For the collapsed AN maths thread, heartfelt sympathies and a kitten. And I bet there will be at least ten silent readers who will be thankful that someone asked.
Not sure how I managed to take the dab page to RfPP: it's the article itself which has the problem. Sorry about that. PamD18:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
EI C,
I sincerely hope your holiday season goes well this year especially with what we went through last year. I'm optimistic that 2022 will be a better year for all of us: both in real life and on Wikipedia. Wishing you the best from, Interstellarity (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not even a year since this goatstar and it still rings true. In the tradition of sharing youtube videos, I thought you might appreciate this video by William Osman. He breaks through the showman facade and deeply explores the emotional impact that even completely unfounded criticism has on him, and he interviews other well-known youtubers in order to pull back the curtain and show the complex people behind the stage persona. It's a powerful display of vulnerability. From the outside, it can be hard to appreciate how damaging and demoralizing a small but consistent trickle of criticism can be. Even harder is being open about it. Whats worst is that, on Wikipedia, moments of encouragement can be few and far between. Even at your best, sometimes all we see is criticism. It can be maddening, and like William Osman and YouTube, it can drive some of our best colleagues away. I hope you're keeping well and resting this holiday, and I look forward to the new ways I can support your work in the coming year. — Wug·a·po·des21:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks Wug (again)! Yes, trying to chill during the holidays, but it's been a bit of an up and down so far, so trying harder. //Watching — will double back. But I note that the top comment (which is a great comment) is by Kurzgesagt, a channel who I fuckin' love. Them birds!El_C21:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great video, Wug. Moving and heartfelt, with much insights, and indeed, parallels. Yeah, I remember hearing about William Osman's house burning down in the Thomas Fire (thankfully, him and his wife weren't hurt) and the GoFundMe that followed, but I wasn't aware about the rest. I thought Daniel Thrasher's comment at the end was especially profound. Which is to say: perspective and a sense of proportion are key.
BTW, belated congrats on being elected to the Committee — number three, not bad (yes, it's a competition!). And seeing as I voted for you, there's zero chance of voter fraud in your case (i.e. you're in the clear as per my Stop the stttttt! initiative. El_C22:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't heard of Kurzgesagt before, but I'm excited to check them out. I've been toying with the idea of turning course materials and side projects into educational videos, so I'm doing research on the genre. I've watched a lot of youtube:Plainly Difficult who licenses his videos under CC-By-SA, and I think more freely licensed video content is something that would be useful for our projects.
And thanks for the congrats! The secret to rigging an election is to not make it a landslide It was humbling to see that kind of support. Institutions don't change quickly, but my biggest hope is that we can inspire more bottom up changes and community resilience. — Wug·a·po·des22:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, subterfuge! Of course! A lot of that going around lately, btw, so brace yourself. What do you call intelligence that aims to counter counterintelligence? Probably just Intttttt. Absolutely, bottom up or bust!
Huh. I'm surprised you haven't heard of them. They're one of the most popular science channels. Definite recommend (animated birdos get into shenanigans!). Here are a few other good science channels:
Wow, that's quite a list! I've got a lot of watching ahead of me it seems. To completely miss the joke and answer your Q on counterintelligence, you might enjoy Dark Matters: On the Surveillance of Blackness by Simone Browne. Part of the book is dedicated to looking at how surveilled populations resist and distort regimes. What I find most interesting is how she applies the concept of sousveillance to the history of counterintelligence and resistance by enslaved Africans and Black Americans (see #Sousveillance cultures). — Wug·a·po·des21:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, I'm list-drunk! And drunk-drunk. Sounds like an interesting book, I should look it up. BTW, I've never had a smart phone and have no desire to get one. I got a tinsy, tiny flip phone for emergencies and there's a built in phone in the car. And at home, I just kept my landline like a luddite. Mostly, though, I refuse to be that available. If it's pressing, there's a means of contact wherever I am, but otherwise, I look at a screen enough — I don't need an added little screen / little computer. I got shit to do. Yeah, I know, I'm insane. Sorry, what was I talking about? El_C05:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
at the RFA Q15. Probably should've written it in plain text but I used the template, and forgot I was not going to sign the post. Since it's likely at least some will default to assuming you've been pinged, this is that ping. Happy holidays! Usedtobecool☎️06:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise, to you El C, for my comments at the Power-en RfA, and the dredging up of ~trivia and weaponizing it against you. It / I was mean spirited and frankly unnecessarily rude. You do much good work here, and that should cast dark shadows over any minor quibbles...and I'm the first to appreciate a sense of humor around here. Ironically, I suspect ours are about the same; perhaps it is in its deployment we differ. Bring on the bizzare! Anyway, once again, I'm sorry for what I said, and I hope we can restore equilibrium to the universe :) Season's greetings to you and yours! ——Serial15:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Serial Number 54129. Apology accepted. Yeah, I found it hurtful, but I realize it was hard for supporters to see me basically tank that RfA, from being in the 90s percentile to below 50. But, honestly, I'd never thought they'd run after that super-weird faux weaponization of RfA (and RfAR). And at the remote chance they would, I'd thought they'd address it directly, upon their own initiative and certainly not in a wishy-washy sort of way, which ended up happening (though, I realize, strain). So I hate to quasi-grave dance and I take no glee in this (quite the opposite), but note some of the immediate responses to those bizarre outbursts (for an ANI matter that, all considered, was fairly benign in nature as I recall):
That would be a truly entertaining RFA, to be honest with you.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes I can't think that making lurid statements and threatening vexatious Arbitration requests is going to go over well at RfA.... ƒirefly ( t · c ) 15:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, that's another editor that will always get an oppose from me at an RfA. Mjroots (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants: 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in? A: Gaining second-mover advantage over El_C. Levivich harass/hound 22:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Power~enwiki, it is not clear why you think El C was wp:involved, or why he would need a consensus before they can warn or block WA Simpson if they believe that they are making personal attacks or otherwise editing disruptively. Threatening to take them to ArbCom over this to get their admin status removed is way over the top, and make your chances of becoming an admin yourself in the near future quite unlikely, as you seem to misunderstand too many policies here. Fram (talk) 09:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
"I can get you banned" is not a warning. It's a temper tantrum. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC) [RE: Power~enwiki to the ANI OP, William Allen Simpson]
Unfortunately, I don't think that resonated with the candidate, so I felt compelled to bring it up. Because, otherwise, not only would I feel personally uncomfortable with them joining the admin corps, but I also fear for the project when someone who can go from 0 to 100 seemingly on a dime has advanced permission. And I want to emphasize: this was March 2021, not eras ago. Anyway, I'm rambling at this point. Thanks again for reaching out (and for your support of The Stupid, a magical land where I am a hero). Best, El_C17:09, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I guess 4.20 (if you carry the 111!!!!) will have to do. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ But upon further thought, I think this RfAR satellite / WPO spillover thread has run its course. El_C09:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re: [1] - I think at this point no one wants to have a case except Icewhiz. As for the claim that the worry about sock puppetry is overblown, just look at GCB’s list of *confirmed* Icewhiz socks [2]. That’s 26 accounts! Even if half of them are somehow false positives it’s still a ton. And I’m pretty sure there’s quite a bit of others out there, that just haven’t been caught yet. And that doesn’t count the other Icewhiz-associated banned users (Yanniv, Miacek, KvE, Jacob Peters, that weird Paul guy, NoCal, that dude who impersonates other banned users etc) that are also busy sock puppeting in this TA. You’re not paranoid if they’re really out to get you, you know. Volunteer Marek 22:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, the withdrawals are just weird to me, at least from those likely to be named parties. There's nothing new about a number of prospective parties not wishing to be part of an arbitration case. What is, however, different are all these removals, because... why? In a practical sense, why? Say, you're named a party but don't wish to participate, the proceeding will just go ahead with you in absentia. In that instance, sure, a blank statement could be seen as a form of protest, I suppose. But say you do wish to participate, you're just left with a blank statement. I can see refining it further, but outright blanking? But I guess everyone was doing the wave. And me ever the contrarian, I added stuff rather than removed! El_C00:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think when I removed my statement that others would do the same, and I suspect different editors had different reasons for doing so. My reason was that I was accused of causing "severe detoriation of my health, loss of my job and contributed to eventual mini stroke and hospital confimment", and I realized that wasn't even the worst attack that's come during this RFAR, not by far, and I don't want to participate in it. This WP:RFAR reads just like the original WP:APL RFAR, which I strongly regret having participated in. Levivich04:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: I think someone once said participating in ArbCom proceedings always leads to regret. It’s quite true; the process is a timesink and full of conflict, more than you’d expect it to be before going through it. But I suppose that’s just anything contentious on this project, it goes round in circles and is very draining. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Levivich - just consider, even if briefly, the possibility that MMA’s statement is true. What then? I don’t know IF it’s true, but I DO very much know - believe me - that something like that COULD very well be true. So… what then? Volunteer Marek 07:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:El_C I don’t know why you have to bring completely irrelevant comments from WPO here (though I don’t care if you link the discussion) and then try to frame them in context of Wikipedia policy. The Whole point of WPO is that you can say things plainly and directly without genuflecting to the gods of hypocrisy the way you do on Wiki. Also, you don’t know the back story here so this is kinda like walking up to two strangers on a street and being like “you guys shouldn’t talk like that”. Volunteer Marek 12:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Marek, I didn't mention Wikipedia policy. I spoke about the dissonance of that outburst to the otherwise calm discourse there, noting that I didn't like it. And as for you trying to frame that WPO discussion as not just irrelevant, but completely irrelevant — I don't even know what to say to that. El_C12:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On here? You police. Maybe even one of the good ones. There? Outside your jurisdiction. The whole point of that place is that we don’t have to always be looking over our shoulders for the cops that follow us around. What’s next, you gonna get in my Facebook and make on wiki judgements and pronouncements on how I talk to my high school friends? In my discord and how I talk about minecraft? Comment on my Spotify playlist? Let people have their safe spaces.
Volunteer Marek, if you find that portion of my statement to misrepresent the record or otherwise inappropriate, you're free make your case to the Committee on that. But the WPO, where multiple veteran editors, admins and even arbitrators, openly participate is a far cry from a Fakebook post. El_C13:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It’s as if a cop knocked on some kid’s door and was like “I heard you went to Canada and got drunk. The drinking age is 21 and you’re only 19!” and the kid was like “yeah, that’s WHY I went to Canada!”
It’d also be a different matter if you posted your “observation” on my talk or something rather than on the case page where it looks like you’re trying to provide “evidence”. And yes multiple editors, admins and arbs participate there, they all know that WPO is not Wikipedia, and they can *already* see what I wrote. Volunteer Marek 13:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Marek, I am not a cop and I reject that analogy. Until the Committee tells me to stop, I'll continue to mention WPO discussions as I see fit. Just like I told GizzyCatBella at ARCA in August when she called François RobereIcewhiz 2.0: comments at WPO don't exist in a vacuum (diff). A point which, unlike yourself, she readily understood. El_C13:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you both are making incorrect assumption that everyone is reading WPO. Personally, I almost never read posts on WPO or any other websites of such nature. I think this is really a bad idea to bring any postings or conflicts from the external sites to WP space. If someone say me in WP space, "hey, there is a bad post about you (or user MVBW) right there [...]", I certainly would not like that, even if that would not be an outing. My very best wishes (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I never saw this, User:Eostrix. Wow! He is the most gifted sockpuppeteer I have ever seen in WP (the remote second was one admin who created many socks). I laughed a lot seeing how he pretended to be as sock of VM. He is a good actor and has sense of humor. I am certain he has a hand in the currently ongoing disruption. But whatever. I wish you and everyone else (including that funny guy) a happy New Year! My very best wishes (talk) 02:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) For future reference, and as someone who often mentions NPA on wiki (and finds that it's mostly a dead policy, sadly). My reading of NPA suggests that it primarily applies to English Wikipedia, and is generally not relevant to what is said on other sites, as long as comments there do not fall into a pattern of harassment and outing. Am I wrong? And if so, can you point me to English Wikipedia sanctions against editors for making non-harassing/outing comments (that can be seen as violating NPA/AGF) off-wiki? Second technical question. Is accusing someone of being a meatpuppet, in your subjective opinion, similar to, worse, or less severe than accusing that of tag-teaming? (IMHO both violate AGF). And would on-wiki accusation of tag-teaming be equal in offense to off-wiki accusation of being a meatpuppet? TIA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here23:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, as I already said above (quoting myself): I didn't mention Wikipedia policy. But I'm allowed to mention whatever I find germane to the matter at hand. Why shouldn't I be allowed to? El_C00:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Im not typically going to respond to queries about something I wrote elsewhere here, but when I wrote people I meant people because it is plural. If youd like any further clarity on what I wrote on any other website, I invite you to join said website and ask me there. But engaging in a back and forth with you on a RFAR is not in the list of things I want to do, but you are of course welcome to use your statement to say whatever you wish about anything at all. Including if you like cat. nableezy - 02:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, what would the coincidence be? I meant both you and FR citing VM saying things on WO when I said people. If I had meant one person I would have said El C or "somebody". But again, if you wish to engage with something said elsewhere you are free to become a member and join that conversation. I dont plan on engaging in what I find to be a pointless sideshow to the matter at hand at RFAR. I do think it is silly for somebody to be surprised that VM does not like FR or Levivich, I thought that to be fairly obvious. We arent required to like or even respect one another. We are just required to put aside that dislike and focus on the articles here. Not anywhere else. nableezy - 02:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is an expectation here. You can expect that on another website that people maintain that respectfulness, forced or genuine, but you may find yourself disappointed. Do you actually think FR and Levivich did not know that VM felt that way? Really? Seems odd. Our policy, here on WP, is that unless it rises to the level of defamation or violating ones privacy it is out of our control here. Regardless, that isnt even my point here. My point was if you would like clarity on something said on WPO then join WPO and ask. Or dont, but dont expect an answer if you ask here. nableezy - 02:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I just wanted to explain why I would not be engaging with your query at RFAR, or other future queries. As far as your quote of me, I think my implication that the expectation that we be respectful here does not apply to any other website that is not here was clear, but there I spelled it out. That expecting people to carry on following WP rules not on WP is an exercise in futility. nableezy - 02:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, what I said at RfAR was that it nevertheless poisons the well. Which I think is a valid position for me to advance. El_C03:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And for why I find it silly to imagine that VM did not feel that way or that Levivich or FR did not know he felt that way and that this some late-breaking development that will cause an irreparable rift, Ive only looked at one of these discussions in depth, the COIN one. Ive seen the AE and ANI reports, but never really looked at the articles or talk pages. But just from that COIN dispute it was obvious that certain parties have a dislike for one another. And Levivich certainly seemed aware that VM held that view. Should he? I dont particularly agree with the characterization, but it is absurd to think that VM speaking his mind on another website does anything at all to any relationship here. And bringing it up on RFAR is, IMO, a distraction, but again it is one you are certainly free to pursue. I was mostly just trying to explain why I wasnt going to respond on RFAR though. nableezy - 03:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Levivich constantly bringing up “teh EEML” and insinuating it’s still active (you know, “poisoning the well”) is one of those instances of lack of collegiality that you’re concerned with, far more than some comment on WPO. Volunteer Marek 04:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FOX 52, for me to possibly act on this, I'd need for you to first raise the matter on the article talk page + ping the disputants, and go from there. G'luck. El_C16:37, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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 2022. Happy editing, TheEagle107 (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ElC, and no, this isn't about either one of us. See User talk:The Page Maker II#Please do not undo my edits, where an IP user makes this request of a fairly recent user. I don't know if that is permitted or not, but in this case, the reverted edit was made by another IP in the same range. Even had registered user left a note, the IP would likely have never seen it! Since it doesn't involve me directly, I'm hesitant to stick my nose into the issue directly. BilCat (talk) 07:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The F-86 is a notorious Communist killer! What else would a "reactionary" smart alec give a Marxist? :) And while I am an American, but I'm from a part of the country where "Yank"="Yankee", and we don't like that word at all down here! (It's almost as bad as calling an Irish person a "Brit"!) And we don't like the Yankees either! BilCat (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your criticism, and for how it makes me a better Wikipedian. I agree the distinction is important, and have added the "mainland" qualifier to my paraphrase.
But I would also ask you, point blank, do you think that distinction makes the behavior acceptable?
As an analogy, I would still be upset, and push back against someone, who claimed they weren't being racist/prejudiced because they only meant to denigrate "Mexicans" not "hispanics" or "Israelis" not "Jews".
Sinophobia is still bad, even when it's only against Mainland Chinese users, if it still lumps everyone with that IP address into one bucket. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)15:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't Sinophobia, it's a political point that doesn't denigrate. Also, I'm not sure why you write Israelis in lowercase (just weird) or Jews in lowercase (often a far-right device), but I don't like it. El_C15:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Israeli" and "Jews" It was not intentional, my apologies. I often have difficulty telling if i's are capitalized in Sans Serif font, and I was unaware of the implication of not capitalizing "Jews". -- fixed.
I disagree its purely political in nature. But even if so, does that make it appropriate? In my book, it is inappropriate if I say that certain users' opinions should be discarded because they are conservative or republican. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)15:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RE 1: oh okay, no worries, then. Anyway, please use precise language for evidence moving forward so as to not place it under a cloud (or worse). Thanks again. [Original unaltered cmt] El_C15:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk ~~~~~
Whilst I found it a little frustrating at the time to be having to explain what felt like e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g to you, I am quite glad that you did actually question it like that. Some admins are quite quick to protect pages, others can be quick to deny protection, not so many will ask questions, as you do. By asking those questions, you actually made me think twice about it, and allowed me to see, that maybe, it might be best to wait and see whether it would actually be best to protect those pages. So thank you, very much. Mako001 (C) (T) (The Alternate Mako)15:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mako001, I appreciate that. It's a common occurrence, btw, for users to post protection requests whose investigations are more akin to ANI/SPI reports. RfPP is fast-paced place. I often go through tens of requests there daily, but if I had to take, like, say, 30 minutes to investigate a single request, it might mean that many other requests would be significantly delayed. Thanks again! El_C15:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, it is likely a highly derogatory reference to the fact that he seems to have nerve issues or something on his face (injury?), which makes his face appear a bit odd when you see him speaking. Have look at a video of him speaking, and you'll see what the "eye" reference is. It makes me tremble with indignation! Mako001 (C) (T) (The Alternate Mako)12:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's clearly just your personal, biased opinion. Isn't it more ethical to not disclose such thoughts in public, considering the possibility that someone could feel offended by your words, especially when you're an admin? --Dragoniez (talk)12:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dragoniez, I feel fine randomly stating what everybody else knows: the Japanese Wikipedia and its propensity toward revisionist history has been an embarrassment to the movement for too long. As far as I'm concerned, the Foundation should cut its losses and leave it to its own questionable devices. El_C12:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt if that justifies the act of randomly casting derogatory remarks on alien matters. Your comment just sounded racist to me. I don't know if I'm being fastidious, but if I were you I wouldn't leave such a comment that could bring in unwanted mess like this. I'd still say that it was unnecessary because "page semi-protected" just would've done the job. As someone who's active mainly on jawp, I found your words irritating. --Dragoniez (talk)13:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, "racist" was probably not a proper choice of word. I just wanted to say that redundant words should just go when they could possibly offend someone, and especially when necessary information can be conveyed without them. That's all I wanted to say. Thanks for your time. --Dragoniez (talk)15:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dragoniez, the manner in which the Japanese Wikipedia operates offends me. The less I'm reminded of its existence, the better. And, you'd have a leg to stand on if I had used that in a protection summary, etc., but at WP:RFPP/I, really? Have you seen its revision history? In a few days, it'll basically be lost to the ether (or would be barring this Streisand effect of a "Question").
And might I suggest you place more attention as to the reprehensible acts that seem to be routine on the Japanese Wikipedia, rather than be offended when it's called out (in passing or otherwise)? If the German Wikipedia were to engage in even 1/10th of the nefarious activities of the Japanese Wikipedia, the German gov't would shut it down. But the Japanese gov't could care less (or, more likely, tacitly supports the abusive revisionism). There's a reason it's the most reviled language Wikipedia out there. Which, especially in light of its size, is deeply concerning that it is (still) affiliated with the Wikimedia movement. El_C16:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if one mere individual like me can do anything that actually changes jawp the way you hope, but I'm going to do what I can do, as I fight vandalism on a daily basis as a rollbacker, if this is what you mean by "nefarious activities". However, I'm concerned about your (presumable) whataboutery or the "he offends me, so I can too!" logic. I apologize that jawp isn't managed the way you hope and feel sorry that this offends you, but I don't believe I personally offended you. Your comment makes it sound (to me) as though I'm not allowed to comment on your words any time when they are related to the Japanese Wikipedia. You probably don't speak ill of the German Wikipedia anywhere, but would you say the same thing as above if someone from dewp tells you that they felt offended by your spontaneous words although you didn't mean it? I'm just saying that that "semi-protection done" report could've been made without complaints about jawp, so I thought you shouldn't have included them in your report and edit summary. Is there anything wrong with NOT doing this? Sorry I wasn't going to take this matter this far, but the "he offends me, so I can too!" logic, I don't believe it's what you usually follow. --Dragoniez (talk)17:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dragoniez, I wasn't by offended any one person nor have I offended any one person (i.e. singled anyone out). The jawp language project is not a person, so that's a strange strawman to latch onto considering what I actually said. And, no, reverting vandalism, etc., is definitely not what I meant by "nefarious activities." How does that even make sense? There's plenty of vandalism at en and elsewhere. Also, I didn't ask you to do anything, though perhaps following this exchange, you will. But if you do, I'd estimate the chances of getting insta-banned from jawp as exceedingly high.
The Wikipediocracy thread titled "The Japanese Wikipedia" (whose contents were not news to many of us) covers some of the reasons as to why, in my view, the Foundation should sever all ties with the jawp language project (at least until it cleans up its act). But I don't really see that happening any time soon. Here's hoping, though. El_C17:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of problem unfortunately seems to be common on multiple smaller wikipedias, some of which seem to be completely run by a very small group of long-time editors and sysops. I don't know how we fix this. Maybe we do just need to offload them and tell them to stop using "wikipedia" in their name? —valereee (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really fault you for finding my account "weird" and from various discussions I've read I have a feeling that the reason you linked my contribs is that you suspect this isn't my first account; perhaps I'd be better off saying nothing, but I'd like to state for the record that this is indeed my first and only account and that this is in fact my 8th edit to Wikipedia ever, though I have in the past done editing on other (mostly video-game-specific) wikis. ShashakiroSH (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with that one. Is this a play on my username having "shasha" in it? If it's something else it's flown rather entirely over my head, I'm afraid. If so...then all I can say is...ha ha. ShashakiroSH (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop spreading misinformation and thoroughly do your research. Are you funded by Johnson &Johnson or Bill Gates? Look into the history of lawsuits in big Pharma specifically Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer and Bill Gates. 73.244.202.216 (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I noticed that this page received the protection requested, thank you.
I also noticed that the user making reverts without explanation Snooganssnoogans was allowed to do so since the protection. What is the process for requesting admin support for the issue?
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EaziGH (talk • contribs) 19:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@El C Sure. If I get struck somewhere only then I will ping... at the page where the issue is there. On other small matters, I will go through necessary documents and WP:TEA. Thank you again RPSkokie (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
Are you really gonna make me go through all the 2020 cases too [8]? Are you willing to be swayed by whatever I find (honestly I have only a very vague idea). Volunteer Marek 06:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
VM, if you are bothered by a large quantity of data, you can take a random sample, say three months, calculate your statistic and then multiply by 4. Here are three random months: Feb, Jun, Dec. (Google has a random number feature.) I’m not asking you do to anything either. This response is merely informative. JehochmanTalk07:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman, no, that won't work with a small sample size. If you have N=173 say, and only 3 of those observations are "successes" then your confidence interval will be complete garbage (this can be easily seen by the fact that with those three months you'd get precisely ZERO Poland related requests, and since four*zero is still zero, you would conclude that no one's ever filed a Poland related WP:AE request). You could do a little bit better by using the Wilson score rather than the normal approximation to the Bernoulli distribution (this article is a satisfactory introduction to the issue and I recommend you read it) but with such low numbers (3/170) even that will not help. Volunteer Marek 08:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Marek, you have the habit of just posting links without additional comment on my talk page. I'm letting you know that I don't like it and I wish you wouldn't do that. If you can't be bothered to give even the briefest of summaries, maybe the arbitration request would be a better venue. In any case, your own figures show: 2020 APL = 10/15; 2021 APL = 3/15. El_C08:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I wrote the summary in the second link. Here is what I wrote:
here's the graph for the number of WP:AE request in 2020 by topic area [24]. In 2020 there were indeed a couple more cases in this topic area. 7 rather than 3. Still that was 7 out of 148 (4.7%). Of these 7, 1 was a topic ban appeal, 2 were filed by User:Francois Robere, 1 was filed by Mymoloboaccount against account that was later blocked for sock puppetry [25], 2 closed with no action (one very minor) and 1, against me, closed with no action and suggestion that the filer be check-user'd.
I don't know what 3/15 and 10/15 mean. The actual number for 2020 is 7. Out of 148.
For 2021 the actual number is 3. Out of 186.
Are you putting the "Poland" ones together with the "EE but not Poland" category? The "EE but not Poland" are pretty much all about Russia-Ukraine, and I think one about Belarus-Lithuania. None of them involve anyone involved in this request for a case in any capacity. Volunteer Marek 08:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
VM, RE: 3/15 vs 10/15. Counting, this is how APL ranks in the graphs you've provided (compared to the other topic areas listed by rank). El_C08:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Still confused. The "rank" for Poland-related in 2020 is 6th (tied with R&I) out of 15. The rank for Poland-related in 2021 is 13th (looks like 14th but it's tied with Gamergate). But man, did I misspell "politics" really badly. Yikes. Anyway. Falling down in the rankings is a good thing and an improvement, no? That was the whole point. Also, this is a very skewed distribution, which is why it's better to look at share of all cases. The three "big" areas - Israel/Palestine, India/Pakistan, and American Politics - account for 60% of all requests (in both years) and that's what keeps you guys busy. I do wonder if going farther back will also show these 3 areas with that big of a chunk. Volunteer Marek 08:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean um...? I'm counting from least to most. That's how the graphs are structured (i.e. ranked by topic area). I don't understand why you're making it so convoluted. Anyway, is it a good thing? Or does it reveal that editors have found that launching APL requests at AE just isn't worth it? El_C09:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Well, as long as you're clear on whether it's "leastest" or "mostest" I guess either way is fine. And yes, I think it's a good thing. Is it because "editors have found that launching APL requests at AE just isn't worth it"? No. Because if that were the case you'd see the editors who claim they have been "driven away" filing requests in 2020 but not in 2021. But this isn't what you see there. The cases in 2020 were mostly filed by FR against GCB, but then they got IBAN'd so those stopped. Then another two were filed by Mymoloboaccount. And another one by an account that you recommended get check users. FR/GCB IBAN + 500/30 explains pretty much the whole drop in # of requests. That's it.
Aside from FR not being able to file requests on Gizzy due to IBAN, who do you think is an editor that has found it "just isn't worth it"? I'm not seeing any potential candidates here.
VM, sorry, but it feels like you're all over the place. I'm having a hard time following these additional questions and your seemingly shifting analyses. So maybe it'd be best to leave the matter to the arbitration page at this point. It's morning here now btw. And... it looks like I ran out of coffee, so it's sure to be a good one! El_C09:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let me be straight forward - WHO are the editors that you think "found that launching APL requests at AE just isn't worth it"? Specifically? Like, I'd really like to know who exactly was it that got discouraged with WP:AE (apparently because you guys do such a bad job or something - I disagree, at least post 2019). Because... it very much looks like the drop in requests 2019-2021 at WP:AE is simply due to 1) FR getting IBAN'd with GCB so he can't file more AE requests against her and 2) 500/30 kicking in so non-autoconfirmed accounts can't file spurious requests.
Thank you, and the tower seemed not dangerous. Snow was today just as pictured, imagine. - I decided to try the following routine: on Saturdays, I upgrade a psalm, and if nothing special is needed for some context, I go from the beginning, which is Psalm 3 today, and 4 next week. Today's at St. Martin was Psalm 29, the last one in 2021 ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mountains! I quote Psalm 121 today ;) - On yesterday's hike to moutains, there were 7 other people, in open air. - Today: Psalm 4, and if you still don't want to add to the article directly, you could overwrite 3 on the QAI talk which I took with thanks. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what we'll get for Psalm 5? - I uploaded images but stopped at 22 January - click on songs. 30 January means 10 years of Precious. It's also the birthday of a friend, - I'm so happy I mentioned his DYK on his 90th birthday when he was still alive. I have a great singer on DYK whom I heard, Elena Guseva, and wait for a Recent death appearance of Georg Christoph Biller whom I saw in action. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think The Gambler is my Favourite Dostoevsky novel (I know, I'm ditzy). There's actually three Hebrew translations for it. I have the oldest one (1969 print) by Wolfowski, though I wouldn't mind getting the latest one by Nili Mirski (de), who is one of my all-time favourite translators. RIP Nili Mirski (2018). El_C14:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello El C I hope you're doing well. Could you please look into the Draft:Dhadkan Zindaggi Kii. Am I allowed to move it in mainspace, so the article get exposure (page views) and other hindi editors can offer their help. And then may be any new page reviewers the article. Thanks, will wait for your response. --C1K98V(💬✒️📂)16:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)C1K98V, I am one of the many AfC reviewers. At the present state, it may not pass the WP:NFILM guidelines, and the article may be sent to AfD for a deletion discussion or get bumped back into Draftspace, which defeats the purpose of getting exposure. – robertsky (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: I agree, what afc said. But you should also agree their are many articles which doesn't have that much exposure in the media but they are live in the mainspace. Robertsky, The AFC reviewer should not evaluate on Film criteria, it is not a film, so it should fail, WP:NFILM. It's a finite television series, with 65 episode. It is a spin-off of 2002 Dhadkan (TV series) of the same channel. If finite television series are evaluated based on film criteria, then I'm sorry. What I meant of exposure is, if the draft is moved to mainspace then all the editor who has been supporting Indian television related articles will be aware of this on-going series. They may offer their help, as it's is now restricted due to page views, or due to "Draft". If the article is live, may be the article get's attention from IP editor as well. I'm okay with AFD, PROD. Whenever a article get listed their, then discussion happen, due to exposure editor tries changes to save it. But just to save the time of AfD or PROD, it should be in draft, okay then. Thank you for the valuable suggestions. Stay safe and Happy New Year to both of you --C1K98V(💬✒️📂)02:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
C1K98V, even if it is evaluated on the broader WP:GNG, I may still not accept the article despite the number of references in the article. Most of the articles are interviews of the actors involved in the production, potentially crossing into primary sources. The sources also do not talk about the series, but the actors' acting experiences. What is needed are sources about the notability of the series itself, and that's not there. This is crystalised in WP:NFILM, for unreleased films: production details; for recently released films: reception to the film, usually in form of published articles by nationally recognised critics; for historical works: rereleases or fresher (>5 years from initial broadcast) articles about the film. For this draft, it was written after the show was aired, therefore is being evaluated as recently released films. There was a recent proposal to make Wikipedia:Notability (television) a subject notability guideline, but failed. Until the essay is furtther worked on and accepted as a guideline, the next best set of guidelines that has some specificity on the general notability guidelines that we can give people as advice on it is NFILM.
For a well-received (or notorious) television series, I am sure it should have reviews from reliable critics/sources. That's what this article is lacking. There is even an empty section titled 'Reception' in the draft.
As for the exposure, navigating to the Dhadkan Zindaggi Kii article in the mainspace, it shows a huge red banner right at the top indicating that there is a draft in the draftspace and linked as well. If there are any interested/driven editors, be it registered or IP editors, they know where to go to edit. As for their are many articles which doesn't have that much exposure in the media but they are live in the mainspace, see WP:WHATABOUTX. – robertsky (talk) 10:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Renewed behavior you had already warned against in a previous case
Hi El C, I was previously involved in an ANI case that you were heavily involved with in late July of last year. It involved the user tgeorgescu (I know I have to ping them if it was a current ANI case, I didn't see anything stating that I have to do the same on a Talk Page discussion regarding them, so I am currently not in order to avoid having this devolve into what their previous interactions with me did. If that is incorrect and I do need to ping them here, just let me know.) and how they responded to me personally regarding changes on the article for Prosperity Theology. You warned them for their misuse of warning templates on my talk page as well as their personal attacks towards me, in both the talk section as well as in the ANI. After the ANI ended, that talk section was closed by another user, and we were told to open up a new one to discuss the proposed changes. I did [so], and nobody added anything new. So, after a month of nothing being brought up there, I made the proposed changes on August 31.
When I came back yesterday, I discovered that Tgeorgescu had returned in November to revert the changes, falsely claiming that nobody agreed with me that the sentences in question had issues. He also made statements on November 2 and December 3 in the second linked talk section claiming that nobody agreed with me, that your opinion in the case was incorrect, and that I didn't understand how academics work. This included behavior that he was previously warned for, so I simply undid his revision of my changes in August, and noted that he was previously warned for this behavior, and that as such his revision was vandalism. I awoke today to find that he had undone that reversion, [posted personal attacks towards me] on the talk section that were in the same vein of argument he had already been told to stop, and hit my [personal talk page] with multiple new warning notices.
I was advised in that ANI to not fight fire with fire, so I have not personally responded to Tgeorgescu doing any of these things to me. Instead, I figured it might be helpful to bring this to your attention, since you were already previously involved in the case and it directly concerns things you had already warned Tgeorgescu for. If I need to open a new ANI for this, let me know, I assumed since it was directly about stuff that had been discussed in the previous one and the statements you and other admins made there, I could just contact one of those admins instead. MojaveSummit (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The gist: no other editor agrees with you that my edit is POV. If you disagree, name that editor and present the evidence for your claims (i.e. diffs). tgeorgescu (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MojaveSummit, yeah, you should probably take it to ANI. I don't really remember the incident and your report above is too lengthy, and you fail to use WP:DIFFs, brief quotes and summaries. It's too much material for me to review that way. Personally, I'd need to have the evidence spoon-fed to me, cogently, concisely and intelligibly. Good luck. El_C19:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
El C Can you at least do something about the fact that tgeorgescu hit me with multiple warnings again as a form of harassment (which he was already warned for doing) and made new personal attacks (while trying to misuse threats of disciplinary action) that are in the exact same vein he was already told by multiple admins to stop, such as "If you do have any evidence, speak now or forever hold your peace. If you don't have evidence, just hold your peace.
I'm a newbie, so don't ask me to produce evidence for my claims worked till 31 December 2021. Now, you have to produce evidence for your claims, or next step is WP:ANI for lacking WP:CIR.
My advice for you is working upon your reading with comprehension ability, since it seems to be subpar the way you interpret the sources you have provided till now. Really, you're a champ at misreading sources." MojaveSummit (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, let me state the facts: you have misread the sources, and I'm the one guilty for your misreading? I call a spade a spade, I call a misreading a misreading. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MojaveSummit, I don't know what you want me to do. I'm not gonna sanction over some warnings or for an acerbic tone. I may not like seeing them, but I rarely if ever tone police. I'm just not into that. It really has to be egregious for me to act, especially when I'm relatively pressed for time, which I am presently. Again, a public venue might work better for you in this instance. El_C19:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
El CSimple, I want you to prevent them from doing to me any further what you already warned them for doing. I'd really prefer to not have to go through another lengthy ANI with tgeorgescu and put up with all his abuse and harassment again. It's a straightforward case: is tgeorgescu doing the same things to me and that article that he was already warned by you and other admins to stop? Yes, he clearly is. MojaveSummit (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MojaveSummit, well, it isn't straight forward to me. Again, too much time has passed so I no longer have a firm recollection of the incident. You haven't shown any actual WP:HARASSMENT. That I would act on and would prioritize, but it would need to be proven as such (again, the trifecta: diffs/quotes/summaries). El_C19:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
El C I'm not very good with diffs yet, but if you can tell me exactly what it is in simple terms that you want me to provide, I'll do that. For example, if you want exact quotes from the ANI and then show what tgeorgescu has done since as evidence of harassment that he was warned against, I can do that here. MojaveSummit (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They equate criticism and demanding evidence for their claims with WP:HARASSMENT. One warning was for deleting text (levels 1 and 2 don't apply, since they ask them to give a reason for deletion, which they did). The other warning was for calling my edits vandalistic revision by this user. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MojaveSummit, again, the documentation is available at WP:DIFF, so please acquaint yourself with it. And again again, any claim of harassment stemming from the latest incident would require proof. El_C19:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
El_C Thank you for the input on the sockpuppet accusation. I awoke to find both the accusation and that you had already helped resolve it. I do consider that filing to be harassment towards me, so thank you for pointing that out and quickly getting that resolved. MojaveSummit (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have stuck in an argument on the Talk:Tweety page for quite a while now, with IP editors who think Jeff Bergman is still voicing Daffy Duck and Tweety (alternating with Eric Bauza and Bob Bergen) even though he hasn’t reportedly done so since 2018, before Bauza took over both roles and Bergen took the latter role once again in Space Jam: A New Legacy, which came out months ago. And not only do these editors seem too sure of themselves, but they insult me for arguing back. I hope you can straighten this out. Thank you. Brian K. Tyler (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't listen to Brian K. Tyler he has not responding my question or answer about bringing back present back for Tweety and Daffy Duck. That's why my Sources and researched are telling me that Jeff Bergman is still voicing Tweety and Daffy Duck alternating with Bob Bergen and Eric Bauza for productions and projects it was not before or after Looney Tunes Cartoons and Space Jam a New legacy premiered, it was not after the year 2018 or since 2018, it was not the attraction Warner Bros. WORLD Abu Dhabi of 2018, I am saying That Jeff Bergman is one of official and current voice of Tweety and Daffy Duck alternating with Bob Bergen and Eric Bauza for productions and projects. I think we should stick with three main current voice actors for Tweety Jeff Bergman Bob Bergen and Eric Bauza for productions and projects So that alternating between three voice actors should be enough and Two Main current voice actors for Daffy Duck Jeff Bergman and Eric Bauza for productions and projects So that alternating between Two Voice Actors should be enough. El C I want you and EvergreenFir to Blocked Brian K. Tyler from Wikipedia for being a complete liar and a error. El C and EvergreenFir I want you to revert back to present for Tweety and Daffy Duck. 161 .97.247.18 and myself are just trying to help you to understand to this problem with Brian K. Tyler is insulting us for not responding my question or answer about bringing back present back for Tweety and Daffy Duck. I hope you can fix this problem and straighten this out Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.182.251.223 (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@El C:, as suggested by @PaleoNeonate:, I am discussing the issue at your talk page.
@Valereee: I am no longer blocked, so you would be no longer proxying for a blocked user.
Tell me that I'm wrong about the misreadings and I'll drop the stick.
Tell me that I'm wrong that they have a WP:CONSENSUS of a single user (no one but themself) and I'll bury the hatchet.
Past July, the issue was all about Mark Skousen. Now, in January, it is no longer about him. Why is that?
It is very easy to sabotage an article when only one experienced Wikipedian cares about it. If I will remain alone, I'm very easy to be defeated.
My opponent doesn't want to talk to me, but they will surely talk to GenoV84 or to you.
@El C: at any time I tell a lie, or make an unsubstantiated claim, you may tell me This is bullshit! That spares much time and drama. Much, much simpler than the drama boards. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replied at the SPI. Please respond there and there only. I do not want to split the discussion at this time. But the short of it is, yes, this is bullshit. El_C13:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The backstory is that I saw them when they first started editing and saw they were really prolific in agriculture topics and overall a net positive to the point I nominated them for Editor of the Week. In short, someone I want to see do well here. When they got into a few tougher subjects like secondary science sources, MEDRS, etc. I tried to mentor them a little bit] in those topics. They have some things they disagreed with, some community norms, others just individual editor disputes, but I've been seeing much more a tone lately from them like in that ANI like this directed at me. I can only think of one or two other times I've seen an editor jump that quickly from friendly to combative.
It seems like they're lashing out more at people that they have minor content disputes with, and I'm frankly at a loss to how they're reacting to so many of our calm and pretty easy to work with editors. I don't want to see them go down the route of someday being blocked for not being able to collaborate, so I was wondering if you'd be able to give them a little advice from the admin perspective here or elsewhere? Thanks. KoA (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, hope you're doing well. I had a question about a recent Move closure, please see Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_ceasefire_agreement#Merging Zangezur Corridor into Aftermath of the agreement. The closer, Brandmeister, clearly has a preference to one of the options. They opposed the vote and called other side comments "ridiculous". Do you think it was appropriate for them to close that merger as an involved party and with clear preference to one side? Also, I believe the Support side had the stronger case even tho the votes were a tie, but what do I know, I don't get anything recently on Wikipedia.
... but at least I know how to add a link to Wikidata.
Sorry, couldn't help but snoop into your hewiki contribs. For what it's worth, Wikipedia:Wikidata § New articles does a pretty good job explaining how to add a link for a new article. Or just ping me. Wikidata may have desysopped me (you see, there they have a real inactivity policy that you can't get around with an annual post to BN—ducks for cover), but I do still know which buttons to press.
Hi again El C, hope you're well. I wanted to comment and elaborate on your right to silence remark. I didn't want to do it in the article's talk page, I think it's irrelevant there, and apologies if this may seem long, I just have some links taking too much space.
Where do I start... The amount of sheer unexplained POV comments, actions, edits, etc. I had to deal with in AA this week is frankly unbelievable. You say "right to silence", fine. I don't know if you know this, but the closer was (is?) actually Grandmaster's long time colleague from ru-wiki, and they along with 24 other Azerbaijani editors have been blocked for large scale off-wiki meatpuppetry collaboration, see ru-wiki ArbCom case of 2010, Grandmaster / Brandmeister.
All of these "coincidences", Grandmaster choosing to stay silent while his compatriot and past (maybe present?) meat-colleague inappropriately closes this merger, then he momentarily appears, "suggesting an RfC" when the inappropriate closure was overturned. This is just extremely shady imo. Why do I think that? It's not just because of today. We had a discussion in List of Mosques in Armenia article. I think the third opinion present in that discussion would do a better job of explaining its contents, courtesy pinging LouisAragon. Long story short, after relatively short debate in these couple of days and Grandmaster's undue quote and clear POV (more, "+ref" btw) being removed from the article per majority sources, it being clearly UNDUE, and per talk consensus, an editor who hasn't touched that article in like... ever, made two edits just today. Can you guess who it was? Do you think these are just honest coincidences, someone "staying silent" because they have the "right"? To be honest, I would agree with you most of the time, but this isn't the case imo. This is AA, and unfortunately, it leaves much to be desired. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ZaniGiovanni, this is too much for me to digest right now. I feel like you're asking too much of me at this point. I don't have the time to review reports of that nature atm. And I don't want my talk page to be used as a repository for links. El_C23:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is apparently an ANI case concerning involved users, unrelated to the closure. I may comment there. But if I'm being honest, I had too much of AA at this point. Just wanted to provide some context. Take care, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if this seems more like an article than a talk page discussion. Skip to the Etymology of "nonbinary" per Merriam-Webster definition C section if the background is too abstruse for your taste. Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk)20:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you recently misconstrued an instance in which I used the word, "nonbinary." In that instance, I used the word in the context of its generic sense of a "nonbinary grammatical number" within a lexicographical idiolect, not the sociolinguistic idiolect (i.e., re gender identity) with which you might be more familiar. For the moment, please put aside that sociolinguistic sense of “non-binary” as it applies to discussions of gender. Lexicographically speaking, “nonbinary” primarily means “not two.” Per Merriam-Webster’s definition of nonbinary:
Definition of nonbinarya : not restricted to two things or parts
// nonbinary voting
b : of, relating to, or being a system of numbers that does not use 2 as its base
// nonbinary math
c : relating to or being a person who identifies with or expresses a gender identity that is neither entirely male nor entirely female
// … an effort to create more equality for nonbinary and transgender students across campus.
— Phoebe Roe
Accordingly, excluding cardinal numbers (e.g., 0, 1, 2, 3, etc.), the English language has exactly three nonbinarydefinitesingular pronouns: “it,” “that,” and “this”. We typically use those pronouns to refer to inanimate or nonhuman referents, but we regularly use them to refer to humans in instances such as these:
(On the phone) A: Who is this? B: It’s Kent.
(Pointing at a photo image) A: Who is this? B: It’s my math teacher.
(Upon someone’s approach) A: Who is that? B: It’s my boss.
With that in mind, please construe the following in the lexicographical context I intended, and follow the links to help avoid misinterpretation: “If currently there's a nonbinarysingularthird-personpronoun in the English language (i.e. besides "it"), the word hasn't yet made its way to me.”
From sheer neglect, I failed to phrase it as, “If currently there's a nonbinary singular third-person definite pronoun in the English language (i.e. besides "it"), the word hasn't yet made its way to me.” Moreover, if I had properly included "this" and "that" in my original post, perhaps the linguistic context would have been clearer.
My sole intent then, reflective of my linguistic interest exclusive of gender issues and solely that of grammatical number, absolutely did NOT intend the following interpretation: “If currently there's a nonbinarysingularthird-personpronoun in the English language (i.e. besides "it"), the word hasn't yet made its way to me.” The self-effacement to which I referred in the ANI discussion was simply a litotes, since it should be fairly obvious that no such word exists, and anyone who knows the extent of my linguistic rigors would know I would have discovered any such protologism immediately if there were one.
I'm fully aware that "nonbinary" is a polysemiclexical item, but I hadn't been aware (i.e., until you pointed out your concerns on the ANI page, as afterward echoed by User:Cullen328) that anyone might confuse the nonbinary grammatical number sense I intended from the non-binary gender interpretation that you applied. I've subsequently learned that Wikipedia makes a clear distinction between the spellings of "nonbinary" and "non-binary" by which "nonbinary," as a closed compound (i.e., without a hyphen) is excluded from the internal search engine while "non-binary," as a hyphenated compound (i.e., with a hyphen), automatically directs to the Non-binary gender article. Of course, editors spell stuff however they want on a talk page.
For what it's worth, using "nonbinary" in the sense of "nonbinary grammatical number" is fairly recent linguistic parlance. It's only used colloquially since most people tend to know what "non-" and "binary" mean. Otherwise, linguistic idiolect uses "epicene." In hindsight, perhaps I should have said, "If currently there's an epicene singular third-person pronoun in the English language (i.e. besides "it"), the word hasn't yet made its way to me." No one would have understood it on its face, but no one would have misconstrued it as being somehow disrespectful.
Similarly, this item was not intended to be be disrespectful, nor did anyone else but you (as far as I know) construe it to be disrespectful: "However, if you, Newimmpartial, represent more than one third-person editor, please let me know and I'll factor that into the equation when referring to you in a mutually agreeable way. Deal?" In fact, there are cases in which (a) numerous editors use a single login ID, and (b) an extant user assumes the login ID of a deceased spouse, partner, friend, etc. and prefers "they" not in the Singular they sense but in a plural sense. I won't bore you with the details of how linguists (incl. those who specialize in semantics, semiotics, syntax, lexicography, taxonomy, and sociolinguistics) spar over the concept. It suffices that the sociolinguists carry the day in colloquial usage, and those who specialize in morphology merely chronical its evolution. My interest is purely grammatical. Students ask, "Is there a singular 'some'? A a singular 'are'?" If you don't know how students tend to be, trust me: you're better off that way.
Etymology of "nonbinary" per Merriam-Webster definition C
Merriam–Webster always indicates morphology by indicating the earliest historical sense of a word first, and later senses in descending order. Accordingly, the dictionary’s primary sense of “nonbinary” was first attested in 1863. I know from other sources that the sociolinguistic sense of “nonbinary,” as it relates to gender, occurred in the milieu of psychosociology in the early 20th century. Determining exactly in what year that sense of word was coined, and by whom, is part of my lexicological interest, but merely as trivia.
I don’t otherwise have an abiding sociolinguistic interest in non-binary gender. My linguistic interest lies in the semantics and syntax of singular, binary epicene, and multiplicative lexical items as co-referenced with singular, binary epicene, multiplicative, mass, and collective referents.
My question for you: Do you know precisely the year in which "nonbinary" was first used in the sense discussed in the non-binary gender article? There's nothing that turns up in my lexicographical database nor in the numerous Google search engines re etymology other than Merriam-Webster's attestation of sense A. Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk)20:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kent Dominic, if you want me to review something, I'd expect you to condense and summarize it better. Your multi-section notes are way too long. As it happens, English is my 2nd language, which I learned intuitively rather than through the rules of English grammar, not to mention linguistics or philology, and so on. So much of the above is beyond me.
Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so you're expected to conduct yourself respectfully with other contributors, as you would in any other professional environment. Part of that revolves around knowing when to be concise and when to elborate. Dumping thousands of words all at once by way of an 'explanation' isn't respectful, in my view, certainly for a volunteer project.
Nor, for that matter, do I think that it is respectful to construct lengthy faux-dialogues with your content opponent, whom half way through you start calling Ultra-impartial for some reason [WTF?] instead of Newimpartial. In short, I think you misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. Again, the expectation is for you to do better on this front, notwithstanding whatever your style or background might be. Thanks and good luck. El_C22:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Out of respect for other editors' requests, I always condense when asked. Otherwise, I don't expect anyone to read, much less reply, to my sometimes-lengthy posts. If you missed it, my first post to "Sorry, not sorry" was brief. Others' subsequent contributions surpassed mine. And the top of this thread suggests skipping down to this section for expediency's sake.
Re the Ultra-impartial dialogue, anyone who had read the clearly stated intro should have no questions about its Socratic premise.
No, I do not know the answer to that. I am not too familiar with that page. Anyway, Socratic method or not, please do not give your content opponents nicknames that could be viewed as demeaning. That kind of conduct isn't allowed and is subject to sanctions, if repeated. Beyond that, I don't understand why you go on to such incredible lengths, seemingly to sidestep the modern usage of singular they when addressing your fellow contributors. Honestly, figuring that out doesn't really interest me all that much. Sorry, I'm busy, so I gotta ration my time wisely. Nevertheless, I expect you to make a serious effort to improve. Thanks again. El_C23:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the "nonbinary" etymology reply. Re nicknames: There were none on my talk page. The disclaimer said "fictionalized dialogue" so no one (in case of copying & pasting) might attribute any statements to a real editor. My aversion to singular they is based on grammatical number agreement. Using an agreed upon epicene alternative is easy for someone who knows linguistics well. I do it habitually and no one complains. In fact, I shun terms like "fellow contributors", which misgenders the majority of us. I don't criticize anyone who uses such terms even when WP colleagues seems apropos as an epicene option. I'm not urging you to improve; it's just not my style to genderize in any case: personal or otherwise. Indeed, I'm stricter than most ppl re such linguistic observations. --Kent Dominic·(talk)01:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kent Dominic, please don't play games, rhetorical or otherwise. I'm not interested. Treat others with respect without posturing. Now, I've warned you about this (twice), which ought to be the end of it. El_C01:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking that it may have been a NOTHERE user that you had seen before, considering that their user name includes two "El C"s in it, and their first edit was to the teahouse proposals, which isn't exactly . If you don't recognise them, then never mind, they're probably just a SPA, though (hopefully) harmless. Mako001 (C) (T) 22:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I dunno, I'm thinking just sit back and see what happens next, it might be even funnier than one of your jokes, though that would be hard to beat. (I'm sure the C stands for 'Comedian' sometimes) Mako001 (C) (T) 22:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Grr, flattery will get you... But, indeed, good comedy potential stock. I think the most amusing possibility is that it's just random, though how would you even verify that? Anyway, thanks again for bringing it to my attención. El_C22:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
re our ANI. Can't keep explaining & repeat the obvious there.
I reject each and every reproach you have thrown at me in this thread. It is incompetent to lump edits together then say "you both did it", to repeat injected BF slurs without base or withdrawal, to not be specific, to not reply to well-diffed pointed out wrongs in your reasoning, to not even read my objections let alone reply to them, to contradict explicit WP:-pages, then all this "concluding" into threats eh "warnings" of going-rogue actions. Enough. You have not based or clarified a single issue or action you perceived, nor did you contribute anything to resolve the dispute. Instead, you require I reply and clarify time and time again the exact situation to fight off other person's sloppyness at my expense. -DePiep (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DePiep, I must ask you to dial down the hostility. I am vaguely aware that editors have had perpetual disputes about the formatting of the Periodic table. This leads to circular debates and needless animosity. I'm going to look into this. Please try to shorten your comments, and remember that despite your high edit count, other editors' opinions count just as much as yours. Don't overwhelm them with number or size of your comments, please. JehochmanTalk18:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DePiep, I do not require you reply to anything. I require that you don't disrupt that RfC anymore, which, if you do again, I will block you for. Clear enough? El_C19:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand what you're on about at ANI. All I wanted was someone else to help out at the article, which feels strangely ignored! It's not a RFC issue, it's neither an ONUS issue. What is wrong with asking for a bit of oversight on a topic from a non-partisan. It seems to be that multiple people have strangely and completely missed what I was writing about one end of a stick and everyone else sees the other end from the way I look at these issues! :/ Govvy (talk) 15:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm on about is you heeding the quite clear (I would challenge) warning I've issued you. Yes, it is a WP:DRR issue (at this point). Yes, it is an WP:ONUS issue, also. It helps to hear other people if you, yourself, want to be heard. That'd be the reciprocal and respectful thing to do. El_C16:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.
The topics proposed for revocation are:
Senkaku islands
Waldorf education
Ancient Egyptian race controversy
Scientology
Landmark worldwide
The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:
India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
Armenia/Azerbaijan
Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.
I contacted Noorullah21 over this and they state they have no knowledge of this editor. So if you are feeling bored, restless, or depressed from watching the Chiefs game(if you are even watching it), you are more than welcome to check into this. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, hope this message finds you well. If you remember, the user GhostInTheMachineremoved 'massacres' from the short desc of Turkish War of Independence without good reason, discussing or having consensus, while there was an ongoing discussion. They were later tbanned from the article. Massacres and ethnic cleansing that happened during that war have by far the most cited sources in the article, and were originally included in the short desc being the stable version.
Well, since their topic ban, GhostInTheMachin started 2 discussions in the article [17], [18], both regarding the short desc. Both times I informed them that they're topic banned, but to no avail. They just voted in this proposal from December [19], again regarding short desc. I just don't understand what's going on in AA and why long time users like this act so irrational?
Btw the current short desc isn't even long, and I don't see the reason for that proposal, it isn't a proper RfC neither. It's just a dead proposal from December that a couple editors picked up on, one of which being tbanned. Seems like this "oh it's just too long" talk is just a reason to remove 'massacres' from short desc, like before. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know the difference, I thought it was a tban from the article. Does it mean users can create talk discussions or vote in the article? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A WP:TBAN is a total prohibition from engaging a certain topic (or article, WP:ABAN), whereas a p-block just restricts one from whatever page or pages listed in the block. El_C18:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I noticed you protected Talk:Among Us with this "edit summary" which linked to a diff at ANI. Could you possibly explain a bit more what this has to do with protecting the talk page? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654514:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mind resetting the previous semipritection on Freedom Convoy 2022? I don't know what set off a request for ECP here, I've been following since the article was created a few days ago, and there has been very little disruption especially considering the topic. There have been some IP "letters to the editor" posted to the talk page (and removed from it) but the article itself has been mostly fine. ECP here is just going to make the talk page flooded with edit requests that editors should just be able to do themselves. Cheers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was set off at RfPP (see also AEL diff) due to disruption from multiple confirmed accounts. I'm inclined to give it a bit more time, tbh, though I did envision downgrading back to semi soon'ish, which I probably should have made clear, while still retaining the one year length. But I'm open to fast-tracking that further, too. Regards, El_C12:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Autocorrect is my unfiltered mind, apparently. Yeah I saw the request at RFPP but I couldn't tell what disruption CaffeinAddict was referring to. There was one very minor edit war a few days ago which went to the talk page, and otherwise mostly everything contentious has been discussed in advance. I do see now (that I'm not on mobile) that CaffeinAddict removed quite a few edits by a non-EC editor that were pure vandalism, but that account is an obvious VOA and I would have just blocked it (in fact I have blocked it). Otherwise I'm not aware of any vandalism to the article at all. There were some editors weaponizing citations but that's been resolved. Semi seemed to be working, and I'll honk my horn for going back to that if you were thinking about doing it anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
God bless autocorrect, a never-ending source of comedy! To answer, I saw disruption/CIR from:
BTW, what is it with the rule of 3 today (ANI pernmalink)? Anyway, blocked or not, it would be reasonable to expect more problems from confirmed accounts as the protest remains a high-profile event. So, I dunno, maybe revisit downgrading the protection in, say, a week...? Does that make sense? Remind me. El_C13:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I want to be very clear: we are not intimidated by those who hurl abuse at small business workers and steal food from the homeless — holy shit, Trudick, get a grip! El_C13:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the warning El C, I opened a Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Community_consensus_for_overturning_a_Warning discussion asking for consensus, and tried my best to explain myself. I respect Wikipedia rules and I'm very diligent with them, I always ask when something is unclear to me. I just don't understand how you could justify that warning for edit-war? I made 2 reverts in 24hrs, both of them sourced by UN, I quoted the source itself just to be clear. In one of the reverts, OP told me that the source doesn't support the text, which is just not true. How are things like this being overlooked, and I'm being warned for two reverts both of which are supported by the UN source itself and aren't even controversial? I'm confused.
I know I wasn't in my best regarding that comment and 'patience' part in GhostInTheMachine talk page, I genuinely thought they were breaching their tban repeatedly. I struck my comment as soon as you explained the difference between tban and p-block, and my public apologies directly to GhostInTheMachine. Believe it or not, I'm still learning, alot. I have no problems with admitting when I'm wrong. But giving me a warning for 2 reverts (the initial one in 29 February is different and I didn't revert it further), which were sourced by UN, and which weren't even controversial to begin with, I think that's a stretch. Out of respect I wanted to clarify further in your talk page. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ZaniGiovanni, I appreciate the notice about the appeal of the warning, but beyond your note serving that purpose, I don't really want to split the discussion right now, and I feel like my reasoning has been outlined clearly enough. So, atm, I'm inclined to see what other folks have to say and go from there. Thanks. El_C14:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know why I find your sense of humor to be very unique, it’s none like I have seen before, others, including, wiki friends of mine find it annoying, But definitely not me, it sure as hell cracks me up. Celestina007 (talk) 13:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey El C, long time no see, hope you have been doing well. :) I wanted to turn your attention to an article Battle of al-Hasakah (2022) where an edit war has apparently been going on for several days now, which I myself took no part in until today (made one revert) and have only been observing. Apparently one specific editor (DiB2014) has been inserting in the results section of the battle unsourced OR/WP:SYNTH and has been removing sourced info with its source. Several other editors have apparently tried to warn the editor his edit's were lacking verifiability, were pure OR and requested sources, but he hasn't reacted to this and has continued to edit war. There is also an ongoing discussion at the article's talk page in which the editor hasn't tried to engage in. DiB2014 also appears to be a single-purpose account - created only a few days ago, only edited this one article and focused specifically on this one issue. So if you are able to review the article and determine if it requires some sort of soft protection until the issue is resolved on the talk page that would be great. Thanks in advance as always! EkoGraf (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you! I didn't want to get involved since the article is under a 1RR ban and thus I thought it would get resolved eventually, but it seemed the situation actually just escalated more (multiple reverts per day) without any meaningful attempts at resolution. EkoGraf (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He's done it again [25], he again removed sourced information (with its source) and inserted unsourced OR/SYNTH info that is contrary to existing sources (without any edit summary/explanation). Even though he was already warned by several editors in the edit summaries that his edits constitute unsourced OR/SYNTH I have left him a formal message on the talk page that he has already violated the 1RR rule (he made 4 reverts within 24 hours, with a 5th soon after) and reminded him of all the guidelines, but I expect he will not respond as he has up until now. EkoGraf (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hehehehe, didn't think about it actually until you brought it up now, I refer to all editors by default as a "he" while not even dwelling on it. Hehehehehe. I don't actually know what gender DiB2014 is. XD EkoGraf (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still, interesting topic you brought up. Guess I should think about being more gender-neutral in my wording in this new era we find ourselves these days. :D EkoGraf (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FYI the guy harassing me is an LTA and has been since 2007: WP:LTA/DENVER; yesterday about 4 ranges of his were globally blocked until May but on enwiki it's only blocked for 2 weeks and I think a longer block is really needed there.
Can you see the LTA page and perhaps give bigger enwiki blocks to these per the LTA history:
Wizzito, this request is probably more suited for a noticeboard than it is my talk page, as I lack the background, and more importantly, the time, to investigate this further right now. Regards, El_C12:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El_C, hope you're doing well. Couple days ago I received a warning for 2 reverts, adding UN abstained coutries number, which I think weren't controversial in any way. I came in terms with the warning as other users pointed out that it's just a warning not a sanction to be overturned.
I guess I got to it...? But, briefly, ZaniGiovanni, you did not receive a warning for 2 reverts. I should know since I'm the one who warned you. Your warning was for the reasons stated in that thread, which I see no need to repeat or reiterate. Maybe try to take it on board rather than framing it like that (narrowly, only concerning a single incident). It's not helping anybody, least of all you. And I'd also say, preemptively, not everything needs to be sharpened to the uttermost. Regards, El_C18:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article more looks like propaganda rather than article from encyclopedia
I can link other similar comments, but these are the new accounts in AA who somehow are familiar with WP:ATD-M and deleting/merging policies, while stating their true intentions and opinions. But I digress. In that wall of text, comments like this probably went unnoticed, that's why I was confused my report went unnoticed. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you're interested, the latter was redirected as it was mostly synthesis by wikipedians, which overwhelming majority of even 3rd party voters agreed to. The former is covered by a vast array of neutral sources and is well documented.
Dear ZaniGiovanni please do not take words or sentences out of the context. What is the reason of doing that? This complete changes how it looks to others. My full comments is available on the talk page [sentiment in Azerbaijan], where I said "This article more looks like propaganda rather than article from encyclopedia." and provided my reasonings below. The [[26]] you left is neither constructive, nor professional and falls under personal attacks.
Dear El_C, sorry for jumping into the conversation. I was mentioned here, so I decided to add my bit. I am never edited on the Wikipedia before, this is literally my firs experience here and I dont know any editors. I understand that I may not know all of the Wikipedia Policies, and may broke some of them unintentionally during my learning process, but I am open to advices and trying my best to learn and to follow the Wikipedia rules as strict as I can. El_C please help me, I feel like the victim of the targeted attacks organized to take my account down. --Abrvagl (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you being serious? This is getting ridiculous. I literally quoted the whole sentence of you calling a legitimate article "propaganda", and no matter how you try to spin it, nothing can justify your characterization. This comment above raises major WP:CIR issues imo.
And I lost count how many you claim to be a "beginner" when called out, and somehow, that should be a valid defense over and over again. Also, it's certainly interesting how one can claim to have "never edited on Wikipedia", and already in a week of editing, citing guidelines such as WP:INTEXT, WP:BLP, WP:CIRCULAR, WP:extraordinary, WP:ATD-M. [27], [28]
Since you don't shy away from baseless accusations, here, I'll add some based ones: I think you're on a WP:SPA mission. I think given how many sockpuppet accounts are getting blocked in AA and given evidence, there is a high chance you may be one. I think there is a limit to your "I'm a new account" defense of everything, you did it in ANI and you're doing it again. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ZaniGiovanni, the word propaganda is not a pejorative or a personal attack in all contexts (I'm more concerned with the word "hate"), and they are entitled to express the view that the page that you deem a legitimate article, is not. You are not the thought police. Obviously, it's a real thing in both countries, but maybe the pro-Armenian page, that is a standalone, is WP:OR-heavy, too, like its pro-Azerbaijani counterpart was. The venue to address that remains WP:AFD.
Abrvagl, I'm the one who WP:PING'd you here to get a sense of where you're at (I haven't reviewed the ANI thread as it is very long). This is what you need to realize. WP:AA2 is a very contentious area of the project, where a newcomer's mistakes are much less forgiving. So maybe acquaint yourself with the basics (policy and convention) before diving head first, first...? BTW, there are claims that you are not, in fact, a new user. I have no idea, but the venue to address that is WP:SPI. I guess we'll see. El_C14:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
El C if you didn't read the article, I ask you to stop calling this a matter of "opinion". Nobody denies its real in both countries, the issue with the latter was that it was mostly WP:SYNTH by wikipedians, the former doesn't suffer from the same problem. If there is a valid reason for AfD and not just tit-for-tat, I encourage it, so even third party editors can confirm it isn't a matter of opinion or illegitimate. When I say calling the article "propaganda" is WP:JDLI, I mean it as someone who reviewed the article. And most importantly, their reasoning for calling the article "propaganda" wasn't sufficient either.
I honestly don't know what you want from me at this point, ZaniGiovanni. You come here asking for my opinion, that's my opinion. I'm not really interested in getting into the content weeds here. These are the broadstrokes, these are the optics (at the very least), so I dunno, don't look surprised that readers-cum-editors find it un-even. They find it un-even because it is un-even. That's just a fact. Probably would save more time/energy remedying that, than having to go through all of this time and time again. But, hey, what do I know? El_C15:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear El_C, to be crystal honest I do not understand what is the real problem and what is required from me. I am really drained and feel like I am a subject for targeted harassment. I will tell you whole story from begginig. This is the only Wikipedia account that I own. I registered it on November 2020. After registration I did edit on the Ramil Safarov article and tried to explain my edits on the talk page. My edit for obvious reasons was reverted, and when I tried to understand why - I realized I do not know anything about editing on Wikipedia and decided to not do that until I will find time to acknowledge with Wikipedia policies. It is now I know that behavior was wrong, at that time I believed that this is the way articles should be edited. I do regret that case, but I can not change the past.
On Feb 2022, while reading the Jean Chardin into Persia and the East Indies, I found information which I could not find on the Azerbaijan (toponym) page. I edited the article properly and provided sources, but it was reverted because I was referring to the WP:PRIMARY. Then started new section on the Talk page, where I provided both WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY sources and explained my proposal. At this point user LouisAragon replied me, but his reply was not constructive, he directly jumped into accusations. Which if I correctly understood from what I have learned today is WP:WIAPA. I replied him back asking to be constructive and explaining him my point of view again, but he never replied back. That is how it all started.
Moving forward. I was reading Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan where I identified some improvement which can be made to the article and proposed them on the talk page. Some of them already implemented, some is about to reach consensus. Later, on the 3rd of February, I found that there is actually Anti-Armenian sentiment which covers "Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan" topic and in the Talk page I proposed to merge this two articles. On the next day on 4th of February, I received notification of ANI. I did not know what it is at the time. It is now I understand that user ZaniGiovanni, with whom we have not crossed paths before, wrote a claim against me on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. By the way, I am not sure if it important or not, but I think ZaniGiovanni and LouisAragon not strangers to each other 1.
Starting from that point everything went wild. On the ANI, which ZaniGiovanni I tried to explain that I was not doing anything wrong, and even if I did it was unintentional. For example, I concluded that this is "all groundless made up accusations", but ZaniGiovanni pointed me that it is against [WP:NPA]. I read the [WP:NPA], understood it, applogized in from of ZaniGiovanni. Then I went thru all my old comments and cleaned everything which potentially sound unpolite to others and be against [WP:NPA]. But does not matter how many times I explained my self, this not ends. I fineshed explaining my self to ZaniGiovanni, then HistoryofIran joins the ANI, I cleared out everything with HistoryofIran, then LouisAragon joined the ANI. The user Kevo327 even accused accused me in logging out and deleting some information from Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia page. This is tremendous, why someone accusing me in such things without having evidences? I just provided him my IP as an evidence.
Dear El_C, sorry for long read, but I am really drained and wanted to give clear picture. All this ANI story and the fact that some users put a lot of efforts to block my account very suspicious to me, I believe that it might be because they do not like my proposals whether they are valid or not. How else it is possible, that users who not reply on the Talk pages, find time to write long reads in the ANI? (rhetoric question). All I want that finally there will be some decision on the ANI, because it is very draining and emotionally stressful, and I could have spend my time for something better than explaining myself over and over. Thanks for attention anf your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrvagl (talk • contribs) 17:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear El_C, you right. I will give short answers. 1. It is my fist and the only account on the Wikipedia. All accusations that I am not new isWP:WIAPA 2. User Kevo327 accusations that I allegedly logged out of my account and deleted some information from the article is aslo WP:WIAPA. 3. I really do not understand why some users put so much efforts to get my account blocked --Abrvagl (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear El_C, links updated. 4. All accusations that I am WP:SPA is also WP:WIAPA. I have been editing only for week. It is not right to accuse someone in WP:SPA while having such small sample size (1 week). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrvagl (talk • contribs)
Well, Abrvagl, you both don't sign your names, so you have that in common (the start of a beautiful friendship?). Anyway, I don't know what you expect. You exhibit all the hallmarks of a sock, so it isn't surprising that folks think you are one, though again, should be addressed at WP:SPI rather than in passing. El_C23:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I am open to Wiki-Friendship, I don't think that I forget to sign enough to sustain long term friendship, besides I'm probably too laconic for the other editor's taste. [just kidding] (Jokes aside, didn't mean to not sign there and I added my sig. Without the timestamp) - Kevo327 (talk) 08:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For your sense of humor at ANI and other places. I enjoyed reading your input to other discussions you were involved with while I was there. You are able to get the point across while also conveying a sense of lightheartness, which I think is very important and can help destress and defuse the whole situation, which is important in a time of conflict. Keep up the good work! Rlink2 (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! You've now been officially removed the enemies list (everyone's on it, until they're not). Anyway, you know the old saying: sometimes, you get to or on the bus, other times the bus gets onto YOU!El_C14:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you read it. However, I linked the evidence on User:Anzan7's talk page here. The persistent additions were copied and pasted from this personal website. Thanks for taking the time to have a look. Kind regards, AnupamTalk09:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:El_C. I'd be grateful if you could also make that clear on my talk page. I appreciate that you took the time to examine this more closely. Editing since 2006, I wouldn't have reverted that many times if it wasn't for a copyright violation. With regards, AnupamTalk10:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anupam, like a broken record, I keep telling users: if you're gonna invoke WP:3RRNO, make it explicit that you are doing so, and why (in the edit summaries themselevs, so that the other party or parties know of your claim for an exemption which they do not enjoy). Sure np, I'll get right on that. El_C10:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You recently revoked TPA for Zezen(talk·contribs·global contribs·logs·block log). They have been posting rants[29][30] on other projects, many of which refer to me, which is annoying. Would Zezen be a good candidate for a global block?
Just a suggestion that Mjazac might need an eye on him. His topic ban is long expired, but he's claiming that "reactionaries" prevented moves of historical mentions of Kiev to Kyiv here [31] and refusing to apologize or admit that this is an insult. I don't think this bodes well when he starts a new discussion about it at Kyiv as he wants to.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ermenrich, my suggestion is to take any issues directly to ArbCom. I'm not sanctioning this admin a 2nd time. The whole thing about whether an admin under sanctions should even retain their advanced permissions, that remains a murky and contested subject. So, as mentioned, I, at least, am not inclined to take this on myself, again. El_C20:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you protect the page Matzoon? There is currently a high level disruption ongoing from both new accounts and IPs alike. I noticed this was already reported in RPP, but no protection as of yet. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Request to Extend-Confirm Protect United States page.
Hi, I'd like to request to upgrade the protection for United States page as many editors are seeming to take advantage of less protection on the page, i.e., editing disputes. And in my opinion, such pages should be given high-level of protection as USA is not just an important country, but it is widely recognized as well due to its foreign affairs and interference in different conflicts as well. As I'm not an admin, I don't have the power to upgrade protection on any article, neither would I be selected for becoming an admin if ever requested :(. ArnavSharma602 (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, I noticed that you semi-protected45th Canadian federal election for "persistent disruptive editing". I was going to go to WP:RFPP to make a request for unprotection, but I wanted to talk to you first since you are the admin that semi-protected the article and to see if you would be willing to reconsider. It looks like the disruptive edits were made by a single IP over a 12-hour period. I'm not sure that's considered "persistent" and blocking the IP seems to be sufficient. At this point, I don't think semi-protecting the article for three weeks is warranted. 2604:3D09:8879:31A0:51A6:D0F9:ABB4:FD84 (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Right, for that day. But 2 days prior, there was disruption from a different IP (diff), and 2 days prior to that, disruption from yet another IP (diff). And these aren't the only ones. That said, if you can commit to keeping an eye on the page, I'm open to unprotecting in, say, a week instead of the 3 weeks that's currently assigned. El_C18:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: pinging my FAC colleagues in case they wish to contradict my opinion. Which is that DePiep's queries seem perfectly civil to me, and I have no problem with them being posed on the FAC talk page. You are, of course, entirely free to ignore them. I say this as a non-admin and with no knowledge of the history of uncivil editing; I was not even aware that DePiep had been blocked. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks El_C, and @Gog the Mild: for the prompt responses. My concern was that in User:DePiep posting what he did, namely…
"Please help me out: did you attack [italics added] more editors in there, unpingerd?"
…DePeip insinuated that I attacked other FAC editors.
Aside from being incivil, unhelpful, and outdated (the FAC in question closed on Jan 18th) it upsets me to have my reputation impugned in this way.
I'd appreciate your perspective on my perspective, so to speak. I don't want to belabour the point; I only want to to know where the civil/incivil behaviour benchmark lies. Sandbh (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, it's just taxing to interact with them, so they would need to do something pretty egregious for me to do anything about it (again). That doesn't mean that they haven't done anything sanction-worthy (like violations to Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#DePiep). File a report in any of the usual places if you deem it to be so. El_C05:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
El_C, this behaviour by Sandbh appears to be trolling/gaming the system/... Not only on your talkpage here (multiple times; note the pings missing). Obviously ignoring does not fix it. Since you took offence for me defending my own case, my non-cynical question is: how do you advise me to respond? -DePiep (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Page was since long abandoned and with the http://www.lexicarbrasil.com.br/ starting doing all manufactures according, alphabetically. Herr Matheus did some small things, much after, when saw I did a tremendous good job including... After he went crazy and took the fight to rewrite, not in my way logic of thing, but wrongly in him mentality, not like me the 1980ies but those new generations of 2000ies. Then the Chantilly buttered.
His common errors, why my version is much better :
1. What is 'large', 'small' or 'independent' ? A buggy BRM company is private independent like a Ford imo
2. RR Brasil has Araquari BMW factory subsidiary as support. Via Italia is a very small dealer only, neither industry, neither do any service on cars, just sell some
3. The companies who did small prototypes in quantity of just some parts as customs where from me with 'former' and those without which still exists today as industry or manufacturer. Not dealer. Just, for example, when a Ford Dealer like Grancar, me and my ex father went a lot in the 1990ies for refit our 1978 Ford Landau, saw the services, it is not a design company, like wrongly in template Matheus did, but the do a Fibre Futura Van, because the Ford dealer non-existent in Rua Frei Caneca, did several refurbishments in Ford Del Rey, Versailles etc and they also produced the Futura.
Stop harassing Matheus, IP, or you and all other IPs and accounts representing you will become persona non grata on this website. No comment on the content. Bring it to the article talk, politely, please. The facts, presented cogently and without posturing, is what's needed now. El_C16:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't get why he's been like this, I even proposed a shared contribution and got swearing instead; he's just trolling and harassing, I honestly don't care at all, but he's doing with everyone, everywhere, even admins, being racist, etc. Just why; I'm not a good redactor but even I have some standards and decency.
I don't know who he is, he keeps changing IP over and over (I've tracked some*)
I don't know what you mean by master (perhaps a main account* or some specific action?);
*My suspect is under @SeasSoul, he uploaded a image minutes before the IP user added it to the article (guess he ain't block anymore or the block won't affect Commons); the user was banned and has a mention to 'Museu Nacional' in a reported summary, being in Portuguese don't prove anything, however, the "way of speaking" is the same so...) **I BET MY MONEY ON HIM**
Hello El_C! I believe that you're aware of the problems at the Katherine Delmar Burke School article. It was under full protection; the talk page is semi-protected. As the protection of the article has expired, an IP editor is adding what seems like mountains of irrelevant and dubious content to the article. (Dubious doesn't even begin to describe it.) Their unstructured style of editing where they create a lot of sections reminds me of the editor who was flooding the talk page, and whom you blocked. The last normal revision of the article seems to be this
That being said, here is my question: What should someone like me do in this situation? Should I talk to the IP editor on their talk page? Should I do a large number of reverts and removals? It's hard for me to even read all of this material due to it's frankly unpalatable nature. twsabin21:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. The Feb. 8 revision seems acceptable too. I suppose that you did the better thing by requesting protection. twsabin21:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Twsabin and SpinningCeres: that IP is has been blocked from the page (/64). As for reporting: WP:AIV, WP:RFPP/I or WP:ANI are all venues that can be used to repot WP:PROMO and other disruptive edits. It's often difficult communicating directly with an IPV6 IP on their talk page because whatever IPV4 they use at any given time might get reassigned, also at any given time. I didn't quite understand what was meant by unpalatable nature, however, Twsabin (unpalatable how?). El_C01:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'd also like to request you to re-assess the page protection of Badhaai Do. The user who added the disputed content has been inactive since then. As the page is full protected, it has become difficult to update new content post its release and edit requests are piling up at the talk page. -- Ab207 (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, El C. I understand that there was a good reason to protect List of programming languages since there were tons of pointless edits/vandalism (and my reverts didn't help as much as I thought they did). (Btw, this has probably been caused by this post). But it seems to me that the class of protection is more heavy-handed than was necessary. Reading WP:PP it seems that Extended-confirmed protection is applicable (among others) when "pages where semi-protection has failed", which I don't think has been the case. And having a quick glance at the list of extended confirmed protected pages suggests that the majority of those pages in there have a much higher risk of malicious edits. IMO it would have been appropriate to semi-protect that page. Is there something that I'm missing? Rentar (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rentar, when there are confirmed users involved in disrupting a page, that's when WP:ECP becomes appropriate (because obviously WP:SEMI would have no effect on those enjoying this user right). This is not a particularly high-profile page, and considering the off-wiki stuff, I'm comfortable with ECP for 2 weeks. WP:NOTBURO. El_C11:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit pinged you a while ago, but just in case you have notifications turned off or missed the ping: do you have any comments you want to make before I address the unblock request? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted something sweet for dessert this evening, and I had some thin mints that I bought from my niece, so I figured that would be good. I got the cookies, and a mug of milk, but no matter how I dunk the cookies, they don't get soft. I've tried nibbling the chocolate coating off, breaking them in half, everything I can think of, to no avail. How can I get a nice soft thin mint that has absorbed milk? Please respond within 5 minutes, or my milk will no longer be ice cold. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello EL C, seems blocked user Vnkd have returned with a new IP account. He reverts other users edits on the same article. S-300 1st, 2nd, [36]. Also at Northtop F-5 article. 1st, 2nd.
Blocked – for a period of one month. Mr.User200, please don't edit war on that IP's talk page. They are allowed to blank it, which you are not allowed to undo. El_C11:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This man is trying to have the full monopoly of that list (not just that, to be honest). He uses twitter or ASN or fighterjetworld or whatever else as a source for this own, then remove info if you use twitter or the same, he wants to list derelict airframes, while in Syria he removed derelict airframes... I mean. Let's get someone from the aviation project involved. be fair! I can suggest people like BilCat or Nigel Ish or Fnlayson. This is what he wants to set: [37] it's all fighterjetworld, ASN and twitter. grammar mistakes and wrong listing.
If you break it down, the real un-matching points are two: 1. listing decrepit airframes as they were in active service. and here I say let's have someone from the aviation project decide on that... remembering that if that is the case, that same case is valid for all the other lists. 2. based on a twitter analisys saying there are 2 Su-25s instead of one. Again I say, let's have someone from the aviation project to have a look and decide. But again, if twitter is a source, then that has to be valid for all the lists.
And my last point: this article should be split, that's rather major. Instead of edit warring with me on minor points, why doesn't he start doing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.4.230.207. (talk) 10:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you wanna have a normal conversation, 194.4.230.207? After you had wished me the worst and so on using 194.4.230.55? That's fucked up. Maybe if you were to use article talk pages like everyone else (what makes you so special?), maybe if you were to stop block evading and, otherwise, show a little restraint... Anyway, appeal on the original account is your only legit way back in. Out. El_C11:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that yesterday, another RfC was closed in AA, Talk:Shusha#RFC_on_Nersesov_and_others, this time in correct procedure by a 3rd party editor Brandmister requested himself. Problem is, Brandmeister then proceeds to go directly against the RfC, and modifies the wording (diff). If wording is the problem, as he says in the diff, he could've easily just added "as well as" and be done with it. There was no consensus to mention that author's ethnicity as you can see from the RfC, for various reasons discussed. And the closer didn't think any side was considerably stronger than the other, so my guess is that's why it was closed as no consensus. Most importantly, Brandmeister's edit directly goes against the RfC. This is the second time Brandmeister shows major CIR issues in regard to RfCs. As you were involved in the first case, I thought to notify you instead of opening a report. I don't know what's happening in AA, I'm humbly asking for your opinion. I didn't revert them either, as I don't want to start a potential revert spree or something. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue has been resolved now by removing the mention of ethnicities altogether and amid no consensus at RfC I agree with that. My original rationale behind my edit there was that as long as ethnicites are mentioned, they should be consistent with corresponding articles and since Mirza Yusuf Nersesov's article describes him as Armenian, so should the Shusha article. But, again, I'm personally satisfied with the removal. Brandmeistertalk19:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Editor, on several occasions the user Aayat1998, of Indian origin, has been deleting information or destroying articles including the Miss Teen International article that was destroyed by the aforementioned user and took an editor to rebuild. This time he moved the article from Miss Teen Earth, the official name of the pageant, to Miss Teen Earth International, since he intends to make believe that there is another Miss Teen Earth pageant and that it is a separate pageant organization. An administrator placed an indefinite protection on the article Miss Teen Earth, the same one that has been celebrated as such since 2012. As editor of the article, I request that it be renamed Miss Teen Earth since that is the real name of the contest and the title that the winner gets annually. Also that an administrator place a warning to the user Aayat1998, for wanting to maliciously to hinder the work of other editors. Yahsabaot (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Extended confirmed protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Yahsabaot, I don't know why you mention of Indian origin for no apparent reason, but it's weird and I don't like it. It's also bad form to copy the same message onto multiple users' talk pages. You and other disputants are expected to make use of the article talk (Talk:Miss Teen Earth International), which has never been used by a human before, not a good sign as far as this dispute goes. Anyway, that is the correct venue to resolve the dispute. Recommend you review the documentation at WP:DR, WP:DRR. El_C02:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if my comment regarding the nationality of the user was misunderstood, since it was he who said he was Indian and had ties to an Indian beauty pageant organization in the talk of the Miss Teen International article where he created a dispute, it is not about discrimination, just try to identify the user who claims to be from India and has been deleting information and destroying articles. My mother tongue is Spanish, perhaps there are expressions in Spanish that don't sound good when translated into English. I understand that the protection will end in three weeks, thank you very much for your explanation, it is valuable. Yahsabaot (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, Yahsabaot, indeed maybe lost in translation + expecting an outside reader to make those connections. Also, best not to attribute to malice what may well be a good faith error. Assume good faith. Anyway, glad I could help. Hope the dispute ends up resolving amicably (maybe there's a compromise that both sides could agree to). G'luck & happy editing. El_C02:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing me El, I am really unable to say if you are genuinely asking me to explain or is just sarcastic deterrence, have I got it right or not - last time you posted this "Okay" three dots, question mark, back there at ANI, I tried to respond in casual tone and you changed yours from casual to hostile, so I had to explain myself for that too. I would gladly say what is on my mind, if only I could be sure that you are really interested and not just like "so what" or what ever.--౪ Santa ౪99°14:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why? I was really concerned that I transgressed in another arbitrary excess when I asked for reconsideration. It was not pleasant to here "I said six months not six hours" - what could I expect from there was not clear to me.--౪ Santa ౪99°14:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Santasa99, I'm not sure how clear the documentation is, so I'll lay this out for you. Now that I've declined your appeal to me directly, these are your remaining appeal options (you may choose whichever one works for you): appeal to the community at WP:AN, or to a quorum of uninvolved admins at WP:AE, or to the Committee itself at WP:ARCA. Hope this clears things up. Thanks. El_C14:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My laptop is overheating or Internet lagging, so I apologize for the edit-conflict posts - yes, thanks it's helpful, these are clear options.--౪ Santa ౪99°14:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably bewildered because why would I appeal something which is not my area of interest anyway, thinking that I anxious to get back there and get my way, but what bothers me in reality is the fact that I never disrupted project beyond few warnings for 3RR in decade and a half, and when confronted with what I tried to illustrate with ANI, I feel, I was let down, not to mention ABAN.--౪ Santa ౪99°14:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to request page protection for this article, but you had already put it in place for the ips. Now we have a couple editors joining in. Suggestions welcome: Full protection, handle the editors individually, something else? --Hipal (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been misgendered plenty of times on the Internet. If I ever sound bitter about it, it's because I see a person is being willfully ignorant about my feelings on the matter. Laurel Lodged, in this instance, managed to track down my azwiki page in order to criticize my having a link to Azerbaijani proverbs but couldn't be bothered to notice the bolded notice on my enwiki userpage that says I use they/them pronouns? I'm doubtful. Sure, maybe he forgot, but maybe he didn't. In the latter case, it gets to be a fun little insult that I only get to notice. If it's the former, then I have no sympathy for someone being too careless to check while in the middle of criticizing me. I will also bring your attention to this line: [MJL themself] declares that [they have] a personal page on Azeri Wiki. It's clearly referencing User:MJL#Alternate user pages. –MJL‐Talk‐☖16:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MJL, I'm pretty much in transit, but briefly, as I said, put it in your sig if those mistake upsets you. I don't know what Laurel Lodged intended. I don't have some special insight into their soul. It's a mistake that can happen innocently is the point, to anyone. People forget, people overlook, people conflate, etc. Why not be gracious about it, like Fæ was with me? What is there to lose by erring on the side of AGF? El_C17:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[Thank you for the ping] El_C, I like my signature exactly the way it is. I'm not changing it lol I don't think you get why I find this particular example upsetting me. For now, I will just say I am still awaiting a response on his part. –MJL‐Talk‐☖17:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MJL, sorry, but the expectation would then be for you to explain it better for me, the uninvolved admin who brought this matter to your attention. Anyway, I'm still not sure what you hope to accomplish from this line inquiry (still awaiting a response). What do you expect them to say? I did it to stick it to you? Try to detach yourself for sec, as challenging as that may be. And what's so lol about my sig suggestion, I don't understand. Unlike my default sig, you already have a modified one. If you like its aesthetic, then, okay. Just trying to help. El_C18:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the lol thing, I was trying to make myself not sound that serious. I understand that you are only trying to help. However, it's not the first time I have gotten that suggestion before. I don't like it for several reasons for many reasons, and it's all incredibly personal for me. That's why I just said lol because I'm not trying to make you feel bad for suggesting it. If you want an explanation, I wrote one out already: (1) My pronouns are at the top of my enwiki user page. (2) They are also on Meta. (3) Laurel Lodge seemingly looked through several of my user pages. (4) Laurel Lodge read enough details on my user pages to be able to point out the fact I link to a list of Azerbaijani proverbs. (5) Laurel Lodge has zero reason to assume I am a guy. (6) Laurel Lodge is not you. If he was, I'd forgive you in a heartbeat. (7) Laurel Lodge has not apologised nor bothered to correct himself despite editing since then. (8) I am not going to forgive someone who hasn't even said sorry to me. (9) I have literally been through this twenty times by now in my three years editing. I have never held it against anyone who either corrected themselves or apologized. –MJL‐Talk‐☖03:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MJL, that's the thing: you went hard on them in pointing it out, and lest we forget that them using the wrong pronoun and your hard-correction that followed, that whole thing took place in your ANI complaint against them (a complaint in which you were the OP). That makes an WP:APOLOGY also harder. So the context, if not also tone, was already quite negative, negativity which a soft-correction could have helped remedy.
And it doesn't matter that the correct pronoun was noted on your user page (or even if it were to have been added to your sig prior), because, again, those mistakes will happen, regardless, and more often than not, innocently. Sometime, that lapse can even be seen to have happened due to the person being neurodivergent. Sometime, it happens when someone is 'neurotypical,' but still suffer from the occasional neuroatypical (or neuroatypical-like) moment of sorts. Like maybe with how I, above, had written: if those mistake upsets you — of course, it should have been if those mistakes upsets you. Though to quote Dr. Grande, I'm not here to diagnose anyone.
Obviously, that error by me ('mistake/upsets') is a trivial one, but more serious ones might happen often enough, too, however you define or describe the reasoning behind these, including whether they were made in good or bad faith (which I don't think one could safely speculate on on the basis of a singular mistake). Beyond all of this, there's a saying in Hebrew that roughly translates into: 'peace is made with one's enemies rather than with friends.' I'd change "enemies" into opponents, but otherwise, I think there's a lot of wisdom to that maxim. HTH. Best regards, El_C08:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between an innocent mistake and willful mistake. When you are intently reading my userpage for any amount of dirt you can find and miss the bolded text which says my pronouns, then that stops being an innocent mistake. That's what I find upsetting. Our social policies are not a suicide pact. I have no obligation to be soft on a person I suspect was intentionally trying to upset me (which would've been the case without the misgendering mind you). The burden is not on me or you to find excuses for Laurel's actions. If any of the things you mentioned are true about him, then he should be the one to say as much. Also, regardless if I was mean about this or not; he has not corrected himself which I find completely unacceptable. Even if he didn't want to apologise, even if he didn't want to admit it was dumb mistake; that is the bare minimum standard I have for people on this website. There is no excuse for him not to correct himself the moment he found out. So I ask you this, why has he not stricken the misgendering pronouns and replaced them with the ones that I actually use? How can I possibly engage in good faith with a person unwilling to do that? –MJL‐Talk‐☖16:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how, MJL, so maybe you should disengage — not sure what other alternative you have in mind. For the record, it took me a second to find it when I looked for it on your user page yesterday. It isn't in large text or colours, so had I not been looking for it, specifically, I may well have not noticed it. Tolerance often is a double-edged sword. Anyway, I'm kinda done with this. It's starting to feel circular at this point, sorry. See ya. El_C16:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
El C, I think I owe you an explanation. I read your comment again, and I want to clarify some things. Let me start by genocide denial, and that I have no tolerance to any form of it. My great-grandparetns on both parents' side, just like with most Armenians, were genocide survivors who went through great hardship just to survive. I think as a Jewish person you can sympathize with me. When I saw Solavirum's explanation regarding the userbox and "changed" comment, I personally wasn't impressed. While I know that it's a risk to recognize the Armenian genocide in Azerbaijan, Solavirum went out of his way to create that denial userbox. If they were afraid about the risks, they could've just stayed silent. Their Western Academia claims since 2018 didn't impress me either, as apparent by their 2021 edit Maragha Massacre and other nationalist POV push just lat year.
When it comes to the involved/uninvolved part, I wasn't the only person confused. Under another tban discussion, user just like me [39] was also thinking that only admins can vote in AE tban appeals. And here, we come to the vote part. After Solavirum's comment and their 2019 vote evidence of them being against denial, MJL voted Support for the appeal and questioned legitimate concerns of another user. I personally thought they may have at least a slight bias towards Solavirum, as they were part of that vote and missed Solavirum's vote text entirely, which is crucial for context. And I made sure to actually check the vote, and as I pointed out, Solavirum only opposed to "so-called" part to "make the reader understand that the genocide is fabricated". In other words, per Solavirum, it's not a good look to openly state genocide denial in the title, it's better to make the reader understand it's fabricated instead. Truly makes you see the inside of one's mind.
After I pointed this out (after checking with multiple translators), Solavirum started claiming it as "out of context". I reminded them that the context is there and multiple translations disagree with them. Shortly after, they dropped the appeal. This is my side of the story El_C, thank you for your patience. If you have any other concerns or want to elaborate further, please let me know. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And if you think I should contact ArbCom regarding my other statements, I would do so. I don't know how though, as I've never done so before. I would appreciate if you could advise me how to open an ArbCom case / email or whatever it's called. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ZaniGiovanni: I fully will admit I am partial towards Solavirum. I still have no idea why you would think that any of that goodwill came from his 2019 vote. Honestly, that you brought it up in that context made me really confused. Like, I did a ton of work at azwiki despite not knowing the language. It's the first time anyone on enwiki has ever mentioned it, and it's evidence I am bias in favour of the people who I readily admitted to clashing with on there? (For context behind the diff, I completely forgot that Solavirum said what he said in the 2019 vote (or honestly the fact that he voted) until someone brought it up at WP:AN recently. Remember, I don't speak the language.) –MJL‐Talk‐☖04:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MJL thank you for being honest, I appreciate that. To answer your question, it was actually Solavirum who brought up the vote as sort of an evidence, if you remember:
I did a bad thing in 2018, though a lot of have changed since and my knowledge about the topic is now in a better shape. I don't deny the Armenian genocide. There was a meta case about AzWiki in 2019, it was about the genocide denial, and the article concerning it having "so-called" in its title. In the same period, AzWiki users proposed to re-add "so-called" to the genocide article, where I opposed the proposal[40]
Later you stated this, hence I actually decided to give the crucial context, since neither of you did (I also don't speak Azeri, I clicked translate on my browser, then translated some more just to be sure). Solavirum, while being a native Az speaker, never mentioned the vote context in their comment (later, they claimed it's "out of context" when questioned about it), and seeing how you yourself started defending him based on that vote, I had to clarify some things. And btw, I made sure to check the vote as soon as I saw it, but didn't comment anything even when El_C Liked their comment. It was only when it was becoming this "grand" evidence of Solavirum "going against Armenian genocide denial on azwiki at great personal risk" that I was like ok, this definitely needs context.
Btw, I don't know whether you're biased in favor of Azerbaijan or not, I've personally never seen such evidence, so I never accused you of that. I only stated that you may have bias in regard to Solavirum specifically, which you also said yourself, and again I appreciate the honesty. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 06:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the in-depth explanation, ZaniGiovanni. I'm also firmly against genocide denial, which I think my record amply reflects (for example, the log for WP:GS/UYGHUR has 4 entries, all by me). But I'm also a sucker for redemption arcs. And any hints of CHILDPROTECT issues, those always boil my blood (though, obviously, I'm not in the position to verify whether that had really happened here and to what extent).
Anyway, my view for some time now has been that a full AA3 case is long overdue. But, of course, there's no guarantees that the Committee will accept such a case. But, I'd contact ARBCOM privately first, anyway, to at least get a sense of what should and should not be mentioned.
Also, I realize WP:T&S might have a bit of a bad rep on the project (especially following the spectacular stonewalling of WP:FRAMGATE), but, in my experience, they are dedicated professionals, so I wouldn't fault anyone if they were to choose that avenue (though, personally, I'd recommend the Committee over T&S). HTH. Best wishes, El_C08:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ravenbeast appears to have a problem. On their talk page:
"Are you Iranian?" Ravenbeast (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
"I think you just paid attention to books that you read in Norway in first grade if you guys in Norway pay attention to Iranians and do not call us terrorists." Ravenbeast (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello,
Thank you for handling the request. Could you let extended confirmed users edit? I have edited Wikipedia for some time, and this new user is putting unsourced statements, or statements that are not in the sources in the article. I have tried to talk in talk page, but this user is not cooperative. I can detail each change but it would be a pain. For example, this "The other remaining professors preferred joining the multidisciplinary Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University. " added in the lede is false, the sources say they went to a several other universities. Thanks. --Ransouk (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Ransouk, but you don't get an advantage in a dispute for having a longer tenure than an opponent, and I can't intervene in content matters per m:Wrong version, anyway. Your protection request read, in part, no discussion in talk page (diff) — but you haven't used the talk page, either! So, you probably should follow your own advise, make your case on the article talk and go from there. Good luck. El_C14:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Just for the record, I did use the talk page, and at the time of my request, the new user had reverted without answering in talk page. --Ransouk (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC) He by the way, reverted using an IP address and then their account. --Ransouk (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ransouk, next time, can you please just link to the thing in question (Paris 2 Panthéon-Assas University)? It's literally a couple of key strokes. I answered over 40 RfPP requests today. Have mercy. Anyway, the discussion on the article talk page looks like it's ongoing, so I'm not sure why you'd say without answering in talk page. They've posted to the talk page, multiple times. So, maybe give a good faith chance for the discussion to mature...? About editing logged out: that may well have been by accident. El_C14:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again,
I am coming back to you because I let go with most of the changes that were only a style question, but the user is now edit-warring to remove a source and the correlated statement and provide an alternative statement without source. I tried to explain in talk page, but the user does not seem to know Wikipedia rules and explicitly says, in his terms, that he’s going to edit-war until I let go. [41] --Ransouk (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, even my version was a middle-ground, because there is no source anyway saying that other professors went to Paris 1 or saying that it’s an important information. I just let this to try to reach a consensus, even with the lack of source, but he insists on a bolder statement without source. --Ransouk (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think so. You can see on that diff that he removed a source to give a general unsourced claim. In talk page and in previous diffs, you can see the persistent problem. Once again, I let it go with everything but this misrepresentation. --Ransouk (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ransouk, that diff isn't even of the talk page of which speak. Anyway, you're not letting it go, they're not letting it go. They don't like your source, you don't like theirs (posted on the talk page, new user, a WP:CITE nudge would suffice). It's a content dispute. If attempt at resolution fails on the talk page, you're expected to seek other avenues of dispute resolution (WP:DR). Dispute resolution requests (WP:DRR) such as WP:3O, WP:RSN, WP:RFC and so on. HTH. El_C20:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys. Personally, I recommend following the example of a great hero of modern times (no timestamps!): My name ___ is James Randal, concerned citizen who keeps police —and vaccines, they're all con(voy)nected!— in check. First, gently, through mostly peaceful means. But if that fails, there's always a ladder (of mass destruction). The more you k. 🍔 🍟 El_C23:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! There’s that vintage El_C's irreplicable humor I can’t seem to get enough of.
Star Mississippi, my thinking is, evoking a range block, is usually a last resort predominantly used when the damage being done within a specific range has become abysmal, take (LTA's) for example. Accurately calculating a range block is even more draining as it requires surgical precision as the slightest error in (insert relevant /) could see thousands of good faith editors or potential good faith editors affected. Celestina007 (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're undoubtedly correct. Hoping with their favorite targets semi'ed, they'll get bored of trolling the noticeboards. I'm undoubtedly too optimistic. StarMississippi00:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, what is this deputy Crystal Clear bs?! Bring back 4T! Though she does have a stylish moustache now, so I gotta give props (begrudgingly). El_C00:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the last couple of days I've gotten several emails from parties associated with both sides of the dispute (including one today). My request is as follows: please stop emailing me about AA2 for the foreseeable future. I don't really want to be put in that position atm, so on-wiki only for the time being. Thank you. El_C13:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can I send you an email about an exciting business opportunity? See, my uncle was the Premier of Nigeria, and he just passed away, leaving me $27,000,000, but I don't have a bank account to put it in... ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question on my page creation protection proposal here, it was because I didn't know that that article in particular had not been created before, while the others had. I just kind of randomly picked it. The proposal got declined, though, so that's kind of irrelevant now. Just wanted to let you know. InterstateFive (talk) - just another roadgeek 00:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but how would singling out that one red link example article make sense when all the other ones would be left un-attended? Anyway, thanks for following up. El_C08:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It has been revived! Well, my monitors keeps getting bigger and bigger over the years, so maybe that'll solve it (that's how it works, right?). Nice music, soothing. RIP Jerome Kohl. El_C00:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fer sure. What, like, for the Hebrew wiki? In any case, I mostly do Hebrew-to-English translations (no Hebrew keyboard support). El_C18:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, taken with thanks. Psalm 6 next please, once you have time. Today, I decorated my talk with a Bach cantata. I heard it last year when missing RexxS began, and "not letting go" was a theme. - I uploaded the rest of the vacation pics. On my talk: Interesting new piece heard, look for "Hebrew". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clear isn't exactly the word I'd use... But at least I might have I gotten Liz's answer, from the past: This case is very confusing with editors creating multiple accounts, editing logged out as well and signs of paid editing [...] Liz Read! Talk! 20:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)El_C15:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Above IP is an LTA User:Amkgp see the SPI Archives and you get to know about this IP.
I'm not clicking that link, what is that? Also, why is it that you know how to use the note template (twice for some reason) but not sign your user name? Anyway, the weirdness continues... Sorry, both of you, I don't really care that much to get into the weeds of... whatever this is. El_C16:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
13:52, 23 February 2022 El C talk contribs block blocked GreatTime20202 talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock — Yes, I win! El_C17:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I use the reply tool, so I suggest you tell the WMF to learn to indent. That's fully on them. Funny how that whole thing started right after I said I didn't want to be an admin. That's the one time it would be handy, cutting some shit like that out before it gets out of hand. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do enough mobile editing on talk pages that won't load, or bog down my browser where reply link or discussion tool, or whatever it is, is the only real way to add annoying comments and bad jokes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't use the mobile site on my phone, are you fucking bonkers?! I use the desktop site, and with all of the fancy add-ons and scripts and crap I can install in common.js I can even deny edit requests while my wife is trying to talk to me at dinner. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, there is a bit of disagreement between me and another editor on the page Economy of Pakistan. The user is insistent on adding a figure of 435 billion dollars for nominal GDP, his rationale stemming from this article [42] and specifically from the paragraph
Quote: "Dr Rashid Amjad, former vice-chancellor of the Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE) and a member of the government’s economic advisory group, sounded optimistic and talked of a spike in investment while advising one and all to avoid paying heed to speculations of the naysayer.
“Rebasing was long overdue and though new sectors, like IT and food delivery, have been added, it still underestimates the real size of the national economy which to my mind is at least 25-30pc larger."
Since the most recent nominal GDP listed by the Pak Government is 347 billion, he did a 1.25 multiplication on that figure giving him 435 billion, despite the 435 billion figure not being explicitly mentioned within the article nor is it in any other source/report/article.
Surely this constitutes WP:Original Research, and no other "Economy of country" wikipedia page has implemented a figure like this based off a quote from an article, they're all based off published data from accredited organizations like the IMF, World Bank, or government reports.
Blocked – for a period of 60 hours for WP:EW. Yes, looks like WP:SYNTH, but I'd still rather there would be an attempt at a dialogue, though they do need to use a talk page, of any kind, which they have never done. Still, WP:BITE restrains me from taking further action at this time. @IIBxtrerII and Severestorm28: courtesy pings. El_C07:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't opine there, so I'll opine here, instead. In my opinion, it is always worth taking the time to wrap a cheeseburger that you made at home in aluminum foil for, at bare minimum, five to ten minutes before enjoying. The act of wrapping any sandwich goes a long way to enhancing the flavor, but for hot sandwiches with cooked meat it's even more important, as it gives the juices time to cool and settle back into the meat. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. But, if you can keep an eye on their talk page, you can restore TPA. So long as nobody pings or contacts me about this, I'm good. Any admin should feel free to adjust my block as they see fit, including by lifting it outright. Which, if so, hopefully, at the very least with the original reasoning for the block (gross incompetence) being addressed. Otherwise, I fear it'll just be more: let my uncle out of jail! NOW! He's a good guy!El_C14:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey El C, letting you know that a Ukraine War-related article has come under IP vandalism, as many others since the start of the conflict, and I think it would be good if its protected against unregistered users for the time being. The article in question is Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War, you can confirm the vandalism via the edit history. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, added the 2022 invasion section only a couple of hours ago and was planning to update the main lead, as well as add some paragraph info to the new section as well, later in the day. Yeah, the totals may look better at the bottom. If you got any ideas about an infobox they would be appreciated. :) EkoGraf (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You continue to spread fake information. We have contacted Forbes and are expecting a response from them. Remove the section on personal life altogether until the issue is resolved. 188.32.157.165 (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've hidden the section. If no correction from Forbes is forthcoming in, say, 2 months, then that section may be un-hidden. HTH. El_C14:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Incident at Petrich article need for semi-protection
Oddly enough, the PC protection wasn't even related to the current dispute, but was to stop an LTA obsessed with the number of Christians in the country. signed, Rosguilltalk18:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Yeah, that's weird. Though I didn't really look, I just saw that the page was being edited too heavily for pc to be effective (i.e. chasing revisions to excess). El_C18:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles closed and archived
NP. I know cutting through the fog of war is your bread and butter, so now you have Higgins: the most un/reliable source possible! Powered by magic. El_C11:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In keeping with what you said here and including Worm That Turned's response, is there somewhere I can present evidence indicating the disruption throughout the AA2 area during the month of February 2022? --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kansas Bear, I don't really know what that report would look like to confidently advise. I suppose, broadly speaking, WP:AN could serve as such a forum, or you could present it in the context of a full WP:RFAR case, where, ironically, you might be told to take it to AN (maybe AE?) first. But if your arbitration case is solid in the sense of showing instances where AN/ANI/AE were unable to resolve problems in the topic area, then you could just take it straight to the Committee. HTH. El_C11:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would that be the proper venue to seek the 500/30 restriction over AA2? Not sure it would require a report, since WTT states, "..but I would certainly appreciate more thoughts from the community." Where would a poor ole Kansas boy go to post their thoughts/evidence that it could be seen/evaluated? --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems another case of IP vandalism/pushing (removal of sourced content and its source) at Battle of Ivankiv as the war in Ukraine heats up. For confirmation see here [45][46]. Reminds me why I decided to semi-retire from Wikipedia and why I should maybe stay semi-retired. EkoGraf (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS Seems a bit higher protection might be in order [47]. Rarely used account literally ignores what is in the source to claim there is no source for the information he removes. EkoGraf (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again?! I feel personally attacked. The best part of the double mistake is that was on a real computer, and was a legitimate mistake, not done with humorous intent. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You recently protected Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis. I think that the request for a page protection was unwarranted and I don't think the page should be protected. The request came from a
sympathiser of Russians in Ukraine who, citing false pretences, had their unverified additions removed by an IP (and later by a regular ol' buster like you and me). There have been several helpful edits by IPs on the page, and by my count, zero unhelpful ones, and the page is relatively quiet. I just don't think it's necessary and unneccessary padlocks make me 🤮 . I don't really know any of the policy behind a decrease in page protection. Pabsoluterince (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter who filed it. I've protected a couple of pages this past week where I also blocked the requestor. Anyway, we've been protecting pages related to the conflict as a matter of course for some time now. See the many entries logged at WP:AEL#Eastern_Europe. The policy documentation is at WP:ACDS. Hope that clears things up. Regards, El_C15:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can understand that in general the pages in the topic area need more protections, I just didn't consider it "necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project" for this article in particular. Pabsoluterince (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Egregious means WP:BLP, WP:NLT, WP:HARASS, WP:CHILDPROTECT and so on. Anyway, the declined note read: Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection (underline is my emphasis).
That's because the convention for article talk pages is to start with, like, a week-long semiprotection. Except the last disruptive edit in that talk page was about a week ago, so protecting for a week atm seemed counter-intuitive (unless, as mentioned, of an egregious nature).
I received a help request ping accordingly I responded as per my little knowledge but I suppose administrative guidance and support @ User talk:Adamsamuelwilson#Johnboy smith wiki page may be helpful. Thanks and warm regards
What's the matter with you?[48] Did you resent the "flippant admin response"? But what about the actual points MastCell made? I was sorry to see your comment. :-( Bishonen | tålk18:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
What's the matter with you? Your reflexive defense of MastCell, it's too much. You still can't seem to see the forest from the trees when it comes to him and Astme. El_C18:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still..? I didn't know before that you were of that opinion. OK, so I'm even sorrier, but I suppose I learned something. Bye now. Bishonen | tålk18:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Please block or warn this user MNWiki845 always doing unsourced edits. Also attach without source and licence posters in film articles. He takes screenshot of poster and add article. Sush150 (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm not really sure where else to go with this issue but Special:Contributions/PutraOsakaTokyo has made edits to a great number of Malaysian politicians' infoboxes that have removed important information. Such as in the case of Wan Azizah Ismail, their edit (which I have just reverted) made it so that you could not tell who preceded and succeeded her as an MP or minister as well as how long she held those positions for. Other examples include Ismail Sabri, Najib Razak, and Anwar Ibrahim. While I understand that these edits were probably done with the best of intentions, I don't think they're constructive. I tried to contact them through their talk page in 2021, with another Wikipedian also expressing the same concerns, but they have not responded despite continuing to contribute to Wikipedia as recently as 12 March. Help would be greatly appreciated. Sisuvia (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sisuvia, okay, I see your note from Sept 2021 (diff), but have they done this lately? Please provide WP:DIFFs. In any case, my sense is that they don't know that their talk page exists. Perhaps a p-block from the main article space would work to get their attention that it does. El_C13:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delayed reply. Their last such edit to a Malaysian poltician's Wiki page is on Ayub Jamil, made on 13 September 2021.
Here's the edits compared and here are the links to the individual revisions before and after.
I have plans to revert the editors actions and shortening infoboxes in a way that doesn't completely remove information, but I don't really want to do so without talking to PutraOsakaTokyo first. I'd rather not start an edit war or a spat. Thanks. Sisuvia (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so you've warned them against doing it on Sept 2021, and they stopped doing it, also on Sept 2021. Did I get that right? El_C14:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait no, sorry I messed up. Ugh, god. My brain just can't today.
I went through their contributions again and this is the (actual) last time they made the same type of edit in February 2022.
I can't list them all because I'm not gonna go through all of their edits, but they've done the same thing on other pages at least five or six times since Sept 2021. Sisuvia (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated, but an unregistered user has been editing Gabungan Rakyat Sabah and adding an entire section about its registration & legalisation even though I've told them to stop and explained why. I'm quite sure they've seen it since the contents of his edit are the exact same, meaning they probably copied it from their revision of the page which can only be accessed by going to the page's edit history. I thought about contacting them through their talk page but the edits were made with three different IPs, so I didn't think there was any point. Could you protect the page so that non-registered users can't edit it, or something like that? Thanks. Sisuvia (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I spent the better part of the morning watching chipmunk videos. We don't have chipmunks here, just squirrels. I will just have to make do. I've raised baby raccoons, possums and an armadillo - each only once - not something I would repeat. Dogs are clearly a better option if you have the time to devote. Your Higgins is clearly unique. Atsme💬📧18:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I'm going to say thank you is because I don't want my baby rabbits to hear the language I hold in my heart for you. I don't want to make them bitter before they turn into dinner. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Now my dears,' said old Mrs. Rabbit one morning, 'you may go into the fields or down the lane, but don't go into Mr. McGregor's garden: your Father had an accident there; he was put in a pie by Mrs. McGregor.' Narky Blert (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Appellants have used the AE appeal template at AN before. It's awkward and I don't like it, but to the best of my knowledge is not prohibited. Anyway, can't remove it now that folks have started commenting, but a change of venue remains an option. I'll make a note/query of that at the appeal. Next time, please double check with the appellant before (possibly) being the one to decide the venue for them. Thanks. El_C14:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I have openend an ANI a few days ago. So far, no admin has commented or taken any measure despite the requests I have individually submitted to some of them. I would need an admin to consider my complaint. Another user has namely accused me of edit-warring for reverting a vandal (POV-pusher, FICTREF-pusher) who refuses to communicate. Could you take a look? Thanks. Veverve (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @El C, I would like to say a thank you for adding page protections to all of the Philippine TV channel articles (and also the ABS-CBN-related articles) in order to prevent the IP hopper vandalizing them. I was caught by surprise when the vandal jumped from the blocked IP to the other one to continue their habit of vandalizing the articles. Glad I quickly reponded by reverting their edits and reporting them at the AIV and requesting a page protections in order for these pages not to be vandalized again. Once again thank you very much! VictorTorres2002 (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They're 'content disputes' that failed to be resolved through all other venues and resulted in conduct problems, so I'd expect ANI to be willing to help reach a settlement, given that it claims to address 'intractable' issues. I don't disclaim any wrongdoing in this whole saga, but an indef block is quite disproportionate given that my own behavior is the only one you'll scrutinize, despite evidence that the opposing party's conduct was also inadequate. If your aim is to stop edit warring, which was sporadic anyway, a warning or a temporary block would have sent an adequate message already. That page is still very awkward, so will I be prevented from doing anything about it, should you refuse to reconsider? Avilich (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "stupid" was a bit harsh, but it's not a good look. Of course, nor was Avilich's getting on a high horse either. The whole thing on both sides is just insanely petty and idiotic ... which often happens when an impassioned "expert" in the subject matter meets the impassioned "experts" in whatever-wiki-guideline is up for discussion. It might be because while this whole kerfluffle was going on, I was also dealing with a nationalistic battleground editor on The Holocaust who has been brought up in the past for their editing issues and let off the hook - so I'm not in the best of moods about watching someone else get the book thrown at them while I'm left to deal with much more disruptive crap yet again. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but it's not the book, it's a one week block, after multiple warnings. I've advised them to gain outside input into the dispute through a WP:DRR, which they may advertise to experts on relevant wikiprojects. Wouldn't that be better than continuing with the BATTLEGROUND, for naught, as they have been at ANI, even after multiple warnings? I'm thinking long term. El_C14:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You'll note that I counseled them to drop the stick on their talk page. I just think that escalating the block to a whole week was a bit much. But I'm often a softie. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more than happy to lift the block with immediate effect if they express an interest in resolving the content dispute the right way. Their contributions to the ANI complaint are not that. El_C14:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't know why the last movement (whose idiom you may recognise) is called a dance of death, listen to it before reading our article. Narky Blert (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, my summaries are often too stupid for anyone but my own manual self to be associated with (example from earlier today: [49][50]), so looks like it'll be ctrl.c/v for the foreseeable future. El_C13:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ElC, hope you're doing well. I didn't want to add this to ANI as enough already has been said, so I'll ask here if you don't mind. Do you think this is canvassing? They could've chosen any third party user, but choose someone involved from the overlapping Turks/Kurds area and a tr-wiki admin, who also happened to vote in a discussion they participated recently. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of the term body horror. Back to the body horror: with her trusty SCAR-L and a Remington 870 and a Glock 18C. As one barricaded location after another falls to the horde, escaping in multiple vehicles through treacherous roads with a dwindling party, as they face deadlier and deadlier zombies and entities, some of which are locals (NPCs), some real players (infected). As the fog and darkness closes in (literally), their mettle is tested. Probably the best non-comedy GTA V RP I've seen thus far. El_C23:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after having time to sleep in the movie I watched last night, I realized it's still definitely hot garbage. On the other hand, I looked at my contributions, and within the next month or so I should pass 10,000 edit requests handled. That's quite a few. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the vast majority are vandalism I revert, empty requests I remove or requests I summarily deny, so it's not as impressive as it seems. Wish me luck, tomorrow starts the season of my trying to fill my freezer with trout. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article Battle of Izium (2022) may need protection. Less than an hour after it was created, anonymous IP editor (that already previously removed sourced content and its references in other articles) removed content and its RS references (WSJ & CNN) from the article as seen here [51][52][53][54]. He has continued with his actions despite already being reverted twice, by me and one other editor. EkoGraf (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He's now also resorted to inserting unsourced information contrary to cited references. Example [55][56], inserting that the Russians were still attempting to surround the city, despite being told in the edit summary that the cited source clearly states the city is already blockaded. EkoGraf (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Senior Captain, didn't know the Wall Street Journal was bought by the Russian oligarchs. XD PS In all seriousness, I thought about it a bit later and removed it myself since the WSJ may have been stating it based on the earlier Russian MoD statement, but didn't attribute it. If it becomes more clearer in a few days that the town has actually been taken I will reinstate it. EkoGraf (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I'll leave it to your discretion as I know next to nothing about this battle, but broadly speaking, it isn't really our role to dig into whatever primary sources reputable 2ndry sources make use of in their reporting. Now, if other 2ndry sources were to say otherwise, or, if the original publication made a correction, or, if new info were to come to light in some other way (as seem to have been the case here) and any combination therein... that's different. El_C00:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree on all accounts. However, the thing that pushed me towards this is that it seems the Institute for the Study of War has argued the battle is still ongoing, contrary to WSJ and even a US DoD official who confirmed its capture. So I would rather wait a few more days for more sources to show, so I could argue the case with more verifiability and resolve issues such as this [57]. EkoGraf (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's Geordie, from the posh (south) side of the river, Gateshead (2 syllables in "gate"). Depending on where you are, the "u" in "pub" can be almost anything.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Next stop WP:RFPP/D. Any admin can adjust my protection as they see fit, including lifting it outright. I need not be consulted or even notified about that. El_C17:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the full protection at WP:NSPORTS. Would you consider restoring the last stable version, given that this is an oft-referenced guideline. Alternatively, tag the page with the full {{pp-dispute}} (i.e. without |small=yes), saying that the current version is not necessarily endorsed. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 09:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
El C, is it your intention that the NSPORTS RfC will not be fully implements until late April? The version you've protected still includes many participation-based criteria, which there is clear consensus against. I'm not sure why the editor who filed at 3RR felt that removal of SNGs was a problem. –dlthewave☎15:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know there was an RfC, so no intention there. Also, I didn't understand what the editor who filed at 3RR meant. Are you sure it's germane to my protection, whatever that is? El_C15:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant WP:RFP. The RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability shows clear consensus to remove participation-based criteria (which is what Cassiopeia was complaining about at 3RR), but editors attempting to implement it have repeatedly been reverted wholesale. I guess my concern is that admins are treating this as a dispute/edit warring situation rather than directly addressing editors who are blocking implementation of the RfC consensus, leading to the old non-consensus version being protected. –dlthewave☎15:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure protection was required in this case (it was only the usual suspects, Dlthewave and No Great Shaker), but I must say I share at least partially the concerns about the delaying-tactics the various protections to the page have, likely unwittingly, enabled. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, if you want an admin familiar with the dispute to take over the protection, that's A-OK with me. But there's no point in bringing up items pertaining to the dispute with me right now, because I don't know what's it about. El_C16:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, El_C. Sorry for having to interpose with the request above but "usual suspects" is uncivil and it is untrue to say that only two people were involved in the chaos this morning. You were absolutely right to protect the page because a further period of collaborative discussion will be necessary before everyone involved understands and agrees how and when the RfC will be implemented. Thanks again. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ordinarily, the expectation is for a contested RfC to be formally closed B4 it is implemented. I have no idea what's going on there (at VPN). It's archived but there's no closing summary for some reason. It isn't even closed with the {{rfc top}} + {{rfc bottom}} tags, but {{atop}} + {{abot}} ones. So yeah, whatever is going on there, I don't get it. El_C16:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC most certainly was formally closed, even if Wugapodes didn't use the standard template, and the closure review didn't reach consensus to overturn. See their assessment of the current situation here: There's consensus to implement subproposal #3, which has not been overturned, and the only remaining question is what exactly counts as "participation" vs "merit based" criteria. –dlthewave☎17:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that whole thing at the top in plain text was the close? Weird. I'll fix that. Again, I'm not really in the position to comment on the specifics. If everything does get settled before the protection lapses, let me know so that I can unprotect early. Or anyone else can take over the protection (that would be ideal for me). El_C17:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What a confusing closing summary format (irrespective of my use of the correct tags). No idea who closed the other items listed. I'm inclined to give up at this point. El_C17:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please unprotected the page. If you don't want to get familiar with the history of the dispute, that's fine, but "drive-by" full protection is not fine, your actions seriously hamper everyone else's ability to implement the RfC result. We had an RfC, we had a close challenge, and if there is continued disruption at the page (which there is), the community can handle it (there are other admins who are familiar with the history). Do you remember my raft joke from a few years ago? It's about this exact situation. Thanks, Levivich17:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, I saw you clerking (and reverting) what you though was a double bold vote on the MEK talk, and I just noticed a discussion at ANI that touched on the same issue. More generally, I've seen the matter crop up on various discussions, but without reference to a policy. Is there a specific guideline on making multiple bolded responses in discussions, or is it just a community best practice/clerking matter? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The accusation of racism by Drmies is a bridge to far in my book and I don't see the outcome not resulting in me being topic banned. So if you just want to do it be my guest. I don't really care that much about it anyway. Nor do I feel like sitting through the endless barrage of gaslighting or doing the amount boot licking it would take for me to not be topic banned. So there's zero reason to continue the ANI complaint. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I have opened an ANI here. Could you have a look at it and, if possible, impose sanctions where needed?
Last time I opened an ANI for this user, no action was taken until three days later after I asked some admins to have a look at it, so this time I decided to start asking sooner. The admin Ymblanter does not want to intervene for - from what I understand - ethical reasons. Thanks in advance. Veverve (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Veverve. Sorry, but generally, I don't want to look at complex arbitration enforcement requests at ANI. I don't like its format for that. I prefer WP:AE. To that: this user hasn't even been given a discretionary sanctions alert, so procedurally, that would have to happen first. Anyway, I just don't think ANI works well in resolving disputes of that nature. It's unlimited word count, freeform threaded discussion often gets long and convoluted.
But I randomly looked at one example (that's all I have time for right now) in which the user replaced Yuzhne with a redlink on the Odessa page, which in turn was called "pure vandalism." But then they created that page, Pivdennyi Port, whose veracity I can't speak of, but on the surface looks okay'ish. My point, then, is that it's all about how the evidence is compiled and presented. @Tsans2: courtesy ping.
Finally, just to be clear: I don't want the case effectively filed, or the matter argued, here, on my talk page. My above note is more of a statement on my position than an invitation to discuss the particulars of the dispute (which would also serve to split the ongoing discussion). So either one of you, respond only if you absolutely must (concisely). El_C20:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@El C thanks for a ping. I was also shocked when I was called a vandal after changing the misleading link to Yuzhne city instead of not-yet-written article about Pivdennyi Port (till 2017 Yuzhnyi). Then, I just translated a page about one of the largest Ukrainians seaports and this red link became normal one :) Tsans2 (talk) 09:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, but I hope you could see why folks would be concerned when you replace a blue link with a read one that leads nowhere (even if it's inherently more precise). Sorry to see you got WP:TBAN'd. The topic areas covered by discretionary and general sanctions are especially volatile on the project, so there's just a lot less leniency to be had there. Usually, I tell users to wait 6 months -worth of productive editing elsewhere before they should appeal, but in your case, I think 3 might be enough — based solely on how inexperienced you are (otherwise again, I'm not familiar with your history outside of that one example I listed). Good luck! El_C13:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ElC, the page Farukh you protected is seeing some potential sockpuppetry. Particularly interesting the Talk:Farukh#Requested_move_27_March_2022 discussion, an IP and an account with single contributions [58], [59]. I was watching an unrelated ANI thread about SPI issues and whatnot, so didn't want to file an SPI straight ahead. Do you think it's warranted here? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just interested, is voting for rename here considers quality or number of the voters?
I did a research, and initial research on which this proposal for rename does not consider that in Azerbaijani correct name of the village is Farrukh, not Farukh.
Saying that here is the more detailed research, which completely opposes initial one. "Farrukh" absolutely outnumbers both "Parukh" and "Farukh":
extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello. Sorry, I don't understand why you're telling me about it. What's my connection to this page? El_C16:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, looks like I protected it for a year a week ago (AEL diff). But I still don't understand what you're asking me to do (or why you refactored material from the WP:RM over here). El_C16:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I contacted you is because I do not know many people on the Wikipedia. Basically, without context, my question is in the voting process for rename / delete decisions, does admin consider number of votes or actually the case it self (quality of the votes)? Abrvagl (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ElC, sorry to bother you but could you take a look at the user WikiNutt? They keep edit-warring and removing material from an article without any consensus or discussion [60], [61], [62], [63]. Apparently, this user thinks personal attacks through edit description is the way to go despite multiple warnings in their talk page:
The user:Emir of Wikipedia is clear vandalism and POV pushing.
What he is doing is a clear case of nothing but WP:DISRUPTIVE editing.
1) What's the POINT of having citations duplicated/repeated for no reason?
2) Another instance where the Lead is already re-written, he still adds the "lead needs to be re-written" tag.
3) No other page on wiki has reliable source needed and citation needed tags every other line! Shouldn't One tag for the whole para be enough?
4) Every line of Mir_Osman_Ali_Khan#Honours_and_Eponyms has got need quotations to verify tag. thereby making article look very UNTIDY and messy I must say.
Yes, everyone has right to opinion, but disruptive editing is not the way sir. Request you to do the needful, be it involving a neutral editor OR taking action on the said account OR whatever you dseem fit.
Hi Abby1101. Sorry, dealing with Emir of Wikipedia is taxing, and I've had my fill for a while, so it's someone else's turn to suffer through whatever this is. El_C07:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please tag someone (any tenured/administrator) whose help I could use?
Sorry, I wouldn't want to impose on that person by making such a request on your behalf. If you feel you have a solid case of misconduct, you can submit a report to WP:ANI. Regards, El_C13:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure np. But YouTube and blogs are not prohibited outright, they just need to represent reputable persons or entities. For example, citing something from the NYT's YouTube channel would be unproblematic. Or, I recently used The Times of Israel blog posts as attribution (I forget where), again, I feel, unproblematically. Obviously, that isn't the case here, but perhaps still worth noting. El_C12:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are an admin I have noticed doing interventions with page protections or sanctions in Balkan disputes (for example Kosovo recently) and thought you could be of help. I understand the fact you do not want to get involved in this, Regards. Durraz0 (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's your opinion on this? I find it to be an unacceptable accusation of bad faith, by somebody who ought to know better, and on top of that, one which, one must conclude willfully (in light of posts like [65] or [66]), ignore evidences to the contrary to it's central claim (that the TfD is, somehow, "forumshopping").
Your trenchant observation at ANI (here) immediately reminded my of my favorite Calvin & Hobbes cartoon, which you can find here. Either you already know it and it's one of your favorites, too; or you don't, and it's about to be. Enjoy! Mathglot (talk) 09:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I guess. ;) I tried to understand that comic strip, but I think you need a degree in linguistics for that (or more coffee, whatever comes last). Anyway, just the usual annoying reversal from me, but man, that ended badly. El_C11:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not only do I not remember what was going on back in June 2021, I didn't even remember that I was the one who indef semi'd it back then. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C12:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would I be wildly incorrect to assume that you may have some familiarity with sources on Judaism? If I'm not wildly incorrect, do this site and this site seem to be reliable as far as discussion the Jewish view on birthdays? If I am wildly incorrect, I guess I'll have to take a trip to WP:RSN. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really, actually. Mostly it's Israeli history and society; politics and economy; culture and arts; wars and military; and so on. Not Judaism so much. El_C14:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That was a good call to close the AFD for the Chris Rock incident. There is currently an RFC-type discussion taking place at the Talk page for 2022 Ukraine invasion by Russia for the section titled "Image of killed civilian". If you could find time to take a look, then maybe you could consider doing a close; it is currently running at about three-to-one in consensus opinions. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have three or four, all mostly procedural. Since you have at least looked at some of what prompts them, it might be easier for you to answer them than for others. But if you prefer that I seek clarity elsewhere I will; this may be possible now that that case is closed. So far a couple of admins had told me that the whole thing looks like a powder keg and no thanks. Which I do understand; I have previously had somebody tell me about something else that they were "not that kind of admin", and fair enough. But apparently I do not understand certain procedures. This has not previously been a problem as I mostly do translation and remediation of machine translation, since it is something I can do that other people can't, but sometimes wiki litigation finds you anyway.
So can I ask you some dispassionate questions? I promise that there is no agenda to make you do something to someone, and I will go away immediately if you tell me to. Let's start here: is telling me that the page is a powder keg a polite way to tell me I am wrong and I should drop the stick? Thanks for any brain power you apply to my questions. Elinruby (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well. Before I get to my procedural questions, Is your interest in music limited to particular genres?
The thing about homeland songs prompted me to do a Google search, and I have now found a beloved song from my childhood that didn’t use to be on YouTube, but now is.
It is, if I may say, a thing of beauty, and it is about snow and a fire in the fireplace. I’ll just leave it here. I hope you like it; it’s quite obscure, so the odds of you ever having encountered it before are quite small. I do have questions, but I will ask one a bit later; I am currently reaching wiki limits and need to either go to sleep or make something better, not sure which. But thank you for prompting me to find this lovely thing again: L’hiver “youtu.be/_gwFgB-ivY8” Elinruby (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One more then that I thought I would never hear again and that YouTube suggested. This one also really showcases her voice, but is quieter. It’s about losing someone, and the words are very beautiful. Crows cawing outside in the shivery wind, as the sky turns from grey to blue. m.youtube.com/watch?v=qMy5W31kpLg&noapp=1 Elinruby (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
reluctant to protect this set of requests. When I was clearing backlog last night I didn't know what to make of it, so I waited for someone more experienced to show me. So many issues, not the least of which is: how do I deal with a large multi-page request for protection? Outside my experience. BusterD (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and apologies for dragging you back into this topic area, but I really don't want to make another AN/I posting (and don't think this needs one per se). Would you be willing to take a look at this RfC (or rather the discussion under it)? Frankly I don't think I've ever seen an RfC go to shit so fast, and I think it could use an admin telling folks to back down (Slater and Enlightenment in particular). If this is inappropriate or you have no interest in stepping in I totally understand, just let me know. I'd figured I'd go to you since you've already done some enforcement here prior. BSMRD (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, don't bring it up at ANI again. Not to be harsh, but that was a terrible report. And pretty emblematic of why complex AE cases don't belong at ANI or AN, where the word-limitless, freeform threaded discussion format often becomes impenetrable to outside reviewers. So only WP:AE for now when it comes to this matter, please. In answer to your request: sorry, I can't really commit to looking into this in-depth right now, especially absent an AE report. Thanks. El_C18:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually trying to discern what the hell is going on over there. I think whoever has been removing input is probably wrong? But I am the one that's here with the process questions. My current feeling is that having read the thing three times, I can't tell what's going on, and I am familiar with the topic. All of the options have something wrong with them. The RfC isn't neutral, although to be fair I think Slatersteven did try. However, it should have been thoroughly discussed ahead of time, whereas he has been telling people to shut up and wait for the RfC for days and maybe a couple of weeks. My suggestion: close this thing. Tell Slatersteven, BSMRD and maybe also EnlightenmentNow1792 to be quiet for a while and let other people talk. Me too if you want. Put Bobfrombrockley in charge of writing the RfC. And deleting input from other editors is very wrong, it seems to me. Elinruby (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see you responded while I was typing. My bad and I withdraw the request then. I will go examine the history then. If it has to go to AE it isn't going to be enough to just say the RfC is badly malformed, right? Elinruby (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that there's a problem with the integrity of an RfC in an WP:ACDS-covered page, then, yes, that is something you can bring up in a report at WP:AE. You, as the filer, would not need to be seeking sanctions on a person or persons when noting their involvement in whatever problem it is you're looking to correct. El_C18:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ok thank you. I did that and kept it to a request for closure because people were voting on different things at different times. I have a lot going on RL and ... (/me fades off into the blue-grey on on the shivery wind with the crows) Elinruby (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably should have just told you not to do it. It's quite a subpar report, kinda the opposite of the subpar ANI one (there is a middle ground beyween TLDR and terse, believe it or not). Your summary merely stated: Not seeking sanctions at the moment but there has been a revert war on an RfC as people were voting on it. This may be due to a previous refusal to discuss but the bigger point right now is that everyone involved seems to agree.that the RfC needs to be closed and started over. What is one to even make of that? Scratching my head.
I don't understand why you think reviewers of that report should have to go piece together the evidence of your claims from the talk page and its revision history. To find diffs that are your burden (similar to WP:BURDEN) to submit. That is not how WP:VOLUNTARY works, expecting others to account for your responsibilities.
Look, I'm trying to balance being gentle with being firm, but you're not making it easy. So I'm gonna be blunt now: you are at the precipice. It's clear that you lack the required competence, and honestly, also disposition, to take lead on WP:ACDS-related editorial processes and procedures. You can't keep going like this, it is not sustainable and is ultimately self-defeating. El_C00:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the time I filed that, the two parties to the dispute were in agreement that the RfC should be closed and so was everyone else commenting at the time.
Not trying to argue with you, because I suspect you are not only correct, but possibly did me a favor by pulling me away from a boomerang. I do however want you to know, in case you feel slightly betrayed because we had just been talking, that I was, in my mind, reporting a consensus to take a step I saw as healthy for Wikipedia, and was in a hurry to do so before anybody else voted on the RfC not realizing that the options had changed.
Nobody was *involved*; there had been an edit war that had caused the problem, but this was not what I was there to report. The problem at that moment, to me, was an open, badly conceived but also altered RfC. I tried to specifically convey that I wasn't asking for anyone to be chided, using the tool available. I mean ... Ok, here is a neutral question. If there was an edit war but it is currently resolved, what name replaces "USERNAME"? I said Azov Battalion RFC but that felt wrong.
I agree in retrospect that it might have been better to informally request help from an admin as BSMRD did, rather than go to a high-stakes forum with unfamiliar paperwork not designed for this problem, but one did not come to mind.
Here is another neutral question: to what extent is it ok to remove talk page and RfC comments? Perhaps IATA. In my defense I do admit I am wrong when it's explained to me that I am. As was the case with the admin. But anyway. I really would like an answer to those questions, at your convenience, since I really do have overdue RL matters and probably won't be back for a couple of days anyway.
I am not asking you to do anything about any of this, and would in fact advise you not to, as the page is a bottomless pit. I am content to await whatever NPOV may have to say, offline, and contemplate whether the Russian disinformation page is worth continuing to get into trouble over. It might be. But I promise not to invoke your name if that happens.
(talk page watcher), without getting into the briar patch above, I'll just respond to one question of yours (non-admin comment):
Here is another neutral question: to what extent is it ok to remove talk page and RfC comments?
This is governed by WP:TPO. In brief, the safest thing is *never* to alter someone else's comments (a few exceptions are listed at the link). You can sometimes freely alter your own comment, if it's still the last one or nobody has responded to it yet. Basically, the rule of thumb is that you don't want to cause third parties coming in later on after someone has already replied to you, to scratch their head trying to figure out what the hell they are talking about, because the part they responded to in your comment is gone now, or altered in a way that replies make no sense anymore. WP:REDACT explains how to alter your own comment after someone else has replied to it. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to pages covered by DS/GS, the expectation is for editors to exercise greater caution due to the highly charged nature of those topic area/s. It is why admins are mandated with extra-discretion in those topic areas (by ARBCOM or the community respectively), giving them extraordinary powers, including ones that bypass normal consensus building for certain sanctions (various bans and other prohibitions).
Beyond that, though, the thing to remember is that it takes time to get a feel for what are generally assumed to be best practices, because not all policy is written, and some of what is written could be subject to varying interpretation. Potential issues which the contested nature of DS/GS topics greatly accentuates (a terrible place to start in).
Finally, AE reports virtually always have users listed because something doesn't alter itself, etc. But as noted, the filer can submit a report expressly asking not to sanction the user/s involved. That doesn't mean that the reported user/s won't be sanctioned, or that (indeed) the filer wouldn't be boomerang'd, or others users, or anything else. The filer can say whatever they want within the word limits, but obviously the decision isn't bound by what they wish to happen, including scope and so on. HTH. //Class OverEl_C11:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it’s amateurish, a fan video, and the sound could be better, but this is a festival band, and I give it major bonus points for the hoop dancer, who may be of interest if you’ve never seen this done before. The sound gets better towards the end, presumably when the person who recorded it took their fingers off the microphone of their mobile phone.
youtu.be/cUw2siLrZPY
I thought of you because this is not too far a leap from homeland songs, as an anthem of sorts. KUNM’s Singing Wire used to play some version of this song every single show, and probably still does. Elinruby (talk) 05:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, El C. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Please delete this. Message added 12:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
When you closed the AE request about the Azov RfC, you referred to the filer as a "newcomer". I thought you should know that they have been editing since 2006 and have about 65,000 edits. Cullen328 (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RE: a baby's heelless shoe with a soft leather sole — yeah, that makes perfect sense. Also, why would baby shoes have heels? What? Uh, how fancy and/or athletic are these babies? El_C02:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for some reason, I have just one of my baby shoes. I might have lost the other one in the old country. But the point is: it is not heelless! El_C02:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Merriam-Webster, what has happened to you? Actually, when I tried looking up "cack" it had both "excrement" and "to kill" but MW says it is "vomit". All nasty things that don't belong on Brioche. LizRead!Talk!02:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I disagree with your decision, considering the deliberate attempts to damage Wikipedia and incivility by Volunteer Marek (which I am ready to provide diffs for) I consider I did my best to stay civil and engage in talk page discussion. Since the report was submitted at a time I am usually offline and I didn't have time to reply to the spurious accusations and serious personal attacks (such as whitewashing crimes, pushing propaganda or conspiracy theories), I ask you what is the best venue to appeal your decision and clear my name (as well as preventing Volunteer Marek to continue malicious removal of encyclopedic content, the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research and slow edit warring on multiple articles, all of which constitute "obvious evidence" which allows editors to waive WP:AGF). Anonimu (talk) 05:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You weren't sanctioned for WP:CIVIL violations, you were sanctioned for egregious WP:TE ones. The principle of WP:NOTTHEM will make it unlikely for your appeal to succeed if you only point to others' shortcomings (or try using these to account for your own). In that sense, focusing mainly on VM's incivility —which I can definitely believe happened (actually, I'd be shocked if he wasn't uncivil, that's sort of his trademark)— is unlikely to see your sanction lifted, because it's largely irrelevant to it. It wouldn't count as a strong enough mitigating factor for what you did. Those are my initial thoughts. In answer to your question: I always recommend AE sanctions to be appealed at WP:AE (rather than at WP:AN or WP:ARCA). El_C11:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even more so, as my edits only contain paraphrasing of reliable sources or templates regarding failure to verify sources in article text, no original research, no POV (unless that POV was expressed by a reliable source, in which case I made sure to attribute). In order to prove this, I will have to provide extensive list of diffs, quotes from the sources and the articles (previous unsupported text vs my text). Is this going to be accepted at AE or should I create a subpage in my userspace to make sure my appeal won't be rejected for excessive length?
To make it clear, I'm addressing this to you since ARBEE has lots of strikethroughs so it's unclear what parts still apply, and, as enforcing admin, you will probably not have a say in the appeal decision (I suppose, I haven't taken part in AE in ages).Anonimu (talk) 12:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday, I found a rusty old pair of pliers in my shopping cart (the grocery store does not sell these). Look what I won! I said to the person who came with me and who was in a parallel que. Why would you win... what is that, pliers? they asked. Because I'm fuckin' awesome, that's why! I saiid. At that point, I got to the cashier, handed her the pliers (handle first!) and said: my gift to you. If anyone gives you attitude (except me), *pinch* Now, you might call me a hero, you might call me an epic hero. Which would be correct. True stogy. El_C09:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You said trains are "she"... but if "she" is hi, and "he" is hu, and "who" is mi, and "me" is ani... Doesn't that mean the whole thread needs to be moved to ANI?
I think I missed it, but are ships she or he in Hebrew? I'm going to share my own tidbits of information and say that in French it's masculine (since the word for ship is navire, and that is masculine - same outcome, also, in Spanish); and German is apparently feminine - for ex. de:HMS Victory (the second sentence begins She is today a museum-ship in Portsmouth, although it's das Schiff [the ship, neuter]). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most modes of transport in Hebrew seem to use feminine, like: bicycle, car, van, truck, train, raft, boat, ship, ferry, submarine. Except for aviation for some reason: airplane, heli and hot air balloon, for example, are masculine. Also, motorcycle is→ kinda masculine bicycle (O-fa-noa → O-fa-na-im). El_C18:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted it noted I just spent about five minutes trying to think up a good Jewish train joke so I could start a section entitled "An important question regarding Hebrews in trains." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Y'know what always got me in Hebrew? Two different words for "fly". It's cool, but also meant I couldn't make my normal joke of flapping my arms after saying "I'm going to fly to...". Yes, real comedic genius I know. P.S., in Toki Pona "ni li" means (roughly) "this is", so, keeping the translingual homophones coming. ("Fly" is "waso", like oiseau. Or "tawa sewi", "move highly". Or a bunch of other things.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they)21:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I went googling but the only thing I find are a rabbi and a priest (occasionally, it's not a priest but a random Italian) on a train discussing, uhm, pork meat and sex [71], so not really family friendly either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See I came up with something here about coins on railroad tracks, and I think it'll get laughs when I tell it at seder, but might be less popular to have in my contribs. There is the classic about the guy reading the Yiddish newspaper on the subway, but that one has aged quite poorly. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they)21:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that this is strictly family friendly, of course...
The only relevant joke I know is the old one of the three men in a railway compartment playing skat on the belly of the fourth passenger, a sleeping fat priest, for lack of a table; but you'll have heard it. Narky Blert (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it common for Jewish families to have a box of yarmulkes stashed away for when they invite us gentiles over for Passover and such? When I was dating a Jewish woman, her family invited me over for Passover Seder, and when I got there her father got out an old cardboard box of yarmulkes. They were very impressed when I already had one of my own, a beautiful purple satin one, which I had gotten when I was in the wedding party at a friend's wedding. I also got to sign the Ketubah, saying I would do anything in my power to help the two of them keep their marriage strong. That's a pretty good tradition. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing but peace and love, but I gotta eat. If I get a couple deer a year that makes me meat independent, with my rabbits and quail. Toss a few pheasant and turkey on top, and holidays are covered too! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess not too much Bach or Reger then? Currently preparing this for an upcoming final exam in a few weeks: great fun running around on the pedals with that one... :) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)
My mom's got the big kippah box in her home (where we usually do seder), also with backup haggadot of the wrong variety so whichever unlucky person gets them has to try to keep up with different translations and different pagination. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they)21:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kippah == Yarmulke. First comes from Hebrew, latter from Yiddish, although I see yiwiki uses yi:קאפל ("Koppel") as its article title... which brought to my attention that we didn't have a link from Koppel to Kippah, which I've now fixed. So let it not be said that nothing encyclopedic has been accomplished here. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they)23:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, we've all been bad guys; somebody's going to have to put a {{uw-chat1}} somewhere to warn people. Keeping contributors in a good mood and distracting them from the inevitable drama is part of building the encyclopedia, right? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, I kindly ask that you revert your last edit to Kirkuk to the last stable version which has been unaffected for several months. These racially motivated POV edits were made by a new user who has now been blocked from editing and this is not the stable version. Regards. 77.96.159.195 (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss it on the talk page and get consensus, don't ask the protecting administrator to continue to edit war on your behalf. Besides, we're busy making circumcision jokes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for protecting the page yesterday. As expect the person driving the addition of the poor content has posted an RFC, but it is badly written - it is not just about the content but it's about me and the other editors and how we got to the RFC. I contend that the latter is irrelevant. All that matters is we have a clear discussion about the content and only the content. He/she is being completely intransigent on this - and is also not getting the idea that WP:ONUS means he/she is the one who needs to present a good argument for inclusion. The parroted comment is "tell me what's wrong with it, tell me what's wrong with it...". Any chance you could take a look and have a word? 10mmsocket (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you could stop by? Telanian7790 is reverting to his/her past behaviour of article ownership and personal attacks on other editors, e.g. with "That is a very bizarre response." and very definitely accusing other editors of acting in bad faith. It's undermining the process. I'm of a mind based on his past behaviour to file an ANI and ask for a topic ban but would really appreciate anything you might be able to do first. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Sorry, I'm a bit pressed for time right now, so it might indeed be best to seek assistance elsewhere. Regards, El_C17:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I came across E3a on my watchlist after I noticed they were inexplicably adding pointless "cleanup" edits to articles tagged for deletion and removing advert tags, only to see that they have a history of promotional editing. I see they responded to you, JBW and others stating they had no connection to Rahimberdi Annamoradnejad but I looked at their edits on other projects (where they also created this article) and came across this interesting tidbit. Use google translate to see what it says...there's a clear COI here. CUPIDICAE💕19:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry guys. A few years ago I was really promoting without knowing the rules (if there were any). But recently, I was working on a project to test automated moderation tools and I had to keep editing and putting them. It wasn't just Wikipedia. You were great in detecting the chaos, but you shouldn't have been put into such tasks. You can rest assured that this is over :) Good bye. 46.209.83.117 (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think given their admission of using some sort of weird tool, it's probably worth a CU locally and perhaps some glocks. CUPIDICAE💕14:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe take it to WP:AFD this time. This isn't as straight forward for me to comfortably use the DS hammer in favour of keeping the redirect. El_C08:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Outer Range is pretty good so far, although I'm worried it's going to be more Lost than Twin Peaks. Makes me wish I had a ranch. Then I think about how much work not a whole ranch is, then I no longer wish to have a ranch.
For sure, it's got potential. Will keep watching. I dunno, the not-mirror world? BTW, From turned out to be pretty good. A bit religiousy for what I look for in the genre, but still engaging. And speaking of Lost (which was great, lest we forget, until it wasn't), it stars Harold Perrineau. Anyway, looking forward to S02. El_C00:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like I watched From, or it's on a watchlist of mine, somewhere. And Lost certainly was great, and certainly did lose the magic as soon as it became obvious that they were throwing in mysteries just to have mysteries. I prefer to have my mysteries solvable, so there's a reason to let my mind chew them over. Season 1 of Westworld being a great example. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's new. With the creatures and shit. Yeah, Westworld took an exceptional nosedive and yet kept going. El_C12:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I watched season 2 of Westworld, but don't remember much except to Protect Ya Neck. Didn't bother coming back for season 3. Oh, Spin is good so far, although it has a character named Jason, which does present problems for me every time it's spoken.
My wife and I just brought the dogs out, and they each took off and brought us back an adolescent rabbit, my wife's dog had injured hers, so I had to dispatch it, but my dog handed the rabbit to me whole and uninjured. +1 rabbit. Put it in with one of my does, we'll see how it does. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Buttinsky) That's amazing SFR. What breed of dog brought back the uninjured rabbit? I'm house-sitting for my daughter, who has a Brittany Spaniel, and he has been going crazy over a family of squirrels in their yard. He finally caught one of the little ones and brought its little lifeless body to the back door. He was not at all gentle after he caught it but quite proud of his accomplishment. 😢 I've been wanting a baby squirrel to raise and so far, that's as close as I've gotten to one. Atsme💬📧02:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All the many mouse (meese?) my cat ever brought back were dead. But all the chipmunks were, not only alive, but uninjured and unmolested. I say chipkmunks, but it was mainly just the one who lived by the garage. I think after the tenth time of being brought to the door only to be released, the novelty sort of wore of (for the chipmunk, me and kitty were still super into it). El_C09:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both of my dogs are mutts, the one I call my dog looks to be blood hound and black lab. I trained her for hunting, and she comes in very handy any time a quail gets out of the hutch. She'll run it down and carry it back uninjured. The dog I call my wife's dog looks more like she has some terrier in her, so it's not unexpected that she'd kill what she caught. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh the plus side, the circle of life marches on. I have 120 quail eggs in the incubator right now, 17 or 18 days I should have a decent pile of new chicks, and I'll probably run another 120 as soon as the first hatch. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming you are referring to the languages used. The first appears to be Bulgarian and the last two posts were in Macedonian. Per Google translate. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have been all the way through the article and only found one problem related to translation, in which apartment buildings were referred to as “houses”. I fixed that. The article seems to be getting plenty of attention, and I am pretty sure It is fine now. I asked on the talk page whether I was missing something and was told that nobody should tag it it as a rough translation unless they can prove that it is. This is a novel interpretation of the translation procedure and as far as I know wrong, but more importantly, a pointless argument best avoided, since this editor apparently also feels that the article is not a rough translation. I suppose this article’s presence on that list isn’t bothering anybody but me, but one of the things I do is try to identify the original language of articles that on that list, and I would like the article to leave the list if it doesn’t need translator help. Can you shed any light or suggest somebody who might be able to do so? Is the problem that I am on a mobile device perhaps? Thank you for any brain power that you apply to this question. Elinruby (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a WP:HIDDENCAT. Nobody really knows what these are. A leading theory that I just came up with now is that our AI overlords at Wikidata went back in time to create these (probably for the lulz, because robots love to laugh and love). El_C08:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dear Admin
I just saw that you have locked this page Rajput, I want to bring the whole context of the situation to your notice, so that you can look at it. Two editors are unfortunately cooperating like possible suspected meat puppets. Some possible proof for the same: One editor pinged other editor on his/her talk page twice once on 7th March and next on 13th April [here] the other editor just restored the edit to the desired version of First editor skipping all relevant edits in the duration, and the other editor added his content just 2 hrs late [here], this was on 7th March - 8th March, now next incident last week the editor mass deleted the whole content by giving misleading edit summary [here] as there was no activity for 1 day. Isn't this WP:OWN ? Later again on another similar page, the particular editor restored the preferred version of his/her or to the version of his desired friendly editor. It looks like on many pages similar habit is being repeated by the same editor and now again the same editor has restored the edit to desired version of his or her friendly editor ( possible WP:Tag team ) [here] removing the valuable edits done by another editor [here]. Now, surprisingly the same editor has asked for protection on the page [here]. It would be convenient if you as Admin and a very senior editor could take a review of it because there wasn't any edit war going on except the concerned editor who once mass deleted the whole content with wrong edit summary. Thanks and Best RS6784 (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Admin, I am extremely sorry for this mistake, I will send the same below without mobile diffs. Accept my apologies, Thanks and Best RS6784 (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw that you have locked this page Rajput, I want to bring the whole context of the situation to your notice, so that you can look at it. Two editors are unfortunately cooperating like possible suspected meat puppets. Some possible proof for the same: One editor pinged other editor on his/her talk page twice once on 7th March and next on 13th April [here] the other editor just restored the edit to the desired version of First editor skipping all relevant edits in the duration, and the other editor added his content just 2 hrs late [here], this was on 7th March - 8th March, now next incident last week the editor mass deleted the whole content by giving misleading edit summary [here] as there was no activity for 1 day. Isn't this WP:OWN ? Later again on another similar page, the particular editor restored the preferred version of his/her or to the version of his desired friendly editor. It looks like on many pages similar habit is being repeated by the same editor who is rarely active and now again the same editor has restored the edit to desired version of his or her friendly editor ( possible WP:Tag team ) [here] removing the valuable edits done by another editor [here]. Now, surprisingly the same editor has asked for protection on the page [here]. It would be convenient if you as Admin and a very senior editor could take a review of it because there wasn't any edit war going on except the concerned editor who once mass deleted the whole content with wrong edit summary. Thanks and Best RS6784 (talk) 12:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But what should be done in case of mass deletion of the whole content like the editor did on a page. The particular dormant editor can't just keep on restoring to his/her preferred edit and obstruct others from even adding new sourced content. This behaviour is unfortunately repeated regularly by the editor, I think this is done on many pages. Thanks for your vital suggestions on it. RS6784 (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you'd need to verify whether there's an issue across multiple pages. But as to the page in question, if you feel like yourself and other participants have reached an impasse on the article talk page, there are dispute resolution requests you can avail yourself of, like an WP:RFC (but not WP:DRN, no!). That DRR may then be advertised (in a neutral way) to relevant wikiprojects. In turn, this would hopefully bring further outside input to the dispute. And so, if the issues are, indeed, as you perceive them to be, those outside reviewers are much more likely to offset these (certainly, they'd bring added weight to any conduct report, at the very least). HTH. El_C12:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Once again thank you for the great input. I just wanted to point out the concerned editor used edit warring as excuse to ask for locking the Rajput page but literally no activity happened for a day, but before asking for lock, the editor today restored the edit to her preferred version. where is the WP:NPOV in such case here ?. This was my another issue RS6784 (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For sure, glad I could help. But one day is not too long in the context of edit warring, which did happen, so not an "excuse," but a valid reasoning. As for asking for protection after reverting to their preferred version, that's pretty common and isn't usually frowned upon. El_C12:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ElC, hope you're doing well. I was going to ask if you could take a look at user Mfikriansori? They keep doing Pov edits, removing Armenian names from articles like these [76], [77], [78]. [79], [80], adding Azeri names while edit-warring over them with WP:OTHER and WP:POINT "analysis", not actually justifying inclusion on merits of the article and relation to it [81]. They remove / change the Armenian (and official at the time) names like here which adds 0 value to the article and isn't the official city name of that time period. Similarly, only in the opposite direction, they add Khankendi next to common and modern name Stepanakert[45], or completely change it.
I tried to reason with them [82], and addressed their WP:POINT "analysis" in Talk:Yerevan#Names_in_the_lede, where they suggested adding the Azeri name in the lede of Yerevan, Armenia's capital. I don't think any of these helped. Most of their edits don't have edit descriptions even controversial ones, and they rarely if ever engage in talks. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I forgot to add their name lol. Thank you for your attentiveness ElC, AA would've been an even bigger poophole without you looking over us. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't. So atonal and unadorned. I just don't get much out the genre, even when I like the politics. Now, funk, that's a whole other galaxy. El_C22:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, El C. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 11:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
The same applies to QRep2020. Their top ten most edited articles are all Musk and Tesla related. This editor's purpose here on Wikipedia seems to be to make Musk and his businesses look as bad as possible. Cullen328 (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well shit, so the good and the bad. Symmetry? I'm gonna re-open that ANI thread and refactor this, as they might need to be shown the door, too. El_C19:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IP adding junk to dog articles. See their contribs. I revert the garbage, they throw it back in. I did the AGF thing at first, and then I started noticing the yellow caution colors on the contribs of the IP. I created a UTP, and warned. They are not here to help build - they're entertaining themselves adding junk. Atsme💬📧02:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello El_C. I have made a reply to the ANI thread regarding my p-ban. Just wanted to make sure you saw it. Sorry if this is the wrong place to notify you or another admin. If it is could you point me in the right direction?
Thanks!BoMadsen88 (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the beginning of April you blocked user:219.77.58.50 (now globally blocked too), and protected Slum for two weeks. The protection has now ended and a new IP user:182.239.87.135 (different ISP but same city) has appeared to restore the same unsourced claim that a particular high rise is a slum [83] vs [84], for example. Meters (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems fairly clear-cut that he is pinging users known to be aligned with a specific side of the debate on Wikipedia in order to manipulate/circumvent consensus. Drsmoo (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you almost exclusively edit alongside both Onceinawhile and Zero0000, describing yourself as a random passerby seems quite disingenuous. I would consider this textbook Tag Teaming, but perhaps my understanding of what is acceptable needs to be adjusted, hence my asking. Drsmoo (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it permissible to ping specific editors with known ideological viewpoints and ask them to contribute to a debate?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is it permissible to ping specific editors who are known to share one's ideological viewpoints, and ask them to contribute, while one is in the middle of a talk page debate with/against someone who does not share those viewpoints. Note, if this is not the right place to ask, where would be a better place to ask? Drsmoo (talk) 12:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For example, if I were in a one-on-one discussion/debate regarding Jewish history, could I @ a user with an expertise in Jewish history, even if I knew their edits tended to follow the same ideological pattern as mine? Or would that be considered problematic ally trying to influence consensus?Drsmoo (talk) 13:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not what El C stands for but it was fun looking it up, especially with your love for the natural things. I got curious when I read the unpleasantness from @Classical library as to why they called you bug man so I re-read your talk page and still found no references to bugs. Bugs can be pretty amazing though. However, I was a very big fan of the killer beast in Monty Python and the Holy Grail and seeing as I'm a fan of yourself I could correlate the two. Just make sure to dodge grenades thrown by knights. I digress, if I could fully understand @Classical library's rant I might find it particularly offensive but it really just left me wondering why someone would go through all that effort to leave a message attacking the entire encyclopedia, the community and editors like yourself when just hours before they were editing themselves as a part of the community. Seems like the very definition of antithetical. Anyways, this is just a little message of support for you and my attempt at being somewhat comical in the process. --ARoseWolf14:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No but that's a good reference. I don't watch much television. I knew there were editors at one time trying to figure out what El_C stood for. I ran across el conejo which means rabbit and was just trying to be funny. The safe is never safe with dynamite around or holy hand-grenades. --ARoseWolf17:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I work in information knowledge gap areas I do have a Draft:Re-mosqueing of Hagia Sophia I wish it gets reverted back to earlier draft name Draft:Intellectual discourse over re-mosqueing of Hagia Sophia for conveying clear objective. Since I am not looking for in the intended article some one praised or condemned conversion of Hagia Sophia that kind of list of reactions, but interested in taking encyclopedic note of proper intellectual discourse.
When I was requesting expansion help to a user they changed name. When I try to move back it says "The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists,"
're-mosqueing' is less used but is used, any ways I wish to leave it open for name change again as per other's suggessions but after Draft going ahead with intended purpose first.
Sorry I did not notice that they are an admin, I had approached them for just for help in draft content expansion. I did not know if such action amounts to admin action.
I do not know you personally but once you contacted me on my talk page Your user name is saved on my talk page and all admin guidance and help I always came to you. Some thing is possible not possible I find a level of clarity in your guidance and that is it which I do appreciate . (this is not negative comment on other admins just I found your prompt response and did not need to go anybody else since I contacted you first time)
Bookku, the point is that you shouldn't use admins to circumvent direct communication with... whomever. Be they an IP editor or admin. El_C13:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bookku I moved the draft, and I think it is much better under the shorter title. Re-mosquing is apparently a word--but I cannot tell whether it is the usual word. The article is about the overall subject, and it iws much more likely tp be approved under that title. I am an admin, but as ElC says, a tiitle change like that is n
not an admin function, but can be done by any editor. What you need to focus on is improving the draft, not concerning yourself with the title. DGG ( talk ) 07:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a perfect example why there should be a 500/30 covering the AA2 area. This continued snipping at the heels of the article by IPs[85][86] to remove what ever they can, since they are offended by the Armenian Genocide. Even the edit summary is idiotic.
""arrived to relieve" It is an attack on an Ottoman city. It's not an operation on their own territory.
So the city of Van was not under siege by Ottoman forces intent on exterminating Armenians? This was not Armenians defending themselves? Instead, an IP can remove information concerning a relief force and state this city was attacked from outside forces. Whatever. I will not be drawn into an edit war(especially in the AA2 region). --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kansas Bear, if it's only IPs, then WP:SEMI is enough. Either way, enacting blanket WP:ECP on a topic area, like as seen in WP:ARBPIA4#Amendment_(September_2021) or WP:APL50030, would be done at ARBCOM's discretion (which you could request for them to do by Motion at WP:ARCA, or by Case by filing a new AA3 request at WP:RFAR). I'd note though that even this blanket prohibition was in the end tempered by regulars at WP:RFPP by generally declining preemptive requests.
I don't think there was ever a blanket semiprotection applied to any topic area, be they WP:ACDS or WP:GS. I'd guess the reason for this is that it's easy to get the WP:CONFIRMED user right (10 edits / 4 days), whereas ECP is, well, WP:500/30. Thus, taking much greater dedication to conceal deeply problematic tendencies. I've indef semi'd that page as an ACDS action. El_C09:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ElC. The IP 176.219.214.222 (talk·contribs) and their different dynamic addresses are currently engaged in repeated genocide denial Talk:Armenian_genocide#Suggestion, citing a handful of genocide deniers like Bernard Lewis and Justin McCarthy as their "sources" to prove Armenian genocide wasn't a genocide. Even after being explained all of this by multiple editors [87], [88], [89], they still persist and continue to engage in denialism.
Aside from the known denialists Lewis and McCarthy, they also cited Turkish authors and another denialist, Michael Gunter.
Also, it's interesting how a random days/week old IP has Discussion Tools enabled from Preferences, Beta Features. (see their diffs and automatic "Reply" edit description with tags). I think there is a limit on how much a user can engage in their synthesized and extremely undue denialism rants in talk pages, on a crusade to overwrite history. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You were personally mentioned by John Stossel in his review of WP (he did not verbally state your name, but did show your user page): [90]Buffs (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I remember finding that album in a used cd store, and not realizing that David Bowie still made music. I picked it up, and ended up becoming a pretty big fan of modern Bowie. My wife likes his old stuff, but gets irked when I play Bring Me the Disco King. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @El C:, If an editor, who's been an editor since 2008, has 19,261 edits globally, do they meet the requirements in "Extended confirmed protection" here [91]? Thank you, BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally, probably not. In spirit, probably yes. But in any case, you can request to have your EC user right expedited at WP:PERM#Extended confirmed. A request which if I were to guess will likely be granted (unless there's something potentially egregious I don't know about (also, I'm not a PERM regular, so, really, just a guess)). HTH. El_C14:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: The EC user right that I'm asking about isn't for me, but for this editor [92]. That editor lives in Ukraine and, as you can imagine, doesn't have much time to address these types of issues. So would be ok if I requested EC user right for them? As you can see, they've made 19,261 edits globally, which seems to be well over 500 edits required. Please advise and thank you so much for taking time to answer. Best regards, BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. In answer to your follow up question: honestly, I don't think that would fly. Either they have time/access to edit WWII-era history (I'm presuming), and by extension make a request at PERM (which are generally brief), or they don't. That's my sense of what a response to requesting a PERM on their behalf would go there. But who knows. It's not like you're not allowed to request it on their behalf (at least I don't think), but it is much more likely to get declined than if they were to request it themselves. El_C15:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you. I will leave them a message on their Talk page for them to request EC user right. To address the edit issue you bring up: the sad part is, they really haven't had time to edit their page since it's put up for "deletion." But the good news is, "Moxy" and "Elinruby" have been working very hard on editing that page to address the issues raised in the AFD deletion request. Thank you so very much for all your help and advice! Best regards to you & yours, BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: Sorry to bother you again, but I have two more questions about "Extended confirmed protection"
1) Which wikipedia "edit data" is used to determine if an editor has made over the required "500 edits?" By that I mean, if we look at your "Basic stats" (here [93], it shows you've only made "33 edits" - However your "global edits" are 176,178. Meaning, if your "basic stats" are used, then you wouldn't meet the 500 edit threshold; but if your "global edits" are used, then you do meet it. (which is the exact same situation the editor I discussed above is in.)
Well, my limited understanding is that the EC user right is gained much like the WP:AUTOCONFIRM one does: some MediaWiki robot counts the edits/time and makes it go when it reaches the 500/30 threshold. But the data gathered is project-specific. Which is to say, would not convert across different language (or other) Wikimedia projects. El_C22:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: Thank you for answering. The editor in question has 16,993 edits in "en.wikipedia" which is well over 500 and seem to be the stats used to meet the threshold, (I think- Lol)? Do you mind comparing their edit stats vs. yours as a way to visualize what I'm talking about? If so, here's their stats [94] & here's yours [95]. By the way, I hope you know that I only compare your stats as an example because I know darn well you meet the threshold. Best to you, and thank you, BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No quite. El C's basic stats show they made 175,245 edits on en.wp, while the user in question made only 362 edits on en.wp (the rest is on uk.wp). M.Bitton (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I kept scratching my head, wondering why I'm the only who is seeing 362 instead of 354, until I saw that 8 of their edits were in fact deleted. M.Bitton (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: Yes, as I said here [96] that was a typo. I mean to say the editor has 16,993 edits in English as the UK.wikipedia is in English. I am very flatter that all you editors are trying to help me understand this. Thanks to you all and best regards to you all! BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @M.Bitton:. You are correct, I made a typo. My bad, I'm sorry. My brain was faster than my fingers. I meant to say, the editor has 16,993 edits in english. (UK wiki is in english.) Here's a part of confusion for me, the EC requirement only says the editor must have 500 edits and doesn't mention language or country, at least not that I can tell. I'm not trying to sound like a pill, but because the EC doesn't mention language or country, it is confusing to me. But, thank you again M.Bitton, for taking part in this. I greatly appreciate all the expert advice from all you. Best to you, BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there El C, I'd like to wish you a happy adminship anniversary! Congratulations on your special day, and thank you for all the contributions you've made.
IP5.146.248.228 has continued to make disruptive edits. Here the IP changed a referenced quote, quite literally removing the word Azeri and replacing it with what they want. Is there anything that can be done about this? --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't that that's a disruptive edit, as they provided a reason on why they changed it (and plus, Afshar is just another word for Azeri). TatiVogue (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And since you are new, I will explain why we can not do that. Wikipedia is written using WP:RS. We, as editors, can only write what a source says. Not what we think it says, not what we know, not what we think we know, not even what we want it to say. Said IP replaced wording within a referenced quote which is a violation of WP:OR and even worse is source misrepresentation(ie. lying). --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw that you're in the middle of a family emergency. I will send positive energy to you and your family. With love, respect, & best regards, BetsyRMadison (talk) 07:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I took and picked the image last year, DYK? - I have the quirky today, which is rare ;) - best wishes for health, and then Psalm 18 if possible, and perhaps a response to the latest request on my talk: look for "stop", God also mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Thanks for wishes. Yeah, was just helping someone out again. It was a scheduled thing, but it went a bit sideways (Harry Potter!), so a couple of days became a couple of weeks. But things are looking okay now, so I should be caught up with IRL backlog and be back to annoying the masses soon! El_C10:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for having done that! Psalms 18 and 20 waiting (also for me), and 21 in the pipeline, none good for DYK, so take your time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure it makes sense to have Psalms 18 laid out like that, though? It has 50 lines, so the raw English text already takes up 80 percent of the page. And if you were to add the Hebrew text as well, it'll come close to 95 percent. I mean, I'll do it, but it's pretty long, so I don't want to do it for naught.
No idea about the countess. I don't know enough about her or her family (which is to say close to nothing) and this isn't really my field. I'd guess that yes, but that's as far as I'd go (which is not much). El_C10:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure aout the Psalm. Perhaps you could adopt what we do for Psalm 119 KJV, the difference of course being that KJV is Wikisource. I can't tell if the English given for 18 gives a good enough idea of the content, or if things get lost in translation. "No idea" is fine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean about Psalms 119. What do I do? Yeah, the inverted ratio of quotes to prose is already quite problematic for the Psalms 18 page right now... El_C11:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For 119, they say summarily where to find the text (instead of copying it to the article), which in this case is the Wikisource. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I_C. I'll leave that decision with you. Do you have another Psalms you want me to do (preferably one that isn't 50 lines long!)? El_C14:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very cool. I can't get over how beautiful St. Martin, Idstein is on the inside compared to how meh it is on the outside. And the organ — I'd jam on that! I miss choir, those were good times. El_C22:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! - Next psalm: 32. (There were 2 in between which already had Hebrew text.) - If you have a spare minute or three: WP:ITNN has a nom by me, marked redy, and it's the last possible day, - getting nervous. (Already asked on the talk, to no avail, other than the "ready". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DYK that I don't know how to post DYKs? I presume the process is as convoluted and counter-intuitive as FAs, but who really knows. If only there were instructions. Oh well, put it on your to do list. El_C12:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I have an article ready, I go to the top line, click "more", there click DYK. To read the instructions, best go to the Main page, then to the DYK section, at the bottom click "Archive" but only to find the side navbox which claims to have it all, especially "Nominations". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
??? WP:DYK - it comes with a sidebar which has it all, click under "Nominations", that tries to give you explanation. - Better look at the latest pics, perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I probably misunderstood "I might not get to it in time" as you might not be able to nominate some article for DYK in time. For the psalms, - there's no "in time". I did Psalm 68 now which has Hebrew, so won't get to 32 until June 4. See my talk today, will get to more pics later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but as mentioned, I know next to nothing about the DYK process, not to mention nominating anything. So, unless there's something akin to RD, where there's already consensus to post, I'm probably not gonna be of much use. But I won't be back actively till later in the week, anyway. Wish me Luke! El_C13:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you luck, and never asked you for help with DYK, just for reading. The video of the violinist is short, and although in German (he does the talking, "from stage into war"), with enough other sounds and music to be worth watching. Tell me if so, if you have the time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it’s his weirdest one so far. Not really sure what to think, again he throws a left hook. Best songs so far are the intro and the one with Portishead (can’t believe he has a song with them now). Mirror, N95, Father Time and Count me out were also good. I’ll have to relisten a few times as usual to get a full understanding. One thing I notice is the lack of a “story” and recurring “characters”, unlike his previous albums. Apple Music says the album is about accountability but it seems more like perspective to me (remember the opening lines of The Heart part 5). Moneytrees🏝️(Talk)06:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't heard it yet. I'm embarrassed to say that I didn't even know (or forgot) that there was a new album until Spaceboy mentioned it in passing a couple of days ago. But weird could be good, as long as the flow matches. Will check out soon. El_C10:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Listening some more, I think I'm wrong about the "characters" and "story"; those are still on the album, but they are unlike previous narratives in his albums. This is album much more about Kendrick himself and his real life, and the "characters" are the people he knows who are featured on the album (Eckhart Tolle, Whitney, Kodak, Keem etc.). Die hard and Savior are also highlights on listening more. There's still some things I'm not really understanding, but I otherwise like it, it's at least as good as DAMN. I'll wait until you've listened through before I say more. Lol... you can tell Kendrick released a new album when my editing here goes down... Moneytrees🏝️(Talk)04:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you know me, I just wanna know if it grooves. But that is interesting. BTW, the reason it's taking me so long to listen to it is because I gotta be in the right headspace to listen to hip-hop. Which isn't really unique to that genre — it applies to nearly all of em (for exakmple, Gerda's classical music and opera choices are always great, but it often takes me a while to get to em for that reason). The exception to that is, of course, the groove. But then again, Moneytrees is an incredibly groovy track (and user!). I think we spoke about that track's masterful sample (video), but for those who missed it, it was linked above in the triple Money Trees songspam entry that I titled: DJ Dahi & DJ Rahki: Sample masters. But I like that you like it; this new album seems very promising. El_C11:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, Vig, you decoded it. It was all a ploy: grudges and cynicism and the triumph of the human spirit. Curiously, back in October, I got applause from you (and not for the first time). But I suppose now it's the downturn's turn (also not for the first time). Till next time (time). El_C02:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vig, honestly, I just don't trust myself to be able to manage WP and the WPO in parallel (threads such as these are rare for a reason). Otherwise, I'd have joined ages ago. I know my limits (well, some of them). El_C02:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, Vig, I meant I don't hold grudges (or at least I try hard not to), not that you hold a grudge against me — if anything, you've been decent to me more than most at the WPO over the years. You just came in swinging hard, which caught me off guard.
In any case, another admin (Galobtter) has now reversed me and the PM right has been re-granted. Personally, I think it's a decision that's likely to come back and bite us, because it often takes a lot of inertia for systemic problems to reach some sort of critical mass. I'm concerned that the user will be emboldened so as to continue to make bad closes/moves (read their very brief closing summary, I found it obviously problematic), even if it may not be to a contested EE/APL page while it's being challenged at AfD (again, IP editor 163.1.15.238 has provided other troubling examples).
But the point (beyond me re-litigating the damn thing here!) is that I genuinely do not feel enmity toward Galobtter for undoing my action (though obviously that isn't something I can prove). I disagree, but I have nothing against them because of it. They also lifted a p-block of mine a few hours earlier (after consulting me), which I didn't disagree with. What I'm trying to get at is that there are so many battles, everywhere all of the time, but I'm trying to tilt at windmills that there's a better way, at least some of the time. But I'm not perfect (_understatement). But I keep trying, hopefully, learning a thing or two along the way (read: forgetting a thing or 3). El_C10:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vig, I mean, that a warning would have been better than the insta-revocation, that's obviously a view shared by most participants, yourself included. It just seemed like such an egregious lapse, that I felt an exception to the process was called for. But live and learn. I'm trying to improve, though admittedly it's often slow and marred by set-backs. But, hopefully, it'll prove to be a forward trajectory overall. El_C16:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, during the week when I was unable to log in, I emailed Levivich about this trying to explain myself better (it didn't go great). Didn't help that I we were both frustrated with one another. Later on, I also emailed ProcrastinatingReader (it went decent, he made some good points that helped me reflect). I wanted to also email Swarm to ask something, but then I saw that I didn't have his email address (and of course I couldn't use the on-wiki email feature).
But I should have dealt with this as soon as I returned — in hindsight, you were right about that. That actually was my original intent (which both Levivich and PR can confirm). But I got a bit defensive and even flippant. Not my proudest moment. El_C16:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Arkon, yeah, I'm annoying, I know. Trying to limit it more to user talk pages lately, but sometimes the stupid wins. :( El_C17:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tarantino, to the best of my recollection, I never contributed to Veropedia. I even had to look it up just now as I didn't remember what it was. I still don't (didn't ring a bell). I was friendly with Danny at the time, so maybe I just posted that FAQ on my Hebrew wiki user page at his request with the intention of joining later on...? I honestly don't remember. I was not involved in anything Wikipedia or Wikimedia-related during my absence, nor did I interact much with any person or persons affiliated with the Wikimedia movement. El_C03:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe that Hebrew FAQ is my own translation. Maybe Danny asked me to do that. That would make sense. I seem to vaguely recall encountering it a decade later and being somewhat baffled by it. Needless to say, I am only me. I have never used an alternate account or a sock account or shared an account for anything, anywhere (there was never a need, plus the latter two are of course also shady). Not on usenet, not on IRC, not on the webseses, not on Wikimedia projects. El_C10:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A year ago, you strongly advised me to avoid interacting with user Mhorg. I took your advice very seriously and tried to do just that. So, for example, if I would make a post somewhere noticing user Mhorg directly or indirectly, and especially criticizing him, that would be against your advice. I did not do that. During same time Mhorg did make several postings related to me, even on noticeboards (I can provide diffs if needed). I ignored this per your advice. However, recently Mhorg started following and reverting my edits on several pages (I can provide diffs), posting a question on my talk page, etc. What should I do? Can I consider your previous advise/warning "void" and do whatever without expecting to be sanctioned just for interacting with him or raising issues about his editing? I understand that your advice/warning is still in force. To be honest, I do find editing by this user very problematic and can easily explain why with diffs. My very best wishes (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, void. It wouldn't be reasonable to expect you to be in some mute limbo as they are actively engaging you. Sorry, I don't have a firm recollection of my "advise" (warning?) from a year ago and the background surrounding it. But I do seem to recall that they were new to en at that time, which obviously is no longer the case. El_C14:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm writing here as I have been warned by MVBW that there is this discussion on your tp.
"During same time Mhorg did make several postings related to me, even on noticeboards":[97] MVBW tried to make a 3RR violation report against a user. That user pinged me and I gave my opinion. Result: MVBW was warned by an administrator for mass removals without consensus,[98] yes, the same thing that prompted me to open an AE request against him a year ago.[99]
"posting a question on my talk page": I gave him an answer[100] to his edit summary ("Mhorg. Can you please stop following my edits? Thanks.")[101].
"Mhorg started following and reverting my edits on several pages": No, believe me, I have no passion in following his contributions, and I try to keep our contacts to a minimum, like a year ago. I have no pleasure in seeing me again to argue with him. Unfortunately, we often deal with similar topics. I came to the Zelensky article to make a question[102] in the discussion page, related to a contribution of user VolunteerMarek.[103]
"Mhorg did make several postings related to me": Maybe user MVBW talks about a long discussion I had with User:Paul_Siebert[104] where I asked to Paul his opinion on MVBW in relation to the problems I was having with him. I also asked to an admin[105] and in "Village pump (policy)"[106] if that discussion could be a policy violation, but didn't have a precise answer.
Just to give El_C some more information on the state of relations between me and the user MVBW, after that warn that you gave to him for WP:FOLLOWING[107] he reported me in an absurd and inconclusive SPI[108] together with 4 other users because we had a different point of view in a discussion (how strange). This accusation he is making fits into our very bad relationships that we have. I have the impression that the user is again trying to get me warned\banned using these means. Mhorg (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please take this matter to a public forum of your choosing if you feel it requires further review. I simply do not remember the incident from a year ago well enough to be of much use here atm. El_C16:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I thought I'd ask you directly as you protected the page. Looking at the history of Oxley College (Burradoo), it has had long term disruptive editing issues, with some vandalism lasting several months or years. Would you think longer-term pending changes would be useful here after semi protection expires? Thanks FozzieHey (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Yeah, that might be best. Drop me a line if disruption resumes after this 5-day semi expires and we can figure out a more substantial length then. El_C14:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks as always! I seem to recall that there was a way to configure semi and pending changes at the same time so that if semi is removed, pending changes will take over? If that's not possible or if you just want to wait then that's fine, but that's why I posted it here instead of waiting until semi expired. Thanks FozzieHey (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FozzieHey, sorry for the belated response. Yes, pc can be imposed in parallel to semi (though personally I reset the pc if semi exceeds 3 months or so). Whichever protection lasts longer is the one that'll remain: so, if you have a 2 week semi alongside a 2 month pc, after the two weeks, only the pc will remain (and vice versa). The only a reason I'm waiting for the pc here is to give myself more of a chance to review the page in question (also imposing it alongside a more substantial semi). Otherwise, it is, as DFO notes, two buttons (or two drop-down menus, rather), but you can apply both at the same time, or you can do em separately. In both instances, it logs it as two actions. Which is to say: imposing a combined semi+pc or doing so separately, these are indistinguishable from one another, except that with combined, it duplicates the protection summary. HTH. El_C12:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Page protection / Move protection / Pending changes all work in that way expiration-wise, to be clear. But pc always logs as a separate action, whereas page and move protections could be applied separately (two actions logged), but when combined, it gets logged as one action. El_C12:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation! It looks like vandalism has returned now, would you mind taking a look at it if you have the time to do so? FozzieHey (talk) 09:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion is very long now. I'm willing to move it to whatever title, once that title has been decided on, but I'm wary of being the one to close it myself (for so many reasons). El_C13:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, Done. I see your point about how it's a better title, regardless. But if the close concludes different, then it'll have to be adjusted. El_C13:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, I'm not sure what you mean by "if the close concludes different." I was assuming you were intending to close the request yourself, since performing a move during an open request would otherwise be out of process (it is confusing the RM bot, and it seems it confused me as well). Is it fair to assume that you read through the discussion and saw a consensus for the new title? If so, can you go ahead and write a close, and if not, can you revert your move and wait for a closer? Dekimasuよ!16:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking me to revert just for procedural reasons? Because if the discussion takes weeks or even months to close, but everyone agrees that the current title adjustment is better, at least for the time being, what would be the sense in that? I don't really care about the bot, I'm sure that can be worked out. That said, I'm far from opposed to reverting back to the status quo ante and never touching this page again (it's proven... taxing). It just seemed like it'd be shitty for me to leave everyone waiting for a formal close (which, to make clear, will not be me in any instance) when a mid-way change everyone is for is easy enough to implement. El_C16:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not worried about the change itself, but rather that it will cause problems if it isn't a close. For my part I came here only because I was trying to figure out why a move took place but the request was still open. I assumed that you intended to close it and had forgotten to write the closing message or something came up that stopped you in the middle of the close, so I came here. (If this were a discussion with less input, I might even have simply closed it as "already moved by El C".) I see at least three people who objected to this exact title change. If your reading of the discussion is that there's consensus that this title is better anyway, than why not just close the original request that way and make it clear that they were in the minority? Otherwise I foresee complaints by those editors—particularly since the page is move protected, it's not really just a BRD situation. Dekimasuよ!16:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The whole thing is an unholy mess, but if you are unwilling to close the RM, I think it makes no sense to move it to a temporary title while the RM is open. It makes the whole thing even more confusing. Vpab15 (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dekimasu, no, not at all. Also, if there's an admin action you wish to take for this page, by all means, feel free to do whatever, no need to ask. Adjust or undo any of my actions (including WP:ACDS ones, though please update the log if you invoke it). Thanks. El_C16:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@El C:@Dekimasu: I have no opinion there and have just been an attempted navigator. I'm thinking of runinng away from it :-) The open RM is basically abandoned and moot. And a subsequent discussion resulted in a strong consensus for a new title (albiet with a case error). There is concise a summary of the entire thing at Talk:Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Russian occupation#Recapping and moving forward. El_C, thanks for trying. To Dekimasu or anybody....any chance we could get help moving a step forward via any of these three possibilities (in decreasing order of preference)?
Close the old open RM but consider the subsequent discussion and strongly consensused result to be a part of it?
Close the old open RM based on only what is in it's section? (presumably would be no-consensus/moot/abandoned)
Take the move protection off, then I'll move it to the consensused version and if any heat results, I'd take it.
Weren't no accident, officer. It always comes to location, location, location, with real estate, altimeters, and cars. but I did not shoot the deputy --Deepfriedokra(talk)13:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ZaniGiovanni, the way you revert just doesn't make sense and feels like I'm ruining something or edit in a biased way. I'm not restoring an old edit, just improving administrative divisions. See the diffs, they are not the same. No need for a drama; my edit here is just a straight neutral fact, yet you demand a discussion for this. Anyone can open the links and see those areas are linked to each other during that timestamp. I don't know why you remove Azerbaijan as much as possible. Maybe we are having double standards here — Toghrul R (t)14:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you following me? I gave my reason very clearly in my edit summary. You're adding "Az SSSR" in both diffs, when it isn't an improvement since USSR was the country at the time for all Soviet people and I reverted it exactly per Template:Infobox_person#Parameters (city, administrative region, country) and asked (again) for a discussion/consensus, especially considering you did the same in the past. Instead, you're throwing personal attacks in a null edit and appearing all of a sudden when I informed about this to the admin who warned you. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Azerbaijan SSR was a country as well and it was a part of the USSR. same with Armenia SSR. You may see dozens of thousands of articles with the same convention. Would it be logical if I erase Armenia SSR from Yerevan and directly link it to the USSR?
Also, no, it is me who feels being stalked for a few months here. Feels like when I edit something, there's pressure on me. For this very reason, I stopped creating articles here.
Also, can you explain the reason why you wrote to El_C about this? You know that the issues should first be discussed between the two sides. If not settled, ANI is the place to do it. Instead, you write to El_C, who has given me a warning. Considering there are more than a thousand admins, I can't understand why they are the choice. I can see other cases above as well. You report/inform people here and I don't know why — Toghrul R (t)14:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, can you explain the reason why you wrote to El_C about this?
Because ElC gave you the warning? Ok I'm done, please don't bother replying to me here, I know this is gonna be another mumbo jumbo of baseless stuff. USSR was the country with the capital of Moscow btw, adding each national republic to the infobox isn't an improvement and is literally in contradiction with Template:Infobox_person#Parameters where it's noted that single country should be mentioned (in this case, USSR makes the most sense). Btw, if you had any concerns, you could've used the article talk page for once just a thought. Please use it from now on. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ZaniGiovanni, you haven't used the talk page, either, so you should practice what you preach. Toghrul R, this bare minimum of WP:DR (to resolve content disputes) is expected of you, as well. El_C15:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're right ElC. To my defense, I can say that I wasn't the one adding disputed content, and at least I gave a template based rationale for my revert instead of using unwarranted null edit jabs. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The protection you'd placed on Talk:Speech synthesis expired March 30 (though the protection tag you'd posted is still there). The random postings from random IP addresses picked right back up after March 30, at about the same frequency as when you protected the page. Do you want to re-protect for a (much) longer duration? Largoplazo (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - notifying you as the admin who notified editor CycoMa1 of a topic ban on "medical articles, broadly construed". Not sure if this recent edit counts, but might be skirting close to the edge. Funcrunch (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Sorry, I won't really be around at least until mid-next week, so you might want to bring this matter to a noticeboard. El_C15:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm around the halfway point in Running with the Demon, and it's okay so far. Wasn't terribly impressed with the magical Indian, but I guess that's a product of its time. I probably would have eaten it up a couple decades ago. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's when I got it. I get that, but I don't think that aged too badly. I'm looking forward to finding out how the final book fairés. Oh, and I'm 10 pages from finishing Triumph of the Darksword (book 3 of the Darksword trilogy), which followed Forging of the Darksword (book 1, I'm missing book 2), so good timing. El_C11:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LouisAragon, I'm not in the position to evaluate the content matters in dispute. I randomly looked at one of the examples on the Hebrew Wiki, but in that instance, if anything, it aligned more closely with the IP's changes. The example is Barmakids. Kansas Bear, why did you issue the user with a {{uw-disruptive3}} message, I don't understand. They might not, either.
Anyway, no idea about the socking/SPI component here, though it does look suspect. But beyond that, there is no outright prohibition against removing or adjusting sourced content (unless a source gets misrepresented). Accompanying these sort of changes with a talk page note, while obviously advisable, is not mandatory. There's a risk, then, in labeling edits of this nature as "disruptive," because that might end up monopolizing existing content. It may well be disruptive, but I don't see how that burden was met at this time. El_C09:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which IP? You mean the one that keeps changing their string of numbers/letters?
By the 6th they had removed Iranian/Turko-Persian/Middle Persian from articles 11(?) times. Thanks to the apathy shown by certain individuals towards the disruptive editing of a particular editor(Aydın memmedov2000, et.al.), I realized 4 interesting things about disruptive editors.
Editors that think they can bring anything(government websites, personal websites, blogs, personal opinions, et.al.) to write what they want an article to state, especially when third party academic published sources state something else.
Editors that drag another editor's ethnicity(believed, suspected, stated) into an issue, instead of arguing the facts/sources/issues of the matter.
Editors that think other editors are just like them, editing to promote a specific ethnicity, nation, race.
Editors that know nothing of the history of a region they are editing, instead simply adding what they have been told(either in school or by their government).
So, yes, I did place a level 3 disruptive warning on that IP's talk page. After 11 disruptive edits, and at least 3 inferences to "Iranian contributors".[][][] --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I linked to the user talk page where you issued that warning, so if you were to click on the contribs button from there, you'd see that this subset lists only one edit to the article in question (diff) and 3 in total. Sorry, I don't know what you mean by keeps changing their string of numbers/letters — what is that in reference to? Anyway, I'm seeing them raise their concerns on Talk:Sultanate of Rum, for example, but 4 days later, no one has yet to respond. Your bullet points make a number of claims, but no diffs are attached for me to review. Also, you say 11 disruptive edits, but simply saying it declaratively does not make it so. You need evidence of sufficient precision. El_C13:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Sorry, I don't know what you mean by keeps changing their string of numbers/letters"
On my computer it show a string of letters and numbers for the IP. The three listed IPs are different strings of letters and numbers. Not sure how else to explain it.
"Well, I linked to the user talk page where you issued that warning, so if you were to click on the contribs button from there, you'd see that this subset lists only one edit to the article in question (diff) and 3 in total."
When I stumbled across the IPs edit on Rûm[111] on June 6th, I also noticed the same edits by a different IP. I checked the first IP(June 6th) (Redacted), then I checked the previous IP(June 5th)(Redacted) Ergo, I determined this was the same individual simply using a different IP. So I posted a warning on their talk page.
Are you saying the IPs are different people? If so I will remove my warning and treat the IPs as multiple individuals.
Another IP has now removed the references and my note and notelist from Rûm.[112]
As for not responding to the IP on Sultanate of Rum, I have waited on an article talk page for a response and never got one. No one seemed to care about that. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, as I was saying above, removal (not deletion, a different thing) of sourced content is not automatically prohibited, and such removals are not necessarily disruptive. Also, I'd rather you not post whois here for no reason. Those IPv6 IPs (/64) get assigned automatically, so there's nothing really that stands out there. El_C17:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly there is something else going on here, else why the interrogation? I have removed said warning(Christ what an impact it has made on that IP! NOT!). Not sure what your goal was, but do not hurt yourself patting yourself on the back. Do not worry, I will not be back. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are not being interrogated and I have no idea why you take offense to anything I've said here. El_C21:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I finished the sanding of my bed rails, got the interlocked lap joints set between the rails and bed posts, and got the bolt holes and counter sinks done! Now I just need to make the headboard, make the mortises in the head posts, assemble the headboard into them, then it's just staining, polyurethane, and painting the metal hardware black! All in all, my new bed should be fully built within a month! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mortises are cut, test fit the headboard, looks beautiful. At this point all actual construction is complete. I could assemble it and use it as a bed now. What I'm going to do is a bit of touch of sanding where things got dinged and scratched while I was test fitting and making adjustments, then stain, polyurethane, paint the metal hardware, install some fancy metalwork I made, and done! I think the only power tools I still have to use are my sander and my drill press, for Manning the screw and bolt holes in the hardware I made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
About to start staining. Finish sanding is done! Unrelated, but can you peek at [123] and see if they're being disruptive enough to do anything. They're mad that I'm declining their edit requests and reverting their talk page refactoring, and now they're retaliating with a revenge RM at Shit flow diagram. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tomorrow I should have the polyurethane complete, and I should have time to drill my metal hardware, and maybe get it painted. It is possible that I'll be able to do the assembly on Monday, if not, next weekend at the latest. Huzzah! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is painted, stained and polyurethaned. Steel end plates installed on the bed rails, holes drilled in the hardware. Going to let it cute in the basement till Saturday so the polyurethane is fully cured and hardened. Finally done! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and the finish really brought the red out of the mahogany. The only thing I'm not sure I like is that the super matte black paint on the steel makes it difficult to see the hammered finish I spent hours banging into it. Did I send the picture of the rail end caps in place on the rails? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to keep bothering you but Dortana keeps pushing their POV everywhere they edit. They have also been involved in the Ezdiki-headache which makes it difficult to not have bad faith assumptions. Every edit they personally dislike is a "pov-push"[126][127] When they do edit the talkpage, its just nonsensical arguments like "Kurdistan is confusing for people"[128] This editor has been problematic for a long time now and admins need to take a look at it. --Semsûrî (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello!This range of IP vandalism every day on Wikipedia [[129]] Vanjagenije [[130]] he has already blocked it once, but the vandalism continues. But again he will come back with another ip address because this is the same one from 5 months ago he just changed the IP [[131]] (same location). It would be best to protect the site from ip editing, but you know best. I hope someone will solve this problem from the administrator.93.139.149.77 (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been mostl offline for a week or so due to illness and will probably remain so for the next few weeks as well (nothing too serious, thankfully). Glad to see you and SFR dealt with the situation quickly. Much appreciated <3 — Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 12:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Following up here instead of at RfPP. In my experience, RfPP is the best way to deal with such cases (and this case is not just one account). AIV is whackamole for each new proxy IP (and uninspiringly my AIV report on a different IP, filed before the RfPP, is still pending). SPI acts at glacial paces and closes a month later with either "no action needed due to no recent disruption" or "proxy blocked", which is whackamole again. (There is a considerable SPI page for this user, for situations in which it is a better tool.) ANI just end up with blocks or page protection, so it seems far more efficient to cut to the more direct RfPP. Is there something I'm missing that makes RfPP poor for this? (Something besides my inability to select a radio button.) CMD (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, timing! "Radio button"? Yeah, fair point. Those venues are... not great. I suppose there's nothing inherently problematic with using RfPP as, in many ways, de facto AIV (2). The only thing is that, again, an incident involving only one account usually isn't a protection matter — unless there's context specific to that page or related pages, but that's something that most reviewing admins would need a bit more info about to figure out. Some reviewing admins wouldn't even ping you, so you might just end up missing a declined request. This becomes especially acute when RfPP is busy (to use an extreme example, a couple of months ago, I closed +50 requests back-to-back). Anyway, now sorted.El_C13:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Checks all round! Although the antisemitism is new, unless I've missed it before (highly possible as I almost never read their writing). I should note that looking over it my RfPP requests are often clearer as they involve multiple IPs. In this case previous IPs had been disrupting other pages but not the Wildlife page, and that IP had extended to the Wildlife page, so I managed to request the only page they were disrupting which only had one disruptive IP. Thanks for the work. Radio button, ie. my fat-fingering (on a keyboard no less) twinkle. CMD (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now it's time for all the spring stuff on the homestead. Moved about a ton and a half of compost into my garden beds, got it all mixed in with the soil. Got my garlic from autumn almost ready for harvest. Just planted this year's onions, about 200 red onions and 50 or so yellow onions. Two types of potato started, as well as lettuce and carrots. Another few weeks until the main planting. I have 120 quail eggs due to hatch any minute, got rabbits ready for dispatching this weekend, or maybe next.
Bad news is one of the bee hives didn't make it. Luckily, my wife was able to reserve a package of bees to pick up this weekend. Our other hive is doing well though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice (shit?). Anyway, I, too, follow the big dick garlic school of thought. Also, I've always admired how you're able to keep so many pets to a ripe old age. BTW, did you hear about how I ended the war between WP and WPO peacefully? I am a hero. And I even did it with bad Vigilant rng: "prick" is fair enough (takes one to), but "bad actor"? More like cringe actor, am I white? El_C10:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I haven't seen anything obviously concerning with your behavior, and you went ahead and said anyone could undo your action, which is about as good as one can expect. There will never be peace between WO and WPO as long as (someone's pet issue) isn't resolved.
Got the new bees installed in the hive, and they're doing good, and I redid the whole fence around my bees, and put in a couple yards of pine chunks to keep it nice and neat in there. Not having great luck with the current quail hatching, only getting about a 25% hatch rate. Have another set of eggs in the incubator right now, but if the hatch on them isn't good, we might just drop quail and expand our rabbits.
Thanks man. It got a bit stressful and overwhelming tbh, but I'm pretty sure this particular flu(ke) is done now. Though I'm one to talk. Hope you and the wife are not passing out due to exhaustion. Sorry my emails have been a bit intermittent lately. And I've barely read, like, 10 pages of Axis since we last spoke; still only at the half-way mark. But I definitely should order Vortex now since it took a while to get Axis. About the next books: are you at all familiar with the Dying Earth series? Big recommend: Jack Vance is just so great and so funny. El_C11:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm about halfway through as well, just got into Part 3. We're both pretty run down, about three more weeks of the hard springtime work, and then it should be back on coasting for a while. I'd be less exhausted if Thelma didn't decide to spend two hours right after I tried to go to sleep puking and eating grass to puke more last night. I feel like I've read the Dying Earth books, but if so, long enough ago where I don't accurately recall them.
It appears she's been eating the pine chunks I recently bought to landscape inside the bee enclosure and the aisles in my garden. She's not chewing it up fine enough before eating (for whatever reason) the wood, which blocks her up and turns on the canine "puke out everything" reflex. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My wife likes to play Minecraft co-op, and build large farms. In both real life and mine life I'm responsible for the heavy labor. She watched me build a field stone staircase in real life and kept asking me what was taking so long :(
I want to play cyberpunk, but the next gen update came out and I sorta want to restart, and I also want to get elden ring, but realistically, I have no where near enough free time to play 100+hour video games.
On the plus side my garden beds are fully prepped and my irrigation system is set back up, so that makes next week's work a bit easier. On the negative side it's going to be 90 degrees (32.2 eurotherms) on planting day. Another year of almost no spring. Fuck you climate change. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can I rant about how crypto bros are ruining pc gaming? I have the same gpu as Spaceboy, it's a 1080Ti (11GB, 3-fan MSI/DUKE). It's a great card and can handle pretty much whatever I throw at it. But here's the kicker: it was released in 2017 for $700 (considered pricy at the time). When I bought my latest gaming pc in 2018, I payed $1,200 for it (total pc cost = $3,000). If you wanted to buy this same 2017 card today in 2022, you'd be paying about... *drumroll* $3,000. Basically, to game on pc these days, you pretty much need to pay for two computers: the computer and the gpu. It's such bullshit. And the environment. And the scammers. And the shitty NFT "art." BTW, I heard Muta say that close to a trillion dollars might have gotten wiped in the massive crypto crash that happened a few days ago (link). Insanity. El_C15:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's part of the reason a went with a ps5, less worrying about hardware. My wife and myself each have a 1050ti in our computers, which does ok, but neither of us have turned on our computer in over two years. The computer room is now just the cats' room. Also, if I'm going to play games on a PC, it'll end up being Dwarf Fortress or Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That list is probably a third to half of what I've actually read. I tried to put it together on Goodreads a couple years ago to see if I could get some decent recommendations, which didn't really work out.
The Elfstones of Shannara was actually the second (I think, maybe third or fourth) real novel I read, after The Riddle and the Rune. The Hero and the Crown and The Blue Sword might have been two and three, or maybe three and four, after Elfstones.
Do I need to catch up on other Shannara stuff? I think I've read the original trilogy, and the Heritage ones. Why so short though, Mr. Brooks? I remember those two series being full of absolute bricks. Looks like 16 hours, 11 hours and 12 hours. A bit short, but I'll shortlist them. I aim for >20 hours per book. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You do not. They're very much standalone, probably more than any of the other Shannaras (and I got em before I read anything else by Brooks). El_C15:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got my garden fully planted! Two dozen tomato plants, half a dozen hot peppers, three sweet peppers, summer and winter squash, cantaloupe and watermelon, onions, potatoes, carrots, lettuce. Some long beans a Cambodian coworker gave me, pickling cukes, peas, daikon radishes, beets. All manner of herbs. On the negative side, I tested positive for COVID this morning. Second time I've had it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no! Best wishes for a speedy recovery. Hopefully, it'll be Omicron-light(er). I don't know if I ever got COVID. I haven't had a cold or a flu since 2006, but I get the symptoms for em at the same frequency I used to, except, now it only lasts for a couple of hours. I can't explain it, but I'm not complaining. Likewise, I had a couple of COVID-like symptoms (through the variants), but again, lasting only a few hours in each instance. But maybe I just didn't get it. Who knows. Anyway: //Sending positive vibes
Radishes: for decades I've been eating an insane amount of radishes. Salad leftover juices — radishes for after. Egg dish remnant — radishes for after (with olive oil, lemon, etc.). I buy so much, every week. Also, cuke, I learn a new word. I'm out of radishes right now btw (had the last ones yesterday). A key thing about radishes, as I'm sure you well know, is that they have to be firm, for the bite (alkalinity). So good. El_C17:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm feeling fairly sick, but nothing serious, although I did lose my sense of taste this morning, which didn't happen last time I had COVID. I have the hypersensitive painful skin I had the first time though, so that's the same. All in all, after having it once and being vaccinated, I think this is worse than when I had it originally. Bad luck I guess. I appreciate the well wishing, and hopefully I feel better though soon to at least go out fishing while I'm not allowed at work. Whenever I'm stuck I try to get as much sun, fresh air and activity as I can.
You could probably grow a decent amount of radishes in almost no space. They're ready in 28 days after planting, and don't need any fancy cultivation. I've grown them on a 3x6 foot balcony with maybe 1/3 sun. I just hung dinner planters on the rail and went for it.
I don't measure anything with my soil, I just load it with a years worth of my compost every spring, normally around a ton of a ton and a half. I do always pick my radishes early though, I find that gives me the crunchiest radishes.
If you thought bed construction images were enthralling, you should see garden progression images. I actually have to take my start of the year reference photos soon. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, sorry to hear that. :( I recommend plenty of rest, petting a cat, petting a dog, then petting a cat again.
Yeah, I've grown radishes (among other things), too, back in the old country. I don't recall us using a ph meter or anything like that (though maybe we did), but we always had good compost, too. I don't remember growing radishes in too much detail, though, as I wasn't yet a radish fanatic back then, just a casual fan.
But, indeed, it's all about the crunch. Yes, definitely — pics or it didn't happen. Extra best wishes, El_C22:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing plenty of pet petting and relaxing. I got Skyrim anniversary edition for my wife, and now I'm getting a chance to play it like it's my job, so that's nice. I expect if my wife gets sick, she'll be the one playing, so I gotta get it in while I can. Garden pictures are sent, too. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There I was, thinking I was recovered, so I figured I'd do some yardwork on my last day off for COVID. Turns out the post COVID fatigue is real. My lawn kicked my ass. Still feel better than I did earlier this week, but damn if I'm not beat. Also, unfortunately, my wife is now sick. She held it off for a while, but it eventually made it through her defenses. That means we're likely going to miss a memorial day cookout, and a friend's college graduation party. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Small black thumbs covered in asbestosRabbits six weeks away from freezer camp
I just finished up Vortex, and it was ok. The first book was decent, but I think the second two weren't as good. I don't want to go into any spoilery stuff, since I don't know where you are in the books, but some of the science and some of the stuff about the hypotheticals hurt my suspension of disbelief a bit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same. It's too bad. I'm halfway through Vortex (better print!) right now, so should be finished soon (unlike with Axis, days rather than weeks). El_C12:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I felt a bit in the first book that the science was not hard enough to bother me a bit, and it just got worse as the books progressed. Timelines of progress also don't make much sense, which might be more obvious as you get closer to the end of the book. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I started Running with the Demon. Audio quality is good, but the narrator is a bit too "announcer from The Price Is Right" for my liking. Not horrible, but he's no Scott Brick. Is this book set before the collapse in the deep history of the other Shannara books? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, timeline-wise, the Word & Void trilogy is as early as it gets, which is why it's listed first in Shannara ("sorted in order of in-universe events"). So aside from Word & Void (1980s-1990s), almost all of the other books take place in the post-post (post) apocalyptic era (i.e. after "The Great Wars"). And wherein all the races, save for the Elves, are explained as a product of resulting mutations (nukes!). That's why in The Shannara Chronicles TV series (which isn't a masterpiece, but I still liked) we routinely see ruins of hitherto modern cities, ruined skyscrapers, and so on. El_C11:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I remember in some of the books their being mentions of skyscrapers and such, and maybe even Allanon talking about how it was left over from the great war. I always thought the deep post apocalypse giving rise to a fantasy epoch was a pretty cool idea. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not necessarily recommending it as a good series, but it's certainly interesting, if confusing at times. I'd check reviews of the translation as well, because the language in it can be pretty odd at times. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's weird that you'd continue to call the bunnies in your no-kill petting zoo "dinner," but it's still a good pic. El_C12:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I should be finishing up Running with the Demon early next week. Already got the next book, and I found one with a different narrator, so that's good. I might just end up going through all of the Shannara books in order.
Also, SFR's Petting Zoo and BBQ always backs it up with a sauce. You've seen my superior smoked pepper sauce. Mix that with some molasses or brown sugar and you have a mighty fine (if incredibly spicy) BBQ sauce. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly. On the topic of Running with the Demon, I think part of the reason the native American character seems so bad is that the narrator reads the part with the stereotypical noble savage Indian voice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the book front, finished The Angel (1999) yesterday, which I liked a lot, but won't spoilers. Also, ordered John Marco's The Eyes of God (2001), and while I wait, am re-reading the Hebrew translation of Guy Gavriel Kay's Tigana (1990), which is great and a strong recommend. Oh, and needless to say, James Randal is The Leader, you know how it goes (Don't Worry). El_C12:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was fuckin' insane. But, like The Mandela Catalogue, at least the story was easy to follow. Part 1: Human long-nail cardinal has the Graeae make him maps that he gives to soldiers that he sends to blow up gross mutants with suitcase nukesdynamites, but these all have a faulty timers (except for the ones the anarchists have). Part 2: Plague doctor monster has Human nurse bring him deformed mutant babies to give to Mole gnome (who has many clocks and a terrarium) for science. It all makes perfect sense! What, I didn't mention bodily fluids! BTW, watched Love and Monsters the other night. Had a really good time. El_C17:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first part had a bit of a Warhammer 40k vibe to me, as sending a single guardsman to the base of a chaos infested hive city with a faulty bomb seems like a grimdark thing to do. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just finished watching Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (Mad G?), which was actually fun-in-the-sun. And I'm not really a fan of the Marvel stuff, whose films I usually find boring and overlong, and TV I usually find to be pure garbage (with some notable exceptions, I did like Loki, which I recommend). El_C00:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of what I watch is fairly normal, although there's a strong horror bent to it, as my wife has final say, and she's a horror buff. Been watching Obi-wan Kenobi and The Boys recently. Watching the new Iron Chef right now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The plot doesn't matter much sense, the writing is bad, and you get to see Ewan McGregor swing a light saber, so it's star wars. With a watch just for McGregor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You two should check it out, I think you'll like it.El_C 12:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC) — Ugh, have→haven't, I can't read! El_C15:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I must have just set a note on my calendar however long ago to check in sometime about not to see if they'd started releasing next season. I don't even remember doing it, it just came up on my calendar this week: Check Motherland. :D valereee (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cool precognition bro! So whose gonna be prez in 2024? James Randal, right? Sure, he had to be in-form-ed about his own candidacy from his arch-nemesis — but that just makes him a man of the people! El_C17:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Watched it last night, Val. Kind of a meh start to the season and a bit of a let down, unfortunately. But hopefully, it'll pick up and not become like The Orville, which used to be light-hearted fun, but now at S03, has become basically unwatchable. El_C11:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just finished A Knight of the Word, was pretty okay, and started up Angel Fire East this morning. If someone named "Findo Gask" ever showed up to my home, I would immediately assume demon, no other investigation necessary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Big demon. Got John Marco's The Eyes of God yesterday and am already 80 pages in (it's 800 p. total). I'm liking it quite a bit so far. Good prose, good worldbuilding, good pacing and story... good. Funnily enough, the review exceprts on the sleeve start with Library Journal at the top and ends with "from the editors of amazon.com" at the very bottom — LOL! El_C11:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Almost done with Angel Fire East, which is hitting a bit weird, because I had an addict roommate for a while, so it's bringing back some old memories. Not sure if I'm going to continue with Shannara books after this, or pick up something new.
In non-literary news, should be picking all of my overwintered garlic this weekend, and another week or two after that will be carrots, beets and daikon radishes! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same (addict roommate back in the day). Been slacking off on Eyes of God — only 150 pages in (not for lack of it being good, just been busy), but I'm picking it up again! Nice, big dick garlic, you know how it goes... El_C17:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Detective Richard Garlic was a large man, and hard boiled. The kind of man that made the dames lose their breath and the fellas drop their gaze. Big Dick Garlic they called him down at the station house, the number one closer on murder cases in all of Stardew Valley.
Ukrainian peace music is "on" today, with the conductor! - Pentecost (on last Sunday and Monday in Germany) brought a rich harvest of great music in two church services (one with me singing in choir) and two concerts with my brother in the orchestra, - four pictures I took besides the symphonic one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The described concert is on YT - bottom of the conductor's article. No record of recent live performances - naturally. DYK that it was my first Fifth live? But third Angel? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thx, that's cool. I am getting the Angel (hopefully today), also third one (I have books 1 + 2 already). See thread directly above (parenthesis!). El_C10:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thank you, and don't pet - poor creature once screamed for fear, and then stood frozen in shock as you see, but then jumped towards the trees in the background, looking like drowning in a sea of grass. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Screamed? What? Did hunters kill Bambi's mom? That's illegal! But have you seen the top of this talk page? Petting (hitherto) frightened creatures is what makes me such an effective druid (serious buff). El_C11:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On Sunday, we - party of three, so I have witnesses - walked on the path pictured a bit on the left, when one sudden desperate scream made me freeze and - prompted by a more observant member to look back - looked and saw the creature frozen for long enough that I could take the pic. Bambi then hopped towards the trees in the background, kind of looking "drowned" with every landing. Pet if you can catch. Mom may just have left, and return. Bambi should not have been so close to where people walk who would not go into the meadow frightened of ticks. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Back in the old country, my family was part owners of a petting zoo. We had a few bambis (sizable natural enclosure, visitors would not get to pet/enter), but I think (?) we de-ticked them. Anyway, when it comes to my rifle, poachers should more scared than the animals... Word to the whiz. El_C12:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily, with most livestock a liberal spraying of permethrin every month or so keeps them tick free. I even keep my outdoor activities clothes treated with it. In my experience it's been 100% effective against ticks, and also mosquitoes. Only problem is that it's highly neurotoxic to cats, so I have to keep my treated clothes put away in a sealed container, and can't wear them in the house, less my feline friends get ill. If you're planning outdoor activities in a tick zone, I highly recommend treating a set of clothes, especially if you're also in a lyme disease area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Yeah, I originally thought they were trying to make a more nuanced point, but now I can see that, like you said from the beginning, they appear to simply not have read the next sentence (what?). Very odd. Please keep me updated. I could WP:SCW-protect it for a lot longer, if need be. El_C07:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello El C! Interstellarity (talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Interstellarity (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El_C, hope you're doing well. I want to clarify something; does this edit summary with "wasting time again" and comment "I'm sure you're smart enough understand that; don't drag this out any longer than necessary" constitute as personal attacks? I'm not sure what's the deal with this user. They reverted me on 15th June. I didn't revert, not a single one. I opened the discussion, giving my reasoning and trying to understand theirs. But even to my latest reply where I asked them to stop the condescending remarks and elaborate their reasoning, they repeat the same thing, which to me is a personal attack. Keep in mind that I only reverted them today, just recently, because they edited after my reply and only bothered to respond to me after the revert. I don't mind the requested third opinion btw, but I'm concerned about WP:NPA here. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. In answer to your question: there are no personal attacks in any of the links or exceprts you've provided. Regards, El_C20:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ok El_C. I guess my understanding of personal attacks or perhaps civility differs, I certainly don't call my opponent's whopping 2nd comment in a discussion a "waste of time", especially when I demonstrated all the good faith that was possible on that article. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, what? They didn't call you a waste of time, they said wasting time. Please be more careful when quoting, especially when seeking enforcement against a content opponent. Thanks. Anyway, you asked me about NPA, not civility, which is more nuanced. El_C21:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry is there a meaningful difference between the two? English isn't my first language that's why I'm asking, but you're right, the exact quote is "wasting time again", again here I presume refers to this comment (Please don't waste your or my time on such obvious things), Talk:Mərzili#Unsourced (which I also don't think is wasting time). Perhaps I'm irritated that this user keeps saying "wasting time", "waste your or my time" without sufficient elaboration, and perhaps this is more of a WP:CIVIL issue. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a meaningful distinction between the two. Saying to someone that they are a waste of time is about their character (i.e. as a 'time waster'). Wasting time, however, is about one's conduct (i.e. something they're engaged in rather than something they are). The second quote similarly does not speak to your character but to what they assert you are doing. Again, this is all pure generalities. HTH. El_C21:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's understandable, thanks for the time to explain. I'll wait to see what the third opinion thinks. Similarly, in the second discussion, I don't think I'm wasting time, and I believe it's reasonable for me to expect a good explanation as to why someone thinks I am, especially considering that I still await their response to my arguments. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I invite you to check if your block / reasoning at ANEW was correct. The random sample you picked wasn't good, it was a mistake of both me and Yae4 being unaware of each other (Yae4 rollback, I undo and had an accident to include the Twitter dispute diff the between them in my undo, realize I wasn't meant to be reverted by Yae4 and they made an accident too, I manually reverted to "fix" Yae4's rollback) in a dispute between User:Yae4 and User:Anonymous526. The random sample you picked had an accident. Special:Diff/1094504441/1094507681. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 02:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC); edited 02:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't my block reasoning. It was just a passing comment/smaple. The block, as noted on the user's talk page (here), was for violating WP:3RR. El_C02:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would an editor, who had previously been on an AE editing restriction that limited them only to reverts where they gained consensus, engaging in protracted/long-term edit wars, be a reason to re-establish the aforementioned AE editing restriction? —Locke Cole • t • c03:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really like hypotheticals or speaking in absolutes, but yeah, probably. Seems intuitive enough. El_C10:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With this edit[133] 84.250.14.116 moved sourced statement(s) from Reception to a new Features section. With this later edit[134], after a lot of other edits, they deleted the statement completely, calling the source "marginally reliable" and challenging "expertise" in the edit summary. I supported deleting the Features section. I did not support deleting the "OK" sourced info' (nor did anyone else, to my knowledge). Because they left another statement using similar Android Police source in the article, and in light of the Talk discussion on Android Police here[135], I feel this was "underhanded" dealing, and using poor excuse to delete "OK" sourced info. Thanks for any help you can give. My page block expires tomorrow'ish. -- Yae4 (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's am "Android Police" now? Anyway, sorry, but this isn't an area with which I am familiar. Also, the WP:AN3 exchange we had — I don't really wanna do that again, so I'm bowing out. El_C13:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I request you to remove the page protection as of now because the political crisis of now has been sorted, and newspapers and media reports have given enough reliable sources to verify the facts.
Regards mate;
Ksh.andronexus (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, they were warring over the government formed and changes,now as the chief minister swore in the assembly there shouldn't be edit warring. Casual note but Wikipedians do fight up for their political views lol. Ksh.andronexus (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you've previously protected a page on Shriomani_Akali_Dal_(Amritsar) at the behest of a user. However, this user has consistently been making bad faith edits on the page. They have been inventing political ideologies and misrepresenting the parties political position. Moreover, the references they are providing do not have any mention of the claims they are making. I suspect they will request further restrictions; however, I request you please read the revisions and examine the sources before restricting the page at their behest. Partly because their position as a more experienced editor will allow them to effectively capture the page and legitimize disinformation. Chomskywala (talk) 04:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1) the user Chennai Super Kings Lover keeps editing the party ideology as "Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale Thought" which is not a recognized political ideology or a political ideology the party has espoused. Moreover, the reference they provide does not support the claim the party follows this proposed ideology. It simply states the party president credited his win to Bhindranwale - a currently dead historical figure - as well as two recently killed celebrities - Deep Sidhu, Sidhu Moosewala - who supported his candidacy.
2) The user Chennai Super Kings Lover keeps editing the political position as "far-right" which is a misrepresentation of the parties polices. The parties main policies have been getting the government to adopt the Anandpur Shaib Resolution. Which does include elements of religion - arguably right-wing position - However, the economic and social policies of the resolution are not right-wing and are more accurately represented by centre-left or left-wing policies. For example, they argue for a decentralization of power from central government; reducing wealth inequality, focusing on health and well-being, supporting peasantry and combating discrimination on caste, creed or any other ground. Moreover, the source used to support the claim of "far-right" political position does not provide any evidence for the claim. Again, the source only states the party credited Bhindranwale, and two recently killed celebrities for the victory. Simply crediting a historical religious and community figures does not equate to party policies.
I have requested they provide a source on party policy and on party ideology which supports the claims made. However, they continue to make the edits and continue providing the same source which does not support their claims. Chomskywala (talk) 05:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Warned. See User_talk:Chennai_Super_Kings_Lover#Warning. But political economy is not a good metric for political position. The Nazis were also centre left economically, but they are seen as far right largely due to their political antipathy to communists and other far leftists and, conversely, their sympathy to other far right entities (fascists, etc.) who held similar views. In short, political sympathy/antipathy is the major determinate of political position, whereas political economy would usually be mentioned in a separate typology. HTH. El_C12:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@El C this is helpful advice. So the political economy should generally be avoided from adding into the infobox? In particular, I believe the Political economy should certainly be removed from this page. It is misleading to say the least. can be covered in the article body. Venkat TL (talk) 11:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'd like to follow up regarding the ongoing disruptive editing on the FB MSBS Grot article, just today IP 91.237.86.201 re-added the problematic text again, which only a few weeks ago user Rzęsor added (and this text was the same as originally added by the IP sometime ago, and so on... back and forth). Both times it was reverted by user Loafiewa.[137][138] It appears that this disruptive editing is not going way. In the past, I've raised the issue on the ANI, but it ended up going nowhere, and unfortunately the IP and his satellite editors saw this as an opportunity to act in a belligerent way, continuing to be disruptive. E-960 (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I see that I've edited the page recently (14 June 2022), so I can no longer act as an admin there now per WP:INVOLVED. I see that I protected it on Feb 2021 (what do you know?), but DFO has protected it much more recently, on April 28, 2022, so you might wanna drop him a line (unless he sees this ping). Good luck! El_C20:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KeepingTabs, hi, yes, I've seen your emails, though have not read them in full (very lengthy), but regardless, I only disclose my email address to users whom I've known, pretty much for years. So, unfortunately, I'm unable to correspond with you privately at this time. You may wish to contact the Arbitration Committee concerning this matter (their email address is public). Hope things work out. El_C20:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you were the admin who protected this page due to an edit war. Multiple users have chimed in and imo has shifted in favor of inclusion based on number of users who support and strength of argument. If you could reexamine this issue and determine consensus status I'd appreciate it. Or I can submit a request to WP:RFP if you'd prefer that instead.
Hi. Sorry, that looks like a lot of material to review (I don't even know what to look for in the lengthy talk page), and the protection expires in 2 days, anyway. But by all means, feel free to take to WP:RFPP/D. Any admin should feel free to do whatever, no need to consult with or even notify me. Regards, El_C00:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack yourself, as you did in this edit summary. Please comment on the contributions and not yourself. If you make any further self-attacks you may have to report yourself to yourself, which may result in a self-block. Thank you. MANdARAX XAЯAbИAM 02:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, let's cut out all this tomfoolery. This is a serious talk page full of serious people having serious discussions. No fun allowed. Big Dick Garlic would be ashamed of you all. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind my raising the protection level of the article to ECP so soon after you semi-protected it. Given the article subject and history, I believe that the higher protection is necessary even though I blocked the COI editor who was currently abusing the semi-protection to re-add allegations based on primary sources and press releases produced by the organization. Abecedare (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, first, for protecting the article. Another with similar issues is Manolis Pilavov. Probably there are more, and the assumption is that a school somewhere in Europe has turned loose its student body to copy edit English Wikipedia--hijinks ensue. What is it with all the disposable registered accounts? Makes it look like there's a tacit admission that they're not operating in complete good faith. Ah well. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User Peacepks has mass removed content from multiple pages alongwith sources, he removed almost everything from Karan caste page, such activities could lead to serious social friction, please restore the content back to it's previous state, the content he removed from these pages had been approved by multiple editors and was present in those pages for months, such mass removal of content really harms articles, I'm taking up this matter to other admins too, karan caste page needs more protection. Liontiger250 (talk) 03:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He mass removed content from already protected pages, caste pages to be specific such disruptive editing could have serious consequences, please take a look at chasa caste page as well he mass removed sourced content and has also placed unsourced content to related groups, this kind of an activity is not at all acceptable in a public platform like wikipedia, im lodging a complaint now, please if u can resolve this matter do it soon, such activities have serious consequences.
Liontiger250 (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just went through the history of this particular user, in fact almost all his edits are connected to caste related stuff, u can take a look at his edit log and if I'm not wrong he got warnings too in his talk page regarding his disruptive edits to caste related pages, strict action should be taken against such editors.
Liontiger250 (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism Alert on White Colombians, Mestizaje in Colombia and Afro Colombians pages
Hello, cordial and warm greeting to you. I come to ask you for help to combat a case of vandalism that is happening on the pages "White Colombians", "Mestizaje in Colombia" and "Afro Colombians" there is a user named Merchancano who is misusing the page, distorting information, eliminating information from groups and sources from recent years (some made with samples) from the renowned scientific journal PLOS [Public Library of Science], in fact all this information was taken from the page ´'White People' but that user continues to ignore it. Could you please protect the page and call attention to this user? I am a relatively new user and every day I am learning from this wonderful page, and my purpose is to continue growing and learning more every day. I would be grateful if you take this situation into account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chauxlemount (talk • contribs) 04:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno what the history is here but I came across this weird warning from Geno on another editors talk page and was concerned considering none of the accusations appear to be accurate and Slugger hasn't even edited the article in 2 years. I saw you were the last person to block the person leaving the warning so figured you might know some background. PRAXIDICAE🌈21:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Hey Prax, I don't know if you've resolved this yourself but I thought I would respond just in case. It looks like Geno removed a reference they called "self-published spam"(diff) which Slugger added on Nov 26th 2020(diff). Why they left a warning after nearly two years I don't know. Personally, if I found that it was spam according to policy and I removed it I wouldn't have left a warning of any kind as it wasn't added recently though I may have dropped something in the articles talk page explaining my revert in detail and pinging the editor that added it. --ARoseWolf20:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that much, but you said you didn't know the history and, as far as I can tell, that is the only connection though you never know what interactions there may have been at ANI or some other lesser known area of the encyclopedia or whom an editor watchlists. I did think the headline was extremely uncivil and the warning they left to be inaccurate at best and an example of bad faith, especially in light of the warning they received that you mentioned. I apologize if my comment above and even this response was out of turn. --ARoseWolf21:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, guys, no more, please. I'm obviously not around to assist you with this dispute right now, so it just isn't the time or place. El_C14:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Report was archived pretty quickly, since it didn't get much attention, but because you unblocked him back in the day, I would like to inform you that he didn't cease his ethno-nationalist activity Marcelus (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The report didn't get much attention because the report was unjustified (it had plenty of time to get attention if it were justified). The reality is that Marcelus has a longtime grudge (already from last year) against me, has insulted me several times and wants me banned because Marcelus' actions frequently oppose mine, regardless of my edits following Wiki policies, especially in terms of sourcing. Here are Marcelus' comments about me, which show his disregard for Wiki rules of WP:NPA:
Frequently, when I ensure that policies like WP:Verifiability, etc. are followed, Marcelus opposes that, e.g. in Antanas Mackevičius, where Marcelus used a source that called him 'Lithuanian' as reference for 'Polish-Lithuanian', despite the source's content. Marcelus is pushing the POV that the person was 'Polish-Lithuanian' when all academic sources that were brought up so far called the person 'Lithuanian'.
In fact, Marcelus repeatedly mislabels views that are not his as POV pushing, as he removed a WP:RS like the established Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia because of supposed 'extreme POV pushing' when that was clearly not the case. Another case is when I gave him seven WP:RS with quotes supporting a statement Marcelus disagrees with ([139]), which he simply dismissed as 'WP:NPOV per definition' ([140]) due to them holding a view that is contrary to Marcelus'.
Marcelus insulted me again on July 13, where he answered educate yourself when I asked him for sources to prove his statementWołonczewski was prominent Polish writer and diarist. The article of Motiejus Valančius has no mention of Poland, any Polish writing and not a single source calls him Polish, but Marcelus calls this person Polish and insists putting this person as part of WikiProject Poland.
I could fully explain that all the things that Marcelus finds fault with in his report were in accordance with Wikipedia rules. I didn't get to reply to the report, because it was created and archived while I took a short break away from Wikipedia due to a trip. Not that such an explanation really matters as Marcelus really wants me banned due to his hostile disposition and grudge against me (as evidenced from his insults), not any other reason.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't insult you once, but I stand by what I said you have deficiencies in the critical apparatus, you are pushing nationalist POV, and I am going through your edits persistently because I don't trust you as an editor. Also I never called Valančius, but he belongs to WikiProject as a bishop of Vilnius (where Polish people constituted large part of the belivers) and as a Polish writer, he did write all his diaries and memoires in Polish. They were published in 2003 as "Namų užrašai" with Lithuanian translation, you can check it out. I strongly recommend you to educate yourself on that topic Marcelus (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Marcelus gets basic information wrong - Motiejus Valančius was never bishop of Vilnius, he was the bishop of Samogitia. Marcelus calls Valančius a "Polish writer", but no source refers to him as such. It makes no sense for Marcelus to say to me to "educate myself" while getting basic facts wrong. Furthermore, just as writing in the English language does not make someone an English writer, writing in the French language does not make someone a French writer, and so too writing in the Polish language does not make someone a Polish writer. Marcelus' clear doubling down on insults and going against the rules laid out in WP:BATTLEGROUND show that he has a grudge against me and thus he repeatedly mislabels my activity on Wikipedia as nationalist POV-pushing, when it isn't. Dear El_C, I sincerely hope you dismiss Marcelus' accusations as baseless.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorry, Samogitia. Ok, so he was Polish language writer, he still in the scope of WikiProject:Poland. I never insulted you. Marcelus (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Marcelus' belittling words directed towards me, most notably you have deficiencies in the critical apparatus are undeniably WP:PERSONALATTACK, yet Marcelus pretends that I never insulted you. The same goes for Marcelus' condescending wordseducate yourself, when the WP:Burden was on Marcelus. If Marcelus looked at WP:IUC, Marcelus would know that (d) belittling a fellow editor is against Wiki rules. Marcelus admitted himself that he has a grudge against me when writing I didn't insult you once, but I stand by what I said you have deficiencies in the critical apparatus, you are pushing nationalist POV, and I am going through your edits persistently because I don't trust you as an editor. Finally, Marcelus is only accusing me of "pushing nationalist POV" because Marcelus' edits frequently oppose mine, not for any other reasons.
Btw, Marcelus started editing Motiejus Valančius and added some Polish-language literature written by him roughly three hours ago (ergo my previous statement saying that the article on Valančius has no mention of any Polish writing is no longer accurate), but that's insufficient to attach the WikiProject Poland for reasons stated at the beginning of this edit. Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind visiting List of horror television programs and consider protecting it again? The same IP editor who insisted on removing the It mini series from the list has returned and has continued their abuse now that the previous protection you applied has expired. I see they continue to be disruptive on articles related to It as well. Thanks! NJZombie (talk) 08:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, everyone, I'll be unavailable for the next little while, but hope to be back by the end of the month at the latest. Much love! El_C14:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Good to be back. In answer to your question: I did and didn't see it. I was just clicking on the pings to make the distracting red go away without really looking at any of em (because ++responsible). But now I'm remembering that ToBeFree had a similar thingy (see above, *bumped*). You think that after Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2021#Motorsports I'd have learned that some minor Arbitration cases will be listed at AEL, but without DS being authorized
I presume it's just successive committees wanting to fuck with me, personally (as always, it's all about me). Funny, though, I'm the most active AE admin on the project and even I get lost in the labrynth. Anyway, I ramble, but my point is: go ahead, do whatever needs to be done to get the WP:BURO to align. It's really all the same to me. P.S. I didn't even remember who Bridget Phillipson is and had to look her up. Cheers! El_C15:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello El C, I am a user that you might be familiar from a year ago, you took my extended confirmed rights because I played with the system (WP:GAME). As far as I remember you told me that I have to reach WP:500-30 again (I have searched for the comment, but I couldn't find) and I believe that more than a year passed from that. my data shows that I reached 500 edits on past 365 days.
Additionally, irrelevant to the rights topic, I just noticed that I had unawareness of the rules and didn't know how to represent informations with reliable sources on supporting the development of encyclopedia. Since you were an administrator who paid attention to me, I wanted to inform you about that my awareness increased since back then.
Hey. Sorry, no, I don't remember. Glad to hear you're doing better, though. Feel free to request for the user right to be reinstated at WP:PERM/EC. I have no immediate objections. Good luck! El_C20:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you a lot for your feedback and positive thoughts about me!
Hello El_C, sorry to bother you again. I was just wondering, why is my case on ANI not being interested by Administrators? I mean, is there anything I could do about it? BerkBerk6821:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm clicking, but nothing's happening! It's almost like you posted those ranges in plain text. But I know you wouldn't do that. Must be a glitch in the metric. El_C14:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm opposed. I don't think we need an editor who describe themselves as a "Turkish nationalist," and who is likely to contribute to Armenian genocide denial and otherwise whitewashing it — a crucial facet which has not been meaningfully addressed (which is to say, at all). What, they're gonna do it with greater subtlety? No thanks. El_C10:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You had previously yanked tpa from Djm-leighpark (thank you for saving us from all the drivel) but he's now appealing on an alt, I think? I'm not even sure you can call it an appeal but you might get a kick out of reading this utter nonsense, and I quote: Anyway I am somewhat minded commons is a somewhat risky thing and wonder if that is a valid reason for an unblock? If I said I was planning to do smoking on Friday because of this it would likely be seen as a threat, so I won't. WP:CIR .... Djm-mobile (talk) 5:14 pm, 9 August 2022, last Tuesday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)PRAXIDICAE🌈01:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She was afraid of it for months, until I pushed her into it twice, then she realized it's actually pretty good. My other dog still believes it's full of acid and she can't go in, but she'll still drink from it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's odd because both dogs eagerly leap into wild water, but the little kiddie pool scares them. When I take Thelma out hunting she'll crash through ponds and rivers looking for birds, or dive to the bottom to get a stick to carry around, but when I was trying to push her into the pool she was acting like it was full of lava. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
El C, לילך5 is now hounding me and editing seemingly to purposely antagonize me. All but two of their edits today are in opposition to me, and several of them are pointy BS like changing the header here, and editing against an established months-long explicit talk page consensus. Just look at their edits from today, all except Olivia Newton John directly opposed to me. How is this acceptable? I cant make a simple complaint without a horde of 500+30 edit accounts spouting bullshit, so what do you suggest I do? nableezy - 12:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you expect me to tell you that I haven't before, Nableezy. Per usual, I'd recommend you go to WP:AE over AN/ANI (even if drafting reports at the latter venues is easier to do than in the former), but per usual, you'll probably just go to AN/ANI, anyway (as is the case now). Which is your prerogative, but let's not pretend. As for me, I found out in the last ARBPIA AE, what happens when you sanction an editor of the 'wrong' side, or ostensibly, just mention the word sides, even if with the most careful qualifications (credibly, though you were around, not by you).
So I've scaled back on ARBPIA considerably and of the mindset of largely leaving topic area regulars and irregulars to their own devices. I also pretty much wrote off Zero0000 (ping for transparency, but not really interested in getting into it) after many years. But whatever, it is what it is. It's not like there's a shortage of work and requests for me in other areas (DS and not), so why would I want to subject myself to that again? No thanks.
I, however, would recommend for you not rely on tools for hounding claims (if at all, use very sparingly), and rather, use normal diffs/summaries evidence format. Those tools are limited in scope and usefulness, and I and other admin usually do not act on evidence that primarily centers on these. Anyway, the way she's been editing at ARBPIA, she'll probably be indeffed or TBAN'd eventually (and probably sooner rather than later). HTH. El_C13:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, do you think it worth an email to Trust and Safety? The latest comments by לילך5 go way beyond what somebody should have to put up with to edit here. nableezy - 13:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't think it really rises to the level of T&S, whom I sort of doubt would do anything in this instance (because... ARBPIA). So you'll be going for off-project enforcement with probably little to show for it. But who knows. Certainly, that's an option that's available to you, and counter to what some might say, a legit one. Again, though, ultimately, I just don't think it'll go anywhere. El_C13:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, sorry I couldn't be of more help. The thing about using T&S, is that the reputation of the Foundation got seriously eroded after WP:FRAM, and now with the weirdness of WP:UCOC ("Enforcement officers," etc.) even more so. So, spare for an WP:EMERGENCY outright, you might get folks unhappy merely for having contacted them. Personally, I think WP:FRAM was a travesty and WP:UCOC is just plain bizarre, but I'm still using T&S like I always have (granted, as an admin), which again, I think is totally legit to do. And the staff I deal with there remain as professional and expedient as always, so credit where credit's due. El_C13:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I largely agree, Id like to utilize on-en.wp procedures. But the reason I went to AN/I is that it didnt seem like the hounding was an arbitration enforcement issue. ARBPIA adjacent, but not quite ARBPIA. But I will take future hounding incidents that touch on ARBPIA to AE in the future, but I still do not get why ANI allows for the level of crap that it does. That Wikieditor thread devolved once Icewhiz brought two socks to argue against me and then propose a ban. Its like anything I raise is immediately inundated with that level of participation. I dont even get a response saying "no its not hounding, deal with it" if thats what an uninvolved admin feels it is, it just gets overwhelmed with people who are looking for any excuse to fuck with me. nableezy - 13:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've said this many times: it's the format that's largely the problem, because no-word limit + free-flowing threaded discussions get long and convoluted, so I suspect a lot uninvolved AN/ANI reviewers probably just write these off when they see that the underlying content is ARBPIA. Which is not adjacent in this case, it's plain ARBPIA (only). As I elude to above, admins also get fucked with. So, some, like myself, just don't wanna go through that anymore (myself for the reasons noted). El_C13:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
El_C, since you were kind enough to ping me: my opinion, which I still hold, was that you were trying to cancel an highly productive editor for an offence that wasn't serious enough. It gave me no pleasure and lots of pain to oppose you but I felt like I had no choice. I apologise for the manner in which I addressed you, but not for the position I took. Zerotalk14:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the manner in which you expressed yourself was what made it extremely challenging to discuss positions or anything else. It also felt like you were being obtuse as well as unresponsive to my repeated points, so it wasn't just tone and tenor. It felt like straight misrepresentation. But the end doesn't justify such means, in my view, regardless of how noble one views their 'position.' I also don't like that you're using the word cancel right now. But it's whatever, you weren't the only one, just one whom I've known and been collegial with for many years. As I said, I've no shortage of other requests, so it is what it is. El_C14:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If a quote I don't know of what, if a description I don't know of what, - sorry. In the process of updating to today, but I see you active and - you guess right - have an overdue RD on WP:ITNN, marked ready yesterday: sempé. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
there was only one sempé - look for that, or my name, or take the ready mark - sorry, outing was long, updating pics took time, I thought it was easy enough to find ... - will listen, missed a link ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize sempé was a person, I thought it was an obscure greeting or something. It wouldn't be something I'd pick up on, though, unless written it in uppercase—I just don't think of last names in lowercase. El_C20:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. Honestly, it's been challenging, and in more ways than f'one. But I did get to go to some cool outdoor concerts. El_C19:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, sorry, end month IRL backlog seems to be a thing lately. But should be back in, uh... days rather than weeks. Nice, love Debussy. I don't often include classical music in the Songspam, but I've featured his compositions on multiple occasions. Very soothing and rejuvenating; ethereal yet grounded. Big fan. I see that 111 is only 10 lines, so I'll do it real quick right now. El_C17:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Phaisit16207, I'd advise for you to link it and provide a summary of the changes/additions on the article talk page to see what other folks think of these. Perhaps collaboration can improve it. After you post on the talk page, you can then link that talk page post in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia/Assessment to advertise it even more to interested editors. In the event that no one comments at all in, say, a week, then you'd basically have a WP:CONSENSUS of WP:SILENCE to apply the edits to the article. And while it's the lowest kind of consensus, as it evaporates as soon as a good faith objection is made (within reason), it's still more than just being WP:BOLD and affecting the changes right away. Which you say don't want to do, anyway, and for which I commend you. As in that scenario, you're placed in the enviable position where you know that you did everything you could to bring people in. A good place to be. G'luck! El_C14:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
El_C, I'm sorry for bothering you, but I want to ask you to help me organize this reference from the original into a Cite-encyclopedia. Thanks.
Северная война 1700–21 // Румыния — Сен-Жан-де-Люз [Электронный ресурс]. — 2015. — С. 617—620. — (Большая российская энциклопедия : [в 35 т.] / гл. ред. Ю. С. Осипов ; 2004—2017, т. 29). — ISBN 978-5-85270-366-8.
Phaisit16207, don't worry, you're not bothering me. In answer to your question: I'm not familiar with these style guides cite templates, nor do I regularly use them. If someone wants to streamline my citations later, they're free to do so. But when I cite from Hebrew sources, I almost never bother also copying the Hebrew text, I just translate everything to English. It'd be too inaccessible otherwise. So you should not be displaying un-translated Cyrillic in citations, or anywhere, really.
You could add the Cyrillic in parenthesis, or whatever, that'd be fine. But, as it stands, I can't even tell what I'm looking at with these. After everything is translated into English, the rest is just fine-tuning. Anyway, more broadly, the point is not to get bogged down too much in technical and procedural areas like the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (overall), but rather, just make the content itself accessible, for the English Wikipedia. Personally, I mostly use The Chicago Manual of Style, but more out of habit than anything. Again, I never thought that part of it really mattered. HTH. El_C17:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is translated version.
The Great Northern War 1700–21 // Romania to Saint-Jean-de-Luz [Electronic resource]. — 2015. — p. 617—620. — (Great Russian Encyclopedia : [in 35 volumes] / Yuri Osipov ed. ; 2004—2017, vol. 29). — ISBN 978-5-85270-366-8. -- Phaisit16207 (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks okay'ish. I mean, I personally don't use slashes (//) or ndashes (–), unless they're part of the source material. Also, periods are interspersed throughout in a way that, at times, seems redundant. But again, who cares. El_C17:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
like this?
Osipov, Yuriy, ed. (2015) [2004-2017]. "The Great Northern War 1700–21". Great Russian Encyclopedia. Romania to Saint-Jean-de-Luz [Electronic resource] (in Russian). Vol.29. pp.617–20.
Phaisit16207, I mean, you could (tehcnically), but I'm afraid I can't help you with the content end of things. Again, if you want to advertise your changes in a neutral way on the talk page and Wikiproject to seek input from intrested editors, that would be good. Good luck. El_C17:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... Anyway, sorry, Phaisit16207, I don't want to do this anymore. I feel like you're taking me for granted. Not bothering to spell check, not bothering to cite pertinent WP:DIFFs. I'm not gonna do that work for you by guesswork or whatever. Please seek assistance elsewhere moving forward. I think I've done more than enough. Thanks. El_C16:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, But other matters [i.e., arbcom, I want to need help, more protection time request, etc.] besides this matter [about expandion] are often discussed. OK? Phaisit16207 (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Phaisit16207, sorry, no, not okay. I'd rather you use a pertinent noticeboard or the {{adminhelp}} feature. I have no idea why your writing has become so incoherent, but I'm finding it too hard to understand you. I can't spare the extra time figuring out what you're trying to say (broken English), or what edits are are involved (diffs). There's plenty of users who need my help and who also write clearly and provide evidence unprompted, so I'd rather help them, because I'm trying to ration my time wisely. Hope that makes sense. Again, good luck. El_C17:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article should probably have the notation that it is under arbcom Eastern Europe sanctions. Not sure exactly what is the process for that. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Seeing as they used 68.181.17.191 earlier at Qubadli, that page seems to be somewhat their main focus. But let me know if they continue disrupting some of the other pages and we'll go from there. El_C03:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey El. Please check the article Wagner Group if it fulfills the conditions for a soft protection against unregistered IP editors for a time. Because for the last week an IP editor(s) has constantly been trying to insert unsourced POV wording and also removed some sourced information and its sources (possible vandalizm), despite being reverted each time by at least half a dozen editors. Thanks in advance! EkoGraf (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for resolving that episode. I would have retracted all my complaints if Davey had ever apologized, but the closest he ever got was saying I should've kept my big gob shut and IMHO MrC shouldn't have repeatedly posted on my tp. Anyhow, I just wanted to point out two things but I'd rather not post on Davey's talkpage:
1. I never edit warred at all at Mercedes-Benz TN - I reverted him once (1 time) as I believed I was following BRD. I actually made a point of mentioning that I don't want to restore the photo I preferred several times at ANI, because it is a) subjective and b) had nothing to do with why I reported Davey. I know other editors quickly moved on to discussing the photos, but that is not on me.
2. Secondly, the picture I favored isn't really my upload - I just searched the Commons for a better picture than the existing and cropped this photo, originally taken by ŠJů. While I do take photos of cars, I try my level best to not blanket WP with my own photos in an undue manner, and I hope I have never engaged in an edit war over one of my own works.
Sure, np. About the image: you liked enough to upload it, even if it wasn't the original upload. But I also said that I didn't think it was a problem, which was why I didn't factor it in my summary of the current consensus (or lack thereof, rather). I also don't understand how you can say that you never edit warred at all and that you only reverted him once (1 time). Here's what I see:
Revision as of 22:07, 6 August 2022 (edit) (undo) (thank) Mr.choppers (talk | contribs | block) — Undid revision 1102769703 by Davey2010 (talk) change description. It's not damaged and painted in multiple shades.(diff)
Revision as of 21:38, 18 August 2022 (edit) (undo) (thank) Mr.choppers (talk | contribs | block) — Undid revision 1105072176 by Davey2010 (talk) you might want to be a touch more careful with your reverts. It's a horrible photo but I hadn't removed it.(diff)
Revision as of 07:38, 19 August 2022 (edit) (undo) (thank) Mr.choppers (talk | contribs | block) — Undid revision 1105264310 by Davey2010 (talk) You are completely out of line, both re the image and the 270px. You are arguing about a picture choice (you're wrong, but it's not that important). See WP:THUMBSIZE for more regarding forced thumbnail sizes.(diff)
And there may be more reverts that are not immediately apparent (i.e. not using the Undo feature), but at any event, more than one. Regardless though, it isn't really that important. HTH. El_C04:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can see how it appears that way at a glance, but if you look at the diffs you will see that the second two edits both leave the photo of the green truck. I only removed the forced thumbnail size as per WP guidelines. That is why I even wrote It's a horrible photo but I hadn't removed it and it's not that important in the edit summaries. I had a gut feeling Davey was reverting me without even looking at what I was doing, so to make things extra clear I also wrote on his talkpage which earned me some abuse.
I am not mentioning this because I want Davey to be in any more trouble or anything (I actually think we have had many good encounters in the past), but I am genuinely uncomfortable with having a whole bunch of editors I respect believe that I was edit warring over something so unimportant as one picture over another or (worse) to think that I started an ANI because I like ŠJů's photo better. Thanks, Mr.choppers | ✎ 11:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you were edit warring, but again, it's not a big deal, so I don't know why you keep going on about it. A partial revert is still a revert, and WP:THUMBSIZE is not listed as an edit warring exemption. Anyway, so now you know. Maybe move on...? El_C11:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ONE MILLION UNITED STATES DOLLARS? (Asking for a Nigerian oil baron friend.) BTW, did you catch Brian Kilmeade using the photoshopped pic / meme of the Raid Judge with Epstein (and even defended its veracity to Big Daddy Hannity, who was, like, wtf?), then the next day say: oh, I meant it as a joke! Ha ha (link)? Good comedy. El_C15:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I saw something about that, but I generally don't follow news in that way. Any news that has to battle for ratings and pander to an audience is going to end up doing dumb shit like that, and Fox really wants to stay on top and has to keep the people watching happy. My real question is who the hell produces these shows, and how do they not have a 17 year old on staff who just looks at shit and says "Bro, that's photoshopped, I can tell by the pixels." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same, I just caught it in passing. Yeah, and with the watermark. And, it being the rather infamous pic of Maxwell giving Epstein a foot massage (the judge's head was photoshopped over Epstein's head!). But, you know, he does his own research (on Facebook). El_C16:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my culture, it is customary to pepper conversation liberally with the word "fuck" in all it's many variants. I'd have been quite happy to give him a lesson in colloquial English. Would the pepper help the rabbits stew? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Feels one-sided, Izno. Had they not continued to press the point and minimize their Godwin with various jabs, I would have let it go. El_C18:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was very particular at pointing to the comment that made no sense to me to make at all. The last time they made a comment in the direction of reasonable complaint (and which you had discussed at the time and in the context it was made) was several hours before that comment and in a sufficiently different spot (in the same section).
You're also the admin in this situation. You know better than to get dragged into a dumb/stupid punching match on an arb page. Izno (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like I have tried to explain, I intended to compare the AE system with enabling acts in general, not specifically Hitler's well-known version. Now, it was probably a stupid comment even so. Fine. I felt insulted by your reference to Dunning-Kruger, and I handled it badly. So, sorry about that, and I think I'll stay away from that Noticeboard in future. All the best. Tewdar 19:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please vote in the 2022 Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Board of Trustees election
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi,
Could you please reconsider your block? I saw it at ANI. I've been working a little on Andrew Jackson as well, and have interacted with CMguy for years. Have you? Almost every competent editor who works with him has had our patience tried with his style of editing. I'm trying to be kind, but I don't know how to put it other than that he isn't very competent. In June a university professor asked me for advice in working with him; we discussed the situation privately. Ask User:Alanscottwalker or User:Parkwells> Maybe MelanieN. Don't ask User:Gwillhickers! They've tangled for years; Gwillhickers is more irascible than Display name 99.
CMguy means well but is biased toward minorities, particularly Black and Native Americans, and against Whites. He expects modern sensibilities in people who lived one or two or more hundred years ago. He makes lots of spelling and grammar errors. He doesn't know how to use sources properly. He knows how to cite them, but typically finds some passage somewhere that he likes and vigorously tries to insert. I cringed when I read that Display name 99 said he "went on the talk page to shriek hysterically about censorship," yet I knew exactly what he meant. That's actually an apt description, just inappropriate.
And Display name 99 rightfully complained that you gave no specific reason for blocking him. His complaint was too long? Did you look at the talk page and follow CMguy's comments? Perhaps Display should be admonished, but I don't see why he gets an indefinite P-block. Please consider unblocking him. Thanks, YoPienso (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please take it to ANI, I don't want to have two discussions about the same thing happening in parallel. Thanks. El_C01:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was more discreet to ask the blocking editor personally, specially since you blocked summarily without discussing it at ANI. YoPienso (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yopienso and Cmguy777: — Yopienso, how is anyone supposed to see your request as something fair and objective when it is filled with personal attacks against two editors? I've had no encounters with Display name 99 since I can't remember and had nothing to do with his getting blocked. You're not helping Display name 99 with this sort of behavior. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I've made no personal attacks on anyone. I was saying you've tangled with CMguy many times over the years. I never thought you had anything to do with getting Display name 99 blocked since I didn't see you at ANI or at the Andrew Jackson article or talk page. I think the two of you would get along well. I've observed that both of you have trouble getting along well with CMguy. I myself had not worked with Display name 99 before. Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 01:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, everyone, I'll be unavailable for the next little while, but hope to be back by the end of the month at the latest. Much love! El_C14:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no. Sorry to hear that, I hope you're doing okay. Best wishes for a speedy recovery. I've heard that already, it looks like (from the link being purple rather than blue), but I don't remember the context. I was gonna do 40 now, but it's long, so, soon'ish. El_C14:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm feeling fine again, first day! - One of my recurring wishes: Peter Brooks finally appeared on the Main page, 4 (!) days after he died. I'd like credit - it was the hardest of the year, and begged there already, but ... - Two composers used Psalm 40 in their choral symphonies, I didn't know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Credit. Glad to hear you're feeling better! I sort of jinxed myself yesterday with that It's Tuesday! Let's make it a laid-back one. Good one, me. Not a moment of respite since. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ And will be busy for the next little while. Der Mensch Tracht, Un Gott Lacht, you know it glows! El_C18:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now I have the complete program and a review. The program was called Salmo! - sadly not in Wiesbaden, - perhaps they thought we'd not understand it means psalm! which means sing!. I had noticed that they sang Psalms 150, 100, 84 and 149 (+ another line from 150). The review image shows the conductor even happier, imagine. It's detailed and all praise but sadly not going beyond Mendelssohn, while we found the late works especially impressive, - listen to the 2009 Locus iste by (Welsh) Mealor. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I met psalms, Psalm 107 next (too long?), and Psalm 40 still waiting I believe. - Lugnuts was banned - I didn't follow arbitration. - Martinevans is blocked for copyvio. - 2 giants missing. - See pics of highs and lows if you click on songs --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want high, follow the link but don't look beyond 25 Jul. Thank you for psalms hope. - Copyvio happens so easily: I transferred a translation of text from source to the article, worked on it some in edit mode, but missed deleting the rest (at the end). What do you think: should the (4 more) versions that still have it get ref-del, to be "safe"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, any potential WP:COPYVIO should be WP:REVDEL'd (btw, it's revision not reference deletion). Feel free to link the diffs of the potential copyvios and I'll make em go (away). El_C15:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon? I linked the diff, and said it's the four revisions (well, I said versions) following. I feel sorry for the person who tried to repair a sentence from the stuff that should never have been there. That edit made me aware. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, unexpectedly tied up with something. Hopefully, for not more than a few days. These psalms will be my 1st priority once I'm back, though. El_C15:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Recently started Malice by John Gwynne, neither of which have an article. Popped up as a suggested book on Audible, and it was over 20 hours long so I figured I'd give it a whirl. Pretty tropey so far, but I've read worse. Can you imagine, there's a young boy who excels at fighting who is more than he seems? And there are two gods, one good and one bad who are going to have a war? Extra points for the ol' fantasy standby of "inventing the shield wall." Also gotta do rabbits tomorrow, and do some repair and maintenance on their cages after I get all the babies taken care of. Unfortunately it's supposed to be around 97f tomorrow (that's 36 in eurotherms). No work is fun when it's that hot. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, but what about petting Kitty?John Gwynne (author) (red link atm, looks like both it and its draft were deleted on May 2021) sounds familiar, but I'm unable place him. Only 600 pages into The Eyes of God, with 200 remaining. Taking me such a long time to finish; just been too busy, but also, though it's good, it just isn't a page turner like The Jackal of Nar. I don't know if I'll keep going with that trilogy. Thinking of getting Tailchaser's Song, actually, because... BTW, DYK that Monarchies of God's Richard Hawkwood isn't the same person as The Wheel of Time's Artur Hawkwing? Yet they both end up discovering Ameriqua? You've heard it here fifth! Also, I praise you for providing AC to all the bunnies! El_C14:37, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Finished up the first book in that series. It's firmly ok. Can you imagine though, tragedy struck and the boy who excelled at fighting's home was destroyed, and yes, he is more than he seems. In fact, totally unexpectedly, he's the CHOSEN ONE.
Things that bother me in fantasy novels:
Firing a bow. A bow is shot, or an arrow is loosed. The term firing didn't appear until firearms.
Chainmail. It's mail, even though our article has the wrong name, but points that out in the opening sentence.
Not hobbling your horses at night.
Also, although I do not provide air conditioning for the rabbits, they do get frozen water bottles to lay on when it's hot, so I am trying to keep them comfortable. Should finish up The Quarry this weekend. Pretty good so far, and Ted Raimi is a standout. Not sure if it's better than Until Dawn yet. We'll see how it sticks the landing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, sorry, I missed your latest reply. In Hebrew "firing" (firearm, bow, etc.) comes from the root word of (first) rain (somehow), so no issues there! Finally (finally) finished Eyes of God and now reading Kristen Britain's Green Rider (she's the CHOSEN ONE?), which I am liking so far, though it's still early days. El_C11:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another silly fantasy book thing, people and animals fighting to they're all dead. Animals pretty much never fight to the death, and people generally break and flee with fairly small losses. They almost never continue fighting once they've realized victory is unlikely.
The Quarry didn't stick the landing. Ended up with two of the playable characters dead, one we didn't see die, so not sure how that happened, and one was a live or die decision we chose wrong. The epilogue was pretty lackluster and didn't give much closure. Still a decent game though, but not as good as Until Dawn. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's always felt like you're one of the most active admin at page protection and Xtools just confirmed it for me. Thank you for everything that you do. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, El C. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 11:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
The argument against a republic: President Thatcher
The argument against a monarchy: Crown Prince Mark Thatcher
La nature n'a fait ni serviteur ni maître;
Je ne veux ni donner ni recevoir de lois.
Et ses mains ourdiraient les entrailles du prêtre,
Au défaut d'un cordon pour étrangler les rois.
Nature has made neither servant nor master;
I don't want to give or receive laws.
And its hands would weave the entrails of the priest,
For lack of a cord to strangle kings. (Diderot)
Thanks for providing semi-protection to List of Brahmins and List of Dalits. Since the threads on RFPP is archived I am responding your 2 replies[150][151] here.
This was my first request on RFPP so I was not aware of providing evidence for disruption to justify ECP. While the List of Brahmin article has attracted disruption from autoconfirmed users in recent months,[152][153] and so has List of Dalits,[154][155] it may not be as frequent as it would be needed for ECP.
Another reason why I asked for ECP was that I have been safeguarding these lists for some time now but I don't know how long that will last because last week I did a blunder over which I was reported to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, for the first time. Overall, 4 admins commented. One had no comment on me, one admin said I should be at least warned, while the other two said I should be topic banned. Can you chime in there and review my case? I have provided assurances not to engage in any form of disruption again and how I will avoid the issues from reoccurring. I believe I should be given one last chance to prove I can edit without engaging in any disruption. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Sorry, I don't think if I can spare the time to assist you further in this matter, I'm just too busy atm. Regards, El_C15:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given you protected the talk page, I might mention that it would be good to have the vote about what image to use on a different page dedicated for that discussion perhaps, given that it's attracted a lot of attention and is one major discussion, with myself and a few other IP editors previously weighing in. May be good making note of the talk page protection on that section in the talk page too? 90.198.253.144 (talk) 09:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, IP, I don't wanna do that. But if you want to make an edit request to the protected page, you may do so at WP:RFPP/E. Either way, the protection will expire in 3 days, though given the intensity of the disruption, that may not last long. Good luck! El_C14:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree that we should make RfA great again. But the idea that it'll be the next person to RfA rather than say DanCherek with 281 supports and no opposes made me roll my eyes some. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Inspite of having proper references and information of a sports person of India who plays for Indian team in powerlifting the page is repeatedly being deleted by a group of user please protect this page by the purpose of vandalism because it's not a fake person or promotion on advertisement of a person it's totally real and genuine athlete from India — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikkibihola (talk • contribs) 16:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I_C, thanks for explaining. I wonder why they came to me. I see they've now been globally locked, so, I suppose this is wrapped up. El_C16:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, El C. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Yeah, I saw it, but I don't remember a lot about that block from 9 months ago, and you've provided no links for me concerning it so I could refersh my memory. Nor was I the one who closed the ANI report to impose the restrictions, which they are indeed in violation of. [Strike note: while technically true, there may be mitigating factors I overlooked at the time of writing that.] What I do remember is how unpleasant it was to deal with them, so I wouldn't want to do that again, regardless. Suggest you contact the WP:RESTRICT closer, or start a new ANI complaint. Good luck. El_C14:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The circumstances surrounding my previous indef block are very complex. Long story short, 99% of the block can be attributed to an ANI case against me (involving the deletion of comments), but the final 1% reason for the block came from a completely unrelated source. Basically, if my luck had been slightly better, I probably wouldn't have received a block at all. The administrators were frustrated with the ANI case, but they were ultimately looking to close it and let me and the accuser (both of us having problems) with a warning. However, at the last second, one of the administrators blocked me for a completely random reason. I had allegedly accidentally "outed" my friend. He was someone I knew from Reddit, and I commented on his talk page with a link to his account, which was in hindsight rather stupid. With that being said, it was definitely not harassment, and he came to my defence to get me unblocked. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jargo Nautilus, sure, but the point is that if someone just looks at your block log without knowing all of that, all they see is the reason being WP:OUTING, which as I noted at WP:AE is a component of the WP:HARASSMENT policy. So that is why folks may call it harassment, even if it was cleared up afterwards. What I'm saying is that there's no way to tell that (complexity, etc.) from your block log. Ironically, one would have to comb your contributions to figure that out. Regards, El_C00:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As for Mellk, he is still guilty of the charge of leaving a warning on my talk page in a pre-existing section. I'm pretty sure that's against standard procedure, no matter the circumstances. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jargo Nautilus, as I already explained to you at AE concerning a "warning" and the absence of a "pre-existing section" which you claim is a violation of some sort — again, that is not so. As I noted, there is no such formal requirement. El_C00:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still regard the location of the warning as a form of harassment. Obviously, this is not immediately obvious from viewing the diff, but the main gist is that Mellk had perceived my pre-existing discussion as problematic and decided to leave the warning there. Effectively, the warning was entirely off-topic with regard to that discussion since he wasn't addressing the discussion at all, and he also wasn't previously party to that discussion. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, you're free to think anything about anything, but it isn't immediately apparent how that constitutes harassment (the policy) on the basis of what you said. You can request users not to edit your talk page, though, which aside from required notices, they are expected to observe. I see that you asked Selfstudier to do so (diff), which they ignored (diff), and then ignored again (diff). I'll have a word with them about that. El_C01:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My deletion of SelfStudier's comments at my own talk page is actually one of the main reasons that he started the arbitration case in the first place. He even mentions this in his report against me. He was getting really frustrated because I kept deleting all of his warnings and telling him to stop messaging me, and he thought I was breaking the rules. Evidently, both he and I do not have a full understanding of the (extensive) rules/policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jargo Nautilus, well, as it happens, they were the one who were breaking the rules there, not you. Beyond that, I think everyone in that dispute can improve, be it tone and tenor, or respecting one's user talk page, and so on. But so long as that improvement happens, we live and learn. El_C01:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jargo Nautilus, yeah, that sucks. But if you conduct yourself in an exemplary manner in the long term, the effect of that will diminish with your increased reputation. Unfortunately, block logs cannot be excised (technically).El_C00:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strike that. I forgot that it is actually technically possible now, though that would be up to the blocking admin. But I don't think it's something that's really done. I've blocked close to 10,000 users and I've never done it or seen anyone else do it. A log entry cannot be edited, however. Sometime an additional very brief block (like for 1 second) is imposed just to clarify something by adding it as an entry to the block log. Back in the per-2010s, I did that to my own block log (a bit too much). El_C00:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any intention to remove the entry from my block log. I definitely did some bad things at the time, i.e. there was an ANI case occurring simultaneously for a reason. However, the final nail in the coffin is really misleading because it makes it look like I'm some sort of stalker or doxxer, when in reality my actual crime that I was guilty of was simply disruptive behaviour in general, not unlike what is happening now I suppose. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was actually just looking at CMD user and talkpage on and off due to his long term work with Singapore-related articles and noted the recent incident and spent some time reading it. I am wondering if you had noticed this section with attention to topic name and the "name" being given. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 09:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Sorry, I thought I'd have a day to wrap this up, but then [blank], and now it's too late as I'll be AWOL for a week or two (unrelated). El_C02:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought might be a relevant FYI but might be me being sensitive and should not be considered as part of the ongoing issue. No worries, you can just chuck this FYI aside if it is not important or you are being busy in real life! Take care! Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello El C, back in August you temporarily blocked an IP user range and gave them some very good behavioral advice moving forward.[156] Unfortunately, the same IP user is back and is engaging in WP:NOTHERE behavior. [157] The user is drawn to specific pages, covered by the Balkan/Eastern European discretionary sanctions. I have long suspected that the IP user is in fact linked to a registered user @Xz1333, [158]. As the IP user is continuously making edits to the exact same content, my only hypothesis for their behavior is that they are trying to circumnavigate the 3RR rule. Let me know your thoughts as your input would be most appreciated in helping to curtail this behavior. Thank you. ElderZamzam (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ElderZamzam. I already intended to indefinitely semiprotect both History of Kosovo and Demographic history of Kosovo as an AE action if the recent temporary semiprotections were to fall short, so I've now done so. Hopefully, that'll go a good way to curb the ongoing disruption, which irrespective of that IP, has been a long term thing in both pages. But that IP (/64) 's editing probably needs to be looked at again. Unfortunately, as far as myself doing that, at the very least it'll have to wait for a week or two, as I'm not gonna be around much if at all during that time. El_C02:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings (again), I believe Sylvain Charlebois' page is being vandalized again, with additions coming from dairy farmers who want to damage his reputation. It is continuing to happen. This page should either be deleted or fully protected. Thank you. CFPR2021 (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who did the edits this page. I am not from the dairy industry (in fact, lactose intolerant).
There is no agenda from my part. I simply reinstated a story from Sylvain Charlebois, which was highly publicized, and factual. I provided news sources and properly referenced the page. This is ultimately an important story that gained national attention and led to the stepping down of a dean from a high-profile university. However, this story was completely removed.
I believe there is an agenda to whitewash Sylvain Charlebois' name and completely erase this story. I don't believe that Sylvain Charlebois should be demonized for the bullying investigation done against him. I simply think it's important to prevent this story from being completely removed from his bio (as has been attempted multiple times). Nosfer ariel65 (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to follow up on my neutral vote on your candidate and wanted to mention that the main argument for a support was your nomination, I just trust your judgement and I hope to see another candidate from you. But for your candidate the opposes were so prominent, that I felt unsure. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kinds words, Paradise Chronicle. Maybe the less I say about that RfA from this point on, the better, but I appreciate you taking the time. Regards, El_C14:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My references to WP:POINT at the current RFA were not meant to ridicule or hurt you. At the time, I felt disappointed that someone whose judgment I generally find to be sound would, well, be disruptive to make a point. On further reflection, my comments did not help to defuse the situation, and for that I apologize. –FlyingAce✈hello16:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No apology needed, FlyingAce. I didn't conduct myself optimally, to put it mildly. But I appreciate you saying that, thank you. Regards, El_C16:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm contacting you because I've seen that you're an experienced admin active in the EE area. In August I filed an RM at Talk:Russian separatist forces in Donbas, which has been recently closed with "no consensus" by a non-involved editor. It was a tough call and a long discussion, with many editors (I think 14 out of 21) !voting in support of the RM and 7 opposing it. I'm not fully convinced about the lack of consensus, and I've started a conversation with the closer. They've been kind and ready to explain and give advice, but I feel that that conversation is not going anywhere and I'm wondering whether asking for a review of the closure would be appropriate here. Note that I've never opened an RM before and I've participated in very few ones, so I lack experience and might well be completely wrong about what a consensus is within the frame of an RM. However.... I think there's a consensus to move, and if there's not, I think the discussion is not over yet and should be re-opened. I'd appreciate if you could have a look at this and give me some advice as to how to proceed, or not to proceed, on the matter. The relevant discussions are the following ones:
Yes, I am! Also, I'm doubtful that you can get a license to hunt Bambi, as opposed to an adult doe. But if you were to hunt the adult doe and orphan Bambi, you'd be a villain. Like, a Disney villainpar excellence.El_C02:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Semantics. Bambi's the protagonist and you are the antagonist, you can't pretty it. Yikes, though. Those laws are whack. El_C02:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When our hunting season for deer takes place it's beyond being a fawn, and will be out of spots. The antlerless tags are assigned by lottery, and used to manage the population. Also, no sportsman wants to waste a tag on a tiny deer. I've seen at least three large bucks on my trail camera, and I'd much rather take one or two of them and leave the doe. It's all moot though, since I only see deer from my blind when I'm hunting turkey. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The North American model of wildlife conservation is actually pretty good. Wildlife populations are strong and well maintained. Again, it's all beside the point because I'm cursed to never see a deer in season. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take your word for it. I never hunted and have no interest in doing so, though I would if I had to. The only times I fired guns in NA were in the gun range (and Counter-Strike). El_C03:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can rest easy knowing that I don't hunt for the sport of it. I'm interested in providing as much food for my wife and I as possible. Deer hunting is also the most boring shit in the world. I probably answered 200 edit requests while hunting last year. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! The rose pic was taken on 11 Sep 2021, and this year was full of music that day, Tag des offenen Denkmals, not only singing in church and rehearsals for Verdi's Requiem, but two concerts at special places pictured, one a synagogue (pictured on its wall). Today three DYK: a piece we'll perform on Sunday (a Psalm 100 setting), a violinist we heard in June playing the Berg Concerto, and a Youth Orchestra shaped by a conductor who recently died. Almost too much of a good thing. - I'll fix Psalm 37 after this round. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Psalm 37 taken with thanks! And noticed that Psalm 38 has no Hebrew yet, - shorter! --
Done. BTW, the King James Version is missing the first line. Is that in the original or an oversight specific to that page? Yes, I love that organ! Now we just need to hook it up to a Leslie and we're golden. El_C14:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't know if I wanna do that, and I am definitely not into nominating anything to WP:ITNC. But I am open to reviewing it when you think it's ready. El_C12:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I said I'd nominate. But not translate. I'll see what I find in a language I can read which is not Hebrew. Nothing today - I do only one per day, and am actually "booked" for the month just making an exception on days like today, doing one I didn't know would exist. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misread about the nom. But more bluntly still: I don't like speaking ill of recently deceased persons whom, to put it delicately, I'm not a fan of. Be they the late Queen or this Israeli ultranationalist. There would usually have to be some greater urgency for me to do content work that features them. El_C13:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Sorry for the lag, I'll try to get to 48 later today. What do you recommend I listen to first / direct link? El_C14:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now my lag: just returned from dress rehearsal Verdi Requiem, couldn't sing last page, too emotional. - Listen to that, perhaps. Our soprano soloist was born in Jerusalem, Talia Or, she has a very delicate pppp in highest register. Bass is Johannes Hill. Now I need food (which means make it), and movement outside. Will be back later to promote that a pic I took is on the Main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh — *virtual hug* Quite beautiful interior. But no direct link to music, still? I hope you realize, we're enemies now. El_C16:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had looked if there was a YT of Talia Or, but no. I knew there was none of the baritone, nor any in the new concert hall. Here's something similar to what we'll do tomorrow, and here some of Thomanerchor with their new conductor. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
hand-chipmunks, groundhogs w/chipmunks, squirrels, hand-sparrows, maybe hummingbirds? I am desperate, and need some Zen...or yin yang interaction. Atsme💬📧00:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, very nice pic! Anyway, maybe I would, except... Commons. They kinda fuckin' hate me there. My last interaction at that special, special place involved an admin who was openly mocking my, well, 🐿️ pics (diff). Well, sorry I don't have any pr0n to contribute. Yet! Cheers! El_C04:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Awww...well, Commons can be finicky at times so upload your image file locally using the upload file feature in the left Contribute margin and check keep local. Meanwhile, enjoy!Atsme💬📧12:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you may have something heavy weighing on your mind to be so harsh on yourself. Will your long music menu be appearing soon? 🎼🎶🎵🎹🎤 Atsme💬📧04:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to follow up on your reply on the now-closed thread, you make a good point about being expected to collaborate with people who hate you. I hadn't thought of that, and I doubt I fully appreciate it, either, because I drift about here so much that I don't really ever interact with anyone for an extended period of time; people who are more focused probably feel the effects of that disruption a lot more than I do. I appreciate you taking the time to engage with and teach me; I'll need to reflect on these issues some more, and hope I'll be wiser for it. Thanks a bunch! —Compassionate727(T·C)18:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you,Compassionate727, for your thoughtful response. It's very much appreciated. I'm glad we've had this dialogue. Your compassionate disposition does you credit (*pun* intended!). All the best, El_C18:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per edit comment requesting reminder, this particular page was given ECP at diff 1093897347. Request to reverse to Confirmed Protection only as there are issues such as generous lack of citations throughout and lack of manual of style usage that require blanking. Issue is raised by me in related page talk section. If ECP downgrade is not recommended, someone can make the required and sweeping edits. MJHTrailsolid (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anon-ymousTrecen, no, the protections are needed. As for Volunteer Marek, the thread at WP:ANI is currently live, so I'm not inclined to split the discussion. Also, you being an editor with such brief tenure advancing a pro-Russian position is suspect. Request declined. El_C15:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, regardless, my stance on the protection increase is the same as my stance on the original protection. Request declined, again. Also, please stop pinging Volunteer Marek to this thread. I'm sure they've seen it by now. El_C15:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, after some time off, there is now new edit warring of changes in ([159][160][161][162][163]), and the lengthy use of talkpages as WP:FORUMs ([164][165]) has restarted. Furthermore, the name-calling and and aspersions have continued ([166]), so it would be really great if this would cease. At any rate, given there is current disruption, if the AE case is to remain unclosed, would it be forum shopping to post on WP:AN/EW regarding the new edit warring? I ask as you are the most involved admin in that AE case, if you would want to decline to answer please let me know and I can ask elsewhere. Best, CMD (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CMD, no, I'm unlikely to do anything further wrt to him. Upon reflection, I probably overdid it on his talk page for me to feel comfortable taking the lead now. But hopefully, my comments there and at AE will be useful to other reviewers. As for your forum shopping question, I don't think it would count as a violation of it, so long as you make a note of it to, and at, the ongoing AE complaint. HTH. Regards, El_C16:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, not a problem. I asked them to self-revert (not sure whether they're on 4 or 5 now), so I'll give some time. I would prefer that to opening a board case. CMD (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it was me that changed the photo. I think it doesn't matter all that much if it gets changed to something else. Wondering if you could unlock. There's a far more silly matter of users deleting sources relating to his sexuality because it upsets them.
Wonder if you could unlock or have a look at the edits by Jadetemple.
Hey np. I've protected that page 8 out of the 20 times it's been protected over the years (double that of the runner up, EdJohnston), so I think I got a pretty good sense of its long term ebb and flow. As for the decline yesterday: I wouldn't hold it against an admin who did not have the benefit of my experience with the history of the page. Regards, El_C17:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, i have no problem with the decline, as it is at admins' discretion, i just wanted to give a perspective as to why the disruption continued. Best.---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)08:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please proceed by reverting the blocked user's last edit which was in violation of WP:CON anyway? I don't want it to look like an edit war in the page's history. Shahid • Talk2me15:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Phaisit16207, you already mentioned that user in your opening, so that isn't new information. Above, I had asked you: users as in plural? Meaning, more than one, to which you said: yes. Therefore, the original question remains: who else, besides Pktlaurence, were you referring to?
Look, I'll be blunt. I'm not sure I'm able to convey all of this to you any more clearly. I'm sorry to say, but there's a limit to how many times I can repeat the same query in different ways. Though I understand that I might have been too terse at times. The thing is that the protection policy ordinarily limits me from upgrading a protection due to just one single user.
I'll put it to you this way, then: if you still can't answer me after all of this, you're probably gonna need to take this request and any future ones elsewhere. I'm not sure if it's a language barrier or what, but when someone knows something in advance that I don't, I expect for them to provide that info to me when they ask for my help. Which usually saves me time. But in this case, it hasn't as we've just been going around in circles. So, to repeat one more time: which (auto)confirmed user, besides Pktlaurence, were you referencing? Good luck. El_C23:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a native English speaker, either, but you need to be able to communicate effectively in English nevertheless. El_C11:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The edit in question was definitely POV pushing that needed to be reverted. But why do you think that it was so egregious that it needed to be revision deleted? I am not seeing it. Cullen328 (talk) 05:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't think grandstanding like that during a tragedy is appropriate, but feel free to undo if you think different. I have no objection. El_C06:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:REVDEL, RevisionDelete was introduced for administrators in 2010. The community's endorsement of the tool included a very strong consensus that its potential to be abused should be strictly barred, prevented by the community, and written into the policy. Especially, RevisionDelete does not exist to remove "ordinary" offensive comments and incivility, or unwise choices of wording between users, nor to redact block log entries. Material must be grossly offensive, with little likelihood of significant dissent about its removal. Otherwise it should not be removed. Administrators should consult as usual if uncertain that a revision would be appropriate to redact.. Please explain how this specific content meets that standard. Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is unclear to me is why you concluded that the edit in question met the clear established standards for revision deletion. Is "grandstanding" or any synonym mentioned? All I am asking for is a clear and direct explanation for the action you took as an administrator. Cullen328 (talk) 06:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The matter of what is offensive or disruptive and any terms used to describe these are subject to one's own interpretation of said policy. But I undid the action, since I'm getting the sense that you were not gonna do it, but rather, want to keep arguing over semantics. El_C06:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not interested in arguing but rather in explanations. Since it seems to me that you have chosen evasion instead of a forthright answer, I will just move on. Take care. Cullen328 (talk) 06:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
@El C Please downgrade protection to ECP so that socks are kept out. Not contributors. Since yesterday our Edit request on HP Election talk page is waiting for an admin but they all seem to be busy and overworked. Venkat TL (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I guess, but that'll mean blocks for extended-confirmed users who continue the edit war, yourself included. But, sure, I'm fine with that. El_C18:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The edit request should have made it clear, it was request to be added to 2022_Himachal_Pradesh_Legislative_Assembly_election#Schedule. I have now added it. Regarding the full protection, this is an ongoing event and full protection is unworkable because the article gets frozen with no updates. This is a controversial article and 'any user' who refuse to follow the WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION and WP:CONSENSUS policies to push their edits without consensus would need to follow the rules or should be blocked for editing warring without consensus. Venkat TL (talk) 10:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, if you're able to work that out, all power to you. But these pages are not subject to the Consensus required rule, so while WP:ONUS is preferred, you would not be exempt from the edit warring policy in pursuit of that. Just so we're perfectly clear. El_C11:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have reached out and asked for cooperation from other page contributors on their user talk. Special:Diff/1116405200, Special:Diff/1116103537/1116405678, Special:Diff/1116201605/1116405546. Yes, I understand I am not special. I am seeing WP:CRP for the first time. I have read WP:CONSENSUS and similar pages. I had always assumed that consensus is needed to make controversial edits. After reading this page CRP I think this is very much needed on this page, after what has transpired in last 4-5 days. Please help me understand, How to get this restriction on that page? Would you be willing to put this restriction? or should I start a talk page thread to get support for this CRP. Venkat TL (talk) 11:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, you can propose it, I suppose, and if there's overwhelming consensus for it, you could present that to a noticeboard. But, no, I'm not willing to do so for these page/s. Disputes would have to be not simply severe, but extreme for that to happen. Generally, it isn't really imposed that much anymore as it has proven too challenging to enforce. I don't think I've imposed one myself in 2022 and I don't know anyone else who has. El_C12:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have requested to increase the protection level based on the disruptive editing including Venkat TL. Venkat TL has restored his preferred version since you decreased the protection as you can see here and here. Do you think this is something that can be allowed in the middle of an ongoing discussion 12 that's also on two pages where Discretionary Sanction is effective? As there is no deadline to update an article I think the request of Venkat TL to reduce the protection level was only meant to restore his preferred version. TheWikiholic (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello sir,
Before editing that page I have resourched alot from historical sources as Before bringing it on article page I have followed instructions given by other administrator who previously reverted my editing after he gives me guidance that I should bring my sources on talk page and if no one objectify then after some days i can edit article page myself by adding my references and that what i done after nearly 4 days. i have edited page.I told administrator to check my editing all edited correctly but that's only one mistake was done by me that i was able to put in on reference section but somehow it's not edited correctly because i am new on Wikipedia platform.So if you can edit that correctly please do so and restore my edit on article page also.Thank you Prathmesh Bhale (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prathmesh Bhale, it's a volunteer project, so help happens when it does, and sometime it doesn't. But placing the page at a state of disrepair is still not an improvement to it. If you're having a challenging time trying to figure something out, maybe try the WP:TEAHOUSE for introductory stuff, like correct formatting for citations, and so on. El_C20:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello El C, thank you for having protected "Philip H. Dybvig":
If the text you used
Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: It is potentially WP:LIBEL to only use WP:PRIMARY sources (like WP:TWITTER) for WP:BLPCRIME claims. WP:SECONDARY sources are required for this ([Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 13:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)) [Move=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 13:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)))
I struck a !vote in an RM by a non ECP editor and cited WP:GS/RUSUKR. The closer commented "there's no notice placed on the talk page to inform non-extended-confirmed editors about the non-participatory role they have on internal project discussions (including Requested Moves)."
Selfstudier, no, I don't think those templates have been created yet. History: The proposal's original intent was to have the GS immediately subsumed by ARBEE. But, once approved, no one wanted to actually take steps to do that because the WP:ARCA template is annoying. Meanwhile, ToBeFree started temporarily logging these at WP:AEL, using the WP:GS/RUSUKR shortcut as a redirect to the approved proposal at AN/I. But then Barkeep49 didn't want, so the page was created thusly. El_C10:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't just me. In a discussion several other Arbs agreed that Arbcom needed to do some kind of consent for it to happen. I think if it's requested there would still be a willingness but as el c says someone would have to use the arca template. Barkeep49 (talk) 11:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So I just went to look at it to see if there were any easy changes I could get the committee to agree to. And a quick look at it suggests to me it's slightly less complicated than the AE template. But clearly given your feelings it could be improved. Can you give any insight about what makes it so hard to fill-out? Barkeep49 (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey thanks. I'm not sure I can explain it that well. Basically, I just want to say the thing without all these parameters, and if you get one of them slightly off, the entire thing doesn't display... Sorry for the low-res explanation. El_C20:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your point that it's really easy to "break" it and have it show up blank is a fair one. I wonder if there's anything we can do to make that a bit better. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: yeah... I didn't find it fair to enforce GS/RUSUKR at the end of the discussion when it should have been right from the start. I did look into seeing if arca template can be set up after the close, but decided to take a step back like dealing with the raptors at Jurassic Park. For the time being while having the template created and other gears to turn, we can put a note on affected discussions that the GS/RUSUKR is in effect. – robertsky (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, Robertsky. If a (logged) protection to a page is in effect, then the sanction regime is also in effect. So you can certainly make a note of that, with or without a template. El_C16:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. I'm not sure if you're admin but still. I'm trying to update some information and this one guy, he's difficult for me to work with. I know I instantly get angry and upset over edits that get reverted despite my work to help improve articles and such. I'm trying to be nice and explain my disappointment over why I defended my edits and why it shouldn't be reverted in the first place (The BRD rule) and I'm worried if he's honestly too difficult to work with him. I don't want to mention a name or whatever, IDK if I'm doing it right. He's not helping to making it a good place to edit and it's making me feel getting away from it because he's too much to me. If it gets worse, would I need a mediator? 20chances (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay. And I appreciate the help. Just need to be sure what to do since I don't know if I'll have to do something that'll work, especially when the edits that goes on, even if I'm trying to help, turns into a complete edit war (which is something I'm trying to avoid) 20chances (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do IPs not have block logs? I'm asking because as I was one-click archiving old ANI threads I came across your block of this IP [168], but there is no sign of the block when I click "block log" [169]. Am I missing something? Softlavender (talk) 02:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, thanks! It looks like this squirrel has a system, though, so that might not have been the first time. That squirrel might have a problem. El_C22:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
El_C, if you're going to discuss me, please do so in a place (like, say, my talk page) where I can respond. I'd appreciate it if you didn't discuss me on a user's talk page after that user requested I don't post there (as I did for them). This is particularly relevant - and an issue of its own - when that user is using their talk page to make personal attacks on me to which I can't even reply. Should I start talking to people on my talk page about how user X is friends with indef banned user Y and may be editing on their behalf, when user X is not allowed to post on my talk? Get some admins involved in that discussion? I think this is a simple request for common courtesy and etiquette.
As to your overall question - I saw Bishonen redirect that article, clicked the 'diff', saw who and what it was, and rolled my eyes, for obvious reasons. Volunteer Marek 14:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(he also announced it at 9:11 10/18 on Levivich's talk page [170] (yes for obvious reasons that's on my watchlist). My edit wasn't until 19:08 10/18. There really is no mystery here and this is just performative melodrama - he knows how I found the article and he knows why I posted on his talk; he was (and still is) using his talk page to make personal attacks against me (can you ask him to strike these?) Volunteer Marek 14:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that, that's why I said it was a venue in which VM can't respond. But since the discussion was already ongoing, I thought it would be informative to add that general timeline (which I don't think is in dispute). Beyond that, there's nothing further to explore there concerning yourself. But, that I still felt was worthwhile noting for the sakes of completion. And of course, you can respond here, you're doing it right now. But I should stress that I'm only really interested in this limited set of facts vis-à-visPolitical editing on Wikipedia. I don't want to do a deep dive into whatever rabbit hole this undoubtedly leads to.
But even regardless of hounding, it's not a good look when you go on to repeatedly erase a +22,000 byte expansion by your perennial content opponent, in an article they had created the day before. And doing so, ostensibly, to echo Bish's earlier edit — except, she was dealing with a +1,400 byte stub. Even if we were to accept that there was no hounding per se., and that you had encountered that page in some other plausible way (which, sure), you repeatedly erased a lot of content without offering any substance about the material (+22K of material). All you said was that it needed to be discussed first. But discuss what? Discuss that it needs to be discussed? You didn't provide anything specific (that I could immediately discern, at least). This becomes doubly-problematic when it's a perennial content opponent of yours of many years. It verges on being a provocation outright, even. ←That I wouldn't say on François Robere's talk page. El_C15:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That extra content I undid wasn’t created but simply moved (forked) over from another article [171]. I think it’s quite reasonable to ask for a discussion of where this content belongs. This wasn’t any more “provocative” than Bishonen’s redirect. Volunteer Marek 17:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter, if you can't provide an objection that goes beyond stating that you object and nothing else, then it's sketchy all the same. El_C18:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The objection, clearly stated, was same as Bishonen’s; that it was a fork. FR should have started the discussion after that revert not waited till drama flared up. Volunteer Marek 18:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That objection rings hollow, and it was "POVFORK," except, you didn't bother explaining why you think that to be so. And, no, it's not the same as Bish's objection, because she, unlike you, was looking at a 2-sentence stub. The way it looks to me is that you were likely trying to get a rise out of François Robere, which, again, I think is a bad look (at the least). El_C18:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which is to say: you gave François Robere no insight as to why you objected to the expanded article as a "povfork." You simply said it was, declaratively, and nothing else. That is not an objection, that is the summary of an objection. What, is François Robere expected to prove a negative by going through a list of why it isn't a povfork until they somehow hit your secret reasoning? El_C18:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My explanation was just as detailed, if not more, as Bishonen’s. Why aren’t you getting on their case? It was really up to FR to start the discussion after they reverted him rather than trying to play some silly game where he changes the title slightly and imports a bunch of material from another article to make it look like “oh it’s different now”.
As to the “hounding” accusation: please step back and think for a second. In the past 8 months, how many edits has FR made? How many of them have I reverted? Or even replied to? I’m sorry but you’re being silly. Hell, in those eight months, I’ve probably reverted people I actually *like* more than I have reverted him. You’re falling for his melodramatics. And for your own inability to be objective here.
This still unsubstantive and somewhat scattered, but also increasingly combative reply, fails to address the crux of my argument (about a lack of substance, ironically). Y'know, sometime, offense isn't the best defense. And, again, simply saying things declaratively, like, you’re being silly, or, falling for his melodramatics, or, your own inability to be objective here, et cetera, etc., is ultimately more heat than light.
The problem with this evidence-less approach, with its weird whataboutism that make little sense, and its overall lack of focus, is that it tries to skirt any and all responsibility on your part. But all it truly does is muddy the waters through obfuscation or whatever. In any case, it has now become too circular for me (and kinda uncomfortably testy from you), so I'm gonna leave you to it. Do whatever. I'd only hope, though, that at some future time, you might take your own advise, detach yourself if only for a moment, pause, and reflect. El_C22:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @El_C hope you're good. I entirely reworked the Rita Ora discography article and brought it to a good standard, which I later nominated for a featured list status. The article is currently being reviewed and I assume that it will pass the nomination. However, @Helptottt is persistently removing well-sourced content and reverting without reasonable arguments. He is continously being involved in edit wars on the subject's discography article as well as on the Rita Ora article. Is it possible for you to intervene? Many thanks in advance. Iaof2017 (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Iaof2017. Doing good, thanks. Unfortunately, though, I'm rather pressed for time for next couple of weeks. But even if I wasn't, I have virtually zero experience in anything WP:FAR or WP:FL -related. Hope it all works out amicably in the end, though. Regards, El_C18:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, since your block of this IP expired they have returned to making edits that are solely inteded to either put the Philippines first in lists or to put Malaysia last in lists (or both?) [172][173] along with some related pointy changes. This seems persistent over a variety of articles, so sadly I don't think a partial block helps despite their unrelated and potentially productive edits to other articles. (Although according to the block log it was a proxy at least at one point, so perhaps it's multiple people?) CMD (talk) 05:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I take it back about the other edits, they appear to be an unexplained campaign against the term "Roman Catholic". CMD (talk) 10:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).
And I bet there will be at least ten silent readers who will be thankful that someone asked.
El_C 18:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
.jpg)
El_C 12:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC).jpg)
.jpg)
Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
,_cropped.jpg)
El_C 04:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Fixed. El_C 23:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 00:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
El_C 15:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
El_C 13:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
El_C 08:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Posted Georg Christoph Biller. El_C 20:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
El_C 13:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
But, indeed, good comedy potential stock. I think the most amusing possibility is that it's just random, though how would you even verify that? Anyway, thanks again for bringing it to my attención. El_C 22:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
.jpg)
Already protected by administrator Stephen. Sush150, I keep asking you not to post protection requests on my talk page but to direct them to WP:RFPP/I instead. Please acknowledge that you understand. El_C 13:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
User(s) blocked: Havvanzy (talk · contribs) blocked by Black Kite. El_C 15:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely. El_C 11:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Unprotected. El_C 15:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
El_C 13:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Like. El_C 10:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: Above IP is an LTA User:Amkgp see the SPI Archives and you get to know about this IP.
This is your only warning; if you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments again, as you did at User Talk:ScottishFinnishRadish, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. I am super serios abut this! I so selfie make mistakes, especially when mobile editing that there's no need too correct then! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
El_C 15:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
El_C 15:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:AE § Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Onceinawhile. Shrike (talk) 08:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
check. Patient zero not actually a random dog on a peer: 
El_C 12:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I am armed to the dentures. 
I'm not gonna hit you with a hammer! 
Buttinsky) That's amazing SFR. What breed of dog brought back the uninjured rabbit? I'm house-sitting for my daughter, who has a Brittany Spaniel, and he has been going crazy over a family of squirrels in their yard. He finally caught one of the little ones and brought its little lifeless body to the back door. He was not at all gentle after he caught it but quite proud of his accomplishment. 😢 I've been wanting a baby squirrel to raise and so far, that's as close as I've gotten to one. Atsme 💬 📧 02:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
El_C 08:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Warned: User_talk:Mfikriansori#Warning. So I guess we'll see if they'll change course. El_C 11:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Vpab15 (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Done. El_C 12:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
There is a danger. 
Hope you're doing well. Atsme 💬 📧 22:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
[stretch] Atsme 💬 📧 01:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Supercute! 
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack yourself, as you did in this edit summary. Please comment on the contributions and not yourself. If you make any further self-attacks you may have to report yourself to yourself, which may result in a self-block. Thank you. MANdARAX XAЯAbИAM 02:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
El_C 14:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Self-trout. Anyway...
Atomic service dog! 🏄 El_C 02:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Atsme 💬 📧 12:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Atsme 💬 📧 19:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
![[9]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AECases2020.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Atsme 💬 📧 22:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)