Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Canada medical cases
Hi El C, for the edit request could you add the link for the article titled "2020 coronavirus pandemic in Quebec" because the QC link is missing and it was already created Go to "Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Canada medical cases" At QC please add both links at QC to include "2020 coronavirus pandemic in Quebec" as an edit request. Thanks. 2001:569:74D2:A800:C955:CE75:3DDA:DC2A (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At location someone has created the article titled "2020 coronavirus pandemic in New Brunswick" and it was missing under "Locations". Under Canada could you add "New Brunswick" to include the article titled "2020 coronavirus pandemic in New Brunswick" under Canada at "Locations" and put it in alphabetical order. This is another edit request. Thanks. 2001:569:74D2:A800:C955:CE75:3DDA:DC2A (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There has been some discussion about Minjung party's political spectrum and ideology. During the discussion there has been some dispute about whether the sources are against WP policy. Can you join the disscussion and advice me and other editors about this issue? I think your advice can help to make progress on this issue. Thank you for reading. Jeff6045 (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not intending to push POV, but the coronavirus crisis has been highly bounded to the politics. (At least, US and China politics)
Should we use saction to keep an eyes with the persons (Such as Li Wenliang, Chen Qiushi) as well as other social-political articles related to the coronavirus crisis? Mariogoods (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's the first time for me to submit any such proposal. And how could I do to submit it? By just adding the template to the talk page? (While the original purpose is to "prevent pseudoscience", but the saction should be also applied to "prevent political propaganda") Mariogoods (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove the info that I added about people thinking the Indian government has the cure for the coronavirus and thinking staying at home cures it? It is sourced, it's placed below the paragraph on the page. Also, why did you revert the grammar corrections unrelated to that? I'm trying to help out too. If you can read that page, you can see that I'm debunking rumors about the coronavirus, not making up new ones. As previously mentioned, what I added is already on the page so I ask you to please revert the edits (or at least the grammar corrections I made)? Thanks in advance. --51.37.99.16 (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please propose your changes on the article talk page — if other editors see merit in your changes, I will lift my objection. El_C16:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GS for COVID-19
Hello, El C,
I see you are the most active admin regarding this subject and I was wondering whether you thought it would be useful to post GS notices to the most active editors I see working on these articles (like we generally do with U.S. politics) or should we just notify editors that appear to be disrupting articles? I think most editors are unaware of the sanctions and I know I missed the discussion that set these up. I have all of the articles Watchlisted and the editing has been too rapid to check individual edits but I could inform editors who do the bulk of editing about the sanctions. Let me know what you think. LizRead!Talk!21:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Liz. While I've been limiting myself to issuing these alerts only to users who make disruptive edits, you do make a good point: extending that practice to active editors, in general, could prove quite useful. I say, let's do it. El_C22:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C! I don't know who to contact about this edit here but the information in the edit can be harmful to others ~ can you help and remove the edit like you do when some gets vulgar and offensive? Thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 10:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have encountered the same editor now and have tried to resolve in a civil manner another stupid dispute. I did my best to be WP:CIVIL but have just failed. Could you have a look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ජපස#WP:BRD and give me some advice on how to avoid this kind of problems? Is it me?
Thanks and sorry to bother you again with such trivialities. Especially during this moment in time.
P.s. the last and only time I asked an admin for advice I was banned by that user. I never had such issues. Is asking for help/advice not appropriate in such cases? Thanks --Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I really cannot comprehend what you and JBD mean. Could you explain? Is my understanding of the meaning of "in quotes" wrong? have you read the entire discussion? Thanks for the help --Gtoffoletto (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(watching:) the "according to the New York Times" bit is NOT part of the quote, so should not be within the quotation marks. This is what the others also said. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(also watching) and I'm as baffled as Gtoffoletto. I've gone through each diff, starting with when the text was first added. The edit closed the preceding quote (against the wind". and then added the new line and according to the New York times "shows an object zooming over the ocean waves as pilots question what they are watching." (with ref). I cannot find a diff where "according to the New York Times" is within quotation marks as claimed. What am I missing? Schazjmd(talk)22:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok but either I'm completely insane or that part is NOT within quotation marks. Read the entire conversation please. Am I losing my mind?
Quotes highlighted:
The New York Times said the footage showed "an object tilting like a spinning top moving against the wind". A pilot refers to a fleet of objects, but no imagery of a fleet was released. The second video was taken a few weeks later and according to the New York times "shows an object zooming over the ocean waves as pilots question what they are watching." See:[1]
Again, you modified the quote. A pilot refers to a fleet of objects, but no imagery of a fleet was released. The second video was taken a few weeks later — you removed the quote marks from that and rearranged the sentence. Please be more careful with modifying passages that are quoted. El_C23:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, now I get it. It's referring to ending the quote at the end of against the wind. However, the quote properly ended there previously, (the portion A pilot refers to "a fleet of objects", but no imagery of a fleet was released. was not a quote), and ජපස removed the ending quote marks after wind, which was incorrect. Gtoffoletto restored the missing quote marks in the same edit as adding shows an object.... Whew, nice to have that straightened out! I couldn't figure out where folks were seeing the problem. Thanks, El C. Schazjmd(talk)23:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And now I see I was incorrect; that should properly be quoted as its verbatim in the caption. I got it wrong, but I appreciate the help in seeing where I missed it! Schazjmd(talk)23:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what JBD is saying. The entire paragraph is mostly referencing the New York Times so similarities exist. I wrote the whole article and know the sources very well. JBD is contesting the sentence "The second video was taken a few weeks later and according to the New York times" which was written by me and is not in quotes. The quotes were only added because JBD was reverting any description of the video that was not verbatim from a source so I was very careful to add them. I've explained everything on JBD's discussion. I don't think anyone is reading it at this point. This user's behaviour will continue once again. I have bigger fish to fry I guess. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since I am now 100% sure of my sanity thanks to User:Schazjmd finally taking the time to read could you please comment on the civility displayed by the user? The underlying dispute should be irrelevant to that aspect. Advice? Thanks --Gtoffoletto (talk) 02:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
new people or unregistered people keeps adding unsourced content or error on Diamond Princess (ship)
Gtoffoletto, I'm sorry, but I am too busy to attend to complex interpersonal disputes at this time. My suggestion to you is to draft well-documented report, to be submitted at the admin noticeboard. Sorry again — these are unprecedented time, which greatly limits my attention. Best of luck in finding an amicable resolution to the dispute. El_C20:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C. Just a heads up, Khirurg has started an RfC about the disputed census. As the protection nears its expiry, could you please keep an eye on the article. Given that last time the edit-warring started about 15 minutes after unprotection, even with the RfC ongoing, I'm not very optimistic about the prospects of another edit-war not erupting soon after the upcoming unprotection. Thank you. Dr.K.20:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dr.K. Sorry, no-can-do. I am simply too busy to followup in the normal way. As such, I simply extended the protection by 30 days to run concurrent with today's RfC. And it may be extended further until the RfC is closed and the dispute resolved. Any other admin is welcome to step in (without needing to consult me in any way whatsoever), if they can find the time to attend to this. But if not, that is where it's at. Best wishes for your health and safety at these unparalleled times, El_C20:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C. Thank you for your kind wishes. I also wish you and yours the best health and safety. Sorry for the disturbance, and thank you for all you have done in general, and for this article in particular, and for extending the protection. Take care and stay safe. Dr.K.20:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I could not find the correct page to request this, so I am asking you directly, since you are the editor who put the semi-protect in place. Could I request that you shorten the semi-protect time at Candidates Tournament 2020? Many anonymous IPs (presumably chess enthusiasts who do not normally edit Wikipedia) have been editing the article. They have added many useful contributions (even creating a table), almost entirely in good faith. It is true that there has been a small edit war, but it has been on a minor point. A week of semi-protect locks out anon IP edits for most of the rest of the tournament. Even though some of these edits have been a frustration to me (you can see my edits in the history) [2], I think a week is excessive. Adpete (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: Please help me understand how WP:1RR applies specifically to 2020 Delhi riots. Obviously when an edit summary begins, as here with the words "Reverted edits by" or as here with the words "Undid revision," that constitutes 1RR. However, WP:3RR states: A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert. Does that apply as well to a page where the 1RR restriction is in place? In other words, even at 2020 Delhi riots, an editor could perform a series of consecutively saved reverting edits without exceeding 1RR, provided there were no intervening edits by another user.
On a related point, I wonder about edits where, in contrast to the above, the edit summary does not begin with the words "Reverted edits by" or "Undid revision" yet the edit is nonetheless in effect a reversion. Restoring a previous version not from the View History tab, but by clicking Edit Source and inserting or removing text directly, then saving, will not show up in the page history as a reversion but may accomplish exactly what a readily identifiable reversion would do. NedFausa (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they count as a single revert (theoretically, the changes could have been done with one, single edit). As for reverts that are not indicated as such in the edit summary, you just have to demonstrate that the pertinent edit is a revert using diffs — including the previous versions reverted to. El_C16:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked the IP and revdeleted the offensive edits.But because they keep switching to different IPs, I've also protected those articles for a while. El_C16:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I should do something once in a while to earn my hefty admin paycheck.:)
I daresay that your and other admins' oversight will continue to be needed at the article, although I hope that "no edits without clear consensus" will be easier to monitor than having to count the number and pace of reverts and judge their revert-iness. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abecedare, I agree, and thanks for handling this. "No changes to the lead without consensus" seems to me like an appropriate restriction for this article. – bradv🍁16:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I've been noticing that there are many people (mainly IPs) changing the case number even though the official source doesn't confirm the change. May you watch the page for potential vandalism and semi-protect the article if nessecary? Username689220:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Username6892, I'm already watching all of the state and province articles, but I am wary to protect any of them at this time. I considered protecting 2020 coronavirus pandemic in New York (state) a while back, but thought better of it. From what I see, these articles are well-watched. I know I've been going in a bit of one direction with the country and main topics of the virus articles in terms of protection (pro-active), while going in the other direction with respect to the local articles, but it just feels, intuitively, that this is what we should be doing at this time. That said, if it starts getting really bad, please let me know — if it has to be protected, it has to be protected, regardless of some formula. El_C20:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C. Not a big deal, since the deletion was correct, but WP:CSD#F1 only applies to local duplicates. The criterion to use for enwp files duplicating a Commons file is WP:CSD#F8. Regards, FASTILY01:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I shortened your 1-month block on 97.33.192.7 to 60 hours, since that IP is part of a cellphone network. Cellular IPs are almost always very rapidly reassigned (it's probably already reassigned now, to be honest), so the block will just end up hitting random users rather than the troll. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed you removed my report and it says make a standard report. The report is about someone repeatedly deleting my contributions on Young Sheldon without providing a reason. So I am asking a moderator to monitor the page Young Sheldon, since what the other user is removing does not improve the page. I thought it was on the right place. Where should I put the report then? Thanks, Bijdenhandje (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just follow the instructions at AN3 about how to make a standard report. There's an example form available, which you may make use of. El_C18:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear El C, I understand your decision. However, part of my edit about Urtica was based on a literature review, which is a secondary source, as far as I know. I also cited promising primary research, which seemed justified to me. Please note that the article about COVID-19 already mentions which drugs are being tested, although their usefulness in fighting off this virus hasn't been confirmed by secondary sources yet. This information encourages people to try using the drugs, too, which brings profits to the manufacturers. Unfortunately it's completely unprofitable to study common herbs and that is why less information is available about them. Because of unjustified bias against medicinal herbs, little attention is paid to their great potential. For centuries poor people have added the nutrient-rich stinging nettle to soups in early spring, and this has helped them to survive the difficult period. During the pandemic it's crucial to draw researchers' attention to promising medicinal herbs. Why don't we leave the information and simply add an explanation like "Primary research suggests that ... but confirmation is still needed"? I'm deeply convinced that stinging nettle could save much more lives than chemical drugs, thanks to its amazing nutritional and antiviral properties, indicated by the sources cited by me and probably also many other sources, too, but I do not have time to look for them (I have 6 children). Please consider searching for better sources yourself when new promising edits are not justified properly, instead of deleting the edits and imposing bans. Such an approach would be much more beneficial for the Wikipedia community and for all people suffering from COVID-19 (both directly and indirectly). Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sylwia Ufnalska, while I find that interesting, I don't think it addresses the real issue that got you banned (twice) — and that is: you failing to live up to our especially high reliability criteria by which medical articles are edited. Hopefully, you can continue contributing elsewhere. Regards, El_C23:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting - I always use stinging nettle extract for my hay fever, and I was shocked to see that Amazon and other vendors were all sold out, but now I know why. At least it won't hurt anyone, I should think. Mr.choppers | ✎ 01:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
requesting protection on this current news article
This is for your amazing work in patrolling the WP:GS/COVID mess and being the main admin protecting pages and ensuring that the project is maintaining factual integrity, especially when it comes to our coverage of this pandemic. Thank you for all that you're doing! OhKayeSierra (talk) 07:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OhKayeSierra, many thanks for your recognition and the exceptionally kind words — it truly means a lot. Anyway, yeah, happy to do it. It's worthwhile work, so I don't mind exerting myself. All the best, El_C07:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Banner
Hate to cause a fuss here, but I noticed that you recently commented on User:The Banner's talk page, urging him to stop WP:HOUNDING Piotrus. I have recently been a target of Banner's hounding as well (including his replies to IP 98... which is me as well). Examples of such hounding are essentially all his comments on the Talk:World War I casualties page. I am making edits in good faith in an attempt to improve the article, and those comments are infuriating because they are usually statements with no argument, essentially saying "You're wrong". In addition, in an attempt to cooperate with The Banner on a separate issue (the 1917 Potato riots) after another one of his comments on WW1 page, I asked him on his talk page about a potential improvement to the article. He refused to answer, calling my work "sloppy" [6] and subsequently erased the entire section of our discussion, citing "harassment." [7] I tried reverting the erasure, but was notified that doing so is against Wiki policy, so I ceased.
IP, the convention is that a user generally gets to decide what to remove from their own user talk page, so reverting their removal was inappropriate. As for the overall dispute, I'm afraid I have no time to look into interpersonal disputes at this time, and a glance at your talk page, shows that another admin is already aware of the dispute, anyway. Good luck in resolving the dispute amicably. El_C16:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Iraqi conflict (2003–present)
Hey El C, first, I hope you are coping well with the current Coronavirus pandemic and that you are safe. Now, the Iraqi conflict (2003–present) article has recently seen a spike in unsourced and possibly POV editing by an IP editor. Me and a few others have reverted his edits each time, but he just reverted us back. The article would possibly warrant protection. You can make your conclusion after reviewing it. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I am doing well, thank you for asking. Really busy, but good. Best wishes for your health and safety, as well. Regards, El_C16:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Offsetting love... Thanks, Mhhossein for your kind wishes. I ,also, wish you health and safety in these trying times. All the best, El_C20:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! Happy Passover. Hopefully, we shall be liberated from our shelter-in-place chains sooner rather than later. El_C13:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you see the revision story of Hankyoreh and Chosun ilbo? One user has accused my edit as original research. Do you think I had violated WP:NOR policy? If so, I really don't want to make same mistake. I wish you can give me advice of this issue. Thank you for reading. Jeff6045 (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, these are not topics with which I am familiar. I am also quite busy elsewhere. You should try to resolve the dispute through the usual means: article talk page discussion, or if that fails, dispute resolution requests. Good luck. El_C16:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You restored a lenghty discussion, which evolved in a irrelevant direction on a talk page, which is already more than overflowing with lots of excessive commments. So what is the alternative? Should the discussion continue indefinitely? Because I of course disagree with that person and have arguments for it...and then that person will disagree again and it wil continue endlessly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeUnknown010 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having protectedPlanck units due to edit warring behaviour, I wonder whether you'd care to suggest a way of managing user Ahri6279. There is a clear pattern of disruptive editing: excessive number of small edits which make edit histories problematic to navigate, essentially entirely OR and without any referencing or even checking existing references when making changes (introducing errors), deafness to appeals from other editors (see discussion at WT:WikiProject Physics § Problematic changes to physics articles by an editor), ignoring edit comments and making many edits without edit comments (see the history at Plank units for several hundred edits), and simply reverting explained reverts with edit comments such as "??"). This editor has created a number of redirects that mostly seem to be headed for deletion. They have incorrectly updated template data. They have also just moved on with a similar pattern of editing at Natural units now that Planck units has been protected, rather than editing in their sandbox as suggested. In short, this editor is introducing degradation into WP, does not seem to understand or buy into the intent of WP, and generally disregards input from others other than occasional mild comments. I am unsure of attributing intent, but the behaviour creates work for others and contributes little (I would venture to say nothing of value IMO), and the lack of responsiveness discourages interaction from others (or at least, from me) trying to keep things intact. —Quondum15:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I dropped them a note, which hopefully, they will address in a satisfactory manner. Please let me know if they continue to make problematic edits — I made it a condition that they must respond to my query before continuing to make any further mainspace edits. Regards, El_C18:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated – my world is a rosier place with your involvement. I notice the block to get attention. We'll wait and see ... —Quondum20:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, Quondum. Glad to hear it. Yes, here's hoping. Thank you for keeping an eye on this key topic area. El_C21:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, I hope things are going ok your way. If you have a minute, can you please take a look at ChrisRehm8814? They are well past 3RR on the Diamond and Silk article and have left some attack-ish edit summaries. I did try to communicate with them earlier to no avail. In fact, they gave me a final vandalism warning (did the same to Snooganssnoogans). I went about my business but I can see they are continuing their disruptive behavior with other editors. S0091 (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FYI I undid your close. Damn section headers and edit conflicts. Anyway, my reading of the consensus is to reblock and I want to give Mike a chance to respond. If he wants more people to comment, then I’d wait for a few more, but I think having it open for that makes sense. Sorry again for the conflict! TonyBallioni (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are preventing me using the talkpage to discuss the proceeding? You say it is beyond the scope? "This page is for discussion of the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard page" and [8]. Are you even an administrator? There is nothing to indicate you are... ~ R.T.G22:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am an administrator. Your note was inappropriate — that is not, in fact, what the ANI talk page is for, to continue or add to closed reports. It doesn't work that way. El_C22:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was complaining that the discussion was closed in the instant after a presented an argument against it. You consider that appropriate? You really need reactionary behavior to resolve a dispute? Your next move, as I see a new message, will be to blankly tell me to shut up or to have blocked me for doing as the notice suggests, and complaining to the admins imposing the sanction if I see it as an error. ~ R.T.G22:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, El C. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 00:31, 12 April 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 want to use Template:CHN for my sandbox, but without the China link that sends me to the article. Just a 23px flagicon, very basic one, but I don't know how to do it. - Ferctus (talk)
Never mind, I did it. I just have to put Flagicon and the country after it. Thanks.
IMO, User:GSS has adopted a complete unreasonable tone right from the outset and repeatedly thrown around accusations of "deleting information," clearly without properly checking the article itself, as can be evidenced by our discussion so far here where I refuted this. GSS also claims that "most of the information is unsourced" in an edit summary where this is demonstrably false, as can be observed in the diff. Every new addition is meticulously sourced down to the page number, and for goodness' sake the number of citations had gone from 96 to 160(!), while GSS repeatedly reverted baselessly and sticks to throwing out "unsourced," "deleting info," and "whitewashing" (perhaps the user doesn't recognize sfn templates as citations? This is the only way I can account for this...) This unbending discussion style may be described as stalling or attrition-based, if past experiences on that page are anything to go by, and I would frankly say that "white-washing" could apply to the lack of discussion of the government role in the events.
The article as it currently stands is poorly written, poorly sourced (largely sensationalist, distortionary op-eds from government-sympathetic media, long on aspersions and government lines, and short on details and facts; Indian media is a discussion unto itself...), makes little use of the good sources present, and IMO not worthy of Wikipedia, clearly pushing a POV by front-loading the article with slanted opinion to influence reader perceptions (this seems to have begun in July 2018 and has been strictly gate-kept by largely one or two users from the looks of it).The user is now not engaging further and frankly I'm not sure is this user is open to good-faith discussion, given the defensive tone of all their responses.
So here's my point: How would any real discussion proceed, and what is your perception of the edits in question in compared to the current article, even if just the lead, if I may ask? I understand that new edits bear the wp:burden and the article can't be locked on my version, but IMO my additions are more than adequately cited. The article is in desperate need of improvement to be anywhere close to being encyclopedic in tone and more than a badly-written wp:attack page.
BTW if edit size is a problem I can easily make separate section-by section edits.
First of all, I didn't reverted your edits "baselessly". What you are doing here is whitewashing by rewriting pages related to Bhaindrawala in a way that looks good to you. Most of your edits were not sourced, and most of the sources you added were primary (mostly written by people close to Bhindrawala) so, your changes must be discussed on the article talk page. GSS💬03:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, the primary source (Sandhu, a professor emeritus at an American university who never met JSB personally) was used only to cite quotes in speeches, not the bulk of information, and made up less than a tenth of total new citations. The source is also not solely translated speeches, the first ~100 pages are discussion, and the book is filled with useful footnotes). You can repeat "not sourced" all you like but ***64*** new citations, including many sources already present, many used repeatedly, refutes this.
The lead needs to be neutral, not making judgments on behalf of the reader. The slanted claims were moved to the article body and balanced, not deleted as you seem bent on portraying. The article almost exclusively quotes the opinions of Congress sympathizers,(Khushwant, KPS Gill, an Amarjit Kaur, Tavleen Singh, a distorted quote from Guha, etc. etc.) detached from the rural politics of the state, hostile to the subject, solely to disparage him, and none were removed, simply moved to its own section, as the entire article is permeated with unwarranted, unanswered criticisms, half-truths and quote distortions.
Rewriting JSB-related pages? I've only edited two such pages significantly, and almost all the information on those articles was unilaterally added and gate-kept without any consensus by a single editor on every related pages, who now finds himself hounded, doxxed, and forced to retire from Wikipedia by the same vicious nationalist online mobs and their media machinery who distorted his aims to demonize him (rather ironically given the topic) that he drew generously from for 'information.' Sensationalist Indian media is not on par as a reliable news source, especially on fraught topics like these.) Where was this concern for rewriting pages then?
The "politics" section leads off not with actual information, but with Khushwant and KPS criticism, with unsourced POV like "practised hate thorough"(sic) that you never seemed keen to fix, followed by "Congress creation" which is also pure POV refuted by Dhillon, Keppley Mahmood, Telford, Pettigrew, and others. This is followed by treating the Sant Nirankaris with kid gloves and calling them "peaceful" (not true, and not in the source), complete neglect of the Arya Samaj media's role in stoking unprovoked communalism with Sikhs (which they've been doing since the Singh Sabha days of the 1870s, all the way down to the 1980s through their media outlets), Congress and BJP MLAs making inflammatory statements against Sikhs and inciting mobs against protestors, police brutality and encounters, attributing any killings to JSB despite release due to lack of evidence, press distortions and government interference in state newspapers, zero discussion of the tensions with the center that gave rise to the Dharam Yudh Morcha, no discussion about the movement itself outside of "extremists!", no real discussion of the political/economic basis of the movement, writing as if Bhindranwale was an insurgent since the beginning of his Taksal days.... Who is really white-washing?
Along with the bad, non-native-speaker writing style, the article is a complete shambles, and kept that way because "it looks good to you." You really think this article is anywhere near presentable as it is. Do you want to make an article that delves earnestly into the topic, or an wp:attack page? Even the IRA, Unabomber, or Bin Laden pages don't go out of their way to demonize their topic the way this page does in every other statement, it's unbelievable.
Any further discussion (if such discussion is worth the time, and not meant for filibustering and attriting like with DBig) can take place on the subject's talk page, this message was meant for El C, if he's interested. Sapedder (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Abecedare, for once again picking up the slack. Much appreciated. Sapedder, Abecedare's advise seems sound to me, but if you run into further problems, feel free to drop me a note (just try to be relatively brief, please). Regards, El_C16:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, HickoryOughtShirt?4. We are, thank you, and same to you. Sorry, but I simply do not recall the details. Drawing a total blank. Best, El_C16:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Purely promotional, why isn't this just a redirect to Network18#TV18? Of course some of that is also promotional, probably because it's copyvio. I won't try to touch it on my iPad. I see you've edited it. Doug Wellertalk19:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, there are a lot of disruptive edits coming from 102.252.65.0/24. You've been reverting some in Durban, Johannesburg, etc., so I guess you know what I mean. Non-communicative editor, always mobile web edits, fooling around with section headers and lots of overlinking, etc. Mostly sports, South African high schools, and places articles. I've already left two "final warnings" today, but they're still at it. Maybe they could be blocked? It looks to me like it's only that one person in that range, for the last week. Before that they were on Special:Contributions/102.250.3.0/24, maybe others. If you're too busy I can take it to ANI. Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry: I reverted your change from "the Commonwealth" to "The Commonwealth" without adding an explanation. It is that I believe one writes "in (etc) the Commonwealth" but not "in (etc) The Commonwealth". That is the practice of the Commonwealth Secretariat (see its link). Errantius (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for following up, Errantius. Looking at the official summary of their website on google, it reads: Home to 2.4 billion citizens, The Commonwealth includes some of the world's largest, smallest, richest and poorest countries, spanning five regions. But when I actually look in the website itself, it does not, in fact, read that way. In any case, I'm happy to defer to your judgment in this matter. Regards, El_C22:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So now we know about admin back channeling. I was wondering about how you were gone for years and years, ad then appeared to bright and suddenly, always informed. You have other avenues of info. Delighted if you could prove me wrong and if your protection for protection was because of otherwise Ceoil (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems there was an off line request re use buttons on a content issue, and so dutifully you protected the page to back a fellow admin. There was no immediate risk, it all seems bizzare. My conclusion...you reacted too fast and showed how you actually work. Either that and you are incompetent, protecting pages at random. Ceoil (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, I take exception to that. First, I protected the page on your version. Second, your opponent in this edit war is not an admin. Third, I am supposed to protect on a random version, which is what I did. El_C02:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But but but...not the point!....any earlier edits were from march, Feb, jan, and all by established editors. What was you basis for protecting at all? Edit/action count? audit needed here Ceoil (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, you were both at 3 reverts each. I wanted to make sure either of you don't exceed 3RR so that sanctions would not need to be applied. But by all means, audit away. El_C02:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gaudi9223
The user Gaudi9223 has been abusing the minor edit check box. They've been using it for edits that are not minor edits. I left a message on their talk page telling them that. I just wanted to let you know so that you could perhaps keep an eye on them. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 06:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I see that they removed your message to them, which I take to indicate that they read it. Let's wait to see what they do next. El_C15:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DVdm, no I was unaware of that. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I'm not sure those pages should be deleted due to the account being globally locked, as the pages were created before the lock. Unless, of course, the account was locked due to prior socking (unclear from the lock), which does however seem likely (see this). But those pages may be deleted for other reasons, like using Wikipedia as a webhost for original research, etc. I'll think about it, in any case. El_C15:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Need help in administrators' noticeboard discussion
Hi El C, could you help me in this discussion: Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring? Actually, im the first who reported about that case, but it seems like my report has been archived. Since there is no administrators joined in that discussion, i hope you can give your opinion about that case. Thank you. Stvbastian (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Was digging through general sanctions procedures, and remembered that what I knew to be true for ARBCOM-authorized sanctions is also trye, to the best of my knowledge, for community-authorized DS blocks; they are limited to a year. I don't think any of the indefinite blocks we've placed are a problem, but they would convert to regular admin actions after a year, unless I'm much mistaken...Sandstein, you're likely the most experienced in this area; can you help clarify whether the 1-year limitation on DS blocks applies to community-authorized DS regimes too? Vanamonde (Talk)17:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein: Okay, thanks for the clarification; however, when discussions authorizing these things are closed, they've generally been closed "sanctions are authorized", as far as I can see, without explicit guidance on what sanctions are permitted and what are not (this) is the example relevant here. Does this mean we've got total discretion in that topic area, then? I may raise this at ARBCOM/N if you're uncertain; the purpose of these things is to reduce drama, and the last thing we want from that perspective is for disgruntled users to be yelling about admin abuse at ARBCOM because of questionable documentation. Vanamonde (Talk)17:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde93, it is also unclear to me what the sanctions that the community authorized in that case are. Arbcom is unlikely to be helpful here, because community sanctions are not their business. I've not engaged with any community-authorized sanctions so far and cannot therefore provide further advice either. Sandstein 17:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein: Thanks. I agree that community sanctions are not ARBCOM's bailiwick; however, if an administrator is charged with overstepping that discretion, then that will be ARBCOM's problem. Perhaps I will try AN first, though. Vanamonde (Talk)17:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given the recent clarification to GS procedures, might it be worth leaving a clarificatory note at GS/IRANPOL, as I have, about the one indef block you've imposed? Vanamonde (Talk)20:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have already blocked that user indefinitely, with talk access disabled, for simple disruption, so that supersedes that partial IRANPOL GS block that I logged there before hand. El_C20:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Extended protection for article about Richard Stallman
Hi! You added 500/30 protection to the article about Richard Stallman when there was a controversy in the news about him. I think that this protection is no longer necessarily and could be removed, or at least be reduced to semi-protection because he stepped down from his positions as FSF president and visiting scientist at MIT. Dwaro (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2020 Tablighi Jamaat coronavirus hotspot in Delhi DRV
Sorry to see you overturned this. The DRV discussion I thought was exceptionally poor with many !keep voters from the AfD commentating and other overturn voters not explicitly commenting on the deletion rationale. A difficult discussion to close so I also appreciate you closing it, but I just wanted to drop a note and say I don't think the right result was achieved here on a purely technical level (I have no interest in the topic.) SportingFlyerT·C02:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer, I welcome your dissent. I also appreciated your thoughtful participation in that discussion. But I disagree with your conclusion about the close being incorrect, be it "on a purely technical level," or otherwise. At any event, thank you for letting me know about your own evaluation with respect to the close decision. El_C02:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The page has become a quiet backwater. I've added the website link local health authority to the infobox, so people will at least know what the correct source is. KittenKlub (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I interpreted their removal of your warning, like the others, as equivalent to a middle finger. They ignored the others and I figured they planned to do the same. I'm sorry if you felt I undermined your approach.--v/r - TP17:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In case this question isn't rhetorical, Anne is the apocryphal name for Jesus's maternal grandmother (i.e. Mary's mother). Because she's mentioned in the Koran but not in the Bible, there's always been a weird kind of rivalry between Islam and the varieties of Christianity that practice Mariolatry, as the Christians feel she ought to be important but there's not much written about her in non-Islamic sources. We have a very poor quality article about her at Saint Anne, which I assume the crank is objecting to. ‑ Iridescent20:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for closing the ANI case RE:Carmaker1. One thing i think was missed was that Carmaker1 has repeated their moaning about a trivial mention of "American hicks" waaaaaay back in 2017. They brought it up on their talk page and at Arbcom and again at ANI. They seem to think there is a "long held grudge" over this "hick" alleged slur. Somebody, please, explain to Carmaker1:
hick is not a taboo word, not an ethnic slur, not a forbidden offensive word. Please refer Carmaker1 to any dictionary, which does not preceded the word with any annotations that it's a swear word, offensive, etc. It's merely defined as "an unsophisticated provincial person". So writing "h*ck" as if you were writing fuck and didn't want to say fuck so you wrote f*ck (like that somehow makes it better?) is, well, wrong. Hick is a normal word. Calling someone a hick is an extremely mild G-rated putdown. Nobody ever called Carmaker1 a hick. Or me. Or anyone. It's not a thing.
The entire "incident" Carmaker1 has spent the last three years (YEARS!) running around complaining over was an irrelevant bit of side banter between me and User:EEng in which they punned the word driving, "So "carmaker1" is "driving" other editors away?" and I replied in kind with a mild gibe about UK English preferring motoring to driving, "Motoring them away. Only hick Americans say 'driving'."
The entire thing was off topic. It was an aside. EEng couldn't resist making a pun. It wasn't a pun about Carmaker1 at all. I replied with a little quip that wasn't about Carmaker1. At. All.
Everything I'm saying is extremely obvious. I think that's why nobody has condescended to set Carmaker1 straight. I don't have any grudge over this "hick Americans" thing. It's less than nothing.
I have numerous motor vehicle articles on my watchlist. My watchlist regularly erupts with drama over Carmaker1's inability to refrain from attacking other editors when they mistakenly get the model year date of a car wrong by 1 year. That's the deal. I am one of many editors in the motor vehicle topic space who have brought complaints against them for incivility. There's no grudge. We only want them to stop making personal attacks, and there's mountains of evidence that they never, ever will. Carmaker1 has elaborated in detail all the reasons why they will never submit to Wikipedia's norms of conduct. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis Bratland, I realize there is animosity, but if you stay off of their user talk page, and not go out of your way to interact with them, I think we can just move on. When you do meet via watchlist or whatever, stay matter-of-fact, addressing only the material. Does that sound like a plan? El_C01:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with TomStar81. The community has failed spectacularly, time and time again, to address what should be an open-and-shut civility case. Arbcom needs to handle it, but now they want ANI to fail one last time before they do the obvious. I have no problem with staying off Carmaker1's talk page. Another non-issue.
I have no problem with staying off Carmaker1's talk page. That commitment was all that was needed, Dennis Bratland, to resolve this matter, at least in so far as our immediate purposes go. El_C02:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you again, but I'm finding a particular issue developing again regarding User: Dennis Bratland, following me around to other Wikipedia pages and interjecting in a manner that's designed to antagonize or counteract, barely in relation to content. I am not the most objective person in the world nor am I perfect, but yes I did bring up 2-4 discussions today and removed an irrelevant, toxic response to my commendation of other editors on this page [10]. A look at their diff history on 19 April 2020 expresses this [11], as well as the discussions in question [12][13][14].--Carmaker1 (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I have a large number of motor vehicle articles on my watchlist, and these perpetual Carmaker1 passion plays appear there. Having participated in discussions at ANI, Arbcom, and Wikiproject automobiles about their conduct. I have firsthand knowledge of their numerous broken promises to focus on content, not disparage other editors or attribute nefarious motives to them over content disputes. So now, as ever, I see Carmaker1 cutting a swath through various car articles, accusing other editors of baseless misdeeds and attempting to bully them with Carmaker1's claimed expert credentials.
In spite of several community decisions clearly expressing what behavior is forbidden, Carmaker1 displays a very poor understanding of the WP:OWN policy, finding several ways of incorrectly claiming that this or that editor is forbidden from editing this or that article, or commenting on this or that talk page. Carmaker1 does not accept the basic premise that Wikipedia is a collaborative project open to all, including WP:Randy in Boise.
Now they have taken to deleting my posts, violating WP:TPO. Everything I'm saying is consistent wit the most recent ANI complaint about Carmaker1, and the Arbcom complaint, and the last 2 or 3 previous ANI complaints, all by different editors, as well as the last ANI complaint I initiated back in 2017. It's the same behavior as ever, which they promised several times to quit.
Carmaker1 couldn't even go one day after the last Arbcom case to resume attacking others. If they could simply refrain from characterizing other editors and their motives, focusing only on content, none of this drama would be happening. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis Bratland, this is unacceptable. You not only break your promise not to edit Carmaker1's talk page, you edit war there, too — really? If you see something written there that you feel violates policy, you report it, to me or at ANI or wherever. But not there. If you didn't already recieve a strong warning for that, I would apply immediate sanctions. I also don't understand why it has to be you to respond to multiple comments by Carmaker1 yourself. If there are issues with these, again, report them. But direct interaction seems like more a provocation than a dialogue at this time. Needless to say, I'm disappointing. El_C17:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Carmaker1's incivility has been reported to ANI many times, and the few blocks that were imposed were undone, and each time Carmaker1 instantly reverted to their disruptive personal attacks, in spite of promises to abide by the civility rules. Carmaker1 was given a 3 month ban on mentioning other editors, and that lasted exactly 3 months. After that, same old abuse. The promised blocks for repeat violations didn't happen.
I'm repeating myself here, but I'm also repeating what TomStar81 said motivated them to close an ANI complaint and move it to ArbCom. For whatever reasons, the community has been inexplicably incapable of dealing with Carmaker1's pattern of abuse of other editors. My lack of faith in the system in this case isn't something I dreamed up one day. It's something others have noticed too. It shouldn't come as too much of a surprise that I wasn't confident merely reporting it would get me anywhere.
I'm not the only one who thinks it's implied when banning others from one's talk page that you cannot proceed to use your talk page to post diatribes against them. It's a basic principle of fairness to be able to answer accusations in the same venue in which the accusations were made. Nobody should expect a user talk page ban to be enforced if they proceed to talk about the person they ostensibly wanted no contact with. That is in fact where one should turn to ANI or other forums for help. The one place they should not post accusations is the place where the accused is banned from replying.
Since not everyone seems to recognized this principle, I think a proposal is needed to spell this out explicitly at WP:TALK. Maybe I'll take that up lather when all this has cooled down.
In this case, when I hit upon the idea of moving the thread to the obvious place it belonged, your talk page, and posted my reply there, I was satisfied.
I would suggest that in the future if you warn someone off a user's talk page, you could save everyone some drama if you warned the talk page owner to limit their mentions of the banned editor, since I'm hardly the only one who would react this way. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis Bratland, I have cautioned Carmaker1 not to mention you on their talk page, precisely because you are unable to respond there. However, there was absolutely no caveat allowing you to break your promise to refrain from editing their talk page, which why you were admonished, and came precariously close to facing sanctions. El_C16:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that is what transpired. I'm not criticizing anything you've done; it makes sense from your point of view. At the time I thought my justification for acting was obvious but now I'm aware that not everyone sees it that way. That's why we should probably propose some language to spell out in the talk ban rules what the boundaries are so this kind of thing won't happen again. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis Bratland, fair enough. But from your comments at ANI, I get the impression that you still don't seem to have taken on board that two wrongs don't make a right. Which is, basically, what I said in response there. Anyway, at this point maybe a jointly agreed-upon IBAN (including refraining from mentioning of one another) for a few months will be useful. El_C18:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I say anything was "right"? Or "wrong"? I explained the reasoning for my actions. All I've really been saying is that even if I was wrong, my reasoning had at least some basis, and I am not alone. There are other respected editors who would have seen it the same way, according to their posts on the subject. I didn't say I was right; only that my actions were not totally unjustified or totally outside accepted norms.
I don't know why you're suggesting an iban now. What exactly is that a solution to? My original issue with Carmaker1 -- misleading and provocative edit summaries and talk page comments, which I felt needed to be debunked, led to them making multiple unsuccessful ANI complaints against me for what they think Wikihounding is. The problem I perceived of Carmaker1 abusing their talk page ban has been resolved now that, after the whole drama there, Carmaker1 has received an admin warning not to criticize me on their talk page. Problem solved.
The larger issue of Carmaker1's attacks, ongoing for years, on every single person who has ever edited the same automotive content they are editing (correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure they have insulted and bullied 100% of the editors who have touched the same car articles in proximity to their edits) has now received significantly more attention. While the last 3 or 4 ANI complaints against them went nowhere, I don't believe they will continue to get away with their incivility. The whole conflict of interest thing is a whole other ball of wax, which stands a good chance of forcing Carmaker1 finally cease berating anybody who dares to edit an automobile related article (again, I'm open to examples of times when they have not done so).
So I'd ask you to take it from the top, and begin at the beginning: what is your objective? What current unresolved problem are you now fixing? Is there even an open case in front of you now requiring action? I thought the last ANI complaint was wrapped up. I think you handled all of it just fine, even if you and I have slightly different judgements an a few finer points. Could be my opinions on those points is wrong. I've been wrong before. I'll be wrong again about something else in the future, no doubt. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just trying to be proactive about preventing future direct conflict between you two, considering all that transpired recently. That is my objective. I'm perfectly fine with wrapping this up. But if there is further trouble, it will probably involve sanctions rather than warnings and admonishments, to whichever one of you is found to be at greater fault, or possibly both of you, regardless. So, the expectation to both of you would be to tread lightly. El_C23:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, it's been awhile, hope all is in order and you're well in this trying time. I'm here to ask for your stewardship on Talk:Religion in Albania. You may recall the long edit war and talk page fight that ensued after the version stable from October to February OctoberFebruary was changed. I cannot blame you if you disengaged from that matter, I wish I could as it has been quite unpleasant. Since your absence, an RfC was opened about whether the census figure should be allowed in the lede. Although it has not concluded, a second RfC has been open about which picture should be in the lede, without any option for a census pic (and apparently implying there can only be one, rather than a panel as has been discussed). This would appear to confuse the matter of the already ongoing RfC. Can something be done about it? Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one thing that could be done about it is to close the first RfC as "No consensus" (let's face it, that's not going to change). and focus on trying to find a solution through the second RfC. Khirurg (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, the user with the most reverts is issuing an ultimatum and appears to be waiting for the page protection to expire so that he or someone else who agrees with him restores the "stable version" [15]. Khirurg (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, we only need one warning for a specific subject. Refer to the discussion above your post and do say which part of your section wasn't already covered. Augend (drop a line) 21:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Escalated speaks to the urgency of the matter. I don't care that it was already discussed before. As the closer of the ANI report you authored, I am emphasizing to you the precarious position you are in. El_C22:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear...
... are you saying that in future if someone adds a reliable source about a BLP matter and keeps the unreliable source, and then someone decides to remove the reliable source and keep the unreliable source, you will be fine with this? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in speculating on a hypothetical. Again, in this instance, the date of birth is not in dispute, so migrating any citations you see fit would have been enough. El_C00:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not a hypothetical, I got taken to WP:AN/I because I removed unreliable sources not realising that someone had literally gone into the Kylie Minogue article, removed the reliable sources and only kept a reference to a gossip mag! Which, under WP:BLPREMOVE I duly got rid of, without knowing that this had happened.
Sorry, no, I am unable to follow your train of thought. Somehow, you get taken to ANI (no diff), then this latest incident is... extrapolated? I'm not sure. El_C15:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
please do not revert because 170 visa excemption is correct
Only the source determines the number. Get a new source, or leave the original number stipulated in the current source. El_C16:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So my question is if you can remember the photo and if you were the photographer. If yes I think we should get it undeleted because it is historical signs. So I hope you made it all the way down here. --MGA73 (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I made it all the way down! But unfortunately, I no longer recall who the photographer was or much about that image, save the reminder that the photograph of the sign was taken at District Six Museum. Sorry I couldn't have been of more help. Regards, El_C16:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm against adding any enhancement at this time, Awilley, be it BRD or CR. That I prefer to apply one over the other, is not really material to this in any way (I have applied both on multiple occasions, usually depending on the request, in any case). As I wrote on Talk:Joe_Biden_2020_presidential_campaign#1RR_now_in_effect, 1RR is now in effect (enforceable). If you find it is still not enough, there are enhancements that can be applied further toward the article's stability — but let's hope we don't need em. So, I object to the general notion of adding these enhancements preemptively or as part of a series. I don't believe doing so represents the prevailing consensus. El_C19:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El_C, you're more experienced with arbitration enforcement than I am, and I wanted to get your opinion on what to do about this situation. I was hopeful that my previous warning would have kept them from escalating, but they seem to still be goading each other on. I feel like a two-way IBAN would help improve the editing environment, but I'd appreciate a second opinion. The last thing I want to do is to let this drag on, so if you have ideas on what would work best here I would appreciate the input! — Wug·a·po·des00:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Wugapodes. I'm not entirely sure how to best address this conflict between these two editors. Kolya Butternut writing about your sanctions to to SPECIFICO, is a bit odd, because SPECIFICO is not under sanctions. It's a bit more nuanced. They have received a logged warning recently (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive264#SPECIFICO) to focus on content. If you find that SPECIFICO failed in that, then maybe sanctions are due. I don't really have an opinion about an IBAN (I am unfamiliar with the history between the two editors, in any case). If you feel that that is the best course of action, then I encourage you to apply it. From what I'm seeing at a glance, both editors are skirting the line, anyway, so perhaps that solution, while not the most elegant (the content dispute does go on, after all), may indeed hit the spot. Hope this helps! El_C00:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, I just made this edit [20] at our page about misinformation on COVID19, and wanted to run it past you. I'm not wholly sure if we treat anti-Israeli bias or sentiment as more or less the same as anti-semitic bias or sentiment, or not. All examples given in the section check out in the references, but some appear to be about the longstanding Iran-Israel rivalry, whereas others specifically pertain to antisemitism. -Darouet (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Darouet. I would actually rather reserve my own view on this matter so as to continue to remain an uninvolved admin in this and related areas. Certainly, if there are no objections to the change, that would imply consensus by virtue of WP:SILENCE. All the best, El_C17:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that makes sense. I was thinking more that we probably already have a policy on this that I'm unaware of. Thanks for reply. -Darouet (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain to me how it would violate said topic ban? I actually thought it would not, as I thought there is an exception in content-topic bans for dispute resolution and administrative processes. I have trouble drawing the line between the intention of this topic ban and why it would prevent the user from adding evidence against to a SPI. I don't think the intention of this topic ban was to prevent the editor from helping identify and catch socks of an indef banned user? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here04:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is covered in Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Exceptions_to_limited_bans: I'm not seeing anything listed there that goes outside queries which pertain to the user's own ban itself. If there are shortage of unbanned users able to provide evidence, there is also always the option of asking for a targeted exemption from the Arbitration Committee, which may itself request evidence even from a banned user, if they so choose. At any rate, I consider it being outside my remit to permit. El_C05:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey El_C, I’m trying hard to keep perspective but I have PTSD and it’s doing my head in. People are treating me like a joke and I genuinely am spiralling out of control. I’m not quite sure what to do. My head is a mess. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Chris. As mentioned, disengaging from what causes you distress may the best thing you can possibly do. I hope you feel better. If there's anything I could do to help, please do not hesitate. El_C17:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure anyone can do anything for me right now except show me kindness. I know this will pass, it’s just very difficult. I’m having a cry at the moment. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey no problem. Twitter is full of rumours of his death, but the mainstream media is largely silent. Which makes one wonder how we'll actually know for sure either way... – bradv🍁03:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dr.K., I have restored the tag. I agree that it was inappropriate to remove it. I'll try to look into the dispute, but I cannot guarantee I cna find the time to do so in an in depth manner. All the best, El_C13:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am disappointed by the claims made here by Dr K. I have engaged the editor on the talkpage as one would any other and responses have of this sort, i.e: [23]If you are dense and don't understand what people are telling you it's not your fault, but don't presume to provide garbage advice to competent editors. How are other editors expected to engage with this kind of rapport?Resnjari (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resnjari makes a compelling point, Dr.K. You need to tone it down. Conduct yourself with greater moderation, please. El_C13:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El C, the "dense" comment came out at the end after a long series of comments where Resnjari either methodically misrepresented my arguments, or did not understand what I told him. At one point he told me that I may not like libraries or books. I am confident if you look at the discussion you will discern the obtuseness and/or trolling by that account. I always try to be very civil but there are limits when I meet with IDHT intransigence. Dr.K.13:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dr.K, "trolling" is a poor choice of word and can be construed as personal attack. If you do find you are encountering tendentious editing, ANI would be the forum in which to compile evidence to that effect. El_C13:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El C, I will not argue this point further, neither will I dispute the wisdom of your finding. Thank you again. Dr.K.13:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I want to be on the record that i did not misrepresent comments. I kindly made a suggestion for book to be read which was relevant to the topic and RS. I also said its up to you if you do want read it [24]. Your response was this: [25], and was made more apparent here [26]As far as the Greek stance during the Yugo wars, it is a subject that leaves me cold. I couldn't care less about it. But I do care about COATRACKS and their use in advancing POV and propaganda. How can an editor work with this? The claim is disinterest, but actions show deep interest. Now about books, i outlined to the editor that at the moment there is difficulty in getting academic books from university libraries [27], [28]due to the covid lockdown in Melbourne. As there was some misunderstanding on the editor's part about my intention over academic resources, i answered a question asked of me about my current situation. I replied i was doing things at home during the lockdown [29]. Then the reply given to me, in lieu of something i said to another editor [30]about the talkpage situation turning into a jungle was [31]Trolling or not, I found the part about the renovations quite hilarious. This guy's got talent. On the other hand, if I hear again about the closed library and the books, I'll buy him a one-way ticket to the jungle where he can enjoy the books without bothering anyone.. And then much later, there was this [32]OK, we got it. You are the official jungle greeter. I suggest you try becoming a Walmart greeter instead. You'll have a much brighter future. Followed on by that last comment made to me that I highlighted in my previous post here. I mean, this kind of commentary in the talkpage does not address the topic. I hope there is nothing personal toward me. In all my comments i tried to make it about the topic, except about home renovations, i tried to break the ice after i was asked what i was doing. Hence my skepticism and reverts, when the deluge of tags were placed in the article, following all these exchanges. I expect this from a newbie or individuals who are not here to contribute to an encyclopedia, not someone like Dr.K. If positions were reversed and I said these things to the editor, would a warning or immediate sanction by an admin be in order for me lickity split, without a moment to explain. I do wonder. I'm just saying it’s very disappointing, that whatever this is, was resorted too as a form of rapport.Resnjari (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resnjari, I told Dr.K. (above) that he must start doing better by refraining from innuendo and attacks. I am hopeful that he will live up to that expectation. El_C15:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ok. I hope your advice is taken on board, so things pan out differently, that despite talkpage discussions or disagreements there (done respectfully of course), it’s only about the topic.Resnjari (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there is no advice for WP:STONEWALLING, obfuscation, IDHT, distortions, misrepresentations, and other similar tactics, and even if there was/were I am pretty certain it would not be taken onboard by certain editors. Dr.K.20:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also saying to someone: Maleschreiber, your now starting to figure out how real wikipedia on Balkan topics works with a few certain editors. Welcome to the jungle newbie. is a base personal attack by innuendo against editors you disagree with, including me. I took your jungle reference and tried to make light of it to diffuse the tension you created. Yet, you come here and act offended by my replies to your original jungle comment. Please clean up your act. Dr.K.20:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another example of your constant digs while defiantly defending your jungle insult: :Passing the time, makes one do many things. I have been to an actual jungle in the past. Its an interesting place, hence my use as a metaphor for here. Quite apt. If books and libraries offend you, your loss. Making Wikipedia a better place requires those tools, not intransigence or being unconstructive.Resnjari (talk) 06:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC) Here, casting absurd WP:ASPERSIONS that books and libraries offend me and that I am being intransigent and unconstructive for not acquiescing to your POV, in total defiance to what I actually wrote on talk. How long do you think one has to suffer these obtuse comments before calling you out on it? Dr.K.22:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My responses to you were due to the comments you gave. For example on academic literature, it was repeatedly dismissed on your part, outright at times. I outlined in my previous comment the whole context and sequence that led to the comment by me you highlight there. The talkpage is about the article and elements related to it like its sources and content. Not these other things. And to a new editor i did compare the situation to a jungle, as a metaphor. I have been to one and thought it was apt into what the talkpage was descending into. Your are a seasoned editor, you know better, or one hopes you do. As for WP:PERSONALATTACKS, really. Do i really have to get into that as to what you wrote toward me. Move on and and just focus on the subject matter of the article for discussions.Resnjari (talk) 06:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You started the WP:NPAs when you compared the editing environment created by myself and Khirurg to the jungle. As usual, you admit no responsibility for your actions and you are defending this base personal attack and the equally clueless attack that books and libraries offend me. You also added ouright falsehoods in your response. You say: For example on academic literature, it was repeatedly dismissed on your part, outright at times. I expect you to provide diffs where you show that I repeatedly dismissed academic literature, and the times (provide diffs) that I did it "outright". If you don't provide diffs, you should retract your outright falsehoods. Dr.K.15:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was busy these past few days, but i am back. It’s disappointing your comments, refereeing to my responsibility etc, etc, yet not retracting anything said by you. As i said i expect this from newbies and individuals who are not here to edit Wikipedia, not yourself. I showed the diffs above. I stand by what is shown. That's about it.Resnjari (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El C, since you became involved in the dispute, can you discuss on the article's talk page? I do not see you or anyone else explaining clearly why the article has POV issues, and what are the other views backed by RS that the article does not cover? Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am an uninvolved admin in this matter. My evaluation is that Dr.K. and Sadkσ have established their position with regards to the neutrality concerns they identify. Certainly, feel free to query them for further detail, so you can methodically address any outstanding issues. El_C13:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) My respect goes out to you, El C. You are an editor's admin and a content admin and this project sorely needs more of your kind. Thank you, and please do look into this if and when you are able to. Take care. Dr.K.13:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Dr.K. That's high praise coming from someone who is such an accomplished editor as yourself. I greatly appreciate your kind words. El_C13:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are very welcome, El C. I reciprocate your kind words and thank you, in turn, for being a great editor and admin. Dr.K.13:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El C. An uninvolved admin knows that the POV tag is added with a clear explanation on the talk page about what the issues are and how they can be solved. The relevant guideline says that The talk page should explain, to those unfamiliar with any of the sides in the argument, what the sides are and try to point to some neutral language that all sides might agree on.. Now, since you added the tag, can you tell me where on the talk page have the issues been listed, and where how they can be solved is explained? Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ktrimi991, I'm not going to address the content facet here. But it is my evaluation that the grounds for the tag have been substantiated at length in said discussion. Again, I recommend methodically going through the components in dispute to reach resolution. El_C13:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sadko and I have explained the reasons of the POV tag on the talkpage. I also placed strategic tags on article sentences requesting attribution and indicating POV weasel words and SYNTH points; tags that you removed in a coordinated tagteaming fashion with Resnjari. Tags which indicate, one by one, the problematic WEASEL, SYNTH, OR, and POV points in the article. Are you seriously claiming that I did not minutely pinpoint to you and everyone the POV of that article? Dr.K.13:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El C. No, it does not work that way. You can not point out to any list of issues based on RS and how that can be solved on the talk page, as there no such thing on the talk page. Hence the removal of the tag. Sorry but you merely did what another editor asked you to do. It is sad, really sad. But I assume that other editors will remove the tag you added if nobody uses RS to show the article has POV issues within a reasonable period of time. It is just sad you added a tag without looking at the dicsussion on the talk page. If we all start tagging artlcies that way without clearly giving a rationale based on RS and a way to solve them, Wiki would become a disaster. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ktrimi991, I did look at the discussion. My action reflects that. The tag may not be removed until the outstanding related issues are resolved. If you reach an impasse on the article talk page, you can make use of any dispute resolution request you see fit to gain further outside input into the dispute, with the goal of reaching consensus. El_C14:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My conclusion from your response is that you rushed to add a tag not in line with the guidelines without making sure enough that what the guideline says is respected. Anyways, many editors see that page and can act accordigly on the talk page or on the article itself. Out of curiosity, what will you do if other editors remove the tag? Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That conclusion is false. I gave the matter due attention. If someone removes the tag, they will face sanctions. El_C14:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out to which policy says that an admin should decide whether there are POV issues with an article, and if a POV tag is removed with the rationale that there is no POV issue justified with RS on the talk page, that admin can impose sanctions? Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are not responding to my question. All I am asking for is clarification. What policy gives the right to an admin to place a POV tag on the article and impose sanctions on those who remove it because there is not RS to back it? As far as I can see from discretionary sanctions, it does not give that right. I would like you point out to where that rule is written. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ktrimi991, surely you know that not all policy is written. Exercising common sense in interpreting policy is not only allowed, it is encouraged. El_C14:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El C, I know that you want to help solve the problem, and I have thanked several times in the past for your good contributions to Balkan articles. But now you are not giving me a response to my question. Sorry but IMO you are practically saying that your position is not based on a policy but on what you consider common sense. Is common sense imposing sanctions on those who do you share your opinion? The page of the template says that This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public. There is no reliable source provided that gives another point of view on what the article currently says. If anyone find such RS, they are free to add content based on it to the article. Also, why so many tags while there is a WP:Tagbombing? Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are distorting what I'm saying. I am referring to using common sense to interpret policy, written and unwritten alike. As for there being multiple tags, surely that's because there are multiple issues which editors find to be pressing. El_C15:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are not following a policy verbatim but are interpreting one, tell me which one is that policy. Why do not you respect what the page of the template itself says? Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to engage in semantic plays, Ktrimi991. My enforcement of policy is correct, I challenge. You can, of course, disagree and are free to appeal my decision in any forum you see fit. El_C15:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, based on what happens on the article in the few coming days, you will be invited to further discuss your common sense at AN. I can not find the policy that supports your actions, but others might find it. Or not. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's really sad that specific editors can't understand the meaning of the pov tag. Blindly removing it in zero time using aggressive edit summaries as an excuse isn't a productive sign of the said editors.Alexikoua (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for involving yourself in the dispute. Some admin oversight was long due in that discussion. I have repeatedly asked Dr.K. and another user a)to explain why they feel the POV tag is necessary b)to present an alternative. All they've done is to insist that it is "obviously POV". The closest thing to an exlanation about the tag had to do with Takis Michas, a well-known Greek journalist in the Balkans - probably the only Greek journalist that Bosniaks know by his name - who in the 1990s exposed a large network of Greek Nazis, businesspeople, church dignitaries and state officials who were involved in the Bosnian War and the Srebrenica massacre through the Greek Volunteer Guard and unofficial support to the Mladic, Karadzic and other figures. Michas's work has been acknowledged both in Greece, in Bosnia and throughout Europe for standing up and doing very hard research in very difficult times. He was one of the very few OSCE observers who were welcome in Bosnia in the country's first elections in 1997. He also got death threats from convicted Bosnian Serb war criminals. Now, the only explanation against him is that "he's not NPOV and he's a poor source" to which I reply a)if "not NPOV" here means that he actively exposed a Nazi network and war criminals, then their interpretation of what "NPOV" means is radically different to mine b)someone whose research has defined an era and is now considered "canonical" cannot be a "poor source".
I don't think that their political interpretations of why Michas is "not NPOV" will change with a discussion on the talkpage and I think that the community should get involved. Should I start a discussion on WP:RSN or somewhere else?
Also, as I've read again and again the policy about WP:NPOV I don't understand how someone like Dr.K. can insist on that tag without ever making a single point about it. If an admin were to assess the discussion and try to find Dr.K. arguments, all he would find is the comment "it's obviously POV". I'm not the sort of person who likes to rely on bureaucratic handling of discussions - it was actually one of my many reservations before getting involved in wikipedia - but there have to be some sort of common "rules" we all follow. Formal argumentation in favor of a position is one of those. If Dr.K. can't even name which source or which phrase/sentence/paragraph is POV and how it should be changed, then what is the content of this dispute? That makes the tag placement a WP:IDONTLIKEIT case and not a legitimate concern that can be resolved.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dr.K., Dr.K., Dr.K.... How many times are you going to invoke my username for no good reason? What purpose does it serve to pretend that I didn't tell you which segments of the article are POV? My reply to your WP:IDHT comments is just above. First read the link I provided, then go, fix the problems as indicated by the strategically-placed tags and don't complain that I placed them for no reason and try to defend their removal by edit-warring. Dr.K.19:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good day to you, Dr.K. I haven't made any edit to that article for the past two days, so I don't know what you're referring to. You're acting in the same way I described in my previous assessment of the situation. You're throwing tags around but there is no argument here. You're saying that the article is POV but you refuse to "name which source or which phrase/sentence/paragraph is POV and how it should be changed". Resnjari has asked you "who is disputing" the parts you've tagged for attribution. You haven't listed any answer about that, too. I've asked maybe four or five times about which sources are POV and why, but still there's no answer. Can you do that on the talkpage?--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I am familiar with Church-related articles, I used to refrain from editing this one due to the large number of POV issues I have found in it, which require time and input to resolve. However I can't help but express my disappointment with the attitude certain editors have here against Dr.K., a highly respected member of our community who is well known for his neutrality and objective approach to the issues (and who does this job for much longer than many of us did). I agree with Admin El_C that the POV Tags must remain until the related POV issues are resolved. IMO, the article is in need for serious WP:NEUTRALITY improvements and only once the content is in line with Wikipedia's NPOV rules, the POV tags may be removed. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)20:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems likely, indeed. But they also seem to have stopped after the final warning. Please let me know if they (or any other account with similar edits) continue editing disruptively. Thanks. El_C17:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is David Icke political, broadly construed?
El C, please forgive me for approaching you, but since you edited the David Icke page earlier today, you no doubt understand the context better than any other administrator I could ask for guidance.
New tweets from England question the recent editing of this BLP by Philip Cross, who is indefinitely topic banned from post-1978 British politics, broadly construed. The person on Twitter alleges that Cross breached ARBCOM's topic ban by editing the 5G and Covid-19 subsection of Icke's page. Their accusation is that this relates to post-1978 British politics, broadly construed, because:
among the categories listed at the bottom of Icke's BLP are English political writers and Green Party politicians (UK)
the 5G and Covid-19 controversy in which Icke is embroiled (and which Cross has repeatedly edited) involves such inherently political matters as public health policy and government censorship.
I apologize for bothering you with something that stems from Twitter, but I have been concerned for some time about the bashing that Wikipedia takes on social media, usually unfairly. It would ease my mind to better understand this particular criticism. I will not engage in any off-wiki communication with these people, but perhaps your clarification might find its way to them without my help. They seem to watch anything related to Mr. Cross quite closely. NedFausa (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a violation of the ban, because the subject is much more related now to WP:FRINGE than they do UK politics, specifically (peripheral connection only with the latter). El_C17:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've got mail!
Hello, El C. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 01:22, 27 April 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.
There has been a concerted attack on Lebanese politicians - I see you have already protected Michel Aoun, but there are 6 more waiting at WP:RPP and probably others I haven't spotted. Could I ask if you are willing to "jump the queue" and deal with these, as the attacks are getting very tiresome - thanks - Arjayay (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]
When you recently fully protected the article Kim Jong-un you didn't appear to remove the already existing pending changes protection. Could you fix that if possible? According to the article history there's still pending changes. Chess(talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 00:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C. You recently blocked this user for a week for persistent disruptive editing and personal attacks.[34] As soon as his block ended, today, he resumed his disruptive editorial pattern:
Removed "Iranian" which was accompanied by 5WP:RS sources, and swapped it with "Armenian".[35]
Reinstated the same edit after being reverted.[36]
Removed the sourced Kurdish transliteration from a Kurdish-majority province in Turkey, only keeping the Armenian transliteration.[37] He has tried to do belittle the province's Kurdish ethnos numerous times in the recent past.[38]-[39]
Answer:LouisAragon, HistoryofIran are actively trying to remove any Armenian reference from Ancient History related Wikipedia pages, those 5 "reliable sources" you are talking about:
Garsoian, Nina (2005). "Tigran II". Encyclopaedia Iranica. → Article about Tigranes the Great, no mention of Ptolemaeus of Commagene
Babaie, Sussan; Grigor, Talinn (2015). Persian Kingship and Architecture: Strategies of Power in Iran from the Achaemenids to the Pahlavis → Book written by Iranian Art historian
Marciak, Michał (2017). Sophene, Gordyene, and Adiabene: Three Regna Minora of Northern Mesopotamia Between East and West → Read page 157 again, there's no mention of Ptolemaeus, but mention of Orontid dyansty, no "Iranian" reference whatsoever
These are not 5 WP:RS sources, HistoryofIran posts random sources all the time, without actually reading them carefully.
" Ptolemaeus' father was King Orontes IV of Armenia, son of Arsames I."
Arsames I (Armenian: Արշամ) seems to have taken control of Commagene, Sophene and Armenia in the year 260 BC after the death of his grandfather Orontes III, king of Armenia, and his father Sames, king of Commagene.
Samos[1][2] or Sames (Armenian: Շամուշ, Greek: Σάμος) was satrap of Commagene, Armenian king of Commagene and Sophene.[1][3]
References
Wayne G. Sayles, "Ancient Coin Collecting VI: Non-Classical Cultures", Krause Publications, 1999, ISBN 0-87341-753-4, p. 29
Michael Blömer / Religious Life of Commagene in the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Period pp.95-129/The Letter of Mara bar Sarapion in Context. Proceedings of the Symposium Held at Utrecht University, 10–12 December 2009 /BRILL 2012
In doing so, Samosata, the Commagenian capital and hometown of Mara bar Sarapion, would suit best as the prime object of investigation. The place was one of the most important sites along the Upper Euphrates. It offered an easy crossing of the river and was occupied since Chalcolithic times. It is named Kummuḫ in Iron Age sources and was the centre of an eponymous independent Syro-Hittite kingdom from the 12th to the 8th century BCE. The Assyrian king Sargon II conquered Kummuḫ in 708 BCE, but it remained an important provincial town during late Iron Age. In Hellenistic times it was capital of the kingdom of Commagene. The city was renamed Samosata by a predecessor of the Commagenian royal family, the Armenian king Samos I, in the 3rd century BCE. After the Roman occupation in CE 72, Samosata prospered as a major commercial, cultural and military centre of the Roman province of Syria.
M. J. Versluys/ Visual Style and Constructing Identity in the Hellenistic World: Nemrud Dag and Commagene under Antiochos I/Cambridge University Press, 2017 г.—pp.48 (312) ISBN 1107141974, 9781107141971
We know nothing about the status of Commagene under Seleucid rule. The Armenian king Samos I is believed to have founded Samosata, later the capital of Commagene, in the middle of the third century BC. The second century BC saw the rise of the two powers that would play an important role in Commagene's future during the next centuries: Rome and Parthia. Their growing prominence, combined with the failing of the central Seleucid power, resulted in the rise of several small monarchies, of which Commagene was one. Other independent kingdoms that came into being around this time include Pergamon, Pontos, Baktria, Parthia, Armenia, Iudea and Nabatea. Diodorus tells us that a Seleucid epistates named Ptolemy rose to power in Commagene in 163 BC. Most scholars assume that Ptolemy was the first Commagenean king and that he descended from the Armenian Orontids. We know virtually nothing about the following decades. Samos II took power around 130 BC, as is concluded from some coins that have been preserved, showing a portrait with the inscription “king Samos.”
The connection between these Armenian Orontid kings and Commagene evidently very close. So much so that Armenia might well occupied part of that extensive principality. This theory is supported by presence of two large cities in Commagene, Samosata an Arsameia, built respectively by two successive Armenian kings. Furthermore, it was Ptolemaeus, the grandson of Arsames, and perhaps the nephew of Xerxes, who founded the royal dynasty of Commagene(c. 163BC). --Biainili (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Tigran II". Encyclopaedia Iranica ->"a branch of the earlier Eruandid dynasty of Iranian origin", the dynasty that Commagene belongs to.
Since when did an Iranian historian become unreliable? At least try to somewhat conceal your povish way of thinking.
Third source simply supports the statement that Commagene was ruled by a Orontid family, which was needed to be sourced. Admittedly I could have used it in a better way, how about I simply add some of the 10 citations used in Kingdom of Commagene :P? And do note that there is as difference between Armenian as a ethnic and geographic term. For example, one of the citations you just used, states this on page 68; "Its most famous king, Antiochus I, was the son of Seleucid princess Laodike (daughter of Antiochus VII of Syria) and of a local king of Iranian origin, Mithradates Kallinikos." Guess you missed that part as well? Also, you forgot to mention the 2 other citations. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. As I just mentioned one section up, allowances were still made for the user to edit the article talk page, for now. If there is also disruption there, too, please feel free to submit evidence to that effect here on at the ANI report. El_C15:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that the article is currently protected so only admins can edit it, but I haven't seen a moment where it wasn't extended confirmed protected? Were there extended confirmed users who vandalized the article because if there weren't, I'm asking that you reduce the protection level to ECP (Note: I do not have plans to edit the article though). OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The admin in question took the extraordinary measure to fully protect the article because ECP would not have been sufficient. The protection expires in a few hours in which point we will reassess. El_C15:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: Yeah since the protection expires in a few hours, I think we should set it to ECP for a while to check if that protection level works. Oh also I think the pending trial settings are still on. OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I already mentioned elsewhere, there's no need to reset pending changes when the protection is that brief. I take your advisement into account and, again, will reassess (along with Ymblanter) in the immediate future. El_C15:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added the article to my watchlist. Before the protection, I inspected the edits, and there was at least one edit by a extended confirmed user which was reverted by another extended confirmed user.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting here that the page was indefinitely semiprotected (pending changes reset), but that didn't last for long, so I had to ECP it. Will probably downgrade back to semi, and then perhaps pending changes after the situation calms. El_C21:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for framing the enforcement request in such a way that it might have been constituted as personal attack. It just seemed so quick and obvious, I should have phrased better. I will certainly avoid stating any such possible events in future as matter of fact rather than possibility(please do keep in mind that English is not my first language so sometimes I come across more direct/rude than perhaps native English speakers are used to).--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When I wrote for the benefit of Janj9088, that meant that caution was intended to them. You have nothing to be sorry for (that I picked up on, at least). El_C21:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neil Gorsuch
Thanks for your help on Neil Gorsuch. Have you taken a look at the page's protection history? The page has been consistently vandalized despite multiple protections for more than a year. The previous protection was six months. Shouldn't the page be indefinitely semi-protected? Putwood (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vile personal attack at talk:Northern Epirus by N.Hoxha
Hi El C. Please see this comment by N.Hoxha: I am extremely saddened to see that user Dr.K would consider the inclusion of the content about the murder of multiple innocent persons to be of equal importance as that of a poorly made banner.. N.Hoxha refers to this edit by Khirurg which, by the way, refers to altercations, and not any murders whatsoever in Athens, after Katsifas's killing. My response dealt with adding pieces about the events in Athens and Albania where football fans celebrated the killing of Katsifas. As you know, this is a very contested area of the wiki. It is one thing to have to deal with POV edits and quite another to have editors like N.Hoxha to make up stories about you that you disregard non-existent murders. This is a vile personal attack and equally vile WP:ASPERSION. I would appreciate your advice on this. Thank you. Dr.K.04:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again El C. Another partisan has descended on N.Hoxha's talk and is using my userpage identifiers to attack me and also misrepresents my comments to Calthinus. He is also pinging me to make sure I read his attacks. This is getting out of control. I request your assistance from these unbelievable partisan attacks. I would like all references to my possible origin based on my userpage identifiers be removed from the partisan attack. Thank you again and sorry for imposing again. Dr.K.07:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't said a single thing abour your origins and nobody has made a single personal comment about you. So, no, I didn't "reveal" something non-public that requires anyone to delete anything I wrote. I only said that it is a very reasonable assumption that you have some more knowledge and links to Corfu (by looking at your public user page and uploads to that page - just as someone could assume that I have some more knowledge and links to the Cem valley because of my public profile (this means nothing about my origins or yours though). Nobody implied anything like that. N.Hoxha could reasonably assume from your public user page that you could have known about that very well-known event too. I hope that clarifies that nobody has made any "partisan attack" here.--Maleschreiber (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have no business speculating where I live, where I come from or what place I am connected to in order to draw conclusions about what I know and what news I watch or read. You have no business to try to invade my personal privacy using speculation from the images that I display on my personal pages and to try to dox me for partisan purposes. This is my last response to you as I wish to have no further contact with you. Dr.K.09:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't made any speculation about where you live or where you come from as I haven't written a single thing about any of those things. Please don't interpret my comments in any way other than what I wrote. And please don't make unfounded accusations against me. Accusing someone of doxing - searching private information about someone is a very serious accusation which you should retract because all I did was to comment on your ***public*** user page without any speculation about your private life. I basically said "ok, you have a lot of information about Corfu on your userpage, so why is it so strange that N.Hoxha could possibly assume that you might know about incidents like that of Petrit Zilfe which was a very well-known event in the recent history of the island". The equivalent on this page would be El C to accuse me of doxing and "revealing" info about his private life if I commented that it's reasonable to assume that he has read the April theses because he has a portrait of Lenin on his userpage. Thank you. --Maleschreiber (talk) 09:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Persistent vandalism – Heavy IP edit disruption due to a recent incident. Placed a WP:RFPP but there is a backlog, and the disruption is going on. Thank you. Amkgp (talk) 05:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you take a look at the Gorani article?[42] I have now asked for clarification for their edits but academic references keep getting removed for an author that has been discussed at RS and deprecated.[43] I'm waiting for admins' decision on protection, but there is a long queue. Also '46.106.92.92' and 'Benahol' edits on many articles are very similar and I believe it's some sort of meatpuppetry. --Semsûrî (talk) 11:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First issue I have (beside the awful map) is the removal of the sentence: "and they are often described as Zaza Kurds" in the introduction.[45] This sentence is relevant since many researchers use the term 'Zaza Kurds' (Google Books 'Zaza Kurds'Google Books 'Zaza Kurdish') and the sentence was well-sourced with four examples of academic texts using this term. Now, the whole sentence was removed for "but they are often described as Zaza or Dımıli" which is, already-mentioned in the first sentence of the article in bold, but also off-topic.
The essence is that, despite the disputed ethnic origin of these Zazas (also known as Dimili), they are often termed 'Zaza Kurds' in academia (and outside). That has been removed. And it has been removed in a lazy manner where the four references remain while six random references (including a blog) has been added as 'clarification' that the term 'Zaza Kurds' is not always used in literature.
Secondly, while not removing any of the references, "Many Zazas consider themselves ethnic Kurds" has been changed to "A part of Zazas consider themselves ethnic Kurds and Turks". And if you claim that any Zaza would consider themselves ethnic Turkish, you better have reliable references with page added. This has not been the case. --Semsûrî (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We messaging with him about this. Sources were added by adding resources. Semsûrî urgently wants to cooperate with kurdish You can check the Turkish version. Wants the matter to lock up as he wants. As he did in gorani . This is fascism. wants to use you Benahol (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There were zazas that called themselves Turkish and kurdish in history, but this is not the case today. According to the Konda survey company, about 1.5 million people have identified themselves as Zaza. Resources that evaluate the people of Zaza in Turkish and Kurdish have already been added. Benahol (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can't remove sourced information because disagree personally. You write 'but this is not the case today'. Source? And what source did you use for the claim that there are Zazas who consider themselves ethnic Turkish? --Semsûrî (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added it to the discussion page. Semsûrî deleted a lot of data he did not want from the pages. (see Zaza nationalism as an example) (Kurdish nationalist views kept on the page and deleted most of the other views) Benahol (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The editor has returned after their seven days block and continues where they left off by just adding all information found online to make their point. The edits include own translation used as quote and maps with no reference. And you see this small and canny change of wording here[46]? Well, that's a good old POV-push. This is getting ridiculous and the quality of these articles have worsened. --Semsûrî (talk) 11:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first reference did not have a similar map nor info that corresponds to that specific map. The second one (Ludwig) needs a page for verification. --Semsûrî (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Professor Dr. Ludwig Paul and Frankfurt Zaza Language Institute divides Zaza Language into three main dialects. In addition, there are transitions and edge accents that have a special position and cannot be fully included in any dialect group. [1][2] (resources for map) and (Also, the maps saved on Wikipedia, I did not prepare myself) Benahol (talk) 11:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not disturbed by anything. Just trying to figure out what's what. I suggest you will yourself toward exhibiting greater patience. El_C11:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Semsûrî I do not find you sincere There are dozens of non-cited maps on Kurdish pages. Would you delete them too. Also, the maps saved on Wikipedia, I did not prepare myself. And the sources I added match the map.Benahol (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maps uploaded on Wikipedia and Commons should not be used if they are not reliably sourced. That includes maps on Kurds. --Semsûrî (talk) 12:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most maps and images added to Wikipedia; it is examined and reliable. Because it is compatible with information.. Benahol (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amkgp, respectfully, I would rather my user talk page doesn't become a spillover to RfPP. Once in a while is fine, but there's a limit. Regards, El_C18:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On Northern Epirus one of the sub-issues which led me to add the POV tag is the fact that I had added the electoral results of the two minority parties in the local elections of 2015 but they were removed. I then started a new section on the talkpage about why they were removed and the replies I got are that what I added misrepresents X, Y, Z, topics. I've asked many times on the talkpage why and how what I added and was reverted is related to X, Y, Z topics by fully quoting the reverted edit and explaining that they - IMO - obviously are not related but every time IMO my questions are not replied at all and I just get the remark "you are still OR" and my tag is being explained away as "Tag playing isn't an argument". As I did with the Katsifas case I eventually resorted to noticeboard procedures to get community input and it was really helpful, but before going to another such procedure I would like some outside feedback because at the moment I'm very confused because I feel that I've overexplained myself and asked the same question 3-4 times with same full quote without getting similar feedback.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, as I already noted on the article talk page, a detailed explanation requires similarly detailed substantiation in response, not general pronouncements. So, I support your efforts to engage in amicable discourse to that effect, and I'm sorry to learn you've encountered difficulties with that. What can I do to help? El_C15:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Complaints about past “lost battles” which led to his/her ban in the fist place [54][55]
Continuing to push questionable notions on the same page where edit-warring was taking place (the other editor involved has been permanently banned, so it seems that the editor think he has carte blanche for his work) [56][57]
All in all, the whole fringe narrative continues, and this is only a tip of the iceberg. I'm not sure which action should be taken (and should I make any moves), and I just wanted to inform you on this, because the same sort of behaviour is repeated over and over, and it seems to me that very little time has passed since his/her unban. Sadkσ(talk is cheap)16:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sadko, sorry to learn that problems persist. They are limited to 1RR as an AE DS I applied. I'm not sure there's much more I can immediately do, because I'm not that familiar with the general subject matter. Perhaps a request at AE for an outright topic ban...? El_C
Yeah, I really thought that something would change, at least to some point. If you can, keep a closer look at his/her work, from time to time. TBAN is a good suggestion, I'll probably make a report in the near future. Sadkσ(talk is cheap)16:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a plan, Sadko — please ping me if and/or when you file a report at AE. Sure, I'll try my best to keep an eye in the meantime. El_C16:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sadko: You don't have to wait near future, report me immediately so we all can see where I went wrong.
Removal of sourced content in the same manner as before[58][59] Nothing is remove from here.
Complaints about past “lost battles” which led to his/her ban in the fist place[60][61] I don't know what is wrong here? Opinion expressed on talk page.
I edited first article in accordance with reliable sources and on talk page "Eparchy of Marča" I talked about information which is frogery and exist in the article for which Serbian academician Sima Ćirković says that is false information, I cannot delete this information from the article even though it is a forgery and because you don't want this. This is frogery I quote: "A letter of King Matthias from 12 January 1483 mentions that 200,000 Serbs had settled the Hungarian kingdom(Slavonia Croatia) in the last four years". Information is in the article "Serbs of Croatia", "Rascians" and this article "Eparchy of Marča". The original information is I quote: "Matthias Corvinus complained in a letter from 1462 that 200,000 peoples during previous three years had been taken from his country by Turks" (Serbian academician Sima Ćirković).
Continuing to push questionable notions on the same page where edit-warring was taking place (the other editor involved has been permanently banned, so it seems that the editor think he has carte blanche for his work[64][65]. I'm putting information from a book of Austrian historian Karl Kasser who in the book talks about Slavonia, the Varaždin Generalate and Statuta Valachorum (population, migration, bureaucracy of that area etc) Each editor, and there are thousands of them, can edit information from book of Karl Kaser in their own way. All editors who are here must work to make the article as accurate as possible. That's what wikipedia tells us to do.
Identital fringe viewpoints (notice that there are ~10 RS presented on the article)[66]
10 RS presented in the article saying that Svetozar Boroević is Croatian and he declared himself as Croatian, I don't know what's here fringe viewpoints?
Otherwise for intention to change Statuta Valachorum article for the better you earlier said I do it because I'm a follower of the Nazis I quote: "This is another popular narrative in Croatia, mostly in right-wing and modern Ustaše circles". Who are Ustaše? Wikipedia source: "Croatian fascist, ultranationalist and terrorist organization", "They were known for their particularly brutal and sadistic methods of execution", "Much of the ideology of the Ustaše was based on Nazi racial theory", "Like the Nazis, the Ustaše deemed Jews". And you have not been punished for this personal attack.[67] You would report me for changing articles for the better in accordance with reliable sources as evidence and no one punished you even though you were reported for personal insult, you did not want to throw a single forgery information out of any article even though you knew that they are forgerys. @El_C sorry I used your talk page for answer but I hope the editor Sadko will now report me with your support. Let's see which rule I broke, I'm interested in that, too. Cheers. Mikola22 (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you don't get to witness something like this every day. The same narrative is repeated, once again. Please present a real diff so that all of us can what really happened. I shall help with just these two. [68][69] There will be no more posts from me on this TP. Stay safe, Sadkσ(talk is cheap)19:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not at first, but eventually (blocked accordingly for 2 weeks). Yes, this is not new for this LTA. They've done so with my own signature in the past, as well. El_C16:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is generally understood that users are not supposed to be engaging in substantive editing while blocked. This conduct on the talk page feels to me like an attempt to solicit proxy editing while this user is blocked. What's your take on it? Do you agree that it's an attempt at an end run around the block? Or do you think that if they're engaging constructively with at least one editor, it's a start? (For the record, I do not feel like the other editor is necessarily at fault here, if they're editing in good faith and using independent judgment about the merits of the edits.)
As blocking admin, I'd like your take on the matter first. My next stop would be WP:ANI to discuss extension of the block, revocation of talk page access, and/or a topic ban. —C.Fred (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, per your comment[71], I read CLOSECHALLENGE, which I guess in this case I have already done and you declined. Could you help me understand this for future reference? I am convinced that an article like Ain Jalut is supposed to be captured by ARBPIA, but I accept that that is open to interpretation. I spent some time looking around the old arbitration pages for some discussion which may reflect consensus on how the phrase "Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted" is intended to be interpreted, but I could not find anything? Onceinawhile (talk) 09:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It has long been usual to consider that former Arab villages which were depopulated during Zionist settlement in Palestine are included in ARBPIA. That this description applies to Ein Jalud is not obvious at the moment, since the article text does not currently mention it. However, it is true and will be added with a source. There were 9 families living here until one of the Zionist land companies purchased it from its absentee owners in the late 19th century. In my opinion that makes ARBPIA inclusion clear. Zerotalk10:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think Onceinawhile revealed his motives to create the WP:POVFORK article by arguing about the topic area he really wanted to push the Arabic name while hiding the Hebrew one.As he admits himself that it about names [72] --Shrike (talk) 10:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is my explanation for why a variety of editors have brought emotion and aggression into what should be a mundane discussion. The sources are crystal clear that noone knows, or can know, the actual location of this place mentioned in just a single sentence in the Bible. Obviously Wikipedia should not be taking firm views on these things. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are the only editor ho argued that the names are a political issue, and the only editor repeatedly trying to erase or diminish the Hebrew name in favor of the Arab name. Wikipedia indeed doesn't need to take a position on question of the proper identification of the biblical name - and it doesn't. The article you keep trying to rename describes the issue, talks about the difficulty in proper identification, and mentioned the scholarly debate abut it. Add it does so using the Arabic name for the well. But this is not the issue we are discussing at AN/I - we are discussing your disruptive behavior in trying to circumvent community decision when you didn't get your way regarding the article name and your forum shopping. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the article itself, I still think the connection to ARBPIA seems tenuous at best. But feel free to bring it up at AE (but not AN/ANI — ARBPIA spilling over to those noticeboards is generally a bad idea), I have no objection to the matter being re-opened there and I take the possibility that I was wrong with my assessment into account. El_C12:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A few days later and a lot has happened, much of it not to my credit. Suffice to say that I overlooked the Jewish purchase of land at Ain Jalut in relation to the local inhabitants. Among other things, I have amended my ANI close to read the opposite of what it did: not related. I've also covered the article under ARBPIA "related content," including removing the outdated "original author" provision. I've also blocked Levivich. Then —incorrectly— unblocked him. In any case, not my proudest moment. I'll strive to do better. El_C03:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From GizzyCatBella
Hello EI_C, I'm busy with grandchildren
for another few hours, please give me some time to respond to your concerns here [73]. I'll do it as soon as I get back home. GizzyCatBella🍁18:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
... unless you think there is no point to address these accusations... Did you get a chance to look deeper into it or your judgement was based solely on the actual K.e.coffman presentation alone? If you didn’t have time look deeper into it I will explain in detail. But perhaps you think there is no point to address them because you made up your mind already. And I should wait even longer with the appeal, as you originally suggested. If so, please let me know. To be honest, I'm exhausted already :( but I can still explain my edits. I'll check your response later tonight. Thank you.GizzyCatBella🍁20:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. I always try to keep an open mind, but to be forthright, I am already strongly leaning toward declining at this time. It's up to you whether you wish to address K.e.coffman's complaint, even if only for the record. El_C20:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello El_C, I just addressed K.e.coffman concerns [74] but I think I'm too tired to answer to SarahSV and Ealdgyth tonight. I'll try, but it will be most likely tomorrow.GizzyCatBella🍁07:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chin up, it's not the end of the world. There's so much to contribute about outside the topic ban's scope. Just try your best to edit in an exemplary manner for another 2 years, we can reassess then. All the best, El_C04:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you El_C, I feel better today, I think I’m getting too old, I can’t handle the stress as good I did before. I’ll still post a link for SV and Ealdgyth in there so they can look at it, maybe it will be useful for them. Thank you for your time on that case too. GizzyCatBella🍁17:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They sometimes occur when an another ship was hit with the pandemic, seemingly tries to edit with false info with gibberish name. Thanks for handling it. MoralesKapitan (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Harcha
Just a quick question: Are editors allowed to use different usernames to access different wiki projects (project in different languages)? If not, is there a global SPI board where such users can be reported? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is Harcha? Anyway, in answer to your question, yes, even though I've only ever used this username across all projects, so what do I know? El_C00:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's disappointing. As for Harcha, I was about to ask a question about the concerned article, then changed my mind and forgot to change the section's name. M.Bitton (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
