User talk:El C

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by El C (talk | contribs) at 20:59, 12 August 2019 (→‎Mhhossein adding material on the MEK page despite lack of consensus: perhaps there's a compromise to be had). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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


Archived Discussions

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

For you

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

Oooo. Purdy!

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

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


Seasons Greetings

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

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

Happy Groundhog Day

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

Chippies

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

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

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

Book?

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

4Tality Fractal

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

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

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

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

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

Rev-dels

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

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


Romania

And all I got was this... Whoa!

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

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

And all I got was a ^^^

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

A beer for you!

Here, let's not bother together. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A beer to go with my cheeseburger. Satiated and quenched. I'm stoked! El_C 02:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's back. General Ization Talk 02:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They usually return about half a dozen times per interval. El_C 03:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Their contribution, in its several variations, includes some rather unique and otherwise nonsensical sequences of words. (I could mention one in particular but beans.) Can we create a filter? General Ization Talk 03:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please. I'm not sure how we go about doing that, but it's definitely worth a try. El_C 03:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Requested. General Ization Talk 03:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! El_C 03:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reconsidered the name of the proposed filter. 03:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I am told this has been added to edit filter #871. General Ization Talk 04:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done. Hopefully, it will have the desired effect. El_C 04:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You know El C ~ @Drmies: is a boo boo head ~ but we love him ~mitch~ (talk) 02:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Felicity Huffman

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

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

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

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

Anthony Cumia

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

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

Thank you

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Removal of sourced content

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

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

An example of what you have removed.

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

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

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

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

A few thoughts on this:

  • 1) You are insisting on keeping the discussion of Salazar and the Estado Novo in an article where the topic is either minor or where it should not be at all. The topic should be discussed in the Salazar`s talk page, where it really belongs, and where it has been often and extensively discussed and where editors interested in the Estado Novo and Salazar will easily participate.
  • 2) Under your protection a disruptive IP has been eliminating large paragraphs or source content, ignoring Wikipedia policies. It seems that you are giving the same weight to long established editors like Rjensen (an historian, by the way) as to a disruptive IP
  • 3) The IP keeps on refuting all sources based on his own opinions, not presenting any additional sources. The IP even says that the Wikipedia guidelines are "not very good criteria"
  • 4) Please read the latest additions to the talk page. It is user Rjensen and me citing sources and being constructive, facing an IP with his own opinions, not citing sources, and stalling.

So I kindly ask you to please take actions. Or if you don't feel qualified for the job please help in getting admins that feel that they can helpJ Pratas (talk) 11:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than free to try to find another admin to step in for me, at any time. I have zero objections to that. But, no, my involvement as an admin does not depend on me agreeing with you here. And that having been said, let's review: the RfC that sided with your position has been overturned by its closer. That is a fact. You refuse to have the status quo ante in place while a new discussion take its course. That is also a fact. Walrasiad and the IP oppose your changes. That, as well, is a fact. Now you need to employ dispute resolution so as to resolve this content dispute like anyone else. El_C 14:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He did it again it seems, well, I wonder if you could revert his edits while discussion continues, I mean, the page is protected, and also, if I revert again, it will be edit warring. -- 191.34.187.54 (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Profanity-spouting School IP

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

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

Vandalism spree

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

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

Regarding security forces

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last source doesnt mention infantry or duties

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

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

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

Third Opinion

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

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

Continued removal of cleanup tags at Antifa (United States)

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

I'm not comfortable talking hypothetically. For example, if there is clear consensus against adding the tag, then tagging becomes a problem, no? El_C 17:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
History of that tag:
  • Added by Wikieditor19920[3] Removed by Objective3000.[4]
  • Added by Wikieditor19920[5]. Removed by Simonm223[6]
  • Added by Wikieditor19920[7]. Removed by Dumzid[8]
Also, you recently warned the editor over edit warring. O3000 (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I waited several days and offered a detailed explanation on the talk page before applying the tag earlier. The discussion involves a limited group of four editors. Two editors on each side have raised concerns about NPOV; two editors believe there is no NPOV issue and have repeatedly removed the tag. The point of a tag is to draw other editors' attention to an issue and expand the discussion to involve more input. There is no criterion under WP:WTRMT that permits a tag to be removed just because an editor doesn't believe there is an issue, particularly when there is an active and divided discussion on it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Three different users removed the tag, but you continue to add it? Really? I am trying to think of a reason not to block you right now for continuing to edit war. You need to do better. El_C 18:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United States Air Force Security Forces

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

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

petty perhaps but

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

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

Iranian politics

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

Thanks, Vanamonde93. In fact, it got so bad on People's Mujahedin of Iran that I was able to convince the participants to voluntarily agree to (mandatory) GS for the article, indefinitely. And I think having done so has made a real positive difference. Like you, I also get the impression that there are other Iranian politics pages that could benefit from DS being applied to them. I support your proposal wholeheartedly, be it via an ARCA or as an appeal to the community. El_C 05:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:General sanctions#Community-authorised sanctions for the table of existing community sanctions. In general, less bureaucracy is needed when setting up community sanctions than Arbcom sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Yet only six of these in total! El_C 02:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution

You are involved in a dispute resolution. You can access it here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Conservapedia 24.155.244.245 (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand what the Dispute resolution noticeboard is for. El_C 07:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The filing has been closed. --MrClog (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, El C. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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.

A couple of questions

I just saw this closing statement of yours and I must admit I'm rather confused. You write that "the RfC reached a consensus and it should by default apply across multiple articles". First of all, I'm not aware of any policy that states that. Moreover, the RfC was on which name "the lead and the infobox" should lead with, i.e. not something that is even possible to extrapolate to another article. The consensus for the lead and infobox was for Tel Aviv-Yafo, but the consensus is still for Tel Aviv as the title of the article. If the result of the RfC can't even be extrapolated to the title of the same article, what makes you think it needs to be extrapolated to other articles, where there may be article-specific reasons to prefer another name (like in the article which confusingly says that Tel Aviv and Jaffa merged to form Tel Aviv-Yafo)?

Wikipedia fully accepts piped links; that is, the title of an article is not binding on editors of other articles. This means that a link to Tel Aviv may appear as Tel Aviv-Yafo without that counting as disregarding the consensus on where to place the Tel Aviv article. The same would go for piping the link as Tel Aviv-Jaffa. The question of how Tel Aviv should be referred to in general has never been discussed, certainly not in the very narrow RfC, and were it to be discussed, I would expect Tel Aviv to win as that is the title of the article.

I'm also surprised that you didn't take issue with the editor who claimed my edit to implement the consensus failed to do so. Surely, the RfC is only about which name to put first? How could we justify to leave out the names Tel Aviv (the very name of the article) and Tel Aviv-Jaffa (which even Avaya1 admits gets more than a million Google hits, compared to less than three million for Tel Aviv-Yafo)? Libhye (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC's closing will apply across multiple articles, because the question is pretty much the same: which name to use. We don't need a separate RfC in the other articles to delay that as being the consensus, though you may launch new ones there, too. But until new consensus emerges, the result of the RfC —which has not actually been concluded yet— will apply at those articles, as well. That's my evaluation. But you need to stop edit warring, first and foremost. El_C 16:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When you are asked questions in your role as administrator, it is your job to answer those questions; you don't get to ignore them as if you were just any editor. Not only are you required to answer my questions, but you are required to answer them in a way that addresses my expressed concerns. Simply restating your position won't do. You're currently being a bad administrator, which is much worse than being a bad editor because you've been selected to hold to a higher standard. I'll give you one more chance to actually read what I wrote and reply to it.
No, the question is not "pretty much the same: which name to use". The name used in the Tel Aviv article is overwhelmingly just Tel Aviv, and the consensus for that is not going to change. The RfC concerns the question of whether, instead of the normal name, a version of the full name should appear first in the article and the infobox, while the normal name continues to appear everywhere else. There is no other article to which that issue applies. Whatever the result of the RfC, if there is any implied consensus to apply across Wikipedia, it is to refer to the city as just Tel Aviv, as that is the name of the article and the name used throughout the article. Libhye (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic TERF. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Seems to be a pattern with these DRN notices. Here, too, I am the uninvolved admin and moreover am not actually familiar with the content dispute. El_C 16:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you've been an admin long enough to know: No matter what you do, you will have always done the wrong thing, and whatever happens next, even if other people do it, is subsequently your fault. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Yet I continue to be surprised, every time, as if it is the first time! El_C 17:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, I hope you haven't been protecting the wrong version? Bishonen | talk 18:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
What, me? Never! El_C 18:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was being exhaustive in notifying parties involved in the relevant discussion. I'm unfamiliar with abusive or accusatory DRN practices. No offense was intended. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 19:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken. But I was not involved in the relevant discussion and only used the talk page in my capacity as an uninvolved admin. El_C 19:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curious

You removed a sentence that I added to the Heterosexuality article and your reasoning for removing it was that it was “too poorly written”. Flyer22Reborn just added the exact same sentence back but you don’t seem to have a problem with it. Why is that? -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 04:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since I didn't see it. But now that I have. Re-removed. You two feel "change efforts work to change" is passable? Really? El_C 04:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, just saw that you removed it. I agree that the sentence is awkward but instead of removing it you could have changed the wording yourself. A user has already changed the wording of it now though. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 05:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would have if only I understood what it was actually trying to say! I suppose I can live with "change efforts are effective," though it is still pretty odd. El_C 05:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see: change efforts is actually part of the special terminology. I stand corrected. Still reads awkward to me. But oh well. All's well that ends well. El_C 05:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 05:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help regarding navigation in Wikipedia

Hello there, I'm relatively a new editor to Wikipedia, and I like adding new content to articles, but I'm stuck. I don't know which articles require contribution, and how to find them. I've had a look at Portal:Contents, but using the Pageviews Analysis tool available, I found that their popularity has been declining, at least since 2015. So, I've been tempted to ask an experienced editor how they browse Wikipedia.

P.S. I have an account, but I've logged out to ask this question so I don't seem stupid.

106.215.6.160 (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you like authoring new articles, there's Wikipedia:Requested articles and Wikipedia:Articles for creation. But if you like expanding existing articles, there's always Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types. There's also Wikipedia:Drafts for helping drafts become articles on the main article space. Good luck and happy editing! El_C 15:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

YGM

Hello El C. Please check your inbox. Puduḫepa 18:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 18:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwi Farms

I upped Kiwi Farms to ECP because there is WP:SPA activity there as well as anonymous trolling. The website is evidently a cesspit, and that appears to attract what cesspits attract... Guy (Help!) 09:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, makes sense. El_C 13:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allowed to prepare

I am allowed to use my sandbox to prepare a case against this editor. I checked WP:POLEMIC. This is not an attack page, it is preparation for a case against Hijiri88. not only keeps actual attack pages, but he keeps them in the main space now. Hijiri88 moved his sandbox with his grudges and harassing comments to the main space to hide it. I was Looking for diffs of all of his harassment and I found them in the article Man'yō Shikō. That is certainly not something our readers need to see in the history of an article. Hijiri88's sandbox is one of the ways the editor harasses others and plots his revenge. I think it is unfair that I cannot prepare my case per the rules of Wikipedia WP:POLEMIC Lightburst (talk) 04:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean, because you fail to cite actual diffs. In my life every bully I ever met will not shut up...and Hijiri88 is no exception — is not acceptable. If you have a case, just submit it, though I caution you that patience for this dispute has worn quite thin. El_C 04:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You erased my diffs. I have the same right to prepare as any editor. I now need to start over. But you can start by looking at the main space article Man'yō Shikō. The whole history of the article is Hijiri88's sandbox which he redirected in order to hide his harassment. It is quite unfair for you to take my preparation from my sandbox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightburst (talk • contribs)
That's pretty unresponsive, I'm sorry to say. I can restore the page briefly, if you're going to submit something immediately. But letting it sit there with the "bully" attack, etc., is just not going to happen. El_C 04:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I have historically used my sandbox to draft forthcoming articles, ANI reports, CCI reports, GA nominations, and everything in between. This is not the same thing as creating an attack page. A little while ago I realized that circumstances beyond my control had pushed my edit count from "mainspace > non-mainspace" to "mainspace < non-mainspace", and decided to pull a little cheat by moving my drafting my next article in my sandbox and then just moving the sandbox. This was done purely to satisfy my editcountitis and not to "hide" anything (the oldest edit summary in my current sandbox clearly links to the current location of the previous sandbox).
At no point have I "kept attack pages". To suggest that the above little cheat on my part was done with the intention of moving an "attack page" into the mainspace is patently absurd, and is somewhat in line with the kind of snide remarks LB has been making against me over the last few weeks. I asked an admin to take a look at it and was basically ignored.[9] I really don't know what to do about it at this point -- an IBAN would not protect me from this harassment but rather just invite more harassment and prevent me from defending myself (this was my experience with pretty much everyone LB listed in his little list of my "enemies").
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Lightburst, I see what you mean with regards to Man'yō Shikō — that is, indeed, at best, a highly confusing edit history for the mainspace. Hijiri 88, I have deleted all revisions save for the latest one for that article. The mainspace edit history is not suppose to be constituted in this way, sorry. El_C 04:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks EL C. I am preparing this case the against Hijiri88 in case he continues to subject me to his harassment in sandboxes, in talk pages, on my page, on his user page, etc, et al. When one editor has friction with a dozen or more editors, the editor is likely the problem. I am not going to litigate this on your talk page, but I need Hijiri88 to know that I am not going to sit on my hands while he creates his fiction about me. I found a copy and I will keep adding to it in case Hijiri88 continues his lies and manipulations. Saying I am harassing him is absurd. I just want to edit in peace. This is a big encyclopedia! Lightburst (talk) 05:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "lies and manipulations" is not a good start to wanting to "edit in peace." Let's just pretend there's a binding interaction ban, shall way? El_C 05:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He has been telling lies. But in regard to Iban, I would love that. Here is just my last five days of Hijiri88 following me and making accusations about me to others
  1. July 26, 2019 Calls me ignorant at AfD. How many Footy AfDs has he participated in?
  2. Jluy 27, 2019 Harassing me
  3. July 27, 2019 Accusing me of the things he is doing
  4. July 27, 2019 Needling me
  5. July 29, 2019 Makes statements about his dislike for the WP:ARS
  6. July 29, 2019 I told him to leave me alone again
  7. July 30, 2019 Typical of his behavior, he follows me and accused me of following him
FYI: My mail to EL C was about something else. However the diff on Tryptofish talk is just another demonstration of the following and making up stories.
Please get the Hijiri 88 to agree to a voluntary Iban and this is squashed. I am 100% in agreement that it is needed Lightburst (talk) 13:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing would please me more than to steer clear of Lightburst. An established Wikipedian who isn't me will need to monitor his edits (mentor him?) to make sure he stops violating policy as he has been doing. I volunteered to mentor him back in May, but when he started harassing/attacking me I gave up. I do not accept a formal sanction: such a sanction would almost certainly be used to undermine me at a later date (as the IBANs I have historically requested to protect me from hounding were on the deleted sandbox page). Once Lightburst learns to abide by Wikipedia policy and standards of behaviour, my dispute with him will be fully resolved and a thing of the past, with no reason for it to hang over either of our heads any further. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So I am trying to weed through the accusatory response. Is that a yes? You agree to a voluntary Iban? If so lets get EL C to consummate the deal with your word and mine that this will stop now. Lightburst (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to stay the heck away from you of my own accord. I am assuming you will do the same. It is my hope that El C, one of his talk page watchers, someone who happens to be reading this, or someone who participated in the May or June ANIs (maybe Swarm?), or Tryptofish, will teach you the ropes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Now lets practice it. I will choose my own mentors if I think I need one. I consider this squashed and I thank EL C for doing what 3 ANIs could not do. I am going to give him 6 barnstars if this works. Lightburst (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm ... would you mind unrevdelling,restoring and moving the page to, say, User:Hijiri88/Old sandbox, and then putting the current content back to the current title? I don't think having drafted a wide variety of things in my sandbox and then having moved the page into the mainspace as the last article I happened to draft for editcountitis reasons (which is apparently counter-policy?) should permanently remove all the stuff that I left in my sandbox for one reason or another (some of it was drafts of comments that I was unable to post due to threads getting archived, etc.). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see you already did that last part. I thought you revdelled the diffs. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After several failed attempts:  Done. El_C 05:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! :D Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good morning @El C:. Sadly the voluntary IBAN was violated by Hijiri88, he took some time off, and then went right back to the old ways. I do not know if ANI is the right forum to get an IBAN put in place. I want to ask if you have any other suggestions? Lightburst (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't need to ping me on my own talk page, but you do need to submit the relevant diffs before I do anything. El_C 20:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Chick-fil-A

Good morning El C! ~ I have a question, how can a IP sign a users name with out signing in? example here ~ they edited 4 times replying to a comment I made on this talk page ~ I'm not going to respond until I know. Seems fishy ~ thanks El C ~mitch~ (talk) 12:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Junebug2500 is forgetting to log in, somehow? I dunno. They should not be editing in this way, for sure. El_C 15:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorbetière

~ Hi again ~lol ~ El C ~ are we allowed to wiki link to another wiki article ~ for example ~ I want to wiki link the word 'sorbetière' in the en.wiki to fr.wiki article Sorbetière ~ Thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can do sorbetière or, better yet, sorbetière [fr] — mmm, that sounds good, right about now! El_C 15:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page-blanking vandal

Can you please reblock 174.255.0.0/20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) for another 3-6 months? They just returned today after their recent rangeblock expired. They're also blocked on 174.225.132.0/22 for 6 months (along with several other ranges). It doesn't look like they're going to stop. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 15:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for advice closing RfC

Hello El C. I apologize for turning to you to ask this question, but I am not as fully aware of procedures on Wikipedia as others who have much more experience editing than I do and have seen your excellent admin work in several places. I just wanted to ask you, where would I go to ask for someone with experience to close an RFC about U.S.-Mexico border camps? Given how evenly split the RfC is, and my extensive involvement in discussion, I'm fairly sure I shouldn't be the one to do it. But I would assume there is somewhere for me to go to request this from others; I just do not know where that is.

Also, if you think this RfC is one that should run longer than the 'traditional' 30 days, please don't hesitate to suggest as much to me. I'd like to make sure it gets done right.

Thank you for your assistance and patience.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Pinchme123. The place to request closures is Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Also, thank you for the kind words — it means a lot! Regards, El_C 02:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopia

That's an alternative name, you know. Doug Weller talk 12:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, of course! El_C 12:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Jeepney TV

Another repetitive vandalism with poorly unsourced content all over again with List of programs broadcast by Jeepney TV. And this time with lifetime protected article to prevent the sourced content. Jon2guevarra talk 12:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you asking for the article protection to be up'd and/or extended to indefinite? El_C 12:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I chosen extended to indefinite. Jon2guevarra talk 13:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Dlohcierekim semiprotected it for a week. You may wish to ask them to extend the protection. El_C 13:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jon2guevarra: Indefinite semi-protection should only be done if lesser durations do not work. If the problems resume after one week, we can protect again for longer. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for the block of both IPs that were targeting the Hurricane Harvey article, as well as the subsequent semi-protection. Your quick response was much appreciated. Aoi (青い) (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime, Aoi. Glad I could help. El_C 23:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a thing against me?

Ken keeps deleting my edits without explaining why, and says they need citations, but even if I add citations, he keeps deleting them. It doesn't make sense.

Also, he is the one who is harassing me because he is following my edits in rapid succession. Is Ken an admin or is he just stalking me? Nashhinton (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do I what? Considering I've never heard of you until today, no. But you need to stop following him and reverting him in a retaliatory way: in Dark Enlightenment, 5-MeO-DMT, Double planet, Paul Fromm (white supremacist), and elsewhere. As for the articles where they reverted you first, please try to figure this out through discussion, because I am seeing actual content issues that need to be resolved there. El_C 04:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're stalking me again. Please quit.

In what way is simplifying a definition not an improvement? Nashhinton (talk) 05:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you and Beyond My Ken are still following my every edit? Nashhinton (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again? I'm not stalking you, that article has been on my watchlist for many, many years. But if that is the quality of your edits, than I should be looking over your contributions. Again, competence is required to edit here. Adding a one line paragraph that essentially repeats what has already been explained, fails that threshold. El_C 05:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many of your edits are subpar, sorry. El_C 05:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Nashhinton: Three things:
(1) I am not an admin
(2) El_C is an admin
(3) You must get over the idea that you can edit Wikipedia and not have your edits inspected, edited, re-phrased or outright reverted by other editors. It is part and parcel of this place. The onus is on you to make contributions which improve the encyclopedia, which are accurate, well written, and well sourced. If you don;t do that people are going to make changes to your edits. Sometimes they're going to make changes that you don't like, that you think are wrong, unfactual, or go against our policies -- well, that's what we have article talk pages for. If you can't work things out with the other editor on their user talk page, you take your arguments to the article talk page, to allow other editors to comment and see if a consensus will form. Sometimes the consensus will support you, and sometimies it won't, that's just the way it goes. But what you never should expect is that you're going to be able to contribute to an article and not have your contribution stand inspection. It just ain't gonna happen, so get used to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that guys, but I just get this feeling like you are gang-stalking me. Like, who has time to revert my edits the second I post it? That means you are not focused on the other hundreds of Wikipedia users editing, you are only focused on me. And what makes it stranger is that it's only you two that are reverting my edits.
If there is an issue with my edits, you have the right to revert and explain how it's helpful. But me providing a simplified definition after a wordy and poorly constructed definition is in no way disruptive. Nashhinton (talk) 05:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And explain how my edits are subpar. Nashhinton (talk) 05:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you not indent your comments? Anyway, "Adolf Hitler was an artist" — really? El_C 05:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, wasn't he an artist? He wasn't a successful one, but he was still an artist.
Way better than Picasso Nashhinton (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please indent your comments. Please stop refactoring. Anyway, that is not what he is most well-known for. El_C 05:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yet you keep refactoring, still! Way better than Picasso — wow! El_C 05:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indent my comments on a talk page? Why? Nashhinton (talk) 05:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like Hitler as a person, but I thought he was a good artist. Hitler was an evil scumbag. But he was still good as an artist.
And what is refactoring? Nashhinton (talk) 06:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:REFACTOR. Indent for the flow of the conversation. Anyway, please stop repeating falsehoods. I am not looking over your contributions, though it seems clear that I should. El_C 06:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What falsehoods am I repeating? This conversation is quite perplexing. I'm still waiting for you to explain how my edits are subpar. Nashhinton (talk) 06:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My views on Picasso was an opinion. Van Gogh was also subpar and much better than Picasso Nashhinton (talk) 06:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're stalking me again — what do you mean by again? I already gave one example. El_C 06:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please stop refactoring, or you will no longer be welcomed on this talk page. El_C 06:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nashhinton: There is no sense in talking to someone who thinks that Hitler was a "way better" artist that Picasso. I mean, there is no accounting for taste, but, really....
    Anyway, I'm out. I'll still be checking into your edits, because you have shown that they have the tendency to be -- as El_C very politely said, "sub-par" - I'd have gone farther than that. Anyone, if I see a bad edit from you, I will do what I do to any bad edit I see, I will fix it or delete it. I will give an edit summary which explains why I did what I did, but I will not explain any further than that. If that bothers you, report me, and I'll be happy to explain that you are the editor who thinks that Hitler was a better artist than Picasso, and that an advertisement for a middle school text book was a reliable source for information on the Black Death. And I will cite this discussion, and the one on my talk page as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Night guys! XD Nashhinton (talk) 06:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned you 2 to quit commenting on my page and stalking me. Leave me alone. Thanks Nashhinton (talk) 07:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC) — Oh? I received no such warning. El_C 07:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About the article Belief

Hello El C. I'm a newbie. I didn't know that you're an admin. I'm so sorry. I don't know how to delete that post.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrr0j30t (talk • contribs)

Hi. No worries. But me being an admin should make no difference. The weight of the arguments is what should matter. El_C 08:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eisenhower

Hi, can you unprotect Dwight D. Eisenhower? You semi-protected it indefinitely after a flurry of vandalism or edit warring on July 16, but there didn't seem to be obvious issues in the couple weeks before that. I was trying to fix a dead reference when I encountered the protection. Thanks. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 08:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think after +30 protection attempts, an indefinite makes sense. Please feel free to submit an edit request. El_C 08:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see there have been occasional incidents over the years but nowhere near enough to justify permanent protection. It was protected 2x this year, 3x in 2017, and all other protections were in 2014 or earlier. It's not all that frequent a target. It does look like vandalism restarted in July 2019 immediately after the January 2019 6-month protection expired. But the July 2019 incident looks like someone repeatedly trying to re-insert the same meme, not hopping IP's very fast. Some blocks and an edit filter could handle that. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 10:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not inclined to unprotect an article subjected to +30 protections, but feel free to take this to RfPP. El_C 17:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard B. Spencer

Could you please unprotected Richard B. Spencer. 67.162.117.78 (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. There has been far too much disruptive editing there. But feel free to take this to RfPP. El_C 17:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey mate, regarding a movie article

You may want to look in on, and put in a brief block, on the Hobbs & Shaw article page. The movie opens tonight, and there are a lot of drive-by unlogged edits. Talk to @TropicAces:, who appears to be a regular editor, and see if it would be a help. (While what I saw of many unloggeds was not vandalism, it was also not very constructive.) Finally, I was editing there doing my usual check-and-complete-references type of work, and I know by restricting the article, I would lose access. That is fine by me—I have a bit more to do to finish the sources, but it can be done after the film's attention-grabbing opening weekend passes. Cheers mate (your old scholastic, sometimes seredipity-needing, IP editor friend). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:c700:2db2:8fd:2600:814e:293 (talk • contribs)

Hey, IP editor friend, we have a rule about not protecting pages preemptively, so I'm afraid there's nothing I can do at this time. But I have added the article to my watchlist, so I'll do my best to keep an eye. Regards, El_C 17:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Sorry the heavens did not align on this one! El_C 17:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! looks like I did it anyway, so that shows me! El_C 19:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • ~ They actually have a movie named Hobbs and Shaw ~ ILMAO ~~ ~mitch~ (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laotian swimming vandal

Can you please reblock this vandal for another 2-3 months: 2403:6200:8976:0:0:0:0:0/48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)? They've been vandalizing on-and-off since May, and they just came back today. I doubt that they're going to stop anytime soon. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 20:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National Union

I wonder if you could revert JPratas's edit while the discussion continues, I can't revert it because if I do it will be edit warring, and it's also blocked of course. -- 191.34.187.54 (talk) 00:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did I not fully protect the page? El_C 00:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, I was just asking if you could revert his edit while the discussion continues. -- 191.34.187.54 (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've already proposed my suggestions on how to edit these articles (voluntary editing restrictions), but unfortunately, no one responded to these. El_C 01:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 El Paso shooting

Hi. May I ask you to reconsider your decision on the RPP for 2019 El Paso shooting? There are constant edits to the page, many citing unconfirmed news sources. Thanks -OXYLYPSE (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was away. Looks like it's been protected for a few hours, at any case. El_C 23:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HS2000

Hi.This is non-existent state ,this is sock puppets from Serbia.Look a year ago the same thing was tried to change that and it was edit war.Look History and please restore.Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.12.123 (talk • contribs)

Please cite specific diffs rather than send me to look at the edit history a year ago. We are all volunteers here. El_C 05:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
She's right. Here's the difference and the proof is why you should go back to the original.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HS2000&diff=846102820&oldid=846096145 And this same try https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HS2000&diff=847952350&oldid=847928627 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopioo (talk • contribs)
/Investigating. El_C 05:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is a non-existent state and should not be classified as normal states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopioo (talk • contribs)
I said, I'm investigating. Also, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). El_C 05:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the ISIS mention due to its connection to an indefinitely blocked user. Thanks for your patience. El_C 06:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Goodbye! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopioo (talk • contribs)
Anytime. Happy editing! El_C 06:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note WP:EVADE. Although this is mostly against the edits of blocked users, there is a specific exclusion, unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Now I would see Amnesty as an excellent source for this, and the idea that "Daesh isn't a country" is a very minor issue of formatting in it presentation, not a reason to exclude that content.
I'd also note that much of the article is sourced to a WP:SPS source, which for a long time was a deadlink. Also some of the claims (still) sourced to that aren't even mentioned by it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be consensus among admins to exclude the addition ([10] [11]). I note that the latest IP adding it has also been blocked for one year as an LTA. El_C 22:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really have an answer to that —I'm looking at the project overall, at any case— but perhaps the other two admins might. El_C 22:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weirdness

Ok, something exceedingly strange is going on. You blocked 221.191.161.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) a few minutes ago for disruptive editing. If you study its edits, they're a mixture of constructive edits and vandalism, but the remarkable observation is that none of the edit summaries match the actions taken in the edits. Now there's another one: 183.77.232.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Also note the incredible speed with which the edits are being made, especially given some of the edits being fairly complex. I think this is another type of attack. Thoughts? General Ization Talk 05:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong admin! El_C 05:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you're right; you're not the blocker of the first IP. Would still appreciate your taking a look at this. General Ization Talk 05:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did, but they were already blocked at that point. El_C 05:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitic Troll

Can you please block this guy for a while: 99.203.24.0/23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)? This is pretty much the same person as 66.87.9.0/24. Initially, I though that it might have been someone else with bad conduct, but these two edits [12][13] pretty much give them away. You can see this nonsense ANI report for more information on the context (they've gotten sneakier since then). I've already told them to cut it with the attacks, but they've only escalated them since then. Since two other 3-months rangeblocks (on different ranges) did nothing to dissuade them, I suggest blocking the current range for at least 3-6 months. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 20:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

States and union territories of India

Can you increase the protection level to ECP? Asking here since you are already familiar with the issue and I have in the past edited the page. Abecedare (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also Administrative divisions of India. This is gonna be a mess, isn't it? <sigh> Abecedare (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. El_C 18:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I would preemptively protect if I could. El_C 18:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I think you can preemptively protect here. This disruption is inherently rooted in the Indo-Pakistan territorial dispute, so WP:GS/IPAK is applicable. Or so I would read it. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. In theory, yes, but see (and juxtapose) this ARBPIA-related discussion on my reading that consensus has changed about preemptive protection for articles under restrictions (ARBPIA-wise, at least). El_C 19:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The general prohibition under ARBPIA is old, though, and ARBCOM-authorized. GS/IPAK is relatively new, and had decent (though not unanimous) support from the community. Even some of those opposing it were of the opinion that it was unnecessary because such protections could already be applied under ARBIPA DS. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just think that the general question about preemptive protection for articles under (any) restriction is not one that been settled. Possibly, not even yet to be extensively discussed, as far as I am aware. El_C 19:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ASCII Art filter

is the ASCII Art filter not working? The last time I saw such an "image" was on a subpage of de:WP:AP as an IP back then. Unbekannter z34-56r-ghf-aq2-d0r (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea. Didn't work that time, at least. El_C 21:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moors murders

Off my watchlist. Please contact me about this only if all else fails. El_C 15:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I trust you'll be blocking the "new user" seeing as they broke 3rr? And why have you locked the article at the wrong version? CassiantoTalk 22:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest that the article sre reverted back to Cassinto’s latest edit.BabbaQ (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did they? How many reverts did you count? Anyway, I know, I always do that (sorry, couldn't resist!). El_C 22:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh? On the basis of what? El_C 22:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me, El_C, what is your understanding of WP:BRD? You seem to be exhibiting rather suspicious behaviour. CassiantoTalk 22:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding that Enforced BRD only applies to a subset of discretionary sanctions. As for your aspersions, they are unwelcome and you need to cease with that. El_C 22:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to do anything. You on the other hand... CassiantoTalk 22:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, it reflects poorly on you. El_C 22:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi - I would strongly suggest you revert the article back to the stable FA version (I would do, but I'm not editing through your protection). I don't see any reason why an obvious sock with 5 edits should dictate what it says. Black Kite (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If three people tell me the same thing, I must be doing something wrong. Okay, fair enough. I relent. El_C 23:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I add my thanks for the restoration of the FA version of the article. I would add that the WP:NOTHERE nature of the "new" editor and the offensive nature of the username should have been taken into account. A UAA has been filed though I don't know what the outcome will be. MarnetteD|Talk 23:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I could guess if pressed, but I probably won't, so I've blocked it as an obvious sock. Just a word of advice guys, there's a lot of trolls lurking about, looking like obvious sockpuppets, most of which are not going to be regular long-term unblocked editors. Try not to give or take offence if you see them. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, I guessed that ("134" by any chance?) but it's obviously a sock either way. Black Kite (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nice guess, but no, I think this is a former now-banned regular. As you say, obvious either way (and that's not an aspersion at El_C either, I'm fortunate to have magic goggles). -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite and Cassianto: Just to follow up, Special:PermaLink/909640113#06_August_2019. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks zzuuzz. WP:DUCK indeed. CassiantoTalk 17:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If everyone tells me I failed at the WP:PACT..., then I guess I did. Mea culpa. El_C 23:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is wrong. Please undo this and restore the version you protected. You should not favour one side over the other in an edit war, and the version of 26 June is in any case not the definitive version.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is making my head hurt! I went with my instincts. Then I doubt myself. Now I doubt the doubt! El_C 23:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, Amakuru, El_C is right to revert here. I realise The Wrong Version is something we admins tend to stick to, but that's 99% a banned editor right there. Black Kite (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell the vast majority of the edits concerned were by EEng. The new editor who reverted Cassianto was simply returning the article to the form it had been at the end of July. It seemed like good progress was being made between various editors through July and the mass reversion was unnecessary. The FA version was from 2009 and the thing has changed massively since then anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to know very little. But at least you offer balance, I suppose. CassiantoTalk 00:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

[14]. CassiantoTalk 23:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry again it took me a little while to figure out what's what. El_C 23:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid, El C, that you still haven't figured out what's what. Sorry you're in the middle of this, but you put yourself there so now you need to see it through. Here's what you need to know to see through the "FAs are delicate flowers" smokescreen:

  • First, for the record (since Cassianto implied [15] that Hari-kiri Te Kanawa was my sockpuppet) the reason I've been silent for 24 hours is that I've on two trains, two planes, one taxi and a bus all this time. (I even mentioned in advance I'd be overseas [16], and if visa stamps are wanted I can supply them.) I had nothing to do with recent edit war – haven't article the edited since July 20.
  • See [17] for the article's edit history since early July. Over seven days starting July 2, I made 150 edits to the article. None of them added any new fact; most were small, simple rewordings; some eliminated a detail here or there; a few corrected straight-out grammar errors or places where the text contradicted itself. Several eitors occasionally reverted or modified my edits, which meant other eyes were checking what I was doing. On July 10 a talk page thread was opened by Cassianto, which went on to incredible length; I suggest you start here [18], where I begged, for the nth time, those fretting about "the amount of recent changes" and the "bloodbath" to simply step through the changes and revert or adjust as few or many as they wished. "I'm not married to any of them", I said (also for the nth time). Admin Diannaa commented that that's the right thing to do, not mass revert.
  • That was July 12. What happened? Nothing. I invite you to keep reading the thread for the whining about my "simplistic, childish edits" – but not a single edit diffed for discussion, nor any edit reverted or adjusted, and for "these edits have been a backward step for this article and they need to be scrutinised" – but not a single edit diffed for discussion, nor any edit reverted or adjusted. For three weeks, nothing.
  • Then on August 3 – well, read it for yourself as you continue down the thread. More complaints about how awful everything is, alternated with my pleas to go ahead and revert or adjust wherever they want.
  • Finally, Cassianto threw all the edits out en masse by reverting to (no kidding) June 26 – six weeks earlier. He wrote on the article talk page:
I have Reverted on the back of EEng's Boldness so the two versions can be Discussed. EEng, I'm sure there are other ways in achieving what you think is a better version, rather than simply using the live version to display it. I'm sorry, but I cannot sit back and see an FA trimmed by over 8,000 bytes and not feel a pang of sorrow at all the hard work that achieved it its gold star in the first place.
Well, Cassianto and his friends did sit back – for an entire month – instead of simply looking at the edits and reverting or changing anything they want to – but they can still do that now! Sure there are other ways, but why would we open a talk-page thread to discuss whether
police searched
is or is not better than
police were drafted to search
—? With it there, in place, in the article, if you don't like the change, just revert it in place. That's what a wiki's for.
Cassianto's edit summary in reverting [19] was:
Restoring back to 26 June - per WP:BRD. The latest version from today and this version can be compared and an RfC can be opened if necessary. But I really think this has gone far too wide from the version that achieved FA.
There's no basis for this reasoning. FAs are not subject to special editing rules; they're edited just like anything else. And the talk of "the version that achieved FA" is just laughable. The article became an FA ten years ago and was 88K; the version Cassianto just restored is 108K. The "FA version" sank into the sands of time years ago because (need I say it again) FAs get edited just like any other article.
Oh, and in those weeks several other editors made changes as well. Cassianto trashed their work too. I suppose they're expected to open talk-page threads on their changes too, or an RfC. The mass revert also restored grammar errors, a sentence contradicting the sentence just before it, two paragraphs that say the same thing, and I forget what else.
As I said on the article's talk page (a month ago, while still naively begging the complainers to just fucking review the edits):
When a good-faith editor puts a lot of work into an article, you have two choices: either check out the changes and undo or adjust them individually, or just trust that the editor's changes are, if not each individually improvements, at least improvements on balance in toto. Not an option is to say you don't have time to review what's been done, so it'll all just have to be thrown out.

The article doesn't need protection. What it needs is for you to remove the protection, restore the version that's been built by a ten separate editors over the last month, and put a clear statement on the talk page that the way forward is to for anyone concerned to review the changes and revert or change anything they want to, not mass-revert work they haven't even looked at. Pinging Diannaa and DrKay, Kieronoldham, Martinevans123, EmilePersaud, Serial Number 54129 whose edits were trashed by Cassianto's revert. EEng 09:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 09:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't do all three bits but based on what Cassianto said here [20] I went ahead. Isn't it fun being an admin? EEng 10:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that diatribe is over, care to discuss this at a more appropriate venue, EEng? CassiantoTalk 09:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like a good idea. Discussion is what you should have done in the first place, instead of getting into an edit war and then being rude to El C for trying to defuse the situation, and complaining that the "wrong version" was protected. Onwards and upwards anyway, good luck and hopefully you'll come to a sensible consensus on how best to present the important info in that article. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Defuse the situation? What, by protecting a version that El_C thought was the FA version, only for El_C to realise that it wasn't the FA version at all and protect the other version instead? He even admitted that mistake. Luckily, El_C was prompted by Black Kite, an admin far more superior than you, fortunately, to advise where they went wrong? Because had El_C listened to you, that situation could've got a whole lot worse. CassiantoTalk 09:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I realized it wasn't the FA version from the outset — the FA status of the version played no consideration. What did were multiple admins asking me not to reward a blocked sock with their preferred version, plus general exahustion with being berated. El_C 09:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Oh, thank you, I've always wondered where I sit in the admin superiority rankings so that's helpful input. I can only hope that you'll approach the discussion on the Moors Murders with less of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality than you're showing here, anyway. A bit less of this and a bit more actually detailing your objections to the content in question would be the way forward.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(pinged by EEng) As I said over there on 9 July: "My guess is that there would be few problems arising from a WP:FAR. But after 10 years, it would seem a perfectly sensible idea." But I have to admit that article is now getting close to being taken off my watchlist. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Took mere minutes for the edit dispute to continue after he article was unprotected.BabbaQ (talk) 10:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? Cassianto and I agreed we'd go back to the pre-editwar version. The edit summary gives a diff. EEng 10:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article being disrupted

The Algeria article is being disrupted by a non-communicative "new" editor who's also using an IP to make the same unjustified changes. Will it be possible for you to semi-protect the article? Kind regards. M.Bitton (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 23:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! M.Bitton (talk) 23:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KFC

Hi El C! ~ can you tell me how to edit this in ~ here is what I have so far ~ In 1957, Colonel Harland Sanders gave an interview to CBC Radio in the capital city of Edmonton ~ I want to let the reader know that in the cite there is an actual recording of that interview ~ Thanks El C ~mitch~ (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Hello Mitchellhobbs. Two ideas spring to mind. One is to add it in the "External links" section. The next is to add it as a footnote next to the cite. The first is a little more obvious for a reader to see but the second is a touch more accurate for what you are trying to accomplish. Of course, El C may have other (better) suggestions. MarnetteD|Talk 00:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Mitchellhobbs and thanks MarnetteD. Yes, a footnote is also something I would favour. Something like: for the autio recording of the interview, see this link. El_C 00:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again Mitchellhobbs and El C. My understanding is that ELs in the body of the article are frowned upon and subject to removal. So I have taken the liberty of changing the parenthetical into a full fledged footnote. I hope you and your daughters are okay with this and apologize it it is not what you were looking to do. My wording may be a little clunky so anyone seeing this thread or the edit at the article are more than free to improve upon it. Best regards to all. MarnetteD|Talk 03:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MarnetteD ~ thank you ~ we, including my father did not know how to do that ~ he's such a klutz ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 03:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome Mitchellhobbs but I should add that, in a sense, being a klutz is what we all are here on the 'pedia. Longevity is the only reason that I knew about this way to footnote stuff. There are plenty of policies and guidelines that I could/have/will miss that would need altering. Best regards to the whole ~mitch~ family. MarnetteD|Talk 05:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "In Popular Culture" Section

Hello El C, You reversed my edit [21] to the Kamchatka Peninsula article on grounds of it being "A bit too trivial". But I'd assumed "trivia" was the very purpose of the "In Popular Culture"/"In Media" section of wikipedia articles. See examples -

Albuquerque#In_popular_culture

Fargo,_North_Dakota#In_popular_culture

Dubrovnik#In_popular_culture

Oahu#In_media

Beverly_Hills#In_popular_culture

So I'm curious why my edit does not fall under that umbrella.

Thank you Aneeshwar (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A mention in a video game with a link to a YouTube walkthrough (fails as a reliable source) falls short in my view. Yes, I realize WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. El_C 17:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More Page-Blanking vandals

I found a couple more. (There's so many of them!) Can you please block them as well? The first range should probably be blocked for a week; all edits are vandalism and it doesn't look like they're going to quit. I think that's it for now. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 08:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 08:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times Best Seller list

Hi, you previously protected this article from a persistent vandal on two occasions (the last from April 17 to June 17). It appears they have returned as of August 1 and have made 4 vandals, always the same thing, replacing the word "York" with "Fart" in the first sentence. -- GreenC 14:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 14:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! -- GreenC 15:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Hurricane vandal

Can you please block 65.92.180.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) for around a week? They're currently on an IP-hopping vandalism spree. Incidentally, one of their talk page comments indicates that this could potentially be a cross-wiki LTA. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)\[reply]

Never mind, someone else got to it. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal on your talk page

You might want to block 148.75.20.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). They've been trolling people and left a mess on your talk page earlier. I'm pretty sure this one is an LTA. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never a dull moment! El_C 20:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Austin–Bergstrom International Airport

Hi El C~ ~ can you help me here and here please ~ thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the issue here? Blissfield101 (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Already responded on the article your user talk page. El_C 21:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BLP LTA

Can you please block 168.244.10.0/23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) for at least 6-12 months? This range has been persistently abused by one or two LTAs in the past 2 years, and the vast majority of edits from the past year appear to be some form of vandalism. There's an appalling amount of BLP vandalism and racist attacks coming from this range. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 00:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He's back, on 64.134.226.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Can you please reblock this IP for a longer duration? Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Input
~ thanks ~ the doctor said I should recover ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime! Is everything okay? What doctor? (As long as it wasn't a DoctorB!) Sorry I couldn't be of more help. WP:AIRPORT is well outside my comfort zone! El_C 00:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No "thats the guy who did me" ~ you were a great help I liked your question to me ~ lol ~ you reminded me of Bruce Willis ~ of course I'm the guy with the funny hair ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I asked @MilborneOne: to glance over at the talk page for WP airports ~ knows more than I do ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that answers nothing — but it does bring me back! How do you go? Fast, very fast. Classic. El_C 01:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Classic 01:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
OK ~ I think if we teach Blissfield how to reference better Blissfield might get his point across ~ I remember when I first started editing all I got was general answers ~ citing WP policies ~ to the article's page and not to what you (as an editor) was talking about ~ a person like me ~ a field guy ~ looks at a manual and can't even begin to figure out what is trying to be taught ~ it's just a step at a time ~ I'm in it for the long haul ~ over a period of time I will understand the policies when some one quotes them ~ but I am more into finances and restaurants ~ I like sourcing ~ thanks ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 01:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q. Pounder

The Padlock Barnstar
Thank you for doing an indef protection at Quarter Pounder. This will definitely slow down the vandals. JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JudeccaXIII — much appreciated. But let's not jinx it! El_C 01:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~ cute~

El C ~ who is this? ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 03:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's chippy, of course! El_C 09:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Big N' Tasty

Hello, El C,

I noticed that you placed indefinite protection for this article yesterday but, somehow, Fatterman, a persistent vandal of McDonald's articles, was able to edit the page today. How is this possible? Does the protection need to be increased? Liz Read! Talk! 03:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) That vandal is autoconfirmed; it waited for a week before editing, and then rapidly accumulated 10 edits. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More importantly, why have I never heard of this. I’m vegetarian, but have been to McDonalds enough times in my life I should have seen this. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I've never heard of Big N' Tasty (until this rather persistent vandal), either, so no need to feel bad about being out of the cow zeitgeist loop, Tony. El_C 09:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hi, didn't mean to disruptive

hi, sorry, but i didn't mean to disruptive in Jilin province Wikipedia page, hope you understand. i got references, but is not English, so I didn't cite. Thanks for let me know to give reason once finish edit. I still try to learn how to cite references, Please correct me anything wrong. But I didn't want disrupt Wikipedia. Hope you understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.118.50 (talk • contribs)

Sure, no problem. Please cite those sources, even if they are not in English. See WP:REFBEGIN for help with that. El_C 00:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

Re: Ronnie Radke, could you also protect the Elijah Daniel page? Thanks.-KH-1 (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 00:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Woohooo

Hey, El C. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Mjs1991 (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Has it really been a decade and a half? El_C 04:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

School vandalism

Can you please block 103.91.192.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) for a while? They've been using multiple IPs to carry out a bunch of childish vandalism at a number of articles today. The range looks like it's registered to a public school. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 07:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 07:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possible to mass-revert vandal's edits?

Hi, I was concerned about edits made by User:FastEddy59, who you've recently blocked.

Is there a tool to revert all of his currently existing edits ? Thanks- Neuralnewt (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't really know. But an answer may be found at Wikipedia:Cleaning_up_vandalism/Tools#Rollback_tools. El_C 17:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch McConnell vandal

Can you please indef MoscowMitch1945 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? It's an obvious vandalism-only account, and they were engaging in serious BLP violations. Their IP (2600:100d:b103:2641:680f:4984:5c92:2b12) has already been blocked. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 19:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source does not support content

Hello, user @JoeScarce making numerous edits, taking own conclusions, what is not supported by source. Source checked carefuly. "Just war theory" article. Globalisation article also checked and he made an edit and it does not seems supported by source, not stated like that by source. User is new or doing things on purpose. I warned him to Wiki is not about pov views or advocacy. 93.86.91.234 (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, globalization even notes war ethics. Snippet from article even notes "Never forget, the Pope says, that “the whole is greater than the parts.” Globalization and unity”, he says, “should not be conceived as a sphere, but as a polyhedron: each people retains its identity in unity with others".[22] — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeScarce (talk • contribs)
Fully protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 21:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is result of talk page about "Just war theory" by user @JoeScarce "No, you can't make an argument at all and are making me laugh. It's the reason why you went to talk to someone with a Che Guevara poster, which also shows bias in me potentially getting blocked." Talk is not much useful seems so.I am sorry for bothering. 93.86.91.234 (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Hopefully, they'll take my suggestion to heart. El_C 22:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the same user added stuff what does not corresponded to source." Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazon region" I dont know what is motivation of people who makes own conclusions even if it is not written etc. I wont anymore revert things but some attention need to be paid. Thank you and sorry. 93.86.91.234 (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You both need to stop violating the 3 revert rule, full stop. If you think the edits constitute original research or synthesis, the place to advance that argument is on the article talk page in a detailed and cogent manner. Likewise, JoeScarce should work to demonstrate the opposite — that their additions reflect the cited material well. Sorry, I haven't had a chance to look at the actual edits yet. Finally, there's always other dispute resolution resources to turn to, if those efforts do not result in resolution. El_C 23:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another troll

Can you please block 59.0.80.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) for a month or so? They've been making serious personal attacks from their IPs for a while, and they were trolling on your talk page just earlier. This is possibly an LTA that I'm familiar with, but since the IP is a possible proxy network, I can't tell at the moment. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies and Ad Orientem: Can someone please block this guy? He's making a serious mess on a bunch of pages right now. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done x 1 week. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein adding material on the MEK page despite lack of consensus

Saff V. added this text to the MEK page, which I reverted since the current TP discussion about this included objections by myself, Barca, and a RSN discussion. Mhhossein, however, re-inserted this text back into the article. I asked Mhhossein to self-revert as there was no consensus to include this in the article, but he has refused to do so. Doesn't this violate the current MEK page restrictions? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the section on the article talk page, your (plural) objections seem rhetorical rather than substantive ("I also have made objections" — really?). They may, however, have jumped the gun in making that (unsubstantiated-objections) determination all on their own, without outside input to guide them as to whether this is so. I'm a bit unhappy with both sides, then, and I'm not just saying that to come across as even-handed. El_C 17:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
El_C: The only thing made me revert the edit was the lengthy discussion over removal of a single word which was then correctly described as "Much Ado About Nothing"! There, I provided plenty of sources supporting the removal and he just kept on throwing the out of ark Arbarahmian's book for his objection. Now, he has tried different objections to avoid an inclusion including asking us to use Wikipedia as a source! I'm not going to be GAMED more by receiving baseless arguments. Also, I don't know if it's correct to ask you comment case by case, which I think will just make the page boring and time wasting for you. I think we should keep our tickets for the emergency circumstances (am I right?). You told me on my TP I could not "unilaterally make that determination on [my] own", then should I have asked you determine the consensus? You know I did for the previous cases and I really thought it would not be pleasant for you to be pinged once again. Anyway, if you demand, I'm going to self revert and act based on YOUR determination of the consensus. Should I revert it? --Mhhossein talk 04:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On that (unrelated) TP discussion Mhhossein is referring to, I brought several RSs to back up my argument. But that's not what we're talking about here. Here we're talking about respecting the work process and restrictions that have been implemented on the MEK page, which Mhhossein failed to do. There are 3 editors arguing against the inclusion that Mhhossein just inserted into the article. A RfC would help bring in some outside input, but making the decision on their own to insert this back into the article seems a violation of the agreed work process. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a serious problem when either side takes it upon themselves to determine that their opponents' argument is without basis (tendentious). It just so happens that in this case I agree with that determination, but making that (involved) determination on one's own is a problem, inherently. Yes, Stefka Bulgaria, feel free to launch an RfC about this, during which I encourage you to raise more substantive objections. Mhhossein, I won't ask you to revert, but again, I caution you and others against determining, in your involved capacity, that the other side has fallen short in their argument to the point that their position becomes (at least in the immediate sense) nullified. There's no way the editorial process can progress under such circumstances. It is just plainly inappropriate to essentially say: 'I feel your argument falls short, thus, I'm deciding that it is tendentious and restrictions no longer apply.' I hope you appreciate that and refrain from jumping the gun in the future. El_C 11:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
El_C: I was one of the first editors welcoming the restrictions which came after I condemned the new wave of edit wars Stefka Bulgaria was actively involved and received a warning. So, I mostly am concerned about the stability of the article and object any simple thing threatening it. The proof for my claim are the number of the RFCs and TP discussions I opened, among the 6 rounds of shedding light on Stefka Bulgaria's unilateral mass changes. And now, I'm sorry if I have acted against the goodness of the article. After your comments, I feel free to ping you for determining the consensus after enough comments are exchanged. --Mhhossein talk 17:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein, by all means, feel free to ping me whenever there's an impasse. Although I can't guarantee I'll always have time to address all outstanding issues, it is no bother at all. El_C 18:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for offering me the opportunity of pinging you, but I'll do it whenever I feel convincing arguments are raised. Btw, I find this edit to be a violation of the new restrictions, given the ongoing discussion on the talk page. I have no idea why, after your recent cautions, he unilaterally determined the material to be inserted. --Mhhossein talk 11:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That change should probably not have been made without further discussion. Perhaps there's a compromise to be had. Gotta try. El_C 20:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein, again...

On this MEK TP discussion, Saff V. wrote on August 3rd:

  • Just this sentence is left: "were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities". At first, please give a source for that sentence and "A first wave of executions" then can you explain what do you mean by "enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities"?.

On August 4th, I replied:

Here's the full quote and the source: "Amnesty International’s research found that thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed pursuant to an order issued by the Supreme Leader of Iran and implemented across prisons in the country. Many of those killed were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process."[1] Any objection to include this?

By August 11th, there was no reply (from anyone), so I proceeded to include this into the article. The same day, Mhhossein reverted this edit saying "my objection was already there", but he never discussed the quote I had proposed for inclusion (but instead was very quick to revert it).

This, again, seems like a violation of the agreed editing process. Please note that Mhhossein was recently "strongly warned to avoid making personal attacks, to stop treating Wikipedia as a battleground, to seek consensus rather than edit-warring over contentious material, and to be mindful of our policies about maintaining a neutral point of view." Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Blood-soaked secrets with Iran's 1998 Prison Massacres are ongoing crimes against humanity" (PDF). Amnesty International. Retrieved December 14, 2018.
Certainly, I'm looking for reliable sources that verify Mhhossein's objection. That said, I'm not sure my user talk page is the right venue for this discussion. El_C 06:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stefka Bularia is also "strongly warned to avoid making personal attacks, to stop treating Wikipedia as a battleground, to seek consensus rather than edit-warring over contentious material, and to be mindful of our policies about maintaining a neutral point of view." So what? I also am not sure why Stefka Bularia tends to come here for the issues which need to be resolved via discussion on the article talk page. I'll provide sources for the objection. --Mhhossein talk 11:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary material added for the deteriorating situation in Hong Kong

Supplementary material added for the deteriorating situation in Hong Kong under Talk section. Thank you for your patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:3C20:241:94CA:9097:DF59:E83F (talk) 05:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Responded on the article talk page. El_C 05:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia in Poland

You've previously warned Volunteer Marek - here. Yesterday he was either at 3 or 4 reverts (depends how you count - [23], [24] - the last one in particular was also in his mass-removal in a different spot ([25]). Volunteer Marek has not been discussing, has not been provided a single source to justify his personal opinions on Muslims and hate discourse towards them in Poland, and has been disruptively using tags. As an example:

  1. 07:38, 6 August 2019 - placing a verify-inline tag. Per Template:Verify source this must only be placed "after you have made a good faith attempt to verify the information"
  2. In Talk:Islamophobia in Poland#Transnational Islamophobia verification tag - Volunteer Marek does not provide a justification nor description of his required good-faith verification attempts.
  3. Despite this rudely framed rationale and off-topic comments (and per Template:Verify source, which is not a quotation request, it would've been sufficient for me to say "I verified this") - I provided extensive quotations from the academic book chapter. (as evident in the bottom of the talk page section - and in diff).
  4. In diff (along with 9.3 KB of other material - note that this includes content not objected to previous (in aggregate - Volunteer Marek has objected to half of the content of the article - all sourced to top-notch sources)) - Volunteer Marek hacks off:

    Immigration of Poles to the United Kingdom has led many migrants from the homogeneous Polish society to encounter a culturally diverse setting for the first time. This contact, coupled with continued contact with family members in Poland, has led to a transnational transfer of Islamophobia back into Poland.[1]

  5. This despite clear quotations being provided to Volunteer Marek, to which he has responded with WP:SILENCE.

References

  1. ^ Gawlewicz, A. and Narkowicz, K. (2015) Islamophobia on the move: circulation of anti-Muslim prejudice between Poland and the UK. In: Suleiman, Y. (ed.) Muslims in the UK and Europe I. Centre of Islamic Studies, University of Cambridge: Cambridge, pp. 90-100.

Volunteer Marek's other contributions to the page (which notable have not included providing a single source to back up his opinions) - are of a similar nature (e.g. [26] - misuse of who tag - contrast Template:Who, and arguing against multiple academic journal articles that see this group as relevant (see Talk:Islamophobia in Poland#Tag removed - which provides quotations (and descriptions - given one has 4 pages and the other has 1 page - above what is reasonable to quote).Icewhiz (talk) 06:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also - diff - is a personal attack and Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Look, the Committee might decide on this any day, so I'm not sure it's appropriate for me to do anything beyond protect the page on the version in which I encountered the edit war. El_C 06:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And at this rate (now at two high-profile drama cases) - it might take another six months. That ARBCOM is open should not be an excuse for continued WP:HOUNDing followed by clearly WP:NOTTHERE behavior. We're supposed to follow sources on Wikipedia - WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT removals of content sources to top-notch journal articles (on the topic of Polish Islamophobia) - is not something that should be excused - particularly when followed by WP:STONEWALLING. The example above - placing a verify-inline tag (without any attempt to verify) on transnational transfer of Islamophobia - followed by removal of the content in a subsequent mass-removal (despite extensive quotations being provided, and despite Volunteer Marek's continued WP:SILENCE on the talk page to the quotations) - is clearly NOTTHERE. Icewhiz (talk) 06:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather you take this to a noticeboard than myself acting unilaterally, though. El_C 06:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can I say that you referred this to AE? Icewhiz (talk) 06:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AE, AN, ACN — whichever. But I'm not saying such a report will necessarily be received well. All I'm saying is that I'm not inclined to make decisions by fiat while the Arbitration case remains open. El_C 06:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also - VM has broken the 1RR restriction you placed on History of the Jews in Poland:
  1. 10:39, 11 August 2019 - revert2
  2. 09:24, 11 August 2019 - revert 1
  3. 07:59, 2 August 2019 - prior revert.
note discussion in Talk:History of the Jews in Poland#The Holocaust in Poland, followed by Wikipedia:Casting aspersions - diff. This in the face of a RM (Talk:The Holocaust in Poland/Archives/2019/July#Requested move 5 June 2019) and clearly in contravention of MOS:NOBACKREF - and with VM being reverted by 3 separate editors. If I file this in AE - it will be referred back to you as the admin placing the restriction. Icewhiz (talk) 07:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not seeing a 1RR breach. Yes, by all means, mention that I applied the restriction — makes sense. El_C 07:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore the unrelated content at the top. Look at "The Holocaust in German-occupied Poland" sub-header. prior revert (2 August). Then in 11 August - revert1 on 09:24, and revert2 on 10:39. In both revert1 and revert2 (as well as the 2 August revert) the sub-section header of "The Holocaust" is reverted to "The Holocaust in German-occupied Poland" (+other content below header). Two reverts, same content (ignoring add-on on top), one hour and fifteen minutes apart.Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay, I see it now. I'll drop VM a note suggesting they self-revert while they still can. El_C 07:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake on the 1RR violation. By the time Icewhiz brought it up it I've already been reverted. Icewhiz's complaint however appears to be a response to this comment which points out that after Francois Robere broke 1RR, Icewhiz swooped in and made his revert for him. Icewhiz and Francois Robere have been reverting on each other's behalf on multiple articles over the past two weeks.On Islamophobia in Poland FR reverted on Icewhiz's behalf [27]. On Racism in Poland FR and Icewhiz have alternated reverts in quick succession [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]. Same thing on History of Jews in Poland. They're not actually being subtle about it.
And it takes some real audacity for Icewhiz to accuse me of "casting aspersions" when in these comments right here he makes at least three different false accusations (notthere, hounding, stonewalling etc). His description of both my actions and the dispute on the relevant article are completely false too. I have indeed been discussing the subject on talk. Icewhiz is apparently referring to the fact that I didn't respond *immediately* to his newest comments on talk, which I haven't seen up until now. Not all of us edit 18 hours a day. It's summer and I was busy riding roller coasters.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your revision

Dear Sir/Madam,

I don't understand why you would change my revision. Wikipedia should be free to edit and I am not publish original research. True information should be provided here instead of personal perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.179.63 (talk) 07:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use the existing source for a new addition. El_C 08:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:El_C&oldid=910549596"