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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
Why would you do that? the guy has unlimited accounts and ips. Artaxiad 03:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Much appreciated. It's good to know you're still here too. Guettarda 05:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
... 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)
The Appleton bios of presidents are good quality 19th century scholarship and should be kept as links Rjensen 04:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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) |
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)
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)
Thank you for your support in my recent successful RfA. -- Anthony.bradbury 10:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
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,
-- Hex [ t/ c] 20:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
...for the block on WP:AIV. I appericate it. I got to get a RfA. - SVRTVDude ( Yell - Toil) 22:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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).
My Link are Relative, why are you removing them?
to where they are added, why are you removing them?
=) 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).
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..
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..
new sysop as u mentioned where is he??
kk.. thats it. im fileing complaint. bye bye..
You wanted a link to what the Kinslayer said, well here you go. [2]
Thanks for helping out against the recent vandalism here. -- Otheus 23:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Many thanks for dealing with that tricky problem. Much appreciated. Fys. “ Ta fys aym”. 10:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
Huh? Are we looking at the same blocklog?
El_C 13:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
Dear El C, I saw that you blocked User:Rarelibra. Here my two cents;
Regards.
Must. T C 14:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
when an editor has made two reversions to a given text and two reversions to another? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
El C, I sent you an e-mail. Didn't you get it? John Smith's 19:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Fully protect Turkey sockpuppets of a banned user are constantly violating the 3RR, reguardless of a semi-protection. Retiono Virginian 16:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
OK it seems that's what you're trying to do, I'll sit back then.-- Methodius 12:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
What was your rationale for removing the reference links on the Handgun article? ChronoSphere 14:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
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.
On what grounds are you removing my comments? KazakhPol 20:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
On the off-chance you didn't notice: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Zeq_and_Zero0000. Btw, I meant what I wrote at AN/I about planning to leave. I used to enjoy it a lot, but these days I tend to get stressed out and snap at people. -- Zero talk 14:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Just thought you might wanna know that Kazakhpol intends to got to ArbCom over the issue... [10]-- KZ Talk• Contribs 08:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you discuss your changes?
Greetings. I don't know if this is serious enough for the AnI so I would rather try resolving this in a low-profile manner first. It concerns the uncivil and disruptive behaviour of user:Rayis, which in my opinion should not be tolerated by WP. In the beginning I thought he was a new user and tried to be tolerant but apparently it is not the case. Anyway here goes, I'm in the middle of explaining a misconception in the calmest manner possible. The tension starts with Rayis making provokative comments of the type [12] and evolves to uncivil behaviour and personal comments [13]. I answer with a jemenfoutist comment accompanied with a warning on personal attacks, which get instantly removed [14]. Despite numerous warnings, Rayis removed/changed my text several times, so he actually revert-warred in an attempt to shut me up or hide my comments [15], [16], [17], [18]. He went on about an non-existent personal attack. He'll also claim that I also reverted his edits, eventhough I had repeatedly explained to him that this happened during the process of me trying to restore my edits by reverting his vandalism [19]. An admin advised me to leave him a message in his talk page and so I did. I requested for an apology and I received a plain insult and mocking in return [20]. Following this disruptive behaviour (uncivilty, removal of NPA warnings, removal of other editors' edits) I think the user deserves to be disciplined in order to obtain a better understanding of the terms "personal attack" and "civilty" in wikipedia. I'm prepared to take the matter to AnI if you judge that it's relevant enough to the board's scope. I actually feel offended by a disruptive editors I would be pleased to receive an apology from his part. Thanks in advance for your help. Miskin 21:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
PS: Cool fractals(!) Miskin 21:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The diffs I linked above: [22], [23], [24], [25]. He's been removing my edits due to his own poor understanding of uncivilty. This tempts me to reply with comments mind in isolation as well. Except his own should not be viewed in isolation. Miskin 22:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Rayis but I won't forget about it until you receive a formal warning or I receive an apology. Uncivilty and insults are largely not a subjective issue. Despite what you claim, I was the one who was insulted, so I'm just looking for the person who will care enough about it. No offence EL_C, you know how I mean it. Look at Rayis' last comment, he actually thinks "I broke a policy", this is at least laughable. Miskin 23:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
This made me laugh out loud :) [28] Haukur 21:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi ElC,
I just wanted to leave a note about the protection of this article. The purpose of its protection is for parties to join the talk page. User:Beit Or first removed the material by this edit [29] arguing it to be "remove blogs, CounterPunch, and uncited material per WP:BLP". I then posted this diff on the talk page [30] questioning Beit Or's arguments. Beit Or's arguments was further questioned by User:FCYTravis here [31]. Since then, I have been asking Beit Or and Karl Meier to join the talk page (please see the section [32]). I further left a note on User:FCYTravis's talk page pointing out that Beit Or does not join the talk page and implicitly asked the user to protect the article.
Since it happened that you incidentally locked the page precisely one minute after Beit Or's revert, I am concerned that Beit Or wouldn't join the talk page at all (I have asked him many times before but he has not posted anything on the talk page) since the article is locked in his version. Thanks -- Aminz 00:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi El-C,
You are a very productive editor. Do you have a bot that is logged in as you ? If so the bot edits are bundlled with yours, thousands of edits per day and this makes it impossible to seprate your edits from the bot edits.
can you open an ID to the bot (like el-C-bot) ? and see to it that your contribution page Special:Contributions/El_C allow editors to take a look at your ownn contrubution - right now the length of your contribution page makes it practivally impossible to search your contributions. Thank You, Zeq 14:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I have written a brief essay and valuing your sensibilities as I do I wonder if you have the time if you would look at it and make any changes you think would improve it (or, if you don't want to do that, register any comments on the talk page). Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Slrubenstein | Talk 15:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you know if there is something on wikipedia that will tell you the weather? Because it would be nice if I could just look on wikipedia on my userpage or the wikipedia homepage for the weather. "Nothing else matters" 01:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick note of thanks for your massive help in combating vandalism. I often see something like El C - reverted... It's great to have people like you and your efforts are greatly appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.104.241.75 ( talk) 09:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC).
I'm sorry, I still don't get it. But I'm curious to learn. What explanation is in your logs? All I see is several edits to the RfA page [33]/ [34]/ [35], and an explanation I don't quite understand, either. Was it meant as a joke in the first place or were you trying to repair/comment on some autonumbering error? Sorry to bother you, but could you explain? I'm not usually that slow, but I'm at a loss with this one. — Alde Baer 11:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Just so you know, that IP was almost certainly Bonaparte ( talk · contribs) editing from an open proxy. Mackensen (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
He has jumped in a completely unrelated case, while I am trying to report an incivility by another user to me, to talk page of another admin, repeating the same things and accusing me "incivility", "poor understanding of WP:POLICY", being "disruptive editor", etc etc. [36] and asking for me to be "warned"... Oh and apparently: [37].
Can you ask him again to let this go or open up a RfC because this is super annoying when I am trying to deal with another case here. I will really appreciate this. Regards, -- Rayis 14:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Although I've been on Wikipedia for roughly a year or so, I'm still not quite Wiki savvy. Anyhow, I just wanted to say thanks for editing it & making it look more presentable. I take pride in living in South Florida, specifically in Fort Lauderdale's neigborhood of Riverland Village. ^_^ I think it needs adjusting again though, because some 'tard & a half put Cooper City (a separate city) into Ft. Lauderdale's 'hoods.
Also, I provided a link to verify the neighborhoods: http://info.ci.ftlaud.fl.us/GIS/files/maps/neighborhood_associations.pdf
There are unofficial neighborhoods as well, but I just provided the ones with homeowners associations.
Well it's 3:58AM Eastern time & I'm dead tired, so thanks again! Also, anyone who has respect for Che Guevara is a comrade of mine. Haha! ^_^ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OxyMoronMinusOxy ( talk • contribs) 07:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for looking. I didn't really intend for it to get out like this, as it was initially just brainstorming, but I guess it's too late now. It's something I think has been my common practice for a while.
I was in the middle of an approach like this at Transnistria, which is in terrible shape: [39], [40]. It looks like MariusM and Buffadren have gone back to edit warring again, though, right after you unprotected. I don't think I can follow through personally, since I've already proposed a ban on Marius, who has 5 prior edit warring blocks, elsewhere, and he has apparently reported me to the Foundation, so I want to avoid the appearance of impropriety. I think someone should do something about the persistent edit warring there other than protecting the article to let them continue unreformed. Dmcdevit· t 09:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I noted the source for the "I. Liviu" on the talk page -- several editions of "Who's Who", summarized at the Biography & Genealogy Master Index at ancestry.com. NawlinWiki 22:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Librescu was 76 and not 77 at the time of his death. He was born on August 18, 1930, and died on April 16, 2007, so he would have completed 77 in August of this year. So, he died at the age of 76. Just mentioning, because of your edit where you undid the revision by MultiKoopa. Dimoklit 23:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have notified you of the arbitration case as it obviously is relevant to you. It slipped my mind. -- Deskana (fry that thing!) 23:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know we had too much of a history together. Maybe I suffer from Amnesia and simply don't remember our history togther. hehe See [43] But, I want to thank you for offering to mediate with Deskana and hope that can possibly still take place if necessary. Giovanni33 19:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Cleargoing ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is requesting unblock with a comment of "Who is 0003jackalb?". I see you blocked 0003jackalb ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but I can't determine why. You blocked 0003jackal ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) around the same time but I can't determine why there either. Thought you might want to address Cleargoing's request. — Wknight94 ( talk) 13:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I saw that the article was protected, but the Reverts and Vandalism by user Dbachmann (aka dab), Rudrasharman (aka rudra), and unknown IP's cut out the text in question, which most of it has been going on for over a month now, and I these 2 plus Paul Barlow has continued to change their Positions/Arguments, and when I ask for source/citation to support his argument (asked them well over 10 times) they ignoring the claims. These guys are ganging-up on users on various pages such as the Aryan Invasion Migrations where user dab even claims to not accept any citations that deal with Genetics (Paraphrased quote from dab on Aryan Invasion Migration). They have shown a direct relationship in supporting each other on various issues dealing "Aryans" and has many other disputes going on in his talk pages. Can you please revert back to the "19:26, 13 April 2007 Anwar saadat (rvv)" and then reprotect the page? The only reason that I'm asking it that there has been 4-6 weeks discussion, in where they keep changing there positions, and don't show supporting evidence to their claims (which I have claimed sounds like an original researched argument). Thank you. P.S: user dab also accepted my contributions, after saying for so long they were irrelevant, but with a biased view. After not getting what he wanted, he went back again, saying he never accepted (but shows he did in fact agreed). Cosmos416 20:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Here we go again, seems like your playing this "scholars" card...right...okay...if they are "scholars" can they present some personally complied published research on the subject? Cause you protecting 2 guys who do not show sources, and shown relation., Dab ACCEPTED the edit, and then reserved it. That's alright, I'll find an another admin who is Impartial, unlike you seem to be. Cosmos416 21:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
P.S 'respectable' isn't the right word for these 2, it's the Opposite seeing as they go around various pages, making baseless claims, without sources, and support each other directly in all cases. That biased and not neutral. You sound like a big fan of theirs, ever been to their concerts? Because the amount of BS is incredible. Here's some links showing there non-neutral behavior. From dab's talk page: (dab and rudra are in cahoots with each other) [44] [45] [46] From out of India Theory: (dab and rudra are in cahoots with each other) [47] From Indo-Aryan Migration Theory: (dab and rudra are in cahoots with each other) [48]. Enough said. Cosmos416 21:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your protection block on the 13th, I think you may have to extend it when it expires on the 20th, as there is a good chance that Cosmos416 ( talk · contribs) will persist with re-inserting his absurd material. He is unreasoning, intransigent and hostile, mainly because his bad faith has been repeatedly exposed on the Talk page. His case is not isolated, unfortunately. There are a number of disruptive editors like him plaguing this and related pages, all stemming from a particular politico-religious POV they feel compelled to impose on WP. I'm not sure what can be done, as a piecemeal page-by-page editor-by-editor approach will not address the endemic problem behind all this. rudra 16:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
There are two other slow-revert-type shenanigans at present, one at Out of India and another at Indo-Aryan Migration. The first has Sbhushan ( talk · contribs) insisting that a paraphrase of material fully documented at Indo-Iranians is "original research" (background at the Talk page); the second has WIN ( talk · contribs) doggedly trying to insert some of his favorite fringe material based on what amount to blogs (the Talk page has some sections on it: here, here and here, interspersed with another "incident" involving Sbhushan.) rudra 02:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
This could be another round coming up. He may or may not have given up on this, but someone else has taken up the cudgels there. rudra 19:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi El C,
If you could watch this article, I would be thankful. It might need some protection in the close future.
One dispute is over addition of Arafat's view. I have now summerized the arguments we had for its inclusion here
[49]. But Beit Or (and Arrow740 who doesn't post anything on the talk page
[50] and just reverts to Beit Or Arrow made one edit to the talk page regarding this dispute.) think it is a fringe view and should be excluded. --
Aminz
23:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi El C,
Would you mind taking a look at Lucy Saunders
It's been badly vandalised recently and I'm not even sure it should be here. Best leave it in the hands of an expert! Thanks.
You reverted Nurmir ( talk · contribs) on this article with the automated rollback function without any further explanation in the edit summary (I haven't checked elsewhere yet). They claim they're the copyright owners of the images on the help desk and I already told them what to do. Could you discuss this with them and explain your worries to them? 131.211.210.12 09:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC) (aka MacGyverMagic -- too lazy to sign in and write the message again)
I deeply appreciate it! hike395 12:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
... from the Discussion page of the Ghetto Fighters' House article, tagging it for the Israel WikiProject. I don't have any familiarity with the latter; is GFH not an appropriate topic for inclusion there? --Thanks, Deborahjay 13:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I see you've reverted my edits putting Pig Latin into Pig Latin, so I've created a separate page with the English version and a "go-to" at the top of the igPay atinLay page. Is this a suitable compromise? kenifh
How about if the main page were to be in English, with a link available from there to a Pig Latin version? Surely, you can't call that disruptive, as the Pig Latin version is just an amusing alternative for anyone who wants to read it?
Can you give me a good reason why? Unless it's Wikipedia policy not to have a sense of humour, I can really not see an actual problem with it.
I've seen humour on articles before, and indeed in the Encyclopædia Britannica. Should I write to them and tell them to stop being amusing? And thanks for sorting out my italics.
I lost my test draft and rewrote it. Thanks for the encouragement to post my first article. Nova Štifta -- Knjiga63 06:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for dealing with the Transnistrians. Just FYI, I've also blocked Buffadren now, feel free to adjust as necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey :). Haven't had much use for Wikipedia lately, but wuz on the Internet, saw this http://www.aolvideoblog.com/2007/04/17/dog-wants-his-bed-back/, and thought of you. User: deeceevoice
Masochist. Kelly Martin 18:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi El C. Two of the images on your userpage, Image:Pr032206a 6.jpg and Image:Pr032206a 1.jpg, which you originally uploaded under a free license, were switched to some sort of unfree license by an 69.142.111.235 ( talk · contribs) back on the twelfth of this month. I trust you can deal with this, but I just wanted to let you know that you technically shouldn't have them there right now. Picaroon 22:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments on AN/I regarding my proposal on the Israeli military relations article. I've created Israel-United States military relations partly as a merge of that article, partly as a content fork of Israel-United States relations (which it's intended to parallel) and partly as a chunk of new content sourced largely from Jane's. The format is intended to be usable as a standard template across multiple articles of this type - see the explanation on Talk:Israel-United States military relations. I've not announced it publicly yet because I want to get some views from sensible (!) editors first; could you take a look and let me know what you think? -- ChrisO 23:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you blocking EvilAlex for the usage of word "vandal". Just for you information, today somebody else used the word "vandal" [53]. But he is on the other side of the Force.-- MariusM 09:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for removing the spamlinks from an IP user on various pages to do with Wicca and Neopaganism. The spammer has added others in the same spree, and I'll try and clean them out later if nobody beats me to it! Kim dent brown 09:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
In my oppinion, the current version of Transnistria article isn't neutral and I would like to ask you a third opinion. I suggested what I think is a better version, but I was reverted, mainly on these arguments. I'll summarise my view here:
"During the Moldavian conflict (1991-1992), the 14th Russian Army in Transnistria fought on Transnistrian separatist side. Russian authorities contributed both military and political to the creation of a separatist regime in Transnistria, a region which is part of Moldovan territory. Even after the July 21 1992 armistice, Russia continued to sustain military, politically and economically the separatist regime, thus allowing it to survive, strengthening and obtaining certain autonomy from Moldova. Russia continues to maintain illegally troops in Transnistria, breaking the July 21 1992 agreement. This ensemble of elements is liable to prove that "PMR" continues to be under the effective authority or at least decisive influence of Russia and that anyhow "PMR" survives owing to the military, economical, financial and political support which Russia is offering."
Reference: European Court of Human Rights: (in Romanian) Hotararea Marii Camere in afacerea Ilaşcu şi alţii contra Moldova şi Rusia
Most commonly known in English by its Romanian name Transnistria, its constitutional long name is Pridnestróvskaia Moldávskaia Respública ( Moldovan: Република Молдовеняскэ Нистрянэ, Russian: Приднестровская Молдавская Республика, Ukrainian: Придністровська Молдавська Республіка, ПМР, English: Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic). This is abbreviated PMR. The short form of this name is Pridnestrovie (transliteration of the Russian "Приднестровье"). [1] Several other names are also in common use. Etymologically, they all come down to similar spelling variants of Transnistria, meaning "beyond the river Dniester", or Pridnestrovie, meaning "by the river Dniester". |
The name Transnistria is most commonly used, and does not imply the status of Transnistria: region of Moldova or independent state. The name used in the Constitution of Transnistria is Pridnestróvskaia Moldávskaia Respública ( Moldovan: Republica Moldovenească Nistreană, Russian: Приднестровская Молдавская Республика, Ukrainian: Придністровська Молдавська Республіка, ПМР). This is abbreviated PMR.A short form of this name is Pridnestrovie (transliteration of the Russian "Приднестровье"). [2] Several other names are also in common use, all meaning "beyond (the river) Dniester". |
On March 3, 2006, Ukraine introduced new customs regulations on its border with Transnistria. Ukraine declared it will only import goods from Transnistria with documents processed by Moldovan customs offices, as part of the implementation of the joint customs protocol between Ukraine and Moldova on December 30, 2005. Transnistria and Russia termed the act an "economic blockade". Moldova announced that it created favorable conditions for registration of Transnistria-based businesses: to obtain a 6-month export license is a half-hour simplified procedure. citation needed The United States, the European Union and OSCE approved the Ukrainian move, while Russia saw it as a means of political pressure. On March 4, Transnistria responded by blocking the Moldovan and Ukrainian transport at the borders of Transnistria. The Transnistrian block was lifted after two weeks. However, the Moldovan/Ukrainian block remains in place, and holds up progress in status settlement negotiations between the sides. [3] In the months following the regulations, exports from Transnistria nosedived. Transnistria declared a "humanitarian catastrophe" in the region, while Moldova called it "deliberate misinformation." [4] Cargos of humanitarian aid were sent from Russia in response. [5] |
On March 3, 2006, Ukraine introduced new customs regulations on its border with Transnistria. Ukraine declared it will only import goods from Transnistria with documents processed by Moldovan customs offices, as part of the implementation of the joint customs protocol between Ukraine and Moldova on December 30, 2005. Transnistria and Russia termed the act an "economic blockade". Moldova announced that it created favorable conditions for registration of Transnistria-based businesses: to obtain a 6-month export license is a half-hour simplified procedure and granted tax breaks and duty exemptions to Transnistria-based companies. [6] The United States, the European Union and OSCE approved the Ukrainian move, while Russia saw it as a means of political pressure and claims that "Russia's interests are directly affected" as well. [7] On March 4, Transnistria responded by blocking the Moldovan and Ukrainian transport at the borders of Transnistria. The Transnistrian block was lifted after two weeks. In the months following the regulations, exports from Transnistria nosedived. Transnistria declared a "humaniatarian catastrophe" in the region, while Moldova called it "deliberate misinformation". [8] |
I see that User:Drugged monkey is blocked for editing his own talk page. I am not very familiar with policies for blocking talk pages (I wanted to communicate to him). Has this user been also blocked from editing articles? — Cesar Tort 05:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I proposed an intro there. -- Amongcrash 08:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
This is for you: [56] Zeq 13:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Thought you might like to know that User:Calton has been asked twice now by other users (not me) to tone his comments down. One, I think was an admin. He, of course, snapped their heads off. I am not going anywhere near this one, I am going to let him dig his own hole on this one. But, I thought I would let someone (who I know is an admin) know that ya might need to step in soon. Again, I am not going anywhere near this one, I am just going to watch the downward spiral. Take Care and Have a Good Weekend... SVRTVDude ( V T) 20:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
Why would you do that? the guy has unlimited accounts and ips. Artaxiad 03:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Much appreciated. It's good to know you're still here too. Guettarda 05:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
... 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)
The Appleton bios of presidents are good quality 19th century scholarship and should be kept as links Rjensen 04:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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) |
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)
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)
Thank you for your support in my recent successful RfA. -- Anthony.bradbury 10:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
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,
-- Hex [ t/ c] 20:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
...for the block on WP:AIV. I appericate it. I got to get a RfA. - SVRTVDude ( Yell - Toil) 22:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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).
My Link are Relative, why are you removing them?
to where they are added, why are you removing them?
=) 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).
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..
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..
new sysop as u mentioned where is he??
kk.. thats it. im fileing complaint. bye bye..
You wanted a link to what the Kinslayer said, well here you go. [2]
Thanks for helping out against the recent vandalism here. -- Otheus 23:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Many thanks for dealing with that tricky problem. Much appreciated. Fys. “ Ta fys aym”. 10:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
Huh? Are we looking at the same blocklog?
El_C 13:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
Dear El C, I saw that you blocked User:Rarelibra. Here my two cents;
Regards.
Must. T C 14:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
when an editor has made two reversions to a given text and two reversions to another? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
El C, I sent you an e-mail. Didn't you get it? John Smith's 19:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Fully protect Turkey sockpuppets of a banned user are constantly violating the 3RR, reguardless of a semi-protection. Retiono Virginian 16:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
OK it seems that's what you're trying to do, I'll sit back then.-- Methodius 12:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
What was your rationale for removing the reference links on the Handgun article? ChronoSphere 14:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
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.
On what grounds are you removing my comments? KazakhPol 20:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
On the off-chance you didn't notice: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Zeq_and_Zero0000. Btw, I meant what I wrote at AN/I about planning to leave. I used to enjoy it a lot, but these days I tend to get stressed out and snap at people. -- Zero talk 14:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Just thought you might wanna know that Kazakhpol intends to got to ArbCom over the issue... [10]-- KZ Talk• Contribs 08:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you discuss your changes?
Greetings. I don't know if this is serious enough for the AnI so I would rather try resolving this in a low-profile manner first. It concerns the uncivil and disruptive behaviour of user:Rayis, which in my opinion should not be tolerated by WP. In the beginning I thought he was a new user and tried to be tolerant but apparently it is not the case. Anyway here goes, I'm in the middle of explaining a misconception in the calmest manner possible. The tension starts with Rayis making provokative comments of the type [12] and evolves to uncivil behaviour and personal comments [13]. I answer with a jemenfoutist comment accompanied with a warning on personal attacks, which get instantly removed [14]. Despite numerous warnings, Rayis removed/changed my text several times, so he actually revert-warred in an attempt to shut me up or hide my comments [15], [16], [17], [18]. He went on about an non-existent personal attack. He'll also claim that I also reverted his edits, eventhough I had repeatedly explained to him that this happened during the process of me trying to restore my edits by reverting his vandalism [19]. An admin advised me to leave him a message in his talk page and so I did. I requested for an apology and I received a plain insult and mocking in return [20]. Following this disruptive behaviour (uncivilty, removal of NPA warnings, removal of other editors' edits) I think the user deserves to be disciplined in order to obtain a better understanding of the terms "personal attack" and "civilty" in wikipedia. I'm prepared to take the matter to AnI if you judge that it's relevant enough to the board's scope. I actually feel offended by a disruptive editors I would be pleased to receive an apology from his part. Thanks in advance for your help. Miskin 21:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
PS: Cool fractals(!) Miskin 21:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The diffs I linked above: [22], [23], [24], [25]. He's been removing my edits due to his own poor understanding of uncivilty. This tempts me to reply with comments mind in isolation as well. Except his own should not be viewed in isolation. Miskin 22:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Rayis but I won't forget about it until you receive a formal warning or I receive an apology. Uncivilty and insults are largely not a subjective issue. Despite what you claim, I was the one who was insulted, so I'm just looking for the person who will care enough about it. No offence EL_C, you know how I mean it. Look at Rayis' last comment, he actually thinks "I broke a policy", this is at least laughable. Miskin 23:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
This made me laugh out loud :) [28] Haukur 21:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi ElC,
I just wanted to leave a note about the protection of this article. The purpose of its protection is for parties to join the talk page. User:Beit Or first removed the material by this edit [29] arguing it to be "remove blogs, CounterPunch, and uncited material per WP:BLP". I then posted this diff on the talk page [30] questioning Beit Or's arguments. Beit Or's arguments was further questioned by User:FCYTravis here [31]. Since then, I have been asking Beit Or and Karl Meier to join the talk page (please see the section [32]). I further left a note on User:FCYTravis's talk page pointing out that Beit Or does not join the talk page and implicitly asked the user to protect the article.
Since it happened that you incidentally locked the page precisely one minute after Beit Or's revert, I am concerned that Beit Or wouldn't join the talk page at all (I have asked him many times before but he has not posted anything on the talk page) since the article is locked in his version. Thanks -- Aminz 00:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi El-C,
You are a very productive editor. Do you have a bot that is logged in as you ? If so the bot edits are bundlled with yours, thousands of edits per day and this makes it impossible to seprate your edits from the bot edits.
can you open an ID to the bot (like el-C-bot) ? and see to it that your contribution page Special:Contributions/El_C allow editors to take a look at your ownn contrubution - right now the length of your contribution page makes it practivally impossible to search your contributions. Thank You, Zeq 14:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I have written a brief essay and valuing your sensibilities as I do I wonder if you have the time if you would look at it and make any changes you think would improve it (or, if you don't want to do that, register any comments on the talk page). Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Slrubenstein | Talk 15:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you know if there is something on wikipedia that will tell you the weather? Because it would be nice if I could just look on wikipedia on my userpage or the wikipedia homepage for the weather. "Nothing else matters" 01:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick note of thanks for your massive help in combating vandalism. I often see something like El C - reverted... It's great to have people like you and your efforts are greatly appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.104.241.75 ( talk) 09:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC).
I'm sorry, I still don't get it. But I'm curious to learn. What explanation is in your logs? All I see is several edits to the RfA page [33]/ [34]/ [35], and an explanation I don't quite understand, either. Was it meant as a joke in the first place or were you trying to repair/comment on some autonumbering error? Sorry to bother you, but could you explain? I'm not usually that slow, but I'm at a loss with this one. — Alde Baer 11:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Just so you know, that IP was almost certainly Bonaparte ( talk · contribs) editing from an open proxy. Mackensen (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
He has jumped in a completely unrelated case, while I am trying to report an incivility by another user to me, to talk page of another admin, repeating the same things and accusing me "incivility", "poor understanding of WP:POLICY", being "disruptive editor", etc etc. [36] and asking for me to be "warned"... Oh and apparently: [37].
Can you ask him again to let this go or open up a RfC because this is super annoying when I am trying to deal with another case here. I will really appreciate this. Regards, -- Rayis 14:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Although I've been on Wikipedia for roughly a year or so, I'm still not quite Wiki savvy. Anyhow, I just wanted to say thanks for editing it & making it look more presentable. I take pride in living in South Florida, specifically in Fort Lauderdale's neigborhood of Riverland Village. ^_^ I think it needs adjusting again though, because some 'tard & a half put Cooper City (a separate city) into Ft. Lauderdale's 'hoods.
Also, I provided a link to verify the neighborhoods: http://info.ci.ftlaud.fl.us/GIS/files/maps/neighborhood_associations.pdf
There are unofficial neighborhoods as well, but I just provided the ones with homeowners associations.
Well it's 3:58AM Eastern time & I'm dead tired, so thanks again! Also, anyone who has respect for Che Guevara is a comrade of mine. Haha! ^_^ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OxyMoronMinusOxy ( talk • contribs) 07:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for looking. I didn't really intend for it to get out like this, as it was initially just brainstorming, but I guess it's too late now. It's something I think has been my common practice for a while.
I was in the middle of an approach like this at Transnistria, which is in terrible shape: [39], [40]. It looks like MariusM and Buffadren have gone back to edit warring again, though, right after you unprotected. I don't think I can follow through personally, since I've already proposed a ban on Marius, who has 5 prior edit warring blocks, elsewhere, and he has apparently reported me to the Foundation, so I want to avoid the appearance of impropriety. I think someone should do something about the persistent edit warring there other than protecting the article to let them continue unreformed. Dmcdevit· t 09:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I noted the source for the "I. Liviu" on the talk page -- several editions of "Who's Who", summarized at the Biography & Genealogy Master Index at ancestry.com. NawlinWiki 22:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Librescu was 76 and not 77 at the time of his death. He was born on August 18, 1930, and died on April 16, 2007, so he would have completed 77 in August of this year. So, he died at the age of 76. Just mentioning, because of your edit where you undid the revision by MultiKoopa. Dimoklit 23:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have notified you of the arbitration case as it obviously is relevant to you. It slipped my mind. -- Deskana (fry that thing!) 23:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know we had too much of a history together. Maybe I suffer from Amnesia and simply don't remember our history togther. hehe See [43] But, I want to thank you for offering to mediate with Deskana and hope that can possibly still take place if necessary. Giovanni33 19:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Cleargoing ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is requesting unblock with a comment of "Who is 0003jackalb?". I see you blocked 0003jackalb ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but I can't determine why. You blocked 0003jackal ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) around the same time but I can't determine why there either. Thought you might want to address Cleargoing's request. — Wknight94 ( talk) 13:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I saw that the article was protected, but the Reverts and Vandalism by user Dbachmann (aka dab), Rudrasharman (aka rudra), and unknown IP's cut out the text in question, which most of it has been going on for over a month now, and I these 2 plus Paul Barlow has continued to change their Positions/Arguments, and when I ask for source/citation to support his argument (asked them well over 10 times) they ignoring the claims. These guys are ganging-up on users on various pages such as the Aryan Invasion Migrations where user dab even claims to not accept any citations that deal with Genetics (Paraphrased quote from dab on Aryan Invasion Migration). They have shown a direct relationship in supporting each other on various issues dealing "Aryans" and has many other disputes going on in his talk pages. Can you please revert back to the "19:26, 13 April 2007 Anwar saadat (rvv)" and then reprotect the page? The only reason that I'm asking it that there has been 4-6 weeks discussion, in where they keep changing there positions, and don't show supporting evidence to their claims (which I have claimed sounds like an original researched argument). Thank you. P.S: user dab also accepted my contributions, after saying for so long they were irrelevant, but with a biased view. After not getting what he wanted, he went back again, saying he never accepted (but shows he did in fact agreed). Cosmos416 20:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Here we go again, seems like your playing this "scholars" card...right...okay...if they are "scholars" can they present some personally complied published research on the subject? Cause you protecting 2 guys who do not show sources, and shown relation., Dab ACCEPTED the edit, and then reserved it. That's alright, I'll find an another admin who is Impartial, unlike you seem to be. Cosmos416 21:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
P.S 'respectable' isn't the right word for these 2, it's the Opposite seeing as they go around various pages, making baseless claims, without sources, and support each other directly in all cases. That biased and not neutral. You sound like a big fan of theirs, ever been to their concerts? Because the amount of BS is incredible. Here's some links showing there non-neutral behavior. From dab's talk page: (dab and rudra are in cahoots with each other) [44] [45] [46] From out of India Theory: (dab and rudra are in cahoots with each other) [47] From Indo-Aryan Migration Theory: (dab and rudra are in cahoots with each other) [48]. Enough said. Cosmos416 21:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your protection block on the 13th, I think you may have to extend it when it expires on the 20th, as there is a good chance that Cosmos416 ( talk · contribs) will persist with re-inserting his absurd material. He is unreasoning, intransigent and hostile, mainly because his bad faith has been repeatedly exposed on the Talk page. His case is not isolated, unfortunately. There are a number of disruptive editors like him plaguing this and related pages, all stemming from a particular politico-religious POV they feel compelled to impose on WP. I'm not sure what can be done, as a piecemeal page-by-page editor-by-editor approach will not address the endemic problem behind all this. rudra 16:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
There are two other slow-revert-type shenanigans at present, one at Out of India and another at Indo-Aryan Migration. The first has Sbhushan ( talk · contribs) insisting that a paraphrase of material fully documented at Indo-Iranians is "original research" (background at the Talk page); the second has WIN ( talk · contribs) doggedly trying to insert some of his favorite fringe material based on what amount to blogs (the Talk page has some sections on it: here, here and here, interspersed with another "incident" involving Sbhushan.) rudra 02:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
This could be another round coming up. He may or may not have given up on this, but someone else has taken up the cudgels there. rudra 19:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi El C,
If you could watch this article, I would be thankful. It might need some protection in the close future.
One dispute is over addition of Arafat's view. I have now summerized the arguments we had for its inclusion here
[49]. But Beit Or (and Arrow740 who doesn't post anything on the talk page
[50] and just reverts to Beit Or Arrow made one edit to the talk page regarding this dispute.) think it is a fringe view and should be excluded. --
Aminz
23:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi El C,
Would you mind taking a look at Lucy Saunders
It's been badly vandalised recently and I'm not even sure it should be here. Best leave it in the hands of an expert! Thanks.
You reverted Nurmir ( talk · contribs) on this article with the automated rollback function without any further explanation in the edit summary (I haven't checked elsewhere yet). They claim they're the copyright owners of the images on the help desk and I already told them what to do. Could you discuss this with them and explain your worries to them? 131.211.210.12 09:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC) (aka MacGyverMagic -- too lazy to sign in and write the message again)
I deeply appreciate it! hike395 12:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
... from the Discussion page of the Ghetto Fighters' House article, tagging it for the Israel WikiProject. I don't have any familiarity with the latter; is GFH not an appropriate topic for inclusion there? --Thanks, Deborahjay 13:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I see you've reverted my edits putting Pig Latin into Pig Latin, so I've created a separate page with the English version and a "go-to" at the top of the igPay atinLay page. Is this a suitable compromise? kenifh
How about if the main page were to be in English, with a link available from there to a Pig Latin version? Surely, you can't call that disruptive, as the Pig Latin version is just an amusing alternative for anyone who wants to read it?
Can you give me a good reason why? Unless it's Wikipedia policy not to have a sense of humour, I can really not see an actual problem with it.
I've seen humour on articles before, and indeed in the Encyclopædia Britannica. Should I write to them and tell them to stop being amusing? And thanks for sorting out my italics.
I lost my test draft and rewrote it. Thanks for the encouragement to post my first article. Nova Štifta -- Knjiga63 06:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for dealing with the Transnistrians. Just FYI, I've also blocked Buffadren now, feel free to adjust as necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey :). Haven't had much use for Wikipedia lately, but wuz on the Internet, saw this http://www.aolvideoblog.com/2007/04/17/dog-wants-his-bed-back/, and thought of you. User: deeceevoice
Masochist. Kelly Martin 18:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi El C. Two of the images on your userpage, Image:Pr032206a 6.jpg and Image:Pr032206a 1.jpg, which you originally uploaded under a free license, were switched to some sort of unfree license by an 69.142.111.235 ( talk · contribs) back on the twelfth of this month. I trust you can deal with this, but I just wanted to let you know that you technically shouldn't have them there right now. Picaroon 22:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments on AN/I regarding my proposal on the Israeli military relations article. I've created Israel-United States military relations partly as a merge of that article, partly as a content fork of Israel-United States relations (which it's intended to parallel) and partly as a chunk of new content sourced largely from Jane's. The format is intended to be usable as a standard template across multiple articles of this type - see the explanation on Talk:Israel-United States military relations. I've not announced it publicly yet because I want to get some views from sensible (!) editors first; could you take a look and let me know what you think? -- ChrisO 23:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you blocking EvilAlex for the usage of word "vandal". Just for you information, today somebody else used the word "vandal" [53]. But he is on the other side of the Force.-- MariusM 09:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for removing the spamlinks from an IP user on various pages to do with Wicca and Neopaganism. The spammer has added others in the same spree, and I'll try and clean them out later if nobody beats me to it! Kim dent brown 09:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
In my oppinion, the current version of Transnistria article isn't neutral and I would like to ask you a third opinion. I suggested what I think is a better version, but I was reverted, mainly on these arguments. I'll summarise my view here:
"During the Moldavian conflict (1991-1992), the 14th Russian Army in Transnistria fought on Transnistrian separatist side. Russian authorities contributed both military and political to the creation of a separatist regime in Transnistria, a region which is part of Moldovan territory. Even after the July 21 1992 armistice, Russia continued to sustain military, politically and economically the separatist regime, thus allowing it to survive, strengthening and obtaining certain autonomy from Moldova. Russia continues to maintain illegally troops in Transnistria, breaking the July 21 1992 agreement. This ensemble of elements is liable to prove that "PMR" continues to be under the effective authority or at least decisive influence of Russia and that anyhow "PMR" survives owing to the military, economical, financial and political support which Russia is offering."
Reference: European Court of Human Rights: (in Romanian) Hotararea Marii Camere in afacerea Ilaşcu şi alţii contra Moldova şi Rusia
Most commonly known in English by its Romanian name Transnistria, its constitutional long name is Pridnestróvskaia Moldávskaia Respública ( Moldovan: Република Молдовеняскэ Нистрянэ, Russian: Приднестровская Молдавская Республика, Ukrainian: Придністровська Молдавська Республіка, ПМР, English: Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic). This is abbreviated PMR. The short form of this name is Pridnestrovie (transliteration of the Russian "Приднестровье"). [1] Several other names are also in common use. Etymologically, they all come down to similar spelling variants of Transnistria, meaning "beyond the river Dniester", or Pridnestrovie, meaning "by the river Dniester". |
The name Transnistria is most commonly used, and does not imply the status of Transnistria: region of Moldova or independent state. The name used in the Constitution of Transnistria is Pridnestróvskaia Moldávskaia Respública ( Moldovan: Republica Moldovenească Nistreană, Russian: Приднестровская Молдавская Республика, Ukrainian: Придністровська Молдавська Республіка, ПМР). This is abbreviated PMR.A short form of this name is Pridnestrovie (transliteration of the Russian "Приднестровье"). [2] Several other names are also in common use, all meaning "beyond (the river) Dniester". |
On March 3, 2006, Ukraine introduced new customs regulations on its border with Transnistria. Ukraine declared it will only import goods from Transnistria with documents processed by Moldovan customs offices, as part of the implementation of the joint customs protocol between Ukraine and Moldova on December 30, 2005. Transnistria and Russia termed the act an "economic blockade". Moldova announced that it created favorable conditions for registration of Transnistria-based businesses: to obtain a 6-month export license is a half-hour simplified procedure. citation needed The United States, the European Union and OSCE approved the Ukrainian move, while Russia saw it as a means of political pressure. On March 4, Transnistria responded by blocking the Moldovan and Ukrainian transport at the borders of Transnistria. The Transnistrian block was lifted after two weeks. However, the Moldovan/Ukrainian block remains in place, and holds up progress in status settlement negotiations between the sides. [3] In the months following the regulations, exports from Transnistria nosedived. Transnistria declared a "humanitarian catastrophe" in the region, while Moldova called it "deliberate misinformation." [4] Cargos of humanitarian aid were sent from Russia in response. [5] |
On March 3, 2006, Ukraine introduced new customs regulations on its border with Transnistria. Ukraine declared it will only import goods from Transnistria with documents processed by Moldovan customs offices, as part of the implementation of the joint customs protocol between Ukraine and Moldova on December 30, 2005. Transnistria and Russia termed the act an "economic blockade". Moldova announced that it created favorable conditions for registration of Transnistria-based businesses: to obtain a 6-month export license is a half-hour simplified procedure and granted tax breaks and duty exemptions to Transnistria-based companies. [6] The United States, the European Union and OSCE approved the Ukrainian move, while Russia saw it as a means of political pressure and claims that "Russia's interests are directly affected" as well. [7] On March 4, Transnistria responded by blocking the Moldovan and Ukrainian transport at the borders of Transnistria. The Transnistrian block was lifted after two weeks. In the months following the regulations, exports from Transnistria nosedived. Transnistria declared a "humaniatarian catastrophe" in the region, while Moldova called it "deliberate misinformation". [8] |
I see that User:Drugged monkey is blocked for editing his own talk page. I am not very familiar with policies for blocking talk pages (I wanted to communicate to him). Has this user been also blocked from editing articles? — Cesar Tort 05:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I proposed an intro there. -- Amongcrash 08:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
This is for you: [56] Zeq 13:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Thought you might like to know that User:Calton has been asked twice now by other users (not me) to tone his comments down. One, I think was an admin. He, of course, snapped their heads off. I am not going anywhere near this one, I am going to let him dig his own hole on this one. But, I thought I would let someone (who I know is an admin) know that ya might need to step in soon. Again, I am not going anywhere near this one, I am just going to watch the downward spiral. Take Care and Have a Good Weekend... SVRTVDude ( V T) 20:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)