free image.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Leclerctank.jpg
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanbir Singh Grewal ( talk • contribs)
It was really nice to see you pop up on my watchlist! Guettarda ( talk) 22:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
same ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
List of Presidents of Liberia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:1304:73DA:0:0:75:30A0 ( talk) 13:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
An IP editor ( 70.235.158.228) you blocked has made some extremely nasty personal attacks and has threatened to out editors. Most, if not all, of their contributions probably should be revdelled under RD2. If you can help, that would be great. – Tera tix ₵ 01:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the protection. It's clear we've straightened out the issue, so can you please lift protection? Thanks! John from Idegon ( talk) 12:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
The category Category:Terrorist incidents in Iran in the 2010s which I added to 2017 Tehran attacks is a valid category and part of a (populated) series re terrorism in Iraq and is similar to other countries Hugo999 ( talk) 10:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. This area has been very quiet for a long time now and we are getting some decent articles up. AIRcorn (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you reverted this edit without a reason in the edit summary, and you flagged it as a minor edit. It seems like a legitimate addition to me, so I was hoping you could explain why you did it. Thanks! AlexEng( TALK) 19:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Anytime I see your name around. TonyBallioni ( talk) 04:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Softlavender (
talk)
12:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I see you blocked Jeppem7 ( talk · contribs), you might want to also take a look at Jeppem2 ( talk · contribs). Ivanvector's squirrel ( trees/ nuts) 12:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
You locked the Bordeaux–Mérignac Airport page with disputed content which violates several WP policies left in place. I would be grateful if you would revert it to the last revision by User:SovalValtos. Charles ( talk) 12:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't think this was vandalism. Check the article for context. I was just about to make the edit on the IP's behalf then I saw your block. — MusikAnimal talk 13:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi El C! I'm just letting you know that I've unblocked this IP (a procedural unblock only) because it's part of a range ( 46.211.0.0/16) that I've just blocked for two weeks due to IP hopping vandalism, disruption, and other abuse. There's little doubt in my mind that this situation is related to the others - take a look at the range contributions and you'll probably agree. ;-) If you have any questions, concerns, objections, or input regarding this range block and what I did - please let me know (ping me in your response here) and I'll be happy to discuss it with you. I doubt that you'll have issue with what I did, but I figured I'd let you know just in case. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 12:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Bro, please read this page thoroughly. It's being edited every day. Very many uncited and misleading claims exist in the article. It's heavily biased in favour of a particular faction. Chippy pest ( talk) 13:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Can you partially protect it? Chippy pest ( talk) 13:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
At least, the infobox. Web results Mughal–Maratha Wars - Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › Mugh... Chippy pest ( talk) 13:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Reuters confirms the news. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 08:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
It is not enough if we add the fact that it is the claim of sources quoted by Reuters. I think we should ask for others opinions. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 08:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi you have warned Masterofthename here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Masterofthename reported by User:Shemtovca (Result: Warned )
I have tried to have a reasonable conversation, he has suggested that i add it properly to the article which i did earlier today. His response to that was to add most of it again under a different subject and accuse me that he that i am working with some sort of gang and am lying... Can you please help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shemtovca ( talk • contribs)
I have told the truth about the breast tax myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:D08A:7EC6:F414:C38F:FD74:220D ( talk) 09:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Please refer to this - https://rarebooksocietyofindia.org/book_archive/196174216674_10152112262136675.pdf. Women of ALL classes used to bare their breasts. There's no proof for the legend of Nangeli other than from the mid-20th century; which shows that it's a myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:D08A:7EC6:F414:C38F:FD74:220D ( talk) 09:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
OK, will do it. Thanks for the diplomacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:D08A:7EC6:F414:C38F:FD74:220D ( talk) 09:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Nadar_climber - I've added a line here with a citation. Is this OK? (I agree that exploitation was there - but most of the sources cited for this breast tax are from books written in the 90s, so it's most likely a myth) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:D08A:7EC6:F414:C38F:FD74:220D ( talk) 10:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, can anything be done about this user? They are constantly changing punctuation in direct quotations and adding commas in random places. Krimuk2.0 ( talk) 07:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I noticed you've been doing very long blocks on dynamic IP addresses, frequently set as a hard block ("Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address" set). I also noticed that you marked one of your blocks as a checkuser block – Special:Contributions/84.1.247.135. I assume that was an accident, but only checkusers should mark blocks as checkuser blocks – there are special rules for these blocks, making them harder to appeal. Also, non-checkusers probably shouldn't do hard blocks unless they're blocking something like an open proxy. There's no way for non-checkusers to ascertain the collateral damage. Generally, if you want to do a hard block on a non-proxy, I think it's best to ask a checkuser to see if there's collateral damage. If you see someone evading a block from a mobile network operator, you should definitely not do a hard block, and you should probably keep the block length short, like 24–48 hours. Blocking these IP addresses for 3 months will likely cause many random internet users in the same general geolocation to be unable to edit. If you're blocking these IP addresses because they're proxies, you should label them with {{ blocked proxy}}. Proxies, webhosts, and stuff like that can be hard blocked for months (or even years), but they should be properly labeled so that people know how to appeal (for example, {{ Colocationwebhost}} gives advice on what to information to provide in the unblock request). I apologize for coming across with an attitude like "hey, only checkusers can do that!", but hard blocks can sometimes cause lots of problems for innocent users. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 01:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I had created the article Cow vigilante violence in India. As far as my knowledge of rules goes, redirecting a new article is deletion, and that must be done via WP:AFD. But two users are redirecting without consensus. He even reported me as edit warrring to the administrator notice board, which was found as no violation by you [1]. I have mentioned my view on the talk page, but others are not replying anything to it. They just want to merge it to subset of the subject, that is violence after the year 2014. Is consensus required to create a page, or is it required to delete a page? Please let me know. Soarwakes ( talk) 08:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Hey , why u deleted the right content?? Kumarpkp ( talk) 11:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello, As per my understanding you have done the unfair deletion of the content from the Page using "Placement is too promotional". If the content is present in the following wikipedia page /info/en/?search=Dnyaneshwar , how this can be removed. It has been written what Samadhi means and the same was added to the page /info/en/?search=Meditation. Kindly review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winchetan ( talk • contribs)
Thank you for doing it, disabling the ability of easy adding nonsense and radicality. Even though users like me then cannot edit entirely, I appreciate it. 208.54.36.166 ( talk) 12:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Now using an IP to sock on KBPI, 69.11.193.91 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). Nate • ( chatter) 00:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, earlier you protected this page due to a long term vandal changing it to "New Fart Times". Within 24hrs of the protection ending, two IPs appeared making the same Fart vandalism. I assume the vandal has some sort of automatic reminder. They usually geolocate to the same city (though not always). -- Green C 13:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello, El C. Sorry to say, but I disagree with your comment at
WP:RFPP regarding
Lars Sullivan. In the last 7 days we have seen
deliberate factual error
deliberate factual error
unsourced content
unsourced content
unsourced content
unsourced content
and
either vandalism or factual error.
This article is also a BLP, so we should be trying to avoid vandalism even more on an article on a living person. I do understand some of these edits might not stand out as disruptive to someone unfamiliar with the subject matter.
StaticVapor
message me!
04:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned you can throw long or even indefinite semi-protection at them. That LTA is someone with nothing better in his life than this. Drmies ( talk) 01:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
I was curious was to why you applied pending changes to the page? The page is not even a day old and users need to be able to add new information as it comes out without being contested. I find it excessive to apply pending changes so soon. Users can revert content when they see fit, of course appropriately. Thank you. Aviartm ( talk) 01:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I took the liberty of adding "of OP" [3] to your (Result: Indef) since otherwise it appeared to indicate that I was indeffed. Meters ( talk) 10:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
This may be of interest to you. Thanks. John from Idegon ( talk) 04:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi El C
This information is OK see :
Best,
Stephen C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.13.234.144 ( talk) 10:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, this dates back to 2017 but was misplaced on this article. The associated 1RR condition is for topics relating to the Syrian Civil War or to ISIS/ISIL, which this article is neither. Thanks. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 05:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Greetings El C. You recently applied Pending Changes protection on the Mueller Report article. This is quite confusing as questionable revisions by IPs collide with revisions by auto-approved editors. A lot more work must be done to undo things or apply simple copyedits. Please consider switching to semi-protection. Thanks! — JFG talk 08:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, The edit warring problem on the Template:2018–19 Serie A table has been settled, so you can reduce the level of protection so that edit can be made and also because there's a game today and that edits must be made. RafaelS1979 ( talk) 13:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree with your assessment that RPP isn't the correct board. Per my comments at RPP? - In this case, the person requesting the RPP...yeah, they seem to be wrong on at least one grammatical count... Shearonink ( talk) 01:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
thanks for removing vandalism .localhostdotdev ( talk) 01:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC) |
Hi El C,
Thanks for this page protection a couple of weeks ago, it has dealt with the disruption on the article. Unfortunately, the same person has now taken their campaign to the talk page. Any possibility of some level of protection there? (And/or a block on that IP.)
Thanks, JBL ( talk) 12:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I've reviewed the request for addition of material to the Monroe Calculating Machine Company and approved only two items:
{{
cn}}
tag added because the provided source did not confirm this)As you're monitoring this page, I thought I'd let you know here, too. If there is a problem with any of this, please feel free to either revert it, or ask me and I will revert it immediately. Thank you! Spintendo 22:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Hey, I just wanted to chime in here, as an independent observer, in case you felt any action was required. You recently locked down List of independent wrestling promotions in Canada over content disputes. One user has specifically stated that they have multiple accounts that they will use to abuse editing [4]. In addition they have made it clear that they do not have any interest in communicating to build an encyclopedia [5]. To me this sounds like a user who is WP:NOTHERE to help fulfill the mission of Wikipedia but to push their own ideas, but I am reaching out to you since you are the admin involved in locking the page. - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 16:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Yesterday me and MrClog got into an edit war on the article ' Forum for Democracy' and because you were the admin that locked the page because of vandalism, I thought I should reach out to you.
We both accused each other of being biased towards or against the political party and to prevent an edit war I went to his talk page to try to find a consensus there. His point was that you can call a party 'far-right' in the sidebar if some sources (in this case Al Jazeera, Telegraph and Politico; All foreign sources) refer to it as such. I said the party doesn't identify as far-right, has distanced itself from the far-right and that most sources do not refer to the party as far-right (and gave sources, including their own party website arguing the party is actually more of a 'middenpartij', meaning centre-party.), yet he says these do not count as reliable sources. This is fine and we can have a discussion about this, but before we ever reached a consensus he has already reverted all my edits, including edits that don't have anything to do with this discussion and are relatively undisputed. If you ask me this reeks of promoting a political bias on his side and I would love to talk it out, but he doesn't seem to be willing to listen to my points on how to make this page more politically neutral.
Especially because he also removed contributions of mine that had nothing to do with this discussion, it doesn't seem to me like he's acting in good faith.
Thanks for the time - Freerka ( talk) 23:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I suppose it's reasonable that the page was locked by you. I have come here to request a reversion of the page as stated here WP:PREFER. I was acting in good faith to keep most of the edits in place, which was why I wasn't simply reverting the page, and why I was allowing most of the content to stay with only minor edits instead of just reverting everything that was posted in a blatantly biased manner. Large numbers of the citations used on the page are almost entirely irrelevant and contradict the guidelines placed out at WP:RS and WP:NPOV in which journalists are used as a factual source despite those journalists not being able to objectively prove their position. Since people on the page have an issue with my edit, and my edit was in issue with their edit, I would request that a previous version before all of this began be reverted to until a consensus has been achieved on the talk page (which I admit I didn't realize was a per-requisite for editing a page, I thought the rules and guidelines on content quality took precedence). This version here https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Fraser_Anning%27s_Conservative_National_Party&diff=893158435&oldid=893031161 was before all of this dispute began and was an edit that was not made by myself and is therefore more neutral than either of the pages used in the current dispute. Thanks. Sundeki ( talk) 02:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I found my way here from a recent block you made, criticized by others but considered long overdue by me. But I'm not neutral on that topic so perhaps not a worthwhile opinion. More importantly, I just wanted to say how wonderful the quote from Che on your talkpage is. In many ways it sums up how I view life (and others) and how we should deal with it. I have added it to my userpage, I hope that is OK with you.
I see you've also been dragged into the excitement over whether articles about Cow vigilante violence should be redirected. I have edited some of these articles repeatedly, but I chose not to get involved in that discussion because I am not totally sure how such decisions are made. And I'm not sure that I want to know :) I hope it all works out for the best. MPS1992 ( talk) 21:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Civility Barnstar |
Thank you for being civil during contention. Manabimasu ( talk) 02:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC) |
In New York city, doesn't follow "rules": Chinese Community Centre — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:CA82:9800:BD8D:12D3:EC9E:8983 ( talk) 04:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Isn't a 3 month block too much? Can this block be reduced to, at least, one week? -- 177.135.52.200 ( talk) 04:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello. The reported user ( User:Afg96) has now made a fourth revert plus another personal attack, in spite of getting an extra message on their talk page warning them not to continue reverting... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
For quickly fulfilling my RfPP requests * Pppery * has returned 20:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC) |
Many thanks! Glad to help. El_C 20:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, fellow Wikipedian. I saw your edits on the references in the Poway synagogue shooting article. Why did you delete the cite web templates and replaced them with plain text? What does "facelift" mean? — Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 ( talk) 23:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
The IP keep adding unreferenced genre. Can you block him/her? 183.171.115.47 ( talk) 04:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
But I'm pretty sure Anaxial and I are quite finished. 199.247.43.106 ( talk) 06:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, El C - you PP'd Alligator gar on April 22, and said 4 days - it is now 7 days and it's still full PP. It is possible that I counted wrong, but I doubt it. If it was supposed to auto-unPP by a bot, it failed. Atsme Talk 📧 20:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello El C, I just wanted to discuss why the changes on the Akhtar Raza Khan page were removed. The added mentions were just about his son who succeeded him in his position, and that too with appropriate references. Moreover, I notice that you wrote that Kanthapuram A.P. Aboobacker Musliyar was the "Grand Mufti of India" - this is disputed in India as it was a self proclaimed announcement and I think it is wrong to be asserted on Wikipedia as a fact - unfortunately the Kanthapuram A.P. Aboobacker Musliyar page is locked due to vandalism so I am unable to make an amendment to this. I believe that the Wikipedia editors/administrators have been duped into asserting this as fact. For reference of the dispute, see the reputable Indian Newspaper "The Hindu" [1]. Please do let me know if you require any futher information. SunniObserver786 ( talk) 20:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice, I'll raise a Request for comment as per your suggestion (apologies I'm new to Wikipedia so still learning how it all works!). While the RFC will hopefully resolve the "Grand Mufti" issue, I just want to make clear that Asjad Raza Khan being the spiritual successor is unrelated to the "Grand Mufti" announcement. In Sufism, Grand Shaykhs usually appoint their sons as spiritual successors. Can this at least not be added to the page so that people can be aware of who is Akhtar Raza Khan's spiritual successor? Thank you. SunniObserver786 ( talk) 07:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
References
Sure, I understand. Thanks for your help! I shall now head over to the talk page and focus this discussion there. SunniObserver786 ( talk) 13:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm new in Wikipedia so I need some help and advice Mustaphajajjage ( talk) 00:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Hey El C--you semi-protected this article a while ago; LedRush ( talk · contribs), essentially an SPA, is continuing to make the same kind of edits that I think prompted you to lock the article. Note the continued edit warring, with no consensus (see talk page), using YouTube sources; essentially it's a kind of whitewashing. I'd block them per NOTHERE, basically, but since I reverted the IP editor I'd rather someone else look at it. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 03:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Your revision of Elections in India has removed the text, tables and maps, i added with the references and wikimedia. Kindly state the reason behind reverting the said article. Tables and maps were added to enhance the article and make it easier for the reader to consume the relevant info easily. Map-thumbnails gave the info in a very efficient manner. Just by looking at maps one could grasp the changing behavior of Indian voters since Indian independence. So, i humbly request you to please cooperate and help in making the article better and cite the reasons for undoing my constructive edit. I will be highly thankful to you.-- Shoonyea ( talk) 14:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Those wikilinked words are in all-uppercase because this is how the whole line is written in the preamble of the constitution of India and can be seen at Constitution of India and also at constitution of India (pg.22).
Yes, you are right that India has mixed economy but the world "socialist" is written in the preamble for reasons said in Socialism in India. Sorry that i wikilinked "socialist" as " socialist" instead of " Socialism in India".
"sovereign" is wholly unnecessary as this is to be assumed by the reader just as they do in the main India ; agreed but i don't agree with "wholly unnecessary". No offense please.
The word "democratic", speaks explicitly whereas "sovereign socialist secular republic" speak implicitly about elections in India. This is where from the existence and practice of election is driven.
If formatting was not correct then reformatting of maps should have been done instead of removal. I searched and now used "scrolling table" which will maintain the width of the page and hope it fixes the problem. Please forgive my ignorance as i am new. This time I have again edited the page to insert Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha tables with correct formatting as said earlier and not added/edited anything else. I have kept other things for further review and will edit carefully and use talk in future. I have watchlisted this page in the case you have any suggestion/problem. Thanks.-- Shoonyea ( talk) 01:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
On 30 April 18:22 you locked a part of the page for " Protected "Denuvo": Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content " but did not revert the sources column of the page to a more suitable manner.
There are no sources that would be deemed as not poorly sourced due to the nature of the topic. Who would come out as a reliable source to remark on games which are cracked? This is piracy. The ones doing the cracking are not exactly going to come out themselves, so third party sites exist(such as the site which NFOs are posted on) which are actually moderated. False NFOs are removed.
Leave the lock or not, but undue the edit so that we may have this edit below as the live version of the pages column. Or please add a notice that due to the nature of the topic, suitable sources will most likely never exist.
/info/en/?search=Special:Diff/894817450
Thank you for your time. Forkinator ( talk) 17:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 10, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
My apologies for the above section stating that you are a party. You are not, I made a mistake with the template. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for protecting the article, but I'm concerned that defamatory BLP content--unsourced 'rumors' of involvement with a friend's suicide, for instance--has been locked in under 'Controversy.' That's why I brought this to the BLP noticeboard, and not page protection. Any further assistance would be appreciated. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 03:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
For the Arbitration Committee, - Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
This issue I am seeing is not disruption, but a quality issue. I basically have to do a grammar overhaul of every addition made to the meteorological history and add a total of 4-5 sources there as they also did not source as well. If you look in the impact, it is loaded with typos as well. Noah Talk 22:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Appears to be ignorance in terminology over the dissipation date. These are unsourced edits that do not provide proof of dissipation.
These edits contain typos and other problems
Im sure there are more edits from the past day I could provide as examples as well. Noah Talk 23:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi El C
thank you from protecting the page; I have uploaded all necessary documents; even the transcription of documents ; the person use the term hoax even if there is evidence which is not an hoax. This page has been vandalised with false allegations. the person needs to prove that what is a hoax. he seems has more power than me; from one side he argued without bringing any proofs from the other side there is me which upload evidence every time I claim something; however he is able to use terms highly offensive and modify the page while I have been prevented to defend. I would like your help please; I am willing to waive my anonymity I feel I have been bullied. I understand if someone disagree but a person cannot deny the fact (I have uploaded them 0 and accuse someone of a hoax without bring proofs. I feel very depressed; all my work on this page has went to the bin because of this. The page is Este Orioles. thanks Araldico69 Araldico69 ( talk) 07:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Much appreciated [9]. I'd never run across that before. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 00:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I do not think you should blame yourself. This edit of mine was backed by this WP:RSN verdict. and this edit was backed by the new RfC. I give it to you the word "unanimous" was extra though.-- Kazemita1 ( talk) 03:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Hey, yeah you are correct. I just thought it was not the proper way "constructed". Thanks for cleaning up and sorry once again. Kante4 ( talk) 22:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Same vandalism as yesterday, this time apparent evasion by a user you blocked. Maybe page protection? Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 03:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words at MJ's talk. And I wanted you to know I have no problem with you at all. You did the job we don't pay you for as you should have. Another might have done different but when I'm caught on the wrong side of a line, I take what I've got coming. Certainly no hard feelings here. John from Idegon ( talk) 03:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Hey, it appears my recent attempt on Taryn Manning did not help per this and this. Just wondering if you'll reconsider page protection? Thanks! TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, recently you have semi-protected Circle MRT line after i had requested at WP:RFP, and i would like to request that the semi protection be increased to Extended confirmed protection as there is now an autoconfirmed account (probably a sockpuppet) making the exact same edits as the IP before this. diff 1(previous edit by autoconfirmed user in April 2019), diff 2(one of the edits by IP 192.190.204.103), diff 3(autoconfirmed user makes exact same edit as diff 2 by IP). This has been a long standing issue on the page and i hope that you can help to resolve the issue. Thanks 1.02 editor ( C651 set 217/ 218) 08:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
You might find this interesting: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Letter_from_the_People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran_to_the_Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union.jpg
For translation go to California archives here and CTRL+F "olfat".-- Kazemita1 ( talk) 11:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for this expansion. I'm not looking for anyone to get blocked, but it was getting clear that something would need to be done to force talk page participation. Without the extra comment, I'm not 100% clear that message would have been received, so I appreciate you circling back. Grandpallama ( talk) 12:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Are you talking about me going to the report page about him? I literally clicked the link that Marchjuly left me and told me to aim my complaints there. Oh, and my second “offense” was a private discussion expressing my opinions, not even directed at John. This is too confusing and stressful for me. I’m not going to seek anymore “reprimands” for him. I’m done with this bureaucratic website. Ppizzo278 ( talk) 22:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Looks like Special:Contributions/Scandiblues a Mrwallace05 sock. Sounds like a duck. 2402:1980:8252:C48F:F1F1:85C1:391C:8F91 ( talk) 03:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
What will happen if the discussion on the Fascism in Europe talkpage ends without consensus being reached? Will you unblock the pages? -- 179.183.235.148 ( talk) 06:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi El_C, once again the same issues on the Bordeaux Airport page continues. All future routes are sourced, the reversion of edits that are being implemented by User:Charlesdrakew and User:SovalValtos are creating confusion. They remove and merge seasonal routes and simply delete sourced information for future routes. All edits for BOD are in line with the many thousands of other pages on Wikipedia. This is simply damaging the page creating mis and disinformation. Jack1985IE ( talk) 18:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
Raunak Maskay ( talk) 08:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC) |
I see we both started closing the ANI but started from opposite ends. I'm happy for you to leave my close or amend/replace it as you see fit. GoldenRing ( talk) 14:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
See Special:Contributions/98.237.58.40. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 04:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Your closing comment used the words "note with regret all the bad blood that the entire Jesswade88 saga has brought to the fore"; implying that (a) this was unfortunate, and (b) that it is somehow over. It isn't, at least I hope it isn't. I'm no fan of bad blood either, and love to avoid it where it's possible, but in some cases - like this one - it's worth it. Jesswade88 ( talk · contribs) keeps writing an article about a female academic a day, and I, for one, am quite glad of it, and hope very much she continues, and damn the torpedoes. I'm tempted to write " nevertheless, she persisted", but I gather neither of you are from my area of the planet, so wouldn't know what that means... unless I can wiki-link it... -- GRuban ( talk) 14:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I would like to request a range block that covers user:67.226.221.120 and user:67.226.221.183 because they both seem to be trying to vandalize according to the filter log. CLCStudent ( talk) 16:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
user:174.0.125.92 is making threats of violence. CLCStudent ( talk) 20:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Aluminum is a chemical element. Except for some elements only known to be created in a nuclear reactor, elements are not inventions, they are left over from the big bang that created the universe and were mostly "invented" in stars.
The concrete page says it was invented in the Syria area, also known as the middle east, not a western civilization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zimm82 ( talk • contribs)
Accidentally content was removed, was editing from mobile. Shocked to see +29000 bytes were removed. I was adding a ref to a section. Thanks for quick restore.-- Vin09 (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you added the Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement template to Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. I understand that the Jeremy Corbyn article should also be ARBPIA extended confirmed given it's content even though this has recently been reduced after this RfC. RevertBob ( talk) 03:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi El C, I hope you don't mind me raising this issue here but I want to query something. For the last week or so there has been some very low level disruption at List of world number one snooker players, where an IP editors corrupts a table and immediately reverts. This occurs once per day and the edit is always the same. At first it looks like a test edit, but that is clearly not the case given the repetitive nature of the edit. It's not quite vandalism either because the edit is immediately reverted by the same editor.
I requested temporary page protection but you decline the request on the basis that there wasn't enough recent disruption. I am not challenging your decision because I do understand how you came to that conclusion. The disruption was only minor and was reverted almost immediately.
However, I am increasingly puzzled by the nature of these edits. They don't really cause a problem to the article because they are reverted immediately and only occur once a day, but am I alone in finding the behavior problematic? What I really want to know I suppose is your rationale for what constitutes "not enough disruption". Does the disruption have to occur more frequently, or be more permament in its nature to be considered a problem? Or if this had had been going on for a month would you have semi-protected the article then?
Should I just ignore this or should I come back to you in a week or so if it continues? I am just trying to get a handle on the best way to deal with it. Best regards. Betty Logan ( talk) 04:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi El C. I noticed that, following my report, you removed Merelli's in-text attribution, which should be included according to the rules:
When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact.
Why did you remove the in-text attribution? Or was this a mistake? 160.39.234.40 ( talk) 15:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Also, the author is not an editor in that context — which you seem to deny saying, for some inexplicable reason, even though your version clearly states: "According to Quartz editor Annalisa Merelli."I made a mistake. If you read the diff you linked to, you'll see I didn't deny calling Merelli an editor, but merely asked where I had done so, in case I made a mistake (and I did). You're making a mountain out of a molehill.
the RfC clearly determined that the statement is authoritativeWhere did it "determine" that? The basic fact of the matter is that Merelli is not a specialist or recognized expert on Evola. This doesn't mean her views shouldn't be incorporated in the article, but merely that they should be attributed to her in-text. Why do you find this so objectionable?
It seems the reason Sderot was unprotected was because of the deletion/restoration as a history merge by another admin. When you delete and restore a page, it loses protection. It was presumably a simple oversight to forget to restore the protection. ~ Rob13 Talk 12:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I modified the page for United stars currency and added a common name for the $100 bill minted after 2013, blue-face. It’s called by that name because of the blue security strip that goes down the front of the bill. I saw that you reverted my change, so I made an account to see if there’s a way we could still incorporate that name in to the page. Vexanxd ( talk) 19:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I suppose I thought it was more common than it really is. I’ll work on getting some sources and get back to you. Vexanxd ( talk) 19:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
After a good amount of research I’ve concluded that it must be a local slang term where I live. Thanks for keeping Wikipedia legitimate :) Vexanxd ( talk) 19:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Please stop undoing my edits to Cold War II. An infobox is needed for this article. Nothing controversial or disputed is included in the infobox therefore it's NOT vandalism. 207.233.45.12 ( talk) 19:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I object to your close of the SNC-Lavalin Affair at ANI. Granted, the discussion as a whole was about due, but the proposal that might have resolved the matter was open only three days, and still active. Please consider reopening that section for at least another 48 hours, as there is a chance of resolution. Otherwise there is no resolution, just reinforcement of a widely shared sense that WP is unable to deal with disruptive behavior. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Just a note that Jerzy has deleted your comment at ANI (and changed some of my stuff, but it's fine). Isa ( talk) 09:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
For this. Thanks. John from Idegon ( talk) 16:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
El C, thank you for your statements on my behalf at the WP:AN#Continuous disruptive editing/sockpuppeting by users Bilcat and Trekphiler. Unfortunately, now that Andy Dingley is involved in the discussions, there is no way that I can participate. (He and I have a long "history", and it isn't a pleasant one.) I have been discussing the IPs edits with another admin, but unfortunately he appears to be offline, and may be so for several days. If you're open to it, I can email you with more information on the IP if you're interested. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 17:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I have a few questions:
1) Since I am trying to get outside opinions on a talk page discussion on
Talk:Sino-Vietnamese conflicts, 1979–1991 per
WP:Consensus, how many people do I need to invite to join the discussion?
2) I'm still not sure how a consensus is reached. Do we just do a vote among the editors after discussing?
DemPon (
talk)
19:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Did you note he is editing war by himself with IP and account,as he always do before.And he never change his sin,keep using several IP accounts as his sock,Just like 67.188.179.66.-- 115.82.9.114 ( talk) 12:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Remind you that there is a madman who likes to fight with yourself. And it is not clear whether this madman is splitting with a bunch of accounts and IP to fight against himself. In addition, he has edited records on many wiki projects, among multiple socks.I don’t know how many socks he has because he has been acting and using proxy IP.We can only catch him from the point he insisted on or the evidence he deliberately left.-- 61.224.12.136 ( talk) 23:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I think that except for he himself reports himself, those statements I have talked about on the talk page of Bbb23.
-- 61.224.12.136 ( talk) 01:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi El C, the Split discussion which opened on April 30 and tag placed on article page Burning Sun scandal may be ready for a consensus. Do you mind looking at it, I am an involved editor and think I am not supposed to close? (looks like Meloras, Tibbydibby and myself oppose and NowIsntItTime (unclear). Thank you.-- Bonnielou2013 ( talk) 02:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Sir Ramayana is real history of India DR. AMIT KUMAR SAXENA ( talk) 10:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
OK sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMIT KUMAR SAXENA ( talk • contribs)
Hello El C
The statement regarding the government of Iran has been on the article for quite some time (a year if not several), now it's suddenly flooding with people randomly removing it (the one being a random user with like 10 edits, 30% of them being reverts) and not even bothering to write a message on the talk page. How does that work exactly? Imho it should be restored back to status quo, since no consensus has been reached. -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 11:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I think you may have missed something regarding the answer to your question: "
the article under contention, who started editing it first?
". Can I discuss this with you here?
Kolya Butternut (
talk)
02:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
This report has become too lengthy. It's difficult to tell what's going on anymore. I'm not sure other admins would feel motivated to look into this.". This is exactly what happened at the AN/I report I had referenced. Unlike the conflicts between SashiRolls and Tryptofish, and SashiRolls and Snooganssnoogans, which seem to stretch back years, my conflict with SashiRolls was isolated and brief, and I have provided evidence of SashiRolls' battleground behavior that I feel has both clarity and cohesion. If you (understandably) did not take a look, I showed that SashiRolls falsely accused Snooganssnoogans of stalking him, and then attacked me for showing that truth. SashiRolls' pattern of filling reports with convoluted webs of false accusations (accompanied by editors' obligatory defenses) has effectively shielded SashiRolls from scrutiny. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 10:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
there [was] considerable skepticism of unblocking, even among some of the supporters, but I have not seen
a lot of critical eyes looking at their post-unblock behavior.Instead, SashiRolls has continued to become Somebody else's problem, to quote User: Robert McClenon. Something still has to be done and someone has to do it. I am doing my part, but an administrator has to do theirs. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 17:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if the ping worked, but sometime when you have a chance please take a moment to reply to the request for clarification on my page. Best, ~~ SashiRolls t · c 02:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
SashiRolls now says I will happily pitch in to compile an off-wiki list of all the dramaboard GMO cases and recurring actors to help the press get a handle on what is going on
If that's not
casting aspersions I don't know what is. They are implying that myself,
Tryptofish and
Kingofaces43 are paid shills of Monsanto and threatening to report us to journalists. This should not be acceptable when there is zero evidence whatsoever.
SmartSE (
talk)
23:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I would like to request that the part of the sanction that applies to me be lifted, thus changing it from a 2-way IBAN to a 1-way IBAN.
I think that I have amply demonstrated that I have been acting in a responsible and trustworthy manner, and I would prefer not to have the restriction hanging over my head any longer. I recognize, of course, that if hypothetically I were to abuse the situation, the sanction would be reinstated. I also have no intention of interacting with the other editor in any case. I do not want to cross paths with them, and I have zero interest in editing the articles that they edit, and it's just the right thing to do anyway.
I'm making a courtesy ping to Vanamonde93, as the other admin who was involved in the case. Thank you. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
History of the Jews in Poland - while being in the non-STABLE version or using a non academic sourcs published by an individual designated by the SPLC (at RSN, no consensus to use) may fall under WRONGVERSION (though frankly, user introducing such a source for Holocaust history should be banned) - a version with BLP violations should not be allowed to stand. The present version states - "Based on research into court records, Łukasz Krzyżanowski [pl] concludes that the possession of "a relatively large number of properties" was returned.
- this is a severe misrepresentation of Krzyżanowski - and beyond that, due to the modern politics involved, may be seen as extreme political stmt. This should be removed. See
Talk:History of the Jews in Poland#Krzyżanowski which shows Krzyżanowski actually wrote more or less the opposite in Polish. In a subsequent English paper citing his Polish work he wrote: "The persistent anti-Semitism in the immediate aftermath of the war, violent attacks and the fear that plagued Holocaust survivors in Kalisz and many other Polish cities often pushed the surviving Jews out of these locations, forcing them to settle in the larger Polish cities or to emigrate. Moreover, the new social, economic and political reality of post-war Poland did not facilitate the rebuilding of the lives of individual survivors. The aforementioned problems, together with the difficulties in recovering private homes and communal property – an issue that deserves a separate detailed study65 – resulted in the lack of the stability necessary for postwar resettlement...."
(ref65 - his chapter in Klucze i kasa) - "These processes broke the survivors’ social networks and resulted in the disappearance of the Jewish community in post-war Kalisz and in many other Polish towns.
.
Krzyzanowski, Lukasz. "An Ordinary Polish Town: The Homecoming of Holocaust Survivors to Kalisz in the Immediate Aftermath of the War." European History Quarterly 48.1 (2018): 92-112. This is a young scholar, and being named next to such a stmt may impact his career. Respectfully - this should be removed.
Icewhiz (
talk)
04:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
""In this way, the Polish state became the beneficiary of the murder of millions of its Jewish citizens, who were deprived of all their property before death) took over properties the Nazis "nationalized" (or stole, the usual terminology). Beyond the out of context use of Krzyżanowski, he wrote (translated from Polish):
"It is impossible to determine the total number of cases of the private property being recovered by the Jews after the Second World War in in Radom and Kalisz. On the basis of court files from both cities, it can be concluded that possession, not ownership, of a relatively large number of properties was restored to the Holocaust survivors who returned to their places of origin".Even if we were to use this out of context sentence, it is being misrepresented in several fashions:
"possession, not ownership"- in the technical discussion here (where the court gave an initial decree - which didn't actually transfer the property nor evict the tenants residing illegally within) - this is an immensely important distinction.
"Łukasz Krzyżanowski [pl] concludes"- we're stating this is his conclusion in our text, not merely citing this) - it would be a BLP issue to be removed. In this case - this is far beyond novel - to the point this is career damaging. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
"On the basis of court files from both cities, it can be concluded that possession, not ownership, of a relatively large number of properties was restored to the Holocaust survivors who returned to their places of origin."While the article states
"Krzyżanowski concludes that the possession of "a relatively large number of properties" was returned."Both passages refer to "possession" (though the original emphasizes "not ownership), and both passages refer to "large number of properties." In what way is there misrepresentation in this narrow sense? Granted there is a superfluous "the" before possession, but that seem like more a grammatical error than anything. El_C 07:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
"in both cities") - and not to Poland as a whole (38,430k pop today) - the study is on two locations, less than 1% of the population of Poland - Krzyżanowski doesn't generalize this sentence - at best this sentence can be used for Radom and Kalisz.
"On the basis of court files from both cities, it can be concluded"- he does not draw the conclusion himself, but says that looking at the court records one can conclude - this distinction is important as (and this expanded at length elsewhere in the source, as well as in the continuation of the paragraph -
"The rapid sale also depended members of criminal groups involved in the illegal takeover of Jewish real estate.") there was widespread fraud in these cases - what is written in the court record doesn't actually necessarily mean the claimant was actually the owner/heir (as opposed to someone presenting himself as such).
"Łukasz Krzyżanowski [pl] concludes"it wouldn't be as bad (as no one reads citations, and WP:OR/misquotes of citations do occur) - but with Krzyżanowski's name in our text - this quite bad). I won't be taking this to BLP/n (if I were to take it anywhere - it would be AE - BLP/n will be a mess of involved editors and go no where) - as if you don't see the problem - I suspect there won't be a consensus this a red-line BLP vio (even though it is - at least for anyone who is aware of the nuances involved here). If you would consider just removing (struck in quote) the attribution -
"Based on research into court records,- I would be much obliged as this would resolve the BLP issue vs. Krzyżanowski who really may be harmed here. Icewhiz ( talk) 16:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Łukasz Krzyżanowski [pl] concludes thatthe possession of "a relatively large number of properties" was returned.
Thanks for blocking Special:Contributions/66.199.206.130. You're so fast! I was about to contact you about blocking them! :) - BilCat ( talk)
Hey Glenn Gilbertti Returns to Impact Wrestling 17 may 2019 Jocer Blandino ( talk) 21:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Why did you remove the children-in-law and grandchildren from the Duggar family section? AC12AC ( talk) 04:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
BilCat ( talk) 02:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@
Darryl Kerrigan: This might be a better place to talk about the RfC than the Arbcom case page, I think they frown on that. Also,
WP:NHC but I counted 11-54 so I dunno what's going on there... the last yes vote wasn't bolded though (edit: And Curly voted twice). El_C, would your close include any prejudice against having a new RfC depending on the outcome of the Arbcom case? Since it was close, it's conceivable that might have an impact.
Safrolic (
talk)
04:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 04:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
"Please figure out whether there is consensus for that usage (or variations therein) before adding it to multiple articles, Novel compound. While discussion is ongoing, the convention is for the status quo ante to remain in place."
Wikipedia:WikiProject Oshwah, which was originally an April Fools joke, is now running amok and threatening to become a social media page. Or am I just an anal middle-ager trying to deny teenagers some good clean fun? I'm tempted to AFD it, or at least ask for full protection, but I'm trying to decide if I'd be peeing in the wind first. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 07:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
This edit to the 2017 Las Vegas shooting article with an edit summary saying "(not appropriate to add names of victims)" caught my eye. I'm not contesting this here, but I'm not aware of any WP policy or guideline regarding this appropriateness concern; perhaps I've missed that because this is an area of concern which I've not previously run up against. I ask because the edit brought the contrast with Maguindanao massacre#Victims to mind. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Do you really believe that someone named Ahmedo Semsurî who is a Kurd and always try to make the Yazidis to Kurds or Christans, acts in a good faith? I know that you are not familiar with this material but „Kurds typically claim Yazidis as ethnic Kurds“. [12] and for many Yazidis it is an insult to be called Kurdish. Many Yazidis get angry when someone called them Kurdish. It looks very much like vandalism and an attempt to explain the Yazidis as ethnic Kurds and to provoke the Yazidis. Now he has also added a source claiming that the Armenian Apostolic Church is a Yazidi religion. As an administrator you need to know if someone has good intentions or not. This is really frustrating but Wikipedia does not reflect the world. Nevertheless, one should try to present articles as possible as they correspond in reality instead of looking for sources to show the articles in a different light. 46.188.123.197 ( talk) 23:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi El C, did you mean to UNprotect editing at Iran? — xaosflux Talk 11:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the protection as it offers participants (including me) the occasion to cool down - while the dispute continues in talk pages. But it may be a little extreme as the reverts were only for the WP:EL section, not the rest of the article, and the subject is evolving rapidly, so it is lacking new developments. Thanks.ping me if you reply, I don't follow your talk page-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 15:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Did you mean to remove all page protection? The IPs have begun deleting sources and sourced content, and another 48-hour PP may help keep it stable as the traffic peaks. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 22:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
If you do not want to receive further notifications for this case, please remove yourself from
this list.
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 7, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage,
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
02:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi. You posted on a bunch of talk pages in the past two days that you are placing them under 1RR (much needed at least for some of them!), however you did not log the restriction of any of them in Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2019. And I didn't check all of them, but Rafał Pankowski for instance doesn't have an edit notice nor a talk page banner. If left in this manner - it's probably unenforceable (though an ambiguous state of AE-rules I guess). Could you follow through here ? Icewhiz ( talk) 09:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Here are several IPs and accounts which engage in vandalism by indiscriminately adding "Ezidkhan settlement" stuff to articles. Please take a look and take action if needed. I'm asking you since you've recently protected similar articles. wumbolo ^^^ 13:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I understand the need to protect the heartbeat bill page from vandals, but it isn't being updated regularly by extended confirmed users, and it is an actively shifting page. The information is almost 2 days out of date, and no one with access to edit has viewed it recently. Wouldn't it make sense to reduce the protection to semi and monitor heavily? That way, thise of us who don't quite meet extended requirements can still help update it. Darkwolf0218 ( talk) 04:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. That was odd, hard to see it as a coincidence. I revert and someone with a couple of edits comes in to revert me? Also, the person I reverted to a dab page and turned it into an article. [13] Interesting guy this blogger. [14] "Some provocateurs now argue that disallowing exceptions is not just an uncomfortable outgrowth of a strict moral position, but an act with affirmative benefits. “Rapists love abortion because it helps them cover up their crime,” Matt Walsh wrote in a column arguing against exceptions this week. “If [a] hypothetical 15-year-old victim does have her baby, the rapist father could be conclusively proven guilty with a DNA test. But if the incestuous abuser can enlist Planned Parenthood to destroy the evidence for him, he will walk away scot-free and continue molesting his daughter for years to come.” Wow, just wow. Doug Weller talk 18:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Isn't WP:Tag Team supposed to be against the rules? Calthinus is appealing to his friends to enter the article and back him up. [15] 76.168.122.183 ( talk) 20:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
El_C I asked for permanant protection though because too much vandalism and edit warring Prince Narula — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.146.229.148 ( talk • contribs)
I warned the IP user they were being disruptive. Even though they made a couple of correct changes that I could double-check, most of the other changes removed truthful information from the article about participants - one example is that they removed the genre of "Danger" from a magic act that involved extremely dangerous magical tricks, which boggled my mind. Anyway, thanks again! GUtt01 ( talk) 22:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, there appears to be resolution on the talk page. Please consider removing the protection on the article. Thanks. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 23:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the protection, any chance I could make a wrong version argument? The material was discussed on the talk page several times and now he has started a RFC on the subject after his last two discussions found consensus for inclusion. Shouldn't the material remain in the article until the RFC is complete since the RFC is about removing the material? PackMecEng ( talk) 02:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I have upped your page protection of Uncyclopedia as the edit war just seemed to go on (and I am tempted to make it 1 or even 2 years ..). This is the second time that we have a spillover of a fight from Uncyclopedia to here (the other one in October 2015), and I am afraid it is not going to stop. (if someone wants to override my decision here, feel free to revert back to a lower level). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi User: El C a user protected Dipika Kakars page and forgot to add the symbol, could u do that please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.146.229.148 ( talk • contribs)
Hi admin, will you please see this article as it was redirected and you locked it and it was redirected as a result after discussion takes place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ananya Panday, and redirect is removed without any discussion at talk page. This BLP is failing WP:NACTOR as only one released movie she have right now and also there is a persistant block accounts history at Ananya Panday and after the protection they were shifted to Ananya Pandey. 122.8.238.126 ( talk) 17:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Indeed our old "friend" Jakey Petrov likely doesn't even read his sources and we could write miles on issues with how he uses them [16]
I'm not from Russia and do not have any Russian or Slavic ancestry nor have I identified myself as such, but Calthinus derogatorily called me "Jakey Petrov" in order to attack me for supposedly being Russian. His racist logic is that anyone who disagrees with him in that article is Russian. 76.168.122.183 ( talk) 17:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
user:Abdnow is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent ( talk) 19:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks El C for your comment on my talk page. I have added 4 more international unbiased sources on this. There is a ton of references out there, including a 100 page report by Amnesty, but I feel this number does the job for this article. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 22:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for that mistake on Bangladesh. I was trying to edit a part of the article but somehow i ended up removing the whole article. I did that by mistake, It won't happen again. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comeonduckling ( talk • contribs)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
A few days overdue but worth giving. Trillfendi ( talk) 18:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC) |
Kindly note, a user Ouseph1997 continuously adding POVs and wrong information in the article Syro-Malabar Catholic Church on founded date, theology and native name. Though I started a discussion in talk page, this user is not ready to share his views there. Also he never add any supporting references, edit summary etc. Requesting to revert his changes and warn this user on his destructive edits. Thanks - 171.61.105.42 ( talk) 16:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello. Will you please take a look at Laki language, Feylis and the other pages that have been reverted by Shadegan for no reason other than accusing me of Pan-Kurdism. Thank you. -- Ahmedo Semsurî ( talk) 20:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello El_C,
The abuse from Andrewgprout continues: now he is deleting from the talk page ( Special:Diff/899226217) and edit-warring (BRR: Special:Diff/899315905) to enforce his action. He's unwilling to discuss. Please talk to him, after our recent discussion with Bbb, I'm afraid to file a report. Thank you. — Aron M🍂 (🛄📤) 10:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I am Jacky. I have been trying to make changes to the Wikipedia page but you seem to have protected it. The Wikipedia page contains wrong info and the information may harm me. Please assist on deleting the wrong info. Preferably I would like to completely delete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.222.10 ( talk) 21:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
How do I do that? The information is affecting me negatively and may even cause financial loss. I am not a Wikipedia expert. All I ask for is for the article/page to be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.222.10 ( talk) 21:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I looked and I don’t know where to explain at? Can I did out who created the article? Because it contains wrong information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.222.10 ( talk) 21:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
( by talk page stalker) @ 50.121.222.10: Dear Jacky!
To talk to the editors of the page, visit the associated "Talk page" by clicking the "Talk" button on the top left ( direct link), then click "New section" on the top right ( direct link), there you can introduce yourself, and list the information that you wish to be removed, or added. See the wikipedia policy on biographies for the rules of removing problematic material. Provide evidence, that shows the information is incorrect. The best way to do so is to list links on the talk page of articles from " reliable" media sources, that reported about you. Editors will read these articles and correct the page accordingly. This might take days or more.
To see the editors of the page go back to the article and click the "View history" button on the top right ( direct link). You will see the edits listed, with the user name in the middle. By clicking the "prev" link on the left side in any row, you will open that edit and see the changes made. — Aron M🍂 (🛄📤) 23:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi. You just blocked this user. Would you kindly also block his sockpuppet?: User:136.228.172.210 Thanks! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 02:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I asked for the page protection of India national basketball team. You said there is not enough disruptive activity. 17 of the past 25 edits have been pure vandalism by 6 different unregistered users. This has been going on for many years. In fact, as soon as protection of this page is lifted, the vandalism continues. If that does not justify protection then what does? Thank you so much - Stephreef ( talk) 05:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Dear El_C, during the past days due to inattenion by involved users and as a result ethnocentric abuse by some users that are involved in ethnic conflicts between two Iranan groups ( Lurs and Kurds), all pages related to Lurish people have been under mass invasion to change their background and identity towards their desires and wishes. You can have a look to the recent edit history of pages: Lurs, Feyli Lurs, Iraqi Lurs, Lak people, Laki language, Southern Lurs, History of the Lurs to find their catastrophic footprint. Unfortunately, there are not Lurish users in the English wikipedia to demonstrate the facts butI wonder how some ethnocentric totalitarian users are doing everything to their desires and wishes in such a bad way?!! I expect you to help to clarify the facts by returning the original pages and I promise to bring their questions in the talk page of each paper. Best SHADEGAN ( talk) 08:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
CVU Anti-Vandalism Award | |
This is for your excellent performance in saving Wikipedia from the harmful threats of vandalism. I appreciate your efforts and hardwork. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 11:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC) |
Thank you, Path slopu! Greatly appreciated. El_C 16:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
User:Tomsmith81727 - an account solely for reverting?.
Jayjg
(talk)
12:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi El C,
I really appreciate this, but I didn't see any AE alerts or warnings; maybe I missed something. Jayjg (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi,"Vassal" is very dirty word for someone who has not been defeated in a war conflict ,but has voluntarily joined the Union to cooperate with another kingdom.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.74.35 ( talk • contribs) I guess Sinebot is on vacation again!
Here is an example of how difficult it is to respond to accusations at AE and stay within the word limit:
Icewhiz says: 06:32, 26 May 2019 - restoring WP:BLPSPS (not under ABOUTSELF exception), with several REDFLAGs. (see Talk:Antony Polonsky#Alleged PDF by Stachura).
That's about 20 words, depending on whether you count the date. Here is the diff he provides [17]
To adequately respond to this I have to point out that:
To summarize this part, Icewhiz thinks it's just fine to use a SPS letter which attacks a BLP (that he doesn't like) but thinks that using a letter which responds to the attack is some super awful transgression that must be punished by WP:AE!!! And that's putting aside the issue of how one actually interprets ABOUTSELF. Can you see the problem we're dealing with here? There is no consistency in application of policy by Icewhiz here. It's a "I get to do it, but if you do it I WILL BRING YOU TO AE AND SAY AWFUL THINGS ABOUT YOU!!!". It's sheer hypocrisy and cynical WP:GAME.
But wait, that's not all.
If you're confused about what any of this has to do with the actual article, I totally understand it. To respond to Icewhiz's accusation I also have to provide context:
See how convoluted this is? At first glance, it's just a single diff and what looks like a straight forward accusation. But it's not. It's a response to a response to a response which is a BLPVIO (I think that's the right number of "a response).
Like I said. It's simple to make a false accusation against someone. It takes a lot more to explain why that accusation is false. As the saying goes "by the time truth gets a hearing, the lie has traveled half way around the world". Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
And I know I'm wordy and over explain things (I think that's a good thing sometimes), but can you see how responding to a single 20 word accusation I can pretty much eat up half my word limit (actually the above is almost 500 words but with some effort I could cut it down I guess)? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
In regards to VM's comments above - I added nothing of substance to Polonsky, I did remove, for good cause (after running across some of the other sources in a different context), content in 2018. Polonsky's letter to history (which was published and printed - so PRIMARY, but not BLPSPS) was in the article from 2012.
As for the word limit - I cut it down. I think it is at around 500 now. Should I cut more? Icewhiz ( talk) 20:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
free image.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Leclerctank.jpg
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanbir Singh Grewal ( talk • contribs)
It was really nice to see you pop up on my watchlist! Guettarda ( talk) 22:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
same ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
List of Presidents of Liberia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:1304:73DA:0:0:75:30A0 ( talk) 13:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
An IP editor ( 70.235.158.228) you blocked has made some extremely nasty personal attacks and has threatened to out editors. Most, if not all, of their contributions probably should be revdelled under RD2. If you can help, that would be great. – Tera tix ₵ 01:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the protection. It's clear we've straightened out the issue, so can you please lift protection? Thanks! John from Idegon ( talk) 12:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
The category Category:Terrorist incidents in Iran in the 2010s which I added to 2017 Tehran attacks is a valid category and part of a (populated) series re terrorism in Iraq and is similar to other countries Hugo999 ( talk) 10:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. This area has been very quiet for a long time now and we are getting some decent articles up. AIRcorn (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you reverted this edit without a reason in the edit summary, and you flagged it as a minor edit. It seems like a legitimate addition to me, so I was hoping you could explain why you did it. Thanks! AlexEng( TALK) 19:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Anytime I see your name around. TonyBallioni ( talk) 04:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Softlavender (
talk)
12:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I see you blocked Jeppem7 ( talk · contribs), you might want to also take a look at Jeppem2 ( talk · contribs). Ivanvector's squirrel ( trees/ nuts) 12:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
You locked the Bordeaux–Mérignac Airport page with disputed content which violates several WP policies left in place. I would be grateful if you would revert it to the last revision by User:SovalValtos. Charles ( talk) 12:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't think this was vandalism. Check the article for context. I was just about to make the edit on the IP's behalf then I saw your block. — MusikAnimal talk 13:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi El C! I'm just letting you know that I've unblocked this IP (a procedural unblock only) because it's part of a range ( 46.211.0.0/16) that I've just blocked for two weeks due to IP hopping vandalism, disruption, and other abuse. There's little doubt in my mind that this situation is related to the others - take a look at the range contributions and you'll probably agree. ;-) If you have any questions, concerns, objections, or input regarding this range block and what I did - please let me know (ping me in your response here) and I'll be happy to discuss it with you. I doubt that you'll have issue with what I did, but I figured I'd let you know just in case. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 12:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Bro, please read this page thoroughly. It's being edited every day. Very many uncited and misleading claims exist in the article. It's heavily biased in favour of a particular faction. Chippy pest ( talk) 13:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Can you partially protect it? Chippy pest ( talk) 13:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
At least, the infobox. Web results Mughal–Maratha Wars - Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › Mugh... Chippy pest ( talk) 13:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Reuters confirms the news. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 08:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
It is not enough if we add the fact that it is the claim of sources quoted by Reuters. I think we should ask for others opinions. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 08:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi you have warned Masterofthename here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Masterofthename reported by User:Shemtovca (Result: Warned )
I have tried to have a reasonable conversation, he has suggested that i add it properly to the article which i did earlier today. His response to that was to add most of it again under a different subject and accuse me that he that i am working with some sort of gang and am lying... Can you please help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shemtovca ( talk • contribs)
I have told the truth about the breast tax myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:D08A:7EC6:F414:C38F:FD74:220D ( talk) 09:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Please refer to this - https://rarebooksocietyofindia.org/book_archive/196174216674_10152112262136675.pdf. Women of ALL classes used to bare their breasts. There's no proof for the legend of Nangeli other than from the mid-20th century; which shows that it's a myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:D08A:7EC6:F414:C38F:FD74:220D ( talk) 09:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
OK, will do it. Thanks for the diplomacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:D08A:7EC6:F414:C38F:FD74:220D ( talk) 09:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Nadar_climber - I've added a line here with a citation. Is this OK? (I agree that exploitation was there - but most of the sources cited for this breast tax are from books written in the 90s, so it's most likely a myth) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:D08A:7EC6:F414:C38F:FD74:220D ( talk) 10:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, can anything be done about this user? They are constantly changing punctuation in direct quotations and adding commas in random places. Krimuk2.0 ( talk) 07:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I noticed you've been doing very long blocks on dynamic IP addresses, frequently set as a hard block ("Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address" set). I also noticed that you marked one of your blocks as a checkuser block – Special:Contributions/84.1.247.135. I assume that was an accident, but only checkusers should mark blocks as checkuser blocks – there are special rules for these blocks, making them harder to appeal. Also, non-checkusers probably shouldn't do hard blocks unless they're blocking something like an open proxy. There's no way for non-checkusers to ascertain the collateral damage. Generally, if you want to do a hard block on a non-proxy, I think it's best to ask a checkuser to see if there's collateral damage. If you see someone evading a block from a mobile network operator, you should definitely not do a hard block, and you should probably keep the block length short, like 24–48 hours. Blocking these IP addresses for 3 months will likely cause many random internet users in the same general geolocation to be unable to edit. If you're blocking these IP addresses because they're proxies, you should label them with {{ blocked proxy}}. Proxies, webhosts, and stuff like that can be hard blocked for months (or even years), but they should be properly labeled so that people know how to appeal (for example, {{ Colocationwebhost}} gives advice on what to information to provide in the unblock request). I apologize for coming across with an attitude like "hey, only checkusers can do that!", but hard blocks can sometimes cause lots of problems for innocent users. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 01:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I had created the article Cow vigilante violence in India. As far as my knowledge of rules goes, redirecting a new article is deletion, and that must be done via WP:AFD. But two users are redirecting without consensus. He even reported me as edit warrring to the administrator notice board, which was found as no violation by you [1]. I have mentioned my view on the talk page, but others are not replying anything to it. They just want to merge it to subset of the subject, that is violence after the year 2014. Is consensus required to create a page, or is it required to delete a page? Please let me know. Soarwakes ( talk) 08:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Hey , why u deleted the right content?? Kumarpkp ( talk) 11:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello, As per my understanding you have done the unfair deletion of the content from the Page using "Placement is too promotional". If the content is present in the following wikipedia page /info/en/?search=Dnyaneshwar , how this can be removed. It has been written what Samadhi means and the same was added to the page /info/en/?search=Meditation. Kindly review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winchetan ( talk • contribs)
Thank you for doing it, disabling the ability of easy adding nonsense and radicality. Even though users like me then cannot edit entirely, I appreciate it. 208.54.36.166 ( talk) 12:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Now using an IP to sock on KBPI, 69.11.193.91 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). Nate • ( chatter) 00:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, earlier you protected this page due to a long term vandal changing it to "New Fart Times". Within 24hrs of the protection ending, two IPs appeared making the same Fart vandalism. I assume the vandal has some sort of automatic reminder. They usually geolocate to the same city (though not always). -- Green C 13:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello, El C. Sorry to say, but I disagree with your comment at
WP:RFPP regarding
Lars Sullivan. In the last 7 days we have seen
deliberate factual error
deliberate factual error
unsourced content
unsourced content
unsourced content
unsourced content
and
either vandalism or factual error.
This article is also a BLP, so we should be trying to avoid vandalism even more on an article on a living person. I do understand some of these edits might not stand out as disruptive to someone unfamiliar with the subject matter.
StaticVapor
message me!
04:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned you can throw long or even indefinite semi-protection at them. That LTA is someone with nothing better in his life than this. Drmies ( talk) 01:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
I was curious was to why you applied pending changes to the page? The page is not even a day old and users need to be able to add new information as it comes out without being contested. I find it excessive to apply pending changes so soon. Users can revert content when they see fit, of course appropriately. Thank you. Aviartm ( talk) 01:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I took the liberty of adding "of OP" [3] to your (Result: Indef) since otherwise it appeared to indicate that I was indeffed. Meters ( talk) 10:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
This may be of interest to you. Thanks. John from Idegon ( talk) 04:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi El C
This information is OK see :
Best,
Stephen C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.13.234.144 ( talk) 10:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, this dates back to 2017 but was misplaced on this article. The associated 1RR condition is for topics relating to the Syrian Civil War or to ISIS/ISIL, which this article is neither. Thanks. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 05:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Greetings El C. You recently applied Pending Changes protection on the Mueller Report article. This is quite confusing as questionable revisions by IPs collide with revisions by auto-approved editors. A lot more work must be done to undo things or apply simple copyedits. Please consider switching to semi-protection. Thanks! — JFG talk 08:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, The edit warring problem on the Template:2018–19 Serie A table has been settled, so you can reduce the level of protection so that edit can be made and also because there's a game today and that edits must be made. RafaelS1979 ( talk) 13:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree with your assessment that RPP isn't the correct board. Per my comments at RPP? - In this case, the person requesting the RPP...yeah, they seem to be wrong on at least one grammatical count... Shearonink ( talk) 01:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
thanks for removing vandalism .localhostdotdev ( talk) 01:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC) |
Hi El C,
Thanks for this page protection a couple of weeks ago, it has dealt with the disruption on the article. Unfortunately, the same person has now taken their campaign to the talk page. Any possibility of some level of protection there? (And/or a block on that IP.)
Thanks, JBL ( talk) 12:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I've reviewed the request for addition of material to the Monroe Calculating Machine Company and approved only two items:
{{
cn}}
tag added because the provided source did not confirm this)As you're monitoring this page, I thought I'd let you know here, too. If there is a problem with any of this, please feel free to either revert it, or ask me and I will revert it immediately. Thank you! Spintendo 22:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Hey, I just wanted to chime in here, as an independent observer, in case you felt any action was required. You recently locked down List of independent wrestling promotions in Canada over content disputes. One user has specifically stated that they have multiple accounts that they will use to abuse editing [4]. In addition they have made it clear that they do not have any interest in communicating to build an encyclopedia [5]. To me this sounds like a user who is WP:NOTHERE to help fulfill the mission of Wikipedia but to push their own ideas, but I am reaching out to you since you are the admin involved in locking the page. - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 16:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Yesterday me and MrClog got into an edit war on the article ' Forum for Democracy' and because you were the admin that locked the page because of vandalism, I thought I should reach out to you.
We both accused each other of being biased towards or against the political party and to prevent an edit war I went to his talk page to try to find a consensus there. His point was that you can call a party 'far-right' in the sidebar if some sources (in this case Al Jazeera, Telegraph and Politico; All foreign sources) refer to it as such. I said the party doesn't identify as far-right, has distanced itself from the far-right and that most sources do not refer to the party as far-right (and gave sources, including their own party website arguing the party is actually more of a 'middenpartij', meaning centre-party.), yet he says these do not count as reliable sources. This is fine and we can have a discussion about this, but before we ever reached a consensus he has already reverted all my edits, including edits that don't have anything to do with this discussion and are relatively undisputed. If you ask me this reeks of promoting a political bias on his side and I would love to talk it out, but he doesn't seem to be willing to listen to my points on how to make this page more politically neutral.
Especially because he also removed contributions of mine that had nothing to do with this discussion, it doesn't seem to me like he's acting in good faith.
Thanks for the time - Freerka ( talk) 23:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I suppose it's reasonable that the page was locked by you. I have come here to request a reversion of the page as stated here WP:PREFER. I was acting in good faith to keep most of the edits in place, which was why I wasn't simply reverting the page, and why I was allowing most of the content to stay with only minor edits instead of just reverting everything that was posted in a blatantly biased manner. Large numbers of the citations used on the page are almost entirely irrelevant and contradict the guidelines placed out at WP:RS and WP:NPOV in which journalists are used as a factual source despite those journalists not being able to objectively prove their position. Since people on the page have an issue with my edit, and my edit was in issue with their edit, I would request that a previous version before all of this began be reverted to until a consensus has been achieved on the talk page (which I admit I didn't realize was a per-requisite for editing a page, I thought the rules and guidelines on content quality took precedence). This version here https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Fraser_Anning%27s_Conservative_National_Party&diff=893158435&oldid=893031161 was before all of this dispute began and was an edit that was not made by myself and is therefore more neutral than either of the pages used in the current dispute. Thanks. Sundeki ( talk) 02:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I found my way here from a recent block you made, criticized by others but considered long overdue by me. But I'm not neutral on that topic so perhaps not a worthwhile opinion. More importantly, I just wanted to say how wonderful the quote from Che on your talkpage is. In many ways it sums up how I view life (and others) and how we should deal with it. I have added it to my userpage, I hope that is OK with you.
I see you've also been dragged into the excitement over whether articles about Cow vigilante violence should be redirected. I have edited some of these articles repeatedly, but I chose not to get involved in that discussion because I am not totally sure how such decisions are made. And I'm not sure that I want to know :) I hope it all works out for the best. MPS1992 ( talk) 21:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Civility Barnstar |
Thank you for being civil during contention. Manabimasu ( talk) 02:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC) |
In New York city, doesn't follow "rules": Chinese Community Centre — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:CA82:9800:BD8D:12D3:EC9E:8983 ( talk) 04:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Isn't a 3 month block too much? Can this block be reduced to, at least, one week? -- 177.135.52.200 ( talk) 04:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello. The reported user ( User:Afg96) has now made a fourth revert plus another personal attack, in spite of getting an extra message on their talk page warning them not to continue reverting... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
For quickly fulfilling my RfPP requests * Pppery * has returned 20:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC) |
Many thanks! Glad to help. El_C 20:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, fellow Wikipedian. I saw your edits on the references in the Poway synagogue shooting article. Why did you delete the cite web templates and replaced them with plain text? What does "facelift" mean? — Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 ( talk) 23:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
The IP keep adding unreferenced genre. Can you block him/her? 183.171.115.47 ( talk) 04:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
But I'm pretty sure Anaxial and I are quite finished. 199.247.43.106 ( talk) 06:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, El C - you PP'd Alligator gar on April 22, and said 4 days - it is now 7 days and it's still full PP. It is possible that I counted wrong, but I doubt it. If it was supposed to auto-unPP by a bot, it failed. Atsme Talk 📧 20:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello El C, I just wanted to discuss why the changes on the Akhtar Raza Khan page were removed. The added mentions were just about his son who succeeded him in his position, and that too with appropriate references. Moreover, I notice that you wrote that Kanthapuram A.P. Aboobacker Musliyar was the "Grand Mufti of India" - this is disputed in India as it was a self proclaimed announcement and I think it is wrong to be asserted on Wikipedia as a fact - unfortunately the Kanthapuram A.P. Aboobacker Musliyar page is locked due to vandalism so I am unable to make an amendment to this. I believe that the Wikipedia editors/administrators have been duped into asserting this as fact. For reference of the dispute, see the reputable Indian Newspaper "The Hindu" [1]. Please do let me know if you require any futher information. SunniObserver786 ( talk) 20:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice, I'll raise a Request for comment as per your suggestion (apologies I'm new to Wikipedia so still learning how it all works!). While the RFC will hopefully resolve the "Grand Mufti" issue, I just want to make clear that Asjad Raza Khan being the spiritual successor is unrelated to the "Grand Mufti" announcement. In Sufism, Grand Shaykhs usually appoint their sons as spiritual successors. Can this at least not be added to the page so that people can be aware of who is Akhtar Raza Khan's spiritual successor? Thank you. SunniObserver786 ( talk) 07:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
References
Sure, I understand. Thanks for your help! I shall now head over to the talk page and focus this discussion there. SunniObserver786 ( talk) 13:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm new in Wikipedia so I need some help and advice Mustaphajajjage ( talk) 00:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Hey El C--you semi-protected this article a while ago; LedRush ( talk · contribs), essentially an SPA, is continuing to make the same kind of edits that I think prompted you to lock the article. Note the continued edit warring, with no consensus (see talk page), using YouTube sources; essentially it's a kind of whitewashing. I'd block them per NOTHERE, basically, but since I reverted the IP editor I'd rather someone else look at it. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 03:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Your revision of Elections in India has removed the text, tables and maps, i added with the references and wikimedia. Kindly state the reason behind reverting the said article. Tables and maps were added to enhance the article and make it easier for the reader to consume the relevant info easily. Map-thumbnails gave the info in a very efficient manner. Just by looking at maps one could grasp the changing behavior of Indian voters since Indian independence. So, i humbly request you to please cooperate and help in making the article better and cite the reasons for undoing my constructive edit. I will be highly thankful to you.-- Shoonyea ( talk) 14:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Those wikilinked words are in all-uppercase because this is how the whole line is written in the preamble of the constitution of India and can be seen at Constitution of India and also at constitution of India (pg.22).
Yes, you are right that India has mixed economy but the world "socialist" is written in the preamble for reasons said in Socialism in India. Sorry that i wikilinked "socialist" as " socialist" instead of " Socialism in India".
"sovereign" is wholly unnecessary as this is to be assumed by the reader just as they do in the main India ; agreed but i don't agree with "wholly unnecessary". No offense please.
The word "democratic", speaks explicitly whereas "sovereign socialist secular republic" speak implicitly about elections in India. This is where from the existence and practice of election is driven.
If formatting was not correct then reformatting of maps should have been done instead of removal. I searched and now used "scrolling table" which will maintain the width of the page and hope it fixes the problem. Please forgive my ignorance as i am new. This time I have again edited the page to insert Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha tables with correct formatting as said earlier and not added/edited anything else. I have kept other things for further review and will edit carefully and use talk in future. I have watchlisted this page in the case you have any suggestion/problem. Thanks.-- Shoonyea ( talk) 01:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
On 30 April 18:22 you locked a part of the page for " Protected "Denuvo": Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content " but did not revert the sources column of the page to a more suitable manner.
There are no sources that would be deemed as not poorly sourced due to the nature of the topic. Who would come out as a reliable source to remark on games which are cracked? This is piracy. The ones doing the cracking are not exactly going to come out themselves, so third party sites exist(such as the site which NFOs are posted on) which are actually moderated. False NFOs are removed.
Leave the lock or not, but undue the edit so that we may have this edit below as the live version of the pages column. Or please add a notice that due to the nature of the topic, suitable sources will most likely never exist.
/info/en/?search=Special:Diff/894817450
Thank you for your time. Forkinator ( talk) 17:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 10, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
My apologies for the above section stating that you are a party. You are not, I made a mistake with the template. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for protecting the article, but I'm concerned that defamatory BLP content--unsourced 'rumors' of involvement with a friend's suicide, for instance--has been locked in under 'Controversy.' That's why I brought this to the BLP noticeboard, and not page protection. Any further assistance would be appreciated. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 03:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
For the Arbitration Committee, - Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
This issue I am seeing is not disruption, but a quality issue. I basically have to do a grammar overhaul of every addition made to the meteorological history and add a total of 4-5 sources there as they also did not source as well. If you look in the impact, it is loaded with typos as well. Noah Talk 22:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Appears to be ignorance in terminology over the dissipation date. These are unsourced edits that do not provide proof of dissipation.
These edits contain typos and other problems
Im sure there are more edits from the past day I could provide as examples as well. Noah Talk 23:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi El C
thank you from protecting the page; I have uploaded all necessary documents; even the transcription of documents ; the person use the term hoax even if there is evidence which is not an hoax. This page has been vandalised with false allegations. the person needs to prove that what is a hoax. he seems has more power than me; from one side he argued without bringing any proofs from the other side there is me which upload evidence every time I claim something; however he is able to use terms highly offensive and modify the page while I have been prevented to defend. I would like your help please; I am willing to waive my anonymity I feel I have been bullied. I understand if someone disagree but a person cannot deny the fact (I have uploaded them 0 and accuse someone of a hoax without bring proofs. I feel very depressed; all my work on this page has went to the bin because of this. The page is Este Orioles. thanks Araldico69 Araldico69 ( talk) 07:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Much appreciated [9]. I'd never run across that before. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 00:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I do not think you should blame yourself. This edit of mine was backed by this WP:RSN verdict. and this edit was backed by the new RfC. I give it to you the word "unanimous" was extra though.-- Kazemita1 ( talk) 03:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Hey, yeah you are correct. I just thought it was not the proper way "constructed". Thanks for cleaning up and sorry once again. Kante4 ( talk) 22:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Same vandalism as yesterday, this time apparent evasion by a user you blocked. Maybe page protection? Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 03:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words at MJ's talk. And I wanted you to know I have no problem with you at all. You did the job we don't pay you for as you should have. Another might have done different but when I'm caught on the wrong side of a line, I take what I've got coming. Certainly no hard feelings here. John from Idegon ( talk) 03:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Hey, it appears my recent attempt on Taryn Manning did not help per this and this. Just wondering if you'll reconsider page protection? Thanks! TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, recently you have semi-protected Circle MRT line after i had requested at WP:RFP, and i would like to request that the semi protection be increased to Extended confirmed protection as there is now an autoconfirmed account (probably a sockpuppet) making the exact same edits as the IP before this. diff 1(previous edit by autoconfirmed user in April 2019), diff 2(one of the edits by IP 192.190.204.103), diff 3(autoconfirmed user makes exact same edit as diff 2 by IP). This has been a long standing issue on the page and i hope that you can help to resolve the issue. Thanks 1.02 editor ( C651 set 217/ 218) 08:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
You might find this interesting: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Letter_from_the_People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran_to_the_Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union.jpg
For translation go to California archives here and CTRL+F "olfat".-- Kazemita1 ( talk) 11:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for this expansion. I'm not looking for anyone to get blocked, but it was getting clear that something would need to be done to force talk page participation. Without the extra comment, I'm not 100% clear that message would have been received, so I appreciate you circling back. Grandpallama ( talk) 12:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Are you talking about me going to the report page about him? I literally clicked the link that Marchjuly left me and told me to aim my complaints there. Oh, and my second “offense” was a private discussion expressing my opinions, not even directed at John. This is too confusing and stressful for me. I’m not going to seek anymore “reprimands” for him. I’m done with this bureaucratic website. Ppizzo278 ( talk) 22:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Looks like Special:Contributions/Scandiblues a Mrwallace05 sock. Sounds like a duck. 2402:1980:8252:C48F:F1F1:85C1:391C:8F91 ( talk) 03:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
What will happen if the discussion on the Fascism in Europe talkpage ends without consensus being reached? Will you unblock the pages? -- 179.183.235.148 ( talk) 06:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi El_C, once again the same issues on the Bordeaux Airport page continues. All future routes are sourced, the reversion of edits that are being implemented by User:Charlesdrakew and User:SovalValtos are creating confusion. They remove and merge seasonal routes and simply delete sourced information for future routes. All edits for BOD are in line with the many thousands of other pages on Wikipedia. This is simply damaging the page creating mis and disinformation. Jack1985IE ( talk) 18:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
Raunak Maskay ( talk) 08:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC) |
I see we both started closing the ANI but started from opposite ends. I'm happy for you to leave my close or amend/replace it as you see fit. GoldenRing ( talk) 14:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
See Special:Contributions/98.237.58.40. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 04:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Your closing comment used the words "note with regret all the bad blood that the entire Jesswade88 saga has brought to the fore"; implying that (a) this was unfortunate, and (b) that it is somehow over. It isn't, at least I hope it isn't. I'm no fan of bad blood either, and love to avoid it where it's possible, but in some cases - like this one - it's worth it. Jesswade88 ( talk · contribs) keeps writing an article about a female academic a day, and I, for one, am quite glad of it, and hope very much she continues, and damn the torpedoes. I'm tempted to write " nevertheless, she persisted", but I gather neither of you are from my area of the planet, so wouldn't know what that means... unless I can wiki-link it... -- GRuban ( talk) 14:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I would like to request a range block that covers user:67.226.221.120 and user:67.226.221.183 because they both seem to be trying to vandalize according to the filter log. CLCStudent ( talk) 16:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
user:174.0.125.92 is making threats of violence. CLCStudent ( talk) 20:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Aluminum is a chemical element. Except for some elements only known to be created in a nuclear reactor, elements are not inventions, they are left over from the big bang that created the universe and were mostly "invented" in stars.
The concrete page says it was invented in the Syria area, also known as the middle east, not a western civilization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zimm82 ( talk • contribs)
Accidentally content was removed, was editing from mobile. Shocked to see +29000 bytes were removed. I was adding a ref to a section. Thanks for quick restore.-- Vin09 (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you added the Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement template to Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. I understand that the Jeremy Corbyn article should also be ARBPIA extended confirmed given it's content even though this has recently been reduced after this RfC. RevertBob ( talk) 03:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi El C, I hope you don't mind me raising this issue here but I want to query something. For the last week or so there has been some very low level disruption at List of world number one snooker players, where an IP editors corrupts a table and immediately reverts. This occurs once per day and the edit is always the same. At first it looks like a test edit, but that is clearly not the case given the repetitive nature of the edit. It's not quite vandalism either because the edit is immediately reverted by the same editor.
I requested temporary page protection but you decline the request on the basis that there wasn't enough recent disruption. I am not challenging your decision because I do understand how you came to that conclusion. The disruption was only minor and was reverted almost immediately.
However, I am increasingly puzzled by the nature of these edits. They don't really cause a problem to the article because they are reverted immediately and only occur once a day, but am I alone in finding the behavior problematic? What I really want to know I suppose is your rationale for what constitutes "not enough disruption". Does the disruption have to occur more frequently, or be more permament in its nature to be considered a problem? Or if this had had been going on for a month would you have semi-protected the article then?
Should I just ignore this or should I come back to you in a week or so if it continues? I am just trying to get a handle on the best way to deal with it. Best regards. Betty Logan ( talk) 04:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi El C. I noticed that, following my report, you removed Merelli's in-text attribution, which should be included according to the rules:
When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact.
Why did you remove the in-text attribution? Or was this a mistake? 160.39.234.40 ( talk) 15:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Also, the author is not an editor in that context — which you seem to deny saying, for some inexplicable reason, even though your version clearly states: "According to Quartz editor Annalisa Merelli."I made a mistake. If you read the diff you linked to, you'll see I didn't deny calling Merelli an editor, but merely asked where I had done so, in case I made a mistake (and I did). You're making a mountain out of a molehill.
the RfC clearly determined that the statement is authoritativeWhere did it "determine" that? The basic fact of the matter is that Merelli is not a specialist or recognized expert on Evola. This doesn't mean her views shouldn't be incorporated in the article, but merely that they should be attributed to her in-text. Why do you find this so objectionable?
It seems the reason Sderot was unprotected was because of the deletion/restoration as a history merge by another admin. When you delete and restore a page, it loses protection. It was presumably a simple oversight to forget to restore the protection. ~ Rob13 Talk 12:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I modified the page for United stars currency and added a common name for the $100 bill minted after 2013, blue-face. It’s called by that name because of the blue security strip that goes down the front of the bill. I saw that you reverted my change, so I made an account to see if there’s a way we could still incorporate that name in to the page. Vexanxd ( talk) 19:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I suppose I thought it was more common than it really is. I’ll work on getting some sources and get back to you. Vexanxd ( talk) 19:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
After a good amount of research I’ve concluded that it must be a local slang term where I live. Thanks for keeping Wikipedia legitimate :) Vexanxd ( talk) 19:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Please stop undoing my edits to Cold War II. An infobox is needed for this article. Nothing controversial or disputed is included in the infobox therefore it's NOT vandalism. 207.233.45.12 ( talk) 19:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I object to your close of the SNC-Lavalin Affair at ANI. Granted, the discussion as a whole was about due, but the proposal that might have resolved the matter was open only three days, and still active. Please consider reopening that section for at least another 48 hours, as there is a chance of resolution. Otherwise there is no resolution, just reinforcement of a widely shared sense that WP is unable to deal with disruptive behavior. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Just a note that Jerzy has deleted your comment at ANI (and changed some of my stuff, but it's fine). Isa ( talk) 09:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
For this. Thanks. John from Idegon ( talk) 16:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
El C, thank you for your statements on my behalf at the WP:AN#Continuous disruptive editing/sockpuppeting by users Bilcat and Trekphiler. Unfortunately, now that Andy Dingley is involved in the discussions, there is no way that I can participate. (He and I have a long "history", and it isn't a pleasant one.) I have been discussing the IPs edits with another admin, but unfortunately he appears to be offline, and may be so for several days. If you're open to it, I can email you with more information on the IP if you're interested. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 17:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I have a few questions:
1) Since I am trying to get outside opinions on a talk page discussion on
Talk:Sino-Vietnamese conflicts, 1979–1991 per
WP:Consensus, how many people do I need to invite to join the discussion?
2) I'm still not sure how a consensus is reached. Do we just do a vote among the editors after discussing?
DemPon (
talk)
19:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Did you note he is editing war by himself with IP and account,as he always do before.And he never change his sin,keep using several IP accounts as his sock,Just like 67.188.179.66.-- 115.82.9.114 ( talk) 12:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Remind you that there is a madman who likes to fight with yourself. And it is not clear whether this madman is splitting with a bunch of accounts and IP to fight against himself. In addition, he has edited records on many wiki projects, among multiple socks.I don’t know how many socks he has because he has been acting and using proxy IP.We can only catch him from the point he insisted on or the evidence he deliberately left.-- 61.224.12.136 ( talk) 23:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I think that except for he himself reports himself, those statements I have talked about on the talk page of Bbb23.
-- 61.224.12.136 ( talk) 01:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi El C, the Split discussion which opened on April 30 and tag placed on article page Burning Sun scandal may be ready for a consensus. Do you mind looking at it, I am an involved editor and think I am not supposed to close? (looks like Meloras, Tibbydibby and myself oppose and NowIsntItTime (unclear). Thank you.-- Bonnielou2013 ( talk) 02:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Sir Ramayana is real history of India DR. AMIT KUMAR SAXENA ( talk) 10:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
OK sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMIT KUMAR SAXENA ( talk • contribs)
Hello El C
The statement regarding the government of Iran has been on the article for quite some time (a year if not several), now it's suddenly flooding with people randomly removing it (the one being a random user with like 10 edits, 30% of them being reverts) and not even bothering to write a message on the talk page. How does that work exactly? Imho it should be restored back to status quo, since no consensus has been reached. -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 11:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I think you may have missed something regarding the answer to your question: "
the article under contention, who started editing it first?
". Can I discuss this with you here?
Kolya Butternut (
talk)
02:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
This report has become too lengthy. It's difficult to tell what's going on anymore. I'm not sure other admins would feel motivated to look into this.". This is exactly what happened at the AN/I report I had referenced. Unlike the conflicts between SashiRolls and Tryptofish, and SashiRolls and Snooganssnoogans, which seem to stretch back years, my conflict with SashiRolls was isolated and brief, and I have provided evidence of SashiRolls' battleground behavior that I feel has both clarity and cohesion. If you (understandably) did not take a look, I showed that SashiRolls falsely accused Snooganssnoogans of stalking him, and then attacked me for showing that truth. SashiRolls' pattern of filling reports with convoluted webs of false accusations (accompanied by editors' obligatory defenses) has effectively shielded SashiRolls from scrutiny. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 10:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
there [was] considerable skepticism of unblocking, even among some of the supporters, but I have not seen
a lot of critical eyes looking at their post-unblock behavior.Instead, SashiRolls has continued to become Somebody else's problem, to quote User: Robert McClenon. Something still has to be done and someone has to do it. I am doing my part, but an administrator has to do theirs. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 17:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if the ping worked, but sometime when you have a chance please take a moment to reply to the request for clarification on my page. Best, ~~ SashiRolls t · c 02:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
SashiRolls now says I will happily pitch in to compile an off-wiki list of all the dramaboard GMO cases and recurring actors to help the press get a handle on what is going on
If that's not
casting aspersions I don't know what is. They are implying that myself,
Tryptofish and
Kingofaces43 are paid shills of Monsanto and threatening to report us to journalists. This should not be acceptable when there is zero evidence whatsoever.
SmartSE (
talk)
23:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I would like to request that the part of the sanction that applies to me be lifted, thus changing it from a 2-way IBAN to a 1-way IBAN.
I think that I have amply demonstrated that I have been acting in a responsible and trustworthy manner, and I would prefer not to have the restriction hanging over my head any longer. I recognize, of course, that if hypothetically I were to abuse the situation, the sanction would be reinstated. I also have no intention of interacting with the other editor in any case. I do not want to cross paths with them, and I have zero interest in editing the articles that they edit, and it's just the right thing to do anyway.
I'm making a courtesy ping to Vanamonde93, as the other admin who was involved in the case. Thank you. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
History of the Jews in Poland - while being in the non-STABLE version or using a non academic sourcs published by an individual designated by the SPLC (at RSN, no consensus to use) may fall under WRONGVERSION (though frankly, user introducing such a source for Holocaust history should be banned) - a version with BLP violations should not be allowed to stand. The present version states - "Based on research into court records, Łukasz Krzyżanowski [pl] concludes that the possession of "a relatively large number of properties" was returned.
- this is a severe misrepresentation of Krzyżanowski - and beyond that, due to the modern politics involved, may be seen as extreme political stmt. This should be removed. See
Talk:History of the Jews in Poland#Krzyżanowski which shows Krzyżanowski actually wrote more or less the opposite in Polish. In a subsequent English paper citing his Polish work he wrote: "The persistent anti-Semitism in the immediate aftermath of the war, violent attacks and the fear that plagued Holocaust survivors in Kalisz and many other Polish cities often pushed the surviving Jews out of these locations, forcing them to settle in the larger Polish cities or to emigrate. Moreover, the new social, economic and political reality of post-war Poland did not facilitate the rebuilding of the lives of individual survivors. The aforementioned problems, together with the difficulties in recovering private homes and communal property – an issue that deserves a separate detailed study65 – resulted in the lack of the stability necessary for postwar resettlement...."
(ref65 - his chapter in Klucze i kasa) - "These processes broke the survivors’ social networks and resulted in the disappearance of the Jewish community in post-war Kalisz and in many other Polish towns.
.
Krzyzanowski, Lukasz. "An Ordinary Polish Town: The Homecoming of Holocaust Survivors to Kalisz in the Immediate Aftermath of the War." European History Quarterly 48.1 (2018): 92-112. This is a young scholar, and being named next to such a stmt may impact his career. Respectfully - this should be removed.
Icewhiz (
talk)
04:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
""In this way, the Polish state became the beneficiary of the murder of millions of its Jewish citizens, who were deprived of all their property before death) took over properties the Nazis "nationalized" (or stole, the usual terminology). Beyond the out of context use of Krzyżanowski, he wrote (translated from Polish):
"It is impossible to determine the total number of cases of the private property being recovered by the Jews after the Second World War in in Radom and Kalisz. On the basis of court files from both cities, it can be concluded that possession, not ownership, of a relatively large number of properties was restored to the Holocaust survivors who returned to their places of origin".Even if we were to use this out of context sentence, it is being misrepresented in several fashions:
"possession, not ownership"- in the technical discussion here (where the court gave an initial decree - which didn't actually transfer the property nor evict the tenants residing illegally within) - this is an immensely important distinction.
"Łukasz Krzyżanowski [pl] concludes"- we're stating this is his conclusion in our text, not merely citing this) - it would be a BLP issue to be removed. In this case - this is far beyond novel - to the point this is career damaging. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
"On the basis of court files from both cities, it can be concluded that possession, not ownership, of a relatively large number of properties was restored to the Holocaust survivors who returned to their places of origin."While the article states
"Krzyżanowski concludes that the possession of "a relatively large number of properties" was returned."Both passages refer to "possession" (though the original emphasizes "not ownership), and both passages refer to "large number of properties." In what way is there misrepresentation in this narrow sense? Granted there is a superfluous "the" before possession, but that seem like more a grammatical error than anything. El_C 07:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
"in both cities") - and not to Poland as a whole (38,430k pop today) - the study is on two locations, less than 1% of the population of Poland - Krzyżanowski doesn't generalize this sentence - at best this sentence can be used for Radom and Kalisz.
"On the basis of court files from both cities, it can be concluded"- he does not draw the conclusion himself, but says that looking at the court records one can conclude - this distinction is important as (and this expanded at length elsewhere in the source, as well as in the continuation of the paragraph -
"The rapid sale also depended members of criminal groups involved in the illegal takeover of Jewish real estate.") there was widespread fraud in these cases - what is written in the court record doesn't actually necessarily mean the claimant was actually the owner/heir (as opposed to someone presenting himself as such).
"Łukasz Krzyżanowski [pl] concludes"it wouldn't be as bad (as no one reads citations, and WP:OR/misquotes of citations do occur) - but with Krzyżanowski's name in our text - this quite bad). I won't be taking this to BLP/n (if I were to take it anywhere - it would be AE - BLP/n will be a mess of involved editors and go no where) - as if you don't see the problem - I suspect there won't be a consensus this a red-line BLP vio (even though it is - at least for anyone who is aware of the nuances involved here). If you would consider just removing (struck in quote) the attribution -
"Based on research into court records,- I would be much obliged as this would resolve the BLP issue vs. Krzyżanowski who really may be harmed here. Icewhiz ( talk) 16:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Łukasz Krzyżanowski [pl] concludes thatthe possession of "a relatively large number of properties" was returned.
Thanks for blocking Special:Contributions/66.199.206.130. You're so fast! I was about to contact you about blocking them! :) - BilCat ( talk)
Hey Glenn Gilbertti Returns to Impact Wrestling 17 may 2019 Jocer Blandino ( talk) 21:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Why did you remove the children-in-law and grandchildren from the Duggar family section? AC12AC ( talk) 04:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
BilCat ( talk) 02:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@
Darryl Kerrigan: This might be a better place to talk about the RfC than the Arbcom case page, I think they frown on that. Also,
WP:NHC but I counted 11-54 so I dunno what's going on there... the last yes vote wasn't bolded though (edit: And Curly voted twice). El_C, would your close include any prejudice against having a new RfC depending on the outcome of the Arbcom case? Since it was close, it's conceivable that might have an impact.
Safrolic (
talk)
04:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 04:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
"Please figure out whether there is consensus for that usage (or variations therein) before adding it to multiple articles, Novel compound. While discussion is ongoing, the convention is for the status quo ante to remain in place."
Wikipedia:WikiProject Oshwah, which was originally an April Fools joke, is now running amok and threatening to become a social media page. Or am I just an anal middle-ager trying to deny teenagers some good clean fun? I'm tempted to AFD it, or at least ask for full protection, but I'm trying to decide if I'd be peeing in the wind first. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 07:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
This edit to the 2017 Las Vegas shooting article with an edit summary saying "(not appropriate to add names of victims)" caught my eye. I'm not contesting this here, but I'm not aware of any WP policy or guideline regarding this appropriateness concern; perhaps I've missed that because this is an area of concern which I've not previously run up against. I ask because the edit brought the contrast with Maguindanao massacre#Victims to mind. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Do you really believe that someone named Ahmedo Semsurî who is a Kurd and always try to make the Yazidis to Kurds or Christans, acts in a good faith? I know that you are not familiar with this material but „Kurds typically claim Yazidis as ethnic Kurds“. [12] and for many Yazidis it is an insult to be called Kurdish. Many Yazidis get angry when someone called them Kurdish. It looks very much like vandalism and an attempt to explain the Yazidis as ethnic Kurds and to provoke the Yazidis. Now he has also added a source claiming that the Armenian Apostolic Church is a Yazidi religion. As an administrator you need to know if someone has good intentions or not. This is really frustrating but Wikipedia does not reflect the world. Nevertheless, one should try to present articles as possible as they correspond in reality instead of looking for sources to show the articles in a different light. 46.188.123.197 ( talk) 23:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi El C, did you mean to UNprotect editing at Iran? — xaosflux Talk 11:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the protection as it offers participants (including me) the occasion to cool down - while the dispute continues in talk pages. But it may be a little extreme as the reverts were only for the WP:EL section, not the rest of the article, and the subject is evolving rapidly, so it is lacking new developments. Thanks.ping me if you reply, I don't follow your talk page-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 15:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Did you mean to remove all page protection? The IPs have begun deleting sources and sourced content, and another 48-hour PP may help keep it stable as the traffic peaks. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 22:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
If you do not want to receive further notifications for this case, please remove yourself from
this list.
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 7, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage,
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
02:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi. You posted on a bunch of talk pages in the past two days that you are placing them under 1RR (much needed at least for some of them!), however you did not log the restriction of any of them in Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2019. And I didn't check all of them, but Rafał Pankowski for instance doesn't have an edit notice nor a talk page banner. If left in this manner - it's probably unenforceable (though an ambiguous state of AE-rules I guess). Could you follow through here ? Icewhiz ( talk) 09:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Here are several IPs and accounts which engage in vandalism by indiscriminately adding "Ezidkhan settlement" stuff to articles. Please take a look and take action if needed. I'm asking you since you've recently protected similar articles. wumbolo ^^^ 13:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I understand the need to protect the heartbeat bill page from vandals, but it isn't being updated regularly by extended confirmed users, and it is an actively shifting page. The information is almost 2 days out of date, and no one with access to edit has viewed it recently. Wouldn't it make sense to reduce the protection to semi and monitor heavily? That way, thise of us who don't quite meet extended requirements can still help update it. Darkwolf0218 ( talk) 04:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. That was odd, hard to see it as a coincidence. I revert and someone with a couple of edits comes in to revert me? Also, the person I reverted to a dab page and turned it into an article. [13] Interesting guy this blogger. [14] "Some provocateurs now argue that disallowing exceptions is not just an uncomfortable outgrowth of a strict moral position, but an act with affirmative benefits. “Rapists love abortion because it helps them cover up their crime,” Matt Walsh wrote in a column arguing against exceptions this week. “If [a] hypothetical 15-year-old victim does have her baby, the rapist father could be conclusively proven guilty with a DNA test. But if the incestuous abuser can enlist Planned Parenthood to destroy the evidence for him, he will walk away scot-free and continue molesting his daughter for years to come.” Wow, just wow. Doug Weller talk 18:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Isn't WP:Tag Team supposed to be against the rules? Calthinus is appealing to his friends to enter the article and back him up. [15] 76.168.122.183 ( talk) 20:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
El_C I asked for permanant protection though because too much vandalism and edit warring Prince Narula — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.146.229.148 ( talk • contribs)
I warned the IP user they were being disruptive. Even though they made a couple of correct changes that I could double-check, most of the other changes removed truthful information from the article about participants - one example is that they removed the genre of "Danger" from a magic act that involved extremely dangerous magical tricks, which boggled my mind. Anyway, thanks again! GUtt01 ( talk) 22:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, there appears to be resolution on the talk page. Please consider removing the protection on the article. Thanks. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 23:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the protection, any chance I could make a wrong version argument? The material was discussed on the talk page several times and now he has started a RFC on the subject after his last two discussions found consensus for inclusion. Shouldn't the material remain in the article until the RFC is complete since the RFC is about removing the material? PackMecEng ( talk) 02:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I have upped your page protection of Uncyclopedia as the edit war just seemed to go on (and I am tempted to make it 1 or even 2 years ..). This is the second time that we have a spillover of a fight from Uncyclopedia to here (the other one in October 2015), and I am afraid it is not going to stop. (if someone wants to override my decision here, feel free to revert back to a lower level). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi User: El C a user protected Dipika Kakars page and forgot to add the symbol, could u do that please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.146.229.148 ( talk • contribs)
Hi admin, will you please see this article as it was redirected and you locked it and it was redirected as a result after discussion takes place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ananya Panday, and redirect is removed without any discussion at talk page. This BLP is failing WP:NACTOR as only one released movie she have right now and also there is a persistant block accounts history at Ananya Panday and after the protection they were shifted to Ananya Pandey. 122.8.238.126 ( talk) 17:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Indeed our old "friend" Jakey Petrov likely doesn't even read his sources and we could write miles on issues with how he uses them [16]
I'm not from Russia and do not have any Russian or Slavic ancestry nor have I identified myself as such, but Calthinus derogatorily called me "Jakey Petrov" in order to attack me for supposedly being Russian. His racist logic is that anyone who disagrees with him in that article is Russian. 76.168.122.183 ( talk) 17:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
user:Abdnow is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent ( talk) 19:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks El C for your comment on my talk page. I have added 4 more international unbiased sources on this. There is a ton of references out there, including a 100 page report by Amnesty, but I feel this number does the job for this article. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 22:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for that mistake on Bangladesh. I was trying to edit a part of the article but somehow i ended up removing the whole article. I did that by mistake, It won't happen again. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comeonduckling ( talk • contribs)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
A few days overdue but worth giving. Trillfendi ( talk) 18:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC) |
Kindly note, a user Ouseph1997 continuously adding POVs and wrong information in the article Syro-Malabar Catholic Church on founded date, theology and native name. Though I started a discussion in talk page, this user is not ready to share his views there. Also he never add any supporting references, edit summary etc. Requesting to revert his changes and warn this user on his destructive edits. Thanks - 171.61.105.42 ( talk) 16:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello. Will you please take a look at Laki language, Feylis and the other pages that have been reverted by Shadegan for no reason other than accusing me of Pan-Kurdism. Thank you. -- Ahmedo Semsurî ( talk) 20:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello El_C,
The abuse from Andrewgprout continues: now he is deleting from the talk page ( Special:Diff/899226217) and edit-warring (BRR: Special:Diff/899315905) to enforce his action. He's unwilling to discuss. Please talk to him, after our recent discussion with Bbb, I'm afraid to file a report. Thank you. — Aron M🍂 (🛄📤) 10:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I am Jacky. I have been trying to make changes to the Wikipedia page but you seem to have protected it. The Wikipedia page contains wrong info and the information may harm me. Please assist on deleting the wrong info. Preferably I would like to completely delete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.222.10 ( talk) 21:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
How do I do that? The information is affecting me negatively and may even cause financial loss. I am not a Wikipedia expert. All I ask for is for the article/page to be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.222.10 ( talk) 21:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I looked and I don’t know where to explain at? Can I did out who created the article? Because it contains wrong information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.222.10 ( talk) 21:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
( by talk page stalker) @ 50.121.222.10: Dear Jacky!
To talk to the editors of the page, visit the associated "Talk page" by clicking the "Talk" button on the top left ( direct link), then click "New section" on the top right ( direct link), there you can introduce yourself, and list the information that you wish to be removed, or added. See the wikipedia policy on biographies for the rules of removing problematic material. Provide evidence, that shows the information is incorrect. The best way to do so is to list links on the talk page of articles from " reliable" media sources, that reported about you. Editors will read these articles and correct the page accordingly. This might take days or more.
To see the editors of the page go back to the article and click the "View history" button on the top right ( direct link). You will see the edits listed, with the user name in the middle. By clicking the "prev" link on the left side in any row, you will open that edit and see the changes made. — Aron M🍂 (🛄📤) 23:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi. You just blocked this user. Would you kindly also block his sockpuppet?: User:136.228.172.210 Thanks! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 02:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I asked for the page protection of India national basketball team. You said there is not enough disruptive activity. 17 of the past 25 edits have been pure vandalism by 6 different unregistered users. This has been going on for many years. In fact, as soon as protection of this page is lifted, the vandalism continues. If that does not justify protection then what does? Thank you so much - Stephreef ( talk) 05:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Dear El_C, during the past days due to inattenion by involved users and as a result ethnocentric abuse by some users that are involved in ethnic conflicts between two Iranan groups ( Lurs and Kurds), all pages related to Lurish people have been under mass invasion to change their background and identity towards their desires and wishes. You can have a look to the recent edit history of pages: Lurs, Feyli Lurs, Iraqi Lurs, Lak people, Laki language, Southern Lurs, History of the Lurs to find their catastrophic footprint. Unfortunately, there are not Lurish users in the English wikipedia to demonstrate the facts butI wonder how some ethnocentric totalitarian users are doing everything to their desires and wishes in such a bad way?!! I expect you to help to clarify the facts by returning the original pages and I promise to bring their questions in the talk page of each paper. Best SHADEGAN ( talk) 08:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
CVU Anti-Vandalism Award | |
This is for your excellent performance in saving Wikipedia from the harmful threats of vandalism. I appreciate your efforts and hardwork. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 11:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC) |
Thank you, Path slopu! Greatly appreciated. El_C 16:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
User:Tomsmith81727 - an account solely for reverting?.
Jayjg
(talk)
12:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi El C,
I really appreciate this, but I didn't see any AE alerts or warnings; maybe I missed something. Jayjg (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi,"Vassal" is very dirty word for someone who has not been defeated in a war conflict ,but has voluntarily joined the Union to cooperate with another kingdom.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.74.35 ( talk • contribs) I guess Sinebot is on vacation again!
Here is an example of how difficult it is to respond to accusations at AE and stay within the word limit:
Icewhiz says: 06:32, 26 May 2019 - restoring WP:BLPSPS (not under ABOUTSELF exception), with several REDFLAGs. (see Talk:Antony Polonsky#Alleged PDF by Stachura).
That's about 20 words, depending on whether you count the date. Here is the diff he provides [17]
To adequately respond to this I have to point out that:
To summarize this part, Icewhiz thinks it's just fine to use a SPS letter which attacks a BLP (that he doesn't like) but thinks that using a letter which responds to the attack is some super awful transgression that must be punished by WP:AE!!! And that's putting aside the issue of how one actually interprets ABOUTSELF. Can you see the problem we're dealing with here? There is no consistency in application of policy by Icewhiz here. It's a "I get to do it, but if you do it I WILL BRING YOU TO AE AND SAY AWFUL THINGS ABOUT YOU!!!". It's sheer hypocrisy and cynical WP:GAME.
But wait, that's not all.
If you're confused about what any of this has to do with the actual article, I totally understand it. To respond to Icewhiz's accusation I also have to provide context:
See how convoluted this is? At first glance, it's just a single diff and what looks like a straight forward accusation. But it's not. It's a response to a response to a response which is a BLPVIO (I think that's the right number of "a response).
Like I said. It's simple to make a false accusation against someone. It takes a lot more to explain why that accusation is false. As the saying goes "by the time truth gets a hearing, the lie has traveled half way around the world". Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
And I know I'm wordy and over explain things (I think that's a good thing sometimes), but can you see how responding to a single 20 word accusation I can pretty much eat up half my word limit (actually the above is almost 500 words but with some effort I could cut it down I guess)? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
In regards to VM's comments above - I added nothing of substance to Polonsky, I did remove, for good cause (after running across some of the other sources in a different context), content in 2018. Polonsky's letter to history (which was published and printed - so PRIMARY, but not BLPSPS) was in the article from 2012.
As for the word limit - I cut it down. I think it is at around 500 now. Should I cut more? Icewhiz ( talk) 20:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)