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, dvdrw04:34, 19 September 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_C02:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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_C11:48, 3 August 2009 (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]
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]
Thank you. Good day, see? Take music and flowers to your liking ;) - It's great to see your name so often on my watchlist. One area where I often wait for admin action - not now - is WP:ITNN, where we nominate for recent deaths to be shown on th Main page, and often the time between an article found [Ready] and then is [Posted] seems [too] long to still call it recent. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see, sorry for touching some wound ;) - Same for me: last year, I nominated a great pianist for RD, after I first had create an article which took time, and then carried away to also make it decent, - and by then her death was so long ago that she wasn't mentioned at all. The more woman, and the more foreign, that danger seems imminent, and if I may bother you in case I seee it coming again, that would be great. At present, it's a man, listed 20 Feb (although who knows if that was the day?), and nobody even commented yet, so nothing to be concerned about right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated him, so am not the most independent to judge ;) - and I'm already busy with the next, a woman, but mostly not foreign. - I really think we have some unintended bias there: the most prominent figures (white U.S. males) get speedy attention, and appear soon at the top position, while the female foreigners - often reported late to start with - take so long to even be noticed that they get only a place towards the end, finally, - as long as we go by date of death and not "in at the top". Result: those who are promminent already get preferred showing, more in front, and longer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: sorry for the belated response — I overlooked your last message. Apologies for not being able to assist with that one. Please don't hesitate to list more. I'll try to be more cognizant of this thread next time, I promise. El_C03:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda’s corner is lovely. When I have more time in my life and can do things beyond blocking socks, I plan to spend time there getting some of the Holy Thursday hymns on the main page. Gerda, if it’s not too late to find one, let me know. The Pange Lingua is always a first choice, but if there are any others you can think of, I’m open. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely corner, thank you! Today is The day of music, two choirs singing. I'd like Beati improved - but it's in the evensong, perhaps I'll get to a few more lines. On IWD, I should also get Elinor Ross in better shape ... - but singing comes first. Listen to Beati by voces8, another article needing improvement. Singing comes first ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the ITNN page, 6 Mar, Carsten Bresch. We will possibly never know when he died, but should use 6 - when the world was informed - as the day by which we go. I may be alone with that view ;) - Lovely lively colours! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting, and I added "Posted", but don't want to pass credits. DYK you know that it is as easy as clicking on the words "credit" in the nom? Nice progress on the soprano, but out for singing (alto), second round. A good source for her death would be a nice addition, anyone. this is all Spanish to me, and the English one is a blog. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about you? - I asked the decliner for reasoning, but got no answer. I think it might be better if it's not a personal thing between them and me, so an independent pair of eyes might help. - I don't go via AfC, nor does my friend LouisAlain, but last year many of his translations were sent to draft space, for lack of refs, just because de and fr have different ideas about referencing. I try to rescue, that's all. Then get a ridiculous template on my talk recommending the Teahouse, and still see the ridiculous decline template recommending to seek help from an experienced editor, - the things we do to voluntary contributors ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for tagging me, El_C! Concerning Dimash: Oh wow, I really didn't expect that! But I'm happy you enjoy it! It's funny, it's not even a genre I usually listen to. But the first time I heard him 2 years ago, I immediately loved his music. I love his voice, his emotional interpretation; and his vocal skill, range and versatility are just enormous. And he seems to be a very nice and humble guy, which makes it even easier to like him. PS: "eclectic and esoteric variety"? Wow, that sounds interesting. Jasmin Ariane (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
♫ Welcome to the corner, Jasmin! Yes, I love Dimash's Sinful Passion, New Wave, SOS d'un terrien en détresse, Ogni Pietra (Olimpico), Opera 2, and more. Indeed, music-wise, I'm all over the place. Yesterday, I was listening to the Mahavishnu Orchestra, I'm listening to Charlie Byrd right now (because I love bossa nova, above all else), and I'm listening to the China Philharmonic Orchestra in the car currently. So, yeah, all over the place. Welcome, again! ♫ El_C16:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but otherwise, your userpage isn't easy to parse, due to the fact that you actually use it. I edit mine like once a decade. El_C18:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Opa is now on the Main page, Wilhelm Knabe, who stood up for future with the striking school children when he was in his 90s, - a model, - see here. - Further down on the page, there are conversations about the current arb case request - I feel I have to stay away - in a nutshell: "... will not improve kindness, nor any article". - Yesterday, I made sure on a hike that the flowers are actually blooming ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. There's a YouTube video at the bottom of the page, but it's just some people talking in German (which I don't-Opa-understand) alongside some German folk music (not my cup of tea). Then, you link to Nikkimaria's talk page as an ill with numbers and stuff, but it still only links to their main user talk page. Quite confusing. El_C13:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
entirely my fault, I thought I had the video in the article, but no, only on the talk of Martinevans123, and when I'm absent-minded, I confuse ill and diff, Nikkimaria. But hurray, I just expanded the soprano, sufficiently I hope. Need fresh air now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't really like that song. Didn't dislike it either. Was just kinda meh. Personally, I prefer the Israeli children songs I grew up on, like הילדה הכי יפה בגן, for example. El_C16:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Degenhardt would have been delighted! Not a song to be liked, - did you read the quote which I translated (improving on Deeple) per the talk request. Song talk about unpleasant smells, ending with a crime and a corpse swimming ... while the surviving grubby children keep singing that you better don't play with them. - Thanks for yours. Did you read my advice for M? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not. Quoted where? Also, after Opa, I'm afraid to ask, but what's a "Deeple"? Yes, I saw it. Sound advise, but I'm still concerned that further cognizance will nonetheless be needed in order to avoid utter disaster in the future. El_C16:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
my next mistake, DeepL - as you know everything about me you'll know that I am an infobox warrior who had to be restricted by arbcom to prevent utter disaster in the future. For 2 years I was too proud to appeal. I should have known SBHB's advice in the case, but then we might not have gotten to Beethoven ;) - RfC for Ian Fleming, and I stay away, I stay away, I don't play that game any more - please, be never afraid to ask! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The church pic - as you will have seen - is in my user infobox for 2021. I don't know the singer personally, but she sang for us several times, Bach's great works (all explained if you follow the link, also (below there) that some like to receive my thanks and appreciation), and she sang recently in cantata services that I pictured (her page). On all these pictures, she is too small for "about her", and my lead is smaller "about me", of course. - I knew nothing about the translator, but she was a red link on Deaths in 2021. The bitter-sweetness is between her and her ex-husband, a novelist with an article who wrote her obit. (They had four children when they were divorced, and now he has ten.) - The delegate called me to task for the Bach cantata, so I will have to not follow spontaneous impulses for a few days, - hope no one dies whose article has to be written. In the cantata, BWV 1, I have a problem. The article was all built on one source (and all other Bach cantatas at the time also, btw) which one user denies reliability. I wanted to keep it, supporting it for all facts - only recordings, anyway - by a second source, trying to be faithful to the article history and to retain what editors did before me. He removed it. Quite generally, I have a problem with expansions which ignore what former editors achieved, see BWV 53 and Ian Fleming for recently mentioned examples. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It does not look "despicable" to me, but I am far from an authority. This is not an area with which I am familiar. El_C18:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chrisahn, right, you ask me, here, like so. But can you show that there is a lot of protracted edit warring going on? Because I'm wary of throttling a page that sees that much activity. Not sure why you pinged Octoberwoodland here. They are not an admin, so they do not have the authority to grant your request. El_C00:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, there hasn't been much edit warring. Just like Octoberwoodland, I thought the page was already under 1RR, and I thought it would be useful. But if you'd rather not do it yet, that's fine with me as well. If problems do arise, I'll come back here. But I hope it won't be necessary. :-) (The ping was just because Octoberwoodland started the discussion at Alalch Emis's talk page and might want to chime in here.) — Chrisahn (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just understood that moments ago (the ping). Anyway, in general, restrictions are added by need only. The general consensus among admins is to wait and see, and only if needed add 1RR. And if that isn't enough, only then move on to additional enhancements, like Consensus required (i.e. gradual escalation). Regards, El_C00:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is time I knew more about do's and don'ts applicable to infoboxes. Could you let me have the link to any WP that applies to Infoboxes as such? Qexigator (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some users get hot about infoboxes, while for others it's the normal thing to have. Before adding an infobox to an article without one, check for warnings in edit mode, and for discussions on the talk page. Recent example Ian Fleming, nonono. Those who made the article as nice as it is today don't like it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link to MOS:INFOBOX. This comfirms my experience when I have been looking at or editing other well-established articles on impottant topics: the infobox is 'to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored,,,The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance,' If well done, they can be very helpful when needed.' Qexigator (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
yes ;) - that pic was taken by my much-missed friend who made the good version for Ian Fleming, and my illustration for the infobox wars (see the link to the workshop, and in my 2020 talk archive). - On the other topic, Bach, we have now another ANI, by Smerus, Nikkimaria is fighting, I shake my head and try to look away, and Mathsci is still blocked. How many more editors in good standing are going to be burnt? - I like the singers music, but the images best when I see him, not graphics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's the second time today where I've had Che quoted back at me — looks like it's gonna be one of those days... Enjoy your outing! El_C11:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Back from sun and snow: sorry if that landed wrong. I was a bit in a rush, and reacted to "all roads lead to IF". I don't care about IF, at all, the number of my edits to his article is zero, the number of my edits to the talk page is zero. I had not thought of him in years until the ongoing RfC, and my edits will remain zero. I use his name as an example, because - with the RfC going - I can mention it, otherwise if I mentioned a name from the group someone would come and cry "canvassing".
I thought about the animosity, and what I can trace back (because I really don't understand it), and looked at what I wrote about Ian Fleming on the page deleted as a call to battle. I made a note of the name, that it was infobox person (red background indicating that it was lost) and the above-mentioned diff of a good version from 2012 piped to the date. That's all. I had forgotten until I looked it up now that my friend had made the good version. When we lost him (later that year) I spread the image all over the Wikipedias, even Hebrew (with some help from a friend from Jerusalem). My first reaction had been to leave, but then I didn't want to do his enemies that favour ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, that is some lovley greenery. So nice. Also, you can CANVASS me any day, Gerda, but should probably note my propensity to call (!)voter fraud whenever things don't go my way (diff). Anyway, trying to take it easy today, with the occasional bouts of critical drinking.El_C19:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, easy today, will explain "canvass" some other day, also why I think the animosity is inherited, because the listing described really doesn't explain it, - although I can see (now) that the red background - about as red as your top image - could be seen as inflammatory. But a reason to leave Wikipedia? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Easier today, with progress on BWV 1. Back to the beginning, Hebrew: we miss Yoninah, terribly, and one of the many things she would have done for me is adding the text of a psalm to the article, compare Psalm 45 and Psalm 43. The text can be found at the bottom, in External links. I could probably manage but would feel safer if someone did it who could actually read it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Oh, good, glad to hear it. Yup, I well know Yoninah for her top-tier contributions. I wouldn't count our losses yet, though. She's only been gone less than a month. Hopefully, she'll return soon. *Sending positive vibes*El_C11:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One this day nine years ago, I told Voceditenore that she is a voice of opera and reason. In 2018, she said: "And, no, there haven't been infobox squabbles in ages. I personally use them all the time now for biographies and operas. There are a few diehards left, but the general attitude from both perspectives seems to have settled on live and let live." So why is it that some still can't settle on live and let live? - The next cookbook author is scheluded to appear as TFA (with a nice infobox btw, as the last), and I will keep the usual thanks to the creator for myself as insistent, but I don't understand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. It could just ebb. In 2018, it was no concern. Why is it now? Why can't we just edit the little boxes as other content: someone adds, and if someone reverts, consensus needs to be established. Instead, someone adding, or requesting, or just asking where it went, is considered a warrior. The question where it went often goes like this: when a certain group of editors expanded an article, they collapsed it (thinking that was a compromise, but making life harder for those having physical trouble to click the "show" button). That caused a little edit-war, which was "resolved" by taking it away completely, with a discussion like this on the talk following. Ever since, we have been reminded that there was this consensus not to have one, and we are supposed to believe that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For sure, I am like-minded with you in that interpretation. WP:ONUS should generally be observed, like elsewhere. Indeed, there really isn't an excuse for not doing so. In theory, per WP:ARBINFOBOX2, WP:ACDS allows admins to just straight-up make it (ONUS) a requirement by adding Consensus required to intractable infobox disputes. My sense is that most admins just do not want to touch these because it usually ends up amounting to a zero-sum game, at best — myself, I don't really engage infobox disputes in an AE capacity, because the history and politics AE topic areas keep me busy enough (diff). El_C16:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, understood. Admittedly, I do not have a firm grasp of what's happening on the infobox front. RE: translations. Many thanks! I appreciate your praise very much. Also Val's. Strange how it took me hours and hours to do the first one, an hour to do the second one, and 30 minutes to do the third one. But I think I'm now finally satisfied with the final form of all three translations, so at least I'm done with the constant tinkering (though not to jinx it!). El_C16:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For more understanding: imagine - if you can, it takes courage - for a moment that back in 2012, the infobox had been kept as it had been for years then already. Imagine. - Certainly thanks to presentation here, Arik Brauer made it to the stats, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One of my favourite books growing up... Reception looks great to me. I think he did a fine job. Top tier musicology. El_C16:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nonono, I could never write such a thing (+ I'm not a "he" as the writer is, and yes, the obvious "he" just merged it). Two ways to the answer: you follow the links in the edit summary (better the second), or you look at the new article's talk page. Unless you just guess why I come to you of all people with this question, and may guess right. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, for reasons which are my own, attending to this dispute, in any administrative capacity, just isn't something I wish to engage at this time. Sorry. El_C20:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And that's very much okay to express. Also, we can be in diametric opposition about whatever from time to time. That is also okay. El_C23:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have just set up an alternative account, Narky Blert (alt), so that I can edit logged-in until I can regain access to my main account, Narky Blert. (Condensed story - I fell ill in early December, with the result that I was admitted to hospital having being found unconscious after three days. I was discharged after a week, and consider myself recovered. An annoying side-effect was that I broke my PC, and am having trouble in recovering my PWs (that should be possible, but I'm having to rely on third parties).)
Holy shit! So sorry to hear that, but glad you're on the mend. For sure, I'll get right on that. Wow, that's nuts. Thanks for the song. Glad to have you back, but take it easy, please! Jeez. El_C15:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm feeling better now than I have for months; I must have been building up to that episode which landed me in hospital. Now, if only I could do something about the misbegotten ISP I'm currently on... Narky Blert (alt) (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember - keep loosing my cameras. It's an excerpt of a larger pic, of course, and from the time when I joined Wikipedia. - No, not familiar, will perhaps look when dark. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thank you ;) - back to Psalm 14, it looked done but looking closer, I don't get why Hebrew is shorter, and has a different beginning, and the explanation is that it's not the complete but some sort of difference. Can you check that please? - Prayer for Ukraine: I heard it as "encore" after a live opera performance from Staatsoper Hannover, sung and played with heart by the complete ensemble. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like. Congrats! You are a musical editing machine! In answer to your question: some of the Aramaic-derived Hebrew words combine nouns and verbs all in a single word. El_C14:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have virtually every major military engagement on my watchlist. But I haven't opened my watchlist in 2022 yet, so there's that. El_C12:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if I understand. I look at my watchlist about once per hour. You could just look at editing history every now and then, or do nothing. I wanted to write about an Israeli conductor today but came a feminist - the perfect topic for women's month. Her pic is on the Main page, and I learned a lot expanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
now that's so funny: when I was about to pass 55.555 I decided that this was nonsense and began to reduce one by one, having reached 42k+ - this conductor leads an orchestra, but my grandfather was a train conductor --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Double cool! Also, I definitely agree with you: train, orchestra conductors — basically the same thing, interchangeable. El_C13:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C,
I know it was a while ago but I want to thank you for your patience with me on the Myanmar articles. I have a tendency to get flustered when coming under attack, so I made some mistakes when that happened with some new editors who happened to be from Myanmar. I have a lot of sympathy for their situation, though. I edit in that area because it's one of the most backwards regimes in the world but that gets very little attention. Anyway, thanks and happy holidays. 25stargeneral (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I am back with a new name! I'm planning on focusing my work going forward more on content creation. I regret being at times insensitive in my approach to other editors in the Myanmar area, so I just wanted to ask, if you happen to notice me editing in a less-than-collaborative way, could you please give me a nudge in the right direction, even if it doesn't rise to anything actionable? I would greatly appreciate it. I will go through the normal channels from now on if there is something that I believe needs admin attention. TEMPO156 (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've got mail!
Hello, El C. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 13:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
As opposed to an edit warring veteran editor? It takes two to edit war, and you do not get supremacy over an IP editor by virtue of being a veteran editor. So you can take your Wrong version complaint and sarcasm elsewhere. El_C17:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to discuss this issue on the talk page, but I am met only with vague responses and rationalizations about why an obscure 1975 photo is somehow more appropriate. Instead user FlightTime seems to be giving off the feeling that he is superior and because "they said so" therefore the old photo must be sealed for eternity.
Are we serving the public on Wikipedia or our own interests? What would actually be more recognizable for the general public, a more recent photo of Mr. Lear (of which there are many, again just look at google image results), or a cropped and not easily identifiable one that some users are stubbornly insisting be used? 2604:3D09:6A85:6000:AC47:C232:AFD7:7802 (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The EEA page keeps attracting some unwanted attention for the last month or so. I see that you've protected the page once already. Would it be possible to do it again? Budsalone (talk) 12:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you put an extended autoconfirmed protection at Saturday Night Live (season 49) on the ground that it's related to the Arab-Israeli conflict because there was a minor edit war over whether to include the minor point that the role of Elise Stefanik in the Congressional hearing on Anti-semitism was originally given to Cecily Strong. I don't follow the logic.
Isabela ciao, just because you fail to identify a connection does not make it absolutely this or that; nor am I interested in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS whataboutism. That said, I'm not inherently opposed to unprotecting in a month or so, so feel free to remind me at that time. El_C17:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which Indonesia-related articles that are extended protected?
Thank you! - The 2023 picture is from the Abel Fest in Köthen, celebrating the tercentenary of Carl Friedrich Abel, a viol virtuoso, composer and concert organiser in London (together with Bach's youngest son), born on 22 December 1723 in Köthen, where the new catalogue of his works was introduced, - my story today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done! Thanks for the updates. Hope you enjoy your vacation, and do I even need to say, take lot's of pics? El_C20:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, enjoying, taking tons of pictured, 23 chosen for 23 Jan, 6 uploaded, too tired for more - on my talk you see that it's the birthday of Mozart and our conductor ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A user yesterday has made personal attacks against me aggressively, I brought the issue to the notice of administrators, one user happened to advice the user to strike out their personal comments on me, they still haven't done that. If possible, could you please look into this issue? -Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Aggressive attacks for starting a discussion on an article's talk page | Removal of template
Hey. No, no idea. Maybe he's finally staying outta trouble (unlikely). Good to see you, though. Don't be a stranger! El_C17:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up on disruptive LTA
A while back I made this post on ANI regarding a long term disruptive user-[5].
Regarding Indie soul, just a reminder that when you draftify an article from main space to Draft space, the remaining redirect needs to be deleted as a CSD R2. You can either delete it yourself or tag it for speedy deletion and an admin who patrols CSD categories can take care of it.
I believe this is quite an inappropriate block since blocks are preventative and not punitive. With the specific incivility and personal attacks aside, I don't see a reason for why they would continue to be disruptive outside that specific instance. I would have agreed more if a temporary block was issued at that time instead. What do you think? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 05:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, on the 7th edit crux you mentioned at their talk page, I think getting involved in administrative noticeboards while the account is new isn't an issue in and of itself. Well, they aren't new to our WP:P&Gs, but I don't see that as a reason to believe that they would cause further disruption. Though I don't see it as necessary, a namespace block from WP/WT instead of a full indef would have been less BITE-y. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 05:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I think that being as abrasive (as presented in the extensive evidence) by seemingly starting an aggressive anti-UNBLOCKABLES mission in one's 7th edit is what's inappropriate. And I continue to challenge that, absent an explanation, it is suspect. But feel free to take to the matter a wider forum. El_C06:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As well, I believe that your position—presenting this user in the same breath as both new (i.e. BITE-y) and an experienced user (i.e. aren't new to our WP:P&Gs)—is both inconsistent and sets a bad standard. About the conduct and direction from new-not-new users. El_C06:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A little bit inconsistent, I would agree, but knowing how to cite policies and guidelines doesn't mean they are not a new user. From the comments they have made it doesn't appear to me that they have the same style of argument experienced users make. Perhaps they picked up some of the experienced-isque elements from reading internal discussions and policy pages, but they still appear new to me. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 06:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The two intermediate IP edits from 194.125.77.219 should probably be revdel'd as well, because they currently allow some of the problematic changes to be seen. - Sumanuil. (talk to me)05:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to clear it up, the reason I reverted here [10] was not because it wasn't an inline citation, it was because of WP:RSPSIMPLEFLYING where an RfC came to the consensus that SimpleFlying is not a reliable source and should not be used in articles. Just wanted to clear that up.
I wasn’t trying to start anything again, I was literally just explaining myself since you initially responded that the source was good and wanted to make sure my reasoning was understood. Was just explaining myself, I already moved on…
You started by explaining to the IP how to cite inline, so I thought that meant you viewed their source as good. Otherwise why would you open with that and not with: 'sorry, it's a bad source, but if you have a good one, you do is this way'? So, yeah, I missed the second part, WP:RSPSIMPLEFLYING, which probably read like gibberish to me late last night. Coastie43's quoting it in full (with words), Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#SimpleFlying — that by contrast was immediately readable to me. Anyway, this entire conversation just seems so needless. But no biggie. See ya. El_C20:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SwiftFan2024: left a note there, though that report was already closed. But you could have asked me about it at any time, and I'd have explained why semi was chosen over pc (or any other protection level). Oh well. Well, now you know. El_C04:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, thanks for the recommend. I'm away for a bit, but hopefully will be back in a few weeks. Talk to you then. All the best, El_C16:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first deletion review I've initiated in a long time (possibly ever). I didn't notice the instructions which are under the 15-item list of cases in which DRV should and shouldn't be used. Will definitely do this next time. Cheers! Alaexis¿question?22:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Please note, though, that this is a general maxim (of WP:CLOSECHALLENGE) that goes beyond the realm of deletion discussions. And it's just common sense, because I could have made the arguments that the two participants have made in the DRV discussion (both endorse) right here, you could have responded, etc. But you never gave such discussion a chance. The reasoning is that I might have convinced you of my position, thus, you could have spared the extra work for the folks at DRV. HTH. El_C22:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your response on ANI. I probably should have clarified, but when I said about bringing your block of Bobak to XRV, I meant you yourself bringing it there if you were concerned it would be against consensus (Which as of now it is not). I am aware my suggestion could have come accross as 'anyone can/should bring it to XRV', which was not what I was attempting to state and definitely not attempting or encouraging others to do so.
Oh, I see. But no need to apologize, though I appreciate it. It's just a rather obscure venue that is used seldom and not many know about. Take care. El_C16:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in my pre-coffee state, I might have conflated you with A smart kitten, who was actively involved in that discussion (you were of course the user whose block was being reviewed there at the time) — shh, don't tell anyone! El_C16:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apology for reverting good faith edits
@El C You reverted my edits here a while ago, and I did not notice until now. I thought that IP was subtly vandalizing, but I have now just realized that I misread the sentence multiple times and did not realize that IP was trying to fix a grammatical error. I apologize for the foolish edits I made and am sorry for the inconvenience.
Sure, ItsCheck, but please make sure you learn from this, by double and triple checking your edits, and by treating any given IP editor in good faith until proven otherwise. Because obviously changing "married with two children" into "married to two children" in a biography of a living person is a very serious violation. Thanks for reaching out. El_C16:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is doesn't it seem pointless to attempt to communicate with an individual who's sole purpose is to return to an account and revert my edit, each time from a different IP? Or perhaps it's a group of people since the IPs are in fact unique? skarz (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about any of that (not mentioned at the protection request), but what I do know is that the article talk page has not been meaningfully used by anyone since 2016. HTH. El_C18:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:AgafTikshuv.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Sorry, everyone, with very few exceptions, I will not be accepting any new requests for administrative intervention on my talk page for the foreseeable future. In the meantime, enjoy the music! El_C18:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El C one day I'd like to better understand what caused your loss of trust in Arbcom because that has been apparent to me for quite some time. For now though I thought I would point you to where the policy for how to request recusals lives. Barkeep49 (talk) 10:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you reduce the protection level on this page? The problem-causing user has been indeffed and I’d like to be able to edit the article. Dronebogus (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before making substantive edits, I'd recommend taking a good look at the talk page discussions, including those concerning a proposed new draft. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You declined 4/5 of my RFPP requests? Why? You said "Pages are not protected preemptively" but GS/RUSUKR says "If a page (other than a "Talk:" page) mostly or entirely relates to the topic area, broadly construed, this restriction is preferably enforced through extended confirmed protection," and "Only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area".@El CMe Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Me Da Wikipedian: those would not. We're looking for days or a couple of weeks at most. For the most part, anything that's in the weeks or months would not qualify. El_C00:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello El C, having some problems here.
I wanted to remedy my mistake (missing }}, but apparantly there is the new link to about.com which I never made. Would you be so kind as to take a closer look ? Thank you ever so much. Cheers Lotje (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Not sure, not seeing any relevant new filters or new additions to the blacklist (local or global). Maybe ask at WP:VPT or WP:EFN. Should have some more tech-inclined folks than myself who can shed light on this. HTH. El_C17:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale for extending extended-confirmed protection to the entire World Central Kitchen article?
Hi. I'm not very familiar with the custom of topic-based page protections. The policy states "all pages broadly related to a topic, as well as parts of other pages that are related to the topic". The page was already partially protected in regards to any information regarding the incident in Gaza, and there has been no vandalism.
Is this the norm of topic-based protections? E.g. it is not banned to edit the article Legality of conversion therapy because of the "gender-related contentious topics; or the biography of Wang Zhi'an merely because it contains information about him criticising Falun Gong. I was about to add some information regarding past World Central Kitchen responses to natural disasters. Y. Dongchen (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. First, protection that is WP:PREEMPTIVE is against the norms (not sure if that's clear to you). As for this arbitration-enforcement sanction regime (the WP:PIA topic area) its WP:ECR requirement is split into two types of affected pages: "primary articles," which represent a permanent and close connection to the topic area, and "related content", whose connection is temporary and/or lesser. But as for the examples you pointed to above, neither WP:ARBFLG nor WP:ARBGS feature the ECR requirement. Still, in a broader sense, if a dispute pertaining to any applicable topic area becomes acute on any page, that sanction regime could be invoked (and regardless if it's a community-authorized or Arbitration Committee-authorized one). HTH. El_C02:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not primary, it's related, because that organization is active elsewhere in the world, like Ukraine. If it was only focused on its Gaza mission, then it would be deemed primary.El_C03:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay. Then can you please remove the current form of protection which is applied to the entire page? The WP:PIA "area of conflict" is defined as
4) For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing
a. the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted ("primary articles"), and
b. edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content")
Sorry, I don't follow. You don't provide a reasoning as to why I should "remove the current form of protection which is applied to the entire page," you just quote from that case. To what end? So, no, I don't think you understand it correctly, but I'm not sure if I can explain it better. El_C04:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the "ARBPIA general sanctions" – Extended confirmed restriction: The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on the area of conflict.
Since you mentioned your rationale for the imposition of protection was that you deemed the article to contain related content, the general sanctions would not cover the imposition of whole-page protection. The related content was already explicitly protected as per the article talkpage. I am not an extended-confirmed user and I want to add information about past responses of WCK to natural disasters. Y. Dongchen (talk) 04:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only difference between primary and related is that WP:ECP isn't applied indefinitely for the latter. Because in the future that org may be in the news and experience active editing disputes about, say, Haiti, which is not currently deemed a contentious topic. But a page can only be protected in its entirety. I don't have discretion about the protection level itself. If you think you have a convincing case, you could request to get your WP:XC status expedited at WP:PERM#Extended confirmed, though. El_C04:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "area of conflict" concept was introduced in WP:ARBPIA4 following confusion about Airbnb which included controversies regarding operation in West Bank settlements. So even though the article still contains the company's settlements controversy, the protection is not extended to the whole article. I might ask for a third opinion on this. Y. Dongchen (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Protection of any article related to the topic area, broadly construed, is permitted by the protection policy and the contentious topic procedures. In my experience, it is common practice to only temporarily protect pages which are only partially related. El C's protection was aligned with policy and practice. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gavin Menzies
I got an email explaining it was a student project. ". Students were told explicitly not to vandalize articles, although we do not have the class time for students to learn what constitutes a good Wikipedia edit before they complete the assignment. I hope the disruption caused by the assignment was minimal—at the very least, it should inspire a future generation of Wikipedia editors." Doug Wellertalk13:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Doug, that's interesting and a bit unexpected, but I should emphasize that I approached this from a wider lense. As in the long term issues the page has experienced intermittently, resulting in multiple protections from 2010 to the present day. Usually, these protections have been in the months, but the last two were for one year each (2017-2018 and 2019-2020, respectively), so I went for 2 years this time. But next time that page experiences major problems, whatever that reason may be, I think that the protection should be set not to expire. Best, El_C01:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like to see Appalachian Spring on the Main page today (not by me, just interested and reviewed), and I also made it my story. - How do you like the statue (look up places)? - I was undecided so show three versions ;) - Did you "pet" the calf (see March)? Did I tell you that the psalms are now done in Hebrew, even with translations into English?? Thanks to someone tireless. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My story today is about a piece composed for the Second Sunday after Easter 300 years ago, about a shepherd, and then I saw plenty of sheep from the bike, and I just returned from a (long) opera about the same age, with soprano Pretty Yende. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would like a reference for "previously known as" - that change has not been made. I would be happy to help maintain this page. dugbrown 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure what is meant by that (it's been many years since that article has even crossed my mind), but you should be good to go now. El_C14:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You semi'd the page indefinitely, but you appear to have forgotten to reset the pending changes. With indef semi now in place, this obviously is not needed anymore. Lynch44 (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your appeal is incomplete because it only links to a previously failed appeal, but not to anything I did (the original enforcement action). El_C17:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting the edit of Maratha Empire article
Hi, it appears that you recently reverted the article on the Maratha Empire to a previous version. However, the prior version indicated a date of 1758, not 1760. Additionally, other articles about historical empires include maps from when they were at their peak, so the map from 1758 would be accurate in this context. The statement "Maratha Empire at its peak in 1760" contradicts the earlier map date. The map from 1758 is available on Wikimedia That's why I edited the map of 1760 to 1758 because the description under it was wrong. Seems like Wikipedia editors are biased. Also, there is a talk section about this topic in that article but no one discussed before editing. 2402:8100:387D:609D:AC52:E91E:48D4:A649 (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have used multiple IPs to edit war that change, some of which while block evading, and you wonder why no one wishes to engage your brief yet confusing and poorly-written talk page comment from April 22? In this context, your Seems like Wikipedia editors are biased seems unsubstantive and falls short. There may be a language barrier that at this time is insurmountable. This is the English Wikipedia, which means that there is a requirement that one would be sufficiently competent in its use in order to communicate clearly. El_C13:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Sorry, I did indeed miss your comment at that time. In answer to your question: no, nothing recent comes to mind. HTH. Regards, El_C04:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are the Wikipedia administrator who added Extended Confirmation Protection to Standoff at Eagle Pass. Can the protection for this page be reduced to semi-protected, due to the need for updates related to the topic (the banner has been there since February 2024) and the reduced news coverage and controversy about the event.
HI El C. I made a couple of edits on Wikipedia. I think I'm right, maybe I'm not. Two users disagree with me, one from the Battle for Sigetvar, the other from Nikola IV Zrinski, but no one else. I think that unverified images with unknown authors have no place on Wikipedia. Then everyone can post unverified pictures with unknown authors. I think there must be a rule for that in wikipedia, maybe there isn't. So I would like your opinion on that. See my Wikipedia edits. Thank you. 78.2.236.99 (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For context, I was going through these and finding the ones with >5k transclusions that MusikBot hadn't yet upgraded to TPE. I started listing them at RFPP/I before it occurred to me that -- if I added them all in one set -- I might accidentally cause people to be annoyed with me for flooding the page. Having said that, if you don't mind protecting some more, would it be okay if I listed the remaining ones from that list with >5k transclusions here? (If you do mind, it's not a problem of course!)
(Courtesy ping MusikAnimal - there might be nothing wrong with the bot, but thought I should ping you just in case, due to the number of templates with >5k transclusions that MusikBot II hadn't yet upgraded the protection of.) All the best, —a smart kitten[meow]23:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
I don't know if the vandal is still active or not, but regardless, I believe the time since the page was protected is long enough for them to not vandalize again. Could you remove the semi protection on the page? MessageApp (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I’ve seen the game has declined in popularity, meaning it won’t be as much of a target for vandalism. Plus, edits on the page have even very infrequent and there hasn’t been much talk page vandalism. I suggest semi protection and maybe pending changes if semi is also overkill, but semi is probably the best thing to do for now. CharlieEdited (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but for the most part, I prefer to only attend to such requests when they concern protections that I myself have imposed. I'd send you to that admin, but they are no longer one, so the venue to request that would be @WP:RFPP/D. HTH. El_C17:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That page has no backlog currently. It doesn't even have any outstanding requests. My sense is that you would need more experience to qualify. Sorry, I'm writing in haste. El_C18:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Today is the Feast of the Ascension for which Bach composed his oratorio, - perhaps watch a bit how the closing movement was performed in Bach's church. The second piece in our program begins with first line from Psalm 80, which made us sing "Israel" often. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
did you listen and see? - today's story has a pic of a woman holding her cat, a DYK of 5 years ago - the recent pics show 2 orange tip butterflies --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I saw that you were involved with the reversion of my post on the “Universities and Antisemitism” page, specifically about MIT. I was wondering if you could provide me with some clarification on why my edit was reverted. I see that this page is protected, meaning one would have to be above 500 edits, but I am curious about the comment on Palestine-Israel articles. I understand that that these incidents at MIT have been influenced by the I-P conflict, but is there a way I can acknowledge that fact without being in violation of these rules? I would really appreciate any suggestions that could improve to fit Wikipedia standards. Thank you so much! Topiguana (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I actually was not involved in any reversions and know little to nothing about those. Rather, I protected the page (link) in response to a protection request (link). Unfortunately, since you lack the required tenure (the extended confirmed one of 30 days and 500 edits), you cannot presently edit the article due these restrictions (WP:ECR). Restrictions the Arbitration Committee has imposed on the WP:PIA topic area. In short, this was a procedural protection that aligns with these rules. Sorry I don't have better news for you. Regards, El_C17:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, Topiguana, either you are able to reach to the WP:XC tenure (which must happen organically) so that the WP:30-500 threshold is met, or WP:ECR only permits you to participate as follows (quoting): Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. El_C17:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is super helpful, thanks so much! So sorry to make any false accusations, I was just looking at the edit history and wanted more information. Topiguana (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, I have a question. I noticed what you did here. I was kind of ambivalent on whether or not I should revoke talk page access but the idea of protecting the page itself didn't occur to me. Is it because of the sockpuppetry? I'm still getting the hang of nuance surrounding admin stuff and I try to use confusing situations as learning opportunities. Clovermoss🍀(talk)10:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. So I revoked TPA because this user continued spamming after being indeffed. Only after that did I notice that they also replied to their own spam as an IP for some reason (diff). So I also semiprotected, an action that, granted, renedres the TPA revocation moot. Anyway, since this is a spam-only account with less than 20 edits, my overall position is: who cares? Best wishes, El_C10:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you admin delete an edit from page history
Some new (apparently agenda-driven) user has realised they can't edit most Israel-Palestine related articles and so has decided to hit related ones. While most of this can/has just been removed, this edit is, well, read it yourself. A paragraph ranting about Israel being justified. Absolutely not appropriate to be hosted by Wikipedia even just in edit history. Kingsif (talk) 11:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no.2 - using wikivoice to present apologism for at least war crimes, seems to me as Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material. Regardless of whatever side of any particular conflict, any comment anywhere that tries justifying what are widely considered war crimes is just so out of line.
What makes it cross the line, for me, is the presentation of this comment in wikivoice as if it's authoritative. I mean, the content was not relevant at the article and had a poor source anyway, but say it was relevant and well-sourced, saying "organisations X and Y think..." is good. But not wikivoice saying it. And, beyond NPOV as I see it, there are likely to be some affected people who would take that as Wikipedia, as a large organisation, taking an offensive stance. Kingsif (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting my userpage?
Hullo El_C, long time no interact! Sorry to be a bother, but I'm writing this to ask if there's a way you or another administrator may "delete" my user page? Looking back, I'm quite uncomfortable with how I revealed both my general location and age in previous revisions (what happens when you're young, dumb, and very dumb!) and was wondering if there was a way for the edit history to be deleted? Or at least not publicly available for other contributors to see? Hope you're having a nice day, many thanks :) Sisuvia (talk) 07:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@El C
Hi, just thought I should let you know, the user you blocked from editing that article didn't waste any time making another account so they could keep removing information.[11] This time claiming it's a request from the actress. Which I highly doubt. Is is possible for you to prevent that page from being edited not only from accounts that haven't made many edits, but also from IPs since even if an editor gets blocked, they could also log out and make edits? Kcj5062 (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bad News: The "lulzsters" struck Tony Ferguson once again, despite a long history of protection settings in the page log. Can you protect the page for even a longer period?
Good News: The coast is clear from little T the disambiguation page for a couple of years now. However, I could not chat with the protecting admin due to their prolonged inactivity on Wikipedia. Is it ok for you instead to reset pending changes?
Hi. I don't know who little T is, but it looks like I protected Tony Ferguson back in 2022. It was protected by another admin earlier in 2024 (an admin who is active now, or was a few of hours ago, at least). Doesn't matter, I see that there's a lot of disruption to the page, so sure: Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C01:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much in advance! As for little T, it is currently pending-protected indefinitely. My concern is: there are barely any edits, whether anonymous or autoconfirmed, which defeats the purpose of protecting such disambiguation page beyond this point. Do you mind reseting pending changes?197.2.14.219 (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Yeah, that's odd about that disambiguation page, but reset it to what end? It hasn't been edited in years, so I don't think it really matters. El_C02:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Can you look after special:history/nickelodeon on CBS for a while? I once reverted an edit under another IP address but that revision persisted on coming back. At this point, I am uncertain who on earth is right. Furthermore, I am unwilling to get involved again to contribute for the time being due to excessive false accusations by this user for being a WP:SOCK of WP:LTA/TVFT (just because I showed up in WP:RFPP under the 197.[0/1/2/3]::/16 range and/or the 102.[156/157/158/159]::/16 range). Please keep an eye on the page history and decide which is best.197.3.236.189 (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, IP. Unfortunately, I can't spare the time to investigate this, but ohnoitsjamie (this user) is an experienced admin, so you might wish to try to explain yourself better to him, or submit a query to WP:ANI if you truly believe it to be a legit (and intractable) problem. Sorry I couldn't be of more help, but here's hoping the matter gets resolved amicably. Regards, El_C21:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the tone he uses to respond to my complaints or in his edit summaries:
I don't think it is worth bringing such issue to WP:ANI. Plus, I am still unwilling to sign up. My only solution is to bear such situation and take a break (even for up to 3 months, one of my blocked former IP ranges).
He may be one of the majority of, if not all, admins who would disbelieve how my editing behaviour differs from the telly vandal(s), aside from the IP ranges which I've mentioned earlier that I edit with (I don't literally hop from one range to another, it is just the poor quality of my internet connection which periodically disconnects, and that every reconnection comes with a different IP address under those IP ranges without the possibility of enforcing a static IP address).
I don't blank notices on my talk pages.
I leave edit summaries occassionally, including a period at the end.
Hi El C: I know you stepped away from moderating MEK discussions, but I wonder if you are still considering this kind of work? If not, I'll note it and make sure I don't ping you again about this. If you are up for it, I'm workshopping an RFC in the talk page, and I would appreciate any uninvoved feedback to make it fair. Whatever the result is, I would like to avoid a "Bad RFC" outcome. Thank you. Best, MarioGom (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Mario. I'm afraid that's a not. I helped establish WP:GS/IRANPOL so that I never have to do that again. But I wish you success in your efforts. Regards, El_C15:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El,
A comment from the busybody in residence, regarding this bit of house keeping: the bot was only waiting for three requests to become eligible for archiving, which would have happened at 14:38 (UTC). The reason why it wasn't willing to do its chore before was the absence of a {{pagelinks}} at the top of the section. I added one, pro forma, a little while ago. Favonian (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find this funny more than anything, but can you eleborate by what makes my signature being “jarring”? I would be up to redesigning it. I made it three years ago when I pretty much never edited. -1ctinus📝🗨15:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again! You and I had a brief discussion yesterday when I asked for an article about Laken Riley's killing to be semi-protected. It seems that even after the protection, multiple editors have been insistent on calling it a "murder", and one of them even moved the page to Murder of Laken Riley, in violation of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths). There is a discussion on the Talk page going on about this, and since you were involved in this area when you and I talked yesterday, I think the discussion on the Talk page could use your valuable input. Thank you. Gottagotospace (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I see it's now been moved back. I'm gonna move-protect it momentarily (WP:RM only) so as at to remove all temptation. El_C21:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! If you'd like to contribute, I think your input on the language used on the rest of the page could benefit from your input as well (since I changed a few instances of the word "murder" to other things, but that got reverted by someone else). We're discussing it on the Talk page. Gottagotospace (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El_C. There is no reason given on the article talk page (or anywhere else I can see that justifies the Full Protection). It is a controversial subject article, but that in itself, does not warrant full protection. I understood that a rationale for article full protection on the talk page or elsewhere is required? Can you please review or add something to the TP? Leaky caldron (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The protection notice can be viewed at the following RfPP diff. The reason should be self-explanatory: an edit war between like 8 users. Sorry, I can't spare the time today for an additional note, but feel free to link my answer here if you think it might help. El_C21:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the disruption meets the criteria for full protection. There is next to no current activity on the article or talk page. The participant you mentioned has not recently contributed. I think if you are willing, it would be appropriate to review the protection in light of the narrow area of dispute and current limited level of disruption. Thanks. Leaky caldron (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I count nearly 20 reverts in the 2 days alone prior to my full protection, so, no, that makes no sense and is wholly divorced from the facts. Obviously, current would not include the 2 days that it's been fully-protected since, when no one could edit the page aside from admins (fulfilling edit requests) and bots (with sysop permissions). I honestly am at a loss here. El_C07:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RE: The participant you mentioned has not recently contributed — I didn't mention any participants, but if you mean the requestor of that protection request, they did indeed edit (revert) the article recently, less than an hour prior to my protecting it. And their revert itself was reverted 6 minutes later (9:22-9:28), which is a bit longer than the 4 minutes between reverts prior to these (9:18-9:22).
Diff: 9:22, 25 May 2024 Gaia Octavia Agrippa (talk | contribs | block) Reverted 1 edit by Localhistorian2024 (talk): WP:NPOV
Diff: 9:28, 25 May 2024 Localhistorian2024 (talk | contribs | block) The London Gazette has stated... [etc.]
Diff: 10:11, 25 May 2024 El C (talk | contribs | block) Protected "Paula Vennells": Edit warring / content dispute ([Edit=Require administrator access] (expires 14:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)) [Move=Require administrator access] (expires 14:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)))[reply]
So obviously the facts align with my description rather than your own. Facts which are provable and easily verifiable (per directly above). El_C08:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Done, thanks for the reminder. Still, noting as of earlier today it is no longer listed at WP:ITN. So that's keeping it pretty tight, but I think it's probably fine (unless famous last jinx). El_C14:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Do you mind if I ask for a revdel on this abominably sexist edit: [12] on 2024 Mexican general election? The offending user has been warned on talk by someone but I have doubts on whether the warning was serious enough. I was also considering page protection but the edit seems to occur every three weeks or so, so the request might not be granted. Thanks! Borgenland (talk) 03:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the other two, and groundhog (high mountains) and capybara (much bigger) are out. The habitat described in nutria matched where I saw it, right next to the river, in the middle of town btw, and ignoring me. - Joyce: never. Tough enough for native English speakers. I read what Graham Waterhouse set to music ("Bulbulone" from Finnegans Wake, "Arise" from Chamber Music, #14, "Buzzard" again from Finnegans Wake), who was also inspired by today's birthday child. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A river in the middle of town? What town was this again? *** Yeah, understandable, no doubt a tough read. I personally am not a fan. El_C13:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Geilnau lies along the Lahn, northern side, and the trail is along the Lahn, and where I saw the animal was in the middle of the trail, well, yes, there's a little park on the other side of the trail. The road to Geilnau is a dead-end, which makes the valley quiet, with the train tracks in a tunnel in a distance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either Nutria or Muskrat, then. All four are originally from the Americas, but those two were introduced into Eurasia. Capybara (which was a joke nomination) is South America only, while Groundhog—see my petting one at the top of this talk page (though maybe it's actually a Muskrat!)—is North America only. El_C15:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Today is a feast day for which Bach composed a chorale cantata in 1724 (and we had a DYK about it in 2012). Can't believe that Jodie Devos had to die, - don't miss her video from the Opéra-Comique at the end, - story to come. The weekend brought plenty of music sung (one based on Psalm 100 and one based on Psalm 96) and listened to, and some of it is reflected in the last two stories! + pics of good food with good company --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I just noticed the Jordan article had been placed under indef ECP in April, could you please tell me why this was done? Noting that there was an ARBCOM ruling that stated the Jordan article does not fall under ARBPIA, and also that there was not much disruption to the article beyond a single week in April. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. So when attending to your protection request, I saw excessive ARBPIA editing (disruptive or otherwise) by non-WP:XC accounts. That's the reason. As for that 2018 AE discussion: for our immediate purposes, it's somewhat academic whether the protection defines Jordan as a primary article or as related content. There's also the issue of that page having been protected over 25 times prior. For the longer term, though, there could be a case to downgrade it to (indef) semi as related content only, say, in a few months from now. El_C18:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Permanent protection often gets imposed after dozens of previous protection actions (of escalated durations) over the course of years had proven insufficient. So this page isn't a candidate for that at this time, I'm afraid, since this is only its second protection. El_C06:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I'm unlikely to remember unless given a reminder. But, again, feel free to drop me a line if there's further problems, and it'll be, I dunno, 2 months next, and many months after that. Unlike some admins, I don't usually allow a page to be protected tens of times before making it indef (permanent), but it still won't be twice or thrice from now. El_C12:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with making the page permanently protected if it is always vulnerable due to frequent modifications, thank you زكرياء نوير (talk) 12:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requests for indef protections for pages of similar and even higher levels of disruption are extremely common, but the protection policy's ethos stresses exhausting all options, and within reason, going through the motions. Which I'm not really the biggest fan of, but I can't act by fiat contra that unless there's something truly egregious. El_C12:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reminding me to add my signature to my comments. Somehow, I forgot to do it in that ArbCom discussion because usually, when commenting on an article talk page, the website automatically provides our signature for us. I have just added the {{unsigned}} template to each of them. Thank you. 🙂 — Kaalakaa(talk)23:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, thanks for following up. I didn't realize that was a thing, but that makes sense. Incidentally, some have taken umbrage to my is annoying reminder, but the truth is that I'm annoying about sigs in general. At least once monthly, seemingly. Oh well. Regards, El_C00:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edit request
Hello. You semi protected the page on the 2024 Dagestan attack for a number of days, and its talk page is also semi-protected.
Previously, consistent with the wp norm, the first line of that article began contained bolded language. In this case, saying:
"On 23 June 2024, the 2024 Dagestan attack took place, when coordinated terrorist attacks were launched ..."
That has now been changed. It now says "On 23 June 2024, coordinated terrorist attacks were launched ..." There is no bolded language in the lede, matching the title. And I cannot fix that, or ask on the article talk page that it be fixed, as those pages are semi-protected.
Can you please restore the former format, consistent with out norms across the project?
Request renewing a block for persistent BATTLEGROUND
I'd rather not go through ANI all over again when an editor immediately returned to the behavior that got them blocked there previously. In short, Elinruby has continued their personal attacks and other BATTLEGROUND tactics across multiple discussions both on- and off-Wiki since their most recent block. When I reverted a removal of content on 2021 Canadian church burnings, they
Twice again removed the content
Initiated a talk page discussion mischaracterizing me as claiming Portland is in Canada, a false statement they repeated on their talk page
Opened a discussion at WP:NPOVN only 15 minutes after discussion began on the article talk page, but used such a non-neutral statement that it had to be reverted
Began a further eight different talk sections on the article talk page
Wrotecrickets when I didn't have time to immediately respond, following up with this when I finally had a moment to begin catching up
They've also taken to posting numerous discussions at NPOVN and RSN recently, including at least one where they admitted to not even reading the source they were reporting (I didn't actually check the text). Another editor has also recently complained regarding Elinruby's behavior. I request you restore the block with an escalated duration. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pass! Sorry, at this time above all else, I can't commit to the follow ups, certainly if blocking was determined the correct course of action. So noticeboard does seem like your best bet (such as it is, but what can you do?). El_C09:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason for the page to continue being protected since there is no controversy or anything surrounding it unlike with some otherfood items. Plus, edits are so infrequent that protection is most likely useless. Maybe if vandalism returns there could be some pending changes or maybe semi, but there’s no way a 5-year-long ECP is worth it anymore. CharlieEdited (talk) 01:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was an LTA years-long obsession (not just with this page) rather than real-world controversy or incident. Anyway Unprotected. El_C06:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I'm cleaning up various pages with tracked syntax errors and ran across your userpage this evening. Wondered if you'd be willing to update it with these changes to correct the misnested and obsolete tag issues? If these meet your approval, you can copy the entirety (minus the first two lines) here for simplicity. Best wishes, and hope you are staying cool this hot summer! Zinnober9 (talk) 05:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I asked you a question here, but I don't know if you saw the ping, can you give back to the page the EC protection? Thanks. Today another edit was reverted to a registered user--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. No, I didn't see it, but you should not edit archives (from a year ago and in general), since those discussions are no longer live. Sorry, but a single user (now blocked) is not enough for WP:ECP that would effect many. And I don't have the time to look into this in depth, sort of in-the-blind, as I don't remember much about this page a year ago. El_C18:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it is not only a user, I told you about also in December 2023, there are many reverted edits from registered users, you can see some of them here, but there are another without the tag. Since the user that asked you to reduce the protection didn't know anything about the page situation, I think that is pretty unfair, for months me, Betty Logan and other users have to revert many edits because of that, so maybe you can put back the ECP even without knowing the page too much, like that user did in September 2023, if you "accepted" that request from a user that doesn't follow, doesn't edit and doesn't know the page, you can trust me, one of the main contributor, when I say that the page still needs the ECP, thanks--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, let's see what Betty Logan says (I see you've notified her of this). Sorry, I've protected many hundreds of pages since then, so again, I simply do not recall any of these details. El_C20:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently an underlying issue with Box-Office Mojo double-counting re-release grosses. This has led to many editors "correcting" figures to incorrect values. These edits are carried out entirely in good faith, but they do generally come from newer, more inexperienced editors who are not familiar with the issue. We are tracking the problem at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Film_finance_task_force#Box_Office_Mojo which most of the regular Film project editors are familiar with. I think extending the protection would probably help. It would mean that new/inexperienced editors would need to request the change on the talk page where the problem could be explained to them (if applicable). I don't think it would be detrimental to updating the article because it has several dedicated editors from a wide geographic span. Betty Logan (talk) 10:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A couple days ago you protected List of CNN personnel after an Israeli IP vandal engaged in several days of constant vandalism. Well, the protection is off and he's back. Would you mind taking look cat the situation and see what might be done? He's IP-hopping, so a range block, maybe? You know what's best. Thanks for any help! Drmargi (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Today I have two "musicians" on the Main page, one is also the topic of my story, watch and listen, - I like today's especially because you see him at work, hear him talk about his work and the result of his work - rare! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Twenty Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for twenty years or more.
Hey. More Ted Hawkins, nice. But, sorry, I am denying sadness for the moment (somehow). Hope you've been well. Best wishes, El_C12:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question about a close
Hi El C. In your close here you used the phrase with prejudice. This wording has come up in a few different places I've seen regarding appeals and so I was just wondering what you meant by it. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. This is over a year ago, but probably aligning with such comments as Hell no and reconsider after the heat death of the universe, and so on. HTH. El_C21:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I have no eagerness to see this person unblocked (probably ever) it's been taken by a few admins to mean that the person can literally never appeal again, which strikes me as beyond the consensus of that conversation (and truthfully likely beyond policy consensus, at least as policy is written). Was it your intent to permanently close all future appeals? Barkeep49 (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, that was not my intent. I think at the time I was just, like, fuck that guy. But I agree with what you say and, in any case, I would not have stood in the way of any future appeals. El_C22:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C. I know it's been a while, but you closed Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive351#Unblock_request_of_Cognition, and since then I think the impact of your wording has been perhaps broader than intended. Your wording stated that the appeal was denied "with prejudice." While I understand the sentiment of the thread was that this user was unwelcome, the "with prejudice" wording suggests that we will never, ever unban them. While that might be true, it might not be, and telling someone to never come back just encourages sockpuppeting. This has created a problem at UTRS where it's unclear if this user can appeal at all. So in the interest of resolving this issue, I wonder if you might reconsider your choice of wording in the close. I don't think the community has authorized the sort of decision to permaban people without any further chance of appeal. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓20:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Please refer to the (now main) thread directly above, which I feel suffices for this singular incidence. If you need more from me, let me know. El_C02:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CaptainEek and Barkeep49: To expand a bit (sorry, been pressed for time recently), I think there are ways in which future appeals can be limited by a closing admin in the course of a consensus for a CBAN, which is when reoccurring appeals are the subject of that consensus expressly. I've done this before. Two years probably tops (five unlikely). Indef denial of considering appeals is possible, but that'd be the exclusive domain of ARBCOM (project-wise, of course it could also happen at the Foundation level). This was reflexive on my part, which I do regret in so far as it inconveniencing my colleagues. And for that I apologize, Deepfriedokra, Jpgordon, and Yamla. Yours truly, El_C06:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks sorry to put you all through that. I guess that now means I get to (reluctantly) carry his appeal to the community-- but not on a Sunday, for that is my day of prayer. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm declining your request, Alon9393. One disruptive user (now indef blocked) is insufficient grounds for protection (i.e. there needs to be a few). El_C14:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edward Windsor, Lord Downpatrick
Hello there! I'm just reaching out to inform you that troll editors are back trying to mess with this page, since the protections were recently taken down. They removed a more recent picture of the guy to use an image from nearly 20 years ago, and I worry that there may be more vandalization to come.
Could you restore the protection template please? I'm happy to update the image again, if needed, and stay on the lookout for disruptive editing. Thanks so much. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My story today is a cantata 300 years old, based on a hymn 200 years old when the cantata was composed, based on a psalm some thousand years old, - so said the 2015 DYK hook. I had forgotten the discussion on the talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, El C. Regarding the "pointless addition" edit summary, can you suggest what I could have done differently here? I started a talk page discussion elaborating on this, but it seems that my approach was not good enough here. Do you suggest a more descriptive edit summary? Thank you. Mellk (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. It doesn't touch on that [bold title opening] being the prevailing convention. You need to address that directly. El_C15:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @El C thank you for the reply and the info in the post and don't worry for writing in haste, I was thinking that page was intended for quick comments which is why I didn't contribute when I initially saw the post. Thanks for the info you provided I'm gonna try and see what I can do about it. Galdrack (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Galdrack, in the interest of completeness, I forget if you commented at the latest ANI report (permalink), but I ended up blocking Steven indefinitely (diff). Hope this message finds you well. Best, El_C20:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@El C I was watching it but never got the time to write out my full opinion on the matter, in the end it wasn't needed I suppose. Thanks for letting me know and thanks for the help! Galdrack (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. So I've just semiprotected all of them under WP:ARBEE. Obviously, there's also a WP:RUSUKR undercurrent there as well, but we'll cross that bridge if and/or when that protection level falls short. Sorry, I'm writing in haste and do not have time to look into that named account (or anything else) right now, but they have only two edits at the time of writing, so the semiprotection should work against them, at least for the time being. Best, El_C15:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
This lengthy note—with its many bold passages and many links—is not something I wish to engage with at this time, sorry. El_C19:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, once again I have an issue with this user Mellk, who created another controversy seemingly out of nowhere and don't want to explain a proper reason for their reverts, regarding this they were already formally warned about by you.
First, they reverted me in Kievan Rus' article [13], with a summary like this ""Land of Rus" not mentioned in source, WP:OR and other unexplained changes". I reverted them [14], and pointed out that it Rus' land is mentioned with sources literally above the section I edited (In Kievan Rus', go to the "names" section and see an image with a sentence below:"Rus' land in narrow sense", which is sourced!), I also pointed out that I have already given an explanation for my changes in my last summary. They continued to persist and reverted my changes again, with a summary:"Image alone is not RS and overall this does not look like an improvement, you can start a talk page discussion about this.
I didn't revert them again, as this is what other administrator suggested, so I wasn't doing any edit warring, and instead I decided to address this issue to them in a discussion in History of Ukraine talk page, expecting to solve the issue quickly [15], yet here they greeted me with this comment:"This talk page is only about improving this article. This does not count as spam. If you create a new topic there, I will explain my reasoning there in more detail". They basically told that it is I who must create new topic on Kievan Rus' talk page and only then they will give a proper explanation, as if it's not what they are supposed to do from the beginning .
I addressed them this and after few responses, they eventually moved to the talk page of Kievan Rus' article, but answered under completely different topic created by another person, which they associated with me for some reason. I created a new topic for them, where
they continued to write me this [16]:"There is also no mention of "Land of Rus" in Encyclopedia of Ukraine, and really, we should be using better sources than this. If this is based on the image, then this looks like synth. The other changes do not look like an improvement. For example, what is "the first Rus' people" supposed to mean? Also, changing "Vladimir the Great and Yaroslav the Wise tried to associate the name with all of the extended princely domains" to "the name was as well denoting all of the Kievan domains" changes the meaning". They continued to ignore the fact that the sentence below the image was sourced and I addressed them this. They also didn't know what Rus' people meant at different times, yet still addressed this as my issue. Seeing the lack of proper reasoning yet a persistent denial of my edits, I tried to ask for further details about why they see my changes as a WP:synth,[17], and also told them to not waste time of other editors with a minor nitpicking or because of their own dull understanding of a subject. Instead of giving me a further proper response, they wrote me this [18]:" 'Since you are resorting to personal attacks once again, I have lost interest in discussing' ".
Then they headed to the Talk page of other administrator and began to complain [19]:"Hi asilvering, I am still finding it impossible to discuss edits with Shahray, already less than a day after their block expired". I obviously noticed this and addressed their childish behavior and unwillingness to cooperate.
Surprisingly, other administrator wrote this [20]:"Nah, I think you're fine to go to ANI about it. They've been blocked twice for this already, and now they might be doing WP:LOUTSOCK stuff".
Asilvering supported them and suggested to report me on notice board, with absolutely no evidence of my guilt given, giving me some further nonsensical accusations like "sock puppetary", even though I wrote all my messages to Mellk from my personal account. Furthermore, Asilvering ignored my comment and my concerns about Mellk [21] and wrote:"Go ahead and use that reply above as evidence ¯\_(ツ)_/¯".
Viewing this overall, a deliberate attempt to target me might take place, so I ask for a suggestion from you about how can we solve this situation and should Mellk receive a temporary block for a behavior they have been already warned about? Because they don't seem to want a peaceful solution and quickly drop out of the discussion after a few responses, persisting on deleting my changes at the same time. Shahray (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@El C, I believe this topic ban isn't justified enough, I explained the reason here [22]. If you don't want to go into details or unban, then I ask you to at least adjust this ban for now so I can edit talk pages, and can ask community broadly regarding my changes. I don't think this should create any issues. Further editing is pointless without getting consensus first anyway. Shahray (talk) 06:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@El C, I know you shouldn't necessarily look into this, but it would be helpful if you make an adjustment that allows to edit talk pages, I don't think it wastes much time or is controversial. Admin who imposed this ban said they are "happy for other admins to make whatever adjustments they feel are reasonable". Cheers. Shahray (talk) 08:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand the admin who made that comment after saying "go straight to AE as described at WP:CTOP#Appeals and amendments". The admin is saying that the AE admins at WP:AE will make adjustments they feel are reasonable. That does not apply to individual admins at their talk pages. El_C has made it clear that they are busy and you should post at WP:AE if seeking an adjustment, not here. Johnuniq (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to start off by thanking you for protecting the Sarah Jama page! It's badly needed. Also, I love the chipmunk pictures - I live near the Niagara Escarpment and one of my favourite things is hiking and finding all the wildlife on the trail, very much including quite a few chipmunks.
I'm having a lot of difficulty with the page for Sarah Jama. I'll send you a link to the version I created, which has been repeatedly sabotaged:
Some of my formatting isn't perfect, especially around dates for citations and so forth. But I think you'll agree that my content is objective, impartial, and well-substantiated.
I see that you locked the page and required that extended confirmed users alone are allowed to make edits. While I applaud the protection, the problem is that the version implemented contains multiple very serious omissions, most notably MPP Sarah Jama's legislative work, which you'll see in my version, but not the page's current version.
Any help will be much appreciated, I only want the truth to be represented.
Hello PatHamilton47. Unfortunately, even if the edits (which I did not examine closely) are indeed objective, impartial, and well-substantiated, that isn't pertinent to this action and also not for me to decide. The account restriction (to WP:XC) is an arbitration remedy (WP:PIA, WP:ECR) that is meant as a technical limitation imposed by the Arbitration Committee. And not for me to decide even beyond that, per WP:INVOLVED. So the edits being correct—which short of WP:LIBEL outright is sorta in the eye of the beholder—would not be seen as a mitigating factor. Well, to a point. Say you had a good record of well-sourced edits and were at ~450 edits (50 short of the XC tenure)... in that instance, I might manually upgrade your permissions (and most admins wouldn't even do that as we have so little discretion in that area). But you're at 20 at the time of writing, so not even close. So my suggestion would be for you to prioritize what you deem most pressing and formulate that through the edit request feature. Which is all you're allowed to do for this topic area until meeting the 30 days 500 edits requirement (WP:30/500). Sorry I don't have better news for you, but that's just how the system has been set up over the years, mostly to avoid canvassing and brigading in some of these especially contentious topics. Thank you. El_C03:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PatHamilton47, as an afterthought, you can see from a protection request (for the article Ongoing Nakba) from earlier today that, for my part, I at least try to avoid topic area edits by un-tenured users from being rejected offhand simply on the basis of lacking that tenure. Like the editor in that request who effectively said: I agree with the edits and think they're good, but I still undid them for lacking the tenure (i.e. on that basis only). It does sometimes feel like I'm fighting a losing battle, though. But I still try. Yours, El_C09:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of a discussion I think you'd be interested in knowing about
Hey El C: I thought you might want to be aware of this discussion (which includes not just the linked to thread, but a much larger one further above on VP/WMF). In summary, it appears that the WMF is prepared to imminently disclose personally identifying information about volunteers in a controversial Indian court case, where a news agency is attempting to suppress Wikipedia's tertiary coverage of the content of secondary sources (which it considers unflattering) by going after a number of individual editors as defendants. In order to comply with court orders in the case, it seems the WMF is prepared to share this information in what a number of us consider a pretty seismically bad idea and a betrayal of community priorities and values (the WMF has also already used an office action to remove an article reporting on the case, at the direction of the court for what said court regards as legitimate sub judice reasons).
While the deletion of the article has been framed by the WMF as temporary step to preserve appeal on the overall case, and there are mixed feelings in the community response as to that so far, there is a much more uniform opposition to throwing the individual editors (at least one of whom is located in India and has profound apprehension about what this could mean for his life with regard to litigation and beyond) under the bus. And yet the WMF appears to be prepared to share the information in question, as soon as Nov. 8. Can I impose upon you to take a look at the matter and share your perspective? SnowRise let's rap00:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I'm sorry, but whatever this is, it is summarized poorly. Particularly, I've yet to see where it is expressly stated that the WMF is prepared to imminently disclose personally identifying information, as soon as Nov. 8, that could then be subject to possible discovery or leaking. Of crouse, I'd strongly oppose such a gross overreach and betrayal by the Foundation. And of course, I'd rather the Foundation as representing the English Wikipedia refuse to cooperate with that Indian court, even if that means letting India (with its mass number of English speakers) go by the wayside like Russia, China, Turkey, etc. If only to avoid the likely class-action suit in America that could spell the demise of the WMF and by extension, its flagship English Wikipedia project. But the facts of the matter are unclear (within the thousands of words) and my time is limited by necessity as of late, notwithstanding even the potential gravity of such a measure. El_C05:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as to the certainty that a disclosure is imminent that is driving so much of the concern just now, it comes from one of the involved editors/potential defendants, who reached out to Valereee with a series of posts they wished Val to deliver into the thread on their behalf. In those messages, this editor (anonymous to the broader community at the present time) disclosed that they have been in touch with the WMF over the last few days and that the current WMF plan seems to be to disclose the PII to the court on the 8th. So, not really much doubt at this moment in time, unfortunately. SnowRise let's rap06:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On her talk page or privately? Also, I just realized that the WPO's thread titled "Asian News International sues Wikipedia for Defamation" is about this. I've yet to look at that thread and didn't connect between Asian News International and India until now. Anyway, maybe that thread can offer a better summary. As mentioned, my time is very limited lately, but I'll try giving that thread at least a cursory read. Yours, El_C06:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Rise, I'm writing in haste, but in the interest of completeness, I've yet to read that thread, but I did find a Singpost summary (by way of WPO) here. So I'm somewhat up to date, but Yngvadottir, help a brother out! I also found out that Republic TV is considering a similar suit (you know, the leftists and shit), and guess which admin indef semi'd that page as WP:ARBIND? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C02:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In response to ping, I was about to recommend that Wikipediocracy thread; if you can stand to wade through the bloviations from people like me, I think the informational posts there summarize the evolving situation, with links, better than anything else including the Signpost. Sorry. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, will do. Thanks for taking the time and for the prompt response. Btw, you might not be as longwinded as Snow Rise (*poke*), but I rarely if ever fail to find it worthwhile reading (either of) your writings in full. But time, you know, a harsh mistress. Thanks again. Yours, El_C03:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please reinstate the page protection for this redirect? It went off two weeks ago, and the IP reversals have already started up again. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elmidae, the page you directly-linked is not a redirect, so all I have in front of me is the WP:DAB page that was never protected and was last edited 06:14, 5 July 2022. El_C01:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For a surprise, a Bach cantata is on the Main page today, where it was last year for the 300th anniversary, and they were too lazy to find something new ;) - Look at my story, and listen to the 3 whole-tone steps and the dialogues of Fear and Hope. - An open letter open to be signed (more info on the talk), - I haven't checked if you did, please ignore then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded pics of a trip that was a 10-day celebration of a 16 November event, but the day was also when a dear friend died. We sang Hevenu shalom aleichem at his funeral yesterday, and it was good. He helped me in the Hebrew Wikipedia. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mahsa Amini
@El C, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahsa Amini you mentioned that the result was merge with an option to split in the near future. Now after two years the articles Mahsa Amini and Death of Mahsa Amini have been split specially that Mahsa Amini has received Sakharov Prize. But some users once again are determined to remove Mahsa Amini article because of personal and political reasons. They are wrongly going to merge article Mahsa Amini into Death of Mahsa Amini whereas these articles need necessarily to be separated because both of them are notable and Mahsa Amin has received Sakharov Prize. I think a person who has received this important prize must have an article independently. Unfortunately some users are determined to remove her article just because of political reasons which is not acceptable in Wikipedia. Please help to stop merging these articles. AlijenabH (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, El C. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 23:35, 23 November 2024 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Looking at the source history for the ccp page it went from CPC to CCP did you do this? if so what's the purpose in intentionally spelling it wrong? Why should wiki be based on westerners not being able to correctly say an organizations name? Gingercom1 (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The purpose was to enact the move request (WP:RM) for the non-admin closer who deemed there being consensus to move the page (they couldn't do it themselves because a redirect needed to be deleted in order for the move to work). And while this was 4 years ago and I was uninvolved in the move discussion itself, IIRC the basis for it was WP:COMMONNAME. HTH. El_C02:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page Protection (Talk:2024 United States presidential election)
Hi El :) It was recommended that I reach out to you directly to request that you roll back the protection on Talk:2024 United States presidential election. I understand protecting the main page and do not think that should change at the moment, but the talk page is becoming one-sided as a small handful of editors/administrators repeatedly shut down and archive certain topics, with outside voices being unable to even participate in the discussion. Thank you for your consideration. 71.210.42.253 (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The protection expires in a couple of weeks anyway, but I'm alright with lifting it early, especially since the outcome is uncontested. Unprotected. El_C05:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Sorry for the delay in replying (which may render the matter moot). But in answer to your question: personally, I'm not a fan of using strikethrough, especially when the {{canvassed}} or {{spa}} tag/s have already been applied. That's just my own general preference, though. HTH. All the best, El_C08:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it was moot since they were CU-blocked since. Anyway, this is to note that I closed the discussion with unanimous consensus to delete. El_C14:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism
Hi. This user insistly violates MOS:MUHAMMAD and WP:NPOV. Before, he did his vandalistic changes with another account. Please block him and his IP address, and if possible, please take the pages that he vandalize under protection. Thank you. Aybeg (talk) 07:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Aybeg. I've left them a warning about observing the ethos of WP:PBUH (etc.) by refraining from adding these honourifics en masse (here), so hopefully this will suffice. Blocking is a last resort, though, and these, technically, do not count as vandalism, at least not yet (please refer to WP:NOTVANDALISM) for the definition). Thank you. El_C08:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Christmas! Sorry, I've been largely away as of late. Also, I scrolled and scrolled but couldn't find the birds! (I'm sure they're in the last place I didn't look, though.) El_C04:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Hannukah, and thanks for being around! Yes, the last place, the last pic of 23 Dec. They were far away but closer than ever. My first Christmas story was about Bach's BWV 91, and the second (not yet written, will simply follow there) about BWV 121, also 300 years old about a 500-years-old song by Luther. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ekdalian (talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hello. While I appreciate you being honest about that, you can't be evading a block or ban, in general. So you'd need to sort that out at the original account's talk page with an WP:UNBAN or an WP:UNBLOCK appeal (which ever's applicable for you in this instance). And needless to say, watch out for any excesses, especially ones of an ethno-national nature. HTH. Thank you. El_C18:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.png)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Peter_Blume_Therock.jpeg){kind=link}
