Hi. I have just sent you an email. you are welcome to contact me any time to discuss. I appreciate your help. also, thanks for all your valuable help and insight earlier today. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sm8900: you're welcome. Thanks, it's nice to be appreciated. I agree that Moxy could have used a softer touch. Not to mention that there is a certain irony when writing: At this point really questioning the WP:Competency level of this editor..[1] (i.e. WP:Competency is a redlink!). But I actually do agree with them that your frequent use of section breaks can be a bit much — especially when it involves indenting or outdenting their comments. Anyway, I hope you two can work it out amicably. If I can help with that, please let me know. Finally, as an aside, why do you continue to refrain from capitalizing words normally at the beginning of sentences? It makes it difficult for someone like me, for whom English is a second language, to read. In any case, good luck! El_C05:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I refrain from capitalizing sentences because that is my preference. And please do not change the subject. I am asking for your help with comments pertaining to me personally. --Sm8900 (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sm8900: this is my talk page, but even if it wasn't, I am permitted to add any "aside" as I see fit to comments I submit! Anyway, as I explained to you earlier today, "varying degrees of competences are required" on Wikipedia. That is not a personal comment, but an evaluation of one's abilities (or lack thereof) with the manner in which they edit Wikipedia. Moxy linking (or mislinking) to that explanatory supplement is not a personal attack, if that is what you're driving at. El_C06:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
yes, assisting other editors with competence, or skills, is fine. however, publicly labeling a specific editor as lacking in "competence," or labeling them publicly in any manner, is a personal comment, from any perspective.
and I didn't intend to imply that you cannot discuss anything you want on your own talk page. of course you can. the phrase "please don't change the subject" was not meant as a rebuke, merely as a plea to focus upon this specific query. I do appreciate your help. thanks.--Sm8900 (talk) 06:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sm8900: No, I disagree. It is not a personal comment. It has little if anything to do with one's personality. It has to do with a learning curve. It is an assessment of how skillful one is in editing Wikipedia successfully according to its policies and guidelines and style expectations. And please capitalize your sentences normally — again, your comments are difficult for me to read with ease. El_C06:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sm8900: I see you've added to your comment after my last edit conflict, so let me respond to the additional part. Almost everything on Wikipedia is done publicly. If an editor is frustrated with one's competency, say, related to creating frequent section breaks, when they express that frustration, it is of course made public. But that does not mean there is anything untoward about that. El_C06:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El_C, I do appreciate your replies to me, your kind and patient help, and your insights here. just to reply to this topic, here is a quote from WP:Harassment: "Harassment can include actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them, where no direct communication takes place." I think that is relevant to this specific item. I appreciate your help.
by the way, I do consider this matter to be fully closed and resolved now. I am not requesting any further action, and I don't feel that any further action is needed. I just wanted to note that one detail here briefly, just for information and in case you want to comment. I do appreciate your help. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, but with respect, I disagree. that was not meant as an aspersion against Moxy in any way; I apologize if it seemed like that's what it was. you already know my specific concerns; the comment above did not expand them or add to them in any way. in my opinion, I feel that it is not "casting aspersions" to note specific data from wikipedia, after one has already raised a specific concern. I was not adding to my concern, merely noting some objective information that relates to this topic in general. I'm glad to hear your views on this, and I'm glad to discuss this here. I appreciate your helpful reply. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot quote passages from the Harassment policy, say that it "is relevant to this specific item," and yet still claim it unconnected to the user to whom you are in dispute here. Sorry, but that just not a reasonable premise. El_C15:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am expressing my concerns to you. instead of replying to them or discussing them, you are telling me that merely mentioning them those is something that are going to warn me not to do? is that correct? I think that I don't understand that part, so perhaps you could clarify. Sm8900 (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[M]erely mentioning them those is something that are going to warn me not to do? — I'm not sure I follow. But you cannot imply that someone is engaged in harassment without evidence, anywhere on Wikipedia, where again, public is public. El_C02:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is going on
I don't know what's up with the user Markaz Isthifah but he's making a mess. I've twice reverted edits where he altered the signature on my talk page notices to him.. he's also made a garbage category, altered other talk page notices, and then pasting promo crap in sandboxes. It looks like a language barrier, WP:CIR issue or both. --Drm310🍁 (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Here, I've undone your recent revert re the 2015 GINI figure for the Philippines in the article on that country. As mentioned in my edit summary for that undo, there is a conflict between this figure and the figure used for ranking which comes from the unreliable List of countries by income equality article, and the supporting source cited in that other article currently throws a 404 error. I have not considered what, if anything, to do about that conflict or looked into that 404 error. Cheers. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for following up, Wtmitchell. That's my bad — I've already apologized to the original editor for my mistake. I very much appreciate your diligence. Regards, El_C08:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Harassment
Could you please tell M.k.m2003 to leave me alone as well? He literally just sent me a mail written in Persian, even though he has been told on several occasions that I don't understand the script. Here's what he wrote, seemingly nothing bad with a quick Google translate. He has been after me this whole day, and seriously lacks WP:COMPETENCE.HistoryofIran (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I thought this user is fluent in Persian But he doesn't want to talk, All that I sent him:Apology-Thanks-Sympathy-Avoid future tensions And I didn't say anything bad, This email should not be made public, Please hide it. Thank you M.k.m2003 (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Google translation will change my mind, If you think this is an insult you can get help from fluent Persian users, All my words are kindly spoken, Without anything offensive M.k.m2003 (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, they keep saying that they are withdrawing from the discussion, but yet they keep the conflict going somehow. El_C22:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This user also offends reputable sources, He shamelessly made my email public Although it has been said kindly. What is this template? (زبان مادری این کاربر فارسی است= The native language of this user is Farsi. Yes I was misled by this pattern, He is not Iranian. Tell her to change her user page Because Iranian knows Persian very well M.k.m2003 (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean offends reputable sources, but I suggest you two try to avoid one another in the immediate future. El_C23:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I sent an email about this Of course with kindness But he declared war by declaring it public, How many times do I have to go back? He is aggressive M.k.m2003 (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:INDENT. Anyway, granted, mistakes were made on both of your parts, but you keep saying that you're withdrawing from the discussion, yet you keep returning to it, thereby perpetuating the conflict. That is a problem. El_C23:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@M.k.m2003: Could you stop thanking me for my edits as well? Just completely leave me alone, it's not that hard. I'm getting rather tired of getting constantly pinged by you, thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi M.k.m2003, just be clear, I didn't say or mean to imply that you were a troll; I don't know anything at all about this dispute. I just wanted to mention that if anyone doesn't want to receive notifications from anyone else, the software has a "mute" function in the preferences. That's all. – Levivich17:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear El C, since you are familiar with the ongoing discussion on Qasem Soleimani, I was wondering if you would mind telling me if I did right in this edit. Is WP:RSN the correct place to raise the issue? If yes, is the format I used correct? It would be much appreciated if you move/edit it yourself if necessary. Thanks in advance. Ms96 (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not actually familiar with the ongoing discussion (which one?) — yes, RSN is a fine resource to raise issues of source reliability. Feel free to start a request about this there (you don't need me for that), but I see that you already started a request there, so my advise is to be especially concise. Good luck. El_C10:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't even see consensus to move, let alone a snow close.
I suspect that the eventual result of this process will in any case be a new naming convention. If this RM result stands, it's a precedent for many other corporate renames. IMO it would only be a valid snow close if we already had that consensus.
Can you please Semi-Protect this article for a while? It has recently suffered from a spate of anon vandalism, and all of the IP edits dating back to October have been only vandalism. It's really starting to show in the history logs. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "We must respect the historical sources" mantra
You forgot to add to your close, "It has been strongly suggested you find different pages to edit so you won't be in conflict with each other". That solution would be less painful for all of us. ;-) -- llywrch (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice. But it also would be nice if someone explained to Mikola22 that edit warring is not good, even in the case of "we must respect the sources."--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, so after the page got unprotected this editor (Ms96) again re-added the disputed text (edited version) even after I told him that there is a RfC and that he cant be bold, and add even an edited version of the disputed text without discussing or proposing it first in the talk page. I don't want the article to be fully protected again. Could be extended confirmed protected because a lot of editors are creating accounts and making disruptive edits like Ayatollah mahdi and this editor in that article. I have sent a notification to Ms96 about the sanctions in Iranian politics related articles.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I was pinged, I say here. Dear El C, please please please read the whole discussion under "lack of neutrality" (as well as "Iranian propaganda Heading") and also "RfC about inclusion of Iranian propaganda section" (maybe you would also be interested in "Polls published by Center for International Security Studies (CISSM) University of Maryland School of Public Policy and Iran Poll" in WP:RSN). I'm doing my best, but this endless disruption is tearing me apart. Ms96 (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a different issue (not about Ms96) but there is an editor who started a RfC in that article which was completely not neutral and not very clear as I explained here. I don't know what to do. I am just complaining and the editor is not responding. I want to make a new neutral RfC but I don't know how. I think the current RfC should be closed but I am involved in that discussion so I am not very trusted among editors there. If an admin closed the discussion, it would be great, but again, I don't know where to request or how to request closing that RfC.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Already done. I have just clarified the RfC question a few minutes ago. The RfC should not have editorialized and been phrased in such a vague way, but it wasn't as if editors had too hard of a time following what it was, ultimately, asking. I don't think the RfC preferences expressed thus far need to be repeated in a new RfC, however. El_C22:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We were debating about having a dedicated section about "Iranian propaganda" in that biographical article. You said it is about a paragraph but thats not true. Also editors have already voted in that discussion. I think a new RfC should be made and it was very easy to make a neutral RfC but judging from that editor past in Wikipedia I am not surprised.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just close it. It is a mess. A brand new RfC, I will ping all involved editors and those who have already voted. We dont need that unneutral text to be at the beginning even if it was changed. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I get that imperative, but I'm also wary of copying and/or repeating all the responses submitted thus far. I'll bring it to discussion. El_C23:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't accuse users of lying —that is an aspersion that fails to assume good faith (maybe it was an oversight, why assume "lies"?)— and please also don't assume that anyone could be "playing with [my] mentality," either. The RfC's question editorialized and was too vague, to the point that I conflated the dispute here (top of the section) with it, which is my bad. Anyway, I opened the question to discussion on the article talk page, in any case. There is no need to continue to split the discussion over here, on my talk page. El_C23:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, can I ask a question? What's wrong with me thinking Stefka Bulgaria's tendentious editing is being ignored? Please look, in my recent report he kept ignoring our discussions in October 2019. He pretended as if we had no discussion on that. Something is wrong here and he is kindly allowed to go with no warning, the least thing he deserved. --Mhhosseintalk08:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein apparently didn't have time to reply to a TP discussion that went answered for 9 days, but seems to have plenty of time to advocate for a warning or sanction against me. What would be helpful is more focus on discussing the actual content of the article, and less time filing reports against other editors who have (unlike the OP) actually substantiated their edits on the article's TP. Bless. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather avoid splitting the discussion and, in general, not entertain MEK spillovers onto my talk page — that should be reserved only for the most urgent cases. I've already addressed some of these concerns on the article talk page, where I have indeed cautioned and instructed them on how to move forward. Feel free to respond there, especially to my proposal regarding what duration there ought to be for repeating exhausted topics. El_C20:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Awful protection
over Gurbaksh Chahal. You have (literally) got 5 editors with 20,000+ edit counts deeming the opposing editor as an UPE-SPA. He managed to game ECP by mass-firing IABot and now, you have sysop-protected. ∯WBGconverse12:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because it his her talk page. See your own talk page for more details about your problematic editing in that regards. Let's continue the conversation there. El_C11:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to keep the full protection that is fine, but will prevent further expansion of technical details involving the crash when such information is released. Please do restore the article with full protection if that is the case. There is no discussion stating the crash is not notable, therefore we should have both unless a discussion is opened and closed in favor of merging the two. Valoemtalkcontrib23:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Already done. There was more than one user, it seemed, but regardless, I think you're right. I've gone ahead and reduced the full portection to semi. El_C02:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I'm dreaming, but I think EC protection on all the articles involved here makes sense. There are so many clueless editors on these talk pages makes it next to impossible to get anything done. Someone mentioned a video on Talk:Death of Kobe Bryant of unclear copyright. I explained that we couldn't possibly use it unless copyright were addressed. I also stated I'd continue to oppose on the basis of good taste. I get a reply "What is this good taste you speak of?" Sorry...why should an experienced editor have to deal with crap like that? Articles like these need people who understand policies to shepherd them. Eliminating the clueless would greatly simplify that. Can't the DS for BLP be used to justify that? New editors cannot possibly understand the nuances of BLP at the level needed. Also, many of the editors are from our sports articles. There is a considerable amount of difference in the levels of sourcing required for a technical article on an aircraft disaster than for a general bio of a sports figure...not that there should be, but there is. I suppose this is a pipedream. John from Idegon (talk) 05:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DerekHistorian, most of your article edits are reverts of Hunan201p's edits. Even after you received a page block two days ago! Please follow El C's advice and go to dispute resolution. You really need the involvement of other editors in this ongoing dispute or you are heading towards a longer block. LizRead!Talk!17:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excessive move protection
Hi, I feel that it would make more sense if the move protection you applied to this article was lowered to extended-confirmed level, especially since a majority of users agree that said article's current title does not comply with convention. ToThAc (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except I have yet to see a single valid argument in the discussion for keeping the article at its current title. I plan to move the page while narrowing down the discussion to just the original proposed title and another proposed title brought up in the discussion. ToThAc (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear El C, the discussion was just archived, I was wondering if you'd mind taking it back. Thanks in advance.
Is there a guideline on wiping out all edits by a sock [4] and applying strikethrough on all their comments [5]? For instance see thisMS会話10:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but per this, I am taking a break from any and all SharabSalam-related items — which, as I mention elsewhere, does not however precludes me from acting as an uninvolved admin in regards to them. El_C13:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El Che, can you help with the EPR paradox page? The IP user that was edit warring last time simply waited for the full protection to expire, and did exactly the same edit again. I'd undo the edit myself, but then it would be me edit warring. Tercer (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yet you have failed to engage the article talk, as well — why is that? Anyway, I semiprotected the page for 2 months. Perhaps that would motivate the IP to engage on the article talk page. In which case, I would expect you to participate, also. Thanks and good luck. El_C13:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Man thank you very much for locking Azerbaijan page. Unfortunately you have locked it with wrong revision. It is wrong to have "In the aftermath of the Russo-Persian Wars all of what is today Azerbaijan was ceded from Persia to the Russian Empire" statement under country profile as it has nothing to do with it, also this fact covered under Contemporary History section of same article.
There were two IPs continuously changing it. I gave them multiple warnings but they refused to discuss it under TALK tab.
Could you please also do same to below article as same IPs keep changing it without proper justification.
But you did not discuss it on the article talk page, either — until now, now that the article has been protected. As for the wrong version, that is something heard so often when pages are protected it has sort of become a running gag, I'm sorry to say. Anyway, if the IP fails to engage on the article talk page for, say, a few days, I will revert to the other version. Good luck. El_C14:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't really sure what to do with that image vandal, but thank you for being on it so fast. If only you could erase the history from my eyes too lol. Lcodyh803 (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Thankfully, I didn't actually look at the images, I just saw the image titles in the diff window. El_C01:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I do. The sheer number of socks lately, I feel, warrants something similar to ARBPIA to be applied to EE. El_C15:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A few names were thrown around, but, I myself, am not familiar with either of them well enough to advise further. El_C22:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday you've closed an AE because of apparent "socking". I'm not disputing the closure, but I am concerned that the subject of the complaint was allowed to launch a nasty tirade against me, full of aspersions and PAs. I would appreciate it if you could review my comments there[8] - in particular the first and last paragraphs, that deal with WP:CIVILITY and with VM's obnoxious comments - and tell me what you think. François Robere (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you hitched your wagon to such a shoddy case, in the first place. What did you expect to have happened? I think you need to draft your own request, to admins at AE or to the Committee itself, once and for all. I'm not inclined to examine any disparate components of your dispute with VM all on my own, though I might (might) do it alongside a quorum of admins if there is a proper request submitted. And I would say the same thing to him. This is too complicated and entrenched of a dispute for one admin to attend to on their own. A cogent, coherent and concise account that is added in the context of a legitimate request would be necessary, if either of you were serious about addressing your long-running dispute head-on. El_C13:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I regret that's how it's perceived; for me it was simply a matter of commenting on an editor who I know all too well. As I stated elsewhere, this sort of whodunit politics is not something I favor, though it obviously dictates much of the goings on at ANI and AE. That said, I have a major problem with the fact that an editor is allowed to insinuate that another has had a connection with actual criminal activities, and admins don't rein him in immediately because the case was opened inappropriately. VM's comments were completely gratuitous - they had nothing to do with the case, and there's no reason admins wouldn't examine them as-is. Oh, and bringing it up separately? You know full well there's no chance in hell something like this, argued in what some editors call "the peanut gallery", would be "cogent" and "concise" - it would be a mud bath. Speaking of a "chilling effect"... François Robere (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your end of a legitimate request is what you make of it — that I know full well. Anyway, if there are matters that are criminal in nature or insinuate that — contact the Foundation or the Arbitration Committee directly. Don't ask a single admin to take that on by themselves. That is not a fair proposition. El_C17:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say there was something criminal going on, I said VM insinuated that without proof. I shouldn't need to contact the WMF to deal with something like this when there are three perfectly good admins on that thread. François Robere (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"VM's comments were completely gratuitous - they had nothing to do with the case" - this is completely false. A likely sock puppet of an indefinitely banned user filed an AE against me. You supported that account in edit warring on the article. You supported that account on the talk page. When I pointed out that it was a likely sock puppet you went after me and accused me of incivility. You then posted taunts to my talk page, despite me having asked you previously not to post to my talk page. You have supported sock puppets of the same user in the past on many occasions on other articles. You had "cooperated" with the indefinitely banned user and he was your close "wiki friend", prior to their indef ban on over 40 articles and in more than a hundred discussions. This came up during the ArbCom case.
You, and only you, MADE A CHOICE. To show up at the WP:AE report and comment there, agitating for a sanction against me. You made your comment about me at 18:25, 30 January 2020. I did not even mention you prior to that, with my response to you - and the first mention of you - being made at 19:23, 30 January 2020, about an hour after your comments in support of the likely sock puppet. Had you NOT CHOSEN to come there and support the sock puppet, I would not have said anything about you. But once you did, your obvious support for the various Icewhiz related sock puppet accounts over the past three months became VERY pertinent.
The fact that this support reflects badly on you is not my fault. These are YOUR actions and YOUR choices.
There's a very very very easy way for YOU to solve this problem. Stop supporting all the Icewhiz related socks that pop up in this topic area. To show good faith, you can even revert these YOURSELF (they're easy to spot, the POV is always the same), per WP:DENY and WP:BANREVERT. If you think these socks raise pertinent issues then 1) revert them yourself first, 2) don't revert others when they revert them and then 3) bring up the issue on the talk page in good faith as in "ok, I know this is another sock puppet but in this instance they make a good point, what do other editors think?" (if they actually do). If you took that approach then perhaps there'd be some progress here. As it is, you're just facilitating the continuation of the WP:BATTLEGROUND that Icewhiz created and that led to the ArbCom case in the first place. Volunteer Marek 23:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, Marek - if you're so sure of your case - bring it to AE. Explain to them how it was I who edit-warred, when it was you who made 16 edits on that article in two days in violation of a T-ban.[11] Tell them how after I had the page protected and asked everyone to discuss,[12][13] you couldn't help but launch another PA in my direction at an admin's page.[14] Tell them of my "taunting" - in actuality just reminder of WP:CIVILITY - to which you replied with "How many times exactly have I have had to ask you NOT to fucking post on my talk page?????... Don't EVER post on this page again".[15] When you finish that, do explain that there are several "sock-masters" in the TA, some of whom you support - without as much as a peep on my end, mind you;[16] and that in many a case I did not restore anonymous edits or even support them. If you don't do that, it might look as disingenuous on your part as bringing up an article I've been editing for two years as an example of "canvassing",[17] or claiming Icewhiz is the reason you dislike me, when you've been sending obnoxious comments my way since before he was around.[18][19] Get all of that proper and we might as well skip WP:BATTLEGROUND, which is a whole discussion in and unto itself. François Robere (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not make "16 edits on that article in two days in violation of a T-ban". This is simply completely false. I made one edit which could possibly be considered an accidental T-ban violation because the sock account snuck in a small piece of irrelevant text into a previous sentence, obviously trying to engineer an artificial violation. The fact you're trying to so shamelessly WP:GAME this and are trying to use the sock's sneakiness, is telling. The fact that you falsify what happened into "16 topic ban violations" exemplifies your approach to editing Wikipedia in general. Likewise your claim that I have supported socks is utterly false. It's just gaslighting. I have not supported a single sock puppet in this topic area. In fact what I say in your diff [20] "that account should also be looked into and possibly banned". Stop making blatantly false statements about me.
But you know what's really telling?
The fact that as yet another sock puppet pops up [21], created day after the other one stopped editing after being called out at AE for being one, and sure enough, there you are again, defending the sock puppet's edits [22] and agitating on their behalf. And you have the nerve to accuse me of making "tirades" when your actions in support of these Icewhiz sock puppets are so shamelessly transparent and obvious! Maybe if you stopped supporting Icewhiz's socks all the time, then, gee, people wouldn't say that you support Icewhiz's socks. The proof is right there in your own actions. Volunteer Marek 08:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Ngo
El C, I wanted to ask your take on the comment Calton left on my talk page here [[23]] in reply to my request here [[24]]. Given the contentious nature of the Andy Ngo article I think accusations such as "whitewashing crusade" are particularly problematic. We don't have to agree but in cases where we have roughly equal numbers of editors on both sides of a proposed change I would want an experienced editor to go to the talk page rather than make bad faith accusations. Thanks Springee (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Springee, sorry, but I'm a bit burned out today and am not actually looking to immediately take on anything too intense. But AE/AN/ANI are at your disposal. El_C03:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Springee: it's not "bad faith", it's long-term observation of your editing patterns. Hell, "bad faith" is probably a fair description you making that claim. --Calton | Talk03:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Calton, yes, it is a bad faith accusation. You are claiming my actions are based on a wish to whitewash a subject rather than because I think the change makes for a better article. Furthermore, I hope you can see that such accusations, (for example your edit summary here [[25]]), and repeated the same on my talk page [[26]], creates needless hostility. Finally, regardless of your opinion regarding my motives, NOCON still applies. Springee (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ahendra is using personal commentary videos [27] on seemingly many articles. He generally uses non-RS sources, and doesn't seem to shy away from edit warring. His edits generally seem like pov-pushing, and he just reverted me here, lol. [28].
EDIT: Also, could you please do something with this user? [29] He keeps spamming me, even though I answered him hours ago here [30] (not the best answer, but I can't be bothered with the stuff he writes, he basically rejects sources that he doesn't agree with, and doesn't have the best English-speaking skills, and I'm really certainly not qualified to teach people stuff like that, yet no one answered him and he thought that meant he could have a free reign in altering the article).
thirdly, he had backup from his lectures from legitimate Islamic academic organization that has been legally operate under the law of Indonesia/Government. the organization is
which always reverted by HistoryofIran,
as i have said earlier Dr. Khalid Basalamah has grade title in Master of Arts and Lecturer from University of Medina and Tun Abdul Razak University in Malaysia in the field of Seerah(history of Islam)
and let me put the pont that Dr Khalid activity were under the wing of legal organization of Islamic Academy study named Hidayatullah organization which legally operated under the law of Indonesian government,
We use academic scholarly sources here on Wikipedia, not Youtube rants by clerics/preachers that tries to push a certain POV. That's kinda like using Joe Rogan's podcast as a source. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not Youtube rant with certain POV especially if the 'preacher' has certified title in two academic title from legit universities. and more importantly the content is not just pushing some kind of POV, but it is Public lecture that discuss the matter in history, not just preaching like usual sermon
i can assure you with several Indonesian native speakers wikipedia contributors that Dr Khalid Basalamah is talking about biography which sourced from Arabic historians which mainly used in this article
Sorry I am confused how you see my mention of "I have a life outside of wikipedia" as a Personal attack, but them saying to me "Go back to your torpor, see you again in 2024" is not, If you read through their previous edit reasons calling people "Pigs" and "Reverse morons" (although 13-14 years ago), So there are a set of rules for them and different rules for everyone else.
Their mention of "go back to your torpor" is basically stating go hibernate for another 4 years you lifeless loser (That is my interpretation) and as such I see it as a personal attack on me (Which is why I stated unlike some I have a life outside of wikipedia (I thought it was the other part that was the personal attack)).
And yes I did state "Possibly removed for OCD reasons" due to their insistence of repeatedly removing the teaser without a reason other than "show's over, no need for antiquated teaser" by 10 minutes.
Then they put an edit on my talk page saying how rude, I only followed up politely also stating "feel free to remove my comment" until they said "go back to your torper" which is rude.
As I said to them and I am going to say to you feel free to remove this edit (I don't know if wikipedia has a form of private messaging so I do it this way). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bja1608 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was not aware. But I think you two should give one another some space. An interaction between you two is clearly proving unproductive at this time. El_C05:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree which is why I removed my comments and their reply from their talk page. I only tried to add the removed trailer which neither I nor the other person who kept the "I'm a celebrity page" up to date understood why it was removed (If you look at the talk page) and when we added back in they removed it immediately (As mentioned above was the reason for my mention of possibly OCD). When they put a message on my talk page saying how rude I only replied on their talk page (which under the circumstances I actually thought my first response was polite (I did however think their reply was rude contributing to my response)). I did not state that they are OCD only the insistance of removing the teaser seems like something someone with that would do. I believe I now know why looking at their profile page it has been vandalised so many times in the last 14 years (I was actually going to do so (but decided that would be extremely rude), and instead decided on a polite post in their talk page).Bja1608 (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Messaging for advise on how to proceed with Jaggi Vasudev. I had brought it up at BLP:N some days ago. That discussion hasn't been very productive in building consensus. I pointed out some of the issues with the page and another editor pointed out other stuff. But it hasn't exactly been a great discussion. Unfortunately, talk page conversations don't seem to be very productive with this page either. Someone suggested a revert to an older version. Since BLP guidelines are pretty strict and the page as it stood was out of line with those by a long shot (in my opinion), I reverted to that suggested version a little while ago.
While I don't believe the version I reverted to is great, I feel it is better (or less bad) than what was on earlier. My revert reads like a resume for sure, but it doesn't seem to suffer from weak sourcing and OR and many of the other issues listed in the BLP noticeboard. I'm willing to take a stab at "de-resume-ing" my revert. I feel it would be easier to arrive at a sensible article if I start with the version I reverted to (the resume), than the earlier version (which I listed in BLPN, and is more or less the same as the one you edited).
However, all changes are going into pending review mode for this page. So wanted to know if what I mentioned is the right course of action and how I should go about it. Thanks. Tamilmama (talk) 07:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thank you. Bit of a technical question. How do I handle the Pending Review stuff? Do I just make edits on my old revert (now 3-4 versions old) and keep going from there? All of it will probably pile up as pending review. Tamilmama (talk) 07:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? I'm not sure. But it should work fine once the revision is approved. I'll keep an eye, in any case. El_C07:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is obvious why certain editors are clamouring to revert back to a certain version that served as an advertisement page for the cult leader. That version had multiple issues and was tagged as such. The article cannot be reverted to a problematic version just because it is the favourite version of the fans. If you have problems with the content of the current version, feel free to raise the issues on the talk and follow WP:DRDBigXrayᗙ07:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I may have misunderstood the abovementioned proposal. If this is about reverting back to a sanitized version that lacks critical components — I am against that. El_C07:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not suggesting a sanitized version. My suggestion is to create an actual encyclopedia article, not a resume or a tar 'em in black version. Tamilmama (talk) 07:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The way forward will be to propose a line or two in neutral tone with excellent sources on the talk page, get Consensus to get it added and then add it. Same for removing something that You don't like. DBigXrayᗙ07:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WRT [38]leftist ... moderate: like, you want the proletariat to seize the means of production, but only if that's a compromise between the status quo and executing the aristocracy? (Maybe this was funnier in my head than written out ....) --JBL (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just to be clear… I agree that the reversion was necessary because it was vandalism. I just don't know why the edit history was deleted. Bad-mouthing a national politician is absolutely worthy of reversion, but it's hardly unusual enough to merit edit deletion. —GoldRingChip23:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fame or stature of the living person does not diminish the risk the project incurs from defamatory statements made against them. Vandalism like that example, which also constitutes a BLP violation, is revdeleted as a matter of course. El_C00:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Block notice
Hello, my block has been expired and i can contribute edit again, but seems the block notice still appeared in my page. how s that possible? Ahendra (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Downgrading of Cossacks page from fully protected to unprotected
As the correct protocol is to first ask the admin that upgraded the protection level of the page to lower it before initiating a request on the relevant page I am writing to you asking you to please lower the protection level of the Cossacks page. I have now engaged in the talk page, supplied them with the full quotations, as well as citations and creditentials of those I am quoting from. Hence, can I please ask you to lower the protection policy of the page and help retain and preserve my edit. Also curious as to why an edit was allowed to be made after me without consensus yet was allowed to be kept. Thank you for arbitrating the page. Regards~~DanielLerish — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielLerish (talk • contribs) 15:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While a content dispute remains unresolved, per WP:ONUS the status quo ante version ought to be the one that's displayed, anyway. You are the one who needed to gain consensus for your new change, not the other way around. But I edited the protected page accordingly because you seem to have been refusing to discuss the matter on the article talk page. I suspect that unprotecting the page would be premature at this time. Continue to discuss the matter on the article talk page until you reach resolution. If you find yourself at an impasse, please feel free to make use of dispute resolution and accompanying requests to bring further outside input to the dispute. Might I also suggest a less aggressive approach (i.e. your section header, which you titled: "New levels of banality and time wastage as well as selective justice" is a bit much) toward fostering a more collegial dialogue? El_C18:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ONUS is really directed towards people attempting to insert random information that is factual and corroborated into irrelevant Wikipedia pages. "Consensus may determine that certain information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article". I really don't see how the origins of Cossacks is irrelevant to the Cossacks page and really dont think it would fit well anywhere else. As much as I appreciate your arbitration I am still not sure whether you understand the full problem, I made my first edit on the 30th January to CLCStudents version and explained why, another edit was made after mine that did not revert it back to the favoured "state quo ante" but back to a new version that had not gained a consensus and that has now been protected by you and that I disputed. The new version, made after my own, that did not return my edit back to the status quo ante reads as follows-" predominantly located in Southern Russia in the steppes of Russia,[1] as well as in Eastern and Southern Ukraine within the borders of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.[2]" This quote has gone from the 'status quo ante' of just saying "predominately locating in Southern Russia and Southeast Ukraine" to further undermining the Ukrainian nation in the development of cossackdom by complicating it further with Southern and Eastern as well as within the borders of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth again to further undermine any Ukrainian claim. On the other hand he has emphasized/embellished Russia's role by writing predominantly located in Southern Russia and then repeating again in the Steppes of Russia, blurring the lines of geography and statehood to push an agenda, during the relevant time it was known as Muscovy or the Tsardom of Russia. Not only is this really bad language skills but its very obvious what is going on here, even as an impartial person you can see. Its hard to foster a collegial dialogue when your efforts, time and the truth are consistently removed through gang handed tactics. I hope you can understand all I am trying to make a very simple and factual edit and have it preserved. I really hope you can help me achieve that. Kind RegardsDanielLerish (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)DanielLerish[reply]
Please review WP:INDENT. I am not inclined to get involved in the actual content dispute — it is outside my scope of expertise, anyway. Anyway, WP:ONUS concludes by saying: [t]he onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. If the material you are trying to add is disputed, then you need to gain consensus for it before adding it back. Again, if the talk page discussion reaches an impasse, use a dispute resolution request, like a Request for Comment, to bring further outside input into the dispute. If one the versions is, indeed, fringe, it will most likely be rejected by the participants. I am not arbitrating the dispute and am not allowed to take sides in it. My only imperative, when it comes to this content dispute, is to prevent edit warring, which is disruptive to an article's stability. Once again, I suggest you moderate your attitude regarding "gang handed tactics," and so on, as it is likely to hinder editorial collaboration. It serves everyone's best interests if you were to attempt to get your point across while projecting good faith and moderation instead of aggression and confrontation. Good luck. El_C16:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the history of Bluebird K7, it looks like at least one of the editors involved has a conflict of interest with that article. I see you've semi-protected it; do you have any objection if I roll it back to the 31 December 2018 version, before the edit warring started yesterday? —C.Fred (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those edits that you consider "disruptive" or "vandalism" are in fact Facts. Mookie Betts is a Los Angeles Dodger. The Deal has been agreed upon, I would Bet a years worth of my paychecks that he will end up playing for LA. Please change "Extended confirmed protection" to "Semi-protection" as so we can fix this outdated information. I have a few sources to back up what I am talking about. one witch is from MLB themselves.They are the number 1 source for baseball material. If they are reporting it then it must be a fact and not just speculation.[1] I also have a source from CBS, the people that bring us the world news everynight. Those people do not lie.[2]. Even the La Times reported on this breaking Fact..[3] So as you can clearly see from MLB AND CBS. Mookie Betts has been Traded away to the Los Angeles Dodgers. The Deal is agreed upon and it is common Fact, just like we know Donald trump is the President of the united States, we also know that Mookie Betts is a Los Angeles Dodger, He is not a Padres, he is not a Red Sox, He is in FACT a Los Angeles Dodger. Thank you and have a good day sir. I hope you take this information into consideration.Jarmusic2 (talk) 10:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)jarmusic2Jarmusic2 (talk) 10:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't meaning to be move warring, just reverting a mistake. If the issue is that the page I moved it to has "novel" rather than "Wuhan" (which you are correct, the move discussion revolves around), and you're taking me be pre-concluding that discussion, than by all means keep it with "Wuhan coronavirus". But could you please make the title unambigous by changing it to "2019–20 outbreak of Wuhan coronavirus" ? I don't see why anyone should have any beef with that.
Sorry, Sean Heron, I would rather not make nay further changes to the article's title, which I already had to move back (request) and which is already being discussed here — a discussion which you are welcome to participate in. If the consensus, either at AN or on the article talk page, is that your latest proposed title indeed, is uncontroversial, I have no problem moving it accordingly. Thanks. El_C16:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at their UTRS request to be unblocked; they say they will agree to a topic ban from US politics and a 0RR restriction on themselves. What do you think? 331dot (talk) 11:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with a topic ban is that it's provisionally voluntary, which leaves the project open to another meltdown to go along with the next political crisis. Is that something they addressed? That is to say, the harm done to the project with their disruptive edits as well as the personal attacks that accompanied these? I can't access UTRS, so I can't tell the level of introspection. But I'm fine leaving to you to do as you see fit. El_C11:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Noting your reversion of 5patrickgilles5 at the I'm Charlie Walker redirect, could you kindly follow up on my ANI and RfPP requests? The editor is continuing, despite being asked to stop, repeated, by now at least 5 editors or administrators (including yourself) attempting to create sub-stub bibliographic entries for existing redirects.
I'm still assuming good faith, but this is trying my high level of patience.
I'm recommending, at minimum, the editor's autoconfirmed user right be revoked, and I'd like them to revert a couple edits of aspersion casting on their talk page. One of those edits should be revision deleted, too. And, I do think the redirects could benefit from a week of either WP:ECP (if user right not revoked) or WP:AUTOCONFIRMED (if user right revoked).
El C, Thank you. Inclined not to remove the autoconfirmed user right for some reason? I thought it was a prudent approach, as then pending changes protection could be applied to the redirects. Can you also revert the editor's casting aspersions, in good faith of course, on their talk page, and revision delete the first one? It's just not needed. Doug MehusT·C00:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dmehus, you don't need to keep pinging me on my own talk page — I get a bright orange alert for new edits here anyway, so a ping notice is unnecessary. No, I don't see the need to modify their user rights. I'm assuming they're heeding my advise until proven otherwise. If you have a revdelete request, please cite the relevant diff with an explanation of why it is a suitable candidate for that action. El_C00:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, duh, thank you for clueing me into that. Yes, I get the orange notifications as well when someone posts on my talk page. Sorry! about that. Self-trout needed? Doug MehusT·C00:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the revisions, I posted them in the ANI thread but maybe it was TL;DR, so here's the first one in which the editor, in good-faith of course, incorrectly attributed the COI notice to me by suggesting I was Marchjuly. The other one doesn't require revision deleting, but the editor basically just parrots back to me my own notices. Do I have your permission to remove or refactor both edits, to remove my name from the first one and to remove the second one? Doug MehusT·C00:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not suitable candidates for revdeletion, or even removal. The user is permitted to err, but that is their talk page, where they have a wide latitude in which to do so. Unless they are modifying your comments directly, I'd just leave it alone. While it looks silly, it also seems harmless enough. El_C00:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. I guess I'll leave it for now. Any administrator looking at the diffs would see how silly it looks on the part of the editor, and not be confused. I guess what I'm getting at is, an administrator would look at the diff seeing that response, and not take what is written there are face value? Doug MehusT·C00:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TimothyBlue: thanks for the notice, and yes, all is well, thank you for asking. Please feel free to update me if disruption resumes on the article. Regards, El_C18:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I just saw your message in my talkpage. I won't be appealing my block since I accept I might have got carried away by the disruptive battleground behaviour by the user in that article and I thank you for your lesson. I would just request you to keep an eye in the article Bakarkhani since I think there will be some sock/meat puppets who will make the same disruptive edits as proxies. If you take a look at the article talkpage, the user has just nothing to say regarding the content other than a blanket accusation of POV, he has no sources to back his claims and removing credible sources like Banglapedia from the article. Further, he just stopped discussing to reach any consensus and rather gave a full-out effort in having me blocked as a retaliation, proves where his priority lies. Cheers. Za-ari-masen (talk) 07:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Za-ari-masen: If you are accusing me of any kind of sock-puppetry on an admin's Talk page, I'll have none of it. Your edits don't have any sort of consensus what soever. You have been accusing a myriad different users/IPs of puppetry who happen to notice your contentious disruptive editing. And battleground mentality really? You have been blocked as well for this. You exhibit the same behavior that you are projecting on others here. And what do you mean by "priority lies", a 3RR vio is just that you shouldn't have made your last revert if you didn't want to get blocked. And do you really think you look good coming out of this by accusing others and not reflecting on your own edits? Gotitbro (talk) 07:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, those accusations are not conducive to resolving the dispute. Hopefully, after a week break for both of you, you will be able to interact with one another in a more collegial manner. My advise is to use the article talk page often. If you reach an impasse there, I would suggest making use of dispute resolution requests to bring more outside input to the dispute. El_C07:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@El C:, take a look at this edit, he appears in the talkpage of a user he had never interacted before and posts in the same thread I started. Then take a look at this edit on Bengali Americans. Again, an article he has never edited before but suddenly appears there only to revert my edit. There are several other instances. Even in this talkpage, I haven't even mentioned his username yet he makes his sudden appearance out of nowhere. Za-ari-masen (talk) 08:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but one or two encounters probably fall short of being indicative of hounding. As for this talk page, in fairness, I had left Gotitbro a message on their user talk page earlier today. El_C08:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El C, can't argue on that. But I would also urge you to watch out for some "mysterious" IPs who could seek help from their "savior" by canvassing on his talkpage just like one did here, just to get away with the hounding accusation. And about the AfD bit, the consensus was to convert it into a disamb. page, not reinstate the article and again, he was not involved in the afd, hence it's quite strange how he appears in that article to revert my edit. Za-ari-masen (talk) 08:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are again throwing socking shades on me which is unacceptable. I take offence to your personal attacks categorizing me as some sort of a "saviour" for IPs you have a beef, one of whom happened to notify me. As for canvassing what is this then, this and this (the last two being selective notifying to a particular Project). Do you turn blind to your own edits or something. Next time you casually throw around socking allegations here and about I will file a report. Just because I was not involved in a past AfD and happened to notice your disruption against the AfD survival does not make me a lamb to your nonchalant allegations. I am going to steer clear of you and your edits as advised but I have every right to defend myself if you go making absurd and personal claims against me. Gotitbro (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was notified of your problematic edits by an IP probably because I had edited a few pages you had disrupted. Both of your edits are extremely problematic the Bengali Americans article had already survived a del nom, yet you unilaterally redirected it to Bangladeshi Americans which again falls into your disruptive conflation of Bengal with Bangladesh. In the Talk page you removed a DS notice (you hadn't been notified of sanctions before) which again creates problems for users who might look to DS notify you again but won't know that it had already been done. If those are your examples of hounding for someone who just happens to notice your problematic edits then you better stop reporting others and reflect on your own edits. Gotitbro (talk) 08:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the DS alert is acceptable. But turning the article into a redirect after it had already survived an AfD was probably the wrong call. El_C08:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have accused me on different Talk pages (such as here) and assume I do not have a right to defend myself? What nonsense. Just because someone happens to notice your highly problematic edits does not mean they are hounding you. Should your incessant accusations at different forums against me amount to hounding as well? A user has every right to defend themselves. Gotitbro (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, then I'm not sure it'll be feasible to revdel. But please remove any copyvio you encounter on sight. Thanks. El_C07:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I could. But, again, I'd need a starting point. Also, if it involves, say, hundreds of revisions, it might not be worth going through with it, in the first place. El_C07:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of one week, all, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Sorry, I do not have a better solution. If disruption continues after the week-long protection, let me know so that I could set considerably longer protection duration. El_C11:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Blocking of sockpuppet account AbstractAuditon
Good day!
I'd like to thank you for acting quickly on the actions of the said sockpuppet. The said sockpuppet account lashed out on me on my talk page and in doing so admitted that he had engaged in sockpuppetry. The user clearly waited for the results of Kantar Media ratings before pouncing and creating another account. Kantar Media is due to release another National TV Ratings results tomorrow so it is expected that the user is bound to create another account to circumvent the block placed on him/her. He/she could possibly even resort to editing the pages he used to edit anonymously. So what cluld we do to permanently stop him from circumventing his/her block? Warmest regards Gardo Versace (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if there was a specific reason you opted for semiprotect on Sunny Khan Durrani, rather than EC - both the editors re-introducing the problematic content are semi-protect. I know there has been some prior content with regard to "Where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective", but I thought that had been agreed as including cases where semi-protect would be insufficient for all actors.
As mentioned on the request, those are non-confirmed users (I checked their user rights), so semi should do the trick. El_C15:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El C, just about 2 weeks back I asked you about a concern I had with Calton's behavior associated with the Andy Ngo article.[[40]] The problem started when Calton restored new, disputed material (they were the third editor to restore it) rather than take it to the talk page. When I requested they do so they posted a personal attack on my talk page [[41]],[[42]]. Earlier today they again restored new content that had been deleted by two editors. When I again asked that they self revert [[43]] the response was again a personal attack on my talk page [[44]]. Given the page is subject to discretionary sanctions do you have a suggestion for how to address this behavior problem? Thanks. Springee (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because the dispute coming under discretionary sanctions allows for you to submit your complaint in this superior forum. El_C19:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you look into the diffs at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 8? I haven't looked through them all as I'm not sure if there's an easy way to filter the edit history by page section, but the IP editor, who is the same IP editor who has made similar comments at User talk:5patrickgilles5, had made comments before 5patrickgilles5. Such comments have been both removed and refactored. Either 5patrickgilles5 and the IP editor are two editors, in which case, the removal or refactoring comments of one by or another is problematic. Or, 5patrickgilles5 is legitimately editing his own comments made while logged out, but that's problematic in that the editor is editing the same page both while logged out and logged in and, thus, causing confusion?
Sorry, about that. I forgot. I'm not sure why the section header included a ping, though. I guess I forgot to insert a section header? Doug MehusT·C16:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dmehus, I believe that after you notified 5patrickgilles5 of the sockpuppet policy, they went back to where they had posted as an IP to rectify the matter. I do think they're trying to comply with the spirit of the policy. And as I said on their talkpage, I should have said something as soon as they began answering on the 5patrickgille5 talk page as an IP editor and failed to do so, thanks for noticing it and bringing it to their attention. Schazjmd(talk)17:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Schazjmd, Thanks for the reply. If that's the case, that's not a problem, but the duplicate signature from, presumably, IP editor should be removed, so as 5patrickgalles5 can acknowledge to whom to attribute the comments.
Schazjmd, The one at WP:RfPP. The one in the RfD is fine because it's clear he attributed the earlier comment auto-signed by SineBot to himself. I will check and see if he modified WP:RfPP to remove the IPv6 signature, or, better yet, added originally signed asbefore the IPv6 signature? What do you think? Doug MehusT·C18:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hellow! I'm Jeff6045 from South Korea. I'm Insterested in Korean politics and due to my interst I'm trying to make good edits with articles about South Korean politics wihch are very familiar with me. However in the article about United Future Party ip users are keep adding unconstructive contents despite the fact that I have warned these users for several times. These ip users are keep adding word "centre-right" although other editors have made decision not to state party's political spectrum due to its controversial issue. Since you have much long experience on WP I wish you can help me to deal with these issues. Thank you for reading! Jeff6045 (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that Toronto FC merits full protection for two more months. It appears to be have locked based on recent changes from one editor that triggered the abuse log multiple times, and a few individual anons but the filters worked and editors were vigilant. At the very least, reduce to ECP. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for closing this discussion. Your closing was neutral, and I appreciate that. I understood quite early in the discussion, that I wasn't going to achieve the result I'd prefer, but decided to at least state the two points I felt needed to be made there. Debresser (talk) 11:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to leave a comment (if it's worth anything); I do not agree with putting editor Mikola22 and Nicoljaus on the same level (and same block range). Nicoljaus is by far older and experienced editor, he opened a bunch of RFCs and debates on the TP. The other editor did not such thing but ignored other users all the way while pushing several fringe theories. On the other hand, Nicoljaus seeked consensus. I understand that he broke basic Wiki rules, but the 2 are not at all the same, even if it does not seems so. cheers Sadkσ(talk is cheap)12:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One editor made a change without any sort of consensus, and then made a protection request, apparently to protect their own version. You protected the article, but for the sake of correctness you should have returned the stable version, the one before the dispute started. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not that the page was protected with that version. After all the protection is just for a week, and nobody can keep a version without gaining common ground with the other side of the dispute. The protection request said "Edit-warring facts supported by disputed census" implying that the editor who made the request is "right" and other other side of the dispute is "wrong" (following an edit summary on the article that indicates that consensus in not needed at all), and your protection of the page could be interpretated as you confirm all of that. The guideline on the full protection policy says that "Editors convinced that the protected version of an article contains policy-violating content, or that protection has rewarded edit warring or disruption by establishing a contentious revision, may identify a stable version prior to the edit war and request reversion to that version". Anyways, as I said, it is not important for me what version the article has for a week. To address my concern though, you could also leave a note on the article's talk page clarifying for all editors involved on whether consensus is needed to change the article or not. We can sort out a solution by ourselves but since you intervened, you could be more helpful. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how my protection could be interpreted to confirm anything, nor do I find it necessary to make any further comment regarding it at this time. El_C01:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale given for requesting protection was "Edit-warring facts supported by disputed census", blaming one party of the content dispute. And you made the protection, protecting the other party's version without making sure everyone is clarified. Everything would be different if the protection request was neutrally worded. However, talking more with you on this seems to be pointless. Your lack of ability to understand my concerns speaks volumes. I could have spent the time I spent here with more helpful things. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Making "sure everyone is clarified" is simply not necessary — you are reading too much into the protection vis-a-vis the protection request. El_C01:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank God we are all on the same page now. It's good the OP reached the conclusion that he could have spent his time doing more helpful things than criticise an excellent admin who chose to protect the WP:WRONGVERSION. Dr.K.03:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not even an attempt at to resolve the dispute on the article talk page. This longer protection is the last chance before I start with more direct, user-centered sanctions. I'll also look into applying DS to the page. El_C04:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In 25 minutes today, the OP performed 3 reverts. This is some 3RR acceleration, worthy of a NASCAR funny car trophy. Yet he comes here to complain about the opposition. What is the proper term for that? OWN, chutzpah? Dr.K.05:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@El C, eh it often happens in messy Balkan disputes (in particular those concerning Yugoslavia) that admins and experienced editors who are not active in the topic do not want to get too much involved. Many see it as a waste of time, see the disputes as silly ones, or just happen to not be able to have a solution. In some cases they make a small intervention (a small comment, a revert, a page protection etc) and then start to "not see" things that happen around. It is OK if someone does not want to do sth, as Wiki is just for passing free time in a pleasent way. But one at least should try to not bring more mess to a dispute with their own actions. You kind of did to some degree what I asked you for anyway....[48]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktrimi991: the mess is of your own making, by continuing to edit war while failing to attempt to resolve the dispute on the article talk page, despite the ample time given to your toward that end. Now you have even more time in which to do so, and the 1RR I added to the article will greatly curtail further edit warring once the protection lapses. El_C16:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Editing Balkan articles means getting involved in murky and sometimes even emotionally charged stuff. For editors who edit those topics continuously, mistakes are not sth uncommon. Yes, I have my part in the mess. I understand that and I accept it. The sad thing is that the mess was not made only by me and the rest of editors involved in the content dispute. Anyways, I am not willing to continue the discussion here. Its value was obvious since the beginning. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You do whatever you see fit, Ktrimi991. My advise to you stands. And I never said it was of your own making alone. Both sides have ignored the talk page for many months, which I made clear on more than one instance. El_C17:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An IP editor (with a changing IP) is engaging in edit warring at the article Battle of Aleppo (2012–2016) writing unsourced material, inserting info about an ongoing offensive and presenting it to be part of the battle that ended four years ago and most importantly reverting a total of four editors who canceled out his edits (including yourself). I think a new article protection against unregistered editors is needed unfortunately. EkoGraf (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Be more tolerant of other opinions. I think your editing is essentially wrong ("lend-lease", "Warsaw uprising"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.155.64.26 (talk • contribs)
I don't know what you're talking about. You were asked to bring your concerns to the article talk page — I suggest you do that. El_C05:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There (on that page) is already a lot of what I write. We need a balance of opinions, not one opinion. Maybe you or someone else likes it. But it is one thing: a balance of opinions is Needed. You do not allow this to happen as I understand you. This is an incorrect edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.155.64.26 (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to let you know regarding a situation that might have to be looked after. An apparent single-purpose account editor (Nabu-Kudurri-Usur Yaniv) has shown up today who within a few hours (without new sources) changed the results of almost two dozen long-over battles/operations of the Syrian civil war, in a number of these instances even writing results that were contrary to the cited sources (in one case he even removed the cited source). Another editor and me reverted most of his edits, pointing out to him we write per the sources and Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. I find it troubling that such massive changes were made from an apparent unsourced OR POV and writing in some instance contrary to the sources in the articles (and even removing them). EkoGraf (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He's also apparently edit warred a bit at the "Portal:Current events" and been accused of pushing a pro-Turkish POV (his edit summary comments have also not been neutral). EkoGraf (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to request for a checkuser or investigation for sockpuppetry of anonymous user 112.203.248.140 and Venny Oops (talk·contribs). The editing pattern is similar between the two of them. I also have reason to believe that they might be sockpuppets of earlier sockpuppet case Albe23413 (talk·contribs). Thank you.
Hi once again. In Juan Guaidó's article, a change to a section's article was made and an image was removed ([50][51]). After other unrelated edits, including in the aforementioned section, restoring the original versions would constitute 1RR or 0RR? Thanks beforehand. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a violation of your restriction to restore it without gaining consensus for such a restoration first. El_C16:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In Guaidó's article, the following text was added to the lead: Guaido has nevertheless been unable to unseat Maduro from power in Venezuela, since Maduro is the true, "innocent" president, and Guaido's proposed regime would be corrupt (change bolded, diff). I wish to revert this change based on WP:NPOV, but I don't want it to be a violation of my restriction. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that a similar edit was made in Nicolás Maduro's article by the same user, Ferctus: (...) although Maduro is the real president. (diff) I don't think this text has been added before, and I think it should be removed on the same grounds. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I took care of it. But those type of edits are exempted, since they're virtually indistinguishable from vandalism. El_C12:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, recently i have fixed some source named dr. Khalid Basalamah that i have inserted before so it contain more proper source link rather than just youtube video, as per Kansas bear guidance, i even asked first in noticeboard page if the source can be used since he giving assessment of the primary sources(Ibn Hisham, Waqidi, Ibn Hibban etc.) from his expertize in history since the source has doctorate title from legal academic institution. but seems HistoryofIran insisted from his biased opinion that the source does not qualify as WP:RS and keep reverting my edits despite my attempt to change the link from youtube to dr Khalid Basalamah official link. can you help us to solve the issue? Ahendra (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because your clerical "source" isn't reliable, using him as a source is no different than using some Harry Potter book. The same goes for all those other clerical stuff or blogs or whatever it is (http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/?). Anyhow, El Cid; right after his block expires he resumes his crusade of adding non-RS nonsense "sources" [54]. He clearly refuses to understand what is RS and what isn't. Indeed, as Kansas Bear said not so long ago, this user is here to write articles to his POV[55]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahendra: I don't think it matters whether it is featured on YouTube or on that individual's official website. The two editors commenting on the RSN thread disagree that this source meets the threshold of reliability. They are both editors in good standing and I am inclined to accept their assessment, for now. Please stop adding that individual as a source for anything until you are able to get consensus that they are, indeed, a reliable source. Until this is accomplished, you are prohibited from adding content that is attributed to this source. Full stop. El_C23:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am in the middle and just add facts with citations (not nonsense like so many nitwits). Thank you for locking the Jim Jordan page it was getting so annoying undoing the phony edits that I avoided wikipedia for a while. Be well & prosper! B — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExCITEable (talk • contribs) 01:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're edit warring just the same, so what would you have me do? Right now, I'm inclined to block both of you from the article for a while. El_C03:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking for advice rather than reverting again - as I have done previously when opening discussions and reporting - but the other user has not engaged at any stage. If you're suggesting I could have acted better to resolve the matter, I'm all ears. U-Mos (talk) 06:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of you have engaged the article talk page in weeks. You both have been reverting one another. That isn't conducive to resolving the dispute. El_C06:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@U-Mos: I can't even figure out which version is the status quo ante — both of your edit histories go too far back. I've partially blocked Fona2000 from the article for 2 weeks, for lack of communication. Clearly, you've put more of an effort at communicating than they have, so that is to your credit. Maybe you have a better idea of what the pre-edit war version is? Because that is the version that should be displayed while the dispute remains unresolved. El_C06:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for your time. Fona2000 edited the stable version and was reverted by other users, initially as an IP, e.g. edit & revert. I changed the information - initially not aware of the recent edit history - for the first time on December 17, then observed the implicit consensus of the earlier edits and aimed to preserve that subsequently. U-Mos (talk) 06:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the background. I've reverted back to the status quo ante. Fona2000 is welcome to engage the article talk page (from which they are not blocked) to try to get consensus for their newer version. Hopefully, you both are able to reach an amicable understanding. El_C06:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Warring underway on a page that you have previously protected (still appears to be in place, as my request today for protection went to your previous protection). The two 'camps' are 1) those supporting sourced content to Indian authorities vs. 2) those supporting the pseudoscience and quackery of Siddha medicine. Would appreciate your review and resolution. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From a cursory glance, it looks like the dispute arose from changes you've introduced in late November. I don't know enough about the matter of the Indian Medical Association's view versus that of the Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy, even though it is clear that per MEDRS, the former carries more weight on the English Wikipedia. At any rate, I fully-protected the page for a long while, while this gets sorted. Perhaps this is something a quorum of admins ought to deliberate on at Arbitration enforcement, though it is surely to constitute a highly unusual request (I tend to think this isn't something the Committee will want to comment on directly). Myself, I simply don't know enough about the subject, which places me at a bit of a disadvantage in virtually all respects save my detachment. I'm open to suggestions on how to proceed, in any case. El_C16:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute on talk page is valid and it is that a volunteer organization is certainly not a credible source since it is not producing scholarly work neither it has any authority. I do think that the problem into this article had been introduced by Zefr's edits and appears to have been violating WP:SYNTH, typically similar to his some of the earliest edits on this article that were violating WP:NPOV and misrepresented sources. [57] Would you mind restoring the version to 28th November[58] until consensus is reached? I would also note the increasing calls on talk page by enough users to remove the problematic content from main article.[59]ML91117:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't feel confident enough at this time to edit the protected page — due to the Pseudosciencediscretionary sanctions the topic falls under, not even to the status quo ante version, though that is an option that remains open-ended. As for the IMA, it is a reputable body established almost a century ago, which counts among its membership over 300,000 Indian doctors, so labeling it as "not a credible source" seems rather questionable. El_C17:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where as Siddha medicine is in use for thousands of years, so it would require consensus throughout mainstream academia that it is indeed a pseudoscience. We don't have single academic source to highlight that. The subject must prefer WP:HISTRS at the same time given its antiquity which a volunteer organization fails to fulfill. This topic does not fall under pseudoscience but WP:ARBCAM the Arbcom sanction created for Alternative medicines as Arbcom agreed that not all alternative medicines are pseudoscience. I also don't think that protection was warranted since nearly all of the edit warring editors (about 4) were blocked before protection. ML91117:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that the IP address is xwiki spamming [60] and appears to be static, though generally also operating in special:contributions/110.224.192.0/18. I am generating the following xwiki reports
Hi, El C! I recently had to semi-protect the Michael Bloomberg article and I was surprised to see that it wasn't under 1RR restrictions. Most of the other current candidates are. Could you please take a look and see what you think? (I don't do that kind of tagging - haven't made myself familiar enough with that area to feel comfortable.) Thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. After a semi protection put by you on the Republic of Ilirida expired, the article has been disrupted by some IPs (apparently being operated by the same person). I tried to explain the issue to one of the IPs on my talk page but after that another rv by them happened. If the disruption persists, can you put a new semi protection? Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also noticed earlier that another editor had written something (it seemed to support my thesis but that could be wishful thinking) and when you wrote it disappeared. Could some kind of conflict be happening?
I'll recap. There is a worrisome BUG I am trying to point out to you:
User:ජපස posted something on the page to the effect of "El C please don't go out of your way to follow Gtoffoletto around!" (posting it so that an eventual bug report can be filed if necessary)
jeez. Sorry for the waste of time! I am at home with 40C of fever so not in the most lucid of conditions and this report ordeal is really not my thing. Will sleep it off and post a new report tomorrow as you suggested. Got too much time on my hands unfortunately as every other edit gets reverted...one can't even be sick in peace... Thanks for the help and for the guidance! --Gtoffoletto (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The miracle of modern medicine did it's thing and I'm back on track (sort of). Sorry again for yesterday. Quick question: could I correct my "phantom" reply to you yesterday? [62] it's simply nonsensical and a bit embarrassing :-( maybe I could strike though the first part?
Okay, I'll try to have a look at it soon. Yes, you may correct your comment —which I agree is a bit confusing— in the archived AN3 discussion, just be sure to add an Addendum if you add text (strikethrough by itself is fine, also). El_C15:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: I would hate to see a rejection, so can you take a look at the draft and tell me if it is upto the mark? At least can you suggest someone who will comment about it?—Spasiba5 (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll try to have a look soon — but, I'm afraid my familiarity with the topic is rather limited. Not sure who knows a lot about this topic, sorry. El_C10:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: OK, please look at it and improve it yourself - it is a travesty that these conversions are happening and the least we can do is have a Wikipedia article about it (thinking like Che Guevara - I don't have the guts to do anything like him). Thanks!—Spasiba5 (talk) 10:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spasiba5, it's a little concerning that you say it is a travesty that these conversions are happening and the least we can do is have a Wikipedia article about it. That implies that your purpose is to right a wrong.The main problem that I see with your draft is that it doesn't communicate what its own point is. It's just a prose-list of different examples of religious conversions. First it's arguing that not all conversions that are viewed as forced actually are forced, except for when they are. Then it says Hindus are bribed to convert. Then it talks about Christian missionaries. Oh, and a non sequitur about Khan and Modi is mixed in.It also looks like you've added much of this same content to Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan, so I don't understand the purpose of the draft repeating it.I also question the need for a separate article. A concise summary of the different types of religious conversions that are common in Pakistan would make more sense as a section in Religion in Pakistan. My two cents... Schazjmd(talk)16:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
This is regarding Jaggi Vasudev. I finally got around to putting something together for this article. Since the page has been locked, I've put my edit on my Sandbox. I copied the live page as it is right now into my sandbox, and made all my edits on that, so this diff will show you all the changes I'm proposing. Please take a look and let me know what you think. I believe this is more in line with BLP guidelines. Tamilmama (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll try to have a look soon. In the meantime, please feel free to start a section on the article talk page —with a link to that sandbox— for the purpose of gaining consensus for your changes. El_C16:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am blocked(Croatia article) and this must be respected but you must see acrobatics on talk page. I'm blocked because I deleted part of sentence in the article( engaged in an edit war) and these editors then returne my edit although they knew that this clame had not been proven in the sources. Now some of them would delete the whole sentence. They probably looked this information for a year or years but now they would delete it. Every book which talks about this time period in Croatian history mentions Vlachs etc. Now it would be good if this information was not available. I'm here alone, not calling anyone or asking for help but this must be followed by someone. They were not interested in deleting disputed information from the article but now when they see that it is unproven they have interest not to enter more accurate and neutral information in the article. It's not good faith.
My answer "Tuvixer Do you understand what we are discussing? On what page of the source is mentioned that "Most of the transferred population were Orthodox Vlachs"? I didn't put this information in the article, I deleted (a term used for a community of mostly Orthodox refugees, mainly Serbs) because this information has no evidence in RS and violates Wikipedia rule. I engaged in edit war because you and other two editors who kept that information in an article which has no evidence in sources, and you know that. Now when it failed to preserve that clame in the article now you would delete whole sentence? Why you did not do it before my block? Obviously you have not worked in good faith or checked sources, and that's how you probably worked for years. Therefore when my block expires I will enter Vlachs and Orthodox Slavs that is I enter information which have most sources. This is historical information for most of Croatian history and we must respect that part of history. I am not ashamed that part of Croats has and Vlachs origin and this should be clearly presented to the public. Then we'll see what you say." Thanks.Mikola22 (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: note that the user in question is still edit warring (all over the place) and continuing with his crusade. I think that you can agree that not all of us want to spend their Wiki time cleaning up after somebody's mess. Sadkσ(talk is cheap)13:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Article "Statuta Valachorum" (a term used for a community of mostly Orthodox refugees, mainly Serbs). There is no information in the sources claiming that Vlachs is a term for Orthodox refugees which are mainly Serbs. The Vlachs are not Serbs nor mainly Serbs, Croats are also Vlachs but they are not of Serb origin because Vlachs are not Serbs. On Croatia talk page is all explained. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered Sources the do not speak about that nor this information exist in the sources. Mikola22 (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Block of 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:39
Hi, I'm just reviewing an unblock request made by 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:39 (talk·contribs) which you blocked in October last year Is there a reason why you set a 6 month block duration on this IP account? This seems an unusually long duration, especially as you appear to have imposed the block for an edit made in April 2019. I'd suggest unblocking here, unless this is an open proxy or I'm missing something. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D, sorry, I no longer recall. But in any case, unblocked. Thanks for taking the time to do your due diligence. It is much appreciated. El_C07:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One day you may be in my position on the wrong end of a witch hunt, without any help or representation. Then you will know. I accept you sentence as you are my judge, and I have to obey your edicts. Wallie (talk) 08:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've been there, which is why I know that this is not one of those times. In this instance, you have squandered all remaining opportunities to engage others in good faith, which brings consequences. Also, you have the right of appeal, always.El_C08:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wallie, you deleted my request on your talk page, so I'll repeat it here: can you please archive much of your talk page? The page crashes on mobile devices as it's so long, and it's pointless to have 14 years of information for people to have to scroll down the huge contents list. - SchroCat (talk) 10:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking me
Hello, I am not sure if I am allowed to do this, but the user who reported me ignores all my requests to discuss the issue for which I was edit warring. Would you please mind taking a look at Talk:Macedonian Blood Wedding and see that he constantly ignores my point and adopts an indifferent or a very personal stance (he wrote "I also disagree with some of the information you have added, but I do not remove it" about reliably sourced, almost word-to-word quoted academic articles which further exemplifies that he propagates his own views on the topic and tries to build a story that works for him) that does not contribute to us solving the dispute? Otherwise, where should I report this issue? I reported it at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard but have received no answer whatsoever. Please note that I am only here to improve Wikipedia in a non-biased way by only using reliable articles, making no original assumptions and doing no original research and adding as much relevant content to the article as possible while User:Jingiby seems to do the opposite. Thank you very much in advance and sorry for bothering. DD1997DD (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El_C, Is this paraphrased enough?: The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan found that girls were actually kidnapped and married to Muslim men against their wishes or sold to them and these girls had not run away with them. Some girls from affluent Hindu families, run away with their Muslim boyfriends, but such marriages are short lived. The family links are severed and these females are then co-erced to marry some other Muslim man or are exploited by marriage agents.[1]
According to Pir Ayub Jan Sarhandi, a cleric accused of forced conversions, many Hindu girls are abducted and kept as sex slaves, but they are not converted.[1]
Most of these females have either lost their husbands or are extremely poor. According to Pir Ayub Jan Sarhandi, the government is supposed to look after all Hindus and others, but they approach him when they do not get government help.[1]—Spasiba5 (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Sorry to bother you. The Ip made the same edition again. Yesterday, I asked for 3 titles. Just one day after the protection expired, the IP vandaliced the Crash Womens title and the Impact World title. It's super annoying, I have been handling this behavior for months. [64][65] --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to bother you. I found these two edits to be problematic. Would you take a look at them? There is any attribution in this edit and some information is missed in this edit such as Facebook comment. I think that the user burns his chance that you gave him.Saff V. (talk) 12:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alex-h is not obliged to look for whatever source a reliable source had used when citing that source. Likewise for iranhumanrights.org, whose reliability I am unfamiliar with. El_C19:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Mitch. Nice to see you! Yes, doing well, thanks for asking. Hope you're doing well, too. My suggestion would be to remove all the images whose copyright status you've identified as being in question until their true origin is properly authenticated. All the best, El_C18:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How is calling it "the Rape of Africa" incorrect? Multiple sources have referred to it as such, and if we're being honest, that's exactly what it was. 124.148.252.56 (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean like the currently used names for the article, such as "Partition of Africa" and "Conquest of Africa", which currently have no sources whatsoever? Why should I have to cite sources for a commonly held name for the event whilst the former don't? And it's not like the "Partition of Africa" is well known. 124.148.252.56 (talk) 09:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about "Conquest of Africa" —that may be worth looking into— but "Partition of Africa" is not only well-known in the historiography, but there is are also multiple mentions of it throughout the article, including by various high-quality sources cited — these, the lead summarizes, so there is no need for sources in the actual opening (per lead section). Using "Rape of Africa" (in contradistinction to, say, Rape of Nanjing) is not, however, mentioned throughout the article, so you cannot claim that is something the lead summarizes. That is why the burden of proof is on you to substantiate your claim that it is a mainstream alternate name. Using the argument that other stuff exists improperly elsewhere, too, is contrary to how Wikipedia additions are meant to be retained. As is adding material for polemical reasons. Again, to add "Rape of Africa" in bold, you need multiple, high-quality sources that show its usage as a mainstream, alternate name for Scramble for Africa. Otherwise, it merely constitutes your own original research. El_C14:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion
Hi El C, I am here for your suggestions since you had closed the recent case on ANI related to me and some others. Please take a look at This diff. Are editors allowed to go around and bad mouth people (who they have content dispute) in this way ? I have given DS alerts and also left a note [66] on their talk page asking them to stop this. How do you suggest taking this further, since I am clearly not amused by this harassment. --DBigXrayᗙ13:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a diff — it is an old revision. Anyway, sorry, I am not familiar with this dispute in any way whatsoever and am not that inclined to take it on singlehandedly at this time (I feel like I'm spread a bit thin at the moment). But if there is misconduct at an area that falls under discretionary sanctions, you have the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard at your disposal where a quorum of uninvolved admins can evaluate the matter and apply sanctions, if needed. El_C14:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey El_C, seems the article Northwestern Syria offensive (December 2019–present) has been targeted by a block-evading IP editor. Today, Bbb23 blocked for 72 hours editor 176.88.142.169 for disruptive editing and personal attacks. Just three hours later, 176.88.136.20 (similar IP) started editing in a similar POV pattern. At one point, an edit was also made by 176.54.10.88 (again a similar IP). His edit was virtually the same as one of those made by 176.88.136.20. So protecting the article against unregistered editors for a time might be prudent. Of course its your call after you analyze the situation when you have the time. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's where I got this. Check the GDP (PPP) section. Please could you source this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferctus (talk • contribs)
Please sign your username at the end of your comments. Please review WP:INDENT. Please stop creating new sections for every new comment. If you copy content from one Wikipedia article to another, please make sure you provide attribution that you have done so. Thanks and good luck. El_C03:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you added protection to Talk:North East Delhi riots. Just as an FYI, Wikimedia received a number of inquiries via OTRS over the last couple days regarding this article, and I've urge them to contribute to the talk page. I think I received 13 more this morning, so a heads up when the protection expires there may be a lot of activity.--S Philbrick(Talk)14:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El C, I hope you don't mind my chiming in below. I wonder if we need a heads up at ANI to get more eyes on this tomorrow. I understand why protection was needed but I hate it when talk pages are protected, so I'm mulling over alternatives. S Philbrick(Talk)14:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sphilbrick, not at all — have at it. The matter has already spilled over to ANI, in a way. Perhaps a note at AN would be better...? Right, no one likes protecting talk pages, but this appears to be a [redacted url concerted effort], so I'm hard pressed to find alternatives to it. Hopefully, my advise is heeded, but there's a strong possibility that protection will need to be extended, by virtue of the sheer volume of disruption. El_C15:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment, El C: I totally agreed with your imposition of semi-protection. I would have done the same, possibly for a longer period. The page was totally out of control, unusable as a talk page. If it explodes again after the protection expires, please don't hesitate to protect it again. -- MelanieN (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, MelanieN. Will do. Indeed, in hindsight, the one-day protection may have been too brief. At any event, we are all hands on deck today. El_C12:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:North East Delhi riots page protection related
Not all new users are violating WP, I tried to put my submisssions against whatever I felt was unfair, the living person policy is being unequally applied to project some and to hide some. Protecting the talk page,which is for discussion, so that all unregistered users can't put their arguments is very unfair. Thank you 47.31.131.227 (talk) 14:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep in mind that edit requests are not being handled by the employees but by volunteers. If you go to the talk page, don't look at the talk page itself which is not all that unusual, but at the recent archives, and you will see the we are being overwhelmed by requests, many of which are not very reasonable. If you are a reasonable person, it is unfortunate that your access is being temporarily restricted, but it is not reasonable to expect volunteers to have to deal with this. S Philbrick(Talk)14:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, (talk page stalker) I agree. If someone has prepared an edit request, and is just waiting for tomorrow to post it, I guarantee that if you reread it, you could probably tighten it up, add an additional or better reference, and make it a better request over the next 24 hours. S Philbrick(Talk)14:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rightly said 331dot. If I'm not wrong, tomorrow is going to be a lot of edit warring and vandalism on this article. Need to keep an eye on this inevitable possibility. — The UltimateLet's Talk15:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, I did nothing wrong. It is not only about edit request, equal opportunity needs to given to all to put their submission on discussion page to improve the article. I feel it is unfair to block all new users47.31.131.227 (talk) 15:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said you did anything wrong. If you want to contribute, I've explained how. While I understand why you would like it to be the case that you could contribute without bothering to meet our guidelines, there aren't enough volunteers to handle this particular incident at this time. I've reached out to encourage others to help chip in. S Philbrick(Talk)17:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The free encyclopedia anyone can edit" does not mean "anyone can edit it at any time in any manner they choose as they see fit". 331dot (talk) 15:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing that you need done that cannot possibly wait some hours. The way to not have to deal with this sort of thing is to become an experienced, general contributor, which everyone has equal opportunity to do. I'll now stop taking up El C's page. 331dot (talk) 15:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I'd like to pick up on that point. I agree this restriction has impacted new contribute is more than all contributors, but not unfairly. More specifically, is exceedingly easy to become an "old" contributor. Registered username, and make 10 edits to different articles over the next 4 days. Not only will that qualify you to edit even when semi-protection is on, but if you make 10 good faith attempts at editing other articles, you will gain some experience in how best to contribute to the discussion. S Philbrick(Talk)15:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want to get registered as an user, a purely personal choice. As I believe that not the user names, exprience but submissions should matter even if comes from an unregiestered user and associated benefits should never go against unregistered users. I feel this protectation unfairly affects even bonafide new users. 47.31.131.227 (talk) 15:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is certainly your choice to make, but then you must accept the consequences of that choice, such as situations like this one with the riots article. 331dot (talk) 17:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Madam/Sir with utmost respect I wrote here how I felt. I am not imputing bad motives behind the decision. But as a person affected by it, you must listen and know how have I felt. 47.31.163.49 (talk) 16:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) This is your only edit ever to Wikipedia. If you wrote somewhere how you felt I don't know where it is. I hope you will read the exchange above and see that many people are attempting to be responsive. S Philbrick(Talk)17:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Talk pages are for discussions to improve an article. I have made edits to Wikipedia, earlier also, no need to tell its me who made that edit, no credits needed, for the sake of knowledge only, yes you guys are responses, yet I can't contribute to discussion on the protected talk page, feels very bad. 47.31.163.49 (talk) 17:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relate to Admin notice board reverts
In response to "it just shows how pissed off they are to see facts out on Wiki."
Because I don't want content disputes that pertain to the article in question to spillover to the admin noticeboard. El_C12:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, nor do I, but then "it just shows how pissed off they are to see facts out on Wiki." why does this is acceptable at the noticeboard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:3318:B8D4:7065:6C8D:AD1B:E694 (talk • contribs)
Oh dear, I am not defending the fringe content. I comment in response to a comment you removed it. Again write nothing to do with fringe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:3318:B8D4:7065:6C8D:AD1B:E694 (talk • contribs)
Because I don't want content disputes that pertain to the article in question to spillover to the admin noticeboard.El_C12:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Look, this conversation has become circular. This is your recourse if you feel that strongly about it: convince any other admin to restore the comment (they do not need to consult me in any way whatsoever). El_C12:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is misleading - the material it looks like I removed was specifically selected because it was redundant or otherwise unnecessary. That is not vandal/test page blanking and should not be treated as the same. 64.188.172.95 (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to notify you that this user has directed a personal attack towards me [67], I noticed at his talk page that he was previously warned by another user of personal attacks as well[68]. Please take action as necessary. 176.88.136.202 (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but no personal attack was made on Anon user 176.88.136.202. Simply i am not his individual employee or paid editor. If he wants to make edits, he can make them by its own.Mr.User200 (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully, you two can sort out whatever it is that's being contested in a civil manner. Good luck. El_C17:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also he called one of my edits "pathetic wording" the same languague used by those banned editors. Maybe he es the same person. Just in case, 176.88.136.202 have you used another account in Wikipedia??Mr.User200 (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Single-purpose account
I will kindly ask you to pay closer attention to this editing as it has gone unnoticed for far too long and I do not see it to be per Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia.
Hello, El C! A simple inquiry, maybe it has been asked before -- if so forgive me -- but why do you use "-------" to separate your talk page comments? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 05:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a handy device (that I try to use sparingly) to signify a break which falls short of needing a new subsection. Best, El_C05:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Allegations of anti-Semitism and racism came from co stars that worked with Hartnell like Nicholas Courtney and Anneke Wills - they're not smears. Nobody's saying he was a bad person, or definitely a racist, or anything like that - I have a great deal admiration for Hartnell, but it still just isn't right for the Wikipedia article to delete information this way. Besides, we have allowed controversy and accusations of racism surrounding other beloved celebrities on here, as well as their defenders, such as Wayne, Disney, Trump and Churchill. Even if the Hartnell allegations are considered not noteworthy enough, we should still take into consideration the first hand sources surrounding them and debate on whether they are notable enough. If they are not allowed, I understand it, but the first hand sources at least need some looking at. 79.69.227.38 (talk) 10:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The most concrete evidence of such views actually comes from his own granddaughter, Jessica Carney, who wrote the biography Who's There? The Life and Career of William Hartnell, and stated that Hartnell did express concerns about "foreigners", but that "all those loudly expressed opinions were contradicted by his behaviour on a personal level. [...] if he liked someone, they weren't a foreigner, they were a friend." Carney is an excellent source, and I see no problems with that cited in these few lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.227.38 (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, bring it to the article talk page to see what other editors think. Hopefully, through persuasion, and perhaps compromise, a consensus can be formed about this matter. El_C11:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see you 'protected' the page with the wrong information -- even 1990'sguy acknowledges Donald Trump himself referred to Grenell as former US ambassador to Germany. I agree it's not quite clear when his last day as ambassador was; he likely wanted both roles at a point in time. However it's clear today that he's definitely not the ambassador so make the revert as it's impossible for non admins to make the proper edit. Powerrranger (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Powerrranger: that's not how protection works. The version that gets protected is random. But Wikipedia does subscribe to formal appointments rather than informal announcements, even when these are issued by the US President. El_C18:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Grenell's clearly *NOT* the US ambassador to Germany. No official announcements by any individuals at the state department indicate anything to contradict the US President. Make the change. You need to do the right thing here. I realize you technically have more experience than me as an editor, but at this level, contradicting the US president's not a livable move.. 96.239.60.166 (talk) 09:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I don't know if this is the right place to share my concerns but right now I saw some articles like that one The Establishment (Pakistan) and also Criticism of Pakistan Armed Forces. That the Establishment article seems like many "deep state" stuff claims, so line is blurry of what is real and what is conspiracy and what is just imagiations. And I don't know but seems to there need to be some more strict control about this kind of articles. I am not much into topic but many things sounds like some kind of original research and content or part of that content somehow looks to it can fall into conspiracy theories field. I know to there is tensions between India and Pakistan, but I would not like to see to Wikipeda become their "battleground" where they can make articles where the main point is spreading advocacy or propaganda for and against , when they can make own blogs and websites about it.
Brzikraken (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Brzikraken. No, this is not the right place. The right place would be the respective article talk pages, where you would be expected to outline your concerns with specific detail. Good luck. El_C18:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nabi Kudurroi return 2.
Same person different IPs same edits, same language.
Again, please feel free to submit an SPI report. I don't consider myself familiar enough with those set of articles to intervene at this time, sorry. El_C18:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you remember that Jp7311. They’re back again and harassing me and calling my edits as vandalism. They’re harassing me off-wiki too. Hope you’ll take action as things are extremely unsafe from Indian side. —Brihaspati (talk)23:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello EI C. Because 2020 coronavirus outbreak in India placed in Abritration Committee discretionary sanctions about IPA (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan), please add that article to your watchlist in order to anticipate of vandalism in the article. The coronavirus is international event, not just Indian event so it is necessary to add it into your watchlist. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.77.95.122 (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
please help translate this message into your local language via meta
The 2019 Cure Award
In 2019 you were one of the top ~300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a thematic organization whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.
Thanks, Doc James. I try my best to stir medical articles in a science-based direction, despite my relative ignorance with the subject matter. And thank you for all that you do, not least of which keeping medical articles geared toward only the highest level of sourcing. So important. El_C18:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. But it broke formatting on the Minerva skin on any browser/device and put every talk page comment of mine in its own scroll box. Personally, I think they should get rid of Minerva, but you know how the WMF is. I've been having an identity crisis ever since.
BTW are bots unable to archive semiprotected talk pages? I just noticed Cluebot hasn't auto archived the riots page in a couple days, can't figure out why, other than maybe the protection. I'm about to go manually archive older threads. Levivich[dubious – discuss]19:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Not positive, but, I'm fairly sure it should not be an issue for the bot. And I only semiprtoected a few minutes ago, so that can't be it... El_C19:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Screenshot of Levivich's old signature in an indented reply rendering a scroll bar with the Minerva skin
@InvalidOS: Rotating the text so that a portion of it was below the text baseline (a rotation of more than few degrees was enough) forced a new line in the div on Minerva skin, causing the div to show a scroll bar for any indented comments. At least, I think that's how the bug is caused. I could be wrong about the div part, but see this screenshot. Once it was brought to my attention on my talk page, I was able to easily reproduce the bug using Minerva skin on Safari, Firefox, and Chrome, desktop, tablet, and mobile. Frankly I'm shocked I apparently went a whole year without anyone saying anything about that–or maybe there was some update to Minerva that caused the problem, I'm not sure. But I couldn't figure out a work-around. Rotating the text upwards was fine, but when it was rotated downward beyond the baseline (to create that hanging effect), it seemed to force a new line that forced a scroll bar (but only for indented comments, hence why I think it's a div). Levivich[dubious – discuss]21:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, El C. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 12:17, 6 March 2020 (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.
I just saw that you blocked DBigFacts due to username impersonation. I believe that you were referring to DBigXray. I don't see how the two usernames are "very similar" as per WP:IMPERSONATOR. And even if you believe that they are (since similarly is subjective in nature), given the fact that DBX has retired now, the policy is not violated. ("Usernames that are similar only to unused or inactive accounts should not be a problem.") Bharatiya2915:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I, for one, consider it a provocation. Please feel free to appeal my decision in any forum you see fit. El_C15:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Saff V., I already warned then blocked the user for personal attacks, so, for now, I am of the mindset to see if they have drawn any lessons from that. The let others judge could be read to be in reference to the sanction rather than the lying, though I admit that statement does not inspire confidence. But I am ever the eternal optimist. El_C22:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
... about the talk page message, to the long dormant editor, but the edits done earlier were so eggregious, and had such negative longlasting influences—creating an article that appeared valid, but was full of editorializing and unsupported content—that it seemed a small price to pay, to start them off on a better foot should they return. But thanks for the concern for my time. Bonne chance with your work. [ a frmr logging editor, and prof ] 2601:246:C700:19D:4CFC:65D3:E33:2417 (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I recieved this message "Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons. Thank you. El_C 21:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC) "
I have no idea what are you talking about.
What article? Which changes?
Hi. Yes, Liz is right, that was the article which prompted the {{uw-blp2}} warning. But if if it wasn't you, the specifics of the potential violation are unimportant. That is the downside, though, of editing with an IP, which may be used by multiple individuals — compared to registering a username account, which is yours and yours alone. El_C15:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you suspect socking, please file a report at Sockpuppet investigations. Otherwise, I have fully protected both Book of Exodus as well as The Exodus for one week, so hopefully that time will facilitate a resolution to the dispute and/or a determination into the socking suspicion. Hope you enjoy the rest of your trip. El_C19:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like your instincts were right, Ermenrich. Since the user has been indefinitely blocked for socking, I have lifted the protection from both pages. Best, El_C03:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Asking blocked editor a simple question?
Hi! You were the one to sanction Mikola22 with a 60 days block on 20 February. I helped Mikola22 initiate a RfC at Talk:Josip Runjanin#RfC about ethnicity which has now run its 30 days. All editors that have participated, including me, oppose the suggestion except Mikola22. It would be nice to be able to close the discussion, but there is currently a large backlog at the "Request for closure" noticeboard. They are of course not allowed to discuss the case even in their talk page, but my question is: Will it be acceptable to ask on their talk page to accept that the RfC is closed with "Not done", provided that I remind them that they are not allowed to discuss the content matter, only answer "Yes" or "No"? If they answer "Yes", I will close it myself. It they answer "No", we will have to wait for someone uninvolved to close it or until their block is expired, whatever comes first. Regards! --T*U (talk) 10:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, that claimed proxying effort is news to me. I agree that that socking claim is not clear. IPA — the gift that keeps on giving!El_C13:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. See 'sanctions.user at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. It's possible to make an AE one year block with a following indefinite Admin block as was done to Oldstone James this year (although that was turned into a TB and then a plain indefinite block). Doug Wellertalk14:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You report whatever you see fit, IP, but please don't accuse editors of being corrupt — that is a personal attack. El_C17:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a personal attack if its true, I provided a source that was used elsewhere on Wikipedia to prove the same or a similar point and yet it was once again removed for "poor sourcing", meaning it was good enough for someone else but not me. That is quite obviously a personal attack on me, so yes I have every right to call a bully "corrupt". 2A02:C7F:1425:8B00:3076:E0B0:BE10:C797talk17:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, you may not call another editor "corrupt" or a "bully" — regardless of whether you think these labels are accurate or not.IP blocked for 31 hours for personal attacks after warning. El_C17:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RfC advice
Re your advice, indeed a RfC is a possible solution. But RfCs are kind of last resort, after prior discussion on the talk page clearly can not bring any solution. The discussion on the talk page has been ongoing for less than 24 hours. I and @Calthinus: have described a potential solution, and maybe the rest agree with it or a similar one. In such topics there are zillions of content disputes every month, and we can not open a RfC for each one. Furthermore, RfCs usually are "win or lose", while finding common ground without opening a RfC is more likely to satisfy all sides of the dispute. However, if the current discussion brings no solution, of course opening a RfC will be a constructive act. Do not worry, the page protection expires after 18 days. Till then things should have calmed down and everyone reflected on the matter. That is why page protections were created for, after all. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't find it particularly likely that the matter will be resolved without an RfC that is properly closed — but by all means, I'll be happy to be proven wrong. El_C19:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Statements such as: @Dr.K. It is obvious that simply removing the census results from the lede is not a solution. don't leave me with any hope for a quick resolution. An RfC is a great proposal. El C's actions so far both as an admin and as an editor providing advice have been exemplary and I thank him for that. I would normally not participate on a talkpage with DS sanctions and admin warnings, but I do do because I trust El C both as an editor and an admin. Dr.K.21:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it is clear vandalism, chasing other people's edits and revert all their edits without discussion first is a self-centred action which proved to be a source of conflict and is hurting Wikipedia very bad. I think we both like Wekipedia to be a pleasant place to share our knowledge, do we? Please always rememebr to refrain from abusing the reverting option when editing. Thank you. 2001:8003:9008:1301:6898:816A:2928:D089 (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure how I came to the wiki page that then gave me a few options to then get to a recently active editor, but here I am.
I briefly scanned your other talk subjects and think you might be able to help me. I have definitely been frustrated and going crazy with another editor and would love some advice. I'm also trying to use this as a cathartic and to stop me from continuing what I'd guess most likely is an edit war.
In short, I made a change to a page that was undone by another user. In order to understand it, I engaged with the other user and looked at what other edits they've done because my assumption was that if they undid my edit then they must know more than me so I could learn from them. They then accused me of stalking which was not my intent, but I'll concede I could understand why they'd feel that way. My only defense is that my intent was to learn from their edits which led me to pages that I was interested in and wanted to contribute (I believe it was 4 pages).
But there lies the problem because every edit I do almost without exception they undo.
To give what I think exemplifies bad faith on their part, they undid another editor's adding someone wanted to go back onto a show with the statement it doesn't matter unless they actually go back on the show even though the person stated it. So on another page I removed a like example where an actor said they would go on a show but they have not, and the editor undid it. I should also add, that all of the changes I did on 4 pages was to add back info with cites that the original poster didn't have a good cite on. None were what I would describe as petty.
I've attempted to engage the user in talk and they can talk wiki links around me (a disability impacts my ability to absorb all the pages that they've thrown at me but I'm really trying). And I have to confess that I have definitely learned things from the editor, but the dogmatic undoing of my edits is simply driving me over the edge.
On their talk page, they have a history of edit warring and reverts up to having been blocked for it as well as apparently trying to set up a 2nd account so as to get around a block. I'm guessing that's why they honestly can talk circles around me.
First, I apologize if I might ramble a little. I didn't used to but some medication I take impacts my ability to keep a good solid thought line. I try and go back and fix that but typing isn't easy for me so ....
I was hoping to get a fast read essentially telling me whether I'm all wet, or if there might be some merit. If I'm all wet it'll tell me to just to cool it.
Is there a way you can weigh in on two things because I think it will indicate if I'm just seeing it all wrong, or whether the other person won't give a break.
In order for me to put together all the stuff would take me a lot of hard work, which I'll do, but i'm hoping that maybe you can tell me if what's above does/doesn't indicate a contradiction. essentially if it deos then i'll feel less crazy and that's it's warratned but if there's something i'm missing.
if you can't, that's fine just tell me and i'll work to put together the facts. (When I started trying to read the dispute resln page, what got me here btw is that this is a user issue more than content because there's a problem on i think two pages. also, as an aside, I got a "thanks" from a user for my section about stop undoing me on the person's talk page. I am not the only person that has issue with this editor undoing people's work as just above my section on their page is another user taking issue with the same thing (as well as several other sections above). sry for going ononononMikethewhistle-original (talk) 06:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Mikethewhistle-original — I am still finding it difficult to comprehend what the overarching content dispute is actually about. My tentative advise would be to discuss with the other parties on the respective article talk page. In case you reach an impasse there, there are other dispute resolution (and accompanying requests) avenues that could be of help to you. But if you don't feel that strongly about it, you can just withdraw and do something else on Wikipedia, of course. El_C06:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That does help some so i could re-focus, but is the difference so great that the fact should be omitted from the other actresses page? i don't know. my nind is spinning at this point because i'm frustrated. when you work to add stuff and find cites and massage it into a small ball to put on the page and someone just rips it right off repeatedly, it causes frustration. What's interesting is I've added and changed other pages and not had the same reception and I don't think it's right that I can't contribute to a couple pages because someone seems to be guarding them.
I'll withdraw for the time being abnd thank you both very much.Mikethewhistle-original (talk) 07:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Karnataka population vandal
As you are aware, having blocked several of them, this vandal has returned since the beginning of March, and I have continued to log the IPs I am aware of at User:Arjayay/Pop figures I don't understand range blocks, but assume 106.217.XX.XX is too broad a range, however 4 of the 5 this month have been 106.217.37.XX - is this blockable? - Arjayay (talk) 10:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, Mikethewhistle-original. ColinFine really said largely what I would have said. I don't really have much to add to their advise, which I also recommend. It is pretty straight-forward here on Wikipedia when it comes to disputes. If someone does something you disagree with, try to discuss it with them for the purpose of trying to reach a resolution or a compromise. Good luck! El_C16:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Photo Dimash Kudaibergen
Hello dear El_C! I'm so aaawfully sorry to bother you here but I didn't know whom else I could ask.
I would like to change the photo in Dimash's Wikipedia article. The current one is unfortunately overall not a good photo, and the resolution is really bad.
I talked to a Dimash fan who is a photographer and she allowed me to choose one of her photos for Wikipedia.
So I chose this one because I hope it would be well suitable for Wikipedia (close-up of his face from the front with okay quality/resolution)
https://www.instagram.com/p/B2HJA3XgRJe/
She has already sent me the photo in full resolution and removed the watermark. And she also says she's okay with officially declaring the photo public domain, if needed. But now here's the problem: Unfortunately, we both don't know how this exactly works I've spent quite some while reading through Wikipedia guidelines, including image use policy, but I'm afraid I still haven't really understood what exactly I need to do to make the photo usable for Wikipedia Maybe you could give me a tip. I would reaaaally, really appreciate that. I am looking forward to hearing from you. Best wishes, Jasmin Ariane (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Jasmine. It is no bother at all. In answer to your question: I would recommend choosing the drop down option in Special:Upload that reads the copyrright holder gave me permission to use this work only in Wikipedia articles — that, I think gives the photographer the best protection from unauthorized usage while still allowing her image to appear on Wikipedia. Hope this helps! El_C17:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello dear El_C! Thank you soo much! I clicked the link and uploaded the photo and now I received the following message on my Talk Page. I really don't know what exactly to do. And I don't know what a copyright tag is, how to use it and which one I need to use in my situation. Can you maybe help? I really don't know what to do
"Image without license
Unspecified source/license for File:Kudaibergen at New Wave in 2019.jpg
Copyright-excl.svg
Thanks for uploading File:Kudaibergen at New Wave in 2019.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like { { PD-self } } (to release all rights), { { self|cc-by-sa-4.0 } } (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well."
I think I solved it, Jasmine. Since the copyright holder agreed to release it unconditionally, I just picked {{GDFL}}, which I think resolves everything as far as our immediate purposes go (I also made a note on the image file itself to that effect). All the best, El_C19:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hellow! I'm writing this message to ask for your advice since you have longer experience in Wikipedia. There has been some dispute about edit on 2020 coronavirus outbreak in South Korea. The user Koraskadi has accused my edit on 2020 coronavirus outbreak in South Korea as violating WP:POV policy. However this user has given sources from tradition critic of current government such as JoongAng Ilbo, The Dong-a Ilbo or Chosun ilbo, also in my view, this user has used some opinion sources and added contents that are not mentioned in the sources. So I reverted this user's edit per breaking WP:NOR, WP:SYN and WP:RSOPINION. In addition, I had added a message on this user's talk page to mention the reason why I had reverted this user's revision. Can you give me some advice on how to solve this conflict about the issue? Also if I had made a mistake please tell me so that I wouldn't make any further same mistakes. Thank you for reading! Jeff6045 (talk) 07:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My advise is to stay the course. That user has been blocked for violating the 3 revert rule, because multiple editors disagreed with their additions. The onus is on them to gain consensus for their changes on the article talk page rather than edit war, which, if they continue to do, they will simply be blocked for longer. El_C15:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zapata never used the slogan "Tierra y Libertad"
And this poster is a modern fantasy, please verify it. All contacts or influence of the Florés Magón are totaly unproved, nobody find a corrpondance between Tapata and the Flrés Magón brothers.
Emiliano Zapata nunca uso del lema Tierra y Libertad, nunca tuvo contactos o correspondencia con los hermanos Flosés Magón, el "poster" que quité est una fantasía moderna, apócrifa.
Atte,--31.164.4.27 (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C! You know ~ Ol' Frank use to tell me not to eat the yellow snow ~ I never knew what that meant either ~ go figure... ~mitch~ (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You previously protected the Lithuanians page due to a disruptive IP hopper. I asked for the page to be protected at WP:RFPP but the request was declined, because "there is not enough disruption". The same IP hopper continues to make edits in the Lithuanians page and I have to revert almost every day. Therefore, I want to know what steps should I take. Should I go to WP:SPI or WP:LTA? Or could you just protect the page for a longer period? Thanks in advance. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read what I have written there, It was about the neutrality of lead section. There need to be some positive content there as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.141.174.122 (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, the personal attacks, which are mostly name calling, start at [84]; the first reference to his wife's dating history begins [85]. Everything since March 12 has been pretty much uniformly disparaging. I'll go back and see if there's an earlier history as well. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes. Well, I just revdeleted everything March 12 onward. And on second thought, I've also extended the protection to 2 months from 2 weeks. El_C22:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Restoring false claims to articles without even bothering to justify yourself in an edit summary is highly disruptive behaviour. It strikes me as malicious to do that on an article of extreme topical interest. What exactly were you thinking? J en mhh (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I started a discussion on the article talk page: here. I'm sorry, but an edit summary that simply reads "false" is too terse to be useful. El_C00:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any understanding of the topic of the article? Obviously you do not. Did you notice that the claim had been added just three minutes before I removed it, by a user making a string of badly-written unhelpful edits? That must also be a no. I am appalled at your behaviour. J en mhh (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize without reservations for misreading and somehow conflating between versions. I am operating on very little sleep, which probably contributed to my error. Sorry again. El_C00:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation? True. But see how Jeff6045 revert it for being OR. Factual integrity to be maintained at all cost? Time will eventually reveal how you made a complete fool of yourself by not giving this issue the attention it is due and acting hastily and impulsively. When you learn of the truth, you will feel ashamed of your complete incompetence as an administrator or an arbitrator in your role of helping of Jeff6045 suppressing the truth. Do you doubt it? Google translate the Korean article. And go look at Jeff6045's edit history for once, on how he demonizes all his political opponents as being political extremists while using sources made up of amatuer journalists like Ohmynews in Wikipedia. You were manipulated. Shame. Shame. Shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2D8:EA9B:EC33:0:0:4509:C601 (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your vehemence is misdirected. I have no opinion (or knowledge) about your content dispute. That conversation belongs on the article talk page, anyway. El_C21:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should not have stated that Factual integrity to be maintained at all cost. Jeff6045 was the one comprimising factual integrity. He reverted copy pasted content directly from sources for being OR. He engaged in edit warring in a most prolific fashion. He does not follow the very first step of DR while claiming to be so. He harasses users by spamming warnings on everyone he has a dispute with, disparaging their contribution as being disruptive and unconstructive. You ultimately endorsed Jeff6045's behavior by not reprimanding his behavior at all. In the end, Wikipedia is now legally liable to defamation against multiple organizations in South Korea, and I will be contacting them shortly. This is not a legal threat against Jeff6045, but a legal rectification of the state of how Wikipedia labeled Korean organizations as ultranationalist, far-right, and the like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2D8:EA21:53C0:0:0:A2F:C0A5 (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you immediately and categorically withdraw all threat of legal action, you will no longer be permitted to edit here. You're entitled to seek any legal redress you see fit, but you cannot continue to remain a Wikipedia editor while the legal matter remains unresolved. El_C21:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cite the policy, then I will just point out where the problems lie. WP:LIBEL WP:LEGALTHREAT only prohibits making threats against editors. Or are you making up the rules on the fly? Wikipedia is responsible for identifying libelous statement, not me as an individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2D8:E307:EDCC:0:0:4589:DC02 (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot threaten to take legal action against Wikipedia itself and be allowed to continue to edit Wikipedia while this legal action remains unresolved. That has always been my understanding of policy. Anyway, you keep forgetting that this is a volunteer project, IP. If you want your dispute to be properly investigated, bother doing the legwork for a well-documented summary of it. Maybe register an account, because your IP keep changing, which makes it difficult to connect, you the person, with your edits. Copyright violations are highly prohibited on Wikipedia — that was your mistake, not mine. That is all I attended to. I am not obliged to investigate further. You're certainly not motivating me to do so with all your bluster. As for Factual integrity to be maintained at all cost, see: China, Germany, Misinformation, Coronavirus, Italy, UK, US, World. El_C22:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I read the policies in detail, and you were right. Here are the articles. Look at their edit histories and see Jeff6045's role in negatively branding them as far-right organizations with inapplicable WP, often OR.
Future Korea Party
Saenuri Party
Liberty Korea Party
Chosun Ilbo
As for myself, I'm Koraskadi. Ban me if you wish. I got blocked for 'reverting' by adding sources when I recognized the flaw. I was met by unexplained reverts and other random WP violations. When I realized it could not be solved by ddit warring I just added NPOV dispute tags and started to edit talk page. I got blocked for edit warring even before I got to post in the talk page. You cant even edit the talk page when you are blocked. Next time, I tried to draw ppl to talk page by reverting twice then next only added the NPOV dispute tags. I initiated the discussion, only to be promptly banned again even when I was proceeding with the dispute resolution process. I got angry and proved my point by exposing Jeff6045's disruptive behavior of making reverts with false accusations and prolific edit warring. I know it's disruptive behavior of only editing to make a point, so you may ban me if you wish, but I at least have proven that the admin someguy unilaterally disrupted the DR procedure by trigger happy blocking and not considering at all that there are always two sides to edit warring, and totally ignoring my effort to end edit warring by only adding npov tags and sincerely following the steps of DR by first initiating discussion at talk page, and then ask for neutral opinions on relevant noticeboards. And I's the only one blocked for edit warring, right? All's OK with Jeff6045.
If you forgive my recent disruption, I will take some time to cool it off, since I am still infuriated at the admin someguy for blocking me when I tried to stop edit warring and was proceeding with DR. If forgiven, I will proceed with DR again with sincerety as before.
IP, that is not a well-documented summary of the dispute — it has zero diffs. You are still not doing the legwork. And I still have not even agreed to look into this for you, even if you do make a cogent, cohesive, and comprehensive case. Again, I'm a volunteer and I apportion the free labour I give here as I see fit. And you still have not categorically withdrawn your threat of legal action. And who is Koraskadi? Is that a user name? Where are the links. Sorry, but your latest comment does not inspire confidence. El_C23:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am a volunteer too. All you have to do is looking at the article where you have interevend. I forgot to mention that I categorically withdraw that I will be informing the organizations of the libelous material here, but I just changed my mind. I just lost confidence in you too, as you clearly lose confidence in me as I pledge to follow the dispute resolution process. I won't be editing here any longer. Good luck with accusing major political parties and one the largest media outlets in Korea of being far-right political extremists akin to Neo-Nazis. Not to mention total fail at the admin and arbitrator level of blocking, disrupting and discouraging an editor of building consensus through DR when there is a dispute, and encouraging Jeff6045's disruptive behavior of reverting without proper cause, harassing other editors and edit warring.
Bradv, they do not. They are in lieu of the Committee "authorizing discretionary sanctions specifically for the coronavirus topic area." If that was procedurally in error, I accept that. But at its heart is community consensus to IAR-away toward this side of erring on the side of caution. El_C23:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking is that if the community is supportive of these articles being semi-protected indefinitely, then there's probably no need to invoke DS, especially when the one being applied is a bit of a stretch. – bradv🍁23:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. In hindsight, I should have thought better of it. Anyway, will desist. Thanks for the note. Regards, El_C23:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I get what you're trying to do. These articles need to be factually accurate and clear of misinformation, so I'm supportive of whatever the best way is to achieve that. – bradv🍁23:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2020 Coronavirus pandemic in South Korea
I am the user that made the original edit in question, but I did not engage in edit warring. Could you please highlight my copyright violation so that I can make constructive edits in the future? Thank you.Unibrow69420 (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your opening sentence is copied word-for-word from the source. Please don't do that again. Write your own original prose. El_C02:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doc James, all these awards from you are making me blush! I greatly appreciate your recognition — it is an honour, truly. El_C17:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. We'll see. She was on two lists of Women in red, as requested, and then when someone actually does something about it, sending to draft amd threatening with deletion is the result. Sigh. Today I worked on Henny Wolff, notable for sure ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thanked him (I guess ...boy is a he, and sometimes I could bet by behaviour that someone is a he, sorry,) per click, because it seems to mean no RfD, no additional waste of time, which I consider good news. Promise to self: next time, I'll check the sources before investing time in copy-editing, and will not pull the review button but ask the user who sent something to draft individually if I reached a state acceptable for Main space. The boy's talk is a mountain of hopes not ripened, - I prefer mine ;) - Next time is Draft:Birgit Dahlenburg. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adding refs help, to be sure, but I'm sorry to say, Gerda, I think Draft:Birgit Dahlenburg may be more problematic than the other entries mentioned on the Corner, this time per WP:PROF. For example, the lead mentions how she was instrumental in digitizing art, but there is no mention in the body about this presumably key accomplishment. Otherwise, it's a bit difficult for me to parse her notability because I am wholly unfamiliar with the organizations she was a member of, their repute, their scope and function, and so on. El_C14:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear: despite my language barrier, intuitively, it feels like she would probably fulfills the notability threshold, once some of these issues I mention above —especially the lead/body dissonance— are addressed. So I encourage you to do so. El_C14:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that she is more notable than Augustin, - she is the author of several publications mentioned as sources on the English Wikipedia, with links that now go to nowhere. I will think about her, but not until next week. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did Doc James and Velella get a ban also? They were the ones removing content, while I was contributing, so why am I accused of edit warring? Detailed Edit (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You violated the 3 revert rule — they did not. As well, WP:ONUS states that the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. Please reflect on that. El_C01:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
