User talk:El C

poetry

Why should poetry not be a slogan?

Why should poetry not be

biased

when life is not at all itself

For life's sake,

I expect a poem to be

a slogan

a dagger

a fist

and a bullet if necessary

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

File:Herooflabor.jpg

Archived Discussions

Archive 2 3

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

My pleasure. El_C 11:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Forum Link

I am not sure of what link you are speaking of. - SVRTVDude 10:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Nevermind, I just seen your edit to the talk page....that works. :) Rock on....SVRTVDude 12:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just pasted the discssion field from the {{RfC}} template. Thanks. El_C 12:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Mango juice^talk 04:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, a talk page comment would have been more helpful than reverting. El_C 04:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

See the sources in Al-Anfal Campaign, an article linked to in the passage you removed. El_C 04:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World War Eleven

I was racing ahead somewhat. ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt, you're nine World Wars ahead of yourself! El_C 08:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Northwoods

<weary tone> Good grief! <end weary tone> --Zleitzen 13:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All in a day's work, my friend. :) El_C 13:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD tags

Sorry, thought AfD tags worked the same way PROD tags did. My apologizes. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Work)} 12:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're Welcome:) - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Work)} 12:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loadtime should be much faster now. ;) No apology needed. We were all new once. El_C 12:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Done & done. Regards, El_C 13:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks again El C. (→Netscott) 13:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Another one bites the dust. El_C 13:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

And another one gone, and another one gone. El_C 13:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another one bites the dust.Proabivouac 11:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, again he's just making a POINT. (→Netscott) 13:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely. I'll leave a notice on ANI. Thanks again for your help! El_C 13:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'll be sure to do the same. Let's wait to see what Danny says. El_C 14:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've got e-mail. (→Netscott) 23:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answered. El_C 23:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies here as well. (→Netscott) 00:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It's understandable. And anyway, I think it turned out okay, all considered. All the best, El_C 00:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors' Barnstar

		'The Editors Barnstar
		For confronting the excesses of the Arbitration Committee.Proabivouac 10:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also available for children's parties (still!). El_C 10:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No worries, btw, you are still on my "Editors Who Rock" list. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Work)} 11:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sweet juice! :) El_C 11:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I didn't read it closely (I'll try to review it soon, though), but unless it made the news, it's probably a no-go on that front. El_C 12:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This thread might interest you

Thanks for bringing to my attention. Any chance for a brief synopsis? El_C 23:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: 8300" title="Talk:Srebrenica massacre">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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Noted. Were you User:KarlXII? El_C 10:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Okay, thanks again for the detailed explanation. El_C 11:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Has it subsided now? El_C 23:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Okay, protected. El_C 07:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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? —An gr 06:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Purported innocence

you know you want to kick it. Theresa Knott

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 lick it... ! Erm, I mean, flattery, will get you everywhere, my dear! El_C 13:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Okie Dokie:). - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 13:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'll look into it. For the future, see WP:AIV. El_C 14:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]