Line 528: | Line 528: | ||
:Hi, {{re|Darouet}} not at all, your message if perfectly fine, but I would rather you get [[WP:ITNC|ITNC]] consensus for that change, which I would then be more than happy to implement. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 20:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC) |
:Hi, {{re|Darouet}} not at all, your message if perfectly fine, but I would rather you get [[WP:ITNC|ITNC]] consensus for that change, which I would then be more than happy to implement. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 20:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC) |
||
::Great: I welcome your comments at ITN. I have yet to find a source that ''doesn't'' attribute the claim of suicide and this is one of the more egregious oversights I've ever seen on Wiki. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 20:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC) |
::Great: I welcome your comments at ITN. I have yet to find a source that ''doesn't'' attribute the claim of suicide and this is one of the more egregious oversights I've ever seen on Wiki. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 20:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC) |
||
:::I agree with you on the content. Feel free to quote me on that. But my involvement at ITNC was to interpret the consensus, which was for alt blurb-2. I tend to shy from [[WP:IAR|IAR]] decisions which involve anything to do with the Main page like ITN. Hope that makes sense. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 20:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Need advice in dealing with disruptive user == |
== Need advice in dealing with disruptive user == |
Revision as of 20:33, 27 October 2019
If you have the capacity to tremble with indignation every time that an injustice is committed in the world, then we are comrades. – Che.
Archived Discussions
Archive 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 9 11 12 13 14
For you
El C, contrary to your edit summary- I noticed you were gone, and missed seeing you on recent changes. You are one of my favourite editors. This is for you. Regards, dvdrw 04:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yay! Many chipthanks for the kind words. Greatly appreciated. Best, El_C 06:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Well I noticed and missed you! (Official circular here). Novickas (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Thought of you while uploading this picture [1]... for all of your work. Novickas (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Many thanks! El_C 11:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sort of in a hole and am having difficulties submerging. Speaking of holes/that chippie, I got to do some visiting in its burro recently...
- You look really good in your purple hat! Bishonen | talk 00:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC).
- Free hat! Today, while cheekadeepetting, this lady who saw us from a far, came over and said: "Can I tell you something...? You're an angel of God."(!) To which I of course replied: "All hail Atheismo!" [nah, I said: "thank you, maddam, that's very kind of you" — what else could I say?] I took an especially neat cheekadeepetting photograph today: it remained visible between my thumb and index as it flew away, giving the illusion it was bee-sized! What an unexpected, and sweet, effect! El_C 02:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Wow, Capitano, where do you get a large enough sweater for a person with that hand? Bishonen | talk 20:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC).
- And then there's Skunky! El_C 14:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Oooo. Purdy!
Combine obvious love of animals with photography results in photographic win! — Coren (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! Great to learn that peoples (plural!) like! Chickadee says hi! El_C 14:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Seasons Greetings
- Hello. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Thx, everyone! Happy 2009! El_C 12:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Happy Groundhog Day
Happy day! Jehochman Talk 19:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Chippies
El C, I've been meaning to ask for ages. What is the link between revolutionary socialism and chimpunks? Did I miss that bit in Animal Farm? Is it something to do with resting the means of damn making from beavers? --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- No link; but are you referring to Groundhog? (see left) There is a Groundhog-Chippie connection, which I was trying to further cultivate (see right). El_C 11:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
"Love is in the air ....dooooo .....dooo.dooo ......doooo ......dooo.doooo ." --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Book?
Let me know when it is out, and you will up your sales by one. :-) KillerChihuahua?!? 09:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
1. Four Facets of existence: 1. Matter 2. Energy 3. Space 4. Time
2. Four Dimensions: 1. 1D 2. 2D 3. 3D 4. 4D (temporal)
3. Four Fundamental interactions: 1. Strong 2. EM 3. Weak 4. Gravity
4. Four States of matter: 1. Solid 2. Liquid 3. Gas 4. Plasma
El_C 07:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Rev-dels
Just for information at the moment: are you able to do revision deletions? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- Affirmative. El_C 20:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. There are a couple of admins I usually contact when I see something that needs to deleted, but unfortunately they let real life interfere with their admin duties. You are online a lot at the same times I am, so it's good to have another person to contact if needed. I generally only ask personally if it's both serious and urgent. - BilCat (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, by all means. If I'm around, please don't hesitate. El_C 02:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Romania
I can live with your highly arbitrary closing summary of the RfC on the Talk page, so I do not want to persuade you to change it. However, you closed other on-going debates as well. Could you open the other debates? Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 05:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, the thanks I get! El_C 05:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
And all I got was a ^^^
- Talk:And Then There Were None#RfC: And Then There Were None and racial language
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Request for comments on the 'political position' parameter of the political party infobox
- Talk:Romania#RfC
- Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: HispanTV
- Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Is RfX a vote, or a consensus discussion? (RfC)
- Talk:Civil Rights Act of 1968#Merger of Fair Housing Act and Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 into this article
- Talk:WikiLeaks#RFC: Murder Of Seth Rich content dispute
- Talk:Athens News#Request for comment
- Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair#RfC: LavScam
- Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings#RfC: Change "white supremacist" to "white nationalist"
El_C 06:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Blizzard Entertainment
Hey, El_C. I know you posted a warning on MattNor91's talk page yesterday about disruptive POV editing. I wanted to bring it to your attention that they made two more edits today on Blizzard Entertainment, referring to the Hong Kong protests as "rioting and looting in Hong Kong" and changing the section header to "[...] Hong Kong riots". At this point, knowing that they've already been warned not to do exactly this by an administrator less than 24 hours ago (and that, frankly, it should be reasonably evident that this behavior is inappropriate even without the warning), I think this constitutes deliberate disruptive editing. Based on prior contributions, they legitimately seem to be WP:HERE, but I believe it's hard not to question good faith in this instance. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- PS: That chipmunk in the flower burrow made my heart melt. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- I agree, this is a problem. Escalated to a final warning. If they do this again, they risk an imminent block. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Please keep me updated. El_C 00:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks! You know, I think I invented a new art form: decorating chipmunk burrows with flowers! El_C 00:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- I agree, this is a problem. Escalated to a final warning. If they do this again, they risk an imminent block. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Please keep me updated. El_C 00:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria
Hi El C. I see you moved the 2019 Rojava offensive to 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria. Could you also rename Order of battle for 2019 Rojava offensive? --Khutuck (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Done. El_C 15:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Why ethno-linguistic dispute?
Kurdish language is a redirect to Kurdish languages (plural) and Northern Kurdish is a redirect to Kurmanji. 73.218.137.229 (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- That's not what you changed. El_C 17:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- I have removed the redirect Kurdish language in this edit.[2] and in this edit I have removed the redirect Northern Kurdish[3]. 73.218.137.229 (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, this is not Ezdîkî-related — my mistake. But I still think your changes were not an improvement, because the original gives the reader more information. But I have no strong objections, either. In the other article, though, you removed the native name template — what's the reason behind that? El_C 17:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Well we can add the Kurmanji template because both Books are written in Kurmanji. 73.218.137.229 (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- That wasn't my question. I asked why you removed the native name template and the native Kurmanji text. Also, you did not remove a redirect here — that was linked to the original article. El_C 17:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Because the native name is Kurmanji. To call the native name Kurdish is not exactly because the page is called Kurdish languageS (plural). The reader should know which language it is. 73.218.137.229 (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Again, you are failing to answer the question. Why native text was removed ({{lang-ku|مسحەفا ڕهش}}). Also, Kurmanji is not a language, it is a dialect. El_C 17:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Because the native name is not in Kurdish but in Kurmanji. That was a mistake. But there should be the Kurmanji template for the native name. And calling Kurmanji a dialect is your POV. There are sources who describe Kurmanji as a language:[4] by the Center for Languages of the Central Asian Region (CeLCAR). 73.218.137.229 (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- The article on Kurmanji reads in its opening sentence that it is
is the northern dialect of the Kurdish languages
. El_C 17:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)- Yes, because some Kurdish nationalists enforce their will in Wikipedia. But if one observes the neutral point of view and observes the sources then one sees that it is controversial whether it is a dialect or a language. 73.218.137.229 (talk) 18:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- If you think the current consensus falls short, you are more than free to advance that argument on the article talk page and make use of any of Wikipedia's dispute resolution resources toward that end. But I would advise a less confrontational approach. El_C 18:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, because some Kurdish nationalists enforce their will in Wikipedia. But if one observes the neutral point of view and observes the sources then one sees that it is controversial whether it is a dialect or a language. 73.218.137.229 (talk) 18:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- The article on Kurmanji reads in its opening sentence that it is
- Because the native name is not in Kurdish but in Kurmanji. That was a mistake. But there should be the Kurmanji template for the native name. And calling Kurmanji a dialect is your POV. There are sources who describe Kurmanji as a language:[4] by the Center for Languages of the Central Asian Region (CeLCAR). 73.218.137.229 (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Again, you are failing to answer the question. Why native text was removed ({{lang-ku|مسحەفا ڕهش}}). Also, Kurmanji is not a language, it is a dialect. El_C 17:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Because the native name is Kurmanji. To call the native name Kurdish is not exactly because the page is called Kurdish languageS (plural). The reader should know which language it is. 73.218.137.229 (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- That wasn't my question. I asked why you removed the native name template and the native Kurmanji text. Also, you did not remove a redirect here — that was linked to the original article. El_C 17:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Well we can add the Kurmanji template because both Books are written in Kurmanji. 73.218.137.229 (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, this is not Ezdîkî-related — my mistake. But I still think your changes were not an improvement, because the original gives the reader more information. But I have no strong objections, either. In the other article, though, you removed the native name template — what's the reason behind that? El_C 17:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- I have removed the redirect Kurdish language in this edit.[2] and in this edit I have removed the redirect Northern Kurdish[3]. 73.218.137.229 (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
New evasion
Of [5]. Perhaps the articles need to be locked again. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- Done. El_C 05:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- Much appreciated. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Please Respectful Attention
i'm not Sock puppetry IP Address because my wikipedia account was hacked by Vandalism people or Hacker disguised as Administrator. And i made and i revised the article of Angel Tee based really fact sources with Indonesian Websites not fake source and Please you don't Redirected page of Angel Tee because she has still alive on entertaining her carrer, except she has really stop entertaining
Thank You 111.94.14.156 (talk) 13:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angel Tee can be contested at Deletion review. It cannot be undone by fiat. El_C 13:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
User:Icewhiz
Hi
His talk and user pages should be changed. To add that he is banned now. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- Okay. Not my cross to bear, though. El_C 15:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- He have not the right to cancel the closure. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- I guess they really wanted to get across that asking you to be blocked was sarcasm—which does not translates well over text. El_C 15:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- He continued. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, that is not acceptable. El_C 15:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- he made a raid in my talk page. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- That is not a "raid" — they are required to inform you that ANI report has been filed which concerns you. El_C 15:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- he made a raid in my talk page. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, that is not acceptable. El_C 15:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- He continued. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- I guess they really wanted to get across that asking you to be blocked was sarcasm—which does not translates well over text. El_C 15:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- He have not the right to cancel the closure. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Participate in RfD discussion
Hi El C, I recently listed a bunch of redirects for discussion. They are in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 11 (Thạch Phúc) and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 12 (Ninh Thuận, Bạc Liêu). The reason I request for deletion is because they were mistakenly created in the first place (even no sources cited, which is not acceptable and should have been deleted at that moment). For more details you can look at that discussion. Thanks a lot and have a good day. Cn5900 (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hey. I suppose I just don't see the harm of having these redirects, just in case they are of use to someone. We have no shortage of space on Wikipedia! Best, El_C 16:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, no problem. Thanks for dropping by. El_C 16:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
John Sweeney (journalist) revdel request
Hi El C, will you please revdel the edits made by 2A00:23C5:4C82:A200:D073:E047:272F:E76A? S0091 (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- Done. El_C 16:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Onus and page consensus
Hello El_C, I was thinking if it was a good or bad idea to edit the Los Angeles article again or wait until there is a consensus and is the Onus on my part. 101.176.22.6 (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- The best course of action would be to explain your proposed changes on the article talk page and see what other editors have to say. Right now, you will be violating 3RR if you revert again, which almost certainly is going to result in you being blocked from editing. El_C 23:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I am sorry.
I am so sorry. Yesterday was a bad day. I was frustrated. Panam did that thing in a RfC and that made me feel bad. I am very sorry for what I said. Please continue your work in MEK article.-SharabSalam (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks again. I appreciate the apologies. El_C 15:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Please, hang in there
I just want to say I condemn the statements made here about you. The user is actually not even Iranian based on what I see in his infobox. --Kazemita1 (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, Kazemita1. I appreciate your support. El_C 15:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Administration Advice
Hello User:El C; can this page Egyptians be at least protected from IP disruptive edits. Whether it's a Sockpuppet (or may be not), they put things at totally false categories and manage to corrupt the page. Thank You Treannmust (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
P.S. Regardless of anything. A human note, you are a top top human being and truly kind dealing with all the stress here. Much love Treannmust (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hey. Thanks for the kind words, they are much appreciated! Sorry, I'm not sure protection is necessary yet, especially since there seems to be an IP contributing positively right this moment. But I configured pending changes, so hopefully that will be enough. If it isn't, please feel free to let me (or the good folks at RfPP) know. El_C 01:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, that's definitely much wiser! Thanks a lot Sir. Treannmust (talk) 03:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Advice
Hello friend. Thank you for your advice previously on what's appropriate and what's not to ask here. I would like your opinion and advice please. May you please check my edits and see if they're problematic? I am being followed by a user called sharabsalam and being reverted constantly because he thinks my edits are problematic but I feel I am being reverted simply because he dosent like the edits. Please let me know if my edits are wrong. I feel I am being targeted because I'm adding information on AQAP in wikipedia even though they are sourced information. I have read some of Wikipedia's rules on neutrality and I honestly think I am adhering to them.
I joined this free editing source to add information because I found a lot of gaps in AQAP related incidents and information during my research, however I am feeling harassed and targeted. My talk page is littered by this user's attempt to question my edits and my opinion on talk page was attacked by the same editor. He has openly told me what I should or shouldn't edit.. last time I checked the internet is free! Please, take a look at my edits and tell me if there's something wrong with them. I am finding it peculiar he's the only person who's finding my edits faulty, and keeps on changing the reason on why they're wrong (first it's the wrong article, then it's wrong information, then finally it's a non-neutral source!) ... I would really appreciate your advice as I don't know what to do. I feel like abandoning wikipedia entirely and adding information here because I'm facing such negative experience so far. I think you're a reliable person to ask for advice, so please let me know if my edits are really problematic, and if so how to improve them, or if I should simply just quit. Thank you! Graull (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, Graull. Happy to advise. Let's start with you definitely not quitting. As to whether your edits are problematic, I have no immediate idea. But, being involved in a dispute, indeed, can be stressful. Wikipedia has several dispute resolution resources that could aid you. For example, is The National a reliable source for the purposes for which you attribute it? — that, for example, is a query you may opt to make at the Reliable sources noticeboard. A guiding principle behind these dispute resolution resources, in general, is obtaining outside input. This way, editors who are knowledgeable with the subject under dispute can help steer the consensus onward toward verifiable and neutral direction. This isn't to say that resolving the dispute is likely to be easy or immediate (few worthwhile things are), but that there is a way forward. So I wholeheartedly recommend you adopt this approach, also pivotally, by focusing on the edits rather than the editor. Hope this helps and please let me know if there's anything further I can do. Best regards, El_C 20:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your candid and polite response! I wish more users were like you here. I will follow your advice and post in the reliable sources noticeboard and see what people think there. Please, if you see a problem with my edits please don't hesitate and let me know. I would rather advice and instructions came from you instead of other users who are not very mannered. I don't want to feel targeted by other users because of my edits and I would much rather be told in a polite way if there's something wrong with my edits and shown the proper way on how to not make them happen again instead of being ostensibly attacked for a wrong edit and left feeling targeted. Again, thank you for your time to response to my question. I truly appreciate it!! Graull (talk) 09:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Module MLB standings
Regarding this edit which raised the protection level of Module:MLB standings to template-editor: as the creator and primary editor who has added new functionality to the module, I am no longer able to edit this module. I appreciate the motivation for this level of protection, but was wondering if it would be feasible for the module to remain at a lower level of protection. Unfortunately, I am unlikely to meet the criteria for obtaining the template-editor user right any time soon. Thanks for your consideration. isaacl (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- The request to bring the module to that protection level was made at RfPP. So, if you're gonna create a module that has this many transclusions, be prepared that someone will bring it there and ask for for it to be TP protected. I don't mind reducing it to EC, this time, but it may be of benefit for you to apply (and/or work toward meeting the criteria thereof) for that userright. So, all that having been said, Done. Happy editing. El_C 23:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks very much. The module was created before the existence of template editor protection. At this point in time, I don't see myself making edit requests on other template-protected templates, but if things change in future, I will bear in mind the option to request template editor permissions. isaacl (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I request you either reduce the level of protection of this template to semi-protection or raise it to full protection. ECP is not an appropriate choice as it doesn't meet the required criteria listed at WP:ECP. Buffs (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Isaacl, after having reviewed the documentation, I realize that per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Extended_confirmed_protection_policy_2#High-risk_templates, I'm actually precluded from EC protection in this instance. I thought of just restoring the TP protection, but with only 3,000 transclusions, I suppose going back to Semi is safe enough (although my immediate instinct was to TP protect it again, I still want you to be able to edit it, so let's just risk it). El_C 22:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks again! I saw that discussion, but also saw that there were numerous templates with extended confirmed protection with various reasons given, as well as a number of modules. I understand that in future, the protection level may be raised again. I appreciate your consideration in granting a reprieve in protection levels for now. isaacl (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- Risk (game) Hi El C! ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
-
- sounds good to me ~ France~ but wait I have to have an Apéritif ~ Pernod Ricard~ you go first ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- Nah, Europe is too difficult to defend — North America is where it's at! El_C 01:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
also...
Same applies for Template:Russia Time Zone Wikidata/getQID. Buffs (talk) 16:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- Template protected indefinitely. El_C 16:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
3RR name
I hate that rule's name too. In law and baseball it's the three-strikes rule (three strikes, you're out) Idk if it's too late to change it, lest people assume they get four reverts. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe rename it to +3RR? El_C 01:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- That is a really good solution. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 01:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- Completely forgot I suggested renaming this once. Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2012/November#Should have called it the four-revert rule. RfC time? Mark Schierbecker (talk) 01:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- That is a really good solution. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 01:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
edit link
Greetings... To repeat, the specific phrase "valid argument" is NOWHERE LINKED IN THE ARTICLE. So the argument of "repeat linking" DOES NOT REALLY APPLY HERE. No warrant to undo...cuz of "I don't like". I agree that (true) repeat linking should not be done, but that's not actually clearly the case here. Specific phrasing is not at all wiki-linked in the article, and arguably should be. Regards. 71.190.0.199 (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- To repeat also: the link is repeated in the article three times, which is too much. El_C 18:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- show me, sir, where in the article the specific phrase "valid argument" is anywhere linked in the article? I searched, and I couldn't find it.
- Maybe I missed it somewhere. Yes, the article "Validity (logic)" is linked elsewhere but not from the phrase "valid argument", and arguably it should be.
- One reason being that when you type the phrase "valid argument" in the Wikipedia search field, it yields "Validity (logic)" as the article. So why shouldn't the Logic article that has the phrasing "valid argument" a couple of times link the phrase "valid argument" to that article? 71.190.0.199 (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see why "valid argument" should necessarily be piped by a link that already exists in the article. El_C 18:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- I told you why, sir... Let me repeat. When you type the words "valid argument" (try it yourself to see), in the SEARCH FIELD of Wikipedia...it gives the article of "Validity (logic)". That's pretty much the only real reason I even thought to "pipe" the phrase "valid argument" in this "Logic" article to go to "Validity (logic)". And for some reason, that very pertinent reason you're ignoring or not listening to. So I'll ask you again, why would Wikipedia even HAVE the phrase "valid argument" AUTOMATICALLY piped in for that other article, in general? And if that's the case, why exactly (and you just admitted that it's because you simply DON'T LIKE IT, violating "NO OWN" etc) should the phrase "valid argument" not be linked therefore? 71.190.0.199 (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- Just because a redirect exists does not mean a link needs to be repeated so many times. As mentioned before, the onus is actually on you to gain the consensus for your changes on the article talk page. So I suggest you do that. El_C 18:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- I respect the 3 revert rule (hence why you see that I'm not undoing or restoring again for now), and I also respect WP Consensus (even if I may disagree). But again, sir, one main reason for this link-edit is because WP itself redirects the phrase "valid argument" TO the article "Validity (logic)" and also, secondarily, in and of itself, why exactly shouldn't the technical phrase "valid argument" not be linked to its appropriate article page, when it can only help more and enlighten matters? What's the harm exactly? Just because the link for "Validity (logic)" is linked other places in the article, so? The point (again) is that it's not linked for this specific phrase "valid argument". And what harm exactly is there in linking that to its correct article page? It can only help, if anything, not hurt. Regards.... 71.190.0.199 (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- Look, I don't really care about this too much. If you want to duplicate that link — fine. But once, not twice for a total of three times, as you have been doing. I'll partially self-revert to do so and hopefully that will be the end of that. El_C 18:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- I respect the 3 revert rule (hence why you see that I'm not undoing or restoring again for now), and I also respect WP Consensus (even if I may disagree). But again, sir, one main reason for this link-edit is because WP itself redirects the phrase "valid argument" TO the article "Validity (logic)" and also, secondarily, in and of itself, why exactly shouldn't the technical phrase "valid argument" not be linked to its appropriate article page, when it can only help more and enlighten matters? What's the harm exactly? Just because the link for "Validity (logic)" is linked other places in the article, so? The point (again) is that it's not linked for this specific phrase "valid argument". And what harm exactly is there in linking that to its correct article page? It can only help, if anything, not hurt. Regards.... 71.190.0.199 (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- Just because a redirect exists does not mean a link needs to be repeated so many times. As mentioned before, the onus is actually on you to gain the consensus for your changes on the article talk page. So I suggest you do that. El_C 18:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I don't know if you saw my request at Talk:Yossi Cohen? Having "Hebron, Israel" in an article is pretty provocative, me think, Huldra (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- No, I did not see it. Anyway, request granted. El_C 23:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Bandar bin Sultan al Saud and his wife funded some of the 9/11 hijackers
Facts don't have to be politically convenient to be facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:CE00:75C0:401E:4329:992A:4842 (talk) 02:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
- But they do have to be attributed to reliable sources to truly be considered facts. El_C 02:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Block evasion?
Seems rather suspicious that an IP with no other edits jumps in, declares that "both sides have COI," then reverts the article to the version favored by BigDWiki. Worth an SPI? OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- Go for it. I also sprotected the article for 2 weeks. El_C 15:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
October 2019
Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. BigDwiki (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- @BigDwiki: AGF is not a suicide pact. El_C 17:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Battle of Xuân Lộc
Here I've sort-of unreverted one of your reverts. It looks like you had reverted an edit based on bad presentation, and it looks to me as if the content was correct in the reverted edit even though the presentation was bad. I've reverted the content essentially back to its original cite-supported appearance in this 2010 edit. The content seems to have been changed without support in this 2015 edit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Yes, I reverted it for being essentially a non sequitur. Thanks for doing your due diligence. El_C 17:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Sock
Hello. 44taiwan1992 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who you just reverted on China-North Korea relations, is an obvious sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/99rossiya89. See page history of the article you reverted on, Sino-Russian relations since 1991 and others, and you'll find an endless stream of socks with similarly constructed names (numericals + country/politician/animal name + numericals). Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- Good to know, thanks. I indeffed 425kimjongil1911, as well. El_C 21:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Message added 08:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Yunshui 雲水 08:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
RfA
I tried to stick to a thank you for that summit + depression reply .. but that was just TOO FREAKIN' HILARIOUS. Thank you for the best laugh I've had in ages. — Ched (talk) 08:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hear, hear! I came here to say pretty much the same thing. --bonadea contributions talk 09:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- /bows. El_C 15:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Sock
Thanks for [6]. 77.18.57.137 is [7], [8] etc, avoiding their block. I think Bbb23 knows more about this LTAish IP user. Cheers. -- Begoon 05:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- No worries. They seem to have stopped, for now, so I'll let Bbb23 handle it. El_C 05:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Fastest gun in the Middle East
You beat me to it.Nishidani (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- That's right, I'm swift! El_C 14:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I didn't change any tag dates. Don't know how that happened. Sorry to forget my tildes, I'm rusty. Telaviv1 (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Not a big deal. If you get the chance, please change the dmy tag back to the original. El_C 17:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
~ Mitch's wife ~
Hi El C ~ just to let you know Cindy died last Saturday ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- I am so sorry for your loss. My deepest condolences, Mitch. I know what it's like to lose a close loved one — there is nothing worse and nothing can compare. El_C 17:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- I am so sorry to hear that. Just today I worked all day, sad about the loss of a great woman, and wife from 1947 to a few days ago. Perhaps play the YT video at the bottom which made me cry (see my talk). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Since you blocked the sockmaster
I thought you could block the rest of the socks. They all promote the same spam link. Please see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of AthensGlance. Thanks in advance. Dr. K. 06:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Done. El_C 06:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
The Urdu article
The edit war stemmed from the other party changing the infobox from "no specific ethnicity" to "multiple ethnicities" when the cited sources clearly state that it's a non-ethnic language. So how is he justified in putting "multiple ethnicities"? It's plain original research on his part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishnu Sahib (talk • contribs) 06:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm not familiar enough with the dispute to comment. My advise to you would be to engage in discussion on the article talk page. If that stalls, see your dispute resolution resources for further outside input. Eventually, the consensus will be decided, and that would be that. El_C 06:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Who should I consult to evaluate mine and his edits? Is there administrator familiar with this topic area? Because the sources clearly state that it's a non-ethnic language. I was told that statements on Wikipedia should always state what the sources state.--Vishnu Sahib (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- I've edited the protected page back to your version, since the other party's position, indeed, did not seem to be grounded in the available sources. El_C 21:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, but it's not necessarily "my version". I did it because the cited sources supported it. I found a third source that claims the same. Should I add it after the protection expires?--Vishnu Sahib (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, or feel free to submit an edit request. El_C 22:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, but it's not necessarily "my version". I did it because the cited sources supported it. I found a third source that claims the same. Should I add it after the protection expires?--Vishnu Sahib (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- I've edited the protected page back to your version, since the other party's position, indeed, did not seem to be grounded in the available sources. El_C 21:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks--Vishnu Sahib (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Who should I consult to evaluate mine and his edits? Is there administrator familiar with this topic area? Because the sources clearly state that it's a non-ethnic language. I was told that statements on Wikipedia should always state what the sources state.--Vishnu Sahib (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Battle of Haldighati
You protected it without removing the unsourced material. Please check.49.207.133.12 (talk) 09:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC) And Arun7156 needs a warning.49.207.133.12 (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Done. Good catch. El_C 09:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
R.K. Laros page
Hi— The page for businessman R.K. Laros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that I worked on was original writing, well-researched, drawing from a number of resources. It got flagged for copyright infringement for a reason that escapes me then speedily deleted. I tried to put it back but now it’s locked. I wonder why it was marked as a copyright issue and wonder how to get it back up if possible. Thanks. Jberk (talk) 11:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- It was marked as copyvio for infringing on the rights of https://issuu.com/adamatkinson1/docs/rk_done and deleted by TomStar81 — I see you've already raised the matter with him. See what he has to say about deleting the page on those grounds. Contesting it with me is a bit redundant, as I was not involved in that part of the process. I deleted it because it was too short, without enough context to identify the subject. I also protected it from further recreation, until issues pertaining to the article could be sorted, namely the copyrights violations, which presumably limited you to those two brief sentences — two sentences that, unfortunately, amounted to an article which was just too terse by Wikipedia standards. Good luck. El_C 15:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Siddha Yoga
Let's discuss your feelings on the talk page for this article. Can you clarify the rule that existing sources can't be used when editing an article that seems to be misleading and not accurately explaining the sourced material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.214.54.67 (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I have no "feelings" — I am enforcing policy, especially a potential living persons policy violation. As instructed, you need to quote directly on the article talk page so that your claims can verified by the existing sources that your addition goes on to attribute.El_C 18:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)- Upon closer examination, I am rescinding my objection. Also, BLP was not a factor here, I was in error on that front. El_C 18:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
HS2000
It can also be put on the ak-47 or m-16, but this is not put under "users". I think it is fair and there is no such thing here, because it is a shame to be a terrorist here with the recognized states. This puts the user from Serbia jealous of Croatian success on that weapon, it can be checked from earlier posts so you blocked it, but he made a new acc and change ip. Do what you want, if you want change to change, if you don't want to, I'm not interested, but I think I'm right. Greeting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.188.130 (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Are you or are you not User:VJ-Yugo? El_C 23:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- No I didn't, I told you a few months ago to block this user from Serbia if you remember, but unfortunately I have a dynamic ip that changes once a day, my first ip starts with the number 93.138. or 93,136 other numbers are changing because it's such an online service, it can be read from past changes to hs2000 what is the problem and how did you block it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.188.130 (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- No, I don't remember. It's possible I made a mistake. Maybe General Ization can bring me up to speed (again?). El_C 23:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Let's see what General Ization says. Please check this section for further updates (I would drop you a comment, but your IP keeps changing). El_C 23:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, not much I can say to help. I reverted 93.138.12.123 twice in August when they repeatedly removed sourced content from this article without explanation. (See page 12 of this, the cited source.) That IP then left a message on my talk page claiming ISIS was a "nonexistent state" and saying "this is sock puppets from Serbia", but failing to explain their removal of content in any coherent way. That was the extent of my contribution to that article. That IP and the one you are talking with sound to me like the exact same operator. General Ization Talk 03:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hello. I don't mind that. I'm just saying that terrorists should not be with other countries and that this is not right, and you write as you wish. That is my argument, it is unfortunate that terrorists classify them and equate them with other countries, that is not right. Goodbye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.140.253 (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Again, maybe that's something you ought to facilitate a centralized discussion about — perhaps on the talk page of the ISIS article. See what other editors have to say about that argument: that a former undeclared state not be listed alongside recognized countries is a valid position to hold. But because at least two editors disagree with you, the onus is on you to build the consensus for these changes to take effect across multiple articles. So, I encourage you to do so. Good luck. El_C 16:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in consensus, let it write anything here. If one does not realize that terrorists have nothing to do with other normal states, then they do not need to explain anything. Now the terrorists are put in the same order with the normal states, so let it be promoted as a normal state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.140.253 (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- If you're not interested in consensus, there is not much left for us to discuss here. El_C 16:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Use of rev del on José Gregorio Salazar
Hi El C! It's great to talk to you again, and I hope you're doing well! I just wanted to message you about some revisions that you rev del'd on the José Gregorio Salazar article citing RD2 as serious BLP violations (did you perhaps mean to choose "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive"?). Note that the article subject is definitely not a BLP (the article subject was a general who died in the year 1838... lol), so the BLP portion of RD2 does not apply here. Aside from this fact, the revisions you redacted were just childish vandalism to me, not something I'd consider a "serious BLP violation" nor something that falls within being "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive". They were just adding "nutsack" and other childish things to the article, nothing that I'd constitute as requiring the use of RD2. I went ahead and restored visibility to those revisions for you. I left some revisions redacted, as they happened to fall under RD2 for using offensive ethnic and lifestyle slurs. Not to worry... you weren't the only admin who happened to use rev del incorrectly on that article and around that time. I just wanted to leave you a message to let you know about it and inform you that I undid the visibility changes you made to some of them. ;-) Please let me know if you have any questions (just ping me so that I'm notified) or concerns, and I'll be happy to answer them and discuss it with you. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hey. Thanks. I remember that IP for their Donald and Ivanka Trump BLP vandalism. Indeed, I mistook that old-timey General for a living person, somehow. I guess I should be paying closer attention! BTW, do we have a button that's the opposite of revdelete, because I want to nominate this amazing, "spoken by hogs" edit (I also love the other IP's deadpan revert summary of "False information"!). Never a dull moment. El_C 03:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- No worries, just looking out for my fellow editors and admins. ;-) HA! That's funny... What would the "opposite of revdelete" even be (other than restoring visibility to something that's currently hidden)? I'm trying to ponder and come up with something, but I've got nothing... LOL ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Miss Universe 2019
Make it accesible to edit with Wikipedia Page Creator. Hpcidaniello (talk) 07:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Not done. The page is fully protected until dispute are resolved or the protection time lapses, whichever comes first. El_C 15:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
2A02:587:3A21:3D00::/64
Hello. If you don’t immediately see what to do with WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1021 #Edit_warring_using_multiple_personae. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
, then look at- Done. El_C 15:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Closure discussion
Hello El C, I'm requesting the closed discussion under Spider-Man RM closure? on my talk page be copied and placed next to my closure. This is for clarifying my reasons why I closed it. Thank you! Jerm (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I quite understand — you are welcome to add an addendum to the close or a supplementary to the discussion, you don't really need me for that. El_C 20:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Jewish stone-throwing
Though I try to avoid punitive measures (and in any case am banned from AE per Sandstein's decision), and wasn't aiming for any suspension - my notification of Debresser reflected simply a desire that the editor use evidence and logic, rather than personal opinions to justify their edits. Unfortunately the said editor mechanically reverts a large amount of edits I make to pages he is interested in, and, in my view, never adduces textual evidence or logical, policy-based arguments to defend the removal.
Am I misreading that page's talk page header where it is written:
Limit of one revert in 24 hours: All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, reasonably construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.
Regards Nishidani (talk) 09:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
To copy the relevant details from the other page
- The admin NeilN added the Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement header to this page, warning editors to respect the 1R rule, on 1 October 2015. Both I and Debresser have edited that page often in the past four years, and have been thoroughly familiar with the contents of that header over that period.Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
So the question is, did Debresser make two reverts within 24 hours on a page where a banner indicating this was prohibited has existed for several years.Nishidani (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Nishidani: it doesn't matter what the talk page banner says anymore. The Committee has recently (March 2019) clarified that there needs to be an edit notice on the mainspace for 1RR to apply:
This remedy may only be enforced on pages with the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}}.
Which, incidentally, led to the following problematic. Please comment at ARBPIA4 (here) where I outline a possible resolution to this EC-related issue brought by the mandatory edit notice requirement. El_C 15:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)- Thanks. I appreciate the explanation. I just don't grasp the operative value of the rationale or its meaning, if it has one, but that's my fault. I can't offer suggestions, since anything legal like this is totally outside of my capacity to concentrate. Regards. Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Nishidani: EC means extended-confirmed protection, which due to the ARBPIA edit notice becoming mandatory, also becomes mandatory. In the AP2 DS, for example, we have the option of a naked 1RR, without protection or other restrictions applied. So that is what I am proposing (bold link) — no legalese involved. El_C 17:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Don't lose time trying to enlighten me. Sincerely, I have never been able to wrap my mind, or what's left of it, around these issues. Give me an article about words for ladles in classical Greek, and I'll be utterly focused on the distinctions between a soup and a wine ladle, I can visualize them. I can't do that with Wikipedia rules, and therefore just apply the simplest reading, which keeps me mostly out of trouble, but makes objecting to what others do pointless, since I miss equivocations. As I say, it's my fault, and I just have to wear it.Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- That's a fair enough position to hold, though difficult to maintain, I would venture to think. Anyway, I agree that we should aim at rules that are simple to follow, but an integral component of that is that those rules also make sense on the implementation level. This, if we are to continue to follow Committee rulings in an exact procedurally-required way, which seems to be the order of the day. In other words, IAR —or the spirit of a rule— is more likely to be lost to Committee legality when it comes to Arbitration enforcement than as can be seen in the application of Community policy. It is what it is in its current state. El_C 17:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Don't lose time trying to enlighten me. Sincerely, I have never been able to wrap my mind, or what's left of it, around these issues. Give me an article about words for ladles in classical Greek, and I'll be utterly focused on the distinctions between a soup and a wine ladle, I can visualize them. I can't do that with Wikipedia rules, and therefore just apply the simplest reading, which keeps me mostly out of trouble, but makes objecting to what others do pointless, since I miss equivocations. As I say, it's my fault, and I just have to wear it.Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Nishidani: EC means extended-confirmed protection, which due to the ARBPIA edit notice becoming mandatory, also becomes mandatory. In the AP2 DS, for example, we have the option of a naked 1RR, without protection or other restrictions applied. So that is what I am proposing (bold link) — no legalese involved. El_C 17:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. I appreciate the explanation. I just don't grasp the operative value of the rationale or its meaning, if it has one, but that's my fault. I can't offer suggestions, since anything legal like this is totally outside of my capacity to concentrate. Regards. Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- If proof were needed to underline my incompetence, I need just cite my edit at this article's talk page a minute ago. I'll put the edit requested on my talk page, hoping that a few technical people who have it bookmarked can fix it. Apologies. Nishidani (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- Well, you're not alone there. Wikiformatting can be quite counter-intuitive. El_C 18:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
IP editor
I'm getting a pretty strong WP:NOTHERE vibe from Special:Contributions/173.176.159.21 - given that they've repeatedly said they won't do stuff like refrain from legal threats or sign their comments because they don't want to help Wikipedia. I understand if you don't want to be the one handing out blocks left and right given that you're also trying to referee a legitimate content dispute, but I'm ready to file an WP:ANI report myself unless you think that's a bad idea. I'm really not trying to put a thumb on the scale here, I'm just asking if I'm way off base here before I open something. Nblund talk 23:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- You would not have that problem if BLP was applyied. The disruptive edition page gives plenty of reason as to why. But your good to go. I<m done, frustrated, and wont come back — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Well, looks like the matter is now moot. El_C 23:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- You're not off base. I'm this close to issuing a block for disruptive and tendentious editing — intentional incompetence and legally aggressive language (which has a chilling effect) will not be tolerated. But I'm also willing to give them one final chance. Let's see what happens next. El_C 23:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
smile
At least I recognized my error. Cheers. Time for bed for me. Toddst1 (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- All good, man! Sweet dreams. El_C 06:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
English Punctuation
As a person whose first language is not English, I find English learning an on-going process. In regards to the issue at hand, i.e. square brackets, I want to make sure I understand it clearly. How come we cannot attribute the statement between brackets to the narrator?--Kazemita1 (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- Tell me about it! Well, there are two different quotes, right? So the IP's changes make sense. El_C 17:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- If you look closely, the comment that they are a "cult-like terrorist organisation" is an interjection inserted by the UK agency into the quote from the United States agency. The IP is saying it is not an interjection. I am sorry for being so dumb. If you could elaborate how IP's changes make sense I would appreciate it. .--Kazemita1 (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- Upon further reflection, I'm just not sure which version is makes more sense. El_C 22:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- If you look closely, the comment that they are a "cult-like terrorist organisation" is an interjection inserted by the UK agency into the quote from the United States agency. The IP is saying it is not an interjection. I am sorry for being so dumb. If you could elaborate how IP's changes make sense I would appreciate it. .--Kazemita1 (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
You might
wish to take a look at User_talk:Vanamonde93#Me_thinks_that_someone_needs_a_vacation. Need someone to install a TBan .... ∯WBGconverse 17:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- Sure — I'll take a glance, at the very least. El_C 17:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- El_C 17:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)Resolved
Closure of Tulsa Race Riot -> Tulsa Race Massacre Move Request
Hi El C,
I was looking at a move request on the talk page for the Tulsa Race Riot, and noticed that you closed the request without discussion, citing the fact that a prior request to do so (created back in July) was closed as "no consensus," and asserting that the editor should "wait at least six months before initiating the same request again."
I've done some investigation, but have been unable to find any support for this six month figure -- the closest thing I found was on the closing instructions webpage, which says "it is not considered bad form to re-raise a request that found "no consensus" to move. (Successful move re-requests generally, though certainly not always, take place at least three months after the previous one...)," which suggests a three month window, but certainly does not proscribe one. Could you explain how you arrived at this 6 month restriction?
It has now been more than 3 months since the original request was made, and Dbrote cited numerous contemporary sources that now use term "massacre" rather than "riot" (the lack of a preponderance of such sources was the main reason no consensus was reached during the first move request), so I think there is an argument to be made that now is as good a time as any for another Move Request Review.
- Waidawut (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- Waidawut, please ping me if that request is renewed. I agree that "massacre" is a proper term, and has acquired currency. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Waidawut: ordinarily yes, three months would be fine. But I made the decision to double that because this wasn't the only such move request (example). This is constant source of tension and discontent in the article, leading to much disruption in the editing process. You can have another move request in three months (for a six month gap). After that, I'll double it to a year, and I will keep doubling from there, ad infinitum — because this isn't something you keep trying and trying until you get the desired outcome. Move requests are not expected to operate in such a manner. El_C 17:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- @El Cid: From what rule do you derive the discretion to invent and enforce these waiting periods? The webpage I linked above seems pretty clear that move requests are expected to operate such that those that reached a consensus not to move "should probably not propose this move in the future until and unless circumstances change," but makes no such caveat for requests that reached no consensus, and in fact encourages future move requests in these cases (with, again, no mention of a mandated waiting period). Surely an ongoing, robust discussion will be more likely to reach a consensus, rather than one split up by arbitrarily-enforced waiting periods, no? -Waidawut (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- No need to (mis-)ping me on my own talk page. Sorry, but we're not going to undergo a circumstances change-driven move request every three months. That's just not going to happen, because it would be disruptive to the editing process. El_C 18:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- I have discretion, in my capacity as an uninvolved admin, to prevent disruptive editing — that includes prohibiting move requests whose frequent timing renders them tendentious. *** You pinged fine, but you mistyped my username. El_C 18:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- So when can a new one be started? I find GNews has 5740 hits for race riot,[9] but 21.400 for Tulsa massacre.[10] - I was against it earlier, but like User:Drmies I think I'd support it now. Doug Weller talk 18:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: again, my instinct was to give it a six months breathing room — so in three months. But if another uninvolved admin wishes to overule me in this instance and re-open the move request immediately, I have no objection. But if this move request fails, I will insist on a breathing room of a year, and this time will object to challenges on that front. El_C 18:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: at this point, I'm inclined to wait for the three months -- contemporary sources are reaching a consensus of using "massacre," and I think this consensus will likely be even stronger in 3 months. I think it's better to wait 3 months now, rather than rushing and reaching another "no consensus" and then having to wait a year. Waidawut (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Waidawut: good plan, I agree. Doug Weller talk 18:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi El C, I have a request at RFPP but given the constant vandalism by new accounts and IPs, can you protect it? Mozalarab69 has also been reported to AIV. S0091 (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- Done. El_C 19:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
ITN for Barisha raid and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi
Hi @El C:, I've commented at ITN [11] that all sources describing Baghdadi's death, e.g. [12][13] and our article Barisha raid, explicitly attribute the claim of suicide to U.S. officials or Trump. It is so easy to acknowledge this and be cautious by changing our blurb to state that Baghdadi "... is dead after a U.S. raid..." that I am astonished we have dropped attribution and stated his suicide is a fact at the top of our front page. Please correct this as soon as possible. I apologize for my somewhat blunt and possibly aggressive tone: disrespect is not intended. -Darouet (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, @Darouet: not at all, your message if perfectly fine, but I would rather you get ITNC consensus for that change, which I would then be more than happy to implement. El_C 20:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Need advice in dealing with disruptive user
Thanks for protecting User:UBX/NBA-Clippers. However, the problem is not gone and Jamesmiko (talk · contribs) is edit warring in many NHL and NBA userboxes. He states that since he created many userboxes, he can do whatever he wants and no policies and/or guidelines can stop him. How do I deal with this situation? I tried more than once to engage in a discussion with him, but he just ignores everything and continues to being disruptive. It is also obvious that Jamesmiko is using Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Thanks in advance. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Sabbatino: no problem. Well, if you're convinced there is disruptive editing involved (user being unresponsive or tendentious), then an Incidents report should be your next logical step. Otherwise, I would recommend a centralized discussion about these contested edits somewhere, like Wikipedia talk:Userboxes. These two approaches need not be seen as mutually exclusive necessarily, either. Hope this helps. El_C 20:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)