El C

---

---

poetry

Why should poetry not be a slogan?

Why should poetry not be

biased

when life is not at all itself

For life's sake,

I expect a poem to be

a slogan

a dagger

a fist

and a bullet if necessary

---

---

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

---

File:Herooflabor.jpg

---

Archived Discussions

Archive 2 Sam Spade apology

---

3RR reporting

I was wondering if there is a way that admins choose to go over the incidents at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Some much earlier reports are skipped with no decision, block or no block. Regards -- Jeff3000 01:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The selection of which 3RR incident/s to examine (& in what order) on the 3RR incidents board is at the respective admin's discretion. El_C 01:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you take a look at the one I reported about 12 hours ago. I fear that because he was warned that a 3RR would cause a block, if at least a warning is not given, he will continue going about reverting. -- Jeff3000 02:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, no problem, I'll have a look at it. El_C 02:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Courtney Akins

Your lack of explanation for this ban instills the fear to make comments on this wiki. The block log says disruption, without further explaination it would seem that the motive for the block is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Self_taken_Provocative_Photos:.

This makes me fearful to suggest future edits and makes me nervous about being bold. Perhaps a more detailed explanation of your rational will put my fears to bed. HighInBC 15:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I have seen that the user in question has perhaps performed other actions that way have contrributed to your decision. Please understand I am not upset at the ban itself, just the apparent lack of explaination. HighInBC 18:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi El C! Please see [1] in which I propose to lift the block, mentor the user, and reblock if necessary. Would that be acceptable to you? I won't lift without a clear consensus, or your concurrence. You can answer here if you like, (although answering there may be better) I have both on watch. Thanks and happy editing! ++Lar: t/c 17:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello. No objection. I leave the matter to your discretion. Regards, El_C 21:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to go ahead and unblock but with a warning that I'm watching. If you see anything untoward please feel free to let me know or reblock, no offense will be taken. ++Lar: t/c 01:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey El_C. I would also like you to see this [2] Could you give some input into this possiblility. Maybe a indefblock was a tad bit harsh, IMO. Maybe a week-long block like Bunchesofgrapes has suggested in the above diff, then when she returns, maybe some mentoring to see if she's willing to improve? — The Future 18:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Email

I sent you an email, and would be grateful if you could let me know if it's arrived, as one of mine to someone else didn't, and I'm beginning to wonder if there's a bug in the system. I have also sent a second one marked "test". Thanks. Tyrenius 21:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, I havne't checked my email today, and I'm on my way out right now. But I will read and reply to it later tonight. Regards, El_C 21:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

El_C - I've tried to email you at all the email addresses I have for you. I miss you. Come back for a visit sometime! - Ack

Dear Ack, I'm so sorry for my inexcusable neglect, of which you are far from the only victim. I also miss you, dearly, and you have been, positively, in my thoughts (and dreams), which I always draw strength from. I've been so utterly overwhelemed by and trying to come to terms with major lifechanging events I endured in the last few months (one after the other — regretfuly, for the most part wholly negative ones, but also with hope of positive things to come in the future); I've barely been able to place it in comprhenesible terms, even in my own mind. My spirit (&body) has been badly dented, traumatized, mostly by what I've experienced during the 2nd Lebanon War, and am still in the process of healing from that, but, crucially, I've yet to actually breakdown emotionally, which I feel is what's most needed. There is one major (unrelated to all that) event that will take place around the mid- of this month. After it transpires (for better or worse), I promise I'll try my best to explain all that has happned as of late (you can count on it being one super-tl;dr anthology!). Your friend, always; love, El_C
P.S. I believe the email address you attempted to reach me by is no longer active, however, I am rather confident that I managed to update my current one in the pertinent listing (along with whatever updates to my physical address, and any other such details) on my last visit. P.P.S. I really didn't mean to ramble on at such length.

Are you the cat (El Gato) downstairs? Cute Purring!!! -- Szvest 13:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

No, but thanks for your compliment Szvest. EGDC PRRR!

NOR

Would you be willing to comment, here: [3]Slrubenstein | Talk 15:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I'll try to have a look at it soon. Regards, El_C 21:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I havne't forgotten, it's just relatively lengthy, so it might take me a while. El_C 21:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia comment

Hello El C, it seems from your comment that your view is that the lead should be somewhere between what is currently on the article and SlimVirigin's no? (→Netscott) 13:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello. No, that is incorrect. I support her version. Islamophobia is not a neologism, it is a concept, like Russophobia, Germanophobia, etc. El_C 20:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The term "Islamophobia" is a classic example of a neologism but thanks for your response. (→Netscott) 20:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Actually, I think that's pure original research on your part; it is used officially. El_C 20:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if this explanation isn't warranted but by your response it seems it is: The word "neologism" is a descriptor for terms not concepts. The term "Islamophobia" is a neologism. (→Netscott) 22:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It's used in the title of the commission; you're missing the satire. El_C 23:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but since when does using a word "officially" negate its status as a neologism? (→Netscott) 23:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Since time immemorial. El_C 23:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Entonces señor, ¡gracias por la lección! ;-) (→Netscott) 23:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The lesson is past-tense, and correct emphasis — a Black hole is a neologism for an object predicted by general relativity with a gravitational field so strong that nothing can escape it, not even light. Sí? El_C 05:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Rashid Khalidi

I'm a bit concerned about the additions being made here. (and no, I'm not really back, just calling by!) Perhaps you could take a look? I've already mentioned it to Zero0000 and Ramallite, but I then thought you might be more available. Regards to Kitty. Palmiro | Talk 20:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

My availability knows no bounds! Write to me further about your summer adventures when you have time. Kitty extends his best wishes! El_C 21:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Cowbell2.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Cowbell2.gif , has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Peter G Werner 00:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it's deleted, I will be quitting the project forever. And whomever nominated did not even bother to sign their name. How shameful! El_C 01:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Damn straight! I mean, what's next? Nominating flags of countries for deletion? Sheer intransigence on the part of unsigned editor! El_C 03:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:AfD reform

I've taken a try at implementing this (in userspace at the moment, so there's no fallout). If you want to see what I've come up with, try making a user subpage and tagging it with {{subst:User:ais523/ElC/afd}}; this should create a catted AfD if you follow the maintenance links at the bottom of the template. (It's based on the recent AfD instruction streamlining whereby the links do some of the editing automatically.) --ais523 15:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks good! Just implement it if you know how and if you're relatively certain it will work. We have a supermajority support for the proposal (including support from Jimbo) and the only thing holding it back right now is practical implementation. El_C 19:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFP

I noticed you recently moved requests for page protection to the fulfilled requests section, but Voice of All's bot already does that, and purposely leaves one request at minimum in each area so people can already see the format for requesting a page protection on record. So, in the future, it's unnecessary to move the requests unless the bot seems to overlook it. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 06:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Say what? I was noting the protection anyway, so in the course of that, I moved requests that were fulfilled to the fulfilled requests section. El_C 07:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it just makes it easier for people who are making requests to see an example of what a request for protection looks like. Voice of All's bot automatically does the archiving anyway. Sorry for not making that clear - I'm half asleep.. and going to bed! Cowman109^Talk 07:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, right, I see what you mean. Thanks for the note. Sweet dreams! El_C 07:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Was that fun?

Was it fun deleting nearly 100 user pages? I wondered when an admin would act. Andy 1 — 0 Spammers. :) --Andeh 12:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It looked just about due! Good catch, btw. El_C 19:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Random character movement

Template:Test (first level warning) Gerry Ashton 15:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not remove other users comments or you will be blocked from editing. Thanks. El_C 19:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert MfD

Hi,

I've gone rouge and reopened this debate -- just because Mr. Colbert is American, it doesn't mean that a "humor policy" page devoted to him is totally insane. I'm not saying I like the page, but I am saying that it deserves discussing per the precedent of WP:SPIDER. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, but who is Mr. Colbert and what are you talking about? El_C 19:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I warned you that I went "rouge" on this one, so I why should I advise folks first? ;) Seriously, though, going rouge isn't my usual habit, so I don't think you'll have to worry. Incidentally, I'm sure there's a fine article at Stephen Colbert explaining exactly who he is. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 19:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I go rogue (sp.) all the time, just yesterday I speedied about ten MfDs. Yes, he's a comedian, I gathered that and I did glance at it before deleting that entry, but it still didn't make sense to me. And invoking WP:SPIDER? I don't understand that page! Best, El_C 19:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Issue with your action

I must protest your removal of my sockpuppet report page for Shravak. The result was that the sockpuppet did not understand why I had tagged his page because the evidence I provided had been deleted and he became hostile as he believed I had tagged his page simply b/c I didn't like his edits. I have no problem with no action being taken, but that should simply be commented on the evidence page. Deleting the evidence opens the accuser to unneeded animosity, having to explain myself to several people, nasty notes on my talk page, etc. All this could have been avoided by leaving the evidence in place so others could see that the complaint was reasonable. I have restored the evidence page to avoid more nastiness. -999 (Talk) 19:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The single diff was already noted on the user's talk page; that subpage seemd rather bare and needelessly intimidating. But we can another admin look into if you like, though I doubt their position will differ from mine significantly. El_C 19:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I don't care what the resolution is, I was objecting to the deletion of the page causing me to look like I had accused him without reason. The account was created within 35 minutes of User:Shravak's last edit after being warned of 3RR and made exactly the same edit, not by revert, but by cut and paste (I'd moved the text and both copies were in the article). Clearly if the account had had an previous edit history, it would not be so suspicious. This clearly looked like an account created to evade 3RR. -999 (Talk) 20:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the user had a firm grasp of the rules, so the purpose (and announcement) of that subpage seemd misdirected. It was already noted on the 3RR board and the user's talk page, so I don't see what it accomplishes. El_C 20:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, of course the puppet claims not to be the same person, not to understand, and to have no knowledge of the 3RR complaint. And since I followed process and put a sockpuppet tag on the puppets user page, once you deleted the evidence the tag remained with a red link. Other users then questioned me about why I tagged the page without following the process of making an evidence page. Which of course I had, but deletion leaves no tracks. So it looked like I had no evidence and I've been being taken to task for it, even though I did everything according to process. It is a waste of my time and would have been avoided by your following process and commenting on the page rather than deleting it! -999 (Talk) 20:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to assume good faith, nonetheless. And that evidence page was just a refractoring of the 3RR report, anyway. El_C 20:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but please look at my talk page to see the unnecessary ruckus revoving my evidence has caused. -999 (Talk) 21:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The evidence page was authored so that an admin could attend to it, and I attended to it, so there was no longer a pressing reason for it and by deleting it I thought I'd be preventing needless hostility. I was going to watch over the matter, regardless. El_C 22:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Name of Azerbaijan article

You just protected a vandalized page. GM is inserting his POV over cited facts. Please atleast protect the correct version of the article.Khosrow II 21:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That's what the other party is saying about your version, I just protected the last version up there; See also: wrong version. Regards, El_C 22:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you even seen his changes? He just moved around a couple paragraphs (I think he did this so that he could hide is small edits) and then he totally took out cited material and put in his POV. He is tricky. For example, one of the small edits he made was change "the pan Turkist Democratic Musavat party" to "Turkish Democratic Musavat party", when its a well known fact that the party was Pan-Turkist, and advocated ideals of uniting all Turkic speaking peoples, which is significant as it shows the motives for the name change (as parties within the republic later admitted). Him changing this simple fact is proof of his vandalism. Please, I implore you to protect my version of the article, as it is the exact same thing as the current version except with the removal of some cited facts. GM's edits also go against the discussion in the talk page, where he was proven wrong time and time again. Also, please note that my version of the article also includes his view points (see the talk page, we came to a consensus on some issues).

Please, protect my version of the article. Also, if you do not believe what I'm saying, check the edits for yourself, and you will see that all he did was move things around, while making some major, although small, edits that basically go against Wikipedia's rules of no POV and origional research.Khosrow II 22:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I have not looked at his changes closely; please refrain from characterizations such as "tricky," however. I may well end up supporting your version pending a discussion on the talk page, but it will be impropper for me to protect your version at this time. El_C 22:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, notice how he changed the link of the Democratic Musavat Party (the one in 1918) to the current one that is in operation at the present. These two are two different things, yet GM wants people to believe they are the samething, because the new party's policies are not as aggressive as the old ones. This is what I'm talking about, he is pushing his POV while at the same time accusing me of pushing POV when everything I have written is based on cited sources.

What is wrong with protecting my version? Isnt it wrong protecting a version of an article that wrong? Please, if there is anything you can do, I implore that you take the right course of action. Thanks.Khosrow II 22:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Because I would be breaching policy if I do that. I'm not sure this is about the pan-Turkist/pan-Turanist tendency on the part of the IDMP/TDMP, as much as it is about its formal name, which your version distort — the party wasn't called PTDMP, it was called TDMP. But don't tell me this is the main dispute (!). Regards, El_C 00:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstood or maybe I typed it in wrong. The name of the party was not PTDMP, your right, the Pan-Turkist is just the description. For example, when writing in that context about the Grey Wolves (a Pan Turkist party in Turkey), I would right "the pan-Turkist Grey Wolves Party". Get it, the pan Turkist was not put in there as part of the name, it was put there are an adjective. I was not trying to distort anything.

I'm just trying to tell you that the version you currently have protected is POV. Also, remember that GM was the one who wanted to get rid of the article, which shows that he really doesnt care of the neutrality of the article, he just wants it gone or to suit his POV.Khosrow II 00:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

But you can't call it "the pan-Turkist Democratic Musavat party," maybe you can call it the "pan-Turkist Turkish Democratic Musavat party" (similarly, let's say the IDMP was Islamist, you would not be able to call it the "Islamist Democratic Musavat party," instead you'd have to say something similar to the above, like the "Islamist Islamic Democratic Musavat party"). But let's continue this on the article talk page. Thanks in advance. Regards, El_C 01:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, thats something you can change if you revert the article back to its correct states. I admit that the wording may have not been the best, although I did not realize it at the time.Khosrow II 02:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

My point is that misperceptions and antagonism follow from these sort of misunderstandings. My other comments are on the this article's talk page section. Please do join us there. Thanks again. Regards, El_C 05:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you should un protect it now. We have come to an agreement, and GM has not responded to any of my arguments so he must also be content. You should un protect it now, we have come to a compromise.Khosrow II 14:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD reform

I've finished implementing and testing this, but need admin help to change AfD over to the new process. Look near the bottom of today's AfD log to see the category system in action; the categories contain all unclosed deletion debates in the relevant category and all log pages containing such deletion debates (so hopefully there won't be any lost debates any more).

The changes I would like made are as follows:

• {{afd2}} changed to the contents of {{afd2 new}}
• {{afd2 starter}} changed to the contents of {{afd2 starter new}}, and the page protected (high-risk)
• {{afd3 starter}} changed to the contents of {{afd3 starter new}}
• {{afd}} changed to the contents of {{afd new}}
• {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} protected (high-risk)
• {{AfD in 3 steps}} changed to the contents of {{AfD in 3 steps new}}

These changes should implement the new category system across all new AfDs.

P.S. There's been a bit of an edit war on {{afd}} recently, so I'm suggesting a compromise version on the change.--ais523 10:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not confusing at all, it's really straightforward edit-this-to-that. I misread something and went way off course — there was no reason for you to write the bellow (although it is educating). My apologies for being slow. El_C 00:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice! Sorry, but I'm not sure I entirely I understand what specific administrative actions you seek (or I would just do it). You do of course understand that the categorized AfD scheme is to run concurent to and not as a replacement for the current system, right? I have to get going soon, so regretfuly, I won't be able to see your answer until I return. But I look forward to reading it. Thanks again for all your work! El_C 11:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The only changes made to AfD are:

• Prompting the user for a category during step 2 of the afd-tagging
• Displaying the category notice on the debate
• Adding the debates to categories

The log pages and debates work in exactly the same way as before. As for the specific admin actions needed, it's protecting 2 pages and editing 2 protected pages (the whole AfD process is protected at the moment); I've listed some other pages that need editing at the same time in the list above, as the changes shouldn't have too much of a gap between them so as not to confuse users. Each change consists of either protecting a page or editing a page; in each case, there is a page (whatever new) that contains the exact wikimarkup needed in the page to be edited; for instance, the first change is a request to change {{afd2}} so that it is the same as {{afd2 new}}; I've listed the changes in the order I think is least likely to confuse users. I previously put in a {{editprotected}} request for this, which was declined on the basis of no proof that it would work (the proof is now available) and the unprotectedness of various key templates; I have tweaked the proposal to answer these concerns. (One last thing; it's best to check that I have the top contrib on each of the new pages, in case they're vandalised before you reach them.)

Unfortunately, we seem to edit at different times (based on our contribs), so it's unlikely I'll be able to reply when you get back, but I'll be interested to see what happens. --ais523 11:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I'm unlikely to edit over the weekend (as always), so if you need more feedback from me this had better wait until Monday UTC. I only edit from public computers, and so normally can't get a connection in the weekend or evening UTC. --ais523 15:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

See my comment above; sorry for the brain melt on my part. I'm implementing it now. Let's hope it works! /knocks on cat El_C 00:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to ask where the page that will be display the categories be at? Also, I think kitty10 whould be removed — kitty11 should cover that. I'll wait till you're back before changing it, though, just in case it might break everything, somehow. El_C 00:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Changing the categories won't break anything, but if you do be sure to make the same change to {{afd3 starter}}. As for cats 10 vs. 11, I added 10 per the suggestion on WP:ElC, and 11 for the same reason that we have a 'not sure' on the image copyright drop-down: to avoid biting newbies (who despite all preadded help occasionally still won't understand what's going on). The lists can be found as subcategories of Category:AfD debates. --ais523 08:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, seeing how the cats are being used, 10 and 11 probably ought to be left separate. (As of this timestamp, there are some articles in category 11 where it's obvious what they're about, bit they don't quite fit in any of the others.) --ais523 09:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Miaou

Hi. Looks like we have shared interests ;-) Miaou... El Gato Del Che 18:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You're missing one User:Kitty! El_C 00:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If the night turned cold

And the stars looked down

And you hug yourself

On the cold cold ground

You wake the morning

In a strangers coat

No-one would you see

You ask yourself, whod watch for me?

My only friend, who could it be?

When your bellys empty

And the hungers so real

And youre too proud to beg

And too dumb to steal

You search the city

For your only friend

No-one would you see

You ask yourself, who could it be?

A solitary voice to speak out and set me free

I hate to say it

I hate to say it

But its probably me

Its hard to say it

I hate to say it

But its probably me -- (Miaou) El Gato Del Che 14:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

"Deleted conversation"

I had originally decided not to archive it because I was informed of my mistake by someone else, prior to your question. This is why I include "at my discretion" at the top of my talk page. I felt that it was not really necessary, but since you insist (I swear it's either guilt or a WP:POINT) I have archived the discussion. Ryūlóng 03:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

And I think I may use that code that you use for your talk page on mine for a section I wished to transclude there. Ryūlóng 04:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That is if I can figure it out x_X Ryūlóng 04:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your qustion, I like having clear and easily-accessible account of my conversations (in general), for my own references. El_C 04:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Shravak

Hi El_C, it turns out that a user you banned earlier for 3RR, Shravak wasn't a sockpuppeteer after all. Checkuser has now confirmed that User:Dattat was in fact a puppet of Mattisse. --  Netsnipe  ►  07:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I didn't ban him, I blocked him! Anyway, while I didn't get a chance at the time, then to be honest lost the motivation to look closely into the charges (arguably I should have), I purposfuly did not include Dattat's revert as part of Shravak's 3RR. That much was clear to me. El_C 08:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

More spam

Delete when you feel ready :). Andypandy.UK

Got it! Nice catch, once again. El_C 09:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

2006 Israel Lebanon (conflict)war

Why did you move it? There's no consensus for it, and you've not provided a reason in your edit summary. Could you at least explain yourself on the talk page, please? Iorek85 08:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I moved it for the reasons stated, after waiting ten days. And I understood that there was consensus. El_C 09:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know - I've posted a request for the page to be moved back on WP:ANI, since you wouldn't do it yourself. It's under "protected page move by admin without consensus". Iorek85 23:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I welcome other admins' opnions; that is, comments. El_C 02:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've also posted there. I too think this move was highly inappropriate since there is a 50/50 split currently in the discussion for the move to war. Also as an involved party you moving the article is highly irregular. JohnnyBGood c VIVA! 00:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There was consensus; your questionable approach undermines the quality of Wikipedia. El_C 02:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There was no consensus. Some of the arguements in the "vote" for conflict were reasonable. I don't see why you expect those who who participate in the poll to repeat themselves in opposing your move. On the other hand, there is a weak consensus for changing "Lebanon" to "Hezbollah". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no excuse for Wheel warring. I held a discussion to rename the page, for 10 days, and there was consensus. El_C 13:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You held a discussion, and there was some opposition there, as well. However, the poll was still open, and under the guidelines for WP:RM, no moves should be made while that is open, unless there is clear consensus in that venue, as well. You'd moved this article against consensus before, and the move was reverted. I had assumed that you had agreed not to move the article again without clear consensus. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)