Hi. Thanks for adding those sources in the article about Israel. I don't want to bother you, but I have one last request, nothing else. As you can see here, there's a duplicated paragraph in the article about Hamas. Also New Zealand is missing from the paragraph. Thank you very much. Have a great day!--Yschilov (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C: For the Kiana Brown page, I think we may have tried to rev delete a contentious edit simultaneously, whereby I rev deleted the content, and then you may have accidentally restored it in the process of also seeking to rev delete the content. (See the Deletion log for the page). Please advise if this is what occurred. North America100003:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
N.b. I figured my initial rev delete didn't take, which seemed to be the case when I checked the article's Revision history and then content was still there right after performing the rev del. North America100003:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. In the administrative divisions of the Israel article, the last sentence says Tel Aviv and Haifa rank as Israel's next most populous cities, with populations of and 278,903, respectively. Obviously there's a number missing, which is 432,892 according to given source. Therefore, the sentence should say Tel Aviv and Haifa rank as Israel's next most populous cities, with populations of 432,892 and 278,903, respectively. Could you please add the population of Tel Aviv? Thanks.--Yschilov (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following edit [1] was introduced into the Legacy section with reference to contributions of Arendt and Habermas to Marx studies. Another editor took exception and asked for quotation to be added. After it was added, the same editor indicated that some basic phrases in poitical economy were not known to him. The dialogue is below and the material appears to be useful to add to the article which currently inaccurately identifies only two sources of critique. JohnWickTwo (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Both Hannah Arendt and Jurgen Habermas have extensive Marxist credentials. When I found that Wikipedia already has articles about two of their books dealing with these issues, then I did not include quotations from those books in the Marx article since interested readers could look at the articles for their books which I linked. It seemed that an article on Marx should not need extensive quotations from these books which might distract the reader of the Marx article, although both Arendt and Habermas discuss Marx by name extensively. Is there a way to return some of this mention of Arendt and Habermas to the Marx article? JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I, actually, still think we need to be more specific. I don't think it's distracting in the form of refs (explanatory and otherwise). Also, establishing their KM credentials (in modern historiography) is also worthwhile: proving they are a third main current. What they each say can be further clarified, too. El_C15:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a quote from Habermas which is to the point from 1981, Habermas, Kleine Politische Schrifen I-IV, pp. 500f., which states:
"The point on which I differ from traditional Marxist analysis is that, today, when we use the means of the critique of political economy, we can no longer make clear predictions: for that, one would still have to assume the autonomy of a self-reproducing economic system. I do not believe in such an autonomy. Precisely for this reason, the laws governing the economic system are no longer identical to the ones Marx analyzed. Of course, this does not mean that it would be wrong to analyze the mechanism which drives the economic system; but in order for the orthodox version of such an analysis to be valid, the influence of the political system would have to be ignored."
This is a little long but perhaps you could figure out a way to shorten it for including it in the Marx article. Critique of totalitarianism as asserted in Marx has been a major topic in 20th century Marx legacy assessment and should be included in the article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, perhaps excerpt parts of it. But clarify what he means by "autonomy of a self-reproducing economic system," first. As for totalitarianism: what do you mean by "as asserted in Marx?" For this article, I think it needs, specifically, to connect to KM. Otherwise, there may be more suitable articles. El_C16:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But an issue I took with your version related to your "limits of totalitarian perspectives" (ascribed to whom?) which I find somewhat unclear. Point is, there could be more than two or three main responses to KM and his body of work—and, no mention of the East in that discussion, just the West. El_C16:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Blockquote was shortened as you requested and "autonomy of a self-reproducing economic system" is fairly basic wording in Marxist commentary as used by Habermas here. The edit appears to be worth adding to the article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's a not insignificant addition, so it's worthwhile getting some feedback and seeing what the consensus is. El_C17:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That blue color
Your page inspired me (thanks!), and, found a way to get rid of the blue color, beneath your "Vanity page," on User:El C. Can look at edit linking to "Articles I wrote," under User:Dino; the edit at bottom of User:Dino.
Caveat: If you wish to get rid of the blue color. Just trying to be helpful.
Can't put the carraige returns in, some wiki hassle. The above led to your "Vanity page."
On my page, used simply
<font color=696969><center>'''[[User:Dino/Articles I wrote|Articles I wrote]]'''</font>
Hope this helps. Questions, hassles, concerns about the meaning of life or how to cook with hot chili peppers, zip me a note, on my talk page. Do let me know, if all works.
OK, here goes, though get a touch shy, messing with a user page that is not my own. If you don't like it, can always demolish my edit, pretty easily. Please don't tell the police!
Apparently User:Casprings did not notify you of his appeal. I am chalking this up to possible inexperience (I don't know). So, it seemed easier for me to provide you with this notification, rather than try to figure out if he is editing on Wikipedia at this moment - even that would be just a guess. So, the appeal is taking place on the WP:AE page, here is the link 00:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC) -----Steve Quinn (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I did ping you, but didn't do this. My apologies. I know to do this when reporting users and should have thought to do it here. My apologies.Casprings (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your edit, please see the talk page. Further, I really dont see how this isnt a straightforward violation of WP:MEAT. An editor disallowed from making an edit is asking a specific user to make that edit. Extended confirmed status isnt needed to post to the talk page, the user could have posted there instead of asking for, and receiving, you making the edit for him. nableezy - 19:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion about the formal name of The Gambia is ongoing on the article’s talk-page. Your source has been discussed there, and it was concluded that it isn’t enough. So, if you want to change the formal name, please first discuss your proposal on the talk-page and any changes make only after obtain a consensus. Aotearoa (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: I'll clarify my edit, what I meant was that Hindu Sri Lankans are the ones who worship him as most Sri Lankans are Buddhist. The previous edit made it seem like Shiva is worshiped by most Sri Lankans, that's not the case. (101.160.23.20 (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Thank you for quality articles such as Nothing comes from nothing and Yisrael Hasson, improving South Rhodesian politics and Chinese nature parks, serving from 2004, for the approach "educational but not pedantic" and the mantra "please stop vandalizing", for quoting indignation and for strong images, - historian, repeated from 25 May 2007 ("Whatever is a cruel wrong, ..."): you are an awesome Wikipedian!
I noticed your comment about loosing faith in AE. I never had any, faith in AE I mean. I made some suggestions about AE in 2015, nutshell: "I dream of a Wikipedia where AE is not needed". The problem is not so much the users reported (I was one of them, last time for this edit, more in my 2015 user archive), so have a lot of solidarity). The problem are those who report. I haven't seen a single AE improving the project. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a model that's well after my time. It was not so much a well-regulated machine then—in those days the Committee did more work and there were more RfARs. Unless I'm missing something, it's been a month now and I have not seen the Committee do much of anything. Maybe it's time to put the Arbitrators to work again! El_C09:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AE is not of the arbs (as they often point out out), and a different problem (and the biggest). I actually like when the arbs have nothing to do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not of but for. Maybe it's better the Committee is largely inactive lately, in that it represents a shortfall in acute unresolved disputes. But when admins can't admit to reaching consensus, it can become a zero-sum game, and then it might be time to put the Committee to work. El_C09:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is one of the tricky questions on WP (just follow the link "this edit" and try to find a consensus. They couldn't find consensus over how a hidden notice should look. The article was protected. The portecting admin was desysopped because he was on one side. Remember, we speak about a hidden notice. There is no logic nor fairness, we just have to live with that.). Here, the blocking admin didn't wait for consensus, nor give in when it was apparent that the block was controversial. Imagine for a moment how much more time we would have had for content creation, if this report of a few catchy phrases taken out of context had not have been made. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The blocking admin's rash unilateral action proved to be so much more trouble than it is worth, for all involved, except possibly himself (as his participation in all this has been rather underwhelming). If only he had bothered to let a few other admins voice their opinions before blocking an established editor for so long... For that, he ought to be admonished. For wasting everyone's time so spectacularly. El_C10:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think an admonishment would change his belief that he is right, and the others need to change? (For the term "admonishment", you can find stuff in my 2013 talk archive.) - If yes, go file something like that. I might even support ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so, maybe not, but I don't think it would be for naught (that rhymes!). At least it would be there for the record. El_C16:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for an admonishment to pass, someone would have to propose that, and bring it up somewhere, in the right venue and in the right, and correctly titled, thread (new or existing). I think the elephant in the room is whether there should be an official block review. The current clarification thread seems almost to be an end-run around that eventuality, as the Arbs are rather vaguely being asked to opine on the validity of Bish's talk-page unlocking, but people are more interested in, and are talking about, the block itself ... so what results is quite vague and hampered answers from the Arbs, who seem rightfully overwhelmed by the non-focus of the discussions and the fact that the main point (block review) hasn't been officially brought up in a dedicated thread anywhere. Softlavender (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be due. But is the Committee reviewing anything right now? Anything whatsoever? Link please. El_C16:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
D.Creish, for one, mentioned and linked it: [7]. I've also seen it mentioned elsewhere (either at the AE appeal or somewhere else), but I can't recall offhand where. I didn't have the page watchlisted or previously know of its existence, and didn't investigate it till I'd seen it mentioned at least twice. Softlavender (talk) 16:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Sorry. But please keep an eye, and let me know whenever they make a re-appearance. Thanks. El_C12:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate what you said about "no fault should be attributed to the closer". In trying to maintain neutrality on the RfC subject, I realize I may have given the impression I did not care about the close. As to reopening it, well, I am glad to see hope springs eternal in the heart of the stalwart admin corps, apparently. In all seriousness, I doubt this will bring resolution. It will simply transfer the animosity and poor behavior back to whence it came. I advise keeping a close eye on the re-opened RfC. Thanks again. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)12:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to bring it to an end. If I hadn't said it already, I'll say it now: I take exception as to how you were spoken to by some of the no consensus side, and I feel bad that I may have precipitated some of that. So, for that you have my apologies. Hopefully, you can put all that unpleasantness behind you. El_C13:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for that. If I wasn't bothered by being called "moronic" and other labels of that nature, I wouldn't be human. It was really only two editors, and while I will likely not be well-disposed towards them, I think I can let it go. There were more editors that endorsed the close, and those that did not like it were very closely-involved in the issue. I will, however, let a braver editor than I close the next (inevitable) discussion. Thanks once again. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)13:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, since you reclosed the RFC at Category People_of_Jewish_descent, can you please remove the two Asian and ME descent cats from the page? Right now the cat is protected.
The RFC is now closed as non-consensus, therefore the category should be the way it was for years, before the RFC was closed originally and the two descent categories added. If those two cats are to be included, it needs a new RFC or consensus.Sir Joseph(talk)19:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm sorry to bother you once more, but I'm a bit confused about the meaning of the no consensus closure. It looks like there are two groups of users with different understandings:
Opinions on the meaning of "no consensus"
If I am understanding correctly, several users say no consensus means to keep the "Asian" and "Middle Eastern" categories until a consensus is reached to remove them (italics and square braces mine):
"[...]the alternative is 'no consensus' which would result in... not having the cats removed as there is clearly no consensus to remove them.[...]" ~User:Only_in_death
"Overturn to no consensus which would default to keeping the categories. [...]the meatpuppetry allegations are concerning if difficult to prove. Having editors who[se] main editing history is only on/largely surrounding disputes surrounding controversies surrounding Jews/Jewish-related topics as an cursory glance at the contributions of the editors raised here is enough for me to think that the complaint might have some validity. It is not enough, however, for me to think that the RfC should be overturned to the opposite result [from keeping the categories?]." ~User:TonyBallioni
"Well, to get a consensus here to overturn the closure of that RfC [which supported keeping?] might take as much or more work than creating a new one that is devoid of SPAs and canvassed people. The discussion above to overturn it seemed to be getting nowhere because the editors who approve of the close were hijacking the discussion. So it seems a fresh RfC would be the answer, unless an admin (you?) wants to simply unilaterally step in and re-close the previous one (considering the improper !votes). I agree that an overturn would be simpler, [...]" ~User:Softlavender
However, User:Debresser and User:Sir Joseph seem to understand no consensus to apply to the original survey which said to keep the categories. According to them, no consensus means to overturn the survey and remove the categories (emphasis theirs, square brackets mine):
"[...]The survey shows that opinions were evenly balanced, 7:7, so the closure should have been 'No consensus for any changes, keep as is' [i.e. as it was for the 3 years before the categories were most recently added] [...]" ~User:Debresser, initial list of objections to Eggishorn's close of the survey
"Wrong: "no consensus" would mean keep the way it was, and the extra category was absent for over 3 years.[...]" ~User:Debresser, responding to User:TonyBallioni
Since the close of the RfC, User:Sir Joseph has succeeded in removing protections on the category and has deleted the Asian and Middle Eastern categories from it. Was this the intent of the "no consensus" closure? I am confused, because I thought those actions would be more appropriate for an "overturn" closure. Musashiaharon (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I realize this may complicate things, but the reason I overturned was only due to the improper participation. That overturning made no other comment on what keep, or no consensus to keep, meant concretely. Only that the overall discussion failed to reach a consensus. If pressed, though, I would say that, personally, I understood it to lean toward removal rather than inclusion—but that should not be taken as a position of the closure which was procedural in nature. El_C07:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I'm afraid it did complicate things. If the closure was procedural, without an opinion on the concrete issue, I guess this means we would need another RfC to resolve that concrete issue of whether to keep the categories? Did your closure basically reset the whole discussion back to how things were before the survey closed? Musashiaharon (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since I have used administrative discretion to overturn the closure on procedural grounds, I feel can offer no opinion on whether a new RfC is warranted or what may or may not had been reset. My only comment is that the discussion failed to reach consensus due to improper participation. El_C08:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I have replaced the categories that were removed by Sir Joseph. If the RFC wants to be re-done fine, but a no-consensus to remove from the RFC is a no-consensus to remove. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's no consensus to have those categories. They were not in the page for years before the rfc. That's another reason the rfc was written so horribly.Sir Joseph(talk)11:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being so obtuse about this, but I have had little familiarity with the RfC beyond learning of consensus having been arrived at, in part, due to improper participation, which couldn't stand—I think NeilN was able to bring some well needed common sense to this by reverting to the version before the RfC was listed. El_C16:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You blocked two IPs in connection with Russo-Turkish confrontation in Syria. They are in the same range and I'm not sure how much good single blocks do, particularly since each made only one edit, and, for example, you failed to block other IPs in the same range. Regardless, we do not block IPs indefinitely. In this particular instance, although a block is understandable, a long-term block isn't even warranted. Those are generally used for long-term abuse, webhosts, proxies, etc. Please modify the blocks. Semi-protection, which you also imposed, was a better way to go. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ferdi talEl_C No need, as they are not me and have already been banned. Ferdi tal, that is probably like the 6th sockpuppet you've made, surprised you are not IP banned yet. Another thing, why would I be the same 2 people I filed investigations about? Go check the investigation report page before throwing accusations. Resourcer1 (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. What do you think of these edits? Don't you think is a little bit redundant? After all, there's an article for the West Bank, those additions don't seem necessary. Would you mind trimming the article like it was before Al-Andalus modified it? Thanks--186.137.95.198 (talk) 12:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is the reason why I protected it, in the first place—please read our living people crime policy to understand why that allegation must remain redacted for the time being (pending a verdict). The extent to which LogicSoup is connected to the subject is besides that point. Similarly, it is besides the point as to the subject's notability, which I make no comment on, except to suggest that you may wish to pursue articles for deletion if, indeed, you deem him to be below that threshold. Hope that helps. El_C16:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the three revert rule permits up to three reverts, it's the fourth that's subject to sanctions. And my argument has been well-reasoned as to the onus being on you to balance the section. I did self-revert as to not edit war, however, placing the NPOV-section tag plus a note on the talk page, instead. El_C08:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification on editing article please
15:32, 2 March 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+163) . . N User talk:24.135.192.58 (Sorry, you can't add that link across multiple articles) (current)
Hi, OK, I understand, but just a clarification please:
In theory, there's no limit. As long as it's not used to replace existing refs. Of course, the expectation is that you add the data, then reference it with a reliable source. El_C16:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Looking good; but you should have removed all the refs that have dead links in them, so that we know they're no good. Whenever you see refs with dead links, please remove them on sight. Thanks. El_C13:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point. It just troubling to consider the reader facing 4 refs with dead links out of five, then having to go one at a time until getting to the one that works (yours!). El_C14:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: It's probably okay to remove a dead link that you're replacing with a live one (otherwise, yes, sometimes dead links can be followed up to cached content). El_C14:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Inlinetext says "removal of my COI warnings is a serious breach of FTC regulations" on Talk:Parker_Conrad. Is this a legal threat? The "paid editors" he is talking about were paid by someone doing philanthropic work simply to improve the quality of certain articles. Doc James was in contact with Vipul (see Vipul's talk page) and everything seems to be in order. Jrheller1 (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that it is. Possibly. I need more context pertaining to the dispute (with links). In theory, s/he is quoting from m:ToU—but did you remove COI warnings? And if so, why? I read Vipul on paid editing and I am afraid that I am not seeing how it directly connects to this dispute. Nor do I understand what this dispute is even about. El_C20:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See Inlinetext's comments on Talk:Parker_Conrad. He (just guessing gender) is falsely claiming that there were "unlawful" paid edits on the page. According to the link Inlinetext provided [8], an editor was paid a 25$ bounty by Vipul Naik for improving the page (which obviously is not illegal editing on behalf of a corporation). Jrheller1 (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had already read that talk page—who removed COI notices, where & when? And why? I need details. Perhaps Inlinetext can better explain this him or herself. El_C20:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Inlinetext deleted more than half the page (and placed the COI notice based on the false claim of illegal paid editing) and I reverted his edits (all within the last few days). I'm interpreting his edits as a more sophisticated than usual type of vandalism. Jrheller1 (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the page in question is Parker Conrad (for both deletions and COI notice). I removed it because there was no improper paid editing and this user has done the same sort of thing on multiple previous occasions. For example, he falsely accused the primary author of Geodesics on an ellipsoid of copyright violation (while deleting more than half of the Geodesics on an ellipsoid article and also placing a copyright violation template on the page). Jrheller1 (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, though you've been light on evidence. (Personally, I like diffs.) But did the COI notice intimate improper paid editing or just paid editing? This is where evidence comes in. I'd still like to learn his or her side of it before rendering a decision. El_C21:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, this is from the AN3 report I closed(!)—I didn't clue into that (I close a few). Now I'm remembering more. Anyway, I left Inlinetext another note. El_C01:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am busy in real life for 2 days (48 hours). If you want, I will assemble some diffs before the 5 days page protection expires. I mention, in passing, that it is incorrect to say I "removed" more than half of Parker Conrad. The page history will show that I made a series of edits, each with detailed edit summaries explaining my objections to specific portions of text on that page. 'Jrheller1' consistently refuses to discuss content issues with me and simply reverts all my edits either without comment or by describing them as 'vandalism'. I don't see how setting out, during discussion in a content dispute, the relevant operative portion of the WMFs official FAQ on paid editing constitutes any kind of legal threat. Since the sum involved for the paid edits promoted by User:Vipul are not insignificant and run into tens of thousands of dollars, well exceeding the Orange Moody paid editing scandal I am of the view that the case of User:Vipul and his extensive network of paid edits /editors must be investigated and dealt with by the Foundation because the Parker Conrad article is stated by User:Vipul to be first paid article of this "worker" who has thereafter received over $10,000 for paid editing from Vipul. Incidentally, I am not the only editor who has problems with Vipul and his network of meats, see link for extensive edits in September 2013 to Bryan Caplan with meat-puppetry by Simfish. Eventually User:Id4abel cleaned up the Bryan Caplan article in much the same way as I did Parker Conrad. I also make the point that Jrheller1 is yet to explain his past edit history at Wikipedia. He is clearly an expert editor in the maths domain first edit of Jrheller1 like User:Vipul is. This entire episode is very troublng and it is best handled by the Foundation and not on just one Administrator's talk page since it may be the tip of a larger paid editing scandal than OrangeMoody. I am also not clear why Doc James' input is relevant considering that he was removed from WMF's BoT and does not speak for the Foundation.Inlinetext (talk) 04:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. Those levels of payments, if true, are indeed disconcerting. But what about my questions no. 1 and 2? I am the protecting admin, so for better or worse, I am administratively involved (for) now. But by all means, feel free to contact the Wikimedia Foundation at: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Contact_usEl_C04:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned I am busy IRL. I am very clear in my understanding of Q1 and Q2 but would like to properly frame my response, eg in terms of ToU issues transcending local community policies / guidelines and failed drafts. The $10,000+ is the payment to just one editor 'Simfish'. You can see an example of another of Vipul's paid meats ANI final warning. It is clear that Vipul is paying some highly abusive and troublesome editors for some as yet undisclosed agenda. Will consider approaching WMF if this matter cannot be resolved within the community by discussion. Inlinetext (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everybody! I see my paid editing has been discussed here, so I wanted to clarify a few things: (1) The figure of $10,000 for Simfish (real name: Alex K. Chen) includes all work he has done; if you restrict only to Wikipedia editing and related payments the amount is closer to $6400. A full breakdown is available here. (2) I don't control all edits by people I pay; the edit war and controversy that Ethanbas (real name: Ethan Bashkansky) got into were of his own volition and not paid for or otherwise requested by me. I did privately dissuade him from warring, and will continue to offer him candid feedback on the subject, but I don't control all his actions. Also note that most of the articles for which he got into edit fights were ones I am not paying for, but ones he created because he has become excited about contributing to Wikipedia (admittedly, his initial foray into contributing to Wikipedia was through paid work for me, but he's now editing it a lot of his own volition). (3) I don't know who Jrheller1 is (it's possible it is somebody who knows me, but I don't recognize the handle, and I haven't been in communication with this person). You can get a full list of the people I have paid for edits (with one exception, who requested the payment be made private, but this person has edited only one page and has not been part of any controversy) at contractwork.vipulnaik.com. Every editor who does paid work for me is required to disclose the fact on his or her talk page and link to my list of the worker's contributions and their payments. (4) Calling paid editors "meats" is disrespectful and misleading. I'm fully transparent about the work I fund, including revealing the real names and full identity (including social media identity and email addresses) of all workers, and all amounts paid (with one small exception as noted above). (5) My motives are pretty plainly stated at contractwork.vipulnaik.com and the articles I wrote that I linked at the top.Vipul (talk) 08:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for joining us Vipul. I'm between meetings right now, so this is just a brief note to say that I am interested in carrying this discussion forward. 'Simfish' (who BTW doesn't conspicuously publish his paid editing affiliations) just happened to open his "bounty" account by creating an excessively NPOV/one-sided, puffed up and badly sourced article in May 2015 on the CEO of this startup which was then awash in scandal for (i) cutting corners aggresively in its regulatory duties in a highly regulated environment Feb 2015, (ii) aggressively stealing customers and being "banned, demonized, and sued" across the US and (iii) carrying on a massive public relations blitz to keep the unicorn afloat and investors coming in, happened to get only US$25 for a Wikipedia article on its founder who exited with a $10 million "bounty" after being "found" operating with 80+% of its employees unlicenced ? Excuse me while I laugh. This is not the first time Wikipedia has been used for 'pump and dump' operations and there are even some "badsites" which document those events in painstaking detail with diffs and which is why the applicable jurisdiction has regulators, like FTC, which WMF takes pains to obey.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi inlinetext, glad to see your response. I find it unfortunate that you're so suspicious of my work despite the radical transparency I (and my workers) have practiced. Let me try to address your concerns. First, a little bit of historical context. Simfish has been editing Wikipedia since the mid-2000s, but stopped working on Wikipedia in the last few years. In 2015, I approached Simfish with the idea of using some of his spare time to add content to Wikipedia. We were still figuring out exactly how payment and incentives might work to better meet my goal of promoting Wikipedia as a good source of knowledge. At that early stage (when both he and I were still figuring things out) I wanted to encourage him to create longer, more detailed articles. Of the articles he initially created, the initial Parker Conrad article (or maybe look at this version which is the state of the article after his last edit) was the first one that was not terribly stubby, and in order to encourage him to create more content of at least that length, I awarded him $25. As you can see from here this is marked as an "accidental/retroactive bounty", i.e., it wasn't an article I told him to create, but one I paid him for after he created it. Subsequent to that, both he and I improved our standards a lot, as you can see by looking at the later works he did for me, and the work I've gotten from other contract workers since then. Now, regarding omissions from that initial article he wrote, it's likely that he and I did not do as much research on the subject as we should have (and if I was funding an article like that now, I would push for more research). I don't think the troubles around Zenefits were that widely known at the time. Definitely, when I had created the Zenefits article on January 21, 2015, I had tried to get all the public information on Zenefits and hadn't come across a mention of these troubles. When Simfish created the Parker Conrad article, I didn't re-research the subject but simply relied on my memory of the situation from January when I had written the original Zenefits article, so therefore I missed any more recent controversies. However, I should note that even Simfish's short initial particle on Parker Conrad did include at least one negative thing about him -- his rejection of an employee who asked a Quora question -- which I think should address accusations of it being puffery. Neither he nor I (nor anybody else paid or instigated by me) have edited or otherwise interfered with the content of the Parker Conrad article after his initial edits in May. In fact, until yesterday, I wasn't even aware of the huge controversy surrounding the article's current state. I'm glad to see that the Zenefits and Parker Conrad articles that we created in 2015 (when the company was still looking like a fast riser) have evolved over time to reflect the controversies at the company. The continued evolution of Wikipedia articles to reflect changing realities excites me, and I'm proud that the initial content that I created (with the Zenefits article) and that Simfish created (with the Parker Conrad article) have been the starting point for this evolution.Vipul (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also wanted to address your question about whether Simfish has clearly disclosed his paid editing. It is true that at the time of the Parker Conrad article the information was not explicitly disclosed on his user page, partly because there were some aspects of policy we weren't fully aware of. On July 11, 2015 he added the disclosure. In subsequent edits on August 1, 2016 and January 18, 2017, we added links to more detailed coverage of the paid edits, to make it easier for people to understand the details behind each individual payment. I find it unfortunate that people who hide behind pseudonyms, failing to disclose real-world identity, continue to attack us for being transparent about our real-world identity and full details of the work we are doing. It concerns me that this creates few incentives for others to follow in our footsteps in revealing information about themselves, for fear that it would open them up to unfair attacks and accusations.Vipul (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have read it carefully, but the great and scattered detail of your reply engenders some additional preliminary queries /doubts for me.Inlinetext (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Q2
Q2. Is it correct that your network of paid editors involves / envisages multiple levels of membership and (some of) your team members receive commissions for recruiting other members and also a percentage calculated on income of other members below (or after) them ?Inlinetext (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; however, I would not consider this a hierarchy but rather simply different kinds of payments for faciliating various parts of the process. For more context: in mid-2016, I was seeking to significantly scale up Wikipedia editing work, but the people I currently had on board did not have enough time to do enough work to meet my ambitions. Given my more-than-full-time day job, and my lack of a network with potential editors, I sought the help of some of these people to recruit others. I wanted recruitment incentives that would encourage them to find people who would do a lot of work. Therefore, I had a deal with Ethanbas where I pay him a commission (usually 10%) of the work of people he recruits. I also pay Riceissa a similar commissions for all recently recruited editors; in turn he helps review their work and push for better quality and standards, while also guiding them on Wikipedia norms.Vipul (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Q3
Q3. Is it correct that the income you / your network receives or distributes is linked to Wikipedia page views. I ask since your github pages report page view statistics quite prominently.Inlinetext (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have experimented with pageviews-based payment for some editors (you can see these payments listed as "royalties" e.g. at the bottom of this page). The initial idea here was to encourage people to create content that was important to end users without me needing to micromanage the content creation. This worked reasonably well but over time I found that I was more interested in paying for direct work on articles than based on pageviews. Starting 2017, I have discontinued pageview-based payments for Simfish. My two most prolific current editors, Riceissa and Wikisanchez (in terms of edits I pay for, not including other edits they make of their own volition), as well as JesseClifton, a former prolific editor, did not receive any pageview-based payments. The main reason we report pageviews prominently is that it's something that the people I pay, as well as others who look at the contract work we do, are interested in. It gives people a sense of greater accomplishment and provides them feedback on (one measure of) the impact they are having. It also helps third parties better gauge the work we are doing.Vipul (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to ask him that! I sent him a private message alerting him to this thread (since I'm not sure he checks Wikipedia notifications).Vipul (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Q5
Q5 Is there any reason why your voluntary reports are not uploaded to Wikimedia servers but to 3rd party server accounts under your control ?Inlinetext (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The payment system setup is pretty complicated (I initially managed them as text files in a git repository, but then moved to a fuller accounting system which took me a couple of weekends to code up -- you can see the commit history of the repository). It's hard enough to get the whole thing set up on a personal server that I control; coordinating with a third party to host it (particularly when I am not aware of any existing system to upload this information) seems even harder. However, I welcome any third-party mirrors. The license for the repository allows for such mirroring.Vipul (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's pretty strong circumstantial evidence that one (or both) of you have an off-wiki relationship "bounty" from User:Vipul's network to harass me. Inlinetext (talk) 17:27 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Going off of this questionnaire, Inlinetext, why did you accuse me of being a COI myself, or in talks with Vipul? I reverted those edits because, what I saw, were just unnecessary content deletions. —JJBers05:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't intend to go off this questionnare so long as Vipul would also like to discuss these issues and find a workaround. This topic primarily concerns (possible) breach of ToU and contravention of local quidelines on paid editing / conflict of interest, so lets stick to that. The bright line rule here is a) The ToU requirements are sacrosant, b) local community guidelines may require stronger compliance than the ToU but cannot dilute ToU. Both you and 'Jrheller1' were clearly warned warning to Jrheller1, warning to JJBers that my reverts were for Breach of ToU and local community guidelines on paid editing best practices but you both reverted me. 'Jrheller1' even went to the extent of removing the mandatory conspicuous COI notice required by the WMF ToU without discussion from Parker Conrad. So since the paymaster of these conflicted / paid editors is now on this page and has admitted certain mistakes by his worker while developing the article, it is no longer only a case of proper sourcing (a local community requirement) but complete WMF ToU compliance, specifically FTC compliance on disclosures .. must be communicated effectively so that consumers are likely to notice and understand them. You JJBers also ignored my previous edit summaries describing additional FTC breaches and restored the following WMF ToU breaching content which I had carefully deleted. You should also be aware that both the ToU and the community COI guidelines are not restricted only to payments from/by the article subject but extend in scope to any payments received for edits. ie. it is not a proper defence to say "I was paid by Vipul and not by Parker Conrad". Inlinetext (talk) 07:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Q6
Q6 Vipul, as a token gesture, would you consider deletion for all the "Timeline of .." articles and commit not to repeat those approaches ? A brief and well considered reply would be appreciated, thanks.Inlinetext (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Q7 You probably recall the Form 1040 and Form 1120 community discussions, and also ""It also helps third parties better gauge the work we are doing"". Would it be fair for me to gauge, conservatively, that you personally stand to receive between US$600,000 to US$900,000 for out-bound links your team inserted into Wikipedia articles which generated those 6 million+ page views? Inlinetext (talk) 10:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Inlinetext: As someone trying to read up on this - could you explain where that guesstimate amount comes from, and what you're referring to when you mention outbound links and 6 million page views? Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Samwalton9:, a fair place to start would be Jon's PPC trends. Because Vipul has now started creating "records" of these discusssns on his own server, I would prefer not to disclose the specifics of this here since I don't believe the community has the proper analytical tools for this investigaton. However, my estimates are somewhat on the conservative side. Inlinetext (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Inlinetext: I'm still a little lost, I was referring more to what you're referring to with the money gain from outbound links. Which links are being added, and are they being spammed? And how do the pageviews play into this? Sam Walton (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great read, but I'm still not understanding where the information or evidence for income from adding outbound links is coming from. The COIN section presents lots of data, but it's still far from clear to me what links are being added, where the evidence is that Vipul is being paid for these link additions, and how this is specifically an issue related to Vipul rather than any other editor who adds URLs while writing articles. Sam Walton (talk) 12:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Courtesy exception to my promise not to post here.) "Evidence" is an adverserial process. Since these are (essentially) regulatory matters all I have to show (initially) is that the out-bound links have a value. I believe I have done that at COIN. The balance of evidence then shifts to the other side. I have shown sufficiently that Wikipedia article out-bound links are valuable, and that the number of click-throughs from those links can be estimated and valued. Your point about URLs in refs in general is very well taken. Which is why I am focussed on "bulk" addition of "spammy" links in niche articles by paid editors, like the 'Timeline of ..' series. Please join us on COIN since I won't post here again.Inlinetext (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a point of fact, I don't receive money from anybody for this project, or more broadly for work on Wikipedia. I have been looking for potential co-sponsors, but that wouldn't cover the work on tax forms work, and the co-sponsors I am looking for would need to have similar altruistic motivations (see e.g., here). I haven't considered raising money from people based on outbound links, nor has anybody reached out to me offering payment for outbound links. Therefore, the honest answer is that I don't know what the monetization potential of the outbound links is. With that said, your estimate seems like a huge overestimate. For instance, I know that advertisement CPMs are generally under $10 and generally average under $1 (that's $1 per thousand pageviews) which at 6 million pageviews would give $6000. References tucked in at the bottom of Wikipedia pages seem like way less visible to most people than advertisements on websites, so I am guessing the amounts you can command from such references is even lower. Overall, I would expect that maybe an enterprising person could have made a few thousand dollars off of getting paid for outbound links, but the volume and scale just wouldn't be enough to make the amounts of money you claim. But, as I said, I haven't tried making money this way and would not do so on Wikipedia. So it's possible I am wrong. But to me this is just an academic discussion with no relevance to the real choices facing me right now.Vipul (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a relief. Regarding the relatively low (though still cumulatively substantial) pay that you are able to offer; and with respect to a quick intuition of how companies' product, userbase, financial situation, and competitive landscape changed over time—just to be clear, no such companies were ever involved with your group in any way, like you serving as a consultant or any other position or affiliation therein, whatsoever? Thanks for answering everything in such thorough detail. El_C19:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have a full-time job (you can see information about it here -- not linking to company page directly to avoid SEO flowing wrongly). I don't have other sources of income apart from my job (+ interest on savings and investments). Nothing in the job involves Wikipedia or PR work. As for overlap between the companies, there might be some whose pages I have edited or paid to edit, that have at some stage had a (completely unrelated) business relationship with my company (usually much later), but the vast majority of companies don't fit that definition. To take the most prominent examples: Uber, PayPal, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Snapchat, Airbnb, Instagram, GitHub, Facebook, Google Search -- all are completely unrelated to me personally or the place I work for. Also, if you look at the actual breakdown of edits I pay for, you'll find that the majority of the payments are for edits unrelated to technology companies. Many of them are related to disease timelines, country healthcare timelines, or other global health topics. You can see a breakdown here.Vipul (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have added links to my full transaction history (bank account and PayPal) from the main page at contractwork.vipulnaik.com. You can compare the bank account and PayPal transaction history against the record of payments I have reported on contractwork.vipulnaik.com, to reassure yourself that I am reporting accurate amounts. Further, you can also check that I don't receive any payments other than my regular pay from my day job.Vipul (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you mention you are dual-resident of USA and India. You are then surely aware that India is a notorious centre for black hat SEO and I'm pretty certain that you know the "street value" (say if hypothetically paid in cash or to your family members) of the prized outbound links your teams are systematically inserting in bulk, linking to sites/pages which carry advertisments and offer various services. I also draw your attention to, say, Peery Foundation. You are a veteran editor, surely you can see that the M.O. used by you to embed this (very poor) article is the same as OrangeMoody's. And if you have done nothing wrong, why are you creating controversy records on your github and archiving these threads, and also this ? I hope you stand by "not linking to company page directly to avoid SEO flowing wrongly", especially since not everyone at Wikipedia is an altruist ;-). Cheers. Inlinetext (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi inlinetext, I have added the controversy threads mostly as a convenient point of reference for myself and others who want to understand the debates surrounding the content creation project -- including you! For myself, the advantage is that I can quickly locate past questions and how I answered them. For others, it helps them better understand how people on Wikipedia perceive the content creation project. It's part of my commitment to more transparency. Regarding the part about my company, I don't want to involve it because it has literally nothing to do with this whole business, and the only reason I reference it is to give clarity to my assertion that my income sources have nothing to do with my work on Wikipedia (or work I pay others for). Regarding my residency status, you are right that I am from India and am in the United States on a temporary non-immigrant status (see here). India and the United States have ~1.2 billion and ~300 million inhabitants respectively, with huge variation between them, so any inferences you draw about me based on my relationship with these two countries is likely to be inaccurate :). I find your calculations of the monetization potential of these pages fairly off, but I already confessed my lack of expertise on the subject, so you could be right. Dragging my family members into this is inappropriate and unnecessary; I am not going to divulge their financial records to reassure you that no payments were made into this, so you'll have to take me for my word there. Finally, regarding the Peery Foundation page, I created it several years ago (before I started paying for contract work) as a foundation whose output charity evaluator GiveWell takes seriously. This was ages ago.Vipul (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Q8
Q8 Don't you think the co-ordinated paid sockpuppetry your team displayed on Form 1040 wheel editing in full combined force against a lone editor explicitly contravenes the Terms of Use and also makes for a hostile environment for an experienced veteran editor who seems to have stopped editing after that ? (NB: self declared Vipul team editors on that page - Vipul, Ethanbas, Majesticfish, Riceissa). (NB-2: I use the proper ARBCOM (2005) defined term "sockpuppet" in place of "meat" which you deem disrespectful and misleading) Inlinetext (talk) 10:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The veteran editor you mention has gotten into a lot of disputes and it doesn't seem like the dispute with us was the reason for his departure. He's had a habit of repeatedly leaving and returning to Wikipedia. Our team did not display sockpuppetry on the page. Every editor who edited the page at my behest did so using their full real-world identity, and if there were multiple people who edited, it's because editing is a time-consuming process and different people in our team had time at different times.Vipul (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight. You freely admit that you and at least 3 other members of your team, all bound by financial payments, jointly edited in tandem (including repeated reversions) during an editing dispute with a single editor of over 11 years standing. Do you understand what you are saying?
This seems like the tip of a rather large iceberg. And there are issues of identity. Perhaps it is time to drop this matter in the laps of the Arbitration Committee and let them try to sort it out? JehochmanTalk14:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom is for issues that have gone through several and repeated attempts at resolution but have still not been resolved. Plus the Arbitration Committee themselves do not do any forensic research -- all of that is done by editors who choose to present evidence at an ArbCom case. Nor does ArbCom make policy. Given the responses that Vipul just made, it seems that real-world identities have been established and presented from the get-go (although with some such as Simfish this is only provided in a link). Although Vipul's 'scheme' (to use the British term) is unusual and in parts somewhat hard to fathom, he seems very willing to be upfront about it and answer as many questions as are posed to him. Softlavender (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of being accused of being a sock puppet myself, it seems like the confusion comes from the fact that people are unable to believe that Vipul would really spend his own money on Wikipedia edits for altruistic reasons. I've known him for a while as a FB friend and this is very much in line with what I know of his character. More to the point, it's in line with his general social media presence, which a simple Google search shows engages extensively with (for example) LessWrong, Quora, and EffectiveAltruism. Given that this is basically an individual attempting to orchestrate a group contribution to the social good, the results are pretty predictable: not everything will be perfect, and someone's going to find fault with something they do. Sure, some amount of cross-examination is an important component of a self-policing enterprise like Wikipedia, but wow: a dude spends a bunch of his own money on charity and then gets accused of all manner of dishonesty and profiteering. NB: I heard about this dispute from his Facebook page, but you can confirm the bit about his social media presence for yourself.Artificialintel (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This suspicion in his altruism may, indeed, be a factor. But we are mostly all volunteers here, and many spend their own money (in addition to their free labour). But almost all donate it directly to the Foundation. It is his money though, and he can spend it as he sees fit. It, however, is a somewhat complicated model he has setup, so some clarifications are due. And he only has to do it once. That said, I hope none of the above causes him to reconsider contributing to Wikipedia. El_C21:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I don't mind answering questions, but would prefer a more charitable and friendly way of going about it, that does not place a huge presumption of guilt on me. I've put a lot of information out there in the public sphere, and it would save everybody time if people first reviewed it thoroughly before making accusations. With that said, I also realize that not all the information I have put out there is easy to consume. I try to learn from discussions like these how to present my work more clearly to avoid needless confusion. Of course, at the end of it, we could still continue to have legitimate disagreements about what content is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia and how much detail a given page should have.Vipul (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. For my part, I've tried my best to host an exchange that welcomes all positive contributions to Wikipedia, while still remaining critical-minded. El_C21:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The method and tactics adopted by Vipul very clearly breaches the ToU and the community as a body (many worthy exceptions) is evidently not competent to investigate / enforce ToU breaches and interpret requirements of external regulatory agencies. It would also be a huge PR disaster if turns out there was fire behind the smoke. And why is this dispute on his Facebook page ? And is this the same FB page where 14 year old children are being targeted for recruitment to edit Wikipedia for Vipul ? Inlinetext (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Inlinetext, it's not clear from your userpage how long you were away from Wikipedia before you returned and opened this new account seven months ago (from your userpage it seems like it might have been an absence of eight years). I'd like to assure you that the Wikipedia community does enforce the Terms of Use, and spends a considerable amount of time and energy doing so. If you feel that Vipul's activities breach the ToU, and you are not satisfied with the answers you have received here, I urge you to take the matter up on WP:ANI, WP:COIN, or WP:AN. Otherwise, I urge you to avoid making accusations. -- Softlavender (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Softlavender', the information in your queries has been previously responded to here and here whenever asked. I am also "here" to improve the encyclopedia, so let that not be in doubt. Also my present ID (account name) is a WMF Global one and not that of the En:WP community. Moreover, as a USER of the EN.WP who is concerned by ToU contraventions on it, I don't even need an account to convey my concerns directly to WMF and in my IRL name with my signature on it. The WMF is not required to AGF. Finally I also dislike the AN, ANI processes which are essentially lynch mobs with pitchforks. Since these topics are discussed at multiple places, I shall confine myself to the COIN thread and see where it goes from there. Inlinetext (talk) 09:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thanks
Thanks for the decision on the "edit warring". User:Wikiinger seems like an inexperienced user that wishes to side step if they don't agree with the action and doesn't understand that not everyone editing page has time to constantly check things out. I feel like they didn't create a clear proposition on the changes of the AMD GPU tables. Once I did notice Wikiinger was going to war edit over the issue, I set a proper decision on the proposed change, which they have at this point continued to ignore and did revert change once more after the clear discussion point. #FF9600talk22:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Hopefully, you two can come to a resolution during the few days the page is protected. El_C22:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, you can be lucky that I saved your ass by filling the report before your actual 4th revert. Also don't spread FUD, you started the edit-war.--Wikiinger (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now, now. Speak to each other respectfully and with moderation, I insist on it. Start thinking on how to resolve the dispute. El_C22:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
EL_C see what I mean. I started a peaceful discussion to clear the issue up & Wikiinger continues to ignore the discussion, while we can clearly see that they have time to post/edit on Wikipedia. #FF9600talk22:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This section was only added after the first (or second?) revert. I was the one who started the discussion on the articles and also posted on FF9600 talk page, which he never responded to. (PS: I also added this to the ANI.) --Wikiinger (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Palestinian rejection of resettlement was driven by political concerns. This case study shows the importance of engaging directly with refugees when devising durable solutions ... The Palestinian refugees’ vehement opposition to resettlement is explained by their equally vehement attachment to repatriation. The right of return has been a central tenet of the Palestinian nationalist movement since 1948..."
Related to this discussion here: Hi, El C, you asked me to keep you updated if there was any problems concerning this page The Iconic Duo. I removed social media accounts as external links as per WP:ELNO and was reverted by an IP user (not the same one as before). Both IP are based in Sri Lanka as is the creator of the article, they have very similar editing patterns. editor interaction. The article creator has posted a number of false templates on his user page notably 6000 edits (he only has made 70 edits), extended confirmed, pending changes reviewer. I don't know if it's worth launching a sock-puppet investigation but would it be possible to semi-protect this page? --Domdeparis (talk) 13:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the person attacks towards other editors on their talk page, and with yourself as the blocking admin, I would recommend that Drmargi's block be extended to prevent editing of their talk page until the block is over. Alex|The|Whovian?14:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What personal attacks? Has something new happened? As far as I can see, she just removed our comments. So, oh well. El_C14:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The initial post, attacking multiple editors, and reverting the redaction of the personal attacks. This is most un-collaborative and exceptionally uncivil. And, yes, also removing the comments - you don't attack editors, and then refuse to give them the chance to defend themselves. Given these actions, Drmargi has no intention of discussing civilly or actually contributing to the site at all. Alex|The|Whovian?14:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can cut someone some slack while they are blocked—unless there's an actual personal attack you can link to (in the form of diffs). Even then, it'd have to be pretty serious to go beyond me issuing a first-and-only warning (i.e. to have me extend the block and/or protect the page). El_C14:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reasoning for protection was misplaced - "Disruptively edited over the past 48 hours by one user, who in that time has made 40+ edits, including adding unsourced claims which have been previously reverted multiple times"
Checking the article history shows that in all the edits made by (presumably) the indicated editor only three were reverted, all others were positive changes to the article. And out of those three, only one should be considered as being disruptive - and I use that term as mildly as I can as well: The only "real" reverted edit was to remove the birth year from the article - but in fairness to Gene Zef they added it and corroborated it with a source. Another Gene Zef edit was reverted - a rare error by Cluebot here. I also reverted an image change to the article, but that should not be counted as "disruptive" on the part of Gene Zef either.
Looking at the talk page shows that Gene Zef has been willing to discuss all his edits, and contributed positively to both talk page and main article. I don't think protection is warranted, and we're preventing an enthusiastic editor from volunteering. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For your work in frequently patrolling edit warring reports, I hereby award you this anti-edit-warrior combat helmet. It's come in handy many-a-time when dealing with warriors of all sorts, and it's no doubt prevented many-a-concussion...though it doesn't seem too good at preventing the headache in the first place. :P
I certainly can't compete with Slakr's Anti Edit Warrior Award above this but I have been running into you and your work frequently while patrolling the encyclopedia's various maintenance areas and wanted to take a moment to recognize everything you do to help keep the administrative side of this encyclopedia running. From RFPP to AE and everywhere in between, your work is greatly appreciated and it is my pleasure to award you The Admin's Barnstar. Best, Mifter (talk) 02:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't be fantastic to have an article in English Wikipedia about the Erev Rav? They are extensively discussed in Judaism. Perhaps you could translate the information from here? Also concise information here. What do you think?--186.136.223.110 (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've colored Sea temperature table and matched 2 tables to weather box style
(for days I thought of contacting you, but didn't want to bother you)
Can you give me an advice on COI and RS?
I've done my "homework" of getting to know Wiki rules, but I'm still a bit confused.
Editors should write on topics they are knowledgeable, but not directly involved.
My area of expertise (besides being an aeronautical engineer) is Climate research.
Is it WP:COI if I am involved with a company whose Climate data I'm occasionally citing?
Also edits should be referenced to WP:RS, not by editor's opinion, but by other editors' opinion.
I'm worried that other editors will judge reliability by their non-professional PoV and not by quality of collected data.
But since I know how many years and effort has been put into collecting and cross-checking data from over 200 sources, I'm trusting this source over any other.
(especially that I've seen on Wikipedia many references to lower quality Climate data sources)
So, should I write (and reference) about things I'm incompetent e.g. Japanese_cuisine ;)
or contribute (and reference to sources I trust) about things I'm well-versed?
First, you should never hesitate to contact me, with any questions or problems. And you should definitely feel welcome to contribute in your area of specialty. The encyclopedia will be better for it. Yes, citing the Company employing you is a conflict of interest, which you must declare. See: General COI on how to do that. But nevertheless, let the quality of your edits and the quality of your sources shine; let them stand on their own merits. I think you'll soon find that most experienced editors have a real soft spot for high quality edits and high quality sources. We certainly want more aeronautical engineers contributing to Wikipedia! El_C12:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid both of these issues are a bit outside of my field of expertise. I would suggest that you look into MOS:TABLES, but I suspect you're okay—the tables look good. As for your second question, you may consider asking the experts at COIN if they have any advise for you in that and other regards. Best, El_C12:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my revert, I hadn't properly checked that it was the lead, rather than the body and thought that it was important to establish the context of coinage. I've now returned to approx. your last version.
A related point is that there seem to be no criteria for which examples are listed in the lead, with the result that periodically examples are added/removed according to editor preference alone. Pincrete (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Makes sense. I think any instance where at least hundreds of thousands were killed, should be listed in the lead. Thanks. El_C14:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately there are probably dozens, if not hundreds of instances where "hundreds of thousands were killed" and dozens more where the deaths are not disputed, but the genocidal nature is, sigh. Pincrete (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose if we include civilian fatalities in WWI, WWII, the Indochina conflict, and other major wars, we arrive at many more instances, but hundreds sounds highly exaggerated. Excluding the world wars, even dozens seems like a bit of a stretch. When hundreds of thousands die, that is of great historical significance, regardless it is deemed genocidal in nature. El_C09:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unlock article
Please unlock article for Kanacea Island. The user Chrisn5 keeps reverting my changes. Every time I try to add valid information, this user removes it and claims that my information is false. WarnerBrosTX (talk) 14:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It says it was annexed in the same sentence, that should be clear enough. What's an an annexation, after all? But I integrated the entry into the sentence as annexed by. El_C07:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Please note that there's an Edit warring report filed about you regarding Sool. I, myself, am precluded from evaluating it, since as mentioned, I've edited the article today. El_C13:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for intervening earlier. I have kept both flags (Somaliland and Somalia that is) in the Sanaag edit earlier [11] seeing as there is a district of Sanaag (Badhan) that is disputed between Somaliland and Puntland and there was a military clash a few months ago there(as per Talk:Puntland–Somaliland dispute#Update 2017). Though Somaliland controls the vast majority of both regions, Somaliland's control of Sool is much more emphatic, and its presence is clearly felt in all districts of Sool. Out with some pockets near the border, Somaliland controls the capital and all four districts of the region. I am thinking going forward, keeping both flags in Sanaag's page, but removing Somalia from Sool to reflect the control of Somalialnd. What do you think?
Erigavo on the other hand is not disputed. It has never been. There was never a Puntland presence in there or any other administration to Somaliland. The mayor has been appointed by Somaliland for close to 20 years now, which is why I removed the Somalia flag from its page. Kzl55 (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, we did decide on one flag for Sool, I forgot. We should find a way to codify this (and make sure this enjoys consensus) for future reference. Perhaps an RFC. I was also thinking of having three flags for Sanaag due to the military escalation with Puntland, but I'll defer to your expertise in this particular case. It gets confusing in drive-by edits, because Somalia de jure control is still internationally recognized. I agree that 20 years is something that, in general, needs to be reflected in the article. El_C21:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more specific where (and in the context of what) in the article you think that quote is suited. El_C21:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Last reply to ARCA comment
I was already sucked in once against my better judgement in order to correct you; now I have to reply every time you make an incremental change to what you're saying, which might be less wrong, but is still wrong? And then when you alter that I'll have to revisit? No; instead I officially give everyone permission to believe you completely if they want to. I should have avoided saying anything and let the original falsehood stand. My mistake for not unwatchlisting ARCA when I unwatchlisted AE and TRM's talk page and turned off notifications.
Oh, and another thing: I did not criticize you for warning me for cursing; that was understandable. I was commenting that SBHB did it an order of magnitude more skillfully than you did. But you're two orders of magnitude better than the other people who dropped by later for more warnings, because at least you didn't assume to know my motivations, so like I said before, I guess you're still probably in the top 10%. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unrelated but not worth an extra thread: please check spelling of Sandstein in your statement, - and let's suffer gladly ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you reverted my edits at Women in Russia. If you think that I "removed too much existing content" than add it back. But that section must explain clearly what was decriminalized. According to this source (BBC): "Under the proposed legislation, first-time offenders who do not cause serious injury will face a maximum of 15 days police custody instead of up to two years in jail." [12]5.12.112.10 (talk) 06:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I integrated and rewrote it: here. Hope that works for you. Thanks again for your contributions and your patience. El_C06:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I see you protected this page under ARBPIA, but it has nothing to do with the conflict. I saw there was one instance of a dispute, but I can't condone adding the page under sanctions, especially as a first step in DR process. Regardless of what Huldra stated in the edit warring page, not every Israeli village is under ARBPIA, that is sanction scope. Please unprotect the page.Sir Joseph(talk)04:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As Sir Joseph mentioned correctly on User_talk:BedrockPerson#Block, there seems to be no reason to 30/500 protect Yarka, since there is no connection to WP:ARBPIA. Could you please explain?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs)
One section is enough—please remember to sign your name. (Also, are you two a package deal?) But seriously, any dispute involving Arab citizens of Israelmay become subject to the restrictions. But since you are the second (third!) to raise objections over it specifically, and since it is already borderline case, I will withdraw the restrictions from it. But I may well reintroduce them, if related disputes arise. El_C13:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha. No, we disagreed one many subjects, although most of our disagreements were in the past. As of late, we mostly agree. A coincidence. Debresser (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser used to disagree with me on many issues, but he either saw the light, or those articles haven't really been edited much in recent years. Sir Joseph(talk)19:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realise that you had reverted my edit, but hope that the newer version is acceptable. I'll check further in the morning to see if anything needs to be added from the earlier version. Rwood128 (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, but it still left out that passage. I just wanted to retain what was lost in those edits. I've now re-added that passage back in. Hopefully that works for you. El_C00:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"provision-that-keeps-on-giving!" - You got that right. Sometimes it's like walking through a minefield, for both editors and admins. --NeilNtalk to me20:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you agree. For a moment, I thought maybe it was just me and my ol' ways. What can we do but enforce it through clenched teeth. El_C20:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I agree with you. That is why I don't like bringing people to AE, and I usually offer a note on their page that they should revert or discuss. Two weeks ago I had the same issue with Nishidani and I posted it on his talk page (but someone else ended up reverting first) instead of bringing it to AE, regardless of how Nishidani claims I am angling to have him blocked. Sir Joseph(talk)20:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, not that I'm in the mood of another ARBCOM Clarification, my personal rule is that I post a message on the user's talk page and give a chance to revert/change/whatever, I find that in many cases the user is amenable to that and in most cases isn't fully aware of sanctions. The whole DS area is very confusing, especially the other "provision-that-keeps-on-giving", namely, "broadly construed." Sir Joseph(talk)20:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And we saw that broadly construed in action in Yarka—but no, in this case, I don't foresee there being complications, nor do I see an appeal to the Committee as likely (hopefully, I didn't just jingse it!). El_C20:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It sure can be a pain to enforce. My approach has been to enforce it less strictly than 1RR, through warnings for first offense, because it is less than immediately intuitive. El_C20:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Edit war report you handled for me
(regarding Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball I just have a quick question about this situation, if I had not of reported this, would I have been blocked if I had broken the 3 revert rule? In addition, if this editor continues to ignore my requests for a discussion on the issue and continues to revert after the protection is lifted, what should be the next step I take in handling this?? I don't want to something that will get myself blocked. I've never been blocked and would like to keep it that way.--Rockchalk71720:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you had not reported it, then it may have ended up slipping under the radar. Or not. Please keep me appraised. If the editor remains unresponsive throughout the protection period, then goes on reverting, they will be sanctioned. But, hopefully, you two can take those couple of days to sort it out. El_C20:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are free to do that. But if the four days pass and they still remain unresponsive, they'll be forfeiting their right to their version. Give em a day or three. El_C02:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Place for Amin al-Husseini quote + 2 other things
Hi. I found the right place for the quote of Amin al-Husseini. In the section Amin al-Husseini#Ties with the Axis Powers during World War II, next to the introductory sentence "...namely the English, the Jews, and the Communists'.[137]", please add the following "In addition, he claimed that Nazism and Islam had common values as well as common enemies – above all, the Jews." It could be considered redundant, but this sentence highlights the fact that al-Husseini also believed Islam and Nazism share common values as well, not only enemies. Perhaps you can merge it with the previous sentence.--186.137.179.52 (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why not quote him saying that though, otherwise it does seem a bit redundant and I'm not sure I'm comfortable quoting from a Jerusalem Post newspaper piece directly into the article, as there may be undue weight issues. So, can you quote al-Husseini himself? Or from a more scholarly source (that represents scholarly consensus). El_C04:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also the end of this section says "On Feb 6, 2017, The Knesset passed the controversial Regulation Law,..." I think that word should be deleted per WP:label.
Finally, this section is extremely POV and should be modified, properly attributed and counterbalanced it, don't you think?
What do you specifically dispute with regards to the Regulation Law being controversial at home and abroad? It is controversial, do you not agree? And what do you specifically dispute regarding academic freedoms (or lack thereof) that's mentioned in that article? What do you find not factual, or violating neutrality or due weight? El_C04:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Please see how this user restores a clear propaganda piece by Al Jazera while removing an official article about a Hasbarah organization. Would you mind restoring the Aish link?--186.136.223.48 (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, El C. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 17:39, 15 March 2017 (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.
Hello, El C. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, El C. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, El C. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Good evening El C. I took note that you commented on my talk page following various interpretations of what is a revert (and we're not even in provision-that-keeps-on-giving territory, since that one was recently lifted on the Russian interference page). I must admit I'm a bit tired of having to justify my every action to some editors apparently eager to corner me (see this dialogue for example), and others jumping in uninvited to defend me, prompting further accusations of collusion, therefore I have decided to stop responding and hat the discussion. That doesn't mean I admit wrongdoing, as I'm very careful to stay within the rules, not only to their letter but also to their spirit. And rest assured that I do appreciate your attempts to clarify the situation for all people involved. I just did not think I had anything more to say than my initialexplanations, unless somebody actually files a complaint; I'd rather spend timeimprovingtheencyclopediaelsewhere… Kind regards, — JFGtalk23:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
May be a bit stale by now, but I did count that 2nd edit as a partial revert. I can accept that that removal was done unknowingly of the passage's corresponding addition. El_C09:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration remedy violation
Dear El C, I am sorry, but this edit by JFG is a violation of WP:AE restriction for the page: "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)". Here is edit when another contributor challenged this trough reversion, and I do not see this matter being discussed on article talk page. Should this be reported to WP:AE, or this is not necessary? I am asking you as someone familiar with previous discussions about it. My very best wishes (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello My very best wishes. As I said above I'd rather stop having to defend my every action on those political pages, but if you insist I'm happy to oblige. So what do we have here?
I restore the material (challenging his edit by reversion) and taking into account his remark, I remove the duplicate information about alcohol abstinence from the Early Life section, keeping it only in the Health section
This is normal collaborative editing, there is no violation of anything. You are making the same mistake as in your earlier criticisms of some of my editing activity, at User talk:JFG#Reply. A revert is undoing some recent action by some other editor(s); it can be removing text they added or restoring text they erased. You seem to interpret any removal of text by an editor as being a "challenge by reversion", but here SNUGGUMS didn't challenge anybody's edit, I'm the one who challenged his edit, and worked further to improve the article collaboratively. — JFGtalk03:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting since I was pinged. No; I didn't revert any restoration, but whether someone smokes, takes drugs, or drinks is trivial unless such use seriously damages their health (including death and need for rehab) or the person perhaps goes on some campaign advocating favor of or against its use. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know who created text removed by SNUGGUMS in [14], but someone did. Therefore edit by SNUGGUMS was revert as defined in policy, i.e. undoing work by other contributors. I do not have any judgement about content here, but SNUGGUMS did not violate any editing restrictions for the page. I also do not like this editing restriction, but rules are rules and they must be followed. What is happening here? I think JFG openly violates the rules, including 1RR and that one. That should stop. He was warned about this too many times. My very best wishes (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In your view of the world, any removal of text is a revert. I respectfully think you are misguided about this. — JFGtalk09:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And this edit [15] snark and mocking of 2 other editors @Casprings: and @My very best wishes: who have engaged in a clear good faith discussion on a certain content question) is corrosive and clearly against the intention and directives in ARBAP2. We've seen how JFG responds when he'd politely asked to mind the DS. It's been denial and personal disparagement for months on end. Just hours ago, I see that he came to this page with self-serving virtuous words about how he would disengage. WP is losing editors, because who wants to come here to be greeted by this kind of toxic behavior. SPECIFICOtalk03:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO: As I told you several times over the last few weeks, I would appreciate if you stopped hounding me, jumping on every discussion that involves my edits and issuing vague threats; WP:Harassment is sanctionable. I find a it a bit rich from you to accuse me of toxic behaviour, given your own history of snark towards many other editors. Let's leave it at that. — JFGtalk03:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, for a revert, there's a dialectical interplay between adding and removing. In this case, removing something has to be related to a specific addition. As for the provision-that-keeps-on-giving, I don't see Snuggums (best username on Wikipedia, btw) challenging anything for the rule to be breached. El_C10:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to the policy, "an edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." OK. So, according to your clarification, every time when it happens someone must explain which exactly edit(s) by other contributors were undone, even when someone clearly removes a long-standing text created by other participants as in this case? OK, thank you for your clarification. My very best wishes (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. There's a difference between removing a portion of text that was added by a number of editors through the course of collaborative work, and removing something added by someone, specifically. The former is just an edit; the latter is undoing someone thus counting as a revert. El_C15:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, however, the text quoted by @My very best wishes: does state "editors' actions" in the plural. I have always read that to mean that a revert can be either an undo of a single editor's text or the undo of text arrived at by more than one editor, presumably reflecting collaboration or consensus (which might be a stronger reason to discourage such reverts.) I affirm that each Admin may act according to his/her best interpreation of policy, so I am not saying this to dispute any action or interpretation of El_C, just noting that I personally try to stick to a tougher standard. SPECIFICOtalk18:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of another admin with a different interpretation. Any tougher standards are both more difficult to establish and make simple edits more difficult to apply without them counting as reverts. El_C18:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
El_C, if the same DS sentence that is being argued at ARCA for the IP area is also causing trouble in other areas, maybe that should be brought to the attention of Arbcom. It is being claimed that it is working just fine in the American politics area (which I never enter) but it doesn't sound like it from the above. Zerotalk01:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There could be something written about why the Occupied Territories are under siege, from the Israeli vantage point—whether their economy would be better under Jordan and Egypt, respectively, is counterfactual—but otherwise, it seems balanced enough with respect to due weight. What faults do you draw from the description? El_C10:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the consensus is for sure reached that division titles should be on the team pages since it is a category listed on the college basketball template. There was an issue of whether or not the sources used for citing that there were division titles for Kansas were reliable. I believe the sources I have found and listed on the talk page should put to rest any of that and I was hoping for your opinion on that issue. I have a Nebraska Cornhuskers men's basketball media guide cited and three separate newspaper articles from Lawrence, Kansas and the time periods of the divisions. --SportsMaster (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, to be clear, I'm only interested whether you think an edit war is likely to resume if I protected right now. El_C15:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As an uninvolved admin, would you mind having a look at this topic? I rolled it up here, only for it to be reverted without edit summary - but the following comment was left on my talk page here"Are you Admin? / If not please don't tamper with my comments or show cause." I didn't tamper with his comments, which are still there, and I believe I showed cause in rolling it up with the edit summary of "Clearly nothing of any value is going to result from this"
The problem is you hatted an established editor with a Do not feed the troll subtitle, so it's no surprise they took offense as well as took exception to you hatting a section they started and to which they are the sole participant. Although I see no harm in it either being hatted or left alone, being respectful to one another is paramount. El_C17:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wan Chien is NOT a JDAM weapon
The Wan Chien is NOT a "surface to air missile" as mistakenly and stubbornly clamed by Adamgerber80 (talk) the Wan Chien is carried on the IDF jet fighter. The IDF jet fighter launches the missile, which carries over 100-300 individual cluster bombs within it's interior, allowing this ONE missile to destroy a surface area of over 300 kilometers in diameter. What this means is that this Taiwanese Wan Chien super weapon (which translates from the ancient Chinese characters as "Ten Thousand Swords"), using just conventional high explosives, has the capability to destroy a surface area equivalent to that destroyed by a small nuclear weapon, without actually having to use nuclear weapons and without all the international sanctions and diplomatic fallout from the United Nations. The following reliable sources specifically state that it is an AIR TO GROUND missile and NOT a "surface to air missile" as Adamgerber80 (talk) mistakenly and stubbornly claim. Please read the following:
"The Taiwanese Air Force unveiled an locally developed AIR-TO-GROUND stand-off weapon developed for the nation’s F-CK-1 Indigenous Defense Fighter (IDF) "
"Seventy-one out of more than 120 on-duty IDFs saw upgrades by the state-run Aerospace Industrial Development Corporation to beef up the decade-old jets' air-to-ground combat capabilities.
To take some of the burden off of the nation's F-16 fleet, the Wan Chien cluster bombs, the name of which translates as "ten thousand swords," have been added to the IDFs, giving the fighters the ability to fire the bombs at a range of over 200 kilometers.
The bombs can be launched from the air over the Taiwan Strait to target troop concentrations, defensive positions, harbors and airstrips on the Chinese mainland, said Lin Yu-fang, a veteran lawmaker and long-time supporter of beefing up national defenses"
"Similar to the AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon employed by the U.S. military, the Wan Chien can strike targets from a distance to take out an enemy airfield without exposing the IDF to anti-aircraft fire, the officials said
"the Wan Chien "Ten Thousand Swords" cluster bomb has also passed the air force’s "initial operational testing" and will eventually be employed to augment the combat capabilities of its Indigenous Defensive Fighter (IDF)"......Key word CLUSTER BOMB with cruise missile capabilities and NOT a "surface to air" missile as Adamgerber80 (talk) mistakenly and stubbornly claims.
"The Taiwanese Air Force on January 16 unveiled a new AIR-TO-GROUND cruise missile that could play a major role in any military confrontation with China"..........key words AIR-TO-GROUND CRUISE MISSILE and NOT a "surface to air missile" as Adamgerber80 (talk) mistakenly and stubbornly claims.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.192.191.65 (talk • contribs)
(Where is that signing bot when you need it?) I made no such claim regarding this particular instrument of death, IP. No claim whatsoever. I only protected the page. And I think you mean a surface area of over 300 meters, not kilometers(!). El_C20:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we know, our sincere apologies to you as we never intended to say that you wrote these things. We are only trying to show you that the other editor Adamgerber80 (talk) is wrong. Wan Chien is both a cluster bomb/cruise missile that is contained within the external design of cruise missile allowing extended combat range, a unique innovative Taiwanese design that is different from the American AGM-158, AGM-154 or the Storm Shadow. Wan Chien has similar capabilities to them but many differences. And your sources such as, http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-china-plans-win-the-next-great-big-war-asia-19733, mention nothing about Wan Chien being a JDAM or "surface to air" missile.
And Adamgerber80 (talk) apparently did not comprehend and understand the second source which Adamgerber80 (talk) provided himself, Please read Adamgerber80 (talk)'s second source http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/2022492 which specifically states "Taiwan-developed Wan Chien missile will function like the United States' AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile"....the key word being "AIR-TO-SURFACE" missile and NOT "surface to air" missile as mistakenly and stubbornly claimed by Adamgerber80 (talk).
And yes, destruction of 300 Kilometers in diameter is correct because the 100-300 cluster bombs contained within the cruise missile itself is designed to spread out and detonate high above the ground in order to inflict maximum spreading of the explosion and shrapnel. It is unfortunate that weapons of destruction are created on Earth, but our job as editors is not to place judgement but rather only to make sure that Wikipedia articles are accurate with up to date information, which Adamgerber80 (talk) and his small group of edit war friends merlinVtwelve (talk) and L3X1(distant write) apparently are trying to prevent. These three editors are constantly putting false information into articles and ignoring up to date information despite being repeatedly provided with reliable sources and references that prove otherwise. The editor Adamgerber80 (talk) is still mistakenly and stubbornly arguing despite the indisputable fact, visible to the whole world, that the three academic sources which Adamgerber80 (talk) provided himself specifically mentions that the Wan Chien is an "Air to ground missile" and NOT a "surface to air" missile. Thank you! 211.192.191.65 (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A question for IP User, 211.192.191.65. Can you please explain for all editors in this discussion, why does your IP address change with every single edit and comment? What is it you are trying to achieve? Why do you not either (a) edit under just one IP address, or (b) open up an account? merlinVtwelve (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A little background regarding this IP can be found at the RfC on Hsiung Feng III, but to save time I have 3 diffs regarding suspected socking. [16] admin comments [17] IP denies it [18]. So the IP uis denying hopping, but per duck I don't believe them. And for the record I have never edit warred regarding this subject, I became involved after seeing it mentioned on RfPP. I do have an idea for how it can all be solved when we decide dispute resolution is not working and long term abuse must be stopped. L3X1(distant write)01:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wondering if you could add to the closing statement. An indef was certainly in order, but the original proposal for a topic ban also included userfying all their project-space creations and deleting all shortcut redirects to them. I believe I see a consensus to go ahead and do it, but it would be better if a previously uninvolved admin said so explicitly. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only because the apparent subject was "white stereotyping", which could fail within the umbrella of the ref desk troll, who's always talking about how Jews and minority races in America and western Europe are out to destroy the white race, and such stuff as that. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. El C I had a look at the view history page of Sanaag article and it seems you were the first user that included the notion of Somaliland's control of entire Sanaag, i would like to inform you that this is incorrect. Can you have a look at my reasoning in the Sanaag talk page in which i've included several arguments regarding the use of partial control which seems to be more appropriate. I've included in the article that Sanaag is partly controlled by Somaliland not fully controlled. Also can you have a look at the map in the Puntland-Somaliland dispute page here: [19], it clearly shows areas of eastern Sanaag as being highlighted both orange and green not only orange, this surely merits the use of the words 'partial control' instead of control. Wouldn't you agree? Beany5454 (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Because only a small area of Sanaag is disputed with Puntland, most of it is controlled by Somaliland, which the map clearly shows. Observe: El_C00:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there should be a counter-balance to that brief criticism section, of an unsourced explanatory ref, no less. The article already has a lengthy (unfortunately pointform) section that deals with support, a section which dosen't have a counter-balance to it, either. El_C07:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Zionist terrorism"?
Hi. Someone added a strange unrelated category here. However, there's no claim in article that this is "terrorism". It seems pure unsourced POV category to push an agenda or propaganda, don't you think?--186.137.207.253 (talk) 03:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The category is already in List of killings and massacres in Mandatory Palestine, so it seems like a logical progression by that standpoint—though, indeed, I am not sure there's consensus in the modern historiography to call the sum of these events that. You may want to consider listing an RFC over this in the article's talk page. El_C03:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Adding {{pp-30-500|small=yes}}
G'day
I was just wondering if there was a reason you've not been adding the {{pp-30-500|small=yes}} template to pages you protect. I've been tailing you adding them in as it's easy enough and adds it to my watchlist. — IVORKDiscuss06:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: Please check the previous version and current version and make appropriate changes. Also, most of the what I added was referenced material and I also added the other side of the story. --Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs06:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
to this - the 1st part of this is entirely about contributor, not content. This is not what article talk pages are for. Just explaining; i am not going to continue removing their inappropriate remarks in mainspace. Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is an insinuation we can do without, I had said that much to Utsill. But I think both of you could benefit from a deep breath-in and exhaling-out, a few times. El_C22:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I agree with Zero that, for a BLP, it needs more context. I agree with you that that {{cn}} is probably superfluous, but then again a source can be easily found for it. El_C00:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your turn to find a source, IP, because I came out empty-handed (my source was reverted as not being reliable enough). Fact is some Arab countries that support the boycott still officially deny Israel's right to exist, and that's what I was thinking about. But on second thought, that may not be the case with the boycott movement (in Western countries) itself, which may be less monolithic, more plural and diverse in their positions. El_C15:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to your comment here to not bog down that discussion. The problem with the 1RR restriction was that it encouraged "tag team" revert wars, in which each side would use up their individual one revert for the day in sequence. As I understand the intention of the new restriction, it is to force users to discuss and try to reach a consensus over controversial edits. If an edit is reverted, that shows that it is controversial. Therefore anyone wanting to reinstate it must establish a consensus first. It will require a different mindset for those editing the restricted topic areas, but I do think it is a good way to cut down on the edit warring that the 1RR restriction has failed to prevent over many years. WJBscribe(talk)13:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm too new to it to judge; it might just be reflexive on my part because of it being counterintuitive. I admit to seeing less edit warring on ARBPIA articles overall, so perhaps I should give it more of a chance. El_C15:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you are an administrator, and that you have been editing wikipedia for over a decade. Despite that, it also seems that you are unfamiliar with basic aspects of the manual of style, as you undid an edit of mine saying
"bold for emphasis is useful".
MOS:NOBOLD: "Avoid using boldface for emphasis in article text."
MOS:ITAL: "Whereas italics may be used sparingly for emphasis, boldface is normally not used for this purpose."
WP:BOLDTITLE: "If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence...Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative titles (which should usually also redirect to the article) are placed in bold."
I am familiar with it and it was not needless. I disagree, in this instance—I still think it should be in boldface due to its close relation to the subject. I think bold helps the reader, in this case. But I concede that you did so with the assumption you were following the Manual of style's letter of the law. I just submit that you missed its spirit. El_C23:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've been away from Wikipedia for a decade, and I've been finding that the MoS is too often not seen as the guideline it is, but as a policy. And that's a shame. El_C23:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You think that this one article needs to be formatted in a way that's inconsistent with all the other articles, and that's the spirit of the MOS? I think that you either haven't got a clue what a manual of style is for, or you're making a shoddy post hoc attempt to justify your needless revert. I suggest that you observe carefully how articles are written here, if you've been away for a decade. Read some featured articles, for example. Trying to apply your own personal manual of style to articles is not productive. 95.145.130.72 (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS is just a writing guide, it is not a set of absolutes. All guidelines, policies, etc are to be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. It actually says that n every single one of those pages, so perhaps you'd like to go observe that before attacking another user? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've been back for a few months now, I think I've caught up. But I do have a fresh perspective, still. Each article has its own needs borne of its own particularities and peculiarities. The MoS was not designed to be used rigidly. As for not having a clue, try to assume that I do. And I suggest you take it down a notch, overall. El_C23:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are style issues where exceptions can make sense. Arbitrarily bolding text in the article lead is not one of them. The guidelines are incredibly clear and unambiguous. You should simply have apologised for your error and moved on. Trying to argue that it wasn't an error at all but some carefully considered action is just laughable and insulting. I hope I don't see you reverting so pointlessly again. 95.145.130.72 (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Try harder. I consider it a 2ndry title. I don't feel one ought to robotically adhere to the style guide. I'm not afraid to deviate from it when needed, and that has always been my position. My revert was explained well enough: "bold for emphasis is useful"—enough for a first revert. Enough for you to assume good faith, which you haven't been doing from the outset. I reiterate that your passive-aggressive comments are not welcomed here, still. El_C14:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is this really necessary? Edit notice pages can only be edited by template editors and admins, all of who are probably significantly beyond the point of Extended confirmed. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu18:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I'll give you the tl;dr from the discussion. The consensus is that WP:INDICSCRIPT doesn't apply to infoboxes, it says nothing about them. It is also the case that WP:INDICSCRIPT is a Wikiproject India-specific guideline, and that the way to reconcile this with the general convention that geographic articles should include local script(s) when relevant and uncontroversial, is to put the scripts in the infobox. Thanks. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌтʌʟк19:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not been my understanding at all—it doesn't look like you have consensus, though I do weakly support your position. El_C19:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry what I meant that there is no consensus that WP:INDICSCRIPT applies to infoboxes. A lot of editors edit as if there were. Maybe just skim that discussion to get a sense of it; the RfC that was mentioned there is the only tidbit of consensus there is. (Also I'm talking about INDICSCRIPT as if it were a primitive, but what I meant was that there is no consensus that scripts should not go in infoboxes, note the two negations.) ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌтʌʟк19:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've been operating under that assumption for a month now—I've even blocked a user who wouldn't stop adding it to the native name. So, just let me know what ends up being decided. El_C19:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, what I meant was that it was already decided that there does not exist such a policy to remove Indian scripts from India-related infoboxes. (The lack of consensus here means that the policy doesn't apply.) You can still feel free to remove scripts from infoboxes which you think might be controversial, but otherwise there is no policy against them and in fact the general geographic conventions are in favor of them when uncontroversial and relevant. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌтʌʟк19:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're confusing two concepts: 1.) the existence of a consensus concerning scripts on infoboxes and 2.) the lack of consensus concerning scripts on infoboxes. I'm only saying that (2) holds. This means that there is no guideline that applies to scripts in infoboxes. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌтʌʟк19:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I got the sense that many thought that such consensus did exist. Who, besides you, argues that it dosen't? El_C19:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Many thought that such a consensus did exist" doesn't mean a consensus exists. The people assuming the consensus exist have the burden to show exactly where on Wikipedia such a consensus was reached. The people who want to prove that something exists would have the burden of proving that it exists, don't they? :P In fact, both sides in the discussion I linked to here agreed that such a consensus did not exist. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌтʌʟк20:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(I'm in favour of having native names in infoboxes.) If that's the case, I really think we need a new RfC for this. El_C20:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What would you specifically retain? I see it riddled with original research and BLP problems. The editor has taken far too many liberties, especially in the list of names. El_C22:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Niruben Amin article
The page in question has been under edit warring for sometime as you would have noticed. The reliable source that is being used is not accurate and includes libelous material and therefore I have been trying to revert the page to display correct information. I request that you revert the page to it's original and provide full page protection in order to stop edit warring. Any help accorded in this matter will be greatly appreciated.Dipali mehta (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I get the sense the editor is looking for something more specific (like a passage, page number, etc.). El_C21:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2017 Hama offensive
Hello, I saw you are currently active and are an administrator. Could you please review my request for temporary semi-protection of the 2017 Hama offensive article? What would seem to be a single-purpose account has: made several POV reverts (and edits) of me and one other editor in violation of the general 1RR policy for all Syrian war articles, while also removing several sources that talk about Army gains claiming they are pro-regime, despite one being in fact pro-rebel and the other unaffiliated (neutral). Thank you in advance! EkoGraf (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest trying to bring that up on the article talk page, first. It would be premature to protect the page before you attempted that. El_C00:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I tried his talk page and warned him he violated 1RR but to no effect. I told him several times (both in edit summaries and on talk page) one of the sources he's removing is pro-rebel, but he simply ignores it like I'm not even saying it. As for the other third-party source, he accused it of being pro-regime without providing any evidence to confirm. This POV behavior in combination with his account being used only today for edits on this one page lead me to believe its a single-purpose POV account. EkoGraf (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again: diffs of the 2 reverts mentioned please. The place to raise your concerns about the article is on the article talk page, so that other editors can participate. El_C00:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, saw your message only after I left you the one above. Here are the diffs of his partial reverts, insertion of unsourced info, usage of un-reliable twitter posts in edits and removal of sources [21][22][23][24]. Also, an IP editor here [25][26] removed sourced information two times using language similar to the single-purpose guy (could be him as well just logged off). Finally, there was one more single-purpose account (only one edit ever, in this article) which made an edit today here [27], again in similar fashion like the other guy. PS Note, he inserted/reinserted three times Pro-government sources claimed that regarding the Army recapture of Kawkab, despite the fact the pro-rebel SOHR was also cited as a source (which he was told as many times). EkoGraf (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I give you permission to revert (this will count as the user self-reverting) back to from before the 1RR was violated (please use an explanatory edit summary). I've warned the user about 1RR. The rest of the discussion belongs on the article talk page instead of the user talk pages of all three of us. El_C01:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you for the intervention and the permission. I will revert to before his 1RR violation. I will also try and see if its possible to tweak the wording a bit (so its more to his liking) as a compromise attempt. EkoGraf (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Maybe note what you did and why on the (still empty) article talk page, and otherwise please let me know if any other issues arise. El_C01:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, thanks for being pro-active in protectng the Yogi Adityanath page. That gave us some peace for a while. But, as soon as the protection expired, the POV editors got into the game. Can you advise what can be done? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I implemented pending changes, but there may be no choice but to return to extended protection again. Keep me updated. El_C16:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm just copying templates. But I thought there was consensus to not have the provision on US articles...(?) There seems to be an inconsistency in the talk page template and the pagenpotice. El_C19:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello El-C. The version you posted is the same one that's used on every other American Politics article I've checked. I think the removal a month or so ago was a personal decision by the Admin who originally posted the notice and that there's good reason to have the more restrictive one you reestablished. SPECIFICOtalk19:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The longer notice is still good at Template:Editnotices/Page/Donald Trump for example. Indeed, given the recent AE drama, Bishonen had switched back the Russian article to the simpler 1RR rule; if you wish to place it back under 1RR+challenge, then the longer edit notice is necessary. I'm not sure which of the two restrictions is better-suited to this particularly thorny article. — JFGtalk19:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, 'don't reinsert w/o consensus' should be the guideline for all WP articles, but I think it's clear that this was called for at the time of ARBAP2 and I viewed the removal from that one article -- Russian -- as the result of pressure due to self-motivated complaints by editors who'd violated the sanctions. SPECIFICOtalk19:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My recollection is that there was a contentious AE thread in which an editor disparaged that "reinstatement" requirement after having clearly violated it. @Bishonen: may have a clearer recollection than mine as to the circumstances. As I recall, the discussion became contentious enough for her to remove the DS, because the notice was being blamed for the nasty AE. SPECIFICOtalk20:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All the "regulars" at this article have been trying their best to abide by the 1RR+consensus constraints, however due to varying interpretations of "what is an edit", "what is a revert" and "what is a challenge", and due to a general tense atmosphere at this article, accusations of violations have been flying around and the WP:AE board was recently inundated with claims and counter-claims from said regulars (myself included). Because the DS restrictions were supposed to a) promote article stability b) facilitate the policing job of admins, and neither objective was met on this particular page, Bishonen decided to lift the super-provision-that-keeps-on-giving on 22 February, and NeilN placed the article back under standard 1RR, until today you restored the 1RR+consensus version. — JFGtalk20:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that since the return to simple 1RR, editors have been a lot more cautious and no new AE case has emerged. So maybe that was the right thing after all… — JFGtalk20:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but just for one article, or for all 1932 Politics in the US ones? (I just saw the talkpage had no AE notice, that's all.) El_C20:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking only about this article. I have not noticed any recurrent problem with the extended rule on other ARBAP2 articles where I have been working; on the contrary it works pretty well to encourage civil and neutrality-oriented discourse. This Russia thing is truly special… — JFGtalk20:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I merely added an AE talk page notice procedurally, to accompany the article pagenotice—without the intention of adding or removing existing restrictions. El_C20:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
El_C, let me recap from the beginning to the best of my recollection. Bishonen placed the article under the full ARBAP2 DS that is in use at the other AP articles. There was then an AE thread in which an editor violated that. "A discussion ensued." Bishonen then removed the DS altogether, since she had placed it and did not wish to be involved in the contentious discussion. A different Admin then applied the limited form that was in place until you replaced it with the original and commonly used form, apparently creating an inconsistent pair of templates that was noticed and led to this thread. In my opinion, the full DS is needed and after the removal there were unconstructive re-insertions of disputed content w/o consensus on talk, possibly because the removal gave safe harbor to such behaviour. So I thought you were intending to restore the widespread version of DS as it is in effect on the other ARBAP2 articles, and I thought (think) that is the correct thing to do. SPECIFICOtalk20:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever your intention, you have added the DS-provision-that-keeps-on-giving restriction which was not my intention when I placed and logged the 1RR restriction. --NeilNtalk to me20:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, t'was unintentional. But the problem remains: the article talk page ought to have an AE notice—well, I guess it doesn't really has to have one. El_C20:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I thought it was the articlepage notice that someone put on there by accident. Looks like it's all on me, folks. Sorry for wasting your time. El_C20:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is the article page notice but it works well enough for the talk page too. 1RR+consensus was leading to a lot of "gotcha" games. Bishonen removed it and I added the straight 1RR. [29] --NeilNtalk to me20:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I should probably acknowledge my part in this. The Russian article is as far as I can remember the only article I've ever put active arbitration remedies on. When I later came to my senses formed the opinion that they're more trouble than they're worth, and invite gaming — they keep on giving, indeed — I thought it incumbent on me to revoke them at that article. See this request on my page, which led to this discussion on article talk. I also opened a thread at AN,[30] in the hope that it would lead to a wider discussion of AE page remedies in general, but it didn't, exactly. However, it probably inspired NeilN to implement the partial restriction that he mentions above (1RR but not the "must obtain consensus before reinstating any edits that have been challenged" thing). That was fine, IMO. I think the template you have now put there, Commendante, does the same thing. It's all very complicated and at least the stupider admins such as me don't understand it very well, so I'm not sure how we can expect less experienced users to. Bishonen | talk21:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for clarifying, Bish. It is not for naught I coined the term for it the provision-that-keep-on-giving. We've just had a block (and early unblock) and an almost-block due to it on the ARBPIA front (see AE for details), which led to a new ARCA. One of the points I advanced there was that, first of all, the rule needs its own page on the projectspace, where at least it can be explained beyond the one sentence it now gets. Hopefully, the Committee won't be busy-or-dosen't-want-any so as to address my points. El_C21:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, it was the aesthetics of it that threw me off. I'm just not accustomed to seeing the yellow-framed text on talk pages, so I was sure it was an accident. But, as mentioned, it does touch on issues recently in contention and subject to Arb-clarification. El_C22:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that @Coffee: appeared at AE to discuss his contribution in creating the template that was removed, so I'm pinging him in case he wishes to comment. He was perhaps the only one at that AE who had previously thought through the issue and the wording. SPECIFICOtalk22:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
*tumbles into the page*... *reads...* - Oh dear. I wasn't the only person who thought this through. @NeilN, El C, and SPECIFICO: The Arbitration Committee, of their own volition (literally while I was away from the site), decided to adopt the consensus required wording into the entire WP:ARBPIA 1RR restriction... essentially exactly what I did for many WP:ARBAP articles. (see this motion) The reasoning is to prevent gaming of the 1RR restriction, due to the sensitive nature of these articles. Such as: editor x adds a sourced but likely WP:UNDUE bit to an article, editor y reverts (using their one revert for the day), editor x now has the ability to re-add this to the article... where it may be allowed to stay for hours before another editor sees the issue. - I hope that helps explain this a bit. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But, as I mention on ARCA, unless the revert is well-reasoned, the consensus clause itself can be gamed to grind editing to a halt. El_C22:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably Admins would take that possibility of gaming into account before any block. At any rate, in that particular case, the reverted text was a BLP violation and recognized as such by several editors on the talk page while the violations were recurring. SPECIFICOtalk22:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@El C and SPECIFICO: Well, all of this is done with the caveat that administrators would be expected to ensure such gaming doesn't happen. Hence the general discretionary sanctions being applied as well. I have yet to see much confusion or incorrect application of these restrictions by admins on these articles, otherwise I would be working on changing them this very minute. If you would think a manual would be useful, I'm sure I could find the time (as well as some other admins familiar with this arena) to create one. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Coffee: Most definitely. A manual would be a great contribution, because it would greatly reduce the community time spent on sorting out good-faith error and would support Admins in their enforcement of the problems that seem to arise in this and other DS areas. I think it might also help Admins give preventive warnings or, where appropriate, make blocks in straightforward cases that don't need to be discussed at AE. Thanks. SPECIFICOtalk00:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Once the ARCA is concluded and the final version of the consensus clause ratified, a manual in the projectspace accompanying 1RR would be welcomed. El_C00:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Coffee: Not sure what your point is here. If you're pushing for ARBPIA-style enforcement, where admins are forced to use a particular restriction, for American politics articles, then please let me know where that's being proposed so I can argue against it. Arbcom has done enough damage in that area, forcing admins to substitute judgement for a "one-size-fits-all" solution. And I say this as an early supporter of 500/30, back in October 2015, as an optional tool. --NeilNtalk to me04:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilN:"where admins are forced to use a particular restriction" I'm not sure what you mean by this... I don't believe I've ever advocated for a broad implementation of the use of the consensus/1RR restriction on all WP:ARBAP articles. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilN: Oh, that. I'm not fond of that either, and you'll rarely see me in that area specifically because I try to abstain from enforcing that. What I'm fond of is this setup, where the editors have created a rather well running system to ensure article stability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilN: I hope you didn't misinterpret my initial ping of you here. I was in no way challenging the decision to not include the "consensus required" part in the editnotice in question. I was merely stating the reason it exists in other articles. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Coffee: Ah, okay. I was trying to figure out what you meant. Agreed that it's useful on some articles but I don't want Arbcom to get it into its head to mandate its use on all "highly visible articles relating post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people". Or else we'll wind up applying it to the Mayor of Podunkville's article when he does something stupid and gains national attention when a short semi would do. --NeilNtalk to me05:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Soon we'll see what the clarified consensus clause looks like, with AP and ARBPIA serving as a test pool. I confess to having little experience with it, having only implemented it twice or thrice on AP, which frankly, compares to ARBPIA, is a peaceful candyland of rainbows and kittens. El_C18:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@El C, Coffee, and NeilN: There was serious disagreement about how to interpret and enforce these restrictions (e.g. [31][32][33]), with admins expressing (and sometimes enforcing) diametrically opposing views. Assuming that I eventually come back to editing this article regularly, it'd be helpful to know what the rules are on either adding or removing controversial text, beyond observing 1RR, participating in discussion, and so forth. -Darouet (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Coffee: you wrote the last version? Give a word if you need any help: it'd be great to avoid another sh*tshow. Unclear wording is bad for everyone, and especially problematic if misunderstood (in the case of gaming, willfully) by admins. Darouet (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are active so would you please deal with a sock (Special:Contributions/Pidacoll) who is abusing MfD to harass a user (see history of WP:MFD). I could give the backstory but perhaps a quick look at the SPI would do. I think it was Special:Contributions/PRIYAMHH yesterday. In principle, I should raise this at SPI, but a fast response is what is needed, and badge-collecting at SPI may not be that desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 04:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Define actively? I am even-handed and also one of the few admins who is fluent in Hebrew. So I think I'm an asset as an admin as well as an occasional editor. El_C18:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're an asset as an admin, but when you make edits like this, which looks like supporting one side in a content dispute, you make yourself involved. In theory. Wikipedia doesn't really care about good governance. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of a content dispute where an editor made a (specious) argument based on PRIMARY and you say "yes, PRIMARY does say X", I don't think it's hard to see why someone could think you're supporting that editor. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it wasn't my intent to offer support to this or that editor, only affirm the position that primary sources are permitted under certain conditions. El_C21:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we all know that, and nobody said they weren't. It also seems you are making content related arguments in the section above the one we're discussing. You can of course do whatever you like, but that's how it looks (I have not been around much lately, and I'm not familiar with your editing style, FWIW). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've been away for ten years, so I am still getting my bearings. But see what I'm like as an ARBPIA admin before you make up your mind. El_C21:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that Zero0000 is also an admin and he edits the area. I think editing is fine, but you can't admin an article you are (currently) editing. I wouldn't tell someone they can't edit a specific area just because they may admin in the future. Sir Joseph(talk)03:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Zero never participates at AE as an admin, or does anything but perhaps the most routine uncontroversial admin stuff in any ARBPIA article that I have seen. Also, I didn't tell anyone they can't edit. I just noted that it may make him involved. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hamas and human rights in Israel (plus other)
Hi. Do you think this is the right thing to do? (apparently it was done without discussion or wider consensus, based on an alleged template three years ago). It seems a covert attempt to hide criticism by a clear POV warrior. If it is the right move, at least could you add an internal link for criticism of Hamas in the article about the organization? In addition, the reason why I suspect of this user is, among other things, because he changed the lead in a clear POV manner, or adds tags, other meaningless tags and POV content ("fired from his job as king of Israel in 1982" lol!) and more tags, but when it comes to human rights in Israel, he adds a strange unrelated random cherry-picking quote by Netanyahu and the sentence "Most Palestinians in Israel live under Israeli occupation and they are not allowed to vote", which is false since Palestinians in Israel are Israeli citizens with full equal rights, while Palestinians in the West Bank vote for the Palestinian Authority elections. Could you add the fact that Israeli Arabs vote in Israel and "Palestinians living under Israeli occupation" DO vote in Palestinian elections? Thanks--186.137.142.63 (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Holy POV in Wikipedia's voice, Batman! User-warrior deliberately deleted the rest of the sentence explaining WHY the 16 year-old boy was shot (", after the youth ran toward officers stationed at the checkpoint wielding a large knife.") At the same time he added a clear unreliable source like "Electronic Intifada". Very clever, eh? It can't get more POV than that. Would you mind restoring the end of the sentence? Thank you very much--186.138.97.5 (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, because you would not be restoring a reverted edit—but she would, if she reverted you. We are in the midst of discussing the content of that edit, however. El_C03:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute on Retired MTA Buses Page
I didn't know that I was interfering in a dispute. I simply just formatted it the way I thought was best. I didn't mean to start an issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.29.163 (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It just seemed suspicious you showing up out-of-the-blue with no other edits to your name in the midst of that dispute, but okay. El_C02:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand that my grammar is not so good as I am not native speaker of English so please copyedit it further for grammar.
About Self-realization: Niruben Amin belongs to a sect known as Akram Vignan in which it is believed that a person gains self-realization by a process (religious ritual) known as Gnanvidhi conducted by the leader of the sect. Dada Bhagwan was the first such leader of sect whom Amin succeeded as the leader.
This is just a clarification. Please also copyedit other related articles too as they would have poor grammar too. Thank again--Nizil (talk) 05:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C. I doubt that he has stopped, as I just reverted the IP editor's content on Sleep paralysis a few hours ago, after he made the edits today (as he did the day before). Something tells me that he'll habitually continue his persistent reversions on the article, since he has made a lot of edits according to his own need in the past few days (if you look at the contribution history of the article). A temporary 6 month protection will also be a decent action. Because you're right that it's just one user, so it isn't a big deal. Anyway, I'll come back to this discussion again and let you know if he or she persists. And I hope I'm wrong and that he wouldn't continue with his incessant reversions and disruptive edits. --Meganesia (talk) 05:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If they continue, they will be blocked. No need for protection when it's only one account. Yes, let me know if that happens. El_C06:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FYI..article hit with pornographic vandalism hours after semi-protection declined. Any reconsideration is appreciated. Hoppyh (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Safehaven86 was indef blocked for sockpuppetry in the ArbCom elections. I can run CU on the new account, but it looks like a duck to me. Block away. Katietalk19:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is there to discuss? The other editor is citing partisan Youtube videos of politicians as sources. And then partisan politician statements from a four year old hearing. Both are ridiculous primary sources. This editor is lacking WP:COMPETENCE.VictoriaGraysonTalk01:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw this in my watchlist because I gave a final warning due to bad NPP after many warnings? I saw the request at RFPP, but see no sign at all of page move vandalism. I've been on the verge of taking this user to ANI over CIR issues, so the page protection just raised questions. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Noticed that, too. Assumed there was something —a threat, subpages, anything— behind it. But, indeed, it could be just competence. My own, that is! Doesn't really hurt. El_C04:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, not a criticism of you, just raised my eyebrows! You also have this hat collecting, which they thankfully withdrew. Probably a kid trying to gain experience on Wikipedia. I've tried to help but after the last round of deletion tagging my assumption of good faith was running against my being tired of bad tagging. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I deserve some criticism today, it has been a day of stumbles (see for eg., section directly above—and competence àpropos, to boot). And on ANI. Yeah, that makes sense, probably a kid checking things out. El_C04:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, your recent return has been much appreciated in many quarters, slash, anyone with the balls to have a Lenin quote on their user page at least enjoys getting the benefit of the doubt from me, and I'm one of the liberals he would have hated! TonyBallioni (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Glad to hear it. Good to be back. Yes, my version of potency. But I do sometime have the tendency towards... how do I put this delicately... absent-mindednessesses.El_C04:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ECP
[35] - you've got one problematic editor and IP here.
[36] - you've got recent probable socks here.
If the article is not under AE 500/30 then the following applies: "In cases where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, administrators may use extended confirmed protection to combat disruption (such as vandalism, abusive sockpuppetry, edit wars, etc.) on any topic." So semi has to be tried first and failed. ECP is used when the sockmaster has repeatedly created autoconfirmed accounts or when usually dormant autoconfirmed accounts come out of the woodwork and start editing in a WP:MEAT-like fashion. --NeilNtalk to me19:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey mate, you have reinstated the unsourced content in this edit of yours, saying it is written from 1941 Census of Jammu and Kashmir page. But the page contains no such explicit values for proportions of Hindus and Muslims in the region, and all the data in that page is messy & unclear. Unfortunately I cannot give the exact values for the Hindu & Muslim proportions of Jammu and Kashmir in 1941 at present, but the added figures are certainly inappropriate. The content discusses about the 1941 population proportions of Indian administered Kashmir region, and I can give you an idea regarding that.
Now for Kashmir region, i.e, the Kashmir valley, see this section (again, this is also well sourced). In the 1941 Census of British India, Muslims accounted for 93.6% of the population of the Kashmir Valley and the Hindus constituted 4%.
And Kashmir valley has always been the most populous region in the state (Check 2011 census figures for instance). Also for example, the 1901 population of Kashmir valley - 1,157,394 is almost equal to the 1941 Jammu's population of 1,172,950.
So, from the above data, even if we assume that the populations of the Jammu province and the Kashmir valley are equal in 1941, the Muslim proportion of the entire region was easily around 70% ([93.6 + 44.5]/2), which is nowhere comparable to the stated figure in that unsourced content - 51.41%! The content is clearly wrong and misleading, so kindly remove it. Thank you. — Vamsee614 (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's sloppy work on my part, for which I apologise. Thanks for being on it. Looks like it was corrected, but sorry again. El_C22:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move FC Steaua București
The team FC Steaua București was forced to change it's name to FCSB. Please check these sources:
Unfortunately, I don't read Romanian. I moved your comment to the article talk page for a wider audience. El_C22:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RE: 3RR Sanctions
I did not "perform more than three reverts on a single page ... within a 24-hour period"; my most recent revert did not fall "just outside the 24-hour period", as it was performed four days after the preceding revert (~96 hours?). You want an answer? Fine. I obviously would prefer not to be blocked. Good night. Dan56 (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The other editor had no interest in my argument (and relevant guidelines regarding captions) in his edit summaries; I had nothing new to say, and I made this clear at their talk page. What more could I have discussed at the article's talk page? Is this really becoming a matter of what venue the interaction did or did not spill into? I will open an RfC, but I have nothing new to say to this editor. Dan56 (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the venue matters, because then other editors can participate and help. Just reiterate. Listing an RfC sounds like a step in the right direction. El_C23:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The microscope article version that you protected makes unsubstantiated claims in regards to the importance of Cornelis Drebbel in inventing the microscope. All other websites which consider the matter of likely inventor do not include him as a likely candidate, and the Amsterdam University Press article which keeps being used to reinstate him doesn't actually refer to him as a likely inventor, and is irrelevant to such claims.
Additionally, Fountains of Bryn Mawr has repeatedly rephrased the article in order to try and discredit Zacharias Janssen, inspite of numerous sources which cite him as the likely inventor, many of which I have cited in my edits to rectify the article and there are many more sources that can be cited if desired.
As a result of the protection placed on the page, the remaining version is somewhat opinionated and inaccurate, contradicting numerous other sources.
I have tried to communicate with Bryn Mawr, but they have insisted that their unsubstantiated claims are correct.
Can you please point me to where that discussion is? Maybe try to see what dispute resolution options would be best to resolve this particular content issue. Perhaps the Reliable Sources Noticeboard or Third Opinion. I see you already listed a few RfCs. Anyway, I'm here to help, but unfortunately my own knowledge of the science is really limited. So, regardless, one unsolicited advise would be to be patient, because we have a surplus of editors like me (history) in the social sciences and a deficit in the natural sciences, so everything takes longer to accomplish there. You probably got a sense of that already. El_C19:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not need to create new account indeed. My account limitation had been lifted quite some months ago. You are engaging the editing war and it's who you should stop. If you want to take part in the discussion you are welcome, but do so before deleting the relevant information off the wiki article. I am ok with LeThaiTo's suggestion, you can re-edit it to make it compliance but not wipe it out. Lennytran (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit warring is not acceptable. I protected the page, for now, and I'm also considering blocking the two accounts. El_C17:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Assume much?
If you are an administrator you should already know we are two different person. You should not be assuming things as an admin. Sincerely.LeThaiTo (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I supposed you can assume whatever you want on here, that is none of my business, that is until you wrote your assumption on my wall. If you have some self respect may be you should at least try apologize to me on my wall for your assumption. I wont expect much, that is fine, now back to the wiki article. I can help Lennytran to incorporate what he wrote to the article in a way that it does not look out of place. Please remove page protection status. Thanks. 00:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeThaiTo (talk • contribs)
Well, like I've said before, I welcome helps to make the article better not deleting the whole thing! Since you are a more experienced editor and an admin, why don't you help? This Bao Dai wiki, in its current state, is extremely biased, from the contents to the sources used!Lennytran (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. But unfortunately, I don't know a lot about it and I can't guarantee to find the time to learn, sorry. I'm just the admin that came upon the AN3 report. El_C02:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that assessment. Even though a lot of it precedes the conflict, it definitely creeps in there. Today, I was surprised to learn it wasn't 30/500 already. El_C22:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The article might contain a little bit that might be construed as being part of the conflict, but it is a stretch to apply the whole article to that. Sir Joseph(talk)18:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know you disagree, but both the blocking admin (CambridgeBayWeather) and the protecting admin (yours truly) felt that the conflict continues to creep into the article vis-a-vis the modern historiography. And that long-standing dispute needed to be tempered. See also my response to ARCA-IP in list of scandals with the suffix -"gate" a few sections below: if it relates to Ds and conflicts arise due to it, it may be applied. El_C18:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but you can apply ARBPIA sanctions on an edit, without applying it to the whole article. We don't need to lock down articles for just one section. Sir Joseph(talk)18:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's just not that practical. Anyway, we thought it best to apply it the entire article. Let's face it, it can be a magnet for ARBPIA disputes. El_C18:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
about macau passport visa free countries list is not accurate
We are the macau passport holder, found that the africa country zambia exempted the visa for macau citizen. Moreover, some countries allows them to applied for the evisa. Some users here always undo the useful information that makes it not accurate. Please look into the issue. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.237.225.168 (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We found that the visa policy map and information is seriously out-of-date. Please stop someone from undid the real information and ban that user. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.197.138.152 (talk) 07:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The admin of visa requirement/visa policy always delete the correct information without any explanation. For example, someone on Mar 27 edited visa requirement of Chinese citizens of Macau. However, it is deleted by the admin within a short time. Please look into the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:C800:9002:8:0:0:0:13 (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
visa requirement/visa policy always delete the correct information without any explanation. For example,
someone on Mar 31 deleted Macau in visa free section in visa policy of Tanzania without any explanation, it at least obtain visa on arrival which is the same as China passport
delete Macau in Zambia visa policy on Mar 18, although evisa page shows visa free.
The Uganda visa policy page never shows Hong Kong as visa free without any explanation.
For visa free of Chinese citizen of Macau, the Georgia can be accessed by evisa, same as Hong Kong which can be seen in IATA, but someone deleted without any explanation.
For visa policy of ukraine, it never shows Macau as visa on arrival which confirms by the Macau Government recently.
You're gonna need to learn to collaborate with fellow editors. You can't keep sending me—post a comment on the article talk page to see what other editors say. Find out which editor is behind an edit and post a notice on their user talk page that an article talk page discussion concerning their edit is happening. El_C04:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you even reading these replies? I don't know—you don't sound like you're working well with others. Try to better articulate what the dispute is about, to start with. Please sign your name. Familiarise yourself with Wikipedia by reviewing the 5 pillars. El_C18:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your protection on List of scandals with "-gate" suffix
Could you explain why you did this protection? First of all, the edit war is between 2 users so definitely does not require any kind of protection on it.
And secondly, you refer to RFAR/GamerGate, but that case does not allow for admins to simply insert whatever pages they want under the discretionary sanctions. Remedy 1.1 makes very clear that you can only do discretionary sanctions for edits about and all pages relating to gamergate or any gender related dispute or controversy, or people associated with those. This list is not about gamergate or any gender related dispute or controversy, nor is it about any people associated with either of those things, so you cannot impose GG discretionary sanctions to the list. You could impose discretionary sanctions under the GG case for the people involved in the editwar since those edits are about GG, but you can't just expand that to apply to the entire list. 213.112.98.111 (talk) 06:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was requested at RFPP, and I agreed with the request. The list includes it thus it relates to it, like Jewish diaspora, a few sections above, encompasses ARBPIA. You are welcome to bring this up to review in any forum you see fit. That said, if I see a lot of extended confirmed edit requests, I may reconsider. El_C18:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not ask if you agreed with it. I asked why you agreed with it. Where was semi-protection tried and found not working? And do you seriously not see that it's a content dispute for which the extended confirmed specifically forbids you to use it for? You're only allowed to do that on articles covered by ArbCom and that requires that the page is actually covered under the GG ruling that you referred to but that ruling does not permit that protection on just any page. It only permits it on pages that are about GG or gender related controversies, or people involved in either. This list is simply not about GG just because it happens to mention it. As for bringing it up for review. The place to review it would be ArbCom, and quite frankly, I have absolutely ZERO trust in ArbCom, current or past. They have proven to not care about policies time and time again. I am simply asking you to respect the policies. If you don't, not much I can do, nor willing to do. I'm simply requesting for the sake of Wikipedia's reputation. It does not need to become even worse. So please respect the policies and lower the protection and sanction the people involved, which is all that the GG Case actually allows you to do within the discretionary sanctions in this case.213.112.98.111 (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You advance a fair argument. On closer examination, I should have gone with my first instinct and tried semi first. Okay, I'll remove the Ds, for now. El_C19:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would just mean that that template it there in error. I think it also should be noted that the template was added by Gamaliel with This edit and as you know, Gamaliel wasn't exactly neutral when it came to GG. 213.112.98.111 (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I linked to the finding of fact for Gamaliel's status as involved, as well as that he's prone to paint his opponents as GG. Essentially, the point is that he has a history of painting everything and everyone as being part of GG, so his interpretation of what pages should or should not be included under discretionary sanctions, should be taken with a large amount of salt.213.112.98.111 (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a former arbitrator, that assessment surprises me—but, of course, I'm unable comment on what I don't know concretely. El_C22:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe 73.15.10.151 (talk·contribs) is also involved in this. He/she reverted my contributions to Gravity4, a company associated with Gurbaksh Chahal, and in doing so made comments about me by name ("Please Chisme, stop trolling. Your vandalism nature is well establish here"). Jui89 (talk·contribs) did the same at the Gravity4 article when reverting. She/he wrote when reverting one of my edits, "User Chisme is purposely using this platform; his edit shows consistent edits on Gravity4 and Gurbaksh Chahal pages." Why do all these people know my editing history intimately and want to call me out by name? Any ideas? Chisme (talk) 10:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
El_C I arrived on this discussion page, as I received an alert of a mention. I do feel there is unfair & biased perspective presented. I am choosing to edit the category of my expertise, to only end up defending myself repeatedly to Chisme. I presented myself fairly & honestly that I am learning to edit & rules of the community are being followed carefully. I have spent more time defending my edits to Chisme, than to do the actual edits. Being a newbie, I have spent time learning from my edits and understanding the rationale of the reverts. If you look at the edit history on Gurbaksh Chahal, you will notice several reverts by Chisme without any explanation & initiated the edit war. He seems to have general choosing of sensationalize the content on Gurbaksh Chahal and Gravity4 pages. He even violated the 3RRR rule during the edit warring; I didn't report him, hoping the mere reference would let him cool-off and allow us to be cordial in this community. If I am doing something gravely out of the norms, please do message me. I will gladly correct my mistakes. Jui89 (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would, first of all, avoid statements such as alleged defamation on the company page—we have a no legal threats policy, so consider yourself warned about that. (Just to confirm, you have zero connection to Chahal or Gravity4—do I got that right? Again, your single-purpose on Wikipedia is difficult to ignore. But okay.) Also, please decide where you want to have the conversation, your talk page, or mine. I'm not inclined to split the conversations, but you really leave me little choice with your two unique replies in each. *** The BLPCRIME policy is reserved for relatively unknown persons, and neither the company (which is not a person) nor Gurbaksh Chahal are. And since it seems to be a fairly high-profile suit, especially as it pertains to Chahal, it seems worth mentioning, in my opinion. But that's just one opinion. It's unfortunate, there is so little written on the company for it to take that much of the article's overall space. Perhaps consider contributing to expanding that article. One thing you might consider is listing an RfC on whether that section should be included in the article, that's one way you can find out what the consensus is. Thanks. El_C17:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
El_C Thank you. Having discussion on this page is fine. I will review the suggested references to help me understand the policies better, before responding or suggesting edits. To answer you question, no relations to Chahal. I started editing, only to find myself in this issue. I had just started to edit Facebook/other social media sites and had hoped to made edits on other brands, but have stopped. I am using this example to learn before editing further. I also didn't want to get banned for not following/understanding the rules. Some community members are less patient or welcoming to the novice I am finding out. My editing objective is to provide unbiased, but relevant information on the issues that have happened in my industry. And not to create a "TMZ" pages of such brands/individuals on wikipedia. The current language on Chahal page suggests some malice attempts. I am not against posting relevant content. I do feel there are standards of summarization on Wiki, and all editors should adhere to the same NPOV rules. (Or so I think). Nothing on the content under legal issues suggest NPOV. Again, I am not against posting it. I do feel it lacks neutrality. I use this site often, when I am looking for unbiased and non-sensational information. I reference it in my school lectures as kids nowhere days believe all they read on the net. In regards to high profiling of the case, there are references the alleged complainant never reported to Chahal. Meaning, Chahal did not manage or interacted with her. I would cite already cited sources in the reference. As I see it, if all employee complaints are ok to be cited for one company page, there will be multitude of complaints within my industry to be listed on each brand pages - something I don't feel is appropriate to list on Wiki; perhaps the latter belongs on Glassdoor. For now, I will take your suggestions on reading up to enhance my learning curve on Wiki. I do remain puzzled, however. If there are rules already in place for not posting about alleged allegations till there is judgement, then the editors should adhere to policies - rather than engage in long talks WP:NOTNP and WP:DUST. Of course, I am still learning and am finding the rules are not clear cut for a novice to understand. I have reached out to few seasoned editors to help mentor me. I don't want an early onset discourage me from becoming a contributor. Should you be able to provide direction, I would be much appreciative. Thank you again for taking the time to reach out to me. Jui89 (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. But it's just curious, and a bit suspicious, that all these new users are ending up at Chahal... Again, maybe the consensus would be that that section doesn't belong. That's certainly not an unlikely outcome. That's why you should list a Request for Comment (RfC), to let the community decide. I already covered why I think BLPCRIMEdoesn't apply: since Chahal is well known, and the suit has received exposure in reliable sources. The question whether the section represents undue weight is something, that again, the RfC can tackle. Feel free to list one. El_C19:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good Lord! Directly above you wrote, "But it's just curious, and a bit suspicious, that all these new users are ending up at Chahal." And at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jkmarold55 you wrote, "Unless there are CU results I'm missing, there might not be a sockmaster and there may be multiple (pro Chahal) individuals." I think I solved the mystery. Two days ago Lingveno, who has been posting at the Gurbaksh Chahal article and the Jkmarold55 sockpuppet investigation, wrote the following on Chahal's Talk page, "WP:CoI - payed by Kay Kaur with 200 USD through Upwork, hired for mediation in order to make the article neutral." Kay Kaur just happens to be Chahal's sister, Kamal Kaur? So Chahal's sister has offered a nice sum, 200 bucks, to people who will make her brother's Wikipedia article prettier? The Upwork website is down for maintenance as I write this, so I can't investigate whether the sister's ad is still up. But WTF? Am I wrong to ask WTF? I think the Gurbaksh Chahal article needs a "This page is currently semi-protected so that only established registered users can edit it" tag. Chisme (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you advise me on how to proceed?
Hi, and thanks for participating in resolving the dispute on Jewish Diaspora. I'd like to ask you for some advice going forward, you earlier indicated this should be treated as a content dispute, however I have a slight problem with that in that while this is a content dispute on one side, this is a conduct problem on another side. Namely, the version Debresser has been railroading into the article really is not the stable version (and this is a question of fact, not a dispute with two equal views), and the situation now is that if that version is allowed to remain in the article (as it is now), Debresser will, by edit warring, have obtained an apparent change in the text. Back in the day when I spent more time on Wikipedia, the practice was that during resolution of a content dispute, the stable version remained in the article, and if consensus on a new version was not reached, that was it. I don't like to criticize another editor, but Debresser made one last revert on April 3rd, immediately before reporting me on the noticeboard for edit warring, which is weird and resulted in his version being left in.
Therefore, I'd like to ask for advice concerning how I should proceed, an RFC would be one way to look at the content side (where the question is very simple), but, frankly, I don't feel I should be doing Debresser's work for him, as I have been in e.g. filing the issue on the NPOV noticeboard. Other options could be to ask an admin to undo Debresser's last revert, report him on the long-term abuse noticeboard or what? Cheers and thanks in advance, --Dailycare (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you be doing his work for him by being the one to list an RFC? It seems like an act of mutual benefit, and probably the best idea I can think of. I think you'll find that admins are unlikely to side with any one version as the stable one, and view the misconduct part as equally shared between both of you. El_C18:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be doing his work, since I'm content with the version that has been in the text for years and he's proposing to change it. If admins are unwilling to take a decision on what the stable version is, I feel that encourages edit-warring since it enables a disruptive editor to achieve results in a way that circumvents the consensus-building process. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not strange that now there is an IP from Baku Azerbaijan doing the exact same edit as Aydinsalis on the Uzun Hassan article? Sounds like someone is simply logging out to edit war. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Evading your block was the wrong move, Aydinsalis. But if you show contrition, I'm willing to rethink my indefinite block. El_C00:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also have to remind you: :It is preferred to cite secondary sources over tertiary sources, which is what an encyclopedia is, per WP:RS. We asked you, why did you do? You can answer this question. Put an end to fraud. 94.20.27.241 (talk) 10:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, been trying to resolve a COI issue on out clients page Henry Stone (comedian)
We can clean the article up to be in line with the neutrality policy as well as include additional sources for some statements but we want to make sure that we're recognising to the COI that would exist if we just edited it ourselves. Could we show you our suggested changes and have you execute them if they are up to wikipedia standard?
Thanks for your help and thanks for sending us in the right direction when we first requested help.
--Eternitygrubagency (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Use the talk page to make your requested edits and I and other editors will be pleased to execute the changes if we approve of them. Thanks. El_C03:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather you at least tried to engage the user on the article talk page first. (Use edit summaries that say see talk.) El_C19:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PALO VERDE HIGH SCHOOL
I believe that protecting palo verde high school's wikipedia page isn't only constructive to the useful edits that should be made but it also interferes with keeping your site correct, and by protecting the Palo Verde High School page, you are preventing that from happening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:8:9:0:0:0:99 (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IDF (+ History of Israel... non-controversial edits, if you don't mind)
Hi. There's an extra space here above the new "Technological development" section. Also I think that section should be merged with "Weapons and equipment". It has repeated weapons and was copy-pasted from Israel#Military, probably to show more pictures of Israeli inventions. On a different note, could you please change this sentence: "In 125 BCE the Hasmonean King John Hyrcanus subjugated..." for "In 125 BCE the Hasmonean etnarch John Hyrcanus subjugated...". That would be more historically accurate, since the first Hasmonean ruler that took the title of "king" was Hyrcanus' son, Aristobulus I (later his brother Yannai followed his example). Thanks.--186.138.87.138 (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there are matters you wish to bring to my attention, that's fine. But extended confirmed access edit requests belong on those articles' talk pages. Thanks. El_C21:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Popped in because of a notification I got this evening, yes the wife said I could have a few minutes. I believe this user was a blocked IP, who did nonsense edits just to get confirmed because of the semi you placed on The Undertaker as all their edits are their own space except to post to Oshwahs talk once and to remove the retired refrences from The Undertaker article. Please note these requests on their talk page and this. Back to my vacation. Chris "WarMachineWildThing"Talk to me05:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ill say this much, they knew how to get their name confirmed in order to edit the article. I'm pretty sure this is the IP they were trying to get unblocked but it isn't blocked, which means they tried to edit as an IP and couldn't. The whole thing is odd. Wife says times up lol, back to vacation. See ya. Chris "WarMachineWildThing"Talk to me06:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Swarm: Hello, this is usernmaekiran. I have logged out of my account, and I will never login again. Would one of you please "sanction" me and Earl as soon as possible? (So that i can go to sleep.)
Also, as per my request, would you please go through each, and every edit that we ever made on wikipedia? Thanks.
BTW, this was my last ever edit on wikipedia. One more thing, I have dynamic IP address. So it wouldnt be of any use if you post something on that IP's talkpage.
And no, i have no intentions of sock-puppetry or IP editing. Thanks again.
Thanks El_C. I thought about it. Swarm said to me "pretending to be angel when you are clearly not" or something like that. I dont seek an apology. Neither from Swarm nor from Earl. I do not have any feelings towards Swarm, I am totally neutral. But yes, I have intense animosity towards Earl. But i never let that fact drive me while i contributed to wikipedia.
@Swarm: I have 2000 edits that you need to look through. If you look at 50 edits per day, that will take 40 days. But lets make it up to June 5. I will contact you again on June 5, at that time please show me at least one edit where i acted "not in good-faith". —usernamekiran[talk]19:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Swarm: June 5 has been extended to Sept 15. By that time I need "your basis" for the claims stating I am pretending to be angel when I am clearly not. If you can find that in recent contributions, you dont have to go further. And also, anything that happened after lodging the edit war complaint, it doesnt count. Sept 15 it is. And please, I request to both of you, hand out the result soon. Earl is not going to comment there. Thats his MO. He runs away when he doesnt have anything to say. If my claims about racism were false, he would have been snipping at me as for "making it up". So you can assume I am not lying, but as the evidence is off the wiki emails, i dont know what is the poicy regarding that. None the less, that fact shouldnt be overlooked.
I have been annoyed enough already by wikipedia, and I was a pretty good sport about it. But now my patience are wearing out. So Swarm, start running my background check. I will contact you on Sept 15, 2017. I hope you dont get my statements mistaken for requests. Thanks.
El C, you are nice person, with a warm heart
This was the last time I logged in before September 15. I will not login again. If I am annoyed by some user again before Sept 15, i will talk to them in 2020. —usernamekiran[talk]00:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. As mentioned on AN3, I think, at this time, the best thing is to set up an indefinite interaction ban between the two of you, so I have done this. Clearly, you're not going to get along at this stage. You are both also sanctioned with 0RR on all articles for 72 hours for the edit warring. Hoping with that, you can put the incident behind you and go on editing productively without running into or talking about one another. Goodluck. El_C01:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But did you sanction me and Earl exactly the same? Also, That interaction ban, does it mean we are allowed to interact or the functions have been disabled? —usernamekiran[talk]01:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You've been sanctioned the same. You are not allowed to interact with or speak about one another. Which, frankly, should come as a relief. El_C01:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hope so. But I have a feeling earl would be reverting my edits. Let's just hope for the best. I need your suggestion. I've friend who is willing to sell his bagel dog to me for 539 INR, it is like 10% less. And I sort of like that dog, he looks very cute cuz got a big nose. Do you think I should accept the deal? your command on jewish langauge extremely poor. You'd be better off on Spanish wikipedia. See what I did there? —usernamekiran[talk]01:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whomever breaches the interaction ban will be sanctioned. I'm afraid I can't advise you on that—I'm more of a cat-person, anyway. El_C01:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for my comment above. But you completely overlooked his atrocities, like it is supported by wiki. This is not fair.
It's 7am here, and didn't sleep entire night. I should sleep now. I will logout now, and then I will contact Swarm in Sept. But I hope you the diffs I posted, and that Earl's sanction is changed. I don't know much about complaining. Never done that before. What do you suggest regarding that?
I suggest you let this dispute go. For actual incidents there is ANI, but I advise against listing a complaint there. El_C01:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
okay. You are a good person so I will comply to your suggestion. And I apologise again for all these racial slurs. I didn't mean any of them.
Hi, I was a bit confused by your posts to this user's Talk page. It looked like you had indeffed the user based on your last comment, but you hadn't. I came across Esen because Lemongirl942's Talk page is on my watchlist. If you wish, you can take a look at the rather startling posts Esen made there (I've deleted them).
In any event, just a heads up that I've indefinitely blocked the user for sock puppetry. I haven't finished my check. There will be at least several more accounts that are operated by the same person, but I need to go through all of the various strands to make sure I don't miss any, at least based on what I can see.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, looks like I just plain forgot, but I did semiprotect the page, so there's really nothing for the socks to do. El_C20:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the article Facial hair, would you mind increasing the protection length? The last protection length was 2 weeks, this one should be at least a month or more, maybe even indefinite. I mean, if a week works, that completely fine, just thinking those vandals and very persistent about removing the Women section. Let me know what you think. Ping me when you reply. Thanks! Yoshi24517ChatVery Busy16:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We rarely indefinitely semiprotect pages, Yoshi24517. Let's try the one week, and go from there—we can always reportect. El_C20:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Well, if those are the facts, the intent may be seen as somewhat irrelevant. As for the source: Rashid Khalidi's books seems like a reliable enough secondary source, even if it may be biased to one side of the conflict (i.e. would still not make up numbers). In my opinion, comparing both sides' attacks from the air could be a depiction worth making, but it does indeed omit Israelis killed by Palestinian ground attacks, which would greatly increase the tally. So I do partly concede your point about that. Anyway, I would have hoped for more current year-span, seeing the overall state of the article and the {{update}} tags. El_C05:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Emily Blunt's protection
Hi.
I am not much familiar with wikipedia's rules. But i hope Blunt's protection wasnt added because of my edit. For how long it will last? Is there wasy i can edit it while it is protected?
Hi. No, your addition was good. It's semiprotected for 4 days. You may submit edit requests on the talk page. Thanks. El_C07:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Why was the article locked then? Also, how to change the time settings? I am not in UTC timezone, and the timestamp is confusing. —Zolpidem Dreamer(talk)07:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have made a mistake here: 2017 Stockholm attack. You can't close off editing on a major news story for two days, especially one that is featured on the main page. A heavily changing article is just a fact when it comes to controversial and highly featured news. Carl Fredrik talk22:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My bad as well. Would a warning to the involved parties be appropriate instead. Clearly there are edit warring going on. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you have problems, debate it there on the talkpage so others can judge, don't just delete the entire post. I want others to make their comments on the topic, if you just delete at your whim, others cannot comment.175.156.14.2 (talk) 06:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, El C, my take on it was that a short protection would be better than a block in terms of potentially not biting a newcomer more than necessary. I saw it as a slow burning edit war with no engagement on the talk page, thus a short protection would break the cycle of edit warring, and (hopefully) encourage ChrisOliver to discuss the edit on the talk page. Happy to reverse my protection if you disagree, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just had it under control—and I didn't want to overwhelm the user with repeated text and templates. Two admins is a bit of an overkill. But you can take over. El_C19:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You warned this IP yesterday following the report at ANEW. Well, they're back to edit warring first rather than even trying to discuss. I think a block may be in order. Thanks in advance. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning. What do you think about this? (information about Arafat was removed). Also would you mind adding some information about this to the criticism section of Haaretz?... it seems Haaretz is now inciting to murder people with different opinions and religions (as long as they are Jewish).--181.95.28.35 (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. The editor calls Freeman Center for Strategic Studies not reliable—I honestly don't know enough about them to comment. (What source did they use though for that Arafat claim, I wonder...) *** Indeed, Haaretz op-ed has has gotten a lot of condemnation—from the PM, the President, the Justice Minister, the Education Minister, and even from the Leader of the Opposition—but saying it is inciting murder, is probably going too far. When it says "they can't be killed," that's just an inflammatory way to illustrate a double standard exists. I'll see about adding something about that controversy to the criticism section. El_C02:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
not sure what the official stance on that is. I seem to have chosen the wrong side in an edit war trying to revert vandalism. You have commmented on that topic on [37] this Talk page. Can you help?
[38]MikeTango (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Scottyhinesis is trying to hide well-sourced, well-attributed and well-documented criticism about the leftist US magazine, without proper consensus on talk page (nobody agreed with that removal). For some reason he didn't explain, Malik Shabazz deleted the content again, even though he didn't participate in the discussion. BTW, Scottyhines is a single-purpose account that has only edited in that specific article, perhaps with the intention to whitewash the anti-Israel publication from its numerous accusations of antisemitism.--186.125.68.145 (talk) 03:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I suggest you ask Malik Shabazz why he removed those passages and why he used an automated edit summary—and otherwise, try to engage the editors on the article talk page. ARBPIA applies, but I'm not sure the Consensus rule applies in the case of IPs, however. El_C03:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
what is the size of number of edit I can do where I do not need create a discussion on Wikiproject and it is not considered en mass? This guy did similar edits as me and did not get reprimanded on the admin notice board what is the time interval where I can make additional edits like this without contacting a wikiproject? Should I be removing other users edits on the same thing per no consensus?
How come other project do not require consensus for adding template box items? For example I added all template boxes for Category:Buddhist temples in Bangkok, the fish infobox in a couple dozen pages in the genus Epinephelus, and the fungus infobox from 20+ pages in the genus Amanita based on the style in the infobox last year and this year with out problems? So if I added it when creating the infobox it is ok? But when I add it to an infobox it is not ok?
Should I remove all previous edits I did en mass? (the majority of what I did) and report users to your talk page if they sparsely repeat the same edits as me?
Note that I am only posting here because that user is known to have problems edit waring and regularly makes disparaging remarks against users he disagrees with. Sorry if the questions put you on the spot but I do not want to deal with these incidents in the future.
--Cs california (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is already on ANI—I don't know why you think it benefits the discussion to have it go on in more than one venue. El_C21:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure it's really necessary to both block and protect. The last problem was edit warring over which image to include, and the blame lay pretty squarely on one side of the equation. I tried to mediate but failed pretty miserably, but the user is nearly an SPA with regard to this town, and I'm not entirely sure it's not fitting to allow the other editors (moderately experienced ones) at having a fair go at evaluating things and trying to reverse the unhelpful bits. TimothyJosephWood23:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I recently closed the GAR for that article, delisting it from GA status. Since the article is now protected, can you remove the GA icon from the article? Thanks.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have never used it as a source, so I can't comment on that, and though I appreciate that that is your opinion—the point of contention was accusing it of Holocaust denial without proof. El_C15:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sudanese human rights activist Simon Deng, writing for the Gatestone Institute, has criticized Desmond Tutu for referring to Israel as an apartheid state, stating that Arabs in Israel enjoy a variety of rights that blacks in apartheid-era South Africa did not, including the right to vote, and that Palestinians are only stopped at checkpoints to prevent attacks. Deng asks why Tutu criticizes Israel for apartheid policies it does not have, but ignores what Deng believes to be actual apartheid practices in other countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and especially his own country Sudan.[1]
Again, feel free to bring matters to my attention, but I prefer if you were to make edit requests on the article talk page. It's just not what my talk page is for. El_C00:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
New RfC at Plummer v. State
There is a new RfC at Plummer v. State RfC, dealing with the Internet meme section. Please visit and comment on the proposed language for the section. This is revised from the first proposal, and you are receiving this notice due to your participation in the first RfC. GregJackPBoomer!20:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, not at all. He is actually mentioned in that The Nation article, so I didn't understand your objection. See my comment on the article talk page. Thanks. El_C12:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was debating whether to return the article to the status quo. If there is a request to do so, do you have any objections if I put the links back? —C.Fred (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello El C, Me-123567-Me has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi, just to note that WP:INDICSCRIPT explicitely applies ONLY to LEDE, not to infoboxes. Thank you NOT to remove Indic scripts from "native name" parameter in infoboxes nor add any script-related warnings. It would be very kind and helpful on your part if you self-reverted all your recent edits. For a recent discussion, see here[40]. Regards, — kashmiriTALK17:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the policy applies only to articles solely within the scope WP:INDIA, whereas some of the articles you tagged are also governed by other projects. — kashmiriTALK17:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Located it now. (RfCs should not close per SNOW, but that's another matter). See number of projects e.g. Varanasi is in: Talk:Varanasi. Slightly less for Srinagar. Most cities are in the WP:CITIES project which has standardised use of "native_name" in the Infobox settlement. Also, "native_name" is not excluded by that project with regard to Indian cities (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Indian_cities#Infoboxes). In general, I support removing native scripts from infoboxes except for human settlements and literary works. — kashmiriTALK17:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but we just have had too much disruption with native_name in cities, and elsewhere—and consensus is clear. I authored the RfC precisely due to disruption in Indian cities. I think Indicscript for cities falls under WP:INDIA, not WP:CITIES. El_C21:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why not Indic scripts?
Sorry I don't understand why we can't have the name of cities in their native langauges? Chinese cities have their names mentioned in their native languages (see Guangzhou). Why not Indian? 103.212.159.152 (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See this discussion for the reasoning. Basically, it was getting too messy and the cause of too many edit wars.
The reason why Indic scripts differ from "the rest of Wikipedia" is because of the sheer number of possibilities. This has been mentioned on numerous occasions, including in the original RfC for INDICSCRIPT. There are, for example, well over 200 official languages in India, not forgetting the many local variants. I may be wrong but I cannot think of any other country that comes close to this situation. Sitush (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
"200 official languages"?? well It clearly gives me idea that you have very little to no knowledge in this regard. I wasn't a part of that discussion so I don't know what happened there. But here what I am saying is. India has 22 officially recognised languages. But here in thsi particular case, like on page "Patna" which is the capital of Bihar state where Hindi and Urdu are two official languages (recently Maithili is also included). Why not we just write the name of city in these two official languages of the city and state as well. No need to worry for 200 or 22 other languages. MetalBrawler (talk) 11:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have chosen you at random from currently active editors that are admins who frequent the ANI boards. The thread that is currently at #1 on the list entitled Antonioatrylia on Talk:Asia Kate Dillon has had no active discussion since 19 April 2017. ( 7 days) The only two posts after that were by editor Cassolot who was the originator of the ANI thread. They add no additional discusson, but two times in two separate times say:
I am concerned that an administrator or similar hasn't responded. So I guess I am posting to make sure this section doesn't get archived! --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 4:10 pm, 22 April 2017, last Saturday (3 days ago) (UTC−5)
Again, editing to make sure this section isn't archived. --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 5:23 pm, Today (UTC−5)
I ask you El C, are these kinds of postings after a discussion ended seven days ago allowed to continue into infinity? I will thank you in advance for addressing and possibly taking care of this matter. Thanks. Antonioatrylia (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No wonder—I'm not that inclined to go through so many text walls. The author should have done a better job summarising if they wanted their report commented on. I'll drop a note about how you should both be taking this to DRN, however. Where you should work on combining the best of both versions. El_C00:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @El C for addressing this matter. Like I mentioned in my first comment in response to the opening of the ANI post, This is truly a content issue and really is not appropriate for this board. I am afraid Pandora's box may have been opened because now editor Cassolotl has copy/pasted over the entire lengthy ANI thread over into here user space titling it as a handy link and Saving for my own reference[41] of course the whole thread will be saved in the ANI archive when it ever reaches there. I really object as WP:POLEMIC for all these walls of text being copied over to their user space, because it contains baseless accusations about me that are not true. If she wants to write up a summary she can use the lengthy thread posted at now the #1 spot on ANI. I have already addressed all her points and accusations there ad infinitum. Especially in the last part when I asked her to show a diff that showed where I had ever said twitter was a primary source. She could not. She changed the wording of her last statement to put up a diff instead of what I had actually said which showed that she changed her wording at the last moment when she was caught in a lie. I called her out for being deceptive. After that she had no further discussion, only posts to keep her lengthy walls of text alive and not get archived. Well now she has her walls of text ANI copied over into her user space as perhaps a trophy or something to gloat over. I object to that as POLEMIC. Thank you. Antonioatrylia (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
EJustice AE/AN
Hi there,
Working on a statement from Wiki Ed presently, but I just wanted to quickly leave a message for you (and also pinging MelanieN, who expressed something similar) regarding this. I have no opinion on whether it's better suited for AE or AN, but if you're basing the decision on the students, know that their assignment was technically over last night. You'll almost certainly notice the editing drop off thereafter, and odds are you'd be sanctioning 180 accounts that won't actually be editing again (or, if they do, will be doing so outside the context of an environmental justice course assignment). FWIW. Thanks.--Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to defend my statement because I stand by it and I'm here because the topic has been closed.
What I said was "...either lying through his teeth or being so wrapped up in his own POV..." [emphasis added]. I didn't state without qualification that Greg was lying, I said it was one of two possibilities.
Additionally, ANI is the venue for discussing editor behavior, that thread was a venue for discussing Greg's behavior, and WP:ASPERSIONS makes it quite clear that accusations, supported by evidence and presented in the proper venue do not constitute the casting of aspersion. This is both a matter of policy (via an Arbcom decision) and practicality (else it would be a sanctionable offense to report someone at ANI). I did not provide a link in my statement because the evidence was the comment which started that line of discussion. A simple roll of the mousewheel is all it would take to see it.
Finally, I would like to point out that your response has allowed a personal attack made against Kingofaces43 to stand, while berating the editor who pointed out how uncivil and unreasonable it was. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.15:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not civil to say to someone that they're "lying through their teeth." Especially if you don't indicate what they're lying about. El_C22:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I indicated exactly what I suggested they were possibly lying about two comments previously. On a 1080 monitor, both comments can appear on screen without any scrolling, and on smaller monitors all it would take is a single roll of the mouse wheel. I don't see any reason to assume that the attention span of any possible readers is so short as to require me to restate what I'm talking about with every other comment I make. And again; it's even less civil to accuse someone of vandalizing an article, especially when one indicates in the very same sentence that one knows or ought to know very well that it wasn't vandalism. The end result was that Kingofaces43 had to sit through that discussion enduring personal attacks from GregJackP while an admin ignored them, and instead berated the only editor to come do his defense. And for the record, you can check our editor interactions to see that my defense wasn't motivated by any clique-ishness. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.14:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is not about attention span, it's about knowing what you refer to. What personal attack? What berating? Quote, please. I am not a mindreader. El_C14:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your mouse wheel and the scroll bar in your browser will work just as well in this thread as they will at the ANI thread. Whether you elect to read my comments and see where I've answered you already or not, whether you can recognize the rather clear answers in my comments or not, it's apparent that there's no point in me saying anything further here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.15:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All you had to do was quote the personal attack and the berating so that I know what you are talking about. El_C15:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Am I allowed to continue to comment on the RfC at Plummer v. State under the IBAN if I don't reply to his comments or mention him? I don't want to violate the sanctions, but I would like to see the RfC I started through to completion. Thanks, GregJackPBoomer!15:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El_C and thanks again for action re: Hargeisa and Adal_Sultanate. I left you a message on the 3RR report, but in case you did not see it, could we reinstate the pages to pre edit-war states? At [42] and [43]. Also please note that whilst the Adal page is protected, the Hargeisa page is only semi protected. Many thanks once again. Kzl55 (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot. See the wrong version. I suggest you continue discussing the dispute on the article talk page. Eventually, you're gonna need to list an RfC about this (I recommend the talk page of WP:AFRICA), or you're gonna be dealing with these kinds of dispute eventually. El_C22:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you did there.
I messaged you as a matter of courtesy, both articles are editable as of today. I accept this could be a case of wrong version, but the editor in question has a track record of disruptive editing against Somaliland. Examples include; removing Somaliland's national anthem from a template of National anthems of Africa (please note template makes no mention of de jure status and includes other non-UN-recognised nations such as Sahrawi Arab Republic, Saint Helena and Réunion ) [44], they also removed Somaliland from List of foreign ministers in 2017 for no apparent reason [45] (list also includes other unrecognised states such as SAR). They even went ahead and removed Somaliland from the Freedom of the Press report [46], despite the report explicitly including Somaliland [47]. Kzl55 (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're still gonna keep running into these types of users with little recourse until you formalize the status of Somaliland on Wikipedia—believe me. El_C23:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How would this status be formalised? And how would the enforcing work? We are already dealing with their disregard of Wikipedia rules in terms of sockpuppetry etc. Would that be via an RfC? Kzl55 (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that the account Nosx2 was created, and instantly made a revert on the Susan Mayer article. That account has been indefinitely blocked for sock puppetry, I made the extension to the block on Nosx1, and I left a notice on his user talk page to let him know. Just wanted to leave you a message as an FYI. Pinging Flyer22 Reborn and CLCStudent, in case they're interested to know about this as well. Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)01:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But where in the article? This is why I prefer you use edit requests, because then you have to specify (x-to-y) where an edit actually goes. So, please do that. El_C04:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A community ban closed in less than four hours?
I understand that the proposed community ban Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Community_ban_for_User:The_abominable_Wiki_troll is pro forma, to have something on the record. However, there are suggestions the editor engages in wiki lawyering. One would be hard-pressed to hand such an editor better evidence than to open a discussion for a ban and close it less than four hours later. I just don't see any downside to leaving it open for 48 hours, perhaps only 24 if there's not a single voice of opposition. In my opinion, closing it after less than four hours is just begging for wiki lawyering.--S Philbrick(Talk)17:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I missed it too, but I think it was long enough to see there could not have been any other reasonable outcome. We will block socks of that troll whether they wikilawyer or not. Jonathunder (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The downside was that the banned user kept showing up to oppose the ban, to the point that the board had to be semiprotected, which I wanted to minimise. El_C22:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ref change
You protected David Bowie as I was attempting to fix a reference. The first of the three references in note 327 needs to be changed to:
{{cite news|author=<!-- Staff -->|url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/the-times/david-bowie-the-genius-who-fell-to-earth/news-story/88e0644986c66a1fe9494edde892cdac|title=David Bowie: the genius who fell to earth|work=[[The Australian]]|date=13 January 2016|accessdate=29 April 2017}}
It will have to wait. If you reach consensus, I'll unprotect early. Please see my comment to you regarding sanctions at AN3. El_C08:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Consensus" will be "decided", or so it seems, by those who colluded to enforce their "consensus" rather than take the issue to the community at large as I suggested—twice. Meantime, see my response at AN3. —ATS 🖖 talk08:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being forced, essentially, to answer to different falsehoods and/or requirements at three different places. It is 01:52 hours where I am, and this is not fun. —ATS 🖖 talk08:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you template protect Template:High risk? The page has only about 700 transclusions (high risk templates have at least 2000 transclusions) and is transcluded on pages with low visibility (Template and Module space docs). Semi protection seems fine (was like that for 7 years). The similar Template:High use has more transclusions than Template:High risk is semi protected (and is also not a high risk template). Does not seem to fit the definition of high risk which is why templates are template protected.
It is not used in a permanently highly visible location, and it isn't cascade protected.
It is not transcluded into a very large number of pages.
It is not substituted extremely frequently on an ongoing basis (for example, templates used to warn users about inappropriate editing).
Thank you for your detailed reviews of articles. I will look into your reviews and ll improve articles. All points regarding articles are good suggestions for improvement.Gazal world (talk) 07:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Quick note; your edit here came up in a routine mirror search. While the the material may be copied from the "World Heritage Encyclopedia" via Gutenberg, that's a Wikipedia mirror. See the "citational source" at the bottom of the linked page for their half-assed attribution back to us. Not that any of that makes the addition any better; it's still copied and not attributed the way the student added it. Kuru(talk)00:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re: [48], I don't understand what issue there is for RSN or why you'd recommend it. Could you explain? I don't want to be seen as ignoring your recommendation. --Ronz (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can try DRN if you prefer. Or do nothing, it's up to you. But I thought you wanted to resolve the external links dispute. El_C19:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I noticed you seem to be a fan of Communists such as Vladmir Lenin and Che Guevera, and recently protected the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-fascism page! Are you an administrator or such, that can help me? How do you feel about the notability of recent antifa violence within the United States and Europe, against supporters of right-wing populists such as Donald J. Trump, and when will it be notable for inclusion on the Wikipedia page? Thank you in advance for your advice! 173.77.253.240 (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. The other editor claims that "Wikipedia articles are not acceptable cites in other wikipedia articles." This is completely off the point since a Wikipedia article was NEVER used as a reference. The reference used for the definition of purva was the book Satyarth Prakash by Dayanand Saraswati, page 417 on the mentioned English translation (or 271 in the original Hindi edition). The only appropriate course of action is to put the age in years back the way it was before it was removed by the other editor without reasoning. Please do so or state any issues you have with it. -Jenishc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.117.40.12 (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Fuhrer, you succeeded in thoroughly smashing the spirit of Wikipedia in that line. This is a powerful evidence of how editors operate on Wikipedia. Thanks! And keep it up! :) -Jenishc
@Ms Sarah Welch: Some of your edits are offensive to Jains. Others are unsubstantiated. Please learn to respect a religion and be unbiased. -Jenishc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.220.163 (talk • contribs)
Jenishc: Please quit your sock activity, edit warring and personal attacks, circumventing your block. You repeatedlyremove sources!, and then falsely allege that "my edits are unsubstantiated"! Well, we stick to summarizing the scholarly reliable mainstream sources. I am used to allegations by sockpuppet wiki-warriors that my or another contributor's edits are "offensive to Buddhist" but pro-Hindu/Sikh/Jains/Muslims, "offensive to Hindu" but pro-Buddhist/Sikhs/Jains/Muslims, "offensive to Muslim" but pro-Buddhist/Hindu/Sikhs/Jains, "offensive to Sikhs" but pro-Buddhists/Hindus/Jains/Muslims. You join that disruptive bandwagon when you allege "offensive to Jains". We just need to stick to summarizing reliable sources, without original research. My sympathies to you if "Mahavira died and was cremated" language instead of "Mahavira disappeared into thin air or attained moksha" offends you, or other well sourced content offends you. That "died" language is well supported in reliable sources. Please stop the WP:TE and the disruption. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ms Sarah Welch: "Please quit your sock activity, edit warring" - Please stop blocking the account without any reason just so that you could freely enforce your views in an unchallenged fashion, and i'll stop the sock activity. ||| "... personal attacks" - If any response affected you, i apologize, however, the definition of "personal" is quite broad, and your actions of randomly putting statements and linking it to some random source have been personally disturbing to me too. ||| "You repeatedly remove sources, and then falsely allege that my edits are unsubstantiated!" - The sources you link are no sufficient enough evidence for any facts that you state. If Paul Dundas mentions in his next book that "Mahavira" was a female, it does not make it the case. EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY CITATIONS. You have repeatedly failed to provide citations in every case which i have disputed so far, starting with the one on Umaswati. ||| "I am used to allegations by sockpuppet wiki-warriors ...you join that disruptive bandwagon when you allege offensive to Jains" - Very honestly, you overestimate yourself unimaginably. I do not have an iota of concern about which of the bandwagons inside your head i fall into.You can try and stop deluding yourself, might be healthy. ||| "My sympathies to you if .....or other well sourced content offends you" - Haha, look at yourself! Please read the few lines before where you were so harmed by personal attacks and see what you're doing now :). The cremation fact was not offensive, it was HILARIOUS. Whether the cremation happened or not is secondary, but there is no way any sensible person would write it in a book, for that would be MAKING A CLAIM OUT OF THIN AIR, since whoever wrote it wouldnt have any source or evidence for the fact. ||| Stop being blind, and use your common-sense. -Jenishc
Paul Dundas is a respected professor, highly cited, well known for his publications on Jainism. It is you who is the problem, one of those wiki-sock-warriors who disrupt, confuse their personal opinions / wisdom / prejudice as the Truth, apply standards and lecture others but fail to apply the same standards to self. Please stop this sockpuppetry, stop deleting multiple scholarly sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ms Sarah Welch: Paul Dundas says that "Mahavira died aged seventy-two at the town of Pava in what is now the state of Bihar. His body was cremated, with the gods taking his bones to heavens" - Paul Dundas clearly is aware of how gods took Mahavira's bones to heaven, very rigorously justifying his scholarship and credibility. "It is you who...apply the same standards to self" - You have an extraordinarily high capacity for tolerating nonsense, and thus it is natural for you to backfire and retaliate when the nonsense is made evident, and try and justify the nonsense in every possible manner. However, the basic fact remains that the nonsense is nonsense, and sooner or later, it will become transparent. It might be helpful to learn to distinguish nonsense from common-sense. 'Your pain is the breaking of the shell that encloses your understanding' ~Gibran. -Jenishc
"Wave of terror in Europe"
Hi, Captain. I was surprised to see you restored this rather random piping; did you mean to do that? Anyway, I've removed it. The link on its own is appropriate. It's surely not even much of a wave, compared to many other parts of the world! Bishonen | talk10:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
A big thank you for reviewing articles created by User:Gazal world. I am mentoring him for long time. He is particularly interested in writing articles on topics related to Gujarati literature (authors, books, awards etc). As he is not native speaker of English, his writing may have grammatical mistakes but he has improved a lot since he started editing. He will improve articles as per your suggestions. And I will help him in doing it. Dates and lead expansions are easy and doable. A major problem regarding these topics is lack of availability of references online. Most of the criticism of works and authors are (obviously) in Gujarati language and very little of it is available online. So he has to tediously search/research books in libraries for references. And as he is not native speaker of English, it is difficult for him to translate those criticism in proper English words. :( If the criticism of Gujarati writers have been available in English, . I think this clarifies why these article lacks detail about books and criticism. Still he is very happy to do whatever he can and he is also happy about your reviews. He told me to write good reply and thank you so I did on his behalf. We will do whatever we can regarding your reviews. Regards and a big thank you again.--Nizil (talk) 06:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comprehensive explanation, Nizil, and thanks for mentoring Gazal world. It was my pleasure—glad I could help. And it was interesting reads. El_C06:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
About Battle of Cam Duong user-4488 has sockpuppet
This is not necessary for independent pages. Repeat with Battle of Lao Cai.
PS:user-4488 has a strong Chinese tendency and uses sockpuppet.May be a Chinese spy student and live in the United States or use proxy.--101.9.161.144 (talk) 06:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was the section above, I noticed this belatedly, sorry about that—perhaps I prematurely unprotected. I've been following the edit war there for a while. El_C01:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, VM has NOT participated at the talkpage since his revert [52]. Whereas I opened a talkpage thread (to which VM has not participated) within one minute[53] of my revert [54]. Speaks for itself, really. Khirurg (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of Aleppo text proposal
I left the text proposal (with sources) at the article's talk page as you suggested. Check it out if you want, from a 3rd-party viewpoint maybe you could make suggestions as well or offer an opinion. EkoGraf (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I tried. He now says any narrative by the Syrian government on these issues is propaganda and should not be included. I even cited AFP (a reliable source) as a secondary source who was relaying the government's and Russia's narrative and he didn't even take it into account. Not including the narrative of one of the beligerents is simply not neutral. EkoGraf (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus was reached (with Marek) regarding the ceasefire sentence. He was the one who was objecting on this sentence's source. As for the executed bodies sentence. I watered it down and cut it down significantly and have now cited only reliable sources like AFP, Deutche Welle, etc. The sentence was proposed at the talk page. One of the three earlier objecting editors (Iryna Harpy) expressed no opinion regarding the sentence. I asked a second directly (My very best wishes), he only said if the sources are better then Masdar (which AFP and Deutche Welle are) and if the wording was improved in comparison to the previous text (which I did) he had no objection. I added significant more attribution to the sentence then there was before. He said he would look at the sources when he has time. As for Marek, he questioned the source (when I only cited the AFP story for the sentence). I didn't really know how to respond to someone questioning the reliability of AFP. I have since added a dozen other non-government sources who also ran the same AFP story at the talk page (at his request and for further verification) and also additionally I cited the proposed sentence with Deutche Welle and Middle East Eye (both reliable) which did not simply run the AFP story but wrote their own on the executed bodies. As far as I am aware, this would be per WP:SECONDARY since we would be using reliable secondary sources who are talking about that specific story. And we wouldn't be using the primary source (which is the state media). If he still questions the sources I think its a simple case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but we wait and see. EkoGraf (talk) 03:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I'm not seeing where consensus was reached. Can you clarify on the article talk page how this is so? I am willing to unprotect, but I am wary that the edit war would resume. El_C03:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Marek said regarding the ceasefire sentence, quote - I should clarify though - I don't have a problem with the "Ceasefire" part of the text. As for the other sentence, Wishes has changed position now, I don't know why. He said if the text was reworded and reliable sources are used it was ok to include it. When it was reworded and reliable sources were used he said it was both in the lead and in the main body and there was no need. Except its not mentioned anywhere in the lead and only one sentence regarding different incidents in the main body. He also said he doesn't trust the government, on that basis now we should exclude anything the government says (even reported by reliable secondary sources) which is counter per WP:SECONDARY. On this, I would refer you to what Wishes said regarding the pro-rebel SNHR (which is not neutral) at the bottom of the talk page. That if its referred to by a reliable secondary source its ok to use that secondary source. Exactly same thing I said for the government allegation. EkoGraf (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I don't think I can find middle ground with Wishes anymore despite my best efforts. He requested reliable sources for the allegations and that the text be reworded. When I provided the sources and reworded the text he basically said - no reason to include that, its already mentioned in the lead and the main text. It was not mentioned in the lead anywhere, and in the text a wholly separate incident was mentioned. When it was pointed out to him it was not in the lead and that it was not the same story he switched tracks again and now wants everything alleged removed. This is not neutral in my opinion and I simply don't know how to continue with someone who basically doesn't want to compromise. I think I have been pretty reasonable in these discussions up until now to find a compromise with the several editors who objected to the sentence, despite a majority of editors already being in favor of even using the primary sources for the claims (with attribution), and not just the secondary ones. EkoGraf (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems Marek is on his way to agreeing to the sentences on the executed civilians. Only remaining sticking point is he wanted to call SOHR an independent monitoring group despite it being overwhelmingly called pro-opposition. EkoGraf (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Marek doubts that Aleppo has a forensic office.... I cited a UN report confirming Aleppo has a forensic department. EkoGraf (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Request for closing talkpage discussions
@Floquenbeam: Hello, currently there are four discussions which were initiated over changing the content. There was dispute as to which content was more accurate. This further led to an edit war, which was reported to AN3 discussion board. I recently found sources regarding the disputed content, and posted them in the discussions. I requested two editors to close them, who are familiar with subject; but were not involved in the discussion. It turns out they can't close the discussion as they are involved in the article.
So I humbly request you guys to take appropriate decision for the discussion, and close it with proper reasoning. Thanks a lot.
Thanks for the reply. Who should I ask to close the aforementioned discussions? Thanks again, and I apologise for nagging you :-) —usernamekiran(talk)20:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
they were debates, with many acquisitions including some editor getting paid for his work. The debates were "is A correct or B?". B was the correct one. But the person started all this, made other editors believe that A is correct. After that, i initiated a voting for consensus, while the user was editing the article. Thats how you n me met. It was nice, and quite there on AN3, and then we appeared. The problem with current discussions is, anybody, no matter how newbie to case, or no matter how expert, he will believe A is accurate. I dont want that to happen in future, thats why i need to close them. —usernamekiran(talk)01:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I'm having difficulties making sense of that. You can qualify a discussion with your own caution by commenting as you see fit (directing the reader to the aforementioned vote, for example), but closing regular discussions that are not especially heated nor structured (like an RM or an RfC) is not conventional practice on Wikipedia—I'm unsure how I (or anyone) can help with that. El_C05:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for closing the discussions, but I tried to get attention of many others to this issue. I am sorry, but I did what i thought was correct. I have further explained it on the talkpage of the article (pinged you there).
You say it is not "conventional", but it is not forbidden either. As I explained earlier, the discussions clearly give the impression that HSCA based its conclusion of conspiracy on many factors. As I have provided WP:RS for the fact that HSCA based its conclusion solely on one factor only. It is necessary the confusion should be cleared on the talkpage discussions, thats why I wanted to close them. So, would you please re-consider about closing them? I apologise again. But I still think the discussions should be closed. —usernamekiran(talk)16:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for all the trouble regarding the "closing the discussions fiasco". I mean the apology. I mean, i am not saying it for the sake of formality. You right. The discussions dont need to be closed. Sorry. —usernamekiran(talk)16:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Worth check it out
El C: Do you have an account in Meta? I do not know if you authorized Marrovi to use your signature and comments elsewhere, because this user is using it to mark that you are attacking him. That talkpage denounces "the harassment and injustices" suffered by Marrovi. He is putting a message for you but he didn't put it like pin. Worth check it out. --Akapochtli (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, El C. I'd like to ask you for some guidance about community norms. An editor would like to keep a bold edit in an article. I'm asking them to engage in a source-based discussion to get consensus, but they are arguing that the edit doesn't need to get consensus in that article, since it reflects the language used in the main article for that topic. They are also arguing that I should get a consensus in the main article if I want to contest that language. The two articles aren't in a spin-off relationship. That doesn't seem to reflect any policies or community norms that I'm aware of. I reason that language used in different articles for the same issue may well be different because they give different weight to different sources (e.g., an article on the history of Great Britain may treat Napoleonic wars somewhat differently from an article the history of France, since they would tend to be based to a greater extent on sources about British and French history, respectively). Further, I note that WP:CANVASS doesn't include other articles among non-controversial sources to get further input, presumably because the community recognizes that bringing in editors from another article may favor one side in a dispute. The other editor argues that the issue has already been extensively discussed in the main article, and I'm attempting to challenge a site-wide consensus on this point. What is your perspective on this? I'm notifying the other editor so they can clarify their position if I'm not presenting it well. Eperoton (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I responded at the Ottoman Empire TP just now. The question of how the AG should be presented on Wikipedia doesn't start at the Ottoman Empire article, but the Armenian Genocide article. We need bring in users who are interested and specialized in this topic to join this discussion. Such users hang out at the AG article and will offer their insight only then. Also, this is not similar to the Napoleonic wars being presented differently on an article concerning Great Britain. Differently is not the same as inaccurately. If we are to present the Napoleonic wars using wording that doesn't jive with the facts and with the Napoloenic war article itself, then I feel that wording must be revised to present the most accurate picture of that particular event. That's what we should be doing here as well. With that said, I don't think there's really any necessity at all to redefine the Armenian Genocide, especially under Eperoton's rationale and wording. Splitting hairs and playing around with words the way Epereton's doing can lead to denialists rejoicing. For example, Eperoton claims that the ministry should be held separate from the government as if the ministry is its own entity. This is highly misleading for our readership especially when it comes to an issue of systematic genocide by a particular government. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@EtienneDolet: I'm not claiming anything resembling that. It really escapes me see how you could read that from my response. What I've done is track down a strong secondary source which supports your position on that particular point and made an NPOV-based argument to convince myself that I can accept it. I'm afraid we keep talking past each other. El C, aside from the general point of policy this has started with, if you have time to take a look at Talk:Ottoman_Empire#Recent_changes_of_text_on_the_Armenian_genocide, I would appreciate any guidance you might offer there. Among discussions I've had here with constructive and knowledgeable editors, this has been an uncommonly difficult one, not just because of talking past each other, but also because of some core differences on interpretation of NPOV and PRIMARY. Eperoton (talk) 04:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I, actually, believe that a connection (what you call spin-off relationship) between articles does exist in a powerful way in regards to the consensus which determines the weight of reliable sources, that, ultimately, produces neutral phrasing. Yes, there can be some subtle nuances based on focus, but basically, the main article's preeminent assertion of its opening—in this case, Genocide and systematic extermination—I don't think is something for which consensus needs to be reestablished in other articles—such as in this a case, Ottoman Empire. Just as we look to the historiography of a field to set to the tone in the main article, so do we look for consensus in Wikipedia's main area (or the main article) to set the tone for mentions in other articles. In that sense, much of the discussion I think could be juxtaposed to the main Armenian Genocide article, but I'd actually recommend you take it to the Dispute resolution noticeboard. El_C05:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't think it counts as canvassing to leave a note at the main article that this dispute is taking place and where, just as it would WP:ARMENIA. Further input via the main article, if anything, is a good thing. In that sense, the main article can be seen as a central location to the topic in itself. Another way to go about this would be my three stages to launch an RfC: 1. Find you what you agree on. 2. Find out what you disagree on. 3. Launch an RfC on 2. El_C05:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit conflict] The question is, though, historiography of what field? Here we have two partially overlapping, but distinct fields, where the subject is often discussed from very different perspectives: genocide studies and Ottoman history. I may have a chance of convincing the editors at Ottoman Empire that mainstream academic sources on Ottoman history should be taken into account per NPOV alongside genocide studies sources. I wouldn't even try to make that argument over at Armenian Genocide, because frankly I don't believe that there's a good case for that myself. I have no objection to Armenian Genocide being based on books with "Armenian Genocide" in the title. Why shouldn't Ottoman Empire give non-zero weight to books called "History of the Ottoman Empire" even in discussing the Armenian genocide? Eperoton (talk) 05:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, El C. In this case I don't think an RFC will help, since I've been trying to get an NPOV discussion based on a systematic review of sources. In my experience, when you ask editors to read more than a short paragraph in an RFC, they just tend to shoot from the hip. However, your guidance is duly noted. What may be more helpful here is agreeing on inviting some specific regulars from the AG article. Eperoton (talk) 05:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus existing at AG is still key, I think, notwithstanding this problematic of having two, sometimes overlapping fields. *** Sure invite regulars you all agree on, as well as place a general note in the main AG article, are good ideas. I still think an RfC may be useful, perhaps even necessary, eventually. Maybe use DRN to condense the crux of your dispute into something that can be phrased concisely enough for an RfC. Just a thought. El_C06:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of this was just a simple misunderstanding. I believe I overlooked some things Eperoton was saying. So there's no need to take other avenues to solve this matter. In fact, it's practically solved already. Thanks El C for your guidance. I'm sure your suggestions here will be referred to in the future because they're helpful. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To amplify your point, El C, I just noticed that I had missed the fact that WP:CANVASS does include "The talk page of one or more directly related articles" among appropriate venues for notification, so there was a misconception on my part about community norms. Eperoton (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to reopen this discussion, but I realized that I could use trying to restate El C's advice in my own words to make sure I understood it correctly. We aren't having a new argument with EtienneDolet over these general points, but I'm pinging him for transparency. By the way, I should have pointed out before that this consultation took a somewhat disconcerting (for me) turn at the start with the misapprehension that the disagreement was over appropriateness of the terms "genocide" and "extermination" for the AG, which it was not (it was about the way they combined with certain other words in the specific sentences we discussed). Let me paraphrase what I think El C advised: 1) we should look at the relative weight of sources determined by consensus at closely related articles, and use that as guidance for reflecting these sources (I believe this applies only to high-quality articles like AG, where we can find actual discussions of relative weight of sources); 2) we should try to involve editors from closely related articles if we're having a dispute related to the consensus existing there regarding phrasing or relative weight of sources (also probably worth doing only for prominent related articles); and 3) we should generally follow normal DR procedures. El C, could you confirm if my reading of your advice is correct? Eperoton (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More or less, yes. Especially for 2 and 3. But 1 is trickier. What I tried to emphasise was that consensus is preeminent—preeminent in interpreting both the reliability and the weight of verifiable content. And that neutral wording (which are a product of longstanding consensus) of high-quality, main articles can, in and of themselves, serve to set the tone when the same topic (AG) is mentioned in other articles. So, again, when it comes to key wording such as Genocide and systematic extermination, we therefore take our cue from the opening of the main AG article onto elsewhere on Wikipedia, rather than needing to reestablish consensus all over again. El_C04:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I think we're getting a little sidetracked here with those specific examples. They are obviously supported by RSs and discussion of sources which I'm sure can be found on the talk pages of AG. Let me instead use an actual example we're discussing at Talk:Ottoman Empire. The question is whether to say that the genocide was committed by the "Ottoman government" or the "Young Turk government". I've presented a source review of mainstream AG scholarship which indicates that NPOV clearly points to the latter choice. Let's suppose -- hypothetically -- that the next response says that we should use the former just because the AG lead says "the Muslim Ottoman government". The discussion already involves AG heavyweights plus me. Would that be a valid objection to my source review and if so how should it be addressed? Eperoton (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to challenge consensus on that front—consensus as seen by what the AG article and its sources says about this—that should be addressed by launching an RfC that would apply to both (all) articles on that question. Perhaps the best thing is to launch the RfC at the AG article rather than elsewhere, since you are questioning what is said in it. Since, after all, it's one question, even if it involves more than one article. We don't want Wikipedia to contradict itself from article to article. El_C04:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add another level of complexity to make full contact with the real world. The statement we're discussing also refers to Assyrian genocide which uses "Young Turk government" and Greek genocide which uses "the government of the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish national movement". As far as I can tell, none of these formulations are actually sourced. Do I have onus of achieving consensus to synchronize all those formulations before my source review can have some policy-based authority in the discussion about the article I'm working on? Eperoton (talk) 05:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Generally and on the policy front, as mentioned, a topic-RfC can apply to multiple articles. Choosing the venue, then, is pretty key. Specifically to that question, there could be a more nuanced answer that adding this other layer of complexity may bring to the fore. Like a de facto-de jure relationship—not saying that's the case here, but just as an illustration that there could be an answer that combines both TYT and Ottoman govt.—it isn't necessarily an either or. El_C07:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, El C. This discussion has helped me appreciate the emphasis placed on site-wide consistency and consensus-building by the community. Eperoton (talk) 12:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You were blocked for violation of 3RR just yesterday, yet as soon as you are allowed back to edit you violate the same rule [60] you have already violated twice in a week. This is after being warned numerous times to stop. What is more, you have recently started to get WP:PERSONAL, first accusing me of harassment without proof [61] and now accusing me of sockpuppetry again without proof. This is unacceptable. El C, could there be further action taken against the editor? They were already given a chance despite breaking 3RR, they were then actually blocked, and after all past warnings they continue to engage in the same behaviour. They clearly do not seem willing to change disruptive pattern. Kzl55 (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can't accuse someone of being a sock without evidence, Somajeeste. Kzl55 is an editor in good standing. File an SPI report, if you must (though I advise against it). And you need to stop violating 3RR, as you did on Somali language. If I see any further edit warring from you, you will be blocked again. El_C00:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't shout at me and calm down. again i think you have little bias against me, you don't see what the other side doing by removing things that belongs there way before he begin his disruptive edit.[62]. but hey never mind and good luck.Somajeeste (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deflecting and projecting is not going to work on me. Edit by the rules or face further sanctions.El_C02:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello El_C. I do not wish to refer to any instance, but as to the policy of 3RR, I've always understood the language on WP:3RR to mean that the rule applies to all pages on WP, not just article pages. I know some of the other language on that page is subject to a variety of interpretations, but I've never heard that part interpreted to exclude article talk pages. SPECIFICOtalk00:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm relatively new to 1RR, but that has not been my understanding. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable could clarify. El_C00:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. It says "analogous" but not in what respect and if anything analogous could be read to mean that it's isomorphic but different, whereas the applicability to page types would be identical. Interesting that there are ambiguities in even fundamental policies. Thanks for your reply. SPECIFICOtalk00:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1RR states that "The one-revert rule is analogous to the three-revert rule as described above..." However the DS notice specifies "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article..." And enforcing the usual U.S. politics "consensus required" for talk page posts is idiotic. --NeilNtalk to me00:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which policy? 3RR already has "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page..." 1RR has the same rules. --NeilNtalk to me01:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. Read the opening statement: "At this time a fourth removal has not occurred, so there might not technically be a 3RR violation..." Nothing about violating 1R.. --NeilNtalk to me01:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See Thucydides411 and BullRangifer comments below my own. That's three (including myself) editors that were unsure 1RR also applies to talk pages. El_C01:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1RR can certainly apply to talk pages if it is explicitly implemented as an editing restriction. I haven't seen that implemented anywhere. --NeilNtalk to me01:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, if 1RR has to be applied to a talk page that indicates that something has gone badly wrong somewhere and we should be looking at editor sanctions instead of page restrictions. --NeilNtalk to me02:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I agree with Zukorrom that it's debatable that such a dramatic ideological shift has taken place. El_C05:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Korea was a tributary state of China until 1895
It's an indisputable fact that Korea and Goguryeo were all tributary states of China from ancient times until 1895 following the Sino-Japanese war, please read these sources:
1.) Korea Herald. (2004) Korea now, p. 31; excerpt, "The Chinese also insist that even though Goguryeo was part of Chinese domain, Silla and Baekje were states subjected to China's tributary system."
2.) Kwak, p. 99., p. 99, at Google Books; excerpt, "Korea's tributary relations with China began as early as the fifth century, were regularized during the Goryeo dynasty (918-1392), and became fully institutionalized during the Yi dynasty (1392-1910)."
3.) Seth, Michael J. (2006). A concise history of Korea, p. 64, p. 64, at Google Books; excerpt, "China found instead that its policy of using trade and cultural exchanges and offering legitimacy and prestige to the Silla monarchy was effective in keeping Silla safely in the tributary system. Indeed, the relationship that was worked out in the late seventh and early eighth centuries can be considered the beginning of the mature tributary relationship that would characterize Sino-Korean interchange most of the time until the late nineteenth century;"
4.) According to the Book of Later Han vol. 85, Records of Three Kingdoms vol. 30 and Book of Jin, vol. 97, 2 tribute missions in 1st century, 4 tribute missions in 3rd century, 10 tribute missions in 5th century was sent to Imperial China.
5.) Kang, David C. (2010). East Asia Before the West: Five Centuries of Trade and Tribute. Columbia University Press. p. 59. ISBN978-0-231-15318-8. "thus, between 1637 and 1881, Korea sent 435 special embassies to the Qing court, or an average of almost 1.5 embassies per year."
6.) Gundry, R. S. "China and her Tributaries," National Review (United Kingdom), No. 17, July 1884, pp. 605-619., p. 605, at Google Books
7.) Kang, David C. (2010). East Asia Before the West: Five Centuries of Trade and Tribute, p. 59., p. 59, at Google Books
8.) Shambaugh, David L. et al. (2008). International Relations of Asia, p. 54 n15., p. 54, at Google Books citing the 1818 Collected Statutes of the Qing Dynasty (DaQing hui-tien)
9.) Fogel, p. 27., p. 27, at Google Books; Goodrich, Luther Carrington et al. (1976). Dictionary of Ming biography, 1368-1644, p. 1316., p. 1316, at Google Books; note: the economic benefit of the Sinocentric tribute system was profitable trade. The tally trade (kangō bōeki or kanhe maoyi in Chinese) was a system devised and monitored by the Chinese -- see Nussbaum, Louis Frédéric et al. (2005). Japan Encyclopedia, p. 471.
10.) Yoda, p. 40., p. 40, at Google Books; excerpt, "Japanese missions to the ... Tang Dynasties were recognized by the Chinese as bearers of imperial tribute; however, in the middle of the ninth century -- the early Heian Period -- Japan rescinded he sending of missions to the Tang Empire. Subsequently Japan conducted a flourishing trade with China and for the next five hundred years also imported much of Chinese culture, while nevertheless remaining outside the tribute system."
11.) Imperial envoys made perilous passages on kentoshi-sen ships to Tang China "The cross-cultural exchanges began with 5 missions between 600 and 614, initially to Sui China (on kenzuishi-sen), and at least 18 or 19 missions were sent to T’ang China from 630 to 894 although not all of them were designated kentoshi."
12.) Kwak, Tae-Hwan et al. (2003). The Korean peace process and the four powers, p. 100., p. 100, at Google Books; excerpt, "The tributary relations between China and Korea came to an end when China was defeated in the Sino-Japanese war of 1894-1895."
13.) Chisholm, Hugh. (1911). The Encyclopædia Britannica, Vol. 15, p. 224, p. 224, at Google Books
14.) Pratt, Keith L. (1999). Korea: a historical and cultural dictionary. p. 482.
Just use the article talk page to advance your argument, it's of little use here. I'm not involved in the content dispute, I'm just the admin that protected the page to stop the edit war. El_C00:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
—usernamekiran(talk) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
I apologise for my problematic behaviour. Again, not for formality; I actually mean it. Thanks for being civil/polite even when my behaviour was like a problem child. This is a heartfelt apology. —usernamekiran(talk)17:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if there is any policy regarding vandalism and IP addesses belonging to schools? I tried to search on internet, but didnt find any results. —usernamekiran(talk)01:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, try to get a passage that serves as a synergy of and as a compromise between both opposing positions. El_C05:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Request for protection
Can I ask if you could protect my personal page from IP editors for a few days? An unknown IP left this [63] on my talk page, which is a bit disruptive and there could be more messages. Thanks in advance! EkoGraf (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One instance of vandalism is not enough to warrant protection. If there's further disruptive activity, we can revisit. El_C23:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There used to be a full article for the Vice City Soundtrack for 10 years, but on 27 September 2015, a user named Czar decided that day the GTA Vice City soundtrack article did not belong on Wikipedia. But Czar did not do anything about the GTA3, GTA4, or GTA5 soudntrack; which contain the same stylized information (music in a videogame)
Because of Czar's actions; the page is now redirected to the commercially released albums, BUT these albums do not contain the full soundtrack from GTA Vice City due to legal & licensing issues. Can we have the Vice City soundtrack page restored please? Damian001 (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello El C . I am hoping that you can lend some assistance. Me and user Kzl5 need assistance in resolving an edit dispute concerning Official language in section Somali Language article. He added Somaliland (before protection issued). I disagree with his interpretation and I have shared my reasons on the talk page at [64]. I request your input in order to resolve this issue. Your assistance would be appreciated if you have the time. Thanks! Somajeeste (talk) 10:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
False, I did not add Somaliland, a different editor did.
El C, the editor above plans to continue to edit war before a consensus is reached on the talkpage [65], as it stands, protection placed on article Somali language ends on the 13th, if you can extend the protection for the benefit of the ongoing discussion at the talkpage it would be appreciated. Kzl55 (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll see about extending the protection while you discuss it. Consider getting a 3rd opinion, as I'm unsure how much time I, myself, can devote to this. El_C22:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This user violated WP:CIVILITY many times and responded my concerns regarding the source he added in a hostile and offensive manner. And his last "action" clearly showed that he focused on me, rather than the topic itself [66]. I have nothing to do with the sock btw. 185.86.150.27 (talk) 12:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You don't cite any instances of incivility—this would have been the time in which to do so. I read Talk:Afontova Gora and I think you two should just stick to the content in question and forget about the personal fiction. That would be my advice. It serves as a distraction. El_C22:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
El_C Unfortunately, the trouble seems to be continuing. Tryptofish appears to be trying to edit-war in his preferred version, although he is discussing the issue in good faith at the talk. I do not believe he immediately gains wp:consensus for his edit simply by talking. My understand is that consensus of editors should be reached when a WP:BOLD new edit is challenged per WP:BRD by working collaboratively and seeking agreement rather forcing a new preferred version. I have templated Tryptofish accordingly here. If you feel my understanding of the rules is incorrect and the warning or my revert of Tryptofish was was out of order, please let me know. I would welcome your participation in helping the conversation with Tryptofish to be collaborative. I have seen your work before and I think you are quite skilled at mediating disputes without taking sides--a rare and valuable skill on Wikipedia. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate that. Okay, I'll have a quick look, but I'm afraid I cannot commit to anything beyond that. El_C06:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El_C, I was finally able to correctly format and write a far more neutral and well cited article on this individual.
As I chatted to you about a month-or-so ago, I have a COI, so I have written the article on the talk page and I was wondering if you could please review it to possibly become the main article?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Stone_(comedian)
Probably don't have anything official/confirmable out there so I can simply remove it? With that done, what would be the process of having it replace the main article? I ask you or another admin to do the edit or I do it and ask you or another admin to notate the COI has been addressed and that it's been accepted as a to-policy edit? Cheers. --SarahLombellard (talk) 08:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have our wires crossed. IP removed a sourced passage based on an unsourced claim. I have no basis to revert to their removal because it rests on an unsourced claim. El_C01:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! Thanks for protecting the page. However, some duplicated text was accidentally locked in (the andrzejewski/lewis phrase that goes "this widespread modern distribution..." - it's there twice) [67]. A specification of the language's standard geographical hub was also blanked, and a contested assertion as to which areas it is spoken was made in Wikipedia's voice contrary to WP:WIKIVOICE. Could you please either fix these or temporarily lift the protection so that I may do so? Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, I request you to kindly check the cited sources for once. All the citated sources are from independent reliable sources but the other editor is clearly using the "BLP" to make a point for his removal. I know Wikipedia is about verifiability and all the sources verifies my claim. Kindly check again. --Drivarum (talk) 07:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just making sure you know it exists. And did you just revert after responding to the noticeboard report?(!) El_C07:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it exists and I have been adding sources for this but the other editors keep reverting without discussing on the talk page. I am not sure about this. I think I did but I don't know I cannot revert if I comment on the the noticeboard. I commented because the accusation on me was not presented neutrally. The editor have been trying to block me and even accused me of socking. Reverted a talk page discussion I started[68]. Can you please help me what is the best course of action I should do in this situation? Many thanks, Drivarum (talk) 07:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes El_C, it concerns WP:3RRNO because none of the sources support the claim that these individuals admitted to be former adherents of Hinduism and they converted to Islam. Hema Malini is not even a Muslim, and her husband's name is also frequently mentioned by @Drivarum: despite he rejected any conversions to Islam.[69] Since you have protected the article you should update the "results" of WP:ANEW report. Capitals00 (talk) 07:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see the article has been protected but the last revert was[70] with edit summary "still lacking self admission of concerning person". But this source[71] clearly mentioned Rahman stating his conversion. Please, read the section "Did the peer ask you to embrace Islam?". For Hema Malini there several sources about her conversion like [72], [73], [74], [75] and many more. Drivarum (talk) 07:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Capitals00: you're again accusing me blindly. You said "her husband's name is also frequently mentioned by @Drivarum:" Can you please show me where? Even the source you stated[76] proves their conversion. The conversion has huge political controversy with wide mentions in news sources so it is notable as well. Drivarum (talk) 07:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please engage this at the article talk page. I suggest you quote the passage that constitutes proof. El_C07:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please suggest me what I should do if they just ignore me and keep reverting my edits, complaining against me? Thank you. Drivarum (talk) 07:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I observed that you have removed my complaint of edit warring posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring about User:Bajirao1007 who now edit wars without logging in.
Where should I report that edit warring if it should be acted upon? Thanks for everything!-Dona-Hue (talk) 09:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On 2nd glance, it doesn't look like vandalism, it's just a different map. Why did you call it vandalism? El_C09:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Remoting duplicate
Can you remove the duplicate word ("ethnoreligious group") from the lead?[77] It is written two times. I cant fix it because the page is semi-protected. 185.24.234.107 (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could I ask if you could possibly protect the 2017 Baghdad–Damascus highway offensive article from IP editors for a short time? An IP editor is constantly inserting the incorrect location for the offensive (unsourced OR), as well as removing a few sources. The offensive is taking place in the Homs and Suwayda provinces, while he is inserting Rif Dimashq and in fact removing Homs. I left a message at both his talk page and in the edit summaries that if anybody checks any source or map they could confirm its taking place primarily in Homs and Suwayda, not Dimashq. I also warned him at his talk page he violated 1RR and he should rather discuss the issue, although I am not sure if it will reach him because he seems to be changing his IP (he was editing at 190.113.211.43 then changed to 190.113.211.113). I myself made three reverts of him and stopped at that since Wikipedia administrators told me in the past that the 1RR for Syria-related articles applies to reverting autoconfirmed and confirmed users, while in cases of IP editors we can revert them up to three times. EkoGraf (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...to be unwelcoming, but the purpose of the discussion was for those interested in the idea to develop it as best possible before getting wider comment. Blanket opposition to something that hasn't even been formulated doesn't help in that. Your honest criticism will be valued once we know what we're proposing. Thanks for understanding. EEng04:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fair enough. I just wanted to express my opnion, but the ANI thread was closed before I got a chance. El_C04:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV is a core policy. You shouldn't violate core policies.
No, it is not. Your qualification is unnecessary. Time to use the article talk page to advance your argument, for once. El_C05:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Haha so you actually don't understand the policy at all! You think it's somehow neutral to call someone a master prose stylist. Hahaha! 82.132.244.11 (talk) 05:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reverting 82.132.244.11's depredations at "Joseph Conrad".
That user is now expanding to "Joseph Conrad's career at sea". I've reverted the ill-advised changes, but am not familiar with procedure for protecting a page. Could you please help out?
Hello comandante. Could you please add in this section the following sentence:
In May 2017 Berlin's Social Democratic Party in Germany passed a resolution condemning BDS as antisemitic, declaring that the SPD Berlin "stands in solidarity with Israel, and the recognition of Israel's right to exist and self-defense are for us non-negotiable."[1]
I noticed this, and I added something that should be satisfactory. I did not copy your text, although. Additionally, the next time you make such a request, you should put the edit requests on the talk page, as El C said above. RileyBugz会話投稿記録03:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Admin's Barnstar
For your "iron hand in a silk glove" fearlessly defending impartiality even when engaging fellow admins. — JFGtalk05:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello El C. I've been getting hits on my watchlist for Synergy. It turns out this was from a 2015 edit war that caused me to apply semiprotection. In case this is relevant to the current edits by enthusiastic IP-hoppers, you should perhaps be aware of the earlier problems with physics-related edits by St. Petersburg IPs. Many of these reports feature edits from the 91.122.* range. Since you have also recently applied semiprotection to Synergy these precedents could be of interest:
In the last of these, User:Manul stated “this is a fiercely dedicated edit warrior who has been inserting nonsense into articles for at least six years.”
Thanks, I need all the help I could get over there. Fiercely dedicated sounds about right. Also uncivil (four NPA warnings). I'm of the mindset that the changes ought to be reverted and the article semiportected (with the IP suggesting edits on the talk page) for more lengthy period of time, but I wanted to wait to get the input of, at least, one other editor before doing so. I just don't know enough about synergy and synergetics, but alarm bells started to ring once the lead read: In the end of its exponentially accelerating hierarchization, or, which is the same, debt accrual, the universe's matter becomes psychokinetically enslaved by the most intuitive man, whose brain is the most densely hierarchic object in the universe.El_C15:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, one of my favorites is The redshiftedness of the Mongoloids and the blueshiftedness of the Jews imply that they are the broad Epimethean and narrow Promethean parts of the same funnel-shaped gravity well,[78] from the not-yet-merged Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/8i347g8gl/Archive.
The tool of interest here is rangecontribs, but the site is often down (including now). On 31 August 2016 EdJohnston blocked 89.110.0.0/19 and 91.122.0.0/21 for two years, and that was after HJ Mitchell applied the same blocks for a year. From the Systemizer SPI, range blocks (perhaps not exactly the same ones) have been applied (perhaps not contiguously) since 2011.
91.122.10-13.* is just barely out of the 91.122.0.0/21 range, hence we're receiving nonsense from Saint Petersburg again. 91.122.0.0/20 would cover it. The 8i347g8gl SPI has a 91.122.12.* address back in December 2013, so it's not just a temporary outlier. Manul ~ talk23:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing against range blocks, but the quickest help for the Synergy article would be semiprotection, perhaps for a year, if we think it is justified. I would link to one of the sock cases and mention St. Petersburg in the rationale. The length would be explained by the long duration of the abuse. EdJohnston (talk) 00:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You blocked Amberwaves and PerfectlyIrrational for edit warring, which I know is justified by policy. But I had talked to them and worked out a compromise before your block went into effect. They both have good contributions overall to the discussion. Would you unblock them? —Guanaco04:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Guanaco: I hadn't seen your efforts at finding an amicable resolution to the dispute, thanks for stepping in! Regardless, this was an egregiously heated edit war which deserved some action. Certainly those valuable editors will think twice before warring next time. — JFGtalk06:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
GA review request
I have nominated an article on Gujarati cinema, a regional language film industry of India, for GA review in January 2017. Due to backlog, it is not reviewed yet. I kindly request you to review it. Regards,--Nizil (talk) 04:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could your edit to CONS be linked to wherever that clause appears in policy or guidelines? Taken in the abstract by someone (like me) who doesn't have some context for your addition, it's kind of hard to figure out what you're talking about and what basis you have for it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 05:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the contribs and deleted contribs for anon editor 50.0.121.218 after I saw your 48 hour block on it today for vandalism. There's been no vandalism from it. What's the block for? – Athaenara ✉ 11:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I actually find it quite insulting and condescending for you to suggest that I can't "stay calm". It's basically calling someone "hysterical" just in a round about way (and as you may have noticed I much prefer it if people are straight up and clear in what they say). The intent of such an admonition is to denigrate what someone is saying in order to be able to dismiss it without actually considering the merits. You have no idea what my state of mind is so please refrain from commenting on it.
I can intimate it so long as you use words like "crap," "my butt," and "bullshit." Stop it and use calm language instead. I won't warn you again. El_C05:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually you can't (and you're using the wrong verb there, I think you mean "infer", since you are not looking to "suggest" something). As far as I'm concerned those words are just as "calm" as whatever euphemisms you want to come up with. Except they're more accurate. Those words - which I am not enumerating again for your benefit - are part of language and they exist for a reason. In some situations - and god knows there's a ton of these on Wikipedia, especially in this topic area and where these editors are concerned - are the most appropriate descriptive words which convey the meaning and nature of things; sources, edits, comments, phenomena. There is no prohibition against them, you can't ban people for using them and if you look at the archives of AN/I or AN or whatever, there is generally no agreement that they constitute incivility.
I would appreciate it if you 1) apologized for you remark and 2) stopped waving your admin-gun in my face with this talk of "warnings". Like I said, focus on content.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't what? You will stop using inflammatory language or you'll be blocked. Full stop. I'm not interested in the content right now, I'm interested in the manner in which you behave. El_C05:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not weigh on the content. I asked a few questions to orient the discussion. I haven't taken a position or made any edits. And it doesn't matter. You do not have license to make the atmosphere toxic with inflammatory language. El_C05:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can't infer whether or not I'm calm. And you telling me to "stay calm" is a WP:NPA. And yes, you weighed in on the content.
Take it to whichever forum you see fit. My warning stand. I suggest you moderate your behaviour. El_C05:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And if you really are concerned about a "toxic atmosphere" you might want to do something about the editor who links to graphic material without warning (explicit warning - graphic material in the twitter link, don't click if you don't want to see, like I was tricked into, something quite disturbing) without warning. NOW I am not calm. I'm actually quite angry that he made me click on it. And he knows what I think about al-Masdar so the only plausible reason I can see for him to link to that is to mess with me.
And yeah he removed it after I complained to another admin. Too late. He already made me see it. Which is the point with this kind of thing.
*THIS* is the sort of thing that qualifies as "grossly inappropriate material", not using some word that even seven year olds use. How about some priorities? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have been round the block and here long enough to hover over a link to see where it will take you, quit feigning horror and grief and admin shopping linkGovindaharihari (talk) 08:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The complete lack of empathy and awareness that this kind of behavior is odious in your comment speaks for itself. There was nothing in the link to suggest then nature of the video. And unlike the Alternet source where you can *choose* whether to watch the video of the execution or not, this one as soon as you click it popped the video up on my screen and started playing. And ED knows perfectly well I've been critical of this source, he knows that it would do nothing to change my mind, it would not be considered reliable - so why did he do it? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One misbehaviour does not excuse another. That's my point: you are not a seven year old to call edits "crap," say" "my butt" and "don't bullshit me" to other editors. Why can't you stay civil? As for that link, it's inappropriate and needs to be redacted. Which I will do shortly. El_C10:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly civil, you are not a second grade teacher and I am not some kid in your class. I, and many others, use words like this in personal life, at work, with friends and other millieus. Hell, my pastor says these words (well, maybe not "bullshit") You do realize that these words are frequently used by adults, right? Stop trying to police people's language. If these words are not used to insult others, there's nothing wrong with them. Get your priorities straight, take note of ED's disruptive behavior (ignoring policy as well other disruptive actions like the episode with the video or the remarks about "Germans knowing a thing or two about crematoriums"... I mean seriously, how much do you need here?) Or go do something else. I've been here long enough not to be intimidated by your threats. And that's me putting it politely.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained at Drmies' TP, I should've given a warning to users so my bad. The content dispute is over a similar video and the nature of the conversation is about an execution. I thought "they have a history of doing this" would've sufficed to say that the content of the video would be an execution. But yeah, should've given a more specific warning. My bad. Étienne Dolet (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah too late. The whole point of tricking people into clicking stuff like this is that they can't unsee what they saw. So I guess mission accomplished, removal or not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He was warned for the German comment just like you were warned for violating 1RR on that article. I took the heated nature of the topic into account, then. But you calling edits "crap," referring to "your butt," and saying "bullshit" is exactly what we don't need in a topic that's that contentious. Please refrain from that. And please don't refer to my warnings as "threats." All you have to do is observe civility by using calm language. El_C17:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PerfectlyIrrational
El C, hello ! Asking for your help and input about something with which you have prior experience [79].
User keeps adding new info directly into the intro.
I looked back through their edits and unfortunately I see not much use of edit summaries, and hardly any at all participation in talk page discussion with other editors.
I posted to the article's talk page [80] and to their talk page [81] and so far was ignored.
How can we get across to the user to participate more on talk page and stop adding new stuff to articles directly to their intro sections? Sagecandor (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User has done it, again. [83]. Poor edit summaries or no edit summaries. Ignoring talk page posts. Failing to communicate. At all. Adding unsourced info. Adding unsourced info to intro. What can be done ??????????????? Sagecandor (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So what we have is coming off a recent block the day before, ignoring multiple users, ignoring admin, no edit summaries, ignoring talk page posts, adding info directly to intro in violation of WP:LEAD, adding sources that may be okay sources in and of themselves but that do NOT verify the info added so violating WP:V -- what can be done? Sagecandor (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since Coffee is off Wikipedia currently and you have some DS/AE experience and are usually around this time of the day, posting this here. I moved Michael Flynn per an RM on the talk page, but the edit notice unfortunately did not go with it. I would move it myself, but unsure if the log also needs updating so thought it best to ask someone else to look at it before doing anything. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please add the following to the edit notice template for Murder of Seth Rich ?
Reminder: New reports or details should go in the article text, not the lede
PLEASE DO NOT ADD NEW INFO DIRECTLY INTO THE INTRO SECTION.
ADD FIRST TO THE ARTICLE BODY.
ALL INFO IN THE INTRO SECTION SHOULD ONLY BE A SUMMARY OF THE ARTICLE ITSELF.
Please read WP:LEAD.
.jpg)
