Jump to content

User talk:El C

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.155.244.245 (talk) at 07:21, 27 July 2019. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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


Archived Discussions

Archive 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 9 11 12

For you

El C, contrary to your edit summary- I noticed you were gone, and missed seeing you on recent changes. You are one of my favourite editors. This is for you. Regards, dvdrw 04:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Many chipthanks for the kind words. Greatly appreciated. Best, El_C 06:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I noticed and missed you! (Official circular here). Novickas (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Thought of you while uploading this picture [1]... for all of your work. Novickas (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! El_C 11:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sort of in a hole and am having difficulties submerging. Speaking of holes/that chippie, I got to do some visiting in its burro recently...
Later, adding even more festive decorations, and inspected the whiskers:
And some drinky-drinky as well as rubbing under chin:
Also, two days ago I got to rub a cheekadee's tummy(!); for a handsome reward, of course:
Love,
El_C 11:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


You look really good in your purple hat! Bishonen | talk 00:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Free hat! Today, while cheekadeepetting, this lady who saw us from a far, came over and said: "Can I tell you something...? You're an angel of God."(!) To which I of course replied: "All hail Atheismo!" [nah, I said: "thank you, maddam, that's very kind of you" — what else could I say?] I took an especially neat cheekadeepetting photograph today: it remained visible between my thumb and index as it flew away, giving the illusion it was bee-sized! What an unexpected, and sweet, effect! El_C 02:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Wow, Capitano, where do you get a large enough sweater for a person with that hand? Bishonen | talk 20:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

And then there's Skunky! El_C 14:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oooo. Purdy!

Combine obvious love of animals with photography results in photographic win! — Coren (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Great to learn that peoples (plural!) like! Chickadee says hi! El_C 14:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Seasons Greetings

Here's some peanuts for Hidey. He hasn't got any!
Hello. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, everyone! Happy 2009! El_C 12:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Groundhog Day

Happy day! Jehochman Talk 19:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chippies

El C, I've been meaning to ask for ages. What is the link between revolutionary socialism and chimpunks? Did I miss that bit in Animal Farm? Is it something to do with resting the means of damn making from beavers? --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No link; but are you referring to Groundhog? (see left) There is a Groundhog-Chippie connection, which I was trying to further cultivate (see right). El_C 11:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Love is in the air ....dooooo .....dooo.dooo ......doooo ......dooo.doooo ." --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Book?

Let me know when it is out, and you will up your sales by one. :-) KillerChihuahua?!? 09:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4Tality Fractal

1. Four Facets of existence: 1. Matter 2. Energy 3. Space 4. Time

2. Four Dimensions: 1. 1D 2. 2D 3. 3D 4. 4D (temporal)

3. Four Fundamental interactions: 1. Strong 2. EM 3. Weak 4. Gravity

4. Four States of matter: 1. Solid 2. Liquid 3. Gas 4. Plasma

El_C 07:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rev-dels

Just for information at the moment: are you able to do revision deletions? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Affirmative. El_C 20:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. There are a couple of admins I usually contact when I see something that needs to deleted, but unfortunately they let real life interfere with their admin duties. You are online a lot at the same times I am, so it's good to have another person to contact if needed. I generally only ask personally if it's both serious and urgent. - BilCat (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, by all means. If I'm around, please don't hesitate. El_C 02:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. I realize.my wording above presumes you'd be willing, and that I didn't actually ask, so thanks. :) - BilCat (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Romania

And all I got was this... Whoa!

I can live with your highly arbitrary closing summary of the RfC on the Talk page, so I do not want to persuade you to change it. However, you closed other on-going debates as well. Could you open the other debates? Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 05:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the thanks I get! El_C 05:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And all I got was a ^^^

El_C 06:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Notice: Gun Control clarification request archived

Hi El_C, the Gun Control arbitration clarification or amendment request, which you were listed as a party to, has been archived to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control#Clarification request: Gun control (June 2019). If you have any questions please let me know or reach out to the committee directly. For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 13:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Brad. El_C 15:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial spam

Hi El_C. Mike.Smith appears to have created their account for the sole purpose of spamming for a commercial site. I have removed all links. Could you please take a look? Thanks! Indigenous girl (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. El_C 15:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Indigenous girl (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Abbycarroll

Hi El C. Perhaps you might have better luck trying to reach this editor and explain why she's heading in the wrong direction. I've tired, and others have tried (even other admins), and she still seems to not be listening. Posting things like this and this will only make things worse, and this edit sum is disingenuous at best. She's a new editor and still learning, but she's slowly and surely moving beyond the point where anyone is going to cut her any slack for those things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She's well past that with me, obviously. Look a couple more edits forward on that high school article MJ diffed above. Rope is gone. Sorry MJ. John from Idegon (talk) 05:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to be direct. El_C 05:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK...That really pisses me off. not at you, at her. I reverted the message on my talk that you mentioned to her on her talk unread. I read your diff on her talk. How is that anything but harassment? I've reverted her a lot, yes, but she is adding complete BLP violations (one on Mel B that had to be oversighted), she's misrepresenting sources, I'm almost certain she is lying about a copyright violation, although Commons ORTS is in the loop on that now. In the draft that she was pushing (she finally G7'sd it), a BLP also, she stated that the subject met Bill Murray, based on a citation to a website that perpetuates hoaxes as a meme about people meeting Bill Murray. The only thing she properly sourced in that whole draft was his attendance at the school in that diff. I looked at that article and it was an uncited train wreck of a fan page, so I cleaned it up with an ax. If that is stalking her, then there are several people with Wikipedia articles that should be making police reports on me, cause that sure isn't a first. I stumble across a page as a link on another page, follow it, and find a crapfest, which I address. I get she is new, but we've blocked many more competent new editors for less. Another editor notified me off-wiki that he may be taking her to ANI. If she thinks I'm an asshole, wait tell she meets the sharks at ANI. John from Idegon (talk) 05:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not familiar with the editing history of the dispute (and beyond) and am having a difficult time following you. I only noticed the comment on your talk page and her inappropriate user page, which I deleted. El_C 05:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see the userpage but I'm curious about whether it had an edit history. If it was more or less created as the page you deleted, someone should speak to the brand new NPP patroller that approved it an hour before you deleted it. I'd be happy to do it, and politely, but without being able to see the history, I don't know if it's needed. John from Idegon (talk) 05:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. I was just contacted off wiki and that person verified it was. John from Idegon (talk) 06:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize to me John. I tried to help the editor avoid problems, but at some point WP:PACT does kick in when things continue to on as before. Perhaps, EL C's suggestion to move on will convince her to move and at least stick to commenting on content and not you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Kafka

Thank you for watching over Franz Kafka. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But of course! El_C 15:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redaction

Thanks for your recent redactions of trolling comments. You may also want to look at this diff – WanderingWanda (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime.  Done. El_C 18:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive IP editing on Drew Barrymore

Greetings! There's an IP that keeps changing the infobox image of Drew Barrymore's article despite being warned and reverted multiple times by several users. Can you please do something about this? Thanks, QuestFour (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 18:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, this is my alternative account. The IP is back, can you please do something? Thanks. DanWarpp (talk) 05:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. El_C 05:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi BLP LTA

Can you please reblock this LTA for another 1-3 months: 223.187.128.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)? They've resumed their Hindi BLP vandalism. They've been doing this since May, and they also have a history of posting nasty BLP attacks on some of those biographical articles as well. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 01:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About the page Libya and Yunnan

For Libya. The population for 2018 data is wrong. According to https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/libya-population/ and http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/libya-population/, the population of Libya are not even reached 7 million yet. Can you change the 2018 population census please?

For Yunnan. The ethnic group percentage is wrong. According to https://www.gokunming.com/en/blog/item/3769/yunnans-population-by-the-numbers,Ethnic ， ethnic minorities make up about 33.6% of Yunnan province total population. Can you change the right bar where shows han people are 67% to 66.4 please? Can you also scroll down to demographics and change that 38% to 33.6% please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.118.50 (talk • contribs)

I don't understand — why can't you apply those edits yourself? Those articles are not protected. El_C 22:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still try to learn how to cite. Can you do it for now if you don't mind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.118.50 (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please, at least try. See Help:Referencing for beginners. Be bold! I'm happy to correct you if you make any mistakes. El_C 03:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls

On the page for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, you upped the protection level for the reason that "I would rather new users (or dormant accounts) limit themselves to the article talk page, for now ". The guide to extended confirmed protection specifically says "Extended confirmed protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against disruption that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege extended confirmed users over unregistered users in valid content disputes on articles not covered by Arbitration Committee 30/500 rulings." You did this after I made an edit that I described in the summary, thoroughly described on the person who undid it's talk page, and even more thoroughly described and sourced in the talk page. The admin who undid my edit has not replied to my post on his talk page regarding the subject (which was requested by him on my talk page). Is this really what editing on Wikipedia is all about? The personal opinions of the admins overriding, ignoring and cutting of those with properly sourced information that can help make Wikipedia a better and more accurate resource? Before I started editing I did a great amount of reading into the pillars of Wikipedia and related documents, but my actual experience on the platform in no way reflects that information. Please change the protection level back, as there was little justification for the change in the first place, and it appears to go against the very idea of Wikipedia being an open and unbiased platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpoonLuv (talk • contribs) 19:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I do not intend to modify the protection settings at this time. I do not wish for new or dormant accounts to be editing that (and other similar) articles due to illegitimate socking. Please just make edit requets and we'll go from there. But please try not to delete the talk page comments of other users when you use the talk page! Please sign your username using four tiles (~~~~), so it's obvious who is saying what. Thank you. El_C 20:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't edit the comments of other users. I did edit my own though. I really don't know what you're talking about there. What legitimate socking are you talking about? All I see is that you're censoring legitimate changes. I feel as though some editors have been manipulating the page to use it to form narrative by posting unrelated information in order to back up their narrative. I have thoroughly explained and sourced on the talk page why that information is irrelevent. The response from the editor has been accusations of disruptive behavior and vandalism. At no point did he attempt to back up the relevance of including the information in the article, or dispute my reasoning for wanting it removed. If I take the time to research and properly source my information and reasoning, should it not also be appropriate for the admin to counter that by spending a little time actually countering that, instead of just throwing accusations? I am attempting to get consensus through discussion, but the admin seems unwilling to participate.SpoonLuv (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I now see why it looked like I deleted somebody else's post. That was under an older user name that I immaturely made some time ago when I was less serious about contributing to Wikipedia. I had that user name changed, so I was really just editing my own post. Thank you for the information about the tilde thing, I will do my best to make sure I use it from now on. SpoonLuv (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to sound like a broken record on this talk page, but you have dispute resolution resources at your disposal. Please feel free to make use of them, especially in order to bring outside input to the dispute. El_C 16:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this constructive info. Regarding what you've seen so far, which route would you choose to go down? It appears as though there's other complaints about that admin simply accusing people of edit warring, and not attempting to discuss or reach consensus. 3rd opinion looks great, but I'm concerned the admin will just simply ignore the findings. I don't want to create a huge stink over this but I, like many others, view Wikipedia as close to truth as you can get, and this whole process has severely shaken that belief. I'm in no way saying there's no other side and I'm 100% right, but I would at least like to feel as though my researched and sourced information has actually been considered. I attempted to discuss it on the admins talk page (at their request) and they deleted my comments without answer. I have given so many chances for a meaningful discussion and a road to consensus. An admin, somebody who should be responsible ensuring this impartiality, seems to be making every attempt to stop either of those things. (the last part of this comment is 90% venting, and can be ignored) SpoonLuv (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I appreciate your addressing of my comments. I still disagree with your choice to leave the page protected, but recognize and respect your position on the matter. SpoonLuv (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The content dispute can be resolved, but only with outside input is that likely to happen. You can launch a Request for Comment directly on the talk page, or go the route of the Dispute Resolution noticeboard. Nothing wrong with seeking a 3rd Opinion, in the meantime. El_C 21:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete revision history

Please delete the revision history for revisions 905013866, 905013155, and 905014002 in the English WP page for Moon jae-in. They are 2 edits by a new user and 1 revert, and those edits are clearly false and of no encyclopedic value (fitting category for Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material), so I am requesting that you delete them. They are also a serious violation of the biography of living persons policy. [2] [3] [4] Bukjintongil (talk) 12:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 16:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Special rules

Unless I'm missing something, it does not appear that you have logged the sanctions, and it does not appear that Buffs was given the super special warning template. GMGtalk 10:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but his objection to the DS at the time implies he knows they are in effect. El_C 10:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've pretty well expressed my personal distaste with esoteric rules in about every forum possible. But since ArbCom is often a exercise in violating WP:NOTBURO, that would likely invalidate the topic ban. Sorry for not being more specific at the time. I was/have been fairly busy. GMGtalk 21:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JA617

Reaching out to you rather than bringing it to ANI directly if you wanted to handle this, if not I will bring to ANI. As you may or may not remember you blocked the user for various reasons, including WP:ENGAGE and disruptive editing. A couple days I reached out to them again [5] for continuing this same style of editing. Today they again made two edits [6] and [7] that I reverted and went to their talk page about [8]. However rather than responding they went back and redid the same edits again [9], the same issue as why I took them to ANI in the first place. Let me know and if you prefer I can take it to ANI directly. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 16:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the matter with those edits? It looks like they're just trying to avoid a redirect. El_C 16:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well the issue is that they don't respond or try and talk. I have explained to them before that they do not need to fix those per WP:NOPIPE. The issue is with WP:ENGAGE, that no matter what their edit is that gets reversed the readd it without commenting. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 17:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but it's better to pipe than to redirect, wouldn't you say? El_C 18:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wouldn't. Professional wrestlers often change their names. In this case it was just a removal of the periods, going from A.J. Styles to AJ Styles. But recently Dean Ambrose became Jon Moxley. There are hundred of articles that previously linked to [[Dean Ambrose]] that now redirect. There is no reason to go through and update all of those links simply to avoid the redirect. If every page was updated after he started using the Moxley name, until the page was moved with [[Dean Ambrose|Jon Moxley]], once it was moved all of those pipes would need to be fixed based on piping over a redirect. Similarly for the last couple of years Rockstar Spud started going by Drake Maverick, but his page was only moved this week. Why force [[Rockstar Spud|Drake Maverick]] over the course of 2 years, when [[Drake Maverick]] is easier to follow when reading wikitext and would now have been piping to a redirect. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 20:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. El_C 20:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page protection

The IP user you blocked over Douma chemical attack has taken to using a sock puppet ip to edit my talk page. The teahouse suggested I request an admin to prevent it. Is it possible to block all ip users without blocking logged-in users on a user talk page? If so I will be grateful if you can do this for my talk and user page. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 11:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Just for the record, since I was the one who said the IP was a sock: here is where they self-identify as a sock puppet of Sayerslle. --bonadea contributions talk 11:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is my user talk page, not RfPP. But sure, IP sock blocked, again. El_C 15:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IBAN violation

This user still arbitrary deletes chassis codes from italian cars that were uploaded by me:
Special:Diff/905790969
Special:Diff/538038099 and Special:Diff/883957905
There already was a discussion about how important they are and are also in Automobiles WikiProject guidelines.
Please react. YBSOne (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is my user talk page, not ANI. Anyway, I don't see how removing something you added back in February counts as an interaction. El_C 15:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that it was: "Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to: undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means". YBSOne (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but how can they tell it was you? You added it back in February. El_C 15:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Majority of the chassis types were added by me on Maserati/Ferrari/Lancia/Alfa pages. It all comes down to proving wheather it was deliberate or not. But it still meets the definition does it not? YBSOne (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps so, but I, at least, am not going to do anything further about it. El_C 16:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)~[reply]
Fine, I'm ok with it at the moment. Thank You for Your time. YBSOne (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism in Europe

Some time ago, a user removed the Estado Novo from the list of Fascist regimes, despite the fact that it was decided that Wikipedia will go with the status quo ante until consensus is formed (which it wasn't), the user said that the Estado Novo should not be presented as Fascist alongside unambiguosly Fascist regimes, even though the same thing can be said about almost every other regime on the list, the only regimes considered unambiguosly Fascist are Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany (and even Nazi Germany sometimes is not considered Fascist), also 4-3 is a very narrow result to be considered a consensus (and that is counting a user that didn't even vote, I don't know if this actually counts), so I was wondering if you could revert his edits. -- 177.158.171.198 (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That user is the one who closed the RfC accordingly, so you should probably direct the question to them. El_C 01:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Curious then, when the page is unprotected, will I be able to revert his edit, or no? -- 177.158.171.198 (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but it is likely to be reverted back, citing the RfC as representative of consensus. Again, if you found faults with the manner in which the RfC was closed, you should take that up with the editor who closed it. I didn't review the RfC closely, so I am probably not the editor who can offer any further insights into it at this time. El_C 02:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you not attempt to contact the closer of the RfC, as I suggested? On closer examination, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with dispute resolution having been followed, consensus reached by virtue of the RfC (which, again, you have yet to challenge) — but you continuing to edit war against this consensus without further discussion. El_C 21:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will try to, should I revert while this isn't solved? -- 177.159.223.177 (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You won't be able to, because I just semiprotected all those articles for a year. I'm just not comfortable with editing against a closed RfC. If you're able to reverse the RfC by changing the mind of the closer, or by further review, I'll be happy to unprotect so you could edit directly. El_C 21:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to apologize for this incident BTW, personally I just hope this dispute will be solved soon enough. -- 177.159.223.177 (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate that. Yes, let's move forward. My advise to you would be to address your concerns with the closer of the RfC 1st, and if you fail to change their mind, challenge the RfC with a new section on the article talk page and see what other editors say. El_C 21:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The closer has overturned the RfC as no consensus. I have, therefore, unprotected the articles as promised. El_C 04:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect request

Can you semi-protect Born to Be Yours, Bad Liar (Imagine Dragons song), Zero (Imagine Dragons song), Whatever It Takes (Imagine Dragons song), Walking the Wire (song), On Top of the World (Imagine Dragons song) and Next to Me (Imagine Dragons song). The 95.83.xx.xx range involved genre warring on [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]. 2402:1980:246:3ACA:DF36:7ACC:96FF:8337 (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, as I already told another user today, this is my user talk page, not RfPP. Please list it there, instead. El_C 03:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Interlinear

Hi and thanks for protecting Template:Interlinear. Is there any way you could change the level to semi-protection, which was the one I requested at RFPP [22]? I should definitely take the blame for possibly having expressed the rationale in a misleading way, but the idea was to prevent IPs from vandalising the template, not to exclude almost all editors from editing it. – Uanfala (talk) 11:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I think TP is actually appropriate for this type of template. But feel free to bring back to RfPP for review. I'm happy to go with the consensus there. El_C 16:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Template:Interlinear. – Uanfala (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, I wish we could have found the middle way. Anyway, I'm surprised to be walking away from this with an extra user right. Of course I don't mind it, but given that the unusual situation that led to it seems to be over, I wouldn't feel slighted if you removed it. – Uanfala (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being a bit distracted — that's on me. In regards to the user right: happy editing! El_C 22:35, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further accusation

[23] Charles01 has further accuse me of sockpuppeting over a IP that been doing similar edits then me. He also reinstated the paragraph that was previously deleted [24]. --Vauxford (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm spread a bit thin lately, so am not sure I'll have time to investigate this in the near future. El_C 16:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated driveby tagging with no discussion

A newbie (165 edits) who hasn't been active in years is repeatedly tagging Hassan Jameel with {{advert}} without any explanation or discussion, even though I opened up a thread on the talkpage of the article. This is in violation of WP:DRIVEBY and WP:WTRMT. Can you please look at this? Asking you because you previously helped prevent the BLP violations on the article. This article gets 5,000 pageviews per day. Thanks, Softlavender (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I agree that this is inappropriate. I've reverted and up'd my original semi to ec. They're welcome to argue for the tag on the article talk page, but that argument has to exist. El_C 01:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Next United Kingdom general election

Please explain why you have protected a version of the page that is not supported by consensus at talk, and which has been re-instituted by editors unwilling to engage at talk. You are rewarding those who editwar over those who present reasoned argument. Apply consensus, THEN freeze it if necessary. Kevin McE (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how protection works. I responded to a request at RfPP. The current version gets protected and there is no preference, by design. That is to say, the version that gets protected is, ultimately, random. El_C 15:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User DavidManchester44

Thanks for blocking user:DavidManchester44, but he is back at Chandrayaan-2 article as sock puppet user:ManchesterDawah. I reported it for inverstigation but I think it is pretty obvious. Thanks, Rowan Forest (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the sock and reblocked the master indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! That lunar mission is being launched today and we expect a lot of traffic. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: Back again as user:AmazonEternal. Thank you so much for the support. Rowan Forest (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked the account. If it had been filed at SPI, my finding would have been  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely). I've also semi-protected the article for three days.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Bbb23, for doing all the heavy lifting. El_C 20:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block-evading vandal

Can you please re-block 100.1.235.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 1-3 months? This is the latest IP sock of User:Kendall2232, who was indeffed for vandalism months ago. He resumed using his IP after the last block recently expired, and he's gone back to vandalizing. This person has been using this IP for close to 2 months now. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 01:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced information and personal attack(s)

Hi El C

I must admit even though I've edited for quite some years I never did learn to use the Wikipedia system properly, which is why I am here. Could you take a look at this issue? This user is very keen on removing sourced information [25] and making personal attacks and treating Wikipedia as Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND. [26]. Thanks in advance. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you both violated 3RR, so that's not a promising start. El_C 17:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Information Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attacks, baseless insulting accusations, treating Wikipedia as a battleground and removal of sourced information. Just for information, as you're mentioned since you weighed in on the dispute. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

McMuffin serial vandalism

Good afternoon. Can you please raise the protection on McMuffin to Extended-Protection for about a year? The article was recently targeted by the LTA WhenDatHotlingBling, using rapid-fire serial vandalism and page-move vandalism (I couldn't even keep up with their junk). Their favorite target, McGriddles, is already Extended-Protected, and I have the feeling that since he no longer has access to his favorite target, he's going to move on to McMuffin and other related articles. Given the recent spate of vandalism, I doubt that anything less than an extensive Extended Protection will be sufficient for containing their vandalism. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry, I probably shouldn't up the protection preemptively. El_C 02:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@LightandDark2000: I just had to report another one to SRG just a few minutes ago. Plus the McMuffin page is now EC protected for a year. --IanDBeacon (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That showed me! El_C 01:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AN discussion

I've started a discussion at AN in which you are involved. Just a courtesy note. GoldenRing (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago-style pizza

Hey El C ~ can you glance over here and here for me please ~ Thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 18:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
you know....Thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fer sure. Softer approach did not work — well, partially due to my own incompetence! El_C 19:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No ~ you did perfect ~ knew something was about to be stepped into ~ and I ain't talking about something in L.A. ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much El C ~ it was very impressively, quickly and properly done ~ at least in my respects ~ I bow (お辞儀) to the master ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
don't hit me ~ El C at IMDb ~mitch~ (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw that ~ just peachy ~mitch~ (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting here I couldn't do it myself because one of the links are blacklisted. 85.199.71.123 (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime. I didn't notice anything of the sort, though. El_C 19:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User keeps pestering everything I do

I'm losing my paitence with Charles01. He already accused me of sockpuppeting twice, created a awful hate page about how much a terrible user I am and now he reverted a edit based off RfC. I don't understand what I'm doing wrong, I tried to solve the edit dispute, opened a RfC got enough comments of which is better and from the looks of it they prefer the one I proposed to be used on the infobox yet Charles01 still insist of changing back because it just my "Vauxford vanity project edit wars" when I haven't even edit warring in the first place! --Vauxford (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have. I've just protected the article due to that very edit warring. If there are behavioral issues, I suggest you take it to AN/I, as I am unable to devote my full attention to the dispute between you two at this time. El_C 19:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't edit warring, I thought I was doing the right thing based off the RfC. I didn't get into a edit war with constant reverts. I tried everything, I did discussions, done two ANI, did a RfC based on your advice and nothing is working. --Vauxford (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm at my wits with this user constantly belittling me of what I do, he accused me of sockpuppeting for goodness sake, I thought any form of sockpuppeting accusation are taken seriously, this person is seriously putting all effort to make me look like a bad, disruptive editor when I'm not, I had no intention. --Vauxford (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That RfC has not been closed yet. I would be patient and wait for that before invoking it as an authority. El_C 19:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[27] But it been expired, I thought that mean it ended due to a lack of activity. On top of that Charles01 already recovered the hate page which you deleted [28] and adding more stuff to it. --Vauxford (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have already made 2 ANI as it is and none of seem to be taken seriously and just gone stale. What difference it gonna make if I create another one. He insist of labelling me as some sockpuppeting, edit warring and disruptive user, the amount of evidences, diffs and new fresh evidence of all this all seem to be going in vain and the fact you class what I'm trying to do is edit warring even though I haven't reverted more then 3 times and the 3rd one [29] was just to restore the last revision is just proving his point. --Vauxford (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned, I am unable to devote my full attention to this dispute at this time. That's just a fact. I don't know what else to advise you both. You can re/list the RfC on WP:ANRFC. Anyway, I have deleted the subpage and left a note to him about that. I also note that edit warring —which you were engaged in— does not need to involve a violation of 3RR to be considered so. El_C 20:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How do you do a Requests for closure anyway? --Vauxford (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just follow any of the entries listed there as an example. El_C 20:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closure

Requiring uninvolved admin to close this merge discussion Talk:Holy_See#Merger_proposal.Manabimasu (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 22:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Missing thread

Sorry for my ignorance, but when a thread disappears from this page but doesn't appear in the last archived page, does that mean it's just been deleted? Or is it somewhere else? Lilipo25 (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to add the latest archive. The discussion is here. El_C 01:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. I appeal to you, because you seem to think that there is no problem to negotiate with Miki. What is the meaning of this war of edits: [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]? They've posted a comment in the clearly wrong section, and then they fight for the right to leave it there. This is in addition to the fact that they constantly call my actions "pathetic", "stupid", "provocative" and "lying".--Nicoljaus (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. From edit warring on the article, you've now both taken to edit warring on the talk page? Had I caught it earlier, I would have blocked you both. El_C 06:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So what's the point of shoving this comment in the RFC section?--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You really think you are the one who should decide where it goes? El_C 07:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, you and Miki seem to see the point. So what is it? I did not see this point and acted on the basis of my understanding of the situation. Subject "RfC", as it seemed to me, is for comments on request. But Miki crammed his comment in there, although I replied it in another topic. Now my answer hangs in the section "Big mystification?" in the air and it is not clear what this applies to. Do you enjoy this situation? Me not. So, It was "Fixing layout errors" exception, in my opinion.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All this innuendo reflects poorly on you. You should not be modifying the comment fields of other users, especially ones you are in dispute with. Please don't do that again. If there are issues, bring that to the attention of someone else. El_C 17:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I still do not understand what is the "innuendo" in this case. I did not modify the "comment field" of another editor, but transferred it entirely. But well, I realized that trying to do something useful here is not approved. Okay, so I brought it to you. And what about "pathetic", "stupid", "provocative" and "lying"? --Nicoljaus (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you enjoy this situation? What is that about? Neither one of you should be edit warring on the talk page. Repeated incivility is, of course, ill-advised and may be subject to sanctions. El_C 20:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is about a situation (that I tried to fix) in which a comment to my edit for some reason sticks out in the RFC section, and my answer is in another section ([36]).--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You should not have edit warred your "fix" on the talk page. Full stop. El_C 21:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I stopped a long time ago and turned to you. That was the question Do you enjoy this situation?.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you want from me. El_C 21:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I want the comments to be placed correctly on the talk page. I "brought it to the attention" of you, since I have no right to do something myself.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a good reason to do so at this time. El_C 21:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, why am I not surprised.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't much appreciate your tone. El_C 21:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You Know ~ this is just something I heard in the grapevine ~ All the other reindeer didn't let poor Rudolph play any reindeer games ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miki has called me "ignorant" three times in the last half hour on the Frankopan family talk page, despite my asking her repeatedly to stop the personal attacks (she says "no", she won't, because it's a "Fact" that I am ignorant). I haven't called her any names and have in fact stayed away from her for nearly a month due to her aggression and personal attacks and threats to report anyone who objects to any of it to you. She claimed to someone else in a thread I had been in last month that a consensus was reached for her edits on the page, so I stated that it was not, and she's back to attacking me. I don't know how she's somehow allowed to call multiple people 'ignorant' and 'liars' over and over while edit warring on every page she's on. In every edit war she's in, it seems to me that her comments are by far the more hostile and in violation of WP:PERSONAL Lilipo25 (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are not personal attacks, the editor continues saying the same ignorant remarks, pushing the same story over and over again. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lilipo25.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea that Miki had falsely reported me as a sockpuppet or I would have defended myself. I don't know how to prove it, but I can give you my absolute word that I have no other account on Wikipedia but this one. I have the Frankopan Family page on my Watchlist and have been interested to see someone revert Miki's edits repeatedly without even bothering to give a reason, since they must know this can only get their edits immediately reverted and them blocked. I would never be so dumb, nor would I waste the effort of creating multiple accounts. This is the only one I have, and if there is some way for me to prove it that you know of, I will be more than happy to go through that process. Lilipo25 (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that Lilipo25 is not actually socking with those accounts. El_C 23:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To me? The admin who blocked them? Interesting. Anyway, I tend to agree that their tone is problematic, although calling their edits "defamatory" is something that requires evidence on BLPN, rather than being used on an article talk page to support an argument. I suggest you both treat each other in a more collegial manner, emphasizing on substance over innuendo. El_C 22:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I honestly don't know how Miki does this. She is extremely aggressive to multiple people over and over, calling everyone "liars", "ignorant", "pathetic", etc. - all personal attacks on other editors, not criticism of edits. And yet somehow, every time she's reported, the response is just "you BOTH need to behave better". I didn't call her anything personal at all (and I HAVE provided evidence that her edits are defamatory to the subjects of the article, repeatedly). Now I find out she's falsely reporting me as a sockpuppet, trying to get me banned. And it'll probably work. Lilipo25 (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if the edits are defamatory, you need to demonstrate that at BLPN. Have you attempted that? El_C 23:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I spent over a month on that. Only two people commented; one said the page was too complicated for them to understand at all and one listed things Miki had said that were not NPOV. I then did a very, very careful edit, making sure to leave in almost every bit of information that Miki wanted in there (except one completely unsourced claim I couldn't verify) and putting it in a neutral voice, and adding another source that gave an alternate viewpoint as well, also in a neutral voice. I sourced the whole article (much of it wasn't sourced) and fixed all the grammar. Miki reverted it repeatedly and then got you to lock it on her edit. That's when I took the break from Miki.
Honestly, though, how is she allowed to constantly call multiple people obvious personal insults like "ignorant" and "pathetic", and somehow someone pointing out that her article content contains defamatory statements about living persons is treated exactly the same? Aren't we supposed to call out defamatory content in articles? Lilipo25 (talk) 23:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The versions I protect are almost always random. Anyway, can you link to that BLPN discussion? El_C 23:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I see it. I'm afraid you're going to need someone more specialized to help with that. Have you considered trying to find help on other-language Wikipedias? El_C 23:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Or better yet, try to seek assistance from members of WikiProject Croatia. El_C 16:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I jumped through hoops for months just trying to give that article WP:NPOV, one of the three major rules of editing Wikipedia, only to have Miki call me ignorant, pathetic, etc., revert it repeatedly, be permitted to do so, and get it locked on her version. Just removing the obviously slanted language or including other reliable sources which give another point of view - which requires no knowledge of Croatia - is absolutely impossible with her determined to keep it biased.
She actually posted this on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lilipo25 where she's falsely accused me of sockpuppeting last night - not only have I never, not one time, ever brought up her gender or implied anything about it, but I am a woman myself. And now she's declared me a 'misogynist' because I object to her calling me an ignorant, pathetic liar. And I'm sure she'll be allowed to do that, too (I have no idea what her "nickname" is, btw):
"as a woman, I don't like when my gender is constantly brought up by these two editors, or played with my nickname to sound as male ([13]), it is starting to feel uncomfortable as if they have something against me because of my gender. It stinks of Gender bias on Wikipedia#Causes, from misogyny" Lilipo25 (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have not cited a diff, Lilipo25. Please do so and please make it a habit to do so in the future. We are all volunteers here. Thanks. El_C 17:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you make me dig for the info myself, which displeases me (I like to be spoonfed the evidence, if one is seeking my input). I'm not sure what is up with the Mikola thing, but I also don't see what it has to do with you, either. Might I suggest just sticking to singular they in the future? Also, you did not address my suggestion that you seek assistance from WikiProject Croatia. Why is that? El_C 17:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was trying to figure out how to cite a diff but it took me a couple of minutes to get it right and you had already re-edited and I got the edit conflict. Here's the diff: [37]. As I am aware Miki is female (she says so), it seems obviously polite to refer to her as "she" and I don't know why in the world this could possibly be considered "misogyny" or "gender bias".
I thought I did address your point about going to WikiProject Croatia - removing the biased and negative tone and allowing sourced content that gives an alternate viewpoint requires no special knowledge of Croatia at all, and I have learned by now that jumping through hoops for months to get that article to adhere to stated Wikipedia policy is pointless. Miki will ignore anything anyone says and revert it completely while calling me ignorant and pathetic and being permitted to do so. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lilipo25, if you do not require specialized help, such as from WikiProject Croatia, might I suggest you give your normal dispute resolution resources a try? As for any future conduct issues, feel free to bring those possible violations to my attention or to the attention of other admins. I have already warned Miki yesterday about sticking to the issues at hand and would appreciate if all of you can move forward now. As an aside, Miki is both a male and female name where I come from. El_C 18:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said, I am done trying to fix that article as I already used dispute resolution resources and it is pointless when Miki ignores them. I came to you yesterday specifically because Miki had called me personal insults three times on a Talk page, and then I responded to your comments. Whether Miki is a male and female name where you come from seems irrelevant - Miki says she is female and so I must assume that is true. I don't appreciate being called a "misogynist" for using the correct pronoun when referring to someone, but apparently that's just fine as long as Miki is doing it. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look further into it when I get a chance, but if you would like a more immediate response, maybe take it to ANI. El_C 18:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lilipo25, /investigating. El_C 21:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Miki Filigranski blocked for one week. But I'd like you, Lilipo25, to stay away from commenting about her from now on, especially if you do not intend to engage content any longer. Thanks. El_C 21:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for investigating and taking action. I will avoid Miki in the future. Lilipo25 (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what is up with the Mikola thing --Greetings, I will try to explain the situation. I didn’t call Miki Fikigranski "Mikola". I had a long (and fruitless) discussion with an anonymous editor who signed "mikola" ([38]). Then at some point, Miki began to answer in the same tread, with accusations that I was offering some kind of nonsense [39]. I got confused in this situation and I no longer understand who accuses me (and what), so I answered both of them: Miki (or Mikola, I'm confused) - it is not my suggestion at all. ([40]) That's the story.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for clarifying, Nicoljaus. El_C 07:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Politics BLP LTA

You remember this person? Well, he's back, and he's currently operating out of this range: 104.4.65.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), which he has been abusing since February. You can reference this range if you need a refresher: 2600:1015:b100::/40. Can you please apply a similar block on that range? Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 02:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, someone blocked while I was writing this message. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 02:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pacifism in Islam

Hello and sorry about writing at your talk page and taking your time. I didnt started any edit war and I dont put my content. editor Maestro2016 is his user name I think, who made changes, on 15 of july. Can be checked in article history, didnt discussed anything at talk page, he just made content, big enough, mostly not connected even with pacifism or topic to blank previous sources what stayed there, sources what was there seems quality totally. He removed all sources what stayed there previous, so he started stuff about edits etc probably in a way of his personal views, and put cherrypicked content. I opened talk page disscusion, and wish more editors to join about to make quality content.109.93.186.50 (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, fair enough. And perhaps your (the status quo ante) version will prevail, in the end. But, for now, you need to stop edit warring (especially to the point that you violate the 3 revert rule) until the discussion about the status of that expansion is concluded. Please take advantage of your dispute resolution resources. El_C 19:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Well I was suprised, I was looking at some references for personal further reading and consulted wikipedia page and then after some days, when came again today I saw all different content, totally changed and then saw no any explanation at all about changes in the history of the article, also nothing in talk page. Thank you very much for your time. Sorry for disturbing you at talk page here. 109.93.186.50 (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, that's exactly what it's there for. As mentioned, on 2nd thought, I have reverted back to your version while the discussion takes its course. El_C 19:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Roberts Pending Changes settings....

Since the article is indef Semi Protected now, could you disable pending changes on the John Roberts page?? --IanDBeacon (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 01:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for the quick response to the LTA rampage on those three articles! :) IanDBeacon (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fer sure. And thank you, Ian, for the recognition. Much appreciated! El_C 01:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I second this barnstar. (I'd tag another one, but then it would dilute the significance of the award.) Great work! LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's very kind of you, LightandDark2000! But you're doing a lot of the heavy lifting, too, I should add. El_C 06:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UnderArmourKid sock

Hello. Can you please indef Underarmourminecraft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? It's an obvious sock of the LTA UnderArmourKid, given the behavior and the username pattern. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 05:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 05:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template page beset by vandalism

Can you please Semi-Protect Template:Redirect category shell/doc indefinitely? It has been vandalized over and over again by a bunch of anon vandals, and it's not going away. I also don't see any reason why new or unregistered users need to edit that page at all. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 15:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Classful network page revert query

Hello El_C, I was wondering why you chose to revert the edit made by user 5.186.75.53. The column headings indicate that values should reflect start and end addresses. In its current form, the start and end addresses for class A, B and C reflect the last usable network. From what I can see, user 5.186.75.53 rightfully corrected this. What do you think? nasvks (talk) 11:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't immediately recall. Nothing's coming to mind, sorry. Maybe a misclick? El_C 15:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for reverting the change and for the warm welcome. Happy editing! nasvks (talk) 10:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Croatia

Why is this article locked onto Bosniak nationalistic version? --Čeha (razgovor) 18:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The version that gets protected is, ultimately, random. El_C 18:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Irony shoudln't be part of serious conversation. Please do read talk page of the article, that should be enough to protect the other version. --Čeha (razgovor) 14:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly. Your participation there appears minimal at best. I suggest you employ dispute resolution rather than try to have your version restored by fiat. El_C 16:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are non-admins allow to do this edit:

Hello @El C:,

I noticed that you are a big member of RPP. I noticed that an editor who is not an administrator added a lock to an article with little to no vandalism. Here is the edit: [41] Is that allowed?

Thank you AmericanAir88(talk) 21:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that edit is fine — they're just adding a protection template to a protected article, which is helpful (looks like the protecting admin just forgot to add it). El_C 22:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protection of UK MoJ and MoD articles

For my own information, can you explain the rationale for semi-protecting these articles (Ministry of Justice (United Kingdom) and Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom))? I can see that they were vandalised, but they're not very frequently edited anyway, and I'm not sure they'd come under BLP. It doesn't affect me, but I just wanted to understand the logic. Farleysmaster (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That sock seem to methodically returns to any articles that are not protected. I tried protecting a few tens of them for a week, and a week later, they returned to BLP-vandalize every single one of them. That said, my intent has been to unprotect a select few early as a test, but I didn't want to spill the beans about it. El_C 17:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you (and a question)

Hi, I just wanted to say thank you for closing the ANI thread without throwing the blockhammer at me (I know it may still be incoming but I hope not). I promise not to make any further NACs in the near future and I won't mark users as banned until I get clarification about a particular question (which I also asked on Abecedare's page), namely, are non-admins allowed to tag users who are banned by the community? I have done that many times before with no one saying anything (in fact, I updated most of the users in the banned user categories with links to their ban discussions), so it came as quite a shock to me that my edit was reverted by Bbb23 and I was quite upset. That's why I brought it to WP:ANI in the first place, which I suppose was inappropriate (but it was better than my initial reaction which was to start acting uncivil) -- Rockstonetalk to me! 22:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I just think that ANI reports (and IBAN propositions) are intended for far more protracted disputes. El_C 22:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In retrospect, I agree 100%. But like I said, I really took his statements personally and it was the best thing I could think of. I really shouldn't have posted it on ANI, but at least I just got hit by a trout instead of something more serious. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 22:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion on talk page

Hi El C. Excuse me for not being logged in, but I am currently blocked. Why did you revert my request to be unblocked? [42]. Regards, Freelion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.217.166.234 (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Just some unsolicited, but intended to be friendly advice. If you read the message left by EL C here you should understand. Your user talk page access for the Freelion account has been revoked by an administrator; so, anytime you log in using an IP to edit that page (or any other page for that matter) it's going to be considered WP:EVADE. The more you use IPs to edit, the harder it's going to be for you to get your main account unblocked. What you need to do now is file an unblock request using WP:UTRS. Please don't respond to this post here because that will only be considered more WP:EVADE behavior. Just go to the UTRS page and follow the instructions there; before you do so though, you might want to read WP:INDEF because being indefinitely blocked doesn't have to mean forever, but if you keep logging using IPs it will make most adminstrators less likely to want to unblock you, at least not any time soon. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Marchjuly, for providing Freelion with a thorough explanation. El_C 05:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fun fact about IPv6!

Just block the /64. With a very few exceptions an IPv6 /64 is roughly equivalent to an IPv4 single IP address. Blocking a single IPv6 is roughly equivalent to protecting the page for 5 minutes :) As an example, see our friend here TonyBallioni (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no guideline for me to follow that I can see and I don't really understand any of that. I would probably just semi the page for a day if they returned. El_C 06:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mean there's mw:Help:Range blocks/IPv6, but it's far too technical for me to make sense of. El_C 06:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, yeah, it's not great. So, here's the quick guide to deal with IPv6 disruption:
  1. Click on the individual IP address to bring up the contributions
  2. Type /64 on the end of the IP in the contributions box to bring up all the contributions for the range. You can generally assume this is one person/one physical location.
  3. Click block and treat it like you would one individual IP address.
Maybe I should make it a userspace essay? I try to pass on the info whenever I can because not many admins seem to know about it. Anyway, as always, you're free to ignore my ramblings :) TonyBallioni (talk) 06:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tony, that's really helpful! I was unaware of any of that. This is common knowledge that I'm the only one that didn't know about, I presume. El_C 06:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[B]ecause not many admins seem to know about it — okay, that's a relief. I always get the sense that everyone understands these technical matters but me! Yes, an essay on the user —or better yet, project— space is a good idea. El_C 06:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, AIV admins/others block individual IPv6 addresses all the time without realizing that the three day block they just made might not make much difference in 20 minutes. You are far from the only one Anyway, User:TonyBallioni/Just block the /64 exists now. You inspired me! TonyBallioni (talk) 06:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Inspiration — the silver lining to my ineptitude! Nice, good step-by-step essay. You should definitely link it in project space guides to admins. El_C 07:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni: Maybe I should make it a userspace essay? Why not? I'm not an admin but remember explaining CIDR and subnets at the village pump a few times. El_C: thanks for your excellent work, I've noticed you're very active in the portion of WP I patrol. —PaleoNeonate – 07:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, PaleoNeonate! That means a lot. I have a hilarious watchlist of +75,000 articles, so I am like the all seeing eye — practically everywhere. El_C 07:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I try to keep mine below 7k. I like the reference to the all seeing eye and have one on my user page (but not about me, more about how public pages and history help to make WP processes transparent). —PaleoNeonate – 07:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Edit warring#User:Libhye reported by User:Jayjg (Result: ). Thank you. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray? El_C 20:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A cheeseburger for you!

For knowing how to cut mustard properly ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hooray! El_C 21:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Just a quick one, thanks for your quick action on Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case and blocking the vandal - - RichT|C|E-Mail 22:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fer sure. I left them a link to WP:911 in case they are, in fact, in acute distress. El_C 22:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Here, let's not bother together. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A beer to go with my cheeseburger. Satiated and quenched. I'm stoked! El_C 02:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's back. General Ization Talk 02:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They usually return about half a dozen times per interval. El_C 03:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Their contribution, in its several variations, includes some rather unique and otherwise nonsensical sequences of words. (I could mention one in particular but beans.) Can we create a filter? General Ization Talk 03:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please. I'm not sure how we go about doing that, but it's definitely worth a try. El_C 03:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Requested. General Ization Talk 03:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! El_C 03:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reconsidered the name of the proposed filter. 03:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I am told this has been added to edit filter #871. General Ization Talk 04:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done. Hopefully, it will have the desired effect. El_C 04:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Felicity Huffman

El C ~ did you say peasant or present ~ you know I am from France and Bastille day is all about liberating the peasants ~ I can't tell if it was a typo or not ~mitch~ (talk) 06:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, a peasant she is most certainly not! El_C 07:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i LOVE YOU ~mitch~ (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC) ~mitch~ (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whole Lotta Love, my friend! El_C 07:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently there is a lot of cheating that goes on after admission too. I just had dinner with an old friend who's now a full professor of ethics at a respected university. He was livid about being repeatedly pressured to give students better grades because they were connected to important people. Too many university administrators worship the almighty dollar. Jehochman Talk 17:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If I could play devil's advocate — sometimes, the "donation" is sizable enough that letting in just one incompetent overprivileged student, can pay for many underprivileged merit-based ones. Not that educational institutions necessarily expend resources in a manner that follows this set of priorities. That having been said, I definitely don't want a medical school student, for example, being given a higher grade than they deserve in an ethics class due to their privilege. Would we rather have one bad doctor for the price of sponsoring ten good ones? I'd say no. El_C 18:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You know ~ El C ~ I would have to agree with you ~I gave a dollar donation when they were building this center here for the university of Texas ~ and last year I cut my finger and had to have a couple of stitch's ~ they were so friendly ~ Just think about all those neurosurgeons that would have not received a diploma ~ if I didn't give that dollar ~ it makes me feel warm and fuzzy all over ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Educational investments usually pays dividends, I think that is generally true. As for distortions brought by wealth and status, always taking a position that's based on either utility or merit is a mistake, I think. Pragmatically, resolution to the many nuanced ways that teleology-deontology conflict manifest itself, then, should vary according to the concrete circumstances in each particular case. El_C 19:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Cumia

I see you removed 2 different edits, just an FYI I think you missed one [43] - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 20:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 20:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for protecting the Cline article. I ask that you maintain it in this state, prior to its destructive reversion—that is, not allow removal of hours of careful scholarly source work.

The real issue is as stated in my last edit summary—I did hours of constructive edits, teasing out all the unsourced material in the article, only to have it all carte blanche reverted. This speaks to me of editor bias againsr an IP editor—despite the work being of high quality. And, the massive reversion—besides removing all new material and new sourcing—interrupted the ongoing process ("in use" tag was up) in which I was adding citations and removing tags. So, why was I stopped from editing, when the work was good? When I created a talk page entry, to which the reverting editor did not respond? When I created long edit summaries for each edit, and the intervening editor removed all changes, with no reply to any Talk or edit summary content? Cheers, will look for a reply here. 24.1.0.28 (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. But the version I protected was just randomly the one I encountered once I noticed the edit war having erupted. Anyway, look, I realize the frustration of being reverted while an article talk page note of yours remains absent any reply. But edit warring (also on a user talk page) was not the answer and constitutes overly aggressive conduct. I suggest that time is taken throughout the protection to address relevant concerns in a collegial and substantive manner on the article talk page. If no one follows up your talk page notice, we'll just take it to indicate your addition is no longer being objected to. Good luck! El_C 21:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the serendipity of your timing affirms, accidentally, what "heaven" (read "karma" if you wish) knows to be true—that the incoming editor that reverted my work should have [1] taken the time to check and respond at the talk page, [2] reviewed all the copious and careful edit summaries I wrote in my half day on this beach, in particular the last ones, which were adding sources and removing tags), and [3] thoughtfully and selectively edited the article as it stood, instead of disrespectfully turning back the clock. If you address him, please—rather than doing a diff—open the article before I started editing, and then open the article as it stands now. Ignore the tags to start, just scroll down to the sources. That should be enough to tell you what sort of academic and editor I am. And you could add a point [0], that he could have waited until the "in use" flag was taken down, at which point some further of the tags might have been removed.
Because I fear that is the whole issue—an IP editor making the sacrosanct appearance of an article look worse... which, as you can tell, is not of a concern to me. My concern is for encyclopedic "cancer"—things that appear fine, but nevertheless bear some deep underlying problem—and I could not, as they say, give a toss for the complexion of the individual (article) involved. So again, thank you, even if you received a help from "heaven". Cheers 24.1.0.28 (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, IP. Perhaps! There Are More Things. El_C 22:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And for the record, I love Borges. And García Márquez. Et al. [He lifts a glass, remembering.] 24.1.0.28 (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Postscript, for some reason the Talk section that I created at Ben Cline did not autosign. Is there a way that you can look "under the hood" and add a date stamp or comment to my original Talk post, so it does not appear that I am trying to "pull a fast one", by pre-dating something I only wrote after? The editing record must be able to indicate when it first appeared, and who it was that posted it. Cheers again, thanks. 24.1.0.28 (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. El_C 22:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks mate. Last clarification—do not both parties in a edit war receive posts to their Talk pages? I just found the ones to the IP Talk pages (apologies for not seeing earlier, but then less serendipity might have been involved). Does not the initial undiscussed reversion, and the the beginning to revert my reversion, not constitute a part of the war? I am not asking that this be done now, just curious as to how the system sometimes can come down on one side (even the wrong side) of a disagreement... At your convenience, cheers. 24.1.0.28 (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, happy to help. In answer to your question, it really varies according to the particular circumstances in each case. But I agree, though, that it was a bit odd to tell you to go to the article talk page after you had already done so. El_C 23:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
I appreciate your actions as an administrator and this barnstar is the least i can do to thank you for all the though job you do to maintain the quality of this encyclopedia. To make it short : THANKS ! Take care. ---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Wikaviani! Your recognition really means a great deal to me. El_C 23:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced content

I would like to point out, in the most friendly tone, that I cannot agree with the removal of sourced content that you have done on the article National Union (Portugal). You have removed paragraphs that 1) are sourced in reliable sources, 2) Have not been disputed in any talk page, 3) That are similar to paragraphs that can be found today in the António de Oliveira Salazar article.

When removing a section of an article, it is necessary that it at least be explained, and in some cases, discussed. In this case it seems that you have make a blanket content removal in good faith taking into consideration the discussion that is taking place on [[Fascism in Europe] on if the Estado Novo was or was not Fascist. However in doing so you have removed content that is sourced, factual and that has not been formally disputed and that does not take take a stand on the open RfC.

An example of what you have removed.

  • Unlike Mussolini or Hitler, Salazar never had the intention to create a party-state. Salazar was against the whole-party concept and when in 1930 he created the National Union as a non-party. The National Union was set up to control and restrain public opinion rather than to mobilize it, the goal was to strengthen and preserve traditional values rather than to induce a new social order. Ministers, diplomats and civil servants were never compelled to join the National Union.(Gallagher, 1990, p=167)

If you want to remove this paragraph you should explain why are you doing it. The discussion that is going on in the article Fascism in Europe is not a valid reason. It does not apply. Gallagher is a reputed scholar. I don't know of any other scholar that says that Gallagher's statement is not accurate. Do you? If you know of another source that says the opposite or something different we must add that source, but removing content does not seem to be in line with Wikipedia policies & guidelines.

I kindly ask you to reinstate the content you have removed, and let us see if someone wants to dispute such content. Again. Today most of that content is in Salazar's article already and has been there for years without being disputed. Thank you for your cooperation. --J Pratas (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the matter. I merely restored the status quo ante to prevent further edit warring. Your problem is is that you think it's okay to duplicate the same argument across multiple articles rather than have one, single centralized discussion, which I suggested was Fascism in Europe (whose RfC sided with your position, but was then overturned by the closer). By all means, feel free to restore any version you see fit, but if there's further edit warring after that (and you and others end up reverting back and fourth aimlessly again), I'll be blocking all participants involved, without exception. El_C 16:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC
Also, regarding your revert on Fascism in Europe: the RfC's closer had restored the IP's edit. Why have you not contacted them with the same request? El_C 16:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1) I will then be restoring the sourced content. If someone decides to remove it, then according to Wikipedia's guidelines should explain why and use the talk page. Something that has not happened so far.
2) On the question why I did not make the same request on the article Fascism in Europe, the answer is simple. That content is still being disputed and I, like everybody else, must wait for the closing.
Thank you for your cooperation on this discussion. Best J Pratas (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Negative, duplicating the same argument about the same issue across multiple articles is a problem. I note that the disputed content was added by you on April 6, 2019, and that it has since been disputed on multiple occasions. Fascism in Europe ought to remain the central venue for discussion. El_C 17:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern and agree with the point, but I am not duplicating any arguments. The content that I have reinstated is facts that have not been disputed. Some people read those facts and say: yes it was fascist, while some other read the facts and say, no it was not. The content does not take a stand.
The problem with the dispute that has now been reopened is that there tons of international scholars saying NO and there are a few Portuguese left-wing scholars saying YES. Off course the Portuguese left wing scholars don't like Salazar and want to label him as fascist because today the label is negative. I am very happy with having both views included in the article, in light of Wikpedia's NPOV policy. But some editors want that one of the POV prevails and that is not right. This is where you, could step in and say that we are all supposed to follow the policy.J Pratas (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, sure. If that is, indeed, the modern historiographical consensus, then it ought to be represented accordingly. The problem is that I'm not in the position to parse this content dispute at this time to conclusively infer that. So I'm not sure stepping in in such a manner would be appropriate for me. El_C 21:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Profanity-spouting School IP

Hello. Can you please block the range 216.49.96.0/19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) for about a year? Every single edit since April 2018 has been some kind of vandalism or personal attack, as far as I can see. It doesn't look like they're going to stop. This looks like a school range, but it could also be an LTA, given the behavior. They just came back today. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 02:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 02:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism spree

Hey, just so you are aware: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrkoww. Not sure if there is anything you can do to stem the bleeding at the moment, but it seems that all of this vandalism is connected.Garuda28 (talk) 04:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Thanks. No, I was not aware. Page semiprotected, at any case. El_C 04:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. I'm aware of the...contentious nature of the topic, but in any case that calls for discussion and difference to the sources, not vandalism. I appreciate your quick response.Garuda28 (talk) 04:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime. Let me know if there's anything else I could do to help. El_C 04:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: I think I am going to hold off having an in-depth discussion on the talk page until the sock puppet investigation is complete. Another IP (first time use from the same range as the others) just popped up, and even though talk pages are not vote pages, I believe this is an attempt to stuff the proverbial ballet box. Do you know if there are any ways to expedite the investigation?Garuda28 (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't know of a way to do so, but I left a note about canvassing (there's seems to be something on social media regarding this dispute) on the article talk page. El_C 17:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding security forces

The user garuda28 is providing fake and misleading information sourcing an opinion and non peer reviewed paper submitted to the air force academy. Military doctrine and mtoe prove there is no u.s airforce infantry and the only 2 infantry are army and marines. This is why people dont trust wikipedia because people continually provide false information and then when real edits are done they are called trolls. Do some research and see there is no such thing in the military as air force infantry. Mrkoww (talk) 04:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but all I'm seeing right now is someone replacing sourced content with unsourced. El_C 04:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please note Air force infantry and special forces#Vietnam. El_C 04:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do you want me to prove they are not infantry if they aren't infantry? That's like telling me to find a source that Donald Trump is not a astronaut. Wven this major general from the airforce advises it and the official usaf site says nothing close to infantry nor do any of the duties match

https://www.chuckhawks.com/airmen_not_infantry.htm Mrkoww (talk) 05:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No talk of air force infantry in new standards https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/02/14/retired-general-train-pay-army-and-marine-infantry-elite-force.html/amp Mrkoww (talk) 05:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The official us airforce security force manual doesnt mention infantry or infantry duties

AF.mil › e-publishing › static › ...PDF Web results department of the air force - AF.mil Mrkoww (talk) 05:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop drowning my user talk page with links and text and duplication of both. This all belong on the article talk page, anyway. And, at the event, that does not respond to Air force infantry and special forces#Vietnam. I'm surprised to be needing to link it a second time, considering how brief my reply was! El_C 05:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Last source doesnt mention infantry or duties

WORK PROCESS Air Force Enlisted Job Descriptions & Qualifications 3P0X1 - SECURITY FORCES (Police Officer) O*NET/SOC CODE: 3-3051.01 RAIS CODE: 0437 Specialty Summary Leads, manages, supervises, and performs security force (SF) activities, including installation, weapon system, and resource security; antiterrorism; law enforcement and investigations; military working dog function; air base defense; armament and equipment; training; pass and registration; information security; and combat arms. Related DoD Source af official job description Mrkoww (talk) 05:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your vietnam section provides no real data as stated none of that would be usuable in college paper. You are the moderator who locked it so I am talking to you. Mrkoww (talk) 05:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you are adding this information here, where few editors can see it, rather than where it belongs: on the article talk page. I locked the pages due to edit warring, socking, and the adding of unsourced material. Now is the time to discuss any concerns you have with the article, again, on the article talk page. Please make sure to cite your sources. El_C 05:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just a final note: I have no idea about US military nomenclature regarding this, but I'm sure that's something that can be sorted. Please make sure to take advantage of your dispute resolution resources, if need be. El_C 05:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion

Hello, I've been waiting nearly a week on Third Opinion participation for Talk:Great_Famine_of_1876–1878#undue]. If there is anything you can do to expedite this, I would greatly appreciate it.GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know of a way to do so. But you might consider bringing the dispute to the attention of the Noticeboard for India-related topics. El_C 17:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continued removal of cleanup tags at Antifa (United States)

We have two editors who are repeatedly removing cleanup tags applied to the lead, despite myself and other editors raising concerns about its neutrality. I am not going to get into another back-and-forth with these editors, and I wanted to seek your guidance on how this might best be handled. It's my understanding that, when multiple editors raise a concern and there is not yet consensus on how to resolve it, it's appropriate to apply a tag identifying the issue. If I'm incorrect on this, please let me know. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not comfortable talking hypothetically. For example, if there is clear consensus against adding the tag, then tagging becomes a problem, no? El_C 17:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
History of that tag:
  • Added by Wikieditor19920[44] Removed by Objective3000.[45]
  • Added by Wikieditor19920[46]. Removed by Simonm223[47]
  • Added by Wikieditor19920[48]. Removed by Dumzid[49]
Also, you recently warned the editor over edit warring. O3000 (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I waited several days and offered a detailed explanation on the talk page before applying the tag earlier. The discussion involves a limited group of four editors. Two editors on each side have raised concerns about NPOV; two editors believe there is no NPOV issue and have repeatedly removed the tag. The point of a tag is to draw other editors' attention to an issue and expand the discussion to involve more input. There is no criterion under WP:WTRMT that permits a tag to be removed just because an editor doesn't believe there is an issue, particularly when there is an active and divided discussion on it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Three different users removed the tag, but you continue to add it? Really? I am trying to think of a reason not to block you right now for continuing to edit war. You need to do better. El_C 18:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United States Air Force Security Forces

Thanks
~ Thanks ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fer sure. And thank you for getting involved. Much appreciated. El_C 21:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yea no problem El C it was fun ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

petty perhaps but

just for the record removing this looks harsh when, as I found out by accident, that the conversation on my page had veered off to SJ's page, and I was being challenged repeatedly by him as 'anti-Semitic', without any notification for an hour or so, and I tried (a) to ask all drop it (b) clemency for SJ and (c) just a personal anecdote, needed since the logical status of my argument appears to have lost him completely, resulting in confusion. It's done, so it stands in omission, but was in good faith, had nothing to do with ARBPIA, and intended as a peaceful gesture. Anyway, in the end, no one reads anything closely, so I guess this niggling doesn't matter either. Regards Nishidani (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, noted for the record. I'm sorry this looks harsh, and I didn't say it was not intended in good faith, but I think you're missing the point. I had already asked participants to please leave his talk page alone. He cannot respond at all due to him being currently blocked. El_C 23:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian politics

To the best of my knowledge, you are one of the few other admins to have looked into the recent conflicts related to Iranian politics. Given how frequently this seems to crop up at AN/ANI, and given that discussions about sanctions tend to be swamped by the protagonists, I've come to the conclusion that the topic needs discretionary sanctions, authorized either by the community or by ARBCOM; given how busy ARBCOM is at the moment, I'm inclined to ask for community authorization. I'd appreciate your thoughts before I act on this inclination. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Vanamonde93. In fact, it got so bad on People's Mujahedin of Iran that I was able to convince the participants to voluntarily agree to (mandatory) GS for the article, indefinitely. And I think having done so has made a real positive difference. Like you, I also get the impression that there are other Iranian politics pages that could benefit from DS being applied to them. I support your proposal wholeheartedly, be it via an ARCA or as an appeal to the community. El_C 05:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the threat. And thanks for giving me all the documentation I need to post up on Conservapedia to prove what Wikipedia's moderators are all about. I can play for one side or the other, and this is what happens when people tick me off. This whole speal has been documented for liberal manipulation of Wikipeda policy to suit the liberal agenda, and will now be posted on conservapeda as a prime example. 24.155.244.245 (talk) 07:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:El_C&oldid=908072496"