User talk:El C

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

Archived Discussions

Archive 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 9 11 12 13 14 15

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]

Well, I'm envious. You get to pet ALL the fuzzeh creatures! — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Book?

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

4 Tality Fractal

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

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

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

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

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

Rev-dels

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

Affirmative. El_C 20:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. There are a couple of admins I usually contact when I see something that needs to deleted, but unfortunately they let real life interfere with their admin duties. You are online a lot at the same times I am, so it's good to have another person to contact if needed. I generally only ask personally if it's both serious and urgent. - BilCat (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by all means. If I'm around, please don't hesitate. El_C 02:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I realize.my wording above presumes you'd be willing, and that I didn't actually ask, so thanks. :) - BilCat (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Romania

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

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

And all I got was a ^^^

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

Please

Please consider watchlisting Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. But discussion seems to be going fine, post-edit war. El_C 20:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I had to jinx it! El_C 05:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

note re item

Hi. I have just sent you an email. you are welcome to contact me any time to discuss. I appreciate your help. also, thanks for all your valuable help and insight earlier today. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sm8900: you're welcome. Thanks, it's nice to be appreciated.

I agree that Moxy could have used a softer touch. Not to mention that there is a certain irony when writing: At this point really questioning the WP:Competency level of this editor..^[2] (i.e. WP:Competency is a redlink!). But I actually do agree with them that your frequent use of section breaks can be a bit much — especially when it involves indenting or outdenting their comments. Anyway, I hope you two can work it out amicably. If I can help with that, please let me know. Finally, as an aside, why do you continue to refrain from capitalizing words normally at the beginning of sentences? It makes it difficult for someone like me, for whom English is a second language, to read. In any case, good luck! El_C 05:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I refrain from capitalizing sentences because that is my preference. And please do not change the subject. I am asking for your help with comments pertaining to me personally. --Sm8900 (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sm8900: this is my talk page, but even if it wasn't, I am permitted to add any "aside" as I see fit to comments I submit! Anyway, as I explained to you earlier today, "varying degrees of competences are required" on Wikipedia. That is not a personal comment, but an evaluation of one's abilities (or lack thereof) with the manner in which they edit Wikipedia. Moxy linking (or mislinking) to that explanatory supplement is not a personal attack, if that is what you're driving at. El_C 06:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yes, assisting other editors with competence, or skills, is fine. however, publicly labeling a specific editor as lacking in "competence," or labeling them publicly in any manner, is a personal comment, from any perspective.

and I didn't intend to imply that you cannot discuss anything you want on your own talk page. of course you can. the phrase "please don't change the subject" was not meant as a rebuke, merely as a plea to focus upon this specific query. I do appreciate your help. thanks.--Sm8900 (talk) 06:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sm8900: No, I disagree. It is not a personal comment. It has little if anything to do with one's personality. It has to do with a learning curve. It is an assessment of how skillful one is in editing Wikipedia successfully according to its policies and guidelines and style expectations. And please capitalize your sentences normally — again, your comments are difficult for me to read with ease. El_C 06:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sm8900: I see you've added to your comment after my last edit conflict, so let me respond to the additional part. Almost everything on Wikipedia is done publicly. If an editor is frustrated with one's competency, say, related to creating frequent section breaks, when they express that frustration, it is of course made public. But that does not mean there is anything untoward about that. El_C 06:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, I do appreciate your replies to me, your kind and patient help, and your insights here. just to reply to this topic, here is a quote from WP:Harassment: "Harassment can include actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them, where no direct communication takes place." I think that is relevant to this specific item. I appreciate your help.

by the way, I do consider this matter to be fully closed and resolved now. I am not requesting any further action, and I don't feel that any further action is needed. I just wanted to note that one detail here briefly, just for information and in case you want to comment. I do appreciate your help. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sm8900: in this context, that may count as casting an aspersion against Moxy, which I would advise you to refrain from in the future. El_C 15:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, but with respect, I disagree. that was not meant as an aspersion against Moxy in any way; I apologize if it seemed like that's what it was. you already know my specific concerns; the comment above did not expand them or add to them in any way. in my opinion, I feel that it is not "casting aspersions" to note specific data from wikipedia, after one has already raised a specific concern. I was not adding to my concern, merely noting some objective information that relates to this topic in general. I'm glad to hear your views on this, and I'm glad to discuss this here. I appreciate your helpful reply. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot quote passages from the Harassment policy, say that it "is relevant to this specific item," and yet still claim it unconnected to the user to whom you are in dispute here. Sorry, but that just not a reasonable premise. El_C 15:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am expressing my concerns to you. instead of replying to them or discussing them, you are telling me that merely mentioning them those is something that are going to warn me not to do? is that correct? I think that I don't understand that part, so perhaps you could clarify. Sm8900 (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[M]erely mentioning them those is something that are going to warn me not to do? — I'm not sure I follow. But you cannot imply that someone is engaged in harassment without evidence, anywhere on Wikipedia, where again, public is public. El_C 02:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on

I don't know what's up with the user Markaz Isthifah but he's making a mess. I've twice reverted edits where he altered the signature on my talk page notices to him.. he's also made a garbage category, altered other talk page notices, and then pasting promo crap in sandboxes. It looks like a language barrier, WP:CIR issue or both. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And it looks like you blocked him by the time I finished this message. Well done - thanks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've indeffed them. They are clearly unwilling or unable to communicate at this time. El_C 16:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~And I'm willing to bet that it was a sock account of Markaz Isthifah Sunniya, registered a few days ago.~~ My mistake, that account is on other Wikimedia projects but not en-wiki. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed my WP:AE appeal link

I can't ping you there, because of the absence of a signed section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copy that. You are free to respond to comments, though, within reason. El_C 02:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines GINI unrevert

Hi. Here, I've undone your recent revert re the 2015 GINI figure for the Philippines in the article on that country. As mentioned in my edit summary for that undo, there is a conflict between this figure and the figure used for ranking which comes from the unreliable List of countries by income equality article, and the supporting source cited in that other article currently throws a 404 error. I have not considered what, if anything, to do about that conflict or looked into that 404 error. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up, Wtmitchell. That's my bad — I've already apologized to the original editor for my mistake. I very much appreciate your diligence. Regards, El_C 08:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment

Could you please tell M.k.m2003 to leave me alone as well? He literally just sent me a mail written in Persian, even though he has been told on several occasions that I don't understand the script. Here's what he wrote, seemingly nothing bad with a quick Google translate. He has been after me this whole day, and seriously lacks WP:COMPETENCE.HistoryofIran (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll have another word with him. El_C 18:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I thought this user is fluent in Persian But he doesn't want to talk, All that I sent him:Apology-Thanks-Sympathy-Avoid future tensions And I didn't say anything bad, This email should not be made public, Please hide it. Thank you M.k.m2003 (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This word to thank:Harassment M.k.m2003 (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Google translation will change my mind, If you think this is an insult you can get help from fluent Persian users, All my words are kindly spoken, Without anything offensive M.k.m2003 (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, M.k.m2003 — private content removed and revdeleted. El_C 20:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a secret ignore button on Wikipedia that I haven't been told about? Could really use it atm. [3] --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, they keep saying that they are withdrawing from the discussion, but yet they keep the conflict going somehow. El_C 22:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user also offends reputable sources, He shamelessly made my email public Although it has been said kindly. What is this template? (زبان مادری این کاربر فارسی است= The native language of this user is Farsi. Yes I was misled by this pattern, He is not Iranian. Tell her to change her user page Because Iranian knows Persian very well M.k.m2003 (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean offends reputable sources, but I suggest you two try to avoid one another in the immediate future. El_C 23:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I sent an email about this Of course with kindness But he declared war by declaring it public, How many times do I have to go back? He is aggressive M.k.m2003 (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:INDENT. Anyway, granted, mistakes were made on both of your parts, but you keep saying that you're withdrawing from the discussion, yet you keep returning to it, thereby perpetuating the conflict. That is a problem. El_C 23:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@M.k.m2003: Could you stop thanking me for my edits as well? Just completely leave me alone, it's not that hard. I'm getting rather tired of getting constantly pinged by you, thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) HistoryofIran, FYI, Preferences → Notifications has a "muted users" section where you can list users from whom you do not want to receive notifications. – Levivich 03:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Levivich: I'm not a troll And I was not going to harass But I'm sorry. HistoryofIran My thanks were just a sign of friendship And I certainly won't face you anymore Rest assured. M.k.m2003 (talk) 09:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi M.k.m2003, just be clear, I didn't say or mean to imply that you were a troll; I don't know anything at all about this dispute. I just wanted to mention that if anyone doesn't want to receive notifications from anyone else, the software has a "mute" function in the preferences. That's all. – Levivich 17:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block request

Please block 36.79.253.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). S0091 (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. El_C 00:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being on top of it. S0091 (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page Protection Request

Hello, I would like to mention these pages Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Vishakapatnam and Kurnool to be protected for now. As there is lot of vandalism going on. I request you to please kindly handle this issue as soon as possible. Lakshmisreekanth (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've already protected Andhra Pradesh earlier today. I'll have a look at the rest momentarily. El_C 13:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sock puppet

Hey. I see that you blocked CounterBritishPropoganda for disruptive editing. I think he's very likely a sock of Missileinfo who was blocked for similar POV edits. A quick look at the usernames of his other sock accounts would tell you he's the same user. Regards. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 17:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Thanks for letting me know. El_C 17:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of a source

Dear El C, since you are familiar with the ongoing discussion on Qasem Soleimani, I was wondering if you would mind telling me if I did right in this edit. Is WP:RSN the correct place to raise the issue? If yes, is the format I used correct? It would be much appreciated if you move/edit it yourself if necessary. Thanks in advance. Ms96 (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not actually familiar with the ongoing discussion (which one?) — yes, RSN is a fine resource to raise issues of source reliability. ~~Feel free to start a request about this there (you don't need me for that), but~~ I see that you already started a request there, so my advise is to be especially concise. Good luck. El_C 10:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear El C, it was just archived by bot, could you please take it back? MS 会話 06:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is there any guideline on applying strikethrough on the comments of a sock [4]? The page looks pretty messy now. MS 会話 07:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please review this close

G'day El C

I'm requesting you review this RM close.

I can't even see consensus to move, let alone a snow close.

I suspect that the eventual result of this process will in any case be a new naming convention. If this RM result stands, it's a precedent for many other corporate renames. IMO it would only be a valid snow close if we already had that consensus.

And I'm not against that, but I don't think we're there yet. I could be wrong. Andrewa (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noted and replied on that page. El_C 03:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Tip

Can you please Semi-Protect this article for a while? It has recently suffered from a spate of anon vandalism, and all of the IP edits dating back to October have been only vandalism. It's really starting to show in the history logs. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 19:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "We must respect the historical sources" mantra

You forgot to add to your close, "It has been strongly suggested you find different pages to edit so you won't be in conflict with each other". That solution would be less painful for all of us. ;-) -- llywrch (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that they both edit similar pages, so what do you do? (Short of opting to live in shoe!) El_C 22:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice. But it also would be nice if someone explained to Mikola22 that edit warring is not good, even in the case of "we must respect the sources."--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Almost 6 million articles on Wikipedia, & you can't find another one that's interesting to you to edit? -- llywrch (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ms96

Hi, so after the page got unprotected this editor (Ms96) again re-added the disputed text (edited version) even after I told him that there is a RfC and that he cant be bold, and add even an edited version of the disputed text without discussing or proposing it first in the talk page. I don't want the article to be fully protected again. Could be extended confirmed protected because a lot of editors are creating accounts and making disruptive edits like Ayatollah mahdi and this editor in that article. I have sent a notification to Ms96 about the sanctions in Iranian politics related articles.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I was pinged, I say here. Dear El C, please please please read the whole discussion under "lack of neutrality" (as well as "Iranian propaganda Heading") and also "RfC about inclusion of Iranian propaganda section" (maybe you would also be interested in "Polls published by Center for International Security Studies (CISSM) University of Maryland School of Public Policy and Iran Poll" in WP:RSN). I'm doing my best, but this endless disruption is tearing me apart. Ms96 (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While the discussion takes its course, the status quo ante should remain in place, per WP:ONUS. El_C 22:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a different issue (not about Ms96) but there is an editor who started a RfC in that article which was completely not neutral and not very clear as I explained here. I don't know what to do. I am just complaining and the editor is not responding. I want to make a new neutral RfC but I don't know how. I think the current RfC should be closed but I am involved in that discussion so I am not very trusted among editors there. If an admin closed the discussion, it would be great, but again, I don't know where to request or how to request closing that RfC.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. I have just clarified the RfC question a few minutes ago. The RfC should not have editorialized and been phrased in such a vague way, but it wasn't as if editors had too hard of a time following what it was, ultimately, asking. I don't think the RfC preferences expressed thus far need to be repeated in a new RfC, however. El_C 22:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We were debating about having a dedicated section about "Iranian propaganda" in that biographical article. You said it is about a paragraph but thats not true. Also editors have already voted in that discussion. I think a new RfC should be made and it was very easy to make a neutral RfC but judging from that editor past in Wikipedia I am not surprised.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to think of how to phrase the RfC question. Give me a sec. El_C 22:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just close it. It is a mess. A brand new RfC, I will ping all involved editors and those who have already voted. We dont need that unneutral text to be at the beginning even if it was changed. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I get that imperative, but I'm also wary of copying and/or repeating all the responses submitted thus far. I'll bring it to discussion. El_C 23:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing!? This user is simply lying! Why should it be closed? MS 会話 23:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He's playing with your mentality! Please spend time and read everything before taking any further action!MS 会話 23:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't accuse users of lying —that is an aspersion that fails to assume good faith (maybe it was an oversight, why assume "lies"?)— and please also don't assume that anyone could be "playing with [my] mentality," either. The RfC's question editorialized and was too vague, to the point that I conflated the dispute here (top of the section) with it, which is my bad. Anyway, I opened the question to discussion on the article talk page, in any case. There is no need to continue to split the discussion over here, on my talk page. El_C 23:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Isabel dos Santos

Hi El C. I see that you protected Isabel dos Santos last year; I just logged a request for protection again. I see that you have just made edits, so in the hope that you are still logged, could you please take a look? Thanks. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 00:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anything wrong?

Hey, can I ask a question? What's wrong with me thinking Stefka Bulgaria's tendentious editing is being ignored? Please look, in my recent report he kept ignoring our discussions in October 2019. He pretended as if we had no discussion on that. Something is wrong here and he is kindly allowed to go with no warning, the least thing he deserved. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein apparently didn't have time to reply to a TP discussion that went answered for 9 days, but seems to have plenty of time to advocate for a warning or sanction against me. What would be helpful is more focus on discussing the actual content of the article, and less time filing reports against other editors who have (unlike the OP) actually substantiated their edits on the article's TP. Bless. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since your response was given back in back in October 2019. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather avoid splitting the discussion and, in general, not entertain MEK spillovers onto my talk page — that should be reserved only for the most urgent cases. I've already addressed some of these concerns on the article talk page, where I have indeed cautioned and instructed them on how to move forward. Feel free to respond there, especially to my proposal regarding what duration there ought to be for repeating exhausted topics. El_C 20:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awful protection

over Gurbaksh Chahal. You have (literally) got 5 editors with 20,000+ edit counts deeming the opposing editor as an UPE-SPA. He managed to game ECP by mass-firing IABot and now, you have sysop-protected. ∯WBG^converse 12:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El_C. Please, see this ANI thread, reduce your protection and look in over there—your colleague Deepfriedokra wants a second opinion. ——SN 54129 12:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, will look further into it. El_C 13:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why revert me?

Why have you reverted me on my own sister's talk page? Halo Jerk1 (talk) 11:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because it his her talk page. See your own talk page for more details about your problematic editing in that regards. Let's continue the conversation there. El_C 11:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your insight please

If possible, I need to know your response to my query made here. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had already made a (9 month) proposal to address that, though. In that very section. El_C 15:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash

If you want to keep the full protection that is fine, but will prevent further expansion of technical details involving the crash when such information is released. Please do restore the article with full protection if that is the case. There is no discussion stating the crash is not notable, therefore we should have both unless a discussion is opened and closed in favor of merging the two. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 23:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make the decision. The protecting admin did. I merely added the template for the bot. El_C 23:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

protection of Sikorsky S-76 seems excessive

Full protection of Sikorsky S-76 seems excessive after reverts by one quickly blocked user. Most of the edits today seem reasonable. Shouldn't we just block the user? Nfitz (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. There was more than one user, it seemed, but regardless, I think you're right. I've gone ahead and reduced the full portection to semi. El_C 02:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'm dreaming, but I think EC protection on all the articles involved here makes sense. There are so many clueless editors on these talk pages makes it next to impossible to get anything done. Someone mentioned a video on Talk:Death of Kobe Bryant of unclear copyright. I explained that we couldn't possibly use it unless copyright were addressed. I also stated I'd continue to oppose on the basis of good taste. I get a reply "What is this good taste you speak of?" Sorry...why should an experienced editor have to deal with crap like that? Articles like these need people who understand policies to shepherd them. Eliminating the clueless would greatly simplify that. Can't the DS for BLP be used to justify that? New editors cannot possibly understand the nuances of BLP at the level needed. Also, many of the editors are from our sports articles. There is a considerable amount of difference in the levels of sourcing required for a technical article on an aircraft disaster than for a general bio of a sports figure...not that there should be, but there is. I suppose this is a pipedream. John from Idegon (talk) 05:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet of User:Nbro

User:AeoNew. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. Looks like ToBeFree took care of it. El_C 04:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turkmens

So you locked the page for Turkmens. So what are you suppose to do with somebody who doesn't want to engage in talk page ? Times and times again I told him to discuss since September 2019. He doesn't allow anyone to edit Y-DNA genetic evidence of Turkmen. Who's right and who's wrong ? Am I suppose to just let him do what he wants when there's no mod/admin editor interfering ? Talk:Turkmens#Why_exclude_mentioning_the_Turkmen's_haplogroups_Q_and_other_Y-DNA_haplogroup DerekHistorian (talk) 12:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page has only been protected for less than 2 days. Please use dispute resolution and accompanying requests to get more outside input into the dispute. El_C 17:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DerekHistorian, most of your article edits are reverts of Hunan201p's edits. Even after you received a page block two days ago! Please follow El C's advice and go to dispute resolution. You really need the involvement of other editors in this ongoing dispute or you are heading towards a longer block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive move protection

Hi, I feel that it would make more sense if the move protection you applied to this article was lowered to extended-confirmed level, especially since a majority of users agree that said article's current title does not comply with convention. ToThAc (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather the move request process supersede bold moves, actually. El_C 00:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except I have yet to see a single valid argument in the discussion for keeping the article at its current title. I plan to move the page while narrowing down the discussion to just the original proposed title and another proposed title brought up in the discussion. ToThAc (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the move request needs to be properly closed before a move can proceed. El_C 00:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was just archived

Dear El C, the discussion was just archived, I was wondering if you'd mind taking it back. Thanks in advance.
Is there a guideline on wiping out all edits by a sock [5] and applying strikethrough on all their comments [6]? For instance see this MS 会話 10:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but per this, I am taking a break from any and all SharabSalam-related items — which, as I mention elsewhere, does not however precludes me from acting as an uninvolved admin in regards to them. El_C 13:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I perfectly understand, Thanks. MS 会話 13:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EPR paradox

El Che, can you help with the EPR paradox page? The IP user that was edit warring last time simply waited for the full protection to expire, and did exactly the same edit again. I'd undo the edit myself, but then it would be me edit warring. Tercer (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you have failed to engage the article talk, as well — why is that? Anyway, I semiprotected the page for 2 months. Perhaps that would motivate the IP to engage on the article talk page. In which case, I would expect you to participate, also. Thanks and good luck. El_C 13:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because I didn't think the IP user would engage. If they do, I'll be happy to join the discussion. Thanks for your help. Tercer (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's always best to assume that they would. Anyway, sounds good. And you're welcome. El_C 13:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Man thank you very much for locking Azerbaijan page. Unfortunately you have locked it with wrong revision. It is wrong to have "In the aftermath of the Russo-Persian Wars all of what is today Azerbaijan was ceded from Persia to the Russian Empire" statement under country profile as it has nothing to do with it, also this fact covered under Contemporary History section of same article.

There were two IPs continuously changing it. I gave them multiple warnings but they refused to discuss it under TALK tab.

Could you please also do same to below article as same IPs keep changing it without proper justification.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijani_language

Regards,

Mirhasanov (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But you did not discuss it on the article talk page, either — until now, now that the article has been protected. As for the wrong version, that is something heard so often when pages are protected it has sort of become a running gag, I'm sorry to say. Anyway, if the IP fails to engage on the article talk page for, say, a few days, I will revert to the other version. Good luck. El_C 14:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look

if you've got time, at [7] where they seem to be adding dates later than the source. I can see you edited Colorado which I think has more than one number vandal. Doug Weller talk 14:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it. El_C 14:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I wasn't really sure what to do with that image vandal, but thank you for being on it so fast. If only you could erase the history from my eyes too lol. Lcodyh803 (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thankfully, I didn't actually look at the images, I just saw the image titles in the diff window. El_C 01:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea

Extended semi on EE topics won't hurt :) Do you think a motion to the committee for amendment would be the right way to go? I haven't seen so many socks in this topic area since late 2000s. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I do. The sheer number of socks lately, I feel, warrants something similar to ARBPIA to be applied to EE. El_C 15:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfPP is as usual a hit or miss depending on the admin lottery: [8]. Same article where this new sock was/is pretty active. Speedy decline in 15m, sigh... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But this might change if the Committee approves systemically applying 500-30 by motion for the EE topic area. El_C 16:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will support 500-30 for EE if it is proposed. Zero^talk 02:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Ngo

El C, I wanted to ask your take on the comment Calton left on my talk page here [[9]] in reply to my request here [[10]]. Given the contentious nature of the Andy Ngo article I think accusations such as "whitewashing crusade" are particularly problematic. We don't have to agree but in cases where we have roughly equal numbers of editors on both sides of a proposed change I would want an experienced editor to go to the talk page rather than make bad faith accusations. Thanks Springee (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Springee, sorry, but I'm a bit burned out today and am not actually looking to immediately take on anything too intense. But AE/AN/ANI are at your disposal. El_C 03:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Springee: it's not "bad faith", it's long-term observation of your editing patterns. Hell, "bad faith" is probably a fair description you making that claim. --Calton | Talk 03:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calton, yes, it is a bad faith accusation. You are claiming my actions are based on a wish to whitewash a subject rather than because I think the change makes for a better article. Furthermore, I hope you can see that such accusations, (for example your edit summary here [[11]]), and repeated the same on my talk page [[12]], creates needless hostility. Finally, regardless of your opinion regarding my motives, NOCON still applies. Springee (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]