→Check this editor: amend 3RR, IRANPOL |
Koreangauteng (talk | contribs) Some issues with current Wiki Quran articles |
||
Line 867: | Line 867: | ||
:{{Done}}. Hey, Davey2010. All's good, thanks for asking. Hope you're doing well, too. Best wishes for a great new year! [[User:El_C|El_C]] 21:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC) |
:{{Done}}. Hey, Davey2010. All's good, thanks for asking. Hope you're doing well, too. Best wishes for a great new year! [[User:El_C|El_C]] 21:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC) |
||
::Hey El C, Good good and yep all's good here thanks :), Thanks and best wishes to you too, Many thanks for doing the honours, Thanks, –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color:blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color:orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color:navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 21:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC) |
::Hey El C, Good good and yep all's good here thanks :), Thanks and best wishes to you too, Many thanks for doing the honours, Thanks, –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color:blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color:orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color:navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 21:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC) |
||
==Some issues with current Wiki Quran articles== |
|||
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Some_issues_with_the_current_Wikipedia_Quran_articles |
|||
[[User:Koreangauteng|Koreangauteng]] ([[User talk:Koreangauteng|talk]]) 23:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:25, 1 January 2020
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)
Well, I'm envious. You get to pet ALL the fuzzeh creatures! — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:40, 9 November 2019 (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)
Could you please unprotect? If you look at the talk page you will see that some of the reverts were accidental edit conflicted confusion. There is no bona fide editorial dispute. The primordial black hole hypothesis is purely fringe material. Occasionally some random editor tries to add it, but all the main editors of the article agree that it’s not to be included. There’s no good source for this theory and the best sources literally are making fun of it. Cheers, Jehochman Talk 12:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- Understood. Will downgrade to semi. El_C 17:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Reverse racism
- Reverse racism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Greetings. You were the last one to protect this page; would you mind taking a look at the recent history? A similar pattern of disruptive/POV/unsourced additions is still going on, and I think semi- or extended-confirmed protection is still a good idea. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- Done. El_C 23:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Request reversion and lock on Science of Identity Foundation
Samp4ngeles has made a number of edits that inappropriately 1) reintroduce 'alternate names' for the founder, an issue that had previously been settled; 2) add inflammatory material from a new tabloid reference; 3) misrepresent material from that reference in an apparent attempt to further harm the founder's reputation; and 4) include a section in the article titled 'Political activities', citing candidates who ran for office in 1976 prior to the formation of the Foundation in 1977. The implication that the Foundation itself is involved in political activity is defamatory since that would be a criminal violation of the Foundation's tax-exempt status. (The link Samp4ngeles provided for the new tabloid reference was incorrect; the proper link is https://evols.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10524/55521.) Please revert and lock. Humanengr (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't know if I'm going to have time to investigate this, but in any case, please definitely avoid terms such as "defamatory" — it comes across as a legal threat, which has a chilling effect on the editorial process. Anyway, I suggest you raise your concern on the article talk page or otherwise make use of any dispute resolution request you see fit. Good luck. El_C 03:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry — I meant to direct this to the admin who has been involved with these issues on the SIF page. Thx for your advice. My mistake. Humanengr (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Have to agree that {u|Humanengr}'s comments are consistently chilling and unconstructive, particularly with regard to anything remotely related to this page. It indicates a high amount of bias. The claims above regarding use of tabloids, inflammatory material, attempts to harm anyone's reputation, etc., are utterly ridiculous, as the previous edits were constructive. Samp4ngeles (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Abhijeet
You might remember this TBan and I'm afraid that he needs another one, as to Jagannath Dixit under WP:ARBIPA.
Snarky edit summaries (1, 2), blatant aspersions about me (3), edit-warring and white-washing (4, 5).
Add the long history of disruptive editing and blatant COI, over this particular article, as documented over Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_141#Now. ∯WBGconverse 11:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Done. El_C 11:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Semi
I requested semi-protection on Pete Buttigieg 2020 presidential campaign because of sockpuppetry by multiple socks. I'm not sure if you missed it, or intended to decline the request. - MrX 🖋 00:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- I missed it. But now that I look at it, let's keep it open, for now. Both accounts are blocked — perhaps that will be that. El_C 00:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Pete Buttigieg 2020 presidential campaign
A new IP resumed the edit war following unprotection at Pete Buttigieg 2020 presidential campaign. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Already done. El_C 01:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
a gift that keeps on giving ...
This IP-hopping sock seems intent on disrupting Talk:Pete Buttigieg 2020 presidential campaign. Is there any way to semi protect yet still allow a way for anons to contribute? Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, there is not. El_C 03:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Several RFPP requests due to socking.
Hi, I recently made a few WP:RFPP requests due to recent sock activity. Please have a look into this. Thanks! --IanDBeacon (talk) 06:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- I guess I missed all the excitement. 21 pending requests, though! El_C 18:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Ahsanaliqadri180
I wonder if you take a look at this edit which is the example of personal attack and his contribution which seems to be strange. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saff V. (talk • contribs)
- Three vandalism edits from three days ago — not much to do here, unless the disruptive editing continue. El_C 18:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
White Croats
Could you help here Talk:White_Croats#Edit_war ? Mikola and Ceha are doing Croatian POV-pushing together in another topic: WP:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Donji_Kraji_discussion. They cannot be considered objective commentators on the current RFC. These are personal attacks...--Čeha (razgovor) 19:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose there are some aspersions being cast, which indeed should be avoided, but I don't feel this rises to the level of an outright personal attack. What have they said about you, personally? It seems to me that they are saying that your editing tend to generally be less-than-neutral. Sure, it could have been phrased more diplomatically, but as for it amounting to a personal attack? — sorry, I just don't see it. El_C 19:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, but one's nationality shouldn't matter to wikipedia. Can you warn him not to mention national conspiracies any more? --Čeha (razgovor) 20:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see anyone having mentioned conspiracies, national or otherwise. El_C 22:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- I believe WP:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Donji_Kraji_discussion is referred to me, so I will let others talk and illustrate how editor talks about colleagues (this one too is about me, and I have many more, only where admins weren't involved).--౪ Santa ౪99° 00:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see anyone having mentioned conspiracies, national or otherwise. El_C 22:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, but one's nationality shouldn't matter to wikipedia. Can you warn him not to mention national conspiracies any more? --Čeha (razgovor) 20:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- The true personal attacks is to write "vandalism" in an each edit summary about my edit: [2], [3]. Although my edit just repeated the revert to the status quo ante version: [4]. Well, or both of us with El C are vandals here.--Nicoljaus (talk) 06:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Page protected for one month. Status quo ante version (from April) restored onto the protected page, again. El_C 02:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
The PKK
It raised my eyebrows that you would revert the removal of a template that says a user support terrorist groups and calls them freedom fighters. I have friends who were killed by a the PKK and I can't emphasize how disgusting that template is.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'm more interested in proper procedure than I am of editorial personal involvement. You should not be edit warring while the MfD remains undecided, regardless of your personal feelings. The status quo ante should remain in place while the matter is being debated. El_C 17:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Idan (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello, El C. You were kind enough to semi-protect this article on 27 October. The protection expires on 27 December and I'd like to ask if it can be extended by a further month until 27 January. The reason for this is that the club is in the midst of a winding-up petition in the High Court and it is widely anticipated that this will be concluded in the next few days with the club's liquidation. I doubt if the fuss will die down by 27 December and I think the article may still face problems. By the end of January, it will be old news and the article should then be stable. We can, of course, see what happens and then re-apply for protection. It depends on site procedure, really. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- Done. El_C 19:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, El C. That's great. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello El C. Please could you restore the stable version of the article, rather than reward the party breaching BRD by allowing their version to stay up. Thanks, Number 57 22:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, though I support having the status quo ante version (per WP:ONUS) while a dispute is ongoing, I would rather not take sides in said dispute to the point of editing the fully-protected article. El_C 22:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Edits
Hey, El C. While I respect you greatly as an admin, I believe these two edits of yours were hasty and unjustified:
Your reason was that references must be kept inside <ref>
tags, which is not always true (see WP:Parenthetical referencing.) Furthermore, if your issue was just the references, why did you remove the entire sentences? Or again, why didn't you correct them? As a gesture of good faith, I ask that you restore the removed contributions. Regards, GUYWAN ( t · c ) 22:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
On second thought, don't worry about the one related to measurement of elasticities, since I removed that whole section from the article. GUYWAN ( t · c ) 22:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, but now that I'm recollecting, it just seemed too unconventional to me. It still does. But I have no objection for you to restore the additions in any format you see fit. I really don't feel that strongly about this. El_C 22:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Future Vehicles RfC
Hi El_C, There is some debate about whether your closure of this RfC provided any rulings (and, if so, how they would apply to this section). If you could please clarify, that would be much appreciated. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 11:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I decline. As my closure states, the RfC question was poorly framed. But I do believe my closure provided a rough guideline. I'm not going to issue clarifications every time a potential CRYSTAL issue is going to arise in vehicle articles. That's not going to happen. El_C 16:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello El C, I don't believe we've officially met. This, IMO: wholly negative BLP1E, escapes CSD. Is there any way it can be deleted without it taking seven days to do so? Thanks! Usedtobecool talK ✨ 17:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- Done. The reason was copyright violations of the New York Post. El_C 17:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- El C, thanks! Usedtobecool talK ✨ 17:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Need your help to provide the third opinion
People are trying to vandalize and edit Siddha medicine and mentioning - "The Indian Medical Association regards Siddha medicine as quackery" in multiple places in the article. All the three reference they added doesn't state so. I have initiated a discussion to remove and identify the right interpretation in the article talk page. Please help.90.185.50.46 (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- This is not the place for the help template. Please do not call good faith contributions vandalism —see what vandalism is not— that is a personal attack, which is prohibited. Please try to gain consensus for your changes on the article talk page. Thanks and good luck. El_C 23:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Arjoccolenty
Arjoccolenty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) returned from their block and immediately resumed their previous editing habits. Clearly, their two-week block was not time well spent. Thought you'd like to be made aware! livelikemusic talk! 21:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Well you will be happy to know that I'm done with the arguing. Obviously any sort of explanation I give won't be good enough. I'm done with it all. Find someone else to threaten. Just do me a favor and stay the hell away from me. Arjoccolenty (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Arjoccolenty: please just wait until the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers reaches resolution before adding the contested edits across multiple articles. Thanks in advance. El_C 00:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for taking care of Alybood (and continuing to comment on their talk page). I'll admit that that freaked me out a little, first time I've had a legal threat targeted at me on WP, so I appreciate your quick handling of the matter. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 14:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- Not at all, Creffett. Indeed, threats of legal action (or use of related legalese) produces an enormous chilling effect on the editorial process, which is why it isn't to be tolerated anywhere on the project. Happy editing! El_C 18:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The realm of suggestions
If you think, which is the only hypothesis that your bizarre revert suggested to me, that in correcting Stav's misspellings, I was cocking a snook at him, you err. I am on, I believe, good terms with Bolter, he jokes about his occasional misspellings - an irony we need - and I have, without being reproved or rebuffed, occasionally helped him in the past with corrections. These corrections were necessary to make his google searches more efficient: if you write Horbat instead of Horvat, the standard archaeological transcription of the Hebrew, you don't get good results, and the same goes for Gurein instead of Guerin. Wiki is complicated enough without the odour of suspicion haunting even these amicable assists among people who have always worked together collaboratively.Nishidani (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
- I apologize — I should not have overstepped. Sorry again. El_C 14:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Possible sockpuppetry
If you were to see the edit history for Rojava, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rojava&action=history, that there are three unregistered accounts that all began editing Syria-related articles on the 7th of December. Those edits are not small either. I find it unlikely that new users are usually this skilled, if ever. Possible suspects include User:عمرو بن كلثوم or another Wikipedia editor who has a history of editing in such a way. Cheers. Sisuvia (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
- Semi-protected indefinitely. El_C 19:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
UAK returns
Hello. Can you please reblock 168.196.200.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) for another 6-12 months? The UnderArmourKid LTA recently returned on this dynamic range, continuing the same kind of 9/11 vandalism that he has been perpetrating for years. This range has a long history of disruption. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- Done. El_C 11:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Scurrilous accusation of personal attack then insta-block?
You appear to have fallen for the second of User:Dr.Kierans attempts, at gaming the system/abusing process, the first a well documented imagining of a breach of 1R, when there was none. With admins stepping in before. Having dealt with that first case, of this now emerging pattern, of accusatory behavior without too much harassment after the first. I would leave the abstract idea with you, that while I am no admin, I do think it should be a prequisite of the power you wield as one, that at the minimum, you should be made look into the history of the 2 users involved. Particularly looking for a pattern of accusatory behavior. Noticing it is all 1 way. You know, Before you go falling for what amounts to their tattle tales?
For you instantly fell for this, their now second ruse, of theirs, in believing the figment of his own, now clearly, motivated fantasy imagination, that an edit summary that never mentioned him "was all about him and directed specifically and personally about him". A narrative they invented out of their all to eager mind. A narrative, of their own POV invention, that you incredulously believed, fell for and blocked me and then followed it up with the threat that any further personal attacks will result in a permanent block. How delightful. Yet show me where I directed my statement of fact, that refers to a talk page discussion, on paid editors and our need to be vigilant, show me where this was directed toward him. Specifically? ...for the "personal attack", to have taken place?
In light of the very related, recent statements of facts that have emerged about the specific activities of that Queen Victoria familia, and the existence of PR spin-doctors, diligently paid to handle the Prince Andrew and other "account" ...you will, I hope with this new insight, review the block you wrongly placed on my account, place my apparently "offending" edit summary here, for other admind to review, to let them decide and also review your attempt to intimidate and threaten by proxy, that the next "personal attack is permanent block". As I never named anyone, therefore you do not have your coveted "personal attack", no grounds to sanction one, none of the requirements to effect one nor enforce one, nor have this scurrilous accusation, remain as one, on my record.
For don't you kind of need a person being named or a "you" in there, for the "personal" part of the alleged "attack", to exist? To operate as Charles Manson and go converting admins of what amounts to "code" in the beatles songs, as is of Dr:Kierans "personal attacks", from what was actually a very broad statement of fact. It is particularly troubling and not the least bit reassuring. So in that, I am willing to bring this abusive gaming of the system, by those with clearly motivated reasoning, that was then followed up with your disgraceful intimidation, to the highest level of administration. Not least because Secondly, I was at work and never signed in or had the time to, during the 2 week block to challenge this troubling as it is scurrilous accusation. As what's stopping more editors claiming every statement of fact, is personally about them and that they "feel attacked"?
You did note, before blanking, that no one was named, in the "offending" edit summary didn't you? No small oversight? When you fell for their ruse, that the statement was about them. It wasn't, as if you took the time and did your due diligence to determine what was being referred to, in response, was the scourge of PR firms, spin doctoring, that are editing wikipedia. An issue I think we'd all agree is serious and much wider than "Dr. kieran", don't we agree? Something I had hoped they would agree with also, though by their response, what of contacting you and claiming a personal attack, we can only conclude, they don't.
If you do not have the power to remove this scurrilous stain on my record, then direct me to those that do. Who would also need to review the history of Dr:Kierans, dreaming in the past of 1R "infractions" that never happened and now this accusation of a "personal attack" drawn out of a statement of fact, as this is the same pattern of "events", that while they'd like to put words in my mouth. THEY actually never happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs)
- Even if you were correct, your record is not going to be expunged, Boundarylayer — because that's not something we do. I stand by my block and my warning (please do not refer to either as an "attempt to intimidate" — that aspersion is out of line), which were over a month ago. Intimating that a Wikipedia editor possesses "kinship to neo-nazis" is not something that is to be tolerated on the project. Claiming that it was addressed to no one in particular, seems like a weak argument. Please feel free to seek review of this in any forum you see fit. El_C 04:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
School vandal
Can you please reblock 213.105.8.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) for another 6-12 months? Vandalism resumed on this school network soon after the last block had expired, and it has been full of vandalism ever since. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- Done. El_C 05:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Hey El C! Good morning, can you protect this page ~ since the 30th of November, it's been vandalized at least 13 times by IPs. 30 days should be good enough, until after the college bowl games are over. Thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 11:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- Never mind ~ Fish and karate protected it for 3 weeks ~ thanks though ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 11:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
extended confirmed users
Why did you remove me from extended confirmed users? What did I do wrong? --I dream of Maple (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- Because there is strong likelihood that you yet another incarnation of Icewhiz. I'm just waiting for an SPI report to see whether an indefinite block is also due. El_C 16:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- This is an outrageous accusation. I am not an incarnation. --I dream of Maple (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- If you're not Icewhiz, what other accounts have you edited with?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- I have not edited with other accounts. A long time ago I did edit some without registering an account. I had some time on my hands, so I registered and I've been learning the ins and outs of stuff on here. Lots of reading. --I dream of Maple (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- @I dream of Maple: Could you say it plainly for the record: "I, I dream of Maple, am not Icewhiz and I have no prior connections to that account"? TIA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- I have not edited with other accounts. A long time ago I did edit some without registering an account. I had some time on my hands, so I registered and I've been learning the ins and outs of stuff on here. Lots of reading. --I dream of Maple (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- If you're not Icewhiz, what other accounts have you edited with?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- Not so outrageous. Sorry, there are too many red flags. El_C 17:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- Hi El C. I'm gonna be "that guy". You say "yet another incarnation", but you link to an SPI that is all inconclusive/unrelated, where it's noted that the user agents don't match and IW was never known to use a proxy. Are there any publicly-confirmed IW socks? I see a number of editors talking as if IW is some known prolific sockmaster... but is it true? – Levivich 04:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Inconclusive means that admins should use their judgement. Behaviourally, I disagree on the point of never using a proxy, but that info has been suppressed as it constituted severe harassment of another editor, so a CU who isn't also OS wouldn't be aware of the accounts (tl;dr there are accounts that have been discussed on oversight-l that are likely Icewhiz in my view that were on proxies.) Also, yes, there is confirmed IP socking and harassment that has been suppressed. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- And I've just looked at one of the suppressed accounts. Both the account above and it are using an ISP that is used for proxies, but can also have legitimate uses. This is consistent with several other claimed socks at the SPI. The other technical data is also consistent. Given the ISP involved, I'd prefer to report like that rather than give templates. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- By
several other claimed socks at the SPI
, I assume you mean these. I must have been confused when I read that they were tagged unlikely or unrelated, some of them were confirmed to a different sockmaster, and one of them was noted asuser agent does not match any of Icewhiz's user agents
, and about whom you saidI don't know who it is, and I don't think this is Icewhiz.
– Levivich 05:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- By
- And I've just looked at one of the suppressed accounts. Both the account above and it are using an ISP that is used for proxies, but can also have legitimate uses. This is consistent with several other claimed socks at the SPI. The other technical data is also consistent. Given the ISP involved, I'd prefer to report like that rather than give templates. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'll just note that re: "I disagree on the point of never using a proxy", to say that "this is not Icewhiz b/c Icewhiz never used proxies" is akin to saying "Icewhiz is not socking b/c he never socked before". He didn't need to use proxies before, doh. As for "a number of editors talking as if IW is some known prolific sockmaster", do you think it is a coincidence that an area that had your normal, next to zero levels of socking activity for many years, once a particular editor is banned, develops a number of new accounts that use proxies, display extensive knowledge of Wikipeidia (or are super fast learners...) and edit a number of the same obscure topics that said now-banned editor did, and with the same extreme POV? Coincidences? WP:DUCK/Ockahm's razor suggest otherwise... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
an area that had your normal, next to zero levels of socking activity for many years
= bullshit, Piotrus, and you know that. Yaniv has been socking for most of this past year, no? Also, we have trolls who sock and impersonate people just for the fun of it. It's not at all surprising that they would impersonate IW or other recently-blocked/banned editors (like Edgar or Eric Corbett). Someone got wrongfully blocked recently because of that troll, it was at ANI or AN. Also, there are a number of TBANed or blocked editors in this area, it could be any of them. But let's talk about the SPI at the SPI page and not El C's talk page. I only commented about talking about IW as if the unrelated/unlikely accounts, or the accounts that are confirmed to someone else, are actually his. – Levivich 05:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)- (edit conflict)No, you're correct. Those accounts are at a different ISP. Apologies on my end, I was thinking of accounts that I'd looked at earlier based on a list discussion that are almost certainly Icewhiz and were on proxies and that I just rechecked to verify. But to your broader point above, yes, we have CU evidence linking Icewhiz to IP socking and harassment of other editors on-wiki in addition to the other accounts I was referencing.Regardless of the technical findings, if someone is being disruptive in the same way as a blocked editor, then administrators are free to block them. The point of blocks is to prevent disruption. If disruption is ongoing, block them. It's that simple. CU can help point out accounts that likely fit this criteria, but it is hardly the only way to find it, even from a socking standpoint. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Language, please. I honestly don't know much about Yaniv (he never popped up in discussions/articles I was involved in), except I think I recall Icewhiz defending him from a block or such; I'd be surprising if he was impersonating Icewhiz to hurt Icewhiz, but then as I said I really don't know that much about Yaniv. My point is that while I am not very familiar with Yaniv I feel I am very familiar with Icewhiz (in the Polish-Jewish topic area) and with all editors and socks in this area and I stand by what I said, which is that 1) this area did not have any significant socking (that I am aware of) and 2) now suddenly articles I and Icewhiz edited extensively are attracting socks. Ex. Marek Jan Chodakiewicz: no socks were active there before, AFAIK, this is a niche topics very few editors edited, yet look at what's happening there now. Why would Yaniv try to impersonate Icewhiz there? What are the odds two new accounts, both with telling signs of 'not a newbie', would foray into such niche topic? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Inconclusive means that admins should use their judgement. Behaviourally, I disagree on the point of never using a proxy, but that info has been suppressed as it constituted severe harassment of another editor, so a CU who isn't also OS wouldn't be aware of the accounts (tl;dr there are accounts that have been discussed on oversight-l that are likely Icewhiz in my view that were on proxies.) Also, yes, there is confirmed IP socking and harassment that has been suppressed. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, it looks like the user's open proxy has been blocked, I don't know for how long. Their unblock request is currently pending. I'm not sure if the user is Icewhiz, but I suspect the account was being used, ultimately, for disruptive and tendentious editing. I, at the very least, was going to topic ban them from EE and ARBPIA, just to be on the safe side. I may yet do that. El_C 07:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- I've unblocked the ranges, primarily because another editor made a similar complaint of not being able to edit from work on a nearby range. Unfortunately, Cogent is positively awful about mixing webhosts with end-users. As to the specific IP listed in the unblock, it is running a PPTP VPN server, as well as SSH. Resolving the range, we see a couple fdcservers.net entries, and a mailserver - which was one of the reasons I blocked the range to begin with. SQLQuery me! 15:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Well, at any case, that does not inspire confidence. El_C 17:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- What are the odds that as the user said on their talk page, it is due to policies of "IT department" that issued a laptop? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Piotrus, See my latest comment @ maple's page. It's not an IT Department, it's Hola (VPN). I've blocked the /29 at the moment, and will be evaluating the 9 /16's I had blocked to see if they need to be reblocked. It turns out cogentco runs it's own whois server @rwhois.cogentco.com:4321, and we can directly query what client has what ranges. SQLQuery me! 22:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- What are the odds that as the user said on their talk page, it is due to policies of "IT department" that issued a laptop? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Well, at any case, that does not inspire confidence. El_C 17:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Blanking LTA
Can you please block 138.122.152.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) for a while? This range has been abused for 3 months by an LTA who goes on a vandalism spree every 1-2 weeks, and all of the edits on the range since then have been only vandalism. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Done. El_C 21:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Obvious socket puppets all sticking to 1 certain weird Turkish hoax site as a reliable source
Hello, you protected before the page Turks in Egypt because of a hoax sourcing that the Turkish population in Egypt is 25 millions, literally bigger than the whole populations of Syria, Tunisia,...etc.
These users are all the same person, all acting as different people within the same page:
1- [7] User:O.celebi
2- [8] IP: 2a00:23c5:8405:fa00:6da9:a8d7:46e9:5bbb
3- [9] USer:يوسف شمس
All these are the same perosn, supporting each other and the IP comes with these accounts at the same exact time all adding the 25 Millions as a respectale source.
Mar400r (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know that they're the same person. If you think it to be so, please feel free to file an SPI that attempts to shows them being linked together. Also, I see nothing about the hoax on the article talk page. I agree the notion sounds nonsensical, but it's almost as if there is no record of any of that ever having been discussed, anywhere, even if to refute it utterly. What gives? El_C 03:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Template needs to be fixed at Jimmy Dore
Per the edit button on the article itself, it's 1RR, but there's no such template on the talk page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Nor did I add it to Bill Clinton or William Barr, to name two from the top of my head. I simply did not realize that was a requirement. If it is, please show where. El_C 03:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Bah
[10]. I already had my edit summary of "Congratulations! With less than three weeks to go you've snatched pole position in the "most pointless article addition of 2019" contest - and I think you'll be pretty hard to beat now..."
typed up, hit enter, only to see you'd already bloody-well reverted... -- Begoon 14:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- What can I re-say — I'm swift! El_C 16:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Ottawa weatherbox template
Hi, I changed the snow color from green to blue in order for it to be visually distinctive from the precipitation color. Nearly all other cities use blue but for some reason some cities in Canada don't. --2601:248:5000:630:C860:A9D4:9D7F:85B3 (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oh okay. Sorry, my mistake — mistook you for someone else. Thanks for explaining. Sorry again. El_C 00:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Help please
Please help us with the spammer at the 2019 Presidents Cup page. There is a spammer using multiple account to add potentially harmful spam there. We have warned him several times. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Done. El_C 01:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Your signature please
Hey, please sign this edit. Regards. --Mhhossein talk 04:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks. El_C 05:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Dr.K's talk page comments reverted
I'm not sure as to Dr.K's meaning when they write You want your pound of flesh. You think you got it. Noiw leave — but for the record, I found it discourteous. El_C 15:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- As is discourteous of your part, El C, to call a victim of bullying as having "competency issues" by writing that my "editing does, indeed, invoke competency issues." because my English language skills "are poor" . This was discourteous of your part, El C. Not everyone here in Wikipedia is a native English speaker or has master diploma in the English language and you ought to understand that. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 16:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- It strikes me that your English does not seem that poor now (same with your comments at ANI), SilentResident. Your above comment is perfectly cogent, even if I disagree with the various inferences you make therein. But your aforementioned mainspace edit was written so poorly, I found, to the point of incoherence. So, you need to do better, by putting as much thought, care and attention into your edits to the mainspace as you do to talk page comments. (Again, I and others had suggested making use of draft and sandbox spaces.) Otherwise, we do, indeed, have a competency issue — one which may or may not pertain to the mastery of the English language. But regardless as to its impetus, it is a problem nonetheless. My own English is by no means perfect, by the way — it is not my native tongue, either, and I struggle with it. But there is a minimum English-language threshold that is required in order to edit here. Please ensure that you meet it. Thanks and good luck. El_C 19:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- I have to respectfully disagree that the edit you mentioned reverting approaches incoherence. Like many Wikipedia contributions, the wording can be improved, but I think it's readily apparent that country A and country B are executing specific responses to country C's actions. I agree that a certain minimum level of fluency is needed, and have no issue with friendly reminders. I just think the example you chose didn't help to illustrate your point. isaacl (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I certainly found it borderline incoherent. Describing it as "mildly" in need of copy editing was a mistake, I challenge. I don't think it is an acceptable submission. A lot more care and attention was needed to proofread that particular addition. And that is just the first (and only) addition of their's that I looked at. El_C 20:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps I'm just unlucky in having seen much worse edits, including from editors with long strings of good and featured articles to their credit (of course, those are isolated cases; everyone makes mistakes from time to time). I've said before that English Wikipedia can only manage its large stream of incoming edits as long as there are sufficient editors willing to rewrite the inflow to distill and capture incremental improvements. So it is important that at the very least, new editors improve over time in order to reduce this burden. isaacl (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- I see a lot worse, also, but rarely from a veteran who has been here for almost a decade. El_C 21:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps I'm just unlucky in having seen much worse edits, including from editors with long strings of good and featured articles to their credit (of course, those are isolated cases; everyone makes mistakes from time to time). I've said before that English Wikipedia can only manage its large stream of incoming edits as long as there are sufficient editors willing to rewrite the inflow to distill and capture incremental improvements. So it is important that at the very least, new editors improve over time in order to reduce this burden. isaacl (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I certainly found it borderline incoherent. Describing it as "mildly" in need of copy editing was a mistake, I challenge. I don't think it is an acceptable submission. A lot more care and attention was needed to proofread that particular addition. And that is just the first (and only) addition of their's that I looked at. El_C 20:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- I have to respectfully disagree that the edit you mentioned reverting approaches incoherence. Like many Wikipedia contributions, the wording can be improved, but I think it's readily apparent that country A and country B are executing specific responses to country C's actions. I agree that a certain minimum level of fluency is needed, and have no issue with friendly reminders. I just think the example you chose didn't help to illustrate your point. isaacl (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- It strikes me that your English does not seem that poor now (same with your comments at ANI), SilentResident. Your above comment is perfectly cogent, even if I disagree with the various inferences you make therein. But your aforementioned mainspace edit was written so poorly, I found, to the point of incoherence. So, you need to do better, by putting as much thought, care and attention into your edits to the mainspace as you do to talk page comments. (Again, I and others had suggested making use of draft and sandbox spaces.) Otherwise, we do, indeed, have a competency issue — one which may or may not pertain to the mastery of the English language. But regardless as to its impetus, it is a problem nonetheless. My own English is by no means perfect, by the way — it is not my native tongue, either, and I struggle with it. But there is a minimum English-language threshold that is required in order to edit here. Please ensure that you meet it. Thanks and good luck. El_C 19:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- Restored the thread on my talkpage. Thanks, and sorry for the original revert and the edit-summary. Rest of the details are in the edit-summary. Dr. K. 22:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
The Closer's Barnstar | |
Your thoughtful and concise close did not go unnoticed. Please accept this token of appreciation for your excellent work. |
- I had posted a few suggestions at that discussion and was hoping someone would close it. The discussion had become messy and largely pointless. I have been seeing your contributions on various articles, mainly reverting non-constructive edits, since a long time and I appreciate them together with the perfect wording you used to close the ANI thread. Keep up the good work! Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you both, for your kind words. El_C 19:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- I don't agree with Dr. K's choice of words, but I share their concern about your closure. I've opened a discussion below the closed section here. –dlthewave ☎ 20:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- The ANI thread was dying for closure. I don't think you need to apologize for "failing" - lots of sysops (including me) could have closed the thread and chose not to. I applaud you for not passing the buck to someone else and it's why, despite disagreeing on content, I felt the need to defend it as with-in your discretion to have done so. Thanks for trying to move the community forward on a difficult task, even if that attempt wasn't as successful as you'd hoped. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- What can I say? Sometimes you lose some. Hopefully, I was still able to offer counsel, to both sides. Speaking of which, I greatly appreciate yours. Many thanks, again. El_C 22:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'd like to offer my thanks as well. The discussion needed to be closed, but closing it was no easy task. A "closed, awaiting closing statement" placeholder might be helpful here. I had actually started to write one but ended up edit-conflicting with Barkeep.
- Sometimes bright-line conduct issues (such as reverting an editor's comments and then gloating that it "did the trick") get lost in the weeds because there just isn't much to say about them beyond "yup, that was bad". In this case folks seemed to agree that SR's behaviour was the more minor issue, but it generated far more discussion because it was quite complicated. –dlthewave ☎ 23:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- What can I say? Sometimes you lose some. Hopefully, I was still able to offer counsel, to both sides. Speaking of which, I greatly appreciate yours. Many thanks, again. El_C 22:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Andy Ngo
El C, would you please restore the previous consensus version as part of the lock here [11]? Thanks, Springee (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm not inclined to pick a side in the content dispute by editing the fully-protected page. El_C 19:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- In that case would you please remind all involved editors that once a change has been reverted the correct procedure is to discuss the change. Much of my frustration is that only one editor who supported the change actually showed up on the talk page to discuss the edit. This is a big part of how edit wars start. All of the editors in question are experienced and should know better. Once I started the talk page discussion no editor should have restored the disputed material without engaging in the discussion. Anyway, I would appreciate if you would make sure the involved editors are aware of that. Else, why have things like BRD etc? Thanks Springee (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- If certain editors are failing to comply with the discretionary sanctions that are imposed on the article, you may request Arbitration enforcement to force them to comply. In any case, I think we are now past the reminder stage when it comes to this article and are, instead, firmly in the realm of sanctions. El_C 20:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- I don't want to keep bothering you and I don't think anyone has risen to the level of needed to be reported. It would be helpful to know if you agree with my read simply to know if my understanding of the rules is poorly calibrated. What we have is Editor A makes BOLD edit. I disagree and revert with an edit comment only. Editor B restores A's changes. My view is B should never have restored the changes without opening a talk page discussion first. If nothing else, 2:1 doesn't really make a consensus to support new material. I open talk discussion and ping B. Editor C agrees with me on talk page and reverts B. Editor D restores bold change. I ping D and like B, hear nothing. A did nothing wrong as they were BOLD and then joined the discussion. B and D, in my view and this is the part where I ask your opinion, shouldn't have restored without going to the talk page first and certainly should have gone to the talk page to support their actions once pinged. Net result is no one is trying to establish a new consensus but by virtue of having a few more bodies they "win" by gaming the system vs by actually following wp:BRD and wp:CON. Anyway, that's how I read it but I would like to know if, as an admin, you agree or if, like John Mcenroe, I'm certain the ball was in because I was the one who hit the ball. Springee (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- If certain editors are failing to comply with the discretionary sanctions that are imposed on the article, you may request Arbitration enforcement to force them to comply. In any case, I think we are now past the reminder stage when it comes to this article and are, instead, firmly in the realm of sanctions. El_C 20:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- In that case would you please remind all involved editors that once a change has been reverted the correct procedure is to discuss the change. Much of my frustration is that only one editor who supported the change actually showed up on the talk page to discuss the edit. This is a big part of how edit wars start. All of the editors in question are experienced and should know better. Once I started the talk page discussion no editor should have restored the disputed material without engaging in the discussion. Anyway, I would appreciate if you would make sure the involved editors are aware of that. Else, why have things like BRD etc? Thanks Springee (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, but until I see an actual report submitted, it is a bit too difficult for me to be able to immediately assess. I reiterate that if you find that someone if ignoring the rules, you are more than free to hold them to account by submitting a report to that effect. El_C 20:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Would you please review this edit [[12]]. I think this as well as the edits made at the same time have crossed the line. I don't see how a reasonable consensus can come out of this. Springee (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- By my count you have 62 posts to that TP pretty much all pushing the same POV, with a few impolite comments of your own. Perhaps you should try another tack. O3000 (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
@Objective3000:, can you show any examples where I tell someone to "stop lying buddy"? If nothing else, for my own improvement please show what you think is my worst edit/comment. While I believe we should stick to just the arguments made, I'm sure I'm not perfect in that regard. Springee (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Don't feel disappointed, it is ok
Listen. You didn't disappoint us, just this is a sensitive and complicated issue which needs to be closed appropriately.
However I appreciate (and I am sure the others too) your time and bravery in closing this thread, and please don't take what happened tonight personally. I feel very sorry for how this unfolded but know this: we appreciate your efforts nevertheless. Be strong!!! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 23:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- No worries, SilentResident. I'm good. Sorry it did not occur to me that the idiosyncrasy problems with your edit were the product of machine translation. If you are able come out with one thing from my efforts here, I hope it would be to be bold, be confident, and write your own original prose. Because I firmly believe the machine-translation is a crutch you simply don't need. Thanks again for reaching out. El_C 23:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- I admit, I am not a fan of translation machines either. I was forced into using them due to FP@S's complaints that I "do bad translations" and I had no better ideas of how to deal with these complaints of his. But that was years ago and I hope my english language skills have improved ever since to the point of being able to do better translations by myself. Still it could be a lie to you if I told you that I am not nervous with this prospect. Take care! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 23:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
A beer for you!
El C (several hours and thousands of talk page kb ago): "Hold my beer while I close this thread real quick..."
Here's your beer back, El C. If it's any consolation, we kept it cold for ya :-D – Levivich 23:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC) |
- Exactly like how – Levivich says!!! Thanks mate --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 23:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- Real quick! Hah. El_C 23:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
You
You are an open-minded person who didn't fail anyone. You are the best of us. --valereee (talk) 04:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- Hear, hear. Well put. --bonadea contributions talk 10:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you Valereee, and for echoing, Bonadea. I am humbled, truly. El_C 02:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you
I also wanted to stop by and thank you, first for willing to attempt a difficult close, and second, for changing your mind when presented with evidence to the contrary. It is increasingly rare these days, and I respect someone who can do that. You didn't disappoint anyone. I have known you for a long time and I know you are one of the best admins out there. Khirurg (talk) 05:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- Many thanks, Khirurg. That's high praise — your recognition means a lot to me. El_C 02:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
favoratism and nepotism by El C in wikipedia edit
Collapsing incoherent rant. El_C 02:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
|
---|
Hi, El C goons and Gangs, I am not expecting any thing good feedback from bastards like you gangs. If you are release any info against or in favour of any individual or entity, in public, you need to hear other's voice. Idiots!. Can you read below and answer? I am not convinced in the way you are responding to the public edits in pages. And you facist gangs are locking editing against your vandalism against few peoples and entities?. I dont know who are you and what is your role in wikipedia?. You are misusing Wikipedia for your own propaganda. I don't know how to respond to your activities, other way than in this page. One thing is clear that you(Gangs) are shielding foreign born Sonia gangs and targeting peoples opposed to them. Misusing name and fame of wikipedia, for propagating your personal interest or the interest of your own gangs. You are just making mockery in wikipedia, removing credible edits against particular persons based religion or sectarion, like foreign born Sonia. Do you think we Indians are fools to listen for your aggression against Indians, favouring foreign born christian religoius Soina? It is Sonia handpicked Rosaiah taken aggressive stand to take action against Brahmani steels, that led to intensive, invasive, intrusive investigation against Reddys and ended up with cancelling the land and stalling the project. You cannot remove or omit this from Indian politics and industries 1. why did you removed the below edits in Brahmani Industries? It was his political rivalry Rosaiah who was backed by Sonia cancelled land allocated to brahamini steels and stalled the project. Rosaiah was handpicked by Sonia, the central dictatorship of congress, after the death of then Chief minster Rajashekar Reddy. Rosaiah's tenure short lived. see the news article https://www.indiatoday.in/elections/lok-sabha-2019/story/election-results-2019-jagan-mohan-reddy-ysrcp-andhra-pradesh-1533012-2019-05-23 you can reply in my mail :theindian.144@gmail.com" if you have opennes and crediblity in removing my edits from page Obulapuram mining and Brahmani steels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheIndian144 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC) 2. Why did you removed below edit from Santhosh Hegde? Do you think Hegde did not have known corruption in his won team?. He knows it but doesn't wanted to take action on corruption until some one in IPS rank officer revolt against him. This is proof that he is biased and targeting only specific peoples on the name of corruption. and you gangs are shielding his evils and bias towards corruption, targeting peoples opposed to Sonia gangs, the Reddys. Quote There was an allegation against Hedge that he is reluctant to take action, on corruption in his own institution. This is one example that he is biased against certain peoples. See the news article on allegation from an IPS officer in his team, in Lokayukta. https://www.indiatoday.in/india/south/story/hegde-lokayukta-money-cartel-ips-officer-madhukar-shetty-146012-2011-11-17 There were billions of tons of iron ore has been extracted from Bellary mines, by about 100 companies engaged in mining activities. But Hegde didn't wanted to find illegal mining by those companies. See the Bellary region mining activities from the list http://ibm.nic.in/writereaddata/files/07122016174057Directory_Major_2015.pdf. There were no system to verify the dignity of investigating officers 3. Why did you removed below edit from Obulapuram mining company? Do you enjoy monarch and dictatorships in public/social sites like Wikipedia?. It is evident that obalaburam mining company get intensive, intrusive , invasive scrutiny ind investigation after the brain child of Sonia Rosaih becaome chief minister. And it was evident that the CBI officer Lakshmi Narayana gone to the level of behaving like goons, during his investigation. Do you gangs wanted to protect the Gangs of foreign born Sonia at any cost. Do not force us to take harse decision against you gangs, for misguiding world and India. You cannot run a social site for you own Gang's interest. Once again, I humbly request you to reinstate the contents you removed as there is credible source provide, like any othe contents you published in the page. Do not try to fool everyone. We are not fools to read what you publish and what you propogate without propoer evidence. Quote However, it is political rivalry, favouritism led to misuse of CBI and government authorities against any particular community. In this case, it is then congress chief minister Rosaiah because of reddy brother's good standing with former's political rivalry Jagan mohan Reddy, now the chief minister of Andhra Pradhesh. It was evidenced that Reddys had good standing with India's leading steel manufacturers, for decades, nullifying all the false claims. It should be recalled that Rosaiah rose to power under the dictatorship of then central congress leadership, after death of then chief minister Mr Raja Sekhar reddy. Roasiah's tenure short lived. One such CBI officer Lakshmi Narayana, investigating the case, slapped an IAS officer during his investigation, suggesting that CBI officer was acting as goons in the street for his personnel/caste and in favoured few business mans and ploiticians who are rivalry to Reddys See below references for sources {https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/indl-goods/svs/metals-mining/jsw-reddys-deal-hinges-on-iron-ore/articleshow/6076534.cms} https://www.gulte.com/news/74987/JD-Lakshmi-Narayana-Slapped-IAS-officer-Sri-Lakshmi On each and every page you reported in wikipedie, there were thousands of news articles available in favaour or against each and every one. Can you verify the authenticity of all those things ?. what you puplsihed were not in full and deviates from real identity of the contents published there in. Needless to explain further, if are openness you must reinstate everything you removed from my edit . Otherwise you will be treated as a Gangs waging war against India , Indians and Indian systems. Just protecting vested interests on the name of social media. You cannot keep whole world in you pocket. You cannot dictate terms to everyone in the world by keeping few information among many info in the same news. Do you think India and Indians should behave like slave under other religious Sonia and her goons and gangs across wolrd. Bastard . Behave yourselves. we are not babies to obey your Grenard like attack on India, Indians, Indian system or grave yards like information in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8f8:1327:51cb:5d72:c2ce:6687:e4dc (talk) |
IPs blocked
I've range-blocked the author of the above diatribe while leaving the removal of same to you. Favonian (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking care of it, Favonian. El_C 02:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Pete Buttigieg Page Requires Autoconfirmed Users Only
Hi there. I did most of my editing in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011, so I'm a bit out of the loop perhaps, but it seems a little excessive to require autoconfirmed users only for Pete Buttigieg's page for 2 months. I've looked back at the history of that article and have seen no edits made in bad faith. Also, I noticed there was a discussion in the article's talk page about this issue, so if you could shed some light there with regard to your point of view, that would be appreciated. Best regards. Fifth Harmony Fanboy (talk) 06:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- The page was protected on November 4 until the 11th. On the 12th, it had to protected again until the 26th. On the 27th, I protected it, yet again, this is time for considerably longer. This was because a non-confirmed user added a death hoax, which I revdeleted (admins only). Hope that makes sense to you now. El_C 19:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria edit warring
El C, I am finding myself contacting you again because we would seem to have a new edit warring situation and you have always been great at resolving and finding a solution. Over at the article 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria we have an editor (Vallee01) who is engaging in edit warring by constantly inserting that the offensive is "ongoing" based on sources that are from before the offensive was said to had concluded. Not to mention he is also overlinking. Its been pointed out to him several times that the sources he is providing are from before the offensive ended but he has ignored this and is constantly pushing his own POV that the offensive is ongoing. He even inserted one source that talks about unrelated clashes in a totally different part of Syria. This fails WP:VERIFIABILITY. At this point this is a miss-representation of the cited sources. Additionally, he just made a 1RR violation which is applied to all Syria-related articles. He has been warned of the violation but he ignored the warning and instead resorted to accusing the fellow editor who warned him of using sockpuppets. This also isn't according to WP:GOODFAITH. The user has only been editing for a few months and I can understand him not understanding Wikipedia's policy thoroughly, but when the editor ignores the warnings openly, continues with WP policy violations and resorts to bad faith comments then I do not know what to do. EkoGraf (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- Update - Seems the editor has, at least partially, canceled his revert but is still showing no signs of changing his mind on the issue on the talk page of the article. EkoGraf (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, I will look into it. El_C 19:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, also, an editor who started editing Wikipedia only in the last few days (and this article in particular) made an edit here [13] which is suspiciously the same kind of edit [14] an IP editor last week was also pushing for which you yourself blocked. Based on the editing pattern and the specific kind of edit I think its the same person. EkoGraf (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- No problem. Happy to help.
Are you going to launch a Socking investigation?El_C 13:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- No problem. Happy to help.
- Thank you, also, an editor who started editing Wikipedia only in the last few days (and this article in particular) made an edit here [13] which is suspiciously the same kind of edit [14] an IP editor last week was also pushing for which you yourself blocked. Based on the editing pattern and the specific kind of edit I think its the same person. EkoGraf (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, I will look into it. El_C 19:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Edit war
Dear El C,
I have reported someone at the ANI and didn't get the result I hoped for. And you made the final edit, saying it was no violation. This is ok, I am not mad that it was no violation. But I did expect to be told where to report such edits with which I do not agree. I mean I get support at the talk page, but it gets reverted again. No source provided that I am wrong, and the main reverter declares he refuses to read my sources that are from the UN, who's info in the source is provided as a resource for lecturers. It says so in the source on the UN website. And his source also says the opposite of what the UN has about itself. Where can I report such events, receive advice and help? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- Paradise Chronicle, there are dispute resolution requests you can employ. Hopefully, one of em will help you get outside input into the dispute. Good luck. El_C 22:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Season's Greetings
- Thanks! Same to you. Best wishes, El_C 09:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
New message from DBigXray
Message added 15:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 15:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
HI El C! ~ can you protect this page for a couple of days ~ seems the IP keeps changing computers to get their non~ NPOV across ~ here is the history ~ Thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Cheers
Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry
No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well El C. MarnetteD|Talk 21:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC) |
- Thanks! Merry Christmas. Hope you have a great 2020, as well. All the best, El_C 21:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- Not a Christmas fan, but I'd like to jump on Marnette's cozy bandwagon and point out that I'm glad you've returned. You were one of the first administrators I had contact with and, then and now, I think you are a great asset to this project admin- and otherwise. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- You know ~ when I was in the Navy ~ stationed in Diego Garcia, we had different names for Santa's reindeer(s) ~ Diwali for Donner, Holi for Holly and plain old Ed (he was cool) ~ Happy Holidays everybody ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, Sluzzelin. I greatly appreciate your exceptionally kind words — they mean a lot. Happy holidays to you and yours. El_C 23:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- Flying with magic is... nice. Happy holidays, Mitch, to you and your family. Best wishes for the new year, El_C 23:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- Not a Christmas fan, but I'd like to jump on Marnette's cozy bandwagon and point out that I'm glad you've returned. You were one of the first administrators I had contact with and, then and now, I think you are a great asset to this project admin- and otherwise. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
1RR on
hi El_c, Thanks for taking care of Rslogo. Would it be acceptable if I revert this poorly sourced speculation. I have already reverted this once. Under normal circumstances I would have reverted it again in a heartbeat, but then this is on 1RR now. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 18:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Users that ignore 1RR cannot ride roughshod of everyone else. I have blocked that user and you are exempt from 1RR to revert any of their disruptive additions, including but not limited to the aforementioned speculation-entered-as-fact one. El_C 18:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarification. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 18:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Quick question on Christianity
Thanks for the admin lock, by the way. Am I correct that, once the other involved editors and I have hashed out the issue, we should post an unlock request here to unlock? Or is there another, more appropriate, location? Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- No worries. Yeah, here is fine. El_C 19:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps time for a little break
Hello, I very much appreciate all your work. We know it takes lots of time, and now is a busy time for everyone in any case. Being an admin is a pretty thankless task. Still, perhaps it would be better to take a little break if you don't have the time, rather than to make repeated wrong calls. You have now twice completely failed to even understand a discussion that you've closed. Both times you closed it with arguments that had nothing to do with the actual discussion and made it painfully clear you had not bothered to read through the discussion before closing. Again, I know you're a good admin and I do appreciate all the work you do. If you're stressed, take some days off rather than rushing through threads and making bad calls. All the best! Jeppiz (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not stressed. The discussion would be better facilitated on the article talk page. I read the discussion and closed it as I saw fit. Sorry you disagree, but your efforts would be better served by pointing out what I might have overlooked rather than personal advise or assumptions of bad faith regarding my reading comprehension, both of which are unwelcome. El_C 23:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
IP editors on a Kurdish template discussion
Hello. I'm not sure where to go to with this since it's more acute than to start an investigation, but as per usual, there's some kind of Meatpuppetry/canvassing with a Kurdish-related article that is up for discussion.[15] This is sadly common, but this time they could tilt the result which could be devastating and affect 800+ articles. Two of the three non-IP editors who voted 'delete' have been disruptive on Kurdish articles before and the IP's are mostly recent editors who came straight to the discussion. Please, take a look. --Semsurî (talk) 10:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Done. I speedily kept the template. But it serves as one of the best records as to the sheer scope of the disruption in Kurdish-related articles. At some point, it may be worthwhile to bring back my idea of General Sanctions in that area — an idea which did not so much meet opposition as it did a lack of interest (in fairness, I brought it up in a somewhat half hazard way, so that result in partially on me). El_C 16:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Io Saturnalia!
Io, Saturnalia! | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC) |
- Thanks, Ealdgyth! Much appreciated. My best wishes for a happy holiday and a great 2020 to you, as well. El_C 16:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
IP 141.76.121.211
Hi El C, while looking into some disruption created by Bengalurumaga, I noticed your block at 141.76.121.211 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). It looked to me like this was logged-out editing by this user, and based on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bengalurumaga/Archive, which I subsequently lucked upon, he's been doing this for about a year. Might I please encourage you to lengthen that block, or would you have an issue if I stretched it out? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- I was just about to indef Bengalurumaga, but you beat me to it. By all means, extend as you see fit. El_C 19:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks mate. I've re-opened an SPI. I'm going to poke around a bit more because it's possible there are other accounts out there. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Thanks again for being sharp. El_C 19:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- That's what I do! And now that I'm bragging for being sharp, I made a mistake: Bengalurumaga is the older of the sock accounts and has been active for quite some time forcing a narrative into Christian articles and breaking rules to do so. Seems ironic, especially around the "goodwill toward men" holiday... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, I think I'm following along. Still, a sock drawer within a sock drawer, as it were. El_C 02:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- That's what I do! And now that I'm bragging for being sharp, I made a mistake: Bengalurumaga is the older of the sock accounts and has been active for quite some time forcing a narrative into Christian articles and breaking rules to do so. Seems ironic, especially around the "goodwill toward men" holiday... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Thanks again for being sharp. El_C 19:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks mate. I've re-opened an SPI. I'm going to poke around a bit more because it's possible there are other accounts out there. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Season's Greetings
Season's Greetings | ||
May your Holidays and the Year that follows shine as much as this coin still does beneath the tarnish of bygone weather and long use. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC) |
- Thanks, Fowler&fowler. May your holiday season and your 2020, also, glitter and glisten brightly. Shine on! El_C 23:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Merry merry !
~~~ is wishing you a Merry Christmas!
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. |
---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 02:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, Wikaviani. Merry Christmas to you, as well, and here's wishing you a happy 2020. All the best, El_C 02:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Block evasion ?
This IP ?---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 02:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. LTA. El_C 02:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking. Already blocked by Kinu. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 02:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
CAA protest
hi, I am reporting this to you since you are watching this page and enforcing AC DS here.
The disruptive edits by Worthfulrebel is getting out of hand, Despite the discussion please see these reverts. [17] [18] [19] [20]
My request for self revert has been strongly rejected
Excessive amount of filibustering has been done one the article talk page and WP:AN3 see this thread. I proposed this but the thread was closed by then. The page watchers don't really have time to indulge in all these WP:TE and personal attacks. I request the admins to do something to bring things under control --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 13:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- There's an especial irony for reporting 1RR while at the same time as having violating it yourself! El_C 14:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- El_C Thanks for the action. Are you referring to the reverts above or to the ANEW ? --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 18:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I am referring to you reverting the user here and here. I would have issued a 24-hour block to you, as well, but since you did not yet receive an IPA DS alert, you luckily got off with a technicality. Incidentally, that's the absurdity of the alert being an absolute requirement — that a user, such as yourself, who is thoroughly familiar with ACDS (and the 1RR status of the page) can get a pass, while a relatively new user who less familiar with these (but who, indeed, refused to self-revert), suffers the full brunt of the sanctions. Anyway, please try to be more careful in the future. El_C 19:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- El_C I am sincerely grateful to you for bestowing the kindness of a template instead of a block. Perhaps the planetary alignments and the stars made it possible. I am still unable to grasp the technicality that how these individual reverts that are related to 2 different things count towards a WP:1RR violation ? Are you trying to say that someone can keep adding whatever nonsense they like and I cannot revert it even once since the article is on WP:1RR. I am asking as I obviously would like to avoid getting blocked in future, and I am sincerely contemplating if I should unwatch and entirely abandon editing such 1RR articles altogether, they seem to be too much of a headache to maintain due to 1RR.--DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 19:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- @DBigXray: I am bound to these rules much like you are, but I am also happy the stars aligned. To answer your question: just like 3RR has to do with any three reverts —they don't have to be about the same thing— 1RR is the same, but with one revert only. Technically, you've already violated 1RR on that article several times over already, but I am choosing to ignore removal of wholly unreferenced content and the like (like grossly unbalanced pov material that's virtually indistinguishable from vandalism), and instead focusing on actual editing disputes. If you're not undoing an edit, though, you're fine. Technically, I think you've probably already violated not just 1RR but even 3RR, but if no one notices or reports such violations, they go unenforced. 1RR just seems to have more of a scrutiny (and certainly is easier to count). Anyway, you can always limit yourself to adding new material (including {{cn}} templates), which is unlikely to ever constitute a revert. You can also modify the existing material, so long as you're not reversing or repeating previous edits. The essay at RV is decent in explaining what is or isn't a revert.
- El_C I am sincerely grateful to you for bestowing the kindness of a template instead of a block. Perhaps the planetary alignments and the stars made it possible. I am still unable to grasp the technicality that how these individual reverts that are related to 2 different things count towards a WP:1RR violation ? Are you trying to say that someone can keep adding whatever nonsense they like and I cannot revert it even once since the article is on WP:1RR. I am asking as I obviously would like to avoid getting blocked in future, and I am sincerely contemplating if I should unwatch and entirely abandon editing such 1RR articles altogether, they seem to be too much of a headache to maintain due to 1RR.--DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 19:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I am referring to you reverting the user here and here. I would have issued a 24-hour block to you, as well, but since you did not yet receive an IPA DS alert, you luckily got off with a technicality. Incidentally, that's the absurdity of the alert being an absolute requirement — that a user, such as yourself, who is thoroughly familiar with ACDS (and the 1RR status of the page) can get a pass, while a relatively new user who less familiar with these (but who, indeed, refused to self-revert), suffers the full brunt of the sanctions. Anyway, please try to be more careful in the future. El_C 19:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- El_C Thanks for the action. Are you referring to the reverts above or to the ANEW ? --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 18:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Regardless, I hope you choose to stick with the article, as you seem to be a well-needed force and voice for sanity there. Although I can't show favouritism, I hope you can appreciate that I am doing what I can. You just need to be extra-careful. But even if you slip, you can always seek clarifications and self-revert. In case you can't self-revert but want to, that too, is something an admin is likely to take into account (especially if they are yours truly). But with 1RR, the limit to an editing dispute between two editors is intended to be two reverts (one each), instead of six (three each), which greatly curtails the scope of edit wars (and disruption in the edit history), especially among multiple participants. Anyway, we can always revisit the necessity of 1RR for the page in, say, a couple of days (remind me). Sorry for the length of this. Hope it makes sense. El_C 21:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- The page was put under 1RR due to the edit warring where the same above editor was involved. IMHO a 3RR warning and a block would have been better instead of 1RR. 1RR comes at a cost. The cost is time of the volunteers who will then have to discuss each and every potential revert, even if they are unworthy (biased, poorly sourced, propaganda, political bickering, etc, etc) due to 1RR. 1RR makes the discussion mandatory (tedious). When the folks who want a neutral article are outnumbered by POV pushers ( ready to filibuster) undesirable content lingers on the page and the balance of the article gets shifted towards POV, (a bigger cost of 1RR). I regularly start talk page threads for discussing content worthy of a discussion, but with 1RR it is hard to keep up. I have now added a banner on my talk page offering self revert. Indeed I do appreciate the tough work you are doing in adminning that page. Your detailed reply has really helped to allay some concerns on the block, indeed I will be extra careful, but it is still easy to trip 1RR.
- Thanks a lot for the appreciation of the work I have done on this page. I would have loved working on this article but not at the cost of getting my sparkling clean block log stained. Accordingly I am unwatching and abandoning this page with no intentions to edit there any more as long as it is on 1RR. I am sure there may be valid reasons to put this article on 1RR, but until it is there, I wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole. It is a tough decision for me to make, but considering the pros and cons , I am choosing it with a heavy heart. I will return to the page only after 1RR has been lifted from there. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 11:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Clean block logs are overrated! But I do understand your reservations. I will update you if and/or when 1RR is lifted from the article. El_C 15:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Regardless, I hope you choose to stick with the article, as you seem to be a well-needed force and voice for sanity there. Although I can't show favouritism, I hope you can appreciate that I am doing what I can. You just need to be extra-careful. But even if you slip, you can always seek clarifications and self-revert. In case you can't self-revert but want to, that too, is something an admin is likely to take into account (especially if they are yours truly). But with 1RR, the limit to an editing dispute between two editors is intended to be two reverts (one each), instead of six (three each), which greatly curtails the scope of edit wars (and disruption in the edit history), especially among multiple participants. Anyway, we can always revisit the necessity of 1RR for the page in, say, a couple of days (remind me). Sorry for the length of this. Hope it makes sense. El_C 21:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Merry Merry!
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020! | |
Hello El C, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
- Thanks, Trekker. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you, as well! All the best, El_C 15:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
A photo in the external links
Hi, there is a link to a photo in Khalida Jarrar's article in the external links. I want to remove that photo but I really hate that area in Wikipedia(Palestine-Israel area) because it has many rules and I dont want to get banned because of WP:bluh bluh that I am not aware of. Is it okay to remove it? Thanks.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Done. El_C 07:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Happy Holidays!
- Thanks, Fylindfotberserk. Merry Christmas to you, as well! El_C 15:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- You are most welcome sir. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
thanks for "thanks"
Hi El C. thanks so much for "thanking" me for my restoration of that text in Syrian Civil War. I really appreciate it! however, I also need some support on the talk page, for retaining that text. could you please comment there? I really appreciate it. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 03:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- No problem. Sure, I'll have a look. El_C 03:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Re-re-revert!
That is a revert of the previous self-revert. Well beyond the 1RR limit with Pali Upadhyay? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Pali Upadhyay blocked for violating 1RR. El_C 14:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Also, if problematic editing by the user continue after the block, an article ban seems like an increasingly likely option. El_C 14:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. I will go ahead and cleanup his recent edits to the lead. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
???
Hi, I've always found you a reasonable sort, but I thought this was mean and petty: "I'm beginning to question your level of competence here. Why do you continue to comment in this section (four times already!)?" What's that bit of mindless nastiness about? I had a bit of trouble understanding the layout and process, I'm not perfect, but I'm perfectly competent. That was just nasty, not what I'd usually expect from you. Bacondrum (talk) 09:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- After the fifth time, what do you expect me to do? Wait for the sixth time? Sorry, but there is a limit to the number of times where others are forced to clean up after you when you repeatedly make the same mistake. El_C 18:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I see you may have quit over my comment (?!) — that's rather astonishing! Anyway, there is a statement at the top of the section that reads: This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I was surprised and increasingly disappointed that you failed to adhere to that, despite multiple pleas from me: please stop commenting in this section again, please do not place comments in this section please stop commenting in this section, jeez! still commenting in this section — wow. Anyway, I hope my words regarding your competence in that forum will, ultimately, have a more fleeting effect than it appears. That certainly was the intention, in any case. Regards, El_C 18:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Never saw those comments, I don't know what you are on about. Don't give yourself too much credit, just sick of acerbic bullshit from halfbacked nerds and right-wing loons in general. I've got better things to do. Have fun wasting your life here, El Ché. lol. Bacondrum (talk) 22:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- I can't help that you don't pay attention. Acerbic, indeed. If I thought it was a waste, I would not be doing it. El_C 23:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Happy Holidays
- Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
- Thanks, DBigXray. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you, as well! El_C 18:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
question re draft
hi. what do you think of this? Draft:Timeline_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War_(September–December_2019). --Sm8900 (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- At a cursory glance (only), I think it's decent, though the final paragraph is a bit less than contemporaneous, so you may wish to devote some attention to it. El_C 18:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Season's Greetings
- Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
- Thanks, Donner60. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you, as well! El_C 12:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
NPOVN thread
Hey there,
I posted this thread to NPOVN a couple weeks ago but it hasn't really gone anywhere. I see your name come up a few times in some of the old discussions, e.g. as RfC closer. As someone who I think would give an impartial view of this, if you have a minute, would you mind sharing your perspective there? If you worry that it will suck you back into something messy, I understand if you'd rather skip it. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Hey. If I closed an RfC about it, I do not recollect it having happened — but I don't think I did. To the best of my recollection, I had some interaction with participants in an administrative capacity only (attempting to curtail the edit warring). I'm sorry to say but I don't really have much of a perspective (which is to say, strong views) about this. If there was an RfC that was properly closed (not sure about that), its conclusion ought to be adhered to. If there hasn't been one, it may be prudent for someone to draft it. By all means, please feel free to keep me updated. Regards, El_C 15:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Geography
Hi El_C,
Good call on the Alliance for Brazil protection, but your rationale was – puzzling: "Arab–Israeli conflict related page"? Favonian (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Argh, drop-down menu typo! Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Corrected. El_C 17:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Prussia - keep your eye on....
User Alrightletmetellya. I believe they gamed the system to be auto-confirmed so they can edit the article. S0091 (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Done. El_C 23:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
CAA protest version
hi El_C can you be kind enough to email me the version of the CAA protest article from ( 27 December 2019 DiplomatTesterMan ) [curprev 11:47, 27 December 2019 DiplomatTesterMan talk contribs 247,117 bytes -22 reducing number of headers,] (time stamps may differ due to the time zones so please check the edit summary. ) That version is not visible to me. I understand that there were CV concerns. My intention is to rescue the sources and c/e and re-add some of the content. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 11:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
[P.S] If you just unhide this particular revision from history, for a few hours, that should be enough and better IMHO. Once I am done, I will drop you a note so that you can hide it back.
- DBigXray Actually when I was going through the text in the morning, I think the old edits of mine seemed to be ok even though they were cut. I thought it would have been removed but most of what I remembered seemed ok. Like i added the word protests to the first line in the morning today, that edit is not visible, but the word protests is still there in the first line. DTM (talk) 11:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- yes, Once I have the emailed version. I will be able to figure out what content has been removed. It is impossible right now. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 11:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- Done. El_C 16:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- yes, Once I have the emailed version. I will be able to figure out what content has been removed. It is impossible right now. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 11:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- hi ElC I saw your mail. It seems I was not clear above. I was asking the entire article of that revision number in the email. Or instead of the email, if you could just temporarily unhide this one revision. Then I could recover the removed refs. It would be too tedious to google search every ref again. hence I asked. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 16:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, unhidden. But please be swift. El_C 16:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- thanks. u can hide it nowHappy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 17:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- Copy that. El_C 17:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- thanks. u can hide it nowHappy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 17:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Process advice
Hello. Regarding this discussion, do I have it right that AE is the correct avenue if the problem continues? I don't want to spend hours putting together an AE complaint only to be told it's an improper complaint. Note that the issue is a persistent pattern of behavior on article talk pages, and it is not particularly disruptive to the articles themselves. Thanks for any guidance. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, it is the correct venue. El_C 16:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Regarding secfor
The kid is now putting secfor as special forces and air infantry Mrkoww (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- What kid? Are you sure you're talking to the right person? Please feel free to submit links. El_C 19:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Copyright Violation
The discretionary sanction applied on me for copyright violation seems unwarranted. Most of my edits are extracts from articles on ubiquitous lines such as "Protests happened (here) and (here) and by (them)", which is in the same format as used throughout the wikipedia article regardlessly. Lines which are repeated by various articles from different sources. The lines also constitute only a small portion of an entire reference. I am not aware of any laws which copyrights particular sentences. Even in such cases, most of my edits have certain words and phrase orders modified, replaced or the entire sentence reordered while conveying the same meaning. Furthermore, I'd also add that I had never been informed by any user or administrator that I may be potentially infringing on any copyrights, to the contrary, people have disputed me on edits which don't quote exact phrases from references. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- That is not accurate. You have made several copyrights violations, as listed here. That, coupled with your earlier violations of the discretionary sanctions which I have placed the article under, is something which I deemed to be too taxing for the article and its stability. That is why you have been topic banned accordingly. Again, if you wish to appeal, the AE page contain instructions on how to do so. But beyond all that, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:COPYVIO, which is a problem. El_C 20:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- Pali Upadhyay, I have personally verified the page history even the ones that are currently hidden after requesting the same from ElC. I came to the same conclusion as El C that you have violated WP:COPYVIO. Please spend some time and read that page completely. also read WP:CLOP to understand the problem we have here. Once you have read both the pages, I would request you to come back here and explain your understanding once again about what you did wrong. You are right when you said You added content like, "Protests happened (here) and (here) and by (them)", but you are expected to WP:COPYEDIT it and write it in your own words. You were not allowed to copy as it is. that is COPYVIO by definition. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 20:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Ways to appeal
hi El_C. I am not very familiar with how AC DS bans are enforced or appealed, so please clarify this for me as well. I see that this ban was put by you as an uninvolved admin and not by AC. Does he still need to appeal at AE or an appeal to you may be acceptable. I also feel that though this is unacceptable, he has been sanctioned without previous warning. Normally editors are warned and blocked if they repeat. So this appears harsh. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 20:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- The user in question lodges an appeal at AE, that is how they appeal — what is there to clarify? The awareness criteria (warning) were satisfied — I applied these myself. No further warning is necessary. At any rate, they are free to appeal. As the uninvolved admin enforcing the discretionary sanctions, I evaluated that this user is too disruptive when it comes to the topic at hand (one involving ongoing updates from news sources). Their comment above only further reaffirms that decision, I challenge. El_C 20:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- I mean, technically, I could lift the ban at any time. But their comment above certainly dissuades me from doing so at this time. That is why I insist that their appeal be to a quorum of uninvolved admins at AE. El_C 20:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarification El_C. Indeed the awareness criteria is satisfied with the DS notice. DS alert, meant the user should go figure every rule before editing. What I intended to convey above was he did not get a specific warning or notice for COPYVIO. We should assume good faith that they may have done this unknowingly, hence I said that this appeared harsh. IMHO if they show an understanding and willingness to comply the appeal should be considered. Obviously there is no sign so far to lift this. This request has to come from Pali. @Pali Kindly do as we suggested above, and respond on this talk page first. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 20:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- I am not obliged to provide the user with a separate warning regarding copyvio when assessing it as part of the disruption to an article subject to DS. El_C 20:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed, and that is why DS is a bitch, and I hate it.--Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 20:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- I am not obliged to provide the user with a separate warning regarding copyvio when assessing it as part of the disruption to an article subject to DS. El_C 20:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarification El_C. Indeed the awareness criteria is satisfied with the DS notice. DS alert, meant the user should go figure every rule before editing. What I intended to convey above was he did not get a specific warning or notice for COPYVIO. We should assume good faith that they may have done this unknowingly, hence I said that this appeared harsh. IMHO if they show an understanding and willingness to comply the appeal should be considered. Obviously there is no sign so far to lift this. This request has to come from Pali. @Pali Kindly do as we suggested above, and respond on this talk page first. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 20:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
difficult to submit such a simple statement
My theory-- eats goats. lives under a bridge.-- Deepfriedokra 21:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | ||
For profound patience in trying to communicate with user who had trouble understanding.-- Deepfriedokra 21:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC) |
- Thanks, Deepfriedokra! I greatly appreciate your kind words and recognition. It really means a lot, coming from you. El_C 21:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks
File:Happy New Year 2020 Images HD Download (5).jpg | ~ Happy Holidays ~ |
~ thanks for your help in our time of need El C! ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC) |
- Yay, I helped! El_C 10:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
United States Air Force Security Forces
Good morning El C! can you please page protect ~ [21], [22], [23] IP's ~ Thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 10:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- I helped, again! El_C 10:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
ANEW
Unfortunately the ping here likely failed, so dropping you a note about my comment. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 11:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- Copy that. El_C 11:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- I have replied to him multiple times and all he did was starting a new discussion and then repeating the same cheery-picking SYNTH editing.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Andy Ngo BRD change
El C, what does this change mean? [24]? Springee (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- It means the article is subject to 1RR only at this time. El_C 17:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- So is that more or less restrictive than what it was? So right now I understand that each editor can make only 1 revert per day. So if A makes a change, B can undo it (1RR), then C could restore it (1RR for C). But as was C would have to start a BRD and get consensus first? Springee (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Question
When someone calls another respectful editor, liar, multiple times in every reply, then admit he made a mistake without apologizing. would you allow him to get away with it?--SharabSalam (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- I do not see the need for sanctions at this time. Perhaps another admin would feel different. Whatever the consensus is among a quorum of uninvolved admins at AE will settle that question, in any case. El_C 22:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, as mentioned at AE, in light of Huldra's latest diffs, I'm rethinking that now. El_C 23:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank You
Hi. I just wanted to thank you for semi-protecting Fake Off; the blocked StealthForce has been disruptive editing certain pages since he was blocked three years ago. He's been at it again and again through dynamic IP addresses since. Johnnysama (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Happy to help. Please feel free to keep me updated if there are any recurring issues once the protection lapses. El_C 03:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Special Barnstar | |
Happy New Year, El C! You are receiving this barnstar because, according to this Wikipedia database query, you were the #2 most thanked Wikipedian of 2019, with 2088 entries in Special:Log/thanks during 2019. Congratulations, and, well, thank you for your contributions! Cheers to 2020. Mz7 (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC) |
- Wow, thanks, Mz7. I was not aware of that. I'll try not to let go to my head! Thanks again and Happy New Year to you, too. El_C 14:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Happy New Year, El C!
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
- Thanks, Fylindfotberserk. Happy New Year to you, as well! El_C 14:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Check this editor
Hi, Can you check this editor Telluride. He says consensus is not necessary and keeps editwarring.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Actually, You are editwarring. I have edited based on exact words from clear sources and you keep reverting that. You also have violated WP:3RR. Telluride (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- @SharabSalam: are you aware of the essay Don't revert due solely to "no consensus", because that is something that I, personally, subscribe to. And it seems that you are both edit warring... El_C 15:03, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- I have discussed this with him.. he came back today and started a new discussion and ignored the previous discussion. I already know I have edit warred and I don't want any trouble. I am just going to ignore this article. No experienced editor is there. This editor is clearly POV-pushing and I am almost alone there. I will just go to other areas thats if I survived the block.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
3RR has not been violated.But I will be placing the article under IRANPOL. I think you should both back away from the article itself as far this dispute is concerned, so that other editors could weigh in. Continuing to discuss the dispute on the article talk page is recommended. El_C 15:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)- I didn't look closely enough, it's quite possible you both violated 3RR. But, since the dispute is no longer ongoing, I guess you both get a free pass. Also, I decided to hide the IRANPOL for now, possibly indefinitely. El_C 22:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- I have discussed this with him.. he came back today and started a new discussion and ignored the previous discussion. I already know I have edit warred and I don't want any trouble. I am just going to ignore this article. No experienced editor is there. This editor is clearly POV-pushing and I am almost alone there. I will just go to other areas thats if I survived the block.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Template Editor
Hi El C, Hope all's good and hope you have a fantastic New Year,
Could you possibly remove my Template Editor right please as I believe I've only ever used it once in the entire year of having it,
My aim was to fix linterrors in templates but cocking something up sort of made me avoid template fixing altogether,
Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Done. Hey, Davey2010. All's good, thanks for asking. Hope you're doing well, too. Best wishes for a great new year! El_C 21:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Some issues with current Wiki Quran articles
Koreangauteng (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)