interests of this article. I don't think Deskana has followed the talk page discussions, and thus is making a mistake in protecting the page again, as well as unblocking the one person who is violating 3RR, again, causing this. As I wrote to Deskana:

"...protecting the page again is unnecessary. There is only one editor who is edit waring with everyone else, and he has been blocked. During the last page protection we discussed the issue at lenght, and there is not much more to discuss. We are only repeating ourselves. He simply thinks that edit waring is an acceptable way to get what he wants, and has pleged to continue. Everone else on both sides of the fence have agreed to include this passage and only John Smith persists in edit waring over it--one person.

I think the correct method is for him to be told he must abide by consensus, or seek a Rfc, etc--not to edit war. Its not fair to keep the whole article hostage with a protection just because of one user, getting his way by breaking the 3RR rule. So, in light of his block, there will be no more edit warring now--and if he comes back and continues he can be warned and blocked again. Edit waring is not allowed. I understand protecting a when there are two groups of people and there needs to be discussion taking place, but this is not one of those situations. The discussion has taken place over and over and its just this one user."

Thanks.Giovanni33 00:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I'm sure he will read them carefuly. For my part, I'll try to keep an eye on the situation from a distance. El_C 00:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... I see you're actively dealing with the 3RR page - would you care to put me out of my misery (either way)? Thanks. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 00:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. Regards, El_C 00:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 00:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the results of the 3RR complaint at [3], is it permissible to remove the warnings from my talk page which I view as bogus in light of the other member of the then revert war removing his, a right which was upheld by two other admins before Awiseman baited the 3RR, etc., and his subsequent warnings per my comments in the admin noticeboard listing? I understand that such a practice is generally frowned upon, but I feel it is justified in light of the reasoning, again, from my comments in the listing. 67.101.243.74 03:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the fact that 67.101.243.74 is registered to Corcoran College of Art and may be shared by multiple users, a good idea would be for you to register an account. So please do so; why make this any more complicated than it needs to be? El_C 03:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so. I have not, to date, as my editing was infrequent enough that it never became desirable until the past several days. The conflict brought on by Awiseman, which I felt needed to be responded to as he had engaged in some form of directed attacks, has given me reason to do so. That said, can I assume it is permissible to remove the bogus warnings as well as Awiseman's warnings that have been tacitly rejected through the 3RR results? Thank you for your attention. 67.101.243.74 03:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It only takes ten seconds to register. Yes, the warnings can be removed, it hardly matters now. El_C 10:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for dealing with that tricky problem. Much appreciated. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 10:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime, it is my pleasure. Regards, El_C 10:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi El C how are you, better I hope? my attention has been drawn to the blocking of User_talk:Rarelibra#3RR_block, my assumption is regarding the issue of [4]. Apparently the user has been blocked for 31 hours, isn't that a little harsh if that is the case? I also see that the other party involved (I assume this is User:Pmanderson) has not even been warned. I would appreciate your thoughts on this, thank you. sincerely Gryffindor 11:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that you think a user having been blocked for 24 hours in the first 3RR and 24 hours in the second one, is somehow harshly treated when s/he is blocked for 31 hours in the third. Looking forward to your explanation. Thanks. El_C 12:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that this is the first block, therefore my assumption is that 24 hours is the norm. IMO User:Ev also violated the 3rr, seeing this [5]. Gryffindor 12:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Are we looking at the same blocklog?

1. 20:36, 4 April 2007 El C (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Rarelibra (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours (3RR) (Unblock)
2. 07:59, 27 January 2007 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Rarelibra (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock enabled) with an expiry time of 24 hours( 3rr on Tenedos) (Unblock)
3. 11:43, 24 March 2006 Phil Boswell (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Rarelibra (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Breach of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule on Talk:Cyprus) (Unblock)

El_C 13:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I think I see now what you did. You took into account previous blocks on different topics, one that happened more than a year ago (Cyprus), and another one that happened in January (Tenedos), am I correct? Looking into WP:3RR#Enforcement, sysops can measure differently if they want to take into account previous blocks or not. So in this case you compounded the block because of previous cases, right? Gryffindor 15:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, because of previous 3RR breaches. El_C 15:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear El C, I saw that you blocked User:Rarelibra. Here my two cents;

• Your decision here and here is different. Something is wrong??
• Please consider that there is an open case at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_war_at_Lake_Scutari, your block decision may effect this case for further punishment of Rarelibra.
• As you can see, this user generally a good, positive contributor in many areas of wiki.
• Briefly; Is it possible to review your decision.

Regards.

Here is some lines from a Turkish poem;

Yaşamak!, bir ağaç gibi tek ve hür,(To live!, alone and free like a tree,)

Ve bir orman gibi kardeşçesine.(And, in brotherhood like a forest)(Nazım Hikmet)

Must.^{T C} 14:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I raised it as afterthought. I go by the content of the reports; a couterresponse may be filed at any time. El_C 15:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I don't know whether this article that you created is still on your watchlist, but you might want to have a look (not that I'm suggesting you own the article, of course, but you will know the events involved much better than I do). An IP user (User talk:213.219.16.20) made multiple changes, which I spotted whilst on vandalism patrol. I undid the changes with an edit summary explaining why and left a fuller message on the IP's talk page. As the IP user seems to insist on keeping his/her changes, in quite heated language, I thought I should back off and seek outside help. I know nothing about the events and I'm not prepared to take sides, but I thought that the IP's changes were unhelpful. If you don't have time yourself to have a look, can you suggest where I might bring this up for others to see and discuss? (I don't think we're at RFC level yet.) Thanks, Bencherlite 12:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of edits for just to remove two sentences(!). Just restore em and convert to past tense. El_C 13:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, when you blocked Cs for edit warring today, were you aware the case was a week old? I'm not quite sure how to handle such cases when they are stale - Back then, it had been Cs who filed the report against his opponent, User:KazakhPol, and he got a week block. Cs's reverting is a bit of a borderline case because he introduced different new text every time and his edits could (with some goodwill) be seen as constructive seeking of compromise rather than sterile reverting. (See previous discussion on User talk:KazakhPol [6]) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unblocking and will drop KazakhPol a note. El_C 13:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.cs 13:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect at Sunrise is mistaken. Cs did not file a WP:3RR report for the week long block - Dmcdevit decided three reverts in 24 hours merited it. Cs's case is hardly borderline. He repeatedly lied about his edits in his edit summaries, reverting while calling his edits a "fix" or a correction. The fact that the same text was consistently removed shows you he was reverting to an earlier version and then slightly changing the text. I was not aware of the statute of limitations on blocks. KazakhPol 15:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks are not punitive and any 3RR violtations older than two days is usually discarded, not to mention an entire week. El_C 15:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KazakhPol is right about the sequence of events, insofar as Cs didn't file a 3RR report. I apologise, in case anybody feels it really makes a difference. -- But that said, what are we going to do about these two guys? They are back at revert-warring the minute you release them. This has been going on for weeks or months. --Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I protected the page; at the very least I could do that. El_C 17:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see that I have been unclear at WP:AN3. Rarelibra did make five exact (and one almost exact) reversions, but to different versions of the original text. What format would be clearer than:

• Original version [version]

• lst revert [diff]
• 2hd revert [diff]
  • New basis [version]
• 3rd revert [diff]
• 4th revert [diff]

when an editor has made two reversions to a given text and two reversions to another? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I meant to say 'complicated' rather than 'confusing.' El_C 15:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide input on Pmanderson/Septentrionalis's unblock request, to assist the reviewing admin. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 17:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. El_C 17:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El C, I sent you an e-mail. Didn't you get it? John Smith's 19:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got it. El_C 09:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for protecting my user page. I guess I should be honoured that they were picking on my and Jimbo. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, it's my pleasure. El_C 09:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aivazovsky goes to Baristarim's talk page, questions him why he doesn't have WikiProject Armenia tag on his userpage then decides it is up to him to add it, adds it on his userpage, then comes Bohater asks him the same question with a (!) at the end. I felt they were dictating him, reverted the page twice to Baris' prior version stating what they are doing is "dictation and ill mannered" but they are persistent. Why do you first ask then put it yourself I mean? Anyway that's just the intro. Then I receive these comments. My favourite part is "you already picked on Armenian users by introducing your Armenian terrorism category". I don't like this kind of talk, I think it is quite out of line. For the record I just created the Armenian terrorism cat to collect ASALA and others under one cat. Regards.--Doktor Gonzo 00:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an apology was issued, so the matter seems resolved. Feel free to correct me. Regards, El_C 09:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you protected this when Ararat arev was vandalizing it. Would it be alright if I stepped it down to semi? He seems to be out of sleeper socks. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Affirmative. We're un/protecting it at will on a need basis. Regards, El_C 09:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyway that you could step in on the Stoopid Monkey talk page. I repeated the same line over and over and over hoping that User:Calton would get the point that I was done and wanted nothing to do with him, but he kept coming back time and time again. No one is going to give opinions and ideas with him around. This whole thing is one big arguement for him and he isn't going to stop unless an admin steps in and stops him. Please...help. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 06:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit pressed for time, but I'll try to have a look at it soon. Regards, El_C 09:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please leave it alone? I too want to go back to the old title, but with the version history, so I am reverting it and requesting a move.--Methodius 12:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK it seems that's what you're trying to do, I'll sit back then.--Methodius 12:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed. El_C 12:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What was your rationale for removing the reference links on the Handgun article? ChronoSphere 14:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism (of Wikipedia by that site). El_C 14:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is about the nazarian.no links... Looking at Heckler & Koch UMP and a couple of other articles, I see no sign of plagarism. Can you specify which articles you think they plagarized, and let me look into whether they took content from WP or if someone here took it from there? It could easily have gone the other way around; we've had a lot of content come into WP copyvio'ed from nazarian.no and world.guns.ru info pages. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 18:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a few. Brixia Model 35 (Dec 2004/nazarian), for example. Nazarian dosen't date its entries, but Tronno confirms they copied material from Wikipedia and not vice versa (he complained about this in 2005 and I've asked him to review again for 2007). Anyway, all it takes is one such instance for the site to become unreliable as a ref and less than useful as an external link. Thx. El_C 19:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a user by the name of Georgewilliamherbert also confirms this for another entry, I quote him thusly: "Evidence says that nazarian grabbed the text off wikipedia, not the other way around." Georgewilliamherbert 07:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC) El_C 19:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't paid much attention to how much of their material was cribbed elsewhere, but it appears that you're right; I'm seeing a lot from world.guns.ru there. I can't tell from looking at it which direction the info flowed for the Brixia article; it could have been lifted off nazarian, or could have been taken by them from here. The Wikipedia article appeared in a remarkably well formatted first draft, which is a little odd. I will continue to research. Georgewilliamherbert 19:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tronno is an excelent frame of reference — he's been creating weapons articles since 2004, so I'm greatly relying on his experience. While he, himself, does not seem to mind that nazraian is plagiarizing himself —see for example, in Ares Shrike 5.56 (2004/nazarian)— I feel it's a very bad idea to continue to link to their entries (see Talk:Type 38 rifle#plagiarized, etc.). Too much confusion. Best to only link to their pdf manuals and mpgs in light of these issues. El_C 19:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to "the Wikipedia article appear[ing] in a remarkably well formatted first draft, which is a little odd," you may wish to pass those concern to the creator, User:Riddley, who on a cursory glance seems credible (more so than nazarian; but I invite proponents of the site to offer evidence to the contrary). El_C 19:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: comment - I felt the links I added were genuinely helpful. And you've reverted so spelling mistakes I had corrected. Felt your comment was a little unreasonable.

Hi. All your edits involved adding the sermonsfortoday.org link to major gospel-related entries, which is why I copied the text from {{spam}}. I didn't notice any spelling corrections, but if I accidentally undid those, I offer my apologies. Thanks. El_C 19:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds are you removing my comments? KazakhPol 20:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is needlessly inflamatory. El_C 20:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand. I do not care about your opinion on whether Al-Durrah died or not whether you dislike my comment. I was asking which policy you were citing and why you feel the comment would ever justify a block. KazakhPol 20:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not offering an opinion. The policy is WP:NOT#SOAP. El_C 20:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting interpretation of WP:NOT#SOAP. I am glad to see an administrator is enforcing this policy. You will no doubt want to warn SlimVirgin for her violations on Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah[7][8] and of course remove her comments as they, as you are interpreting the policy, violate WP:NOT. KazakhPol 21:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how those comments violate either the spirit or letter of WP:SOAP. El_C 21:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you felt a need to re-add Kzrulzuall's comment[9], especially since he removed it on the grounds that it was "disruption." Generally I try to avoid messing with other user's comments, but I guess you feel you can do that. KazakhPol 00:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was an accident; please assume good faith, and also, limit yourself to one section. El_C 00:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In the interests of full disclosure" and all that, I do have a history of debate with this user. But I would call out anyone that made a comment like that. Just wanted to say that. Tarc 22:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That earns my respect. El_C 22:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El_C. Thanks for getting involved with this matter, it is much appreciated. I won't say more just now since I haven't caught up with everything that was said while I was away from my computer. I haven't even read Zeq's alleged accusation. Cheers. --Zero^talk 01:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It's been a few months since I've engaged the matter. I'm dissapointed to learn that little to no improvement has been made. El_C 01:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ElC,I don't know what does "mfa" means and I don't know if your comments are addressed towards me or Humus sapiens. Would you please include more details. Thanks --Aminz 01:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. They were addressed to him. MFA stands for the (Israeli) Ministry of Foreign Affairs (mfa.gov.il). El_C 01:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to semi-protect the Toyota FJ Cruiser article? The external links were recently cleaned up, and an anon user is now continually trying to put one of them back. Thanks! :) Rarelibra 19:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We only semiprotect when multiple users are involved. Anyway, I dropped the user a note. Regards, El_C 19:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: Upon writing the above, there were only one, but now there are many. Figures! I'm still opting to discuss the issue with them before semiprotecting. But, certainly, the rever war (which greatly escalated while I was writing my note to 207.152.xx) must stop now. El_C 19:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understand I was trying to keep the page as discussed on the Talk page when another user helped me clean up all the excessive links. As the links are now is fine, I hope I do not violate by protecting the page with reverting. Rarelibra 19:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis averted. :) El_C 19:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought you might wanna know that Kazakhpol intends to got to ArbCom over the issue... [10]--07:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must applaud his success in correctly spelling my name. Not sure why he decided not to sign his own signature though. Does this count as using Wikipedia as a soapbox?[11] I cant tell. Can I remove it? KazakhPol 08:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]