User talk:El C: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:07, 8 November 2019

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 13 14

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]

4 Tality Fractal

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

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

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]

Blizzard Entertainment

Hey, El_C. I know you posted a warning on MattNor91's talk page yesterday about disruptive POV editing. I wanted to bring it to your attention that they made two more edits today on Blizzard Entertainment, referring to the Hong Kong protests as "rioting and looting in Hong Kong" and changing the section header to "[...] Hong Kong riots". At this point, knowing that they've already been warned not to do exactly this by an administrator less than 24 hours ago (and that, frankly, it should be reasonably evident that this behavior is inappropriate even without the warning), I think this constitutes deliberate disruptive editing. Based on prior contributions, they legitimately seem to be WP:HERE, but I believe it's hard not to question good faith in this instance. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS: That chipmunk in the flower burrow made my heart melt. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is a problem. Escalated to a final warning. If they do this again, they risk an imminent block. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Please keep me updated. El_C 00:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You know, I think I invented a new art form: decorating chipmunk burrows with flowers! El_C 00:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria

Hi El C. I see you moved the 2019 Rojava offensive to 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria. Could you also rename Order of battle for 2019 Rojava offensive? --Khutuck (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 15:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why ethno-linguistic dispute?

Kurdish language is a redirect to Kurdish languages (plural) and Northern Kurdish is a redirect to Kurmanji. 73.218.137.229 (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what you changed. El_C 17:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the redirect Kurdish language in this edit.[2] and in this edit I have removed the redirect Northern Kurdish [3]. 73.218.137.229 (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is not Ezdîkî-related — my mistake. But I still think your changes were not an improvement, because the original gives the reader more information. But I have no strong objections, either. In the other article, though, you removed the native name template — what's the reason behind that? El_C 17:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well we can add the Kurmanji template because both Books are written in Kurmanji. 73.218.137.229 (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't my question. I asked why you removed the native name template and the native Kurmanji text. Also, you did not remove a redirect here — that was linked to the original article. El_C 17:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because the native name is Kurmanji. To call the native name Kurdish is not exactly because the page is called Kurdish languageS (plural). The reader should know which language it is. 73.218.137.229 (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are failing to answer the question. Why native text was removed ({{lang-ku|مسحە‌فا ڕه‌ش}}). Also, Kurmanji is not a language, it is a dialect. El_C 17:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because the native name is not in Kurdish but in Kurmanji. That was a mistake. But there should be the Kurmanji template for the native name. And calling Kurmanji a dialect is your POV. There are sources who describe Kurmanji as a language:[4] by the Center for Languages of the Central Asian Region (CeLCAR). 73.218.137.229 (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Kurmanji reads in its opening sentence that it is is the northern dialect of the Kurdish languages. El_C 17:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because some Kurdish nationalists enforce their will in Wikipedia. But if one observes the neutral point of view and observes the sources then one sees that it is controversial whether it is a dialect or a language. 73.218.137.229 (talk) 18:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the current consensus falls short, you are more than free to advance that argument on the article talk page and make use of any of Wikipedia's dispute resolution resources toward that end. But I would advise a less confrontational approach. El_C 18:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should read the sources behind the word dialect in Kurmanji instead of blindly believing the sentence. 73.218.137.229 (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to not involve myself in that particular dispute. El_C 18:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New evasion

Of [5]. Perhaps the articles need to be locked again. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 05:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please Respectful Attention

i'm not Sock puppetry IP Address because my wikipedia account was hacked by Vandalism people or Hacker disguised as Administrator. And i made and i revised the article of Angel Tee based really fact sources with Indonesian Websites not fake source and Please you don't Redirected page of Angel Tee because she has still alive on entertaining her carrer, except she has really stop entertaining

Thank You 111.94.14.156 (talk) 13:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angel Tee can be contested at Deletion review. It cannot be undone by fiat. El_C 13:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Icewhiz

Hi

His talk and user pages should be changed. To add that he is banned now. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Not my cross to bear, though. El_C 15:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He have not the right to cancel the closure. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess they really wanted to get across that asking you to be blocked was sarcasm—which does not translates well over text. El_C 15:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He continued. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is not acceptable. El_C 15:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

he made a raid in my talk page. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a "raid" — they are required to inform you that ANI report has been filed which concerns you. El_C 15:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He have not the right to restaure a deleted message. So the revert is a raid. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. You are correct, that was inappropriate. El_C 15:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Participate in RfD discussion

Hi El C, I recently listed a bunch of redirects for discussion. They are in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 11 (Thạch Phúc) and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 12 (Ninh Thuận, Bạc Liêu). The reason I request for deletion is because they were mistakenly created in the first place (even no sources cited, which is not acceptable and should have been deleted at that moment). For more details you can look at that discussion. Thanks a lot and have a good day. Cn5900 (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I suppose I just don't see the harm of having these redirects, just in case they are of use to someone. We have no shortage of space on Wikipedia! Best, El_C 16:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C:, I'm not saying it is harm. But it is just very unnecessary to have them there. But anyway, thanks for your opinion. Cn5900 (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. Thanks for dropping by. El_C 16:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Sweeney (journalist) revdel request

Hi El C, will you please revdel the edits made by 2A00:23C5:4C82:A200:D073:E047:272F:E76A? S0091 (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 16:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the swift action. :) S0091 (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

/bows. El_C 16:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Onus and page consensus

Hello El_C, I was thinking if it was a good or bad idea to edit the Los Angeles article again or wait until there is a consensus and is the Onus on my part. 101.176.22.6 (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The best course of action would be to explain your proposed changes on the article talk page and see what other editors have to say. Right now, you will be violating 3RR if you revert again, which almost certainly is going to result in you being blocked from editing. El_C 23:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As for the unsourced item? 101.176.22.6 (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can add a {{cn}} to it — that wouldn't be a revert. El_C 00:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha 101.176.22.6 (talk) 03:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry.

I am so sorry. Yesterday was a bad day. I was frustrated. Panam did that thing in a RfC and that made me feel bad. I am very sorry for what I said. Please continue your work in MEK article.-SharabSalam (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I appreciate the apologies. El_C 15:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please, hang in there

I just want to say I condemn the statements made here about you. The user is actually not even Iranian based on what I see in his infobox. --Kazemita1 (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kazemita1. I appreciate your support. El_C 15:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administration Advice

Hello User:El C; can this page Egyptians be at least protected from IP disruptive edits. Whether it's a Sockpuppet (or may be not), they put things at totally false categories and manage to corrupt the page. Thank You Treannmust (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Regardless of anything. A human note, you are a top top human being and truly kind dealing with all the stress here. Much love Treannmust (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Thanks for the kind words, they are much appreciated! Sorry, I'm not sure protection is necessary yet, especially since there seems to be an IP contributing positively right this moment. But I configured pending changes, so hopefully that will be enough. If it isn't, please feel free to let me (or the good folks at RfPP) know. El_C 01:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's definitely much wiser! Thanks a lot Sir. Treannmust (talk) 03:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Hello friend. Thank you for your advice previously on what's appropriate and what's not to ask here. I would like your opinion and advice please. May you please check my edits and see if they're problematic? I am being followed by a user called sharabsalam and being reverted constantly because he thinks my edits are problematic but I feel I am being reverted simply because he dosent like the edits. Please let me know if my edits are wrong. I feel I am being targeted because I'm adding information on AQAP in wikipedia even though they are sourced information. I have read some of Wikipedia's rules on neutrality and I honestly think I am adhering to them.

I joined this free editing source to add information because I found a lot of gaps in AQAP related incidents and information during my research, however I am feeling harassed and targeted. My talk page is littered by this user's attempt to question my edits and my opinion on talk page was attacked by the same editor. He has openly told me what I should or shouldn't edit.. last time I checked the internet is free! Please, take a look at my edits and tell me if there's something wrong with them. I am finding it peculiar he's the only person who's finding my edits faulty, and keeps on changing the reason on why they're wrong (first it's the wrong article, then it's wrong information, then finally it's a non-neutral source!) ... I would really appreciate your advice as I don't know what to do. I feel like abandoning wikipedia entirely and adding information here because I'm facing such negative experience so far. I think you're a reliable person to ask for advice, so please let me know if my edits are really problematic, and if so how to improve them, or if I should simply just quit. Thank you! Graull (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Graull. Happy to advise. Let's start with you definitely not quitting. As to whether your edits are problematic, I have no immediate idea. But, being involved in a dispute, indeed, can be stressful. Wikipedia has several dispute resolution resources that could aid you. For example, is The National a reliable source for the purposes for which you attribute it? — that, for example, is a query you may opt to make at the Reliable sources noticeboard. A guiding principle behind these dispute resolution resources, in general, is obtaining outside input. This way, editors who are knowledgeable with the subject under dispute can help steer the consensus onward toward verifiable and neutral direction. This isn't to say that resolving the dispute is likely to be easy or immediate (few worthwhile things are), but that there is a way forward. So I wholeheartedly recommend you adopt this approach, also pivotally, by focusing on the edits rather than the editor. Hope this helps and please let me know if there's anything further I can do. Best regards, El_C 20:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your candid and polite response! I wish more users were like you here. I will follow your advice and post in the reliable sources noticeboard and see what people think there. Please, if you see a problem with my edits please don't hesitate and let me know. I would rather advice and instructions came from you instead of other users who are not very mannered. I don't want to feel targeted by other users because of my edits and I would much rather be told in a polite way if there's something wrong with my edits and shown the proper way on how to not make them happen again instead of being ostensibly attacked for a wrong edit and left feeling targeted. Again, thank you for your time to response to my question. I truly appreciate it!! Graull (talk) 09:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Module MLB standings

Regarding this edit which raised the protection level of Module:MLB standings to template-editor: as the creator and primary editor who has added new functionality to the module, I am no longer able to edit this module. I appreciate the motivation for this level of protection, but was wondering if it would be feasible for the module to remain at a lower level of protection. Unfortunately, I am unlikely to meet the criteria for obtaining the template-editor user right any time soon. Thanks for your consideration. isaacl (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The request to bring the module to that protection level was made at RfPP. So, if you're gonna create a module that has this many transclusions, be prepared that someone will bring it there and ask for for it to be TP protected. I don't mind reducing it to EC, this time, but it may be of benefit for you to apply (and/or work toward meeting the criteria thereof) for that userright. So, all that having been said,

Done. Happy editing. El_C 23:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. The module was created before the existence of template editor protection. At this point in time, I don't see myself making edit requests on other template-protected templates, but if things change in future, I will bear in mind the option to request template editor permissions. isaacl (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that The request to bring the module to that protection level was made at RfPP, while technically true, is misleading. I requested that module be template-protected in April not because of its transclusion count, but because it was implementing Template:MLB standings, which was template-protected by Primefac (acting spontaneously) in 2018. Your reduction of the protection level of the module has created the impermissible state of a module having a lower protection level than a template it implements, which will need to be remedied by lowering the template to semi-protection or re-raising the module to template protection. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: thanks for explanation, but this was

Already done (see below). El_C 23:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Below there was a change in protection from extended-confirmed to semi. That doesn't address my core concern that Module:MLB standings has a lower protection level that Template:MLB standings, which renders the template protection on the former effectively meaningless. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: sorry, I don't think I understand the technical facets of this. El_C 23:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I request you either reduce the level of protection of this template to semi-protection or raise it to full protection. ECP is not an appropriate choice as it doesn't meet the required criteria listed at WP:ECP. Buffs (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isaacl, after having reviewed the documentation, I realize that per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Extended_confirmed_protection_policy_2#High-risk_templates, I'm actually precluded from EC protection in this instance. I thought of just restoring the TP protection, but with only 3,000 transclusions, I suppose going back to Semi is safe enough (although my immediate instinct was to TP protect it again, I still want you to be able to edit it, so let's just risk it). El_C 22:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! I saw that discussion, but also saw that there were numerous templates with extended confirmed protection with various reasons given, as well as a number of modules. I understand that in future, the protection level may be raised again. I appreciate your consideration in granting a reprieve in protection levels for now. isaacl (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Risk (game) Hi El C! ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As long as I get to start with Australia. El_C 00:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

sounds good to me ~ France~ but wait I have to have an Apéritif ~ Pernod Ricard~ you go first ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, Europe is too difficult to defend — North America is where it's at! El_C 01:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LOL ~ ~mitch~ (talk)

also...

Same applies for Template:Russia Time Zone Wikidata/getQID‎. Buffs (talk) 16:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template protected indefinitely. El_C 16:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU!!! Buffs (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3RR name

I hate that rule's name too. In law and baseball it's the three-strikes rule (three strikes, you're out) Idk if it's too late to change it, lest people assume they get four reverts. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe rename it to +3RR? El_C 01:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is a really good solution. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 01:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Completely forgot I suggested renaming this once. Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2012/November#Should have called it the four-revert rule. RfC time? Mark Schierbecker (talk) 01:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I always found the name to be awkward (four reverts needed to violate the three revert rule?). And I see so many AN3 reports that list three reverts as if they are a 3RR violation. These reports really do comprise a significant number of all reports filed there. El_C 01:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

edit link

Greetings... To repeat, the specific phrase "valid argument" is NOWHERE LINKED IN THE ARTICLE. So the argument of "repeat linking" DOES NOT REALLY APPLY HERE. No warrant to undo...cuz of "I don't like". I agree that (true) repeat linking should not be done, but that's not actually clearly the case here. Specific phrasing is not at all wiki-linked in the article, and arguably should be. Regards. 71.190.0.199 (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat also: the link is repeated in the article three times, which is too much. El_C 18:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

show me, sir, where in the article the specific phrase "valid argument" is anywhere linked in the article? I searched, and I couldn't find it.

Maybe I missed it somewhere. Yes, the article "Validity (logic)" is linked elsewhere but not from the phrase "valid argument", and arguably it should be.

One reason being that when you type the phrase "valid argument" in the Wikipedia search field, it yields "Validity (logic)" as the article. So why shouldn't the Logic article that has the phrasing "valid argument" a couple of times link the phrase "valid argument" to that article? 71.190.0.199 (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why "valid argument" should necessarily be piped by a link that already exists in the article. El_C 18:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I told you why, sir... Let me repeat. When you type the words "valid argument" (try it yourself to see), in the SEARCH FIELD of Wikipedia...it gives the article of "Validity (logic)". That's pretty much the only real reason I even thought to "pipe" the phrase "valid argument" in this "Logic" article to go to "Validity (logic)". And for some reason, that very pertinent reason you're ignoring or not listening to. So I'll ask you again, why would Wikipedia even HAVE the phrase "valid argument" AUTOMATICALLY piped in for that other article, in general? And if that's the case, why exactly (and you just admitted that it's because you simply DON'T LIKE IT, violating "NO OWN" etc) should the phrase "valid argument" not be linked therefore? 71.190.0.199 (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a redirect exists does not mean a link needs to be repeated so many times. As mentioned before, the onus is actually on you to gain the consensus for your changes on the article talk page. So I suggest you do that. El_C 18:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I respect the 3 revert rule (hence why you see that I'm not undoing or restoring again for now), and I also respect WP Consensus (even if I may disagree). But again, sir, one main reason for this link-edit is because WP itself redirects the phrase "valid argument" TO the article "Validity (logic)" and also, secondarily, in and of itself, why exactly shouldn't the technical phrase "valid argument" not be linked to its appropriate article page, when it can only help more and enlighten matters? What's the harm exactly? Just because the link for "Validity (logic)" is linked other places in the article, so? The point (again) is that it's not linked for this specific phrase "valid argument". And what harm exactly is there in linking that to its correct article page? It can only help, if anything, not hurt. Regards.... 71.190.0.199 (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't really care about this too much. If you want to duplicate that link — fine. But once, not twice for a total of three times, as you have been doing. I'll partially self-revert to do so and hopefully that will be the end of that. El_C 18:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yossi Cohen

Hi, I don't know if you saw my request at Talk:Yossi Cohen? Having "Hebron, Israel" in an article is pretty provocative, me think, Huldra (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not see it. Anyway, request granted. El_C 23:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bandar bin Sultan al Saud and his wife funded some of the 9/11 hijackers

Facts don't have to be politically convenient to be facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:CE00:75C0:401E:4329:992A:4842 (talk) 02:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But they do have to be attributed to reliable sources to truly be considered facts. El_C 02:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion?

Seems rather suspicious that an IP with no other edits jumps in, declares that "both sides have COI," then reverts the article to the version favored by BigDWiki. Worth an SPI? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. I also sprotected the article for 2 weeks. El_C 15:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. BigDwiki (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BigDwiki: AGF is not a suicide pact. El_C 17:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Xuân Lộc

Here I've sort-of unreverted one of your reverts. It looks like you had reverted an edit based on bad presentation, and it looks to me as if the content was correct in the reverted edit even though the presentation was bad. I've reverted the content essentially back to its original cite-supported appearance in this 2010 edit. The content seems to have been changed without support in this 2015 edit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Yes, I reverted it for being essentially a non sequitur. Thanks for doing your due diligence. El_C 17:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sock

Hello. 44taiwan1992 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who you just reverted on China-North Korea relations, is an obvious sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/99rossiya89. See page history of the article you reverted on, Sino-Russian relations since 1991 and others, and you'll find an endless stream of socks with similarly constructed names (numericals + country/politician/animal name + numericals). Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, thanks. I indeffed 425kimjongil1911, as well. El_C 21:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, El C. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 08:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

I tried to stick to a thank you for that summit + depression reply .. but that was just TOO FREAKIN' HILARIOUS. Thank you for the best laugh I've had in ages. — Ched (talk) 08:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear! I came here to say pretty much the same thing. --bonadea contributions talk 09:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

/bows. El_C 15:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sock

Thanks for [6]. 77.18.57.137 is [7], [8] etc, avoiding their block. I think Bbb23 knows more about this LTAish IP user. Cheers. -- Begoon 05:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. They seem to have stopped, for now, so I'll let Bbb23 handle it. El_C 05:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fastest gun in the Middle East

You beat me to it.Nishidani (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, I'm swift! El_C 14:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't change any tag dates. Don't know how that happened. Sorry to forget my tildes, I'm rusty. Telaviv1 (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big deal. If you get the chance, please change the dmy tag back to the original. El_C 17:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~ Mitch's wife ~

Hi El C ~ just to let you know Cindy died last Saturday ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry for your loss. My deepest condolences, Mitch. I know what it's like to lose a close loved one — there is nothing worse and nothing can compare. El_C 17:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry to hear that. Just today I worked all day, sad about the loss of a great woman, and wife from 1947 to a few days ago. Perhaps play the YT video at the bottom which made me cry (see my talk). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since you blocked the sockmaster

I thought you could block the rest of the socks. They all promote the same spam link. Please see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of AthensGlance. Thanks in advance. Dr. K. 06:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 06:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as always, El_C, for your tireless work. Dr. K. 06:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, my friend. El_C 06:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are very generous, El_C. But thank you for your nice comment. Take care. Dr. K. 06:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Urdu article

The edit war stemmed from the other party changing the infobox from "no specific ethnicity" to "multiple ethnicities" when the cited sources clearly state that it's a non-ethnic language. So how is he justified in putting "multiple ethnicities"? It's plain original research on his part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishnu Sahib (talk • contribs) 06:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not familiar enough with the dispute to comment. My advise to you would be to engage in discussion on the article talk page. If that stalls, see your dispute resolution resources for further outside input. Eventually, the consensus will be decided, and that would be that. El_C 06:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who should I consult to evaluate mine and his edits? Is there administrator familiar with this topic area? Because the sources clearly state that it's a non-ethnic language. I was told that statements on Wikipedia should always state what the sources state.--Vishnu Sahib (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the protected page back to your version, since the other party's position, indeed, did not seem to be grounded in the available sources. El_C 21:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but it's not necessarily "my version". I did it because the cited sources supported it. I found a third source that claims the same. Should I add it after the protection expires?--Vishnu Sahib (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, or feel free to submit an edit request. El_C 22:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks--Vishnu Sahib (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Haldighati

You protected it without removing the unsourced material. Please check.49.207.133.12 (talk) 09:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC) And Arun7156 needs a warning.49.207.133.12 (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Good catch. El_C 09:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

R.K. Laros page

Hi— The page for businessman R.K. Laros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that I worked on was original writing, well-researched, drawing from a number of resources. It got flagged for copyright infringement for a reason that escapes me then speedily deleted. I tried to put it back but now it’s locked. I wonder why it was marked as a copyright issue and wonder how to get it back up if possible. Thanks. Jberk (talk) 11:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was marked as copyvio for infringing on the rights of https://issuu.com/adamatkinson1/docs/rk_done and deleted by TomStar81 — I see you've already raised the matter with him. See what he has to say about deleting the page on those grounds. Contesting it with me is a bit redundant, as I was not involved in that part of the process. I deleted it because it was too short, without enough context to identify the subject. I also protected it from further recreation, until issues pertaining to the article could be sorted, namely the copyrights violations, which presumably limited you to those two brief sentences — two sentences that, unfortunately, amounted to an article which was just too terse by Wikipedia standards. Good luck. El_C 15:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Siddha Yoga

Let's discuss your feelings on the talk page for this article. Can you clarify the rule that existing sources can't be used when editing an article that seems to be misleading and not accurately explaining the sourced material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.214.54.67 (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no "feelings" — I am enforcing policy, especially a potential living persons policy violation. As instructed, you need to quote directly on the article talk page so that your claims can verified by the existing sources that your addition goes on to attribute. El_C 18:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Upon closer examination, I am rescinding my objection. Also, BLP was not a factor here, I was in error on that front. El_C 18:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HS2000

It can also be put on the ak-47 or m-16, but this is not put under "users". I think it is fair and there is no such thing here, because it is a shame to be a terrorist here with the recognized states. This puts the user from Serbia jealous of Croatian success on that weapon, it can be checked from earlier posts so you blocked it, but he made a new acc and change ip. Do what you want, if you want change to change, if you don't want to, I'm not interested, but I think I'm right. Greeting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.188.130 (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you or are you not User:VJ-Yugo? El_C 23:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't, I told you a few months ago to block this user from Serbia if you remember, but unfortunately I have a dynamic ip that changes once a day, my first ip starts with the number 93.138. or 93,136 other numbers are changing because it's such an online service, it can be read from past changes to hs2000 what is the problem and how did you block it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.188.130 (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't remember. It's possible I made a mistake. Maybe General Ization can bring me up to speed (again?). El_C 23:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay no problem, do as you think is best. Goodbye! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.188.130 (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what General Ization says. Please check this section for further updates (I would drop you a comment, but your IP keeps changing). El_C 23:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not much I can say to help. I reverted 93.138.12.123 twice in August when they repeatedly removed sourced content from this article without explanation. (See page 12 of this, the cited source.) That IP then left a message on my talk page claiming ISIS was a "nonexistent state" and saying "this is sock puppets from Serbia", but failing to explain their removal of content in any coherent way. That was the extent of my contribution to that article. That IP and the one you are talking with sound to me like the exact same operator. General Ization ^Talk 03:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now they're removing ISIS as a user from CZ 75, as well. Again, with the same argument that listing them promotes them as a terrorist organization...(?) El_C 03:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I don't mind that. I'm just saying that terrorists should not be with other countries and that this is not right, and you write as you wish. That is my argument, it is unfortunate that terrorists classify them and equate them with other countries, that is not right. Goodbye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.140.253 (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, maybe that's something you ought to facilitate a centralized discussion about — perhaps on the talk page of the ISIS article. See what other editors have to say about that argument: that a former undeclared state not be listed alongside recognized countries is a valid position to hold. But because at least two editors disagree with you, the onus is on you to build the consensus for these changes to take effect across multiple articles. So, I encourage you to do so. Good luck. El_C 16:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in consensus, let it write anything here. If one does not realize that terrorists have nothing to do with other normal states, then they do not need to explain anything. Now the terrorists are put in the same order with the normal states, so let it be promoted as a normal state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.140.253 (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not interested in consensus, there is not much left for us to discuss here. El_C 16:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Use of rev del on José Gregorio Salazar

Hi El C! It's great to talk to you again, and I hope you're doing well! I just wanted to message you about some revisions that you rev del'd on the José Gregorio Salazar article citing RD2 as serious BLP violations (did you perhaps mean to choose "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive"?). Note that the article subject is definitely not a BLP (the article subject was a general who died in the year 1838... lol), so the BLP portion of RD2 does not apply here. Aside from this fact, the revisions you redacted were just childish vandalism to me, not something I'd consider a "serious BLP violation" nor something that falls within being "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive". They were just adding "nutsack" and other childish things to the article, nothing that I'd constitute as requiring the use of RD2. I went ahead and restored visibility to those revisions for you. I left some revisions redacted, as they happened to fall under RD2 for using offensive ethnic and lifestyle slurs. Not to worry... you weren't the only admin who happened to use rev del incorrectly on that article and around that time. I just wanted to leave you a message to let you know about it and inform you that I undid the visibility changes you made to some of them. ;-) Please let me know if you have any questions (just ping me so that I'm notified) or concerns, and I'll be happy to answer them and discuss it with you. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Thanks. I remember that IP for their Donald and Ivanka Trump BLP vandalism. Indeed, I mistook that old-timey General for a living person, somehow. I guess I should be paying closer attention! BTW, do we have a button that's the opposite of revdelete, because I want to nominate this amazing, "spoken by hogs" edit (I also love the other IP's deadpan revert summary of "False information"!). Never a dull moment. El_C 03:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, just looking out for my fellow editors and admins. ;-) HA! That's funny... What would the "opposite of revdelete" even be (other than restoring visibility to something that's currently hidden)? I'm trying to ponder and come up with something, but I've got nothing... LOL ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe 2019

Make it accesible to edit with Wikipedia Page Creator. Hpcidaniello (talk) 07:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. The page is fully protected until dispute are resolved or the protection time lapses, whichever comes first. El_C 15:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2A02:587:3A21:3D00::/64

Hello. If you don’t immediately see what to do with 2A02:587:3A21:3D00::/64 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), then look at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1021 #Edit_warring_using_multiple_personae. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 15:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closure discussion

Hello El C, I'm requesting the closed discussion under Spider-Man RM closure? on my talk page be copied and placed next to my closure. This is for clarifying my reasons why I closed it. Thank you! Jerm (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I quite understand — you are welcome to add an addendum to the close or a supplementary to the discussion, you don't really need me for that. El_C 20:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I forgot how. Jerm (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just tack on an Addendum <plus text> to the closing statement and/or a Supplementary <plus text> to the end of the closed move discussion, is what I meant. El_C 02:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish stone-throwing

Though I try to avoid punitive measures (and in any case am banned from AE per Sandstein's decision), and wasn't aiming for any suspension - my notification of Debresser reflected simply a desire that the editor use evidence and logic, rather than personal opinions to justify their edits. Unfortunately the said editor mechanically reverts a large amount of edits I make to pages he is interested in, and, in my view, never adduces textual evidence or logical, policy-based arguments to defend the removal.

Am I misreading that page's talk page header where it is written:

Limit of one revert in 24 hours: All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, reasonably construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.

Regards Nishidani (talk) 09:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To copy the relevant details from the other page

The admin NeilN added the Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement header to this page, warning editors to respect the 1R rule, on 1 October 2015. Both I and Debresser have edited that page often in the past four years, and have been thoroughly familiar with the contents of that header over that period.Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So the question is, did Debresser make two reverts within 24 hours on a page where a banner indicating this was prohibited has existed for several years.Nishidani (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: it doesn't matter what the talk page banner says anymore. The Committee has recently (March 2019) clarified that there needs to be an edit notice on the mainspace for 1RR to apply: This remedy may only be enforced on pages with the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}}. Which, incidentally, led to the following problematic. Please comment at ARBPIA4 (here) where I outline a possible resolution to this EC-related issue brought by the mandatory edit notice requirement. El_C 15:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate the explanation. I just don't grasp the operative value of the rationale or its meaning, if it has one, but that's my fault. I can't offer suggestions, since anything legal like this is totally outside of my capacity to concentrate. Regards. Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: EC means extended-confirmed protection, which due to the ARBPIA edit notice becoming mandatory, also becomes mandatory. In the AP2 DS, for example, we have the option of a naked 1RR, without protection or other restrictions applied. So that is what I am proposing (bold link) — no legalese involved. El_C 17:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't lose time trying to enlighten me. Sincerely, I have never been able to wrap my mind, or what's left of it, around these issues. Give me an article about words for ladles in classical Greek, and I'll be utterly focused on the distinctions between a soup and a wine ladle, I can visualize them. I can't do that with Wikipedia rules, and therefore just apply the simplest reading, which keeps me mostly out of trouble, but makes objecting to what others do pointless, since I miss equivocations. As I say, it's my fault, and I just have to wear it.Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair enough position to hold, though difficult to maintain, I would venture to think. Anyway, I agree that we should aim at rules that are simple to follow, but an integral component of that is that those rules also make sense on the implementation level. This, if we are to continue to follow Committee rulings in an exact procedurally-required way, which seems to be the order of the day. In other words, IAR —or the spirit of a rule— is more likely to be lost to Committee legality when it comes to Arbitration enforcement than as can be seen in the application of Community policy. It is what it is in its current state. El_C 17:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If proof were needed to underline my incompetence, I need just cite my edit at this article's talk page a minute ago. I'll put the edit requested on my talk page, hoping that a few technical people who have it bookmarked can fix it. Apologies. Nishidani (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're not alone there. Wikiformatting can be quite counter-intuitive. El_C 18:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor

I'm getting a pretty strong WP:NOTHERE vibe from Special:Contributions/173.176.159.21 - given that they've repeatedly said they won't do stuff like refrain from legal threats or sign their comments because they don't want to help Wikipedia. I understand if you don't want to be the one handing out blocks left and right given that you're also trying to referee a legitimate content dispute, but I'm ready to file an WP:ANI report myself unless you think that's a bad idea. I'm really not trying to put a thumb on the scale here, I'm just asking if I'm way off base here before I open something. Nblund^talk 23:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You would not have that problem if BLP was applyied. The disruptive edition page gives plenty of reason as to why. But your good to go. I<m done, frustrated, and wont come back — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looks like the matter is now moot. El_C 23:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're not off base. I'm this close to issuing a block for disruptive and tendentious editing — intentional incompetence and legally aggressive language (which has a chilling effect) will not be tolerated. But I'm also willing to give them one final chance. Let's see what happens next. El_C 23:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Nblund^talk 23:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

smile

At least I recognized my error. Cheers. Time for bed for me. Toddst1 (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All good, man! Sweet dreams. El_C 06:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

English Punctuation

As a person whose first language is not English, I find English learning an on-going process. In regards to the issue at hand, i.e. square brackets, I want to make sure I understand it clearly. How come we cannot attribute the statement between brackets to the narrator?--Kazemita1 (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me about it! Well, there are two different quotes, right? So the IP's changes make sense. El_C 17:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you look closely, the comment that they are a "cult-like terrorist organisation" is an interjection inserted by the UK agency into the quote from the United States agency. The IP is saying it is not an interjection. I am sorry for being so dumb. If you could elaborate how IP's changes make sense I would appreciate it. .--Kazemita1 (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further reflection, I'm just not sure which version is makes more sense. El_C 22:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might

wish to take a look at User_talk:Vanamonde93#Me_thinks_that_someone_needs_a_vacation. Need someone to install a TBan .... ∯WBG^converse 17:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure — I'll take a glance, at the very least. El_C 17:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

El_C 17:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of Tulsa Race Riot -> Tulsa Race Massacre Move Request

Hi El C,

I was looking at a move request on the talk page for the Tulsa Race Riot, and noticed that you closed the request without discussion, citing the fact that a prior request to do so (created back in July) was closed as "no consensus," and asserting that the editor should "wait at least six months before initiating the same request again."

I've done some investigation, but have been unable to find any support for this six month figure -- the closest thing I found was on the closing instructions webpage, which says "it is not considered bad form to re-raise a request that found "no consensus" to move. (Successful move re-requests generally, though certainly not always, take place at least three months after the previous one...)," which suggests a three month window, but certainly does not proscribe one. Could you explain how you arrived at this 6 month restriction?

It has now been more than 3 months since the original request was made, and Dbrote cited numerous contemporary sources that now use term "massacre" rather than "riot" (the lack of a preponderance of such sources was the main reason no consensus was reached during the first move request), so I think there is an argument to be made that now is as good a time as any for another Move Request Review.

- Waidawut (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Waidawut, please ping me if that request is renewed. I agree that "massacre" is a proper term, and has acquired currency. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Waidawut: ordinarily yes, three months would be fine. But I made the decision to double that because this wasn't the only such move request (example). This is constant source of tension and discontent in the article, leading to much disruption in the editing process. You can have another move request in three months (for a six month gap). After that, I'll double it to a year, and I will keep doubling from there, ad infinitum — because this isn't something you keep trying and trying until you get the desired outcome. Move requests are not expected to operate in such a manner. El_C 17:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El Cid: From what rule do you derive the discretion to invent and enforce these waiting periods? The webpage I linked above seems pretty clear that move requests are expected to operate such that those that reached a consensus not to move "should probably not propose this move in the future until and unless circumstances change," but makes no such caveat for requests that reached no consensus, and in fact encourages future move requests in these cases (with, again, no mention of a mandated waiting period). Surely an ongoing, robust discussion will be more likely to reach a consensus, rather than one split up by arbitrarily-enforced waiting periods, no? -Waidawut (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No need to (mis-)ping me on my own talk page. Sorry, but we're not going to undergo a circumstances change-driven move request every three months. That's just not going to happen, because it would be disruptive to the editing process. El_C 18:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the mis-ping (what is the proper way to ping?) -- but you still haven't explained how it is that you have the discretion to unilaterally decide when move requests are allowed to occur Waidawut (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have discretion, in my capacity as an uninvolved admin, to prevent disruptive editing — that includes prohibiting move requests whose frequent timing renders them tendentious. *** You pinged fine, but you mistyped my username. El_C 18:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok -- thanks for the explanation. I'll revisit this in 3 months. And sorry about the name typo! Waidawut (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, how do you tell if a user is an Admin? Waidawut (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Waidawut: in users' contributions there's a user rights link — it will tell you if a user is an admin. El_C 18:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So when can a new one be started? I find GNews has 5740 hits for race riot,[9] but 21.400 for Tulsa massacre.[10] - I was against it earlier, but like User:Drmies I think I'd support it now. Doug Weller talk 18:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: again, my instinct was to give it a six months breathing room — so in three months. But if another uninvolved admin wishes to overule me in this instance and re-open the move request immediately, I have no objection. But if this move request fails, I will insist on a breathing room of a year, and this time will object to challenges on that front. El_C 18:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: at this point, I'm inclined to wait for the three months -- contemporary sources are reaching a consensus of using "massacre," and I think this consensus will likely be even stronger in 3 months. I think it's better to wait 3 months now, rather than rushing and reaching another "no consensus" and then having to wait a year. Waidawut (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Waidawut: good plan, I agree. Doug Weller talk 18:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Al Dhafra Private School RFPP

Hi El C, I have a request at RFPP but given the constant vandalism by new accounts and IPs, can you protect it? Mozalarab69 has also been reported to AIV. S0091 (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 19:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As always, thank you. :) S0091 (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ITN for Barisha raid and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

Hi @El C:, I've commented at ITN [11] that all sources describing Baghdadi's death, e.g. [12][13] and our article Barisha raid, explicitly attribute the claim of suicide to U.S. officials or Trump. It is so easy to acknowledge this and be cautious by changing our blurb to state that Baghdadi "... is dead after a U.S. raid..." that I am astonished we have dropped attribution and stated his suicide is a fact at the top of our front page. Please correct this as soon as possible. I apologize for my somewhat blunt and possibly aggressive tone: disrespect is not intended. -Darouet (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Darouet: not at all, your message if perfectly fine, but I would rather you get ITNC consensus for that change, which I would then be more than happy to implement. El_C 20:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great: I welcome your comments at ITN. I have yet to find a source that doesn't attribute the claim of suicide and this is one of the more egregious oversights I've ever seen on Wiki. -Darouet (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on the content. Feel free to quote me on that. But my involvement at ITNC was to interpret the consensus, which was for alt blurb-2. I tend to shy from IAR decisions which involve anything to do with the Main page like ITN. Hope that makes sense. El_C 20:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that ISIS themselves have confirmed al-Baghdadi's death today. El_C 17:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Need advice in dealing with disruptive user

Thanks for protecting User:UBX/NBA-Clippers. However, the problem is not gone and Jamesmiko (talk · contribs) is edit warring in many NHL and NBA userboxes. He states that since he created many userboxes, he can do whatever he wants and no policies and/or guidelines can stop him. How do I deal with this situation? I tried more than once to engage in a discussion with him, but he just ignores everything and continues to being disruptive. It is also obvious that Jamesmiko is using Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Thanks in advance. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sabbatino: no problem. Well, if you're convinced there is disruptive editing involved (user being unresponsive or tendentious), then an Incidents report should be your next logical step. Otherwise, I would recommend a centralized discussion about these contested edits somewhere, like Wikipedia talk:Userboxes. These two approaches need not be seen as mutually exclusive necessarily, either. Hope this helps. El_C 20:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of Tatzref

Re: User_talk:Tatzref#Indefinite_block. I think a warning would be sufficient, per my rationale there. In either case, Tatzref has apologized and promised to be more careful in the future (hence, warning heeded), which I think is sufficient grounds for considering an appeal. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I disagree that a warning would have been sufficient when it comes to an attempt at and the calling for the outing of a Wikipedia editor — yes, even a banned editor. I know, for example, that both the Wikimedia Foundation and the Arbitration Committee take a rather dim view (former, latter) of such efforts. A view which I share. Another admin is free to handle the unblock appeal as they see fit. I am inclined not to involve myself further unless directly queried. El_C 02:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Thank you for the decision on the edit warring discussion page. Just to be clear for future reference, I should send an official warning and link to the 3RR page on their talk page? It was the first time I’ve made a report. Also, seeing as the user has been warned, am I allowed to redo my original edit? ².O.^Boxing 11:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's best to use such templates as {{uw-3rr}} — you just mentioned "3RR" (unlinked) in an edit summary, which a new user is unlikely to make much sense of. In answer to your other question: no, if you revert again, you yourself would be in violation of 3RR. El_C 17:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

... for article work in October, specifically by reverting vandalism, - the cabal is grateful, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for thanks, Gerda! Always prudent to be on the cabal's good side... El_C 17:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see, - thank you for unblocking Sashi! - Did you know that so far I haven't been blocked, - AE always let me go, but still what a waste of time each time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, as mentioned here, I am not huge fan of Arbitration enforcement's overreliance on procedural exactness. Overall, I tend to view it as a recipe for lapses in justice. El_C 18:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and agree! Today, I am proud of a great woman on the Main page, Márta Kurtág, finally! - Here's my ideal candidate for arbcom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, Gerda. Well deserved. Is it Arbitration election season already? Myself, I seem to have missed the last few ones. I admit that I am partial to Valereee, myself. Anyway, hope we get decent candidates without a lot of drama and hurt feelings. El_C 17:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article

Hi El C. Could you please clarify the intent of this restriction that you place on William Barr? Does "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article" apply to the editor who originally added the material, or all editors? Thank you. - Mr X 🖋 14:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All editors. Keyword is any, as in anyone. El_C 16:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.- Mr X 🖋 17:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkuk

Can you take a look at these two pages where one user keeps removing information from the pages[14][15] arguing its Kurdish pov-push when the area is disputed by law and mentioned in the Iraqi constitution[16].--Semsurî (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if more people had supported my Kurdish General Sanctions proposal, a topic ban could be implemented rather easily for such an egregious case. It's not that people strongly opposed — there simply wasn't enough interest, overall. Granted, it was before the Americans withdrew from Kurdish Syria, but still. El_C 16:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I must have missed your topic-ban proposal but I do support such move. Not sure how to push forward with it as a non-admin. --Semsurî (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdistan doesn't exist. There is no evidence. It is part of Iraqi sovereignty and internationally recognized and in the Iraqi Constitution so stop spamming otherwise will be reported for bias, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fine12322 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[I]t is listed under Disputed territories of Northern Iraq, sovereignty or lack thereof notwithstanding. El_C 19:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can only disputed territory if it is disputed with another country that exists as a state. Therefore, Kurdistan is not an independent sovereignty within its own right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fine12322 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly an argument you are welcome to make at the article talk page of Disputed territories of Northern Iraq — until then, we're gonna follow what it says, for consistency across Wikipedia. El_C 19:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

My goal is to document the artists and the art institutions of the Cayman Islands on wiki.

Like I said, the fact that we do not have a "culture" section on the Cayman Islands page is embarrassing seeing as we have a gov appointed role as "minister of culture".

I would appreciate any advice you could give me in helping set up pages for notable figures or institutions. New to Wikipedia.

Regards, oldman

Hi, oldman. Please see your first article on suggestions for newcomers about authoring a new article. Hope this helps. El_C 00:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help,

best, oldman

Deletion review for User:SashiRolls/SWAPP

User:Wumbolo has asked for a deletion review of User:SashiRolls/SWAPP. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 16:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, Cryptic. El_C 16:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So....what do we do now? Consensus there so far is nearly unanimous that it wasn’t an attack page, but you blocked Sashi for linking to it. If that discussion is closed with consensus against it being an attack page are you going to unblock Sashi? Mr Ernie (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the midst of drafting a note in DRV that touches on this, Mr Ernie. But in short, yes, that does make a successful unblock appeal more likely. El_C 17:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is only the usual suspects coming to the defense. And the DRV discussion is definitely not nearly unanimous. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of procedure, the decision about the page, and the determination of the block, are really separate issues. Even if, after the fact, a consensus emerges that the page was not an attack page (which is nonsense, but whatever), at the time that SashiRolls linked to it, it was considered as such. You don't get to link to something that is prohibited to link to just because a crystal ball tells you that it will be un-prohibited in the future. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you El C. It must be stated over and over that the first few issues Sashi encountered were nearly 100% due to a former admin socking to get around a topic ban, who was later indef’d. That former admin was heavily defended by some users you see still see showing up to attack Sashi, and it is not Sashi’s fault for getting caught up in that. Some people still refuse to acknowledge that was the root of the first few issues, which have been repeatedly brought up against Sashi in bad faith without telling the whole story. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not by me, it wasn't. I agree that Sashi got unfairly treated in that, but that does nothing to excuse what happened with respect to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not always about you. Let it go. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I said just above that I see what happened with that sock as being entirely something else. I even said that I thought what happened to Sashi was unfair. But the issue now is about a deleted page, which was about me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where does one go to report sanctions violations?

Hi El C. I'm asking about this here [diff]. It's a reinstatement of challenged material on an article with post-1932 U.S. politics sanctions.

I'd like to know where to go with these, because the last thing I want to do is go to you or some other admin every time this happens if that's not how this is supposed to work; it'll get old fast, potentially sour the admin on me, and just generally be bad I think.

I'm also trying to make sure I don't inadvertently edit-war or violate sanctions myself.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 02:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pinchme123. Yes, it is, indeed, a violation of the restriction. I have, therefore, left the user an American politics discretionary sanction alert. I have also left them a notice informing them of their violation and requested that they self-revert. Anyway, in answer to your question, violations that involve Arbitration enforcement can be reported either at the AE or AN3 board, each of which has different procedures on how to actually file the report (instructions at the top). Hope this helps. El_C 02:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does, thank you. I'm going to look those over so I'm not completely lost on this anymore. Thanks for answering me! --Pinchme123 (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio cleanup?

I just saw on my watchlist that you deleted copyright violations (People's Mujahedin of Iran). I've been following that page forever but don't understand the subject well enough to be useful there. Anyway, here's another copyright violation, you may wish to permanently delete: [17]. I reverted it shortly after it was added. This is the original source being copied: [18]. Thanks. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SashiRolls.

Done. Revdeleted and left the user a warning about adding copyvio to articles. El_C 16:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It's still visible in the following diff before I reverted though. :/ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry about that. Got it all now. Thanks for following up. El_C 17:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~ Hi El C! ~

I'm back ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 03:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, brother. You have been missed. El_C 04:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

tendentious editing

Stefka is reverting your paraphrasing of the BBC source with some nonsense reasons that I am sure he himself knows is wrong. He is saying "Not all politicians get paid by MEK". Of course not politicians are paid by MEK. When in the article did we say that? I remember you had warned him of tendentious editing once before. but he is taking it to a whole new level.--Kazemita1 (talk) 04:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That actually was not the copyvio-related part — it was just me fixing some grammar on the side, changing Many American public figures who defend MEK get paid by this group to Many American public figures who support the MEK have also been paid by this group. But as Mhhossein noted (and I agree), I should have probably let someone else make those corrections. I'll expand more on that on the article talk page. The point is that my edit does not supersede longstanding text, so whatever constitutes that, that's what should be in place while the matter is being discussed. El_C 04:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI comment

Hello El C, about [19], I just wanted to clarify that my comment was not directly pointed at you, as anyway I am not a believer of personal blame (and I did not even check who was the admin who took care of the case), I rather think there is a systemic issue with enforcing WP:CIVILITY, and so I think a solution should be systemic as well, in the vein of User:Volunteer_Marek/gt. Thus, I wanted to tell you I am deeply sorry of how my comment could be perceived (not only by you but by others as well), and I wish I could modify it. I am not apologizing because you are an administrator, but because you are a human being, and, since you know WP:CIVILITY is IMO very essential for me, if my intention with my comment was to blame someone in particular, it would be totally counter to my moral compass and what I tried to convey in the comment. I hope you can accept my apologies, I'll try to do better next time I comment --Signimu (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Because I tried to be even-handed and I also tried to get Graull to tough it out. I'm sorry that it didn't work out. But I don't know what else I could have done differently given the circumstances. As for WP:CIVIL, I am a big believer in subscribing to it, but my view on enforcement of it is obviously more nuanced than that of enforcing WP:NPA. This isn't to say that bright lines don't exist for me. As for that Volunteer Marek essay, I confess that it reads as mostly gibberish to me. I think if there are avenues for progress, they would depend on much simpler formulation than that. Thanks again for taking the time. El_C 22:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for accepting my apologies

I understand this is a tough call that you and other admins have to regularly make where there may be no clear thing to do, and I know and agree the goal should not be to penalize but to prevent (something that is very different from other languages and that I noticed right away during my first experience on ANI). I'm just sad when things like that happen... About Volunteer Marek's essay, then I may give it a try to vulgarize or maybe extend, as his essay was only on edit warring, I'm sure something is possible for civility and personal attacks as well

Have a nice day! --Signimu (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ping didn't work. Just in case you missed it

here Nishidani (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I missed it. Will have a look now. El_C 16:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asli Daud

Hi El C, can you take a look at Asli Daud. The CSD template has repeatedly been removed by the article's creator and numerous IPs.-KH-1 (talk) 04:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 04:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Might need to be salted. -KH-1 (talk) 04:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for deleting this. Just before you did so, I did this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asli Daud, in the understanding this was the thing to do when someone removes the CSD tag. What now? Thanks in advance... -Lopifalko (talk) 04:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sounds good. I have restored the article so that the AfD can commence. El_C 04:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi why did you deleted that page. Recover it and make corrections instead, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharmamulla (talk • contribs) 21:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really need to ask that question twice? Anyway, it was deleted by Athaenara. El_C 22:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi Lurs

Hi. The page Iraqi Lurs is referred to a portion of Feyli Lurs inside Iraqi borders. It is not logic to digest and merge this page in a wider paper. There are a lot of citations mentioned in paper. Best.SHADEGAN (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the dispute from early June? I don't remember what's it about anymore. El_C 22:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Iraqi Lurs's status as a redirect has been changed by Shadegan, I've created an afd request now that the article is a POVFORK of Feylis. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Iraqi_Lurs --Semsurî (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the notice. El_C 17:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE

It sounds like Sandstein is requesting your input there. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I admit to being a bit burned out from the whole thing. El_C 22:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You and me too. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you deleted Asli Daud

Why did you deleted that page? Any personal enimity or out of your mind? Dharmamulla (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of my mind. El_C 22:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question

According to Arbcom decision [20], this editing restriction covers only subjects related to Holocaust in Poland, which is apparently the part of the page related to Nazi Germany if I understand correctly. Soviet gas vans are completely unrelated to the Holocaust or Poland because they had happen a few years earlier. I am asking this because such sourcing restriction are indeed generally OK for the Holocaust in Poland which is covered in a huge number of scholarly sources. However, such restriction would be detrimental for a lot of more obscure subjects from the Soviet history (Soviet gas vans is just one of many examples). This subject is covered only by a small number of RS, most of them in Russian. Making such restriction would in fact prevent covering it per WP:NPOV. We talked about this here. I also would like to know what was the reason for your decision. There was no any content disagreements on the page whatsoever with regard to Holocaust in Poland or Nazi Germany. There was also no recent edit wars on this page (reverts of edits by a sockpuppet account do not count). My very best wishes (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, what is happening now? This, i.e. Paul just removes everything referenced to works by Nikita Petrov (a publication in Novaya Gazeta), to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, to Lydia Golovkova who is a primary curator of records for the people executed at the Butovo firing range, to a book by Mikhail Schreder who was an important witness to the crimes by the Soviet NKVD, to a book by Petro Grigorenko who was one of the founders of the Soviet dissident movement, and to publications in Kommersant which are RS. Was it your intention to have all such RS excluded? My very best wishes (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No because I'm not a mind reader — see the section directly above for more on that. The restrictions, as I understood them, apply to an article which is mostly about Nazi Germany's usage of Gas vans (mass scale, 700,000 murdered). But I only read the Hebrew Wikipedia's article closely, and it doesn't mention any Soviet usage whatsoever. At any case, even with this extreme dissonance between the two entries (the Hebrew and English ones), the article's main focus still is Nazi German usage of the technique. That the recent dispute is about Soviet usage does not diminish from the article falling under RfAR/EE, which is what my original notice was about, and which at the time I thought would suffice. But then two editors requested that the sourcing requirements stipulated under RfAR/EE and expanded under RfAR/AiP be also added, which at the time made sense to me, again due to the article's scope. Now I see that this is more contentious than I first thought.

It's a tough one. An IP may ask: why can I not edit Nazareth, I want to contribute to the Crusader period, but the ARBPIA ECP extends to everything. Or someone may ask, why do I need to adhere to 1RR on Jerusalem when the dispute I'm involved in is about Prehistory and has nothing to do with ARBPIA, but is about, say, some unrelated archaeology. Those are just two immediate examples I can think of when a sanction extends to disputes that are covered in the article, but may not have been covered in the original scope of the sanctions themselves. So I'm not sure what to do now. Perhaps the best thing would be to go to ARCA and ask the Committee to clarify: do articles falling into the sanction scope of (expanded via AiP) EE cover disputes from earlier periods? What do you think? El_C 03:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have suspended the sourcing requirements notice from Gas van while this matter is being sorted out. Also, per what you said elsewhere, this may also be discussed at AE, just with a properly formatted request. El_C 03:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I think it resolves it for now. Could you answer: was it really your intention to exclude such sources as above? If it was not your intention, I think it would be best if you could just undo this restriction for this page. We all want to make pages better by following WP:RS and WP:NPOV, and there are numerous subjects in WP which are simply not sufficiently covered by academic sources for whatever reason. In any case, I think this restriction had to be discussed prior to imposing it, given the history. I do not think anyone wants to waste their time for clarifications or appeals (I do not), but there are generally two options: an WP:AE appeal (per this, "Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor"), or a request for clarification to Arbcom. My very best wishes (talk) 03:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The restriction is suspended, for now. My intention was to bring the article in-line with other articles covered by EE/AiP. I had no particular sources in mind. Update 2: please note that I have re-opened the AE requrest, so you are welcome to make a statement there at any time. El_C 03:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I probably will. My very best wishes (talk) 03:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will try not to discuss the matter at several different places. I have already explained my rationale elsewhere.[21] I may add that this is about WP:UNDUE and that the "Soviet usage" has been integrated into the article to make up for a narrative, much along the lines of the misleading claim that the Nazis seized the idea of the concentration camp from the Soviets (or the British). Right now I find myself in a kafkaesque situation like Before the law. --Assayer (talk) 04:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I reopened the request, at any case. I may have jumped the gun, but it has only been a few hours, so I think we're still okay. El_C 04:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any advise, whether and how I should reformat my request? Or is it okay for now? I do not want to run risk of having submitted an incomplete request.--Assayer (talk) 04:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's okay for now. I made some minor alterations but otherwise left it unchanged. El_C 04:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is not really a question for Arbcom, but for you. Do you really see a significant disruption associated with editing this page that needs to be addressed by making a restriction? Yes, one can see some vandalism and activities by IPs and a sock, but this has been addressed already. Yes, there are long discussions on this article talk page, but they are civil, and at least partly up to the point. Do you think they rise to the level of WP:TE? Yes, there are also several threads on noticeboards. Do you think they rise to the level of WP:FORUMSHOP? My very best wishes (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't know enough about the dispute to tell, one way or the other. But I chose to err on the side of higher-quality sourcing requirements because several editors requested it. Obviously, we have editors that feel it is needed and those who feel it is not. But the general question I posed may actually be suited for the Committee to consider — I'm not sure I agree with you that it does not. I don't think it would be forumshopping (whether forumshopping has occurred in past, I don't know) to address the question via ARCA if guidance at AE proves less than clear — in which case, I'd simply reiterate the aforementioned question directly to the Committee. El_C 19:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in my opinion, admins and Arbcom should not rule at all on content, and this is ruling on content. It is another matter if a community decides that they need specific rules for certain subject area, such as WP:MEDRS. Note that WP:MEDRS recommendations are different from ones suggested by Arbcom. For example, peer-reviewed original publications in scientific journals are discouraged per WP:MEDRS. My very best wishes (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I find the admins position illogical. The very spirit of ARBEE (and similar cases) is "as soon as we are dealing with sensitive area where conflicts are very likely, any boarderlining must be avoided." That means not only users must be extremely civil, but they must observe other policies much more rigorously than usually. In particular, that means that the sources that are marginally acceptable in other areas are unacceptable in the area of conflict.

However, what I am seeing at AE is very ridiculous and disappointing: admins say "Be civil, but we do not care if you are using garbage sources". The only plausible explanation is that admins prefer to deal with violations that can be easily dealt with, they prefer not to analyze content and context, instead, they prefer to look at conflicts from a purely formal viewpoint. However, if that is the case, I think admins should act more consistently: if questionable behaviour is severely punished, questionable sources should be banned too.

In addition, I don't remember Assayer or I ever proposed admins to join a content dispute: nobody requested to ban the source X or Y. I proposed just to impose quite logical and strict criteria for source selection, the criteria all parties were supposed to stick with, the criteria that proved to be efficient in other areas. By no means such an action would mean that admins joined a content dispute.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not sure what the AC intended for disputes that are out of scope but are in articles that are still covered by the restriction. It's possible they don't know either and that this is something that they would have to deliberate and decide on. I have no idea where this is heading. El_C 23:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that worth trying, because, during virtually any edit war in the ARBEE area at least one party builds their arguments based on questionable sources: "Poles" (under "Poles" I mean Polonocentric editors) are pushing Polish sources of questionable quality, "Ukrainians" advocate Ukrainian sources, "Russians" are pushing Russian sources, and so on. I myself am trying to avoid usage of that type sources, because any notable Polish/Russian/Ukrainian/Baltic etc point of view can be found in good English literature: if an author is notable, they are supposed to publish at least a part of their works in English peer-reviewed journals or books, or at least, their works are cited by Anglophone peers. That is a good screen. As a rule, the party that uses more questionable sources is more engaged in fringe POV-pushing and in poor quality content writing, so if you deprive them of the opportunity of using those sources, that automatically resolves a conflict.

To avoid possible accusation of a bias, it is probably makes sense to modify the sourcing expectations formula, because if some source is not English it still can be used if the notability or credentials of the author can be established using a google scholar search. By the way, I myself am using that approach, and that approach is recognised as good in a reliable peer-reviewed publication, which says "Paul Siebert constructs himself as a model informationsearcher (according to his user page he has a PhD so this is perhaps not so surprising).He claims no biases, uses the information technology of choice for Wikipedia editors(Google Scholar) and applies the criteria of peer-review as a means to filter potentialinformation sources. And the sources he finds I think would be viewed by the majority of librarians or scholars as decent enough".

I am writing all of that because I am thinking about the best wording of my prospective ARCA request, so it would be good to discuss it with somebody. It would be interesting to see your opinion, but if you are not interested in continuation of that discussion, please, let me know.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't really have anything further to add at this time. But thanks for sharing your thoughts. I read them with great interest. El_C 00:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think this view by Paul is wrong, and can even be viewed as a language-based discrimination of sources. Paul incorrectly assumes that any Russian-language (or Polish-language) source is automatically biased in favor of the corresponding country or an ethnic group. This is not the case. What actually happens is this: subjects relevant to the politics or history of country X, and especially such subjects that are not highly significant, are covered in most detail in sources published on the language of that country. Strictly speaking, this has nothing to do with poor sourcing. Yes, it can be poor, but one can find just as many poor sources on English. My very best wishes (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will not comment more on WP:AE and would like to see how this is closed. Indeed, an ARCA filing might be helpful. If I file something (not sure if I actually will), this will be probably a request for amendment (sourcing restriction) for the case Holocaust in Poland. My very best wishes (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The key issue is high quality sources (like peer-reviewed), not language. Regards, --Assayer (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bacondrum again

Regarding this, the comment seemed okay until it got to the "by a racist that aims to absolve the racist of being racist" part. Bacondrum seems to be calling Yiannopoulos a racist, but it also came across to me as him implying that the editor is racist. Either way, given the most recent ANI thread on Bacondrum and how you closed that, Bacondrum should not be calling Yiannopoulos a racist. Although GreenMeansGo sarcastically stated "the alt-right isn't racist and homophobic because Yiannopoulos is a 'gay Jew [with] a black boyfriend'," he made his case without directly calling Yiannopoulos a racist or implying it as strongly as Bacondrum did. If you see this as something to let slide, I will as well, but it's reflective of the way Bacondrum goes about conducting himself when commenting on this person.

No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't really remember this that well. Can you link to that noticeboard thread so that I can refresh my memory? Also, it seems that the user is subject to a different noticeboard report just submitted recently. El_C 04:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the thread. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

Can you please entertain this edit request?— Vaibhavafro ^💬 06:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not really familiar with DYK or its procedures. El_C 06:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I have been trying to contact somebody for this but no one is responding. Minor shuffling of hooks is allowed. (see this for example)— Vaibhavafro ^💬 06:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shadegan at ANI again

Hello El C. See WP:ANI#Disruptive editor returns I'm leaving a note because you were the closer of the previous ANI from June 2019. You wrote "Shadegan seems to be away. If they return, they will be expected to adhere to a much higher editing standard than before." Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks, will look into this. El_C 16:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WanderingWanda and their interaction with me

Since you have been involved with my interactions with WanderingWanda (including your closure of this ANI thread) and seem to have a good relationship with the both of us, I felt that I should note to you that things continue to escalate between us, and I'm not sure what should be done, except making it clear, as I just have, that if WanderingWanda again implies that I'm transphobic, this will very likely be taken to WP:ANI. Also pinging Johnuniq and Cullen328 in case they can be of any help. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, I was just about to contact you, El C, since you've been assiduously neutral when it comes to me and Flyer. Specifically, I was going to ask if you could look over this talk page section and ask if you would delete or hat any comments that could be considered personal attacks or off-topic, per the WP:TPO. This goes for my comments, since Flyer considered them an attack, as well as Flyer's long post which attacks me. Sorry for the bother! WanderingWanda (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks you? Wow.

Anyway, given Ivanvector's comment on the aforementioned ANI thread, Ivanvector may be able to assist as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why stop there? If you ping a few more people we could really get a party going. I bet El C has some great drinks stashed away in his talk page somewhere. WanderingWanda (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's some wine and beer (and more) in the archives. No, I don't see any attacks on the part of Flyer22 Reborn, WanderingWanda, although they saying you tend to push a point of view may not have been the most useful thing to say. But you saying that they have "repeated the extreme position [etc.]" may not have been the most helpful thing to say, either. Flyer22 Reborn, I read your comments in that section. I wouldn't go so far to say that they lack focus, but their sheer length does dull and diminishes their overall potency somewhat. To both of you: I think it's best to respect (truly) that one of you interprets the mainstream and scholarly consensus (or divergences therein) in a manner that may be radically different from the other. And that's okay. That's what dispassionate discussion about content is for. The question is whether you can continue to work together (considering your interests overlap, that would be good), somehow, or whether you both have reached an impasse. You tell me. El_C 03:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse El C's analysis. As Rodney King said, "Can't we all get along?" If not, administrators may have to use their tools to prevent disruption. Let's not let it come to that, and instead concentrate on improving the encylopedia using the tool of consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--

First off, I'd like to note that I'm pretty chill most of the time. I've been working in a very contentious area of the encyclopedia since I've arrived and there is no one else I've been at loggerheads with like Flyer. A few case studies:

When I first started editing, I argued with Darkwarriorblake over how to credit The Wachowskis. But my very first post to someone else's user page was a peace offering to them, and we haven't bothered each other since.
Mathglot once said I was tainting the RM I started at Non-binary. That bothered me so I gave them a peace offering, too, and I feel like we're currently on good terms (though you'd have to confirm that with them!)
If I ever met Netoholic I suspect we would agree on nothing whatsoever, except perhaps that The Matrix is a good movie, and furthermore they once accused me of trying to "mock...and sabotage" their WikiProject. Yet recently I agreed with them here without drama or incident.
I found SMcCandlish's Signpost humor essay from a while back in poor taste, and SMc went on an SPI fishing expedition against me. Yet I was actually happy to see that recently SMc came back after a long WikiBreak, as I think he is usually a voice of reason in style discussions. (Also it doesn't hurt that he seems to almost always vote in my favor when I start an RfC or RM.)

So what does it say that I can get along with everyone here, more or less, except Flyer? To be frank, I think it says more about her than it does about me. In the Non-binary move discussion, you can see how I tried to de-escalate tensions between us, and how she, in turn, took my apology and essentially slapped me in the face with it. Flyer talks about escalation but what is she willing to do to de-escalate?

Anyway, sorry for the length. (As it happens Flyer and I have many things in common – did you know we're both vegetarians? – and one of them is verbosity.) In answer to your question about whether we can continue to work together, I mean, I am always willing to try and work with anybody, including Flyer. I'm also open to a two-way interaction ban, though that would make nervous, as I've never had one before, and don't know how it would effect my editing. I'd also be willing to agree to some kind of ground rules: "we both agree not to bring up past discussions or make broad comments about the others' POV in article talk pages", "we agree not to claim or insinuate that the other person is socking or lying about their identity, except at a proper venue like a good faith SPI investigation": that sort of thing.

Thanks for your calm handling of this, El C. (I'm more of a wine person, so I'll steal some of that.) WanderingWanda (talk) 07:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@WanderingWanda: For the record (and since this is a wordiness-permissive zone!), I don't have some kind of bone to pick with you, even if we disagreed on that topic. And in a likely unnecessary disclaimer, I pretty obviously have got on better with Flyer22_Reborn (at least of late) than with you, though we've had our issues in the past, and I don't agree with all of Flyer's noticeboard-action ideas, etc. Still, I'm at least as tired as Flyer is of being called "transphobic" (the furthest thing from the truth) by people on WP just because I don't agree with every wacky English-language-mangling and social-reality-denying idea that pops into the most extremist trans-and-ally heads. Likewise, I don't have to be a communist revolutionary to be a progressive, or a thought-policing censor to be liberal (indeed, the censoriousness of a good chunk of the far left is the opposite of actual liberality and tolerance).

In that particular kerfuffle, your wording and someone else's were just eerily similar (I'm pretty sure that was someone's sock, and have an idea whose, but that particular "who" is T-banned now, so it's probably a moot point unless the puppet returns). The prescribed thing to do in cases of possible sock-puppetry is to open an SPI, so that those with the administrative and checkuser "investigator" tools can see whether there's anything to it. Opening an SPI doesn't imply guilt or even good evidence. It might be kind of a fishing-expedition, but that's how the system is set up. And it's better than people running around making wild accusations they can never prove or disprove. :-) FWIW, I've had at least one SPI opened about me, because someone thought my posts and editing interests were too similar to Dicklyon's (but, amusingly, we both edit under our real names and are minor public figures who are easily Googleable to verify identity, so it really was a very pointless SPI).

On the main matter here, well, some people are a bit stubborn and emotional; I get that way myself, and its one of the reasons I mostly-quit Wikipedia for months at a time every few years. It's very easy for some of us to get worked up into an us-versus-them feeling (some may want to WP:WIN, and others may just feel increasingly put-upon or hounded, while maybe it's both with some). Disengagement is usually effective, but doesn't always work. Most of why I bailed 6 mo. ago was getting hit with a mutual I-ban after disengaging in no uncertain terms from someone, just walking away from the dispute and refusing to entertain more of it even in user talk, then having that user run to WP:AN days later, despite the dispute being over, and admins leaping to a mutual I-ban before I could even respond, despite it being the most obvious WP:BOOMERANG case ever. I'm not sure exactly what really does work, if there's any kind of "magic bullet" for protracted disputes at all. There have been some people (mostly in MoS/RM space) who I was dead certain needed to be T-banned, but who have finally backed off (in one case after about two years of frequent and disruptive WP:SPIDERMAN grandstanding over silly WP:GREATWRONGS sentiments about trivial punctuation or capitalization matters). Damned near drove me nuts, but in the end I'm glad I didn't pursue a ban. In another case, I quit WP for a month at a time twice in the same year just to get away from one editor and their tagteam buddy in one topic. That bad blood ran for something like three years (with my breaks around year two), but just avoiding conflict with them allowed the tension to wind down, and we've been able to get along mostly. (Though maybe much of that is just mutual avoidance, period. It didn't hurt that the tagteam broke up after one refused to support the other's doomed run at RfA, heh.)

I will say that I think both you and Flyer have strong convictions in this area and could both try harder to see the others' viewpoint and to accept that it doesn't come from malice, insanity, or other badness, just a socio-politico-cultural divide. Each of those sets of views is shared by a large number of people; this is a societal dispute not just a two-editor one. Keeping that in mind in a dim way can lead to more us-versus-them, WP:FACTION thinking, but really pondering on and absorbing it leads to increased tolerance and collegiality. It's a "hard learn" for me, too, on many issues. E.g., I have various friends who are anti-vaxers or otherwise deep believers in one pseudo-scientific thing or another, and it took losing some friends to learn to moderate the impulse to blow up on them about their irrational, baseless, gullible, and superstitious humbug (or blow up when they called my reliance on mainstream science an indoctrinated acquiescence to a biased, oligarchical, morally bankrupt military–industrial complex!). Blah blah, yak yak, I will shut up now and make some extra-chocolately chocolate cashew milk. Oh yeah. Midnight choco time.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More about me than it does about you, WanderingWanda? This is more of the same from you.

El C, Johnuniq, Cullen328, Ivanvector and JBW, my issue with WanderingWanda is this: From the start, what I have done is object to this editor's advocacy. We can see that in this discussion at Talk:Human sexual activity. WanderingWanda immediately viewed the matter from an "I'm offended" viewpoint. But what the editor was suggesting is against what WP:Advocacy and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS state. When editors engage in such behavior, I point it out. And as noted by editors in the aforementioned ANI thread, Wikipedia is better off for it. In that discussion at Talk:Human sexual activity, Johnuniq, Mathglot and Meters agreed with me. That was in April. Then, in July, in this discussion that took place at Talk:Fingering (sexual act), I addressed WanderingWanda's advocacy again. And so did Johnuniq. Johnuniq, Adrian J. Hunter, Meters, Crossroads and I were all in agreement. But what did WanderingWanda do? Compare me/what I wrote to trans-exclusionary gender critical commentators because I stated what has been stated times before on Wikipedia by various Wikipedians -- that "Wikipedia does not rewrite its articles to privilege tiny minorities over the majority of society." And because I asked "How could [removing all or most mentions of girls and women from anatomy articles, for example] not give validity to those who state that transgender politics erase people?" Crossroads stated, "Also, your accusation against Flyer22 is unfounded." Recently, the Wikipedia community saw where I was coming from and agreed that we will not be removing vital gendered language in these cases. At Talk:Attraction to transgender people in August, WanderingWanda argued that an article I cited by a conservative gay man is "a pro-TERF and anti-trans piece." Crossroads and I challenged WanderingWanda on this viewpoint.

Of course, what WanderingWanda stated at Talk:Attraction to transgender people was going to inflame tensions. Of course, then going into matters regarding my block log even though I was cleared by a number of admins and the CheckUser who blocked me was going to inflame tensions. Of course, WanderingWanda yet again comparing me to gender critical commentators and implying that I'm transphobic, this time at the Lesbian erasure article, was going to inflame tensions, as even Pyxis Solitary felt that she had to comment on it. Of course, WanderingWanda escalating a disagreement over a pinging matter regarding the non-binary topic, which resulted in Swarm pointing out why WanderingWanda was wrong, was going to inflame tensions. Of course, WanderingWanda engaging in WP:POLEMIC against me on their talk page was going to inflame tensions. Of course, WanderingWanda tampering with my post was going to inflame tensions. Of course, WanderingWanda pinging my brother (who ~~she~~ they believe to be me) here and making unsubstantiated comments about me were going to inflame tensions. Of course, WanderingWanda very recently tampering with my posts here, here, here and here at ANI and WP:ARCA was going to inflame tensions. So I'm to believe that WanderingWanda is all about deescalation? No. And I would never agree to a two-way ~~topic~~ interaction ban. I've done nothing to deserve it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El C, you stated, I think it's best to respect (truly) that one of you interprets the mainstream and scholarly consensus (or divergences therein) in a manner that may be radically different from the other. Maybe, but I don't remember WanderingWanda justifying their edits based on mainstream consensus. Rather, the root of what is acceptable to them appears to be its political stance. Their often activistic approach to Wikipedia is seen in Flyer22 Reborn's examples above, and I testify to it myself. Other examples exist. I've said before that I think WanderingWanda truly believes they are improving the encyclopedia (as in, they are not purposefully attempting to harm the project), but the activist way of thinking and doing things is very deep seated.

WanderingWanda, you asked, So what does it say that I can get along with everyone here, more or less, except Flyer? To be frank, I think it says more about her than it does about me. All the others you mentioned I hardly see at sex and gender topics, except for Mathglot, and Flyer is even more active in these areas than he is, at least the ones I watch. So, Flyer deals a lot with this sort of activism. And it is true that you have thrown around claims that certain things are TERF and anti-trans and made comparisons of Flyer to such people. This is obviously totally inappropriate and has a chilling effect on debate. I'm not seeing equivalent attacks on Flyer's end. And especially your editing of Flyer's comments was completely unneeded and inflammatory.

A mutual I-ban is not necessary and unbalanced. What is needed is more care to comment on content and not the contributor (which would apply to everyone of course). And we go by the reliable sources; we are not any sort of vanguard or platform for cultural change. -Crossroads- (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WanderingWanda, I'll be straight-forward: you should definitely not be redacting any part of Flyer22 Reborn's comments, considering the already-existing tension between you two, especially at such venues as ARCA where there is no shortage of uninvolved eyes — that was probably a lapse in judgment on your part. So in the future, it's better to let someone else handle such redaction. Anyway, I just naturally assumed both sides have been trying to advance their interpretation of what the mainstream and scholarly consensus is. If that is not the case, then indeed, we have a problem on a deeper level. Because minority views can only receive minority representation on Wikipedia. As long as these principles are something everyone is willing to subscribe to, then I see the interpersonal stuff as being resolvable. But if that isn't the case, if there is an attempt to put the cart before the horse, which as a tertiary source is a problem for Wikipedia, then there would need to be some serious introspection about one's approach to editing here. Because Wikipedia is meant to reflect reality rather than reflect efforts to change it that have yet to reach full social maturation. Such efforts should be mentioned too, sure, but in context and not in disguise as the actual mainstream. El_C 16:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1RR in ARBPIA

"Because you are effectively imposing 1RR before that DS has been approved by the given admin." --- 1RR is not a DS; it is an arbitration remedy. Approval by an admin is not a requirement. Zero^talk 11:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but that's not the point. Because 500-30 is inextricably tied (which I am trying to change) to the 1RR edit notice, adding a note that restricts users from the article without it being ECP'd (and the ARBPIA ECP request at RfPP may be declined, anyway — which does happen), that's just a bit awkward and should probably be avoided. They should just wait for approval before jumping the gun in those instances, is my point. That original ARBPIA instruction was written when it was still considered okay to preemptively protect ARBPIA pages, but that is not the consensus today. Whenever a non-admin applies the mainspace and talk page editnotice to an ARBPIA page, they are effectively also stating that the (unprotected) page is now subject to ECP, which is problematic. El_C 15:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, are we saying that a problem is being caused by the coupling of placing the editnotice with applying ECP? "The community is encouraged to place the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict."[22] The 1RR remedy "may only be enforced on pages with the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice."[23] Yet, because placing the edit notice is currently inextricably linked to applying ECP to a page, which may be refused, the end result is pages on which 1RR cannot be enforced because they have no editnotice? ← ZScarpia 18:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HS Produkt VHS

Hi again. Same user from Serbia now attack HS Produkt VHS Croatian rifle ,before attack Croatian gun hs2000. He deliberately puts terrorists as Islamic State as a user because he does not like Croatian technology. Several rifles seized from the Iraqi army and terrorist taking picture with them and he puts it as a source. Please put in semi protection HS Product VHS. Thank you [24] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.114.105 (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 17:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But he will come back that he does not give up. If he changes again please put on longer protection. Thank you again, goodbye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.114.105 (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 719: / Line 719: @@
 :::Well, I think this view by Paul is wrong, and can even be viewed as a language-based discrimination of sources. Paul incorrectly assumes that any Russian-<u>language</u> (or Polish-language) source is automatically biased in favor of the corresponding country or an ethnic group. This is not the case. What actually happens is this: subjects relevant to the politics or history of country X, and especially such subjects that are not highly significant, are covered in most detail in sources published on the language of that country. Strictly speaking, this has nothing to do with poor sourcing. Yes, it can be poor, but one can find just as many poor sources on English. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 01:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 :I will not comment more on WP:AE and would like to see how this is closed. Indeed, an ARCA filing might be helpful. If I file something (not sure if I actually will), this will be probably a request for amendment (sourcing restriction) for the case Holocaust in Poland. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 16:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
+::The key issue is high quality sources (like peer-reviewed), not language. Regards, --[[User:Assayer|Assayer]] ([[User talk:Assayer|talk]]) 18:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 == Bacondrum again ==

Revision as of 18:07, 8 November 2019

Archived Discussions

For you

Oooo. Purdy!

Seasons Greetings

Happy Groundhog Day

Chippies

Book?

4Tality Fractal

Rev-dels

Romania

And all I got was a ^^^

Blizzard Entertainment

2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria

Why ethno-linguistic dispute?

New evasion

Please Respectful Attention

User:Icewhiz

Participate in RfD discussion

John Sweeney (journalist) revdel request

Onus and page consensus

I am sorry.

Please, hang in there

Administration Advice

Advice

Module MLB standings

also...

3RR name

edit link

Yossi Cohen

Bandar bin Sultan al Saud and his wife funded some of the 9/11 hijackers

Block evasion?

October 2019

Battle of Xuân Lộc

Sock

You've got mail!

RfA

Sock

Fastest gun in the Middle East

~ Mitch's wife ~

Since you blocked the sockmaster

The Urdu article

Battle of Haldighati

R.K. Laros page

Siddha Yoga

HS2000

Use of rev del on José Gregorio Salazar

Miss Universe 2019

2A02:587:3A21:3D00::/64

Closure discussion

Jewish stone-throwing

IP editor

smile

English Punctuation

You might

Closure of Tulsa Race Riot -> Tulsa Race Massacre Move Request

Al Dhafra Private School RFPP

ITN for Barisha raid and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

Need advice in dealing with disruptive user

Your block of Tatzref

3RR

Thank you

You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article

Kirkuk

thanks

Deletion review for User:SashiRolls/SWAPP

Where does one go to report sanctions violations?

copyvio cleanup?

~ Hi El C! ~

tendentious editing

ANI comment

Ping didn't work. Just in case you missed it

Asli Daud

Iraqi Lurs

WP:AE

Why did you deleted Asli Daud

Question

Bacondrum again

Edit request

User:Shadegan at ANI again

4 Tality Fractal