Thanks -- Gau Choob ( talk) 17:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi El C, for the edit request could you add the link for the article titled "2020 coronavirus pandemic in Quebec" because the QC link is missing and it was already created Go to "Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Canada medical cases" At QC please add both links at QC to include "2020 coronavirus pandemic in Quebec" as an edit request. Thanks. 2001:569:74D2:A800:C955:CE75:3DDA:DC2A ( talk) 23:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
At location someone has created the article titled "2020 coronavirus pandemic in New Brunswick" and it was missing under "Locations". Under Canada could you add "New Brunswick" to include the article titled "2020 coronavirus pandemic in New Brunswick" under Canada at "Locations" and put it in alphabetical order. This is another edit request. Thanks. 2001:569:74D2:A800:C955:CE75:3DDA:DC2A ( talk) 23:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Greetings | |
~ Going to San Diego anytime soon? ~ ~mitch~ ( talk) 16:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC) |
Nope, but I do have fond memories from my visit there in the 90s. El_C 17:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
There has been some discussion about Minjung party's political spectrum and ideology. During the discussion there has been some dispute about whether the sources are against WP policy. Can you join the disscussion and advice me and other editors about this issue? I think your advice can help to make progress on this issue. Thank you for reading. Jeff6045 ( talk) 23:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not intending to push POV, but the coronavirus crisis has been highly bounded to the politics. (At least, US and China politics) Should we use saction to keep an eyes with the persons (Such as Li Wenliang, Chen Qiushi) as well as other social-political articles related to the coronavirus crisis? Mariogoods ( talk) 23:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
The clarification request regarding the arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture has been closed and archived to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture#Clarification request: Acupuncture (March 2020).
For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi El C. Admin help is needed (quick, n simple task), you still around? —usernamekiran (talk) 06:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
El_C might you deliver the COVID DS alert at User talk:ChulaOne? Thanks, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Why did you remove the info that I added about people thinking the Indian government has the cure for the coronavirus and thinking staying at home cures it? It is sourced, it's placed below the paragraph on the page. Also, why did you revert the grammar corrections unrelated to that? I'm trying to help out too. If you can read that page, you can see that I'm debunking rumors about the coronavirus, not making up new ones. As previously mentioned, what I added is already on the page so I ask you to please revert the edits (or at least the grammar corrections I made)? Thanks in advance. -- 51.37.99.16 ( talk) 15:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, El C, I see you are the most active admin regarding this subject and I was wondering whether you thought it would be useful to post GS notices to the most active editors I see working on these articles (like we generally do with U.S. politics) or should we just notify editors that appear to be disrupting articles? I think most editors are unaware of the sanctions and I know I missed the discussion that set these up. I have all of the articles Watchlisted and the editing has been too rapid to check individual edits but I could inform editors who do the bulk of editing about the sanctions. Let me know what you think. Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
i literally just send him a message in her talk page. just like she did. what's wrong with that?-- 88.7.249.118 ( talk) 23:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi El C! I don't know who to contact about this edit here but the information in the edit can be harmful to others ~ can you help and remove the edit like you do when some gets vulgar and offensive? Thanks ~mitch~ ( talk) 10:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi El C. You handled a dispute I had with a user a month ago /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1030#Incivility_and_Hounding_by_User:ජපස. I was very sick at the time and not very lucid (you might have noticed https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=940991188&diff=prev) so I accept blame for not handling that scenario very efficiently and my first wikipedia ban in over 10 years (not by you).
I have encountered the same editor now and have tried to resolve in a civil manner another stupid dispute. I did my best to be WP:CIVIL but have just failed. Could you have a look here /info/en/?search=User_talk:ජපස#WP:BRD and give me some advice on how to avoid this kind of problems? Is it me?
Thanks and sorry to bother you again with such trivialities. Especially during this moment in time.
P.s. the last and only time I asked an admin for advice I was banned by that user. I never had such issues. Is asking for help/advice not appropriate in such cases? Thanks -- Gtoffoletto ( talk) 14:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
against the wind".and then added the new line
and according to the New York times "shows an object zooming over the ocean waves as pilots question what they are watching."(with ref). I cannot find a diff where "according to the New York Times" is within quotation marks as claimed. What am I missing? Schazjmd (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
A pilot refers to a fleet of objects, but no imagery of a fleet was released. The second video was taken a few weeks later— you removed the quote marks from that and rearranged the sentence. Please be more careful with modifying passages that are quoted. El_C 23:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
A pilot refers to "a fleet of objects", but no imagery of a fleet was released.was not a quote), and ජපස removed the ending quote marks after wind, which was incorrect. Gtoffoletto restored the missing quote marks in the same edit as adding shows an object.... Whew, nice to have that straightened out! I couldn't figure out where folks were seeing the problem. Thanks, El C. Schazjmd (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Since I am now 100% sure of my sanity thanks to User:Schazjmd finally taking the time to read could you please comment on the civility displayed by the user? The underlying dispute should be irrelevant to that aspect. Advice? Thanks -- Gtoffoletto ( talk) 02:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
pls semi-protect this article due to the popularity of this ship on Coronavirus, more unsourced edits will appear. 123.223.133.5 ( talk) 03:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi El C. Just a heads up, Khirurg has started an RfC about the disputed census. As the protection nears its expiry, could you please keep an eye on the article. Given that last time the edit-warring started about 15 minutes after unprotection, even with the RfC ongoing, I'm not very optimistic about the prospects of another edit-war not erupting soon after the upcoming unprotection. Thank you. Dr. K. 20:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I could not find the correct page to request this, so I am asking you directly, since you are the editor who put the semi-protect in place. Could I request that you shorten the semi-protect time at Candidates Tournament 2020? Many anonymous IPs (presumably chess enthusiasts who do not normally edit Wikipedia) have been editing the article. They have added many useful contributions (even creating a table), almost entirely in good faith. It is true that there has been a small edit war, but it has been on a minor point. A week of semi-protect locks out anon IP edits for most of the rest of the tournament. Even though some of these edits have been a frustration to me (you can see my edits in the history) [2], I think a week is excessive. Adpete ( talk) 02:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey El C. Please see WP:AN3#User:Scribatorian reported by User:Wow (Result: ). You did put a DS template on this article on 7 October, 2019 but this template doesn't appear to impose a 1RR. The Bill Clinton page *does* have the 1RR editnotice, but that meets only half of the requirement. Do we have to decline the 1RR complaint due to lack of {{ American politics AE}} on the talk page? Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 16:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
The general information page provides for the "hereditary monarchy" part. I thought it was non-necessary to enlist, but ok, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.140.255.103 ( talk) 08:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
@
El C: Please help me understand how
WP:1RR applies specifically to
2020 Delhi riots. Obviously when an edit summary begins,
as here with the words "Reverted edits by" or
as here with the words "Undid revision," that constitutes 1RR. However,
WP:3RR states: A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert.
Does that apply as well to a page where the 1RR restriction is in place? In other words, even at
2020 Delhi riots, an editor could perform a series of consecutively saved reverting edits without exceeding 1RR, provided there were no intervening edits by another user.
On a related point, I wonder about edits where, in contrast to the above, the edit summary does not begin with the words "Reverted edits by" or "Undid revision" yet the edit is nonetheless in effect a reversion. Restoring a previous version not from the View History tab, but by clicking Edit Source and inserting or removing text directly, then saving, will not show up in the page history as a reversion but may accomplish exactly what a readily identifiable reversion would do. NedFausa ( talk) 01:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Please add editnotice like this:
to the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United Kingdom article. Thanks
Hello, Can something be done about this edit summary by an IP [3]. Thanks!-- Ermenrich ( talk) 13:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
FYI. Since you have been heavily involved in guiding the editors at the page, please let me know if you have any objections or proposed modifications to my move. Pinging RegentsPark and Bradv too. Abecedare ( talk) 15:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I have moved Timeline of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in March 2020, which you protected indefinitely, to Chronology of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in March 2020 per a split discussion. Can you unprotect the redirect when you have the time, as it does not need protection any more. Danski454 ( talk) 23:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
there has been ongoing edits with lots of new people on Grandeur of the Seas and possibly also Ovation of the Seas with their unsourced edits on the ships, pls protect to avoid misleading info. thank you. 78.105.135.176 ( talk) 00:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Indefinite Extended-confirmed-protection required for Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data. It seems that protection is expired. Lot of vandalism has started. Thank you. Amkgp ( talk) 12:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
All the files that were originally uploaded by User:Guiding light and User:McChizzle were transferred by me to commons you can delete them now.-- Hippymoose17 ( talk) 18:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I've been noticing that there are many people (mainly IPs) changing the case number even though the official source doesn't confirm the change. May you watch the page for potential vandalism and semi-protect the article if nessecary? Username 6892 20:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Please look at his edit history and act quick. Thank you. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 20:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I just transfered an entire category to commons! So can you do a favor and delete the redundant images please? Thanks-- Hippymoose17 ( talk) 21:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi El C. Not a big deal, since the deletion was correct, but WP:CSD#F1 only applies to local duplicates. The criterion to use for enwp files duplicating a Commons file is WP:CSD#F8. Regards, FASTILY 01:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Do I have it wrong? I have been reading Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles as meaning non-confirmeds cannot create, viz "This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc." Selfstudier ( talk) 14:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
There is a lot of it going around. Eventually the mask slips. Thanks for getting those. Acroterion (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I shortened your 1-month block on 97.33.192.7 to 60 hours, since that IP is part of a cellphone network. Cellular IPs are almost always very rapidly reassigned (it's probably already reassigned now, to be honest), so the block will just end up hitting random users rather than the troll. Cheers! Reaper Eternal ( talk) 14:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you removed my report and it says make a standard report. The report is about someone repeatedly deleting my contributions on Young Sheldon without providing a reason. So I am asking a moderator to monitor the page Young Sheldon, since what the other user is removing does not improve the page. I thought it was on the right place. Where should I put the report then? Thanks, Bijdenhandje ( talk) 18:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Dear El C, I understand your decision. However, part of my edit about Urtica was based on a literature review, which is a secondary source, as far as I know. I also cited promising primary research, which seemed justified to me. Please note that the article about COVID-19 already mentions which drugs are being tested, although their usefulness in fighting off this virus hasn't been confirmed by secondary sources yet. This information encourages people to try using the drugs, too, which brings profits to the manufacturers. Unfortunately it's completely unprofitable to study common herbs and that is why less information is available about them. Because of unjustified bias against medicinal herbs, little attention is paid to their great potential. For centuries poor people have added the nutrient-rich stinging nettle to soups in early spring, and this has helped them to survive the difficult period. During the pandemic it's crucial to draw researchers' attention to promising medicinal herbs. Why don't we leave the information and simply add an explanation like "Primary research suggests that ... but confirmation is still needed"? I'm deeply convinced that stinging nettle could save much more lives than chemical drugs, thanks to its amazing nutritional and antiviral properties, indicated by the sources cited by me and probably also many other sources, too, but I do not have time to look for them (I have 6 children). Please consider searching for better sources yourself when new promising edits are not justified properly, instead of deleting the edits and imposing bans. Such an approach would be much more beneficial for the Wikipedia community and for all people suffering from COVID-19 (both directly and indirectly). Sylwia Ufnalska ( talk) 23:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Are you admin right?, there's a recent deaths and infection in the ship, pls protect Coral Princess as more and more people are editing with their promotional stuff and unsourced edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.105.154.87 ( talk) 06:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
This is for your amazing work in patrolling the WP:GS/COVID mess and being the main admin protecting pages and ensuring that the project is maintaining factual integrity, especially when it comes to our coverage of this pandemic. Thank you for all that you're doing! OhKayeSierra ( talk) 07:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC) |
OhKayeSierra, many thanks for your recognition and the exceptionally kind words — it truly means a lot. Anyway, yeah, happy to do it. It's worthwhile work, so I don't mind exerting myself. All the best, El_C 07:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Hate to cause a fuss here, but I noticed that you recently commented on User:The Banner's talk page, urging him to stop WP:HOUNDING Piotrus. I have recently been a target of Banner's hounding as well (including his replies to IP 98... which is me as well). Examples of such hounding are essentially all his comments on the Talk:World War I casualties page. I am making edits in good faith in an attempt to improve the article, and those comments are infuriating because they are usually statements with no argument, essentially saying "You're wrong". In addition, in an attempt to cooperate with The Banner on a separate issue (the 1917 Potato riots) after another one of his comments on WW1 page, I asked him on his talk page about a potential improvement to the article. He refused to answer, calling my work "sloppy" [6] and subsequently erased the entire section of our discussion, citing "harassment." [7] I tried reverting the erasure, but was notified that doing so is against Wiki policy, so I ceased.
My question: what do I do? His constant comments seem intent on tormenting me. 2601:85:C101:BA30:39EB:29A4:9175:7668 ( talk) 21:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey El C, first, I hope you are coping well with the current Coronavirus pandemic and that you are safe. Now, the Iraqi conflict (2003–present) article has recently seen a spike in unsourced and possibly POV editing by an IP editor. Me and a few others have reverted his edits each time, but he just reverted us back. The article would possibly warrant protection. You can make your conclusion after reviewing it. Cheers! EkoGraf ( talk) 01:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Dear fellow editor. The world is struggling to stay safe from the harms of a some tens of nano-meters sized virus. I wish you and your dear ones full safety from the dangers of this unilateral love! Regards. -- Mhhossein talk 08:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Blessed |
Music for you, listen if you can. We did it on 8 March. - I think Draft:Franz Klarwein is ready. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Can you see the revision story of Hankyoreh and Chosun ilbo? One user has accused my edit as original research. Do you think I had violated WP:NOR policy? If so, I really don't want to make same mistake. I wish you can give me advice of this issue. Thank you for reading. Jeff6045 ( talk) 07:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
You restored a lenghty discussion, which evolved in a irrelevant direction on a talk page, which is already more than overflowing with lots of excessive commments. So what is the alternative? Should the discussion continue indefinitely? Because I of course disagree with that person and have arguments for it...and then that person will disagree again and it wil continue endlessly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeUnknown010 ( talk • contribs) 21:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Having protected Planck units due to edit warring behaviour, I wonder whether you'd care to suggest a way of managing user Ahri6279. There is a clear pattern of disruptive editing: excessive number of small edits which make edit histories problematic to navigate, essentially entirely OR and without any referencing or even checking existing references when making changes (introducing errors), deafness to appeals from other editors (see discussion at WT:WikiProject Physics § Problematic changes to physics articles by an editor), ignoring edit comments and making many edits without edit comments (see the history at Plank units for several hundred edits), and simply reverting explained reverts with edit comments such as "??"). This editor has created a number of redirects that mostly seem to be headed for deletion. They have incorrectly updated template data. They have also just moved on with a similar pattern of editing at Natural units now that Planck units has been protected, rather than editing in their sandbox as suggested. In short, this editor is introducing degradation into WP, does not seem to understand or buy into the intent of WP, and generally disregards input from others other than occasional mild comments. I am unsure of attributing intent, but the behaviour creates work for others and contributes little (I would venture to say nothing of value IMO), and the lack of responsiveness discourages interaction from others (or at least, from me) trying to keep things intact. — Quondum 15:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Can you please delete the files in this category? Thank you-- Hippymoose17 01:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Looks like ECP might be more appropriate. -- AntiCompositeNumber ( talk) 04:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
@ El C: It looks like a racist IP user is impersonating you at my talk page. NedFausa ( talk) 19:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi El C, I hope things are going ok your way. If you have a minute, can you please take a look at ChrisRehm8814? They are well past 3RR on the Diamond and Silk article and have left some attack-ish edit summaries. I did try to communicate with them earlier to no avail. In fact, they gave me a final vandalism warning (did the same to Snooganssnoogans). I went about my business but I can see they are continuing their disruptive behavior with other editors. S0091 ( talk) 02:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete my sandbox (Sandbox5). It freezes my computer when I try to edit it. - Ferctus ( reply here) —Preceding undated comment added 05:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
FYI I undid your close. Damn section headers and edit conflicts. Anyway, my reading of the consensus is to reblock and I want to give Mike a chance to respond. If he wants more people to comment, then I’d wait for a few more, but I think having it open for that makes sense. Sorry again for the conflict! TonyBallioni ( talk) 16:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
see zh:WP:CheckUser/Archive and meta:Steward_requests/Global/2020-04#Global_lock_for_Ahri6279, We think Ahri6279 is User:Xayahrainie43, by Looks like a duck to me. -- Nanachi 🐰 Fruit Tea☕(宇帆· ☎️· ☘️) 18:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
You are preventing me using the talkpage to discuss the proceeding? You say it is beyond the scope? "This page is for discussion of the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard page" and [8]. Are you even an administrator? There is nothing to indicate you are... ~ R. T. G 22:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey, thank you for understanding my concerns. I get your point better now too. Stay safe my friend. Best.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 22:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
MrClog ( talk) 00:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I want to use Template:CHN for my sandbox, but without the China link that sends me to the article. Just a 23px flagicon, very basic one, but I don't know how to do it. - Ferctus ( talk)
Never mind, I did it. I just have to put Flagicon and the country after it. Thanks.
Hi El C,
This is regarding the Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale article which you have locked for now.
IMO, User:GSS has adopted a complete unreasonable tone right from the outset and repeatedly thrown around accusations of "deleting information," clearly without properly checking the article itself, as can be evidenced by our discussion so far here where I refuted this. GSS also claims that "most of the information is unsourced" in an edit summary where this is demonstrably false, as can be observed in the diff. Every new addition is meticulously sourced down to the page number, and for goodness' sake the number of citations had gone from 96 to 160(!), while GSS repeatedly reverted baselessly and sticks to throwing out "unsourced," "deleting info," and "whitewashing" (perhaps the user doesn't recognize sfn templates as citations? This is the only way I can account for this...) This unbending discussion style may be described as stalling or attrition-based, if past experiences on that page are anything to go by, and I would frankly say that "white-washing" could apply to the lack of discussion of the government role in the events.
The article as it currently stands is poorly written, poorly sourced (largely sensationalist, distortionary op-eds from government-sympathetic media, long on aspersions and government lines, and short on details and facts; Indian media is a discussion unto itself...), makes little use of the good sources present, and IMO not worthy of Wikipedia, clearly pushing a POV by front-loading the article with slanted opinion to influence reader perceptions (this seems to have begun in July 2018 and has been strictly gate-kept by largely one or two users from the looks of it).The user is now not engaging further and frankly I'm not sure is this user is open to good-faith discussion, given the defensive tone of all their responses.
So here's my point: How would any real discussion proceed, and what is your perception of the edits in question in compared to the current article, even if just the lead, if I may ask? I understand that new edits bear the wp:burden and the article can't be locked on my version, but IMO my additions are more than adequately cited. The article is in desperate need of improvement to be anywhere close to being encyclopedic in tone and more than a badly-written wp:attack page.
BTW if edit size is a problem I can easily make separate section-by section edits.
Thanks, Sapedder ( talk) 00:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
El C: FYI. Abecedare ( talk) 18:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Can I ask you to take a look at this and leave a comment? Thanks, Take care of yourself! Saff V. ( talk) 10:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey El C, I hope you and your family are safe! I know it was a year ago, but you protected Angel Tee due to sockpuppetry and the same issue is happening again at Angela Tee. Is there a sockfarm I can link AngelFanatee11 into? HickoryOughtShirt?4 ( talk) 08:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Purely promotional, why isn't this just a redirect to Network18#TV18? Of course some of that is also promotional, probably because it's copyvio. I won't try to touch it on my iPad. I see you've edited it. Doug Weller talk 19:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi El C, there are a lot of disruptive edits coming from 102.252.65.0/24. You've been reverting some in Durban, Johannesburg, etc., so I guess you know what I mean. Non-communicative editor, always mobile web edits, fooling around with section headers and lots of overlinking, etc. Mostly sports, South African high schools, and places articles. I've already left two "final warnings" today, but they're still at it. Maybe they could be blocked? It looks to me like it's only that one person in that range, for the last week. Before that they were on Special:Contributions/102.250.3.0/24, maybe others. If you're too busy I can take it to ANI. Thanks... -- IamNotU ( talk) 19:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry: I reverted your change from "the Commonwealth" to "The Commonwealth" without adding an explanation. It is that I believe one writes "in (etc) the Commonwealth" but not "in (etc) The Commonwealth". That is the practice of the Commonwealth Secretariat (see its link). Errantius ( talk) 22:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Home to 2.4 billion citizens, The Commonwealth includes some of the world's largest, smallest, richest and poorest countries, spanning five regions.But when I actually look in the website itself, it does not, in fact, read that way. In any case, I'm happy to defer to your judgment in this matter. Regards, El_C 22:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
So now we know about admin back channeling. I was wondering about how you were gone for years and years, ad then appeared to bright and suddenly, always informed. You have other avenues of info. Delighted if you could prove me wrong and if your protection for protection was because of otherwise Ceoil ( talk) 02:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
The user Gaudi9223 has been abusing the minor edit check box. They've been using it for edits that are not minor edits. I left a message on their talk page telling them that. I just wanted to let you know so that you could perhaps keep an eye on them. - TrynaMakeADollar ( talk) 06:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi El C, regarding this block, please see 210.242.153.202 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I already warned user and IP, and reverted the last edit. Cheers - DVdm ( talk) 09:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi El C, could you help me in this discussion: Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring? Actually, im the first who reported about that case, but it seems like my report has been archived. Since there is no administrators joined in that discussion, i hope you can give your opinion about that case. Thank you. Stvbastian ( talk) 15:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Was digging through general sanctions procedures, and remembered that what I knew to be true for ARBCOM-authorized sanctions is also trye, to the best of my knowledge, for community-authorized DS blocks; they are limited to a year. I don't think any of the indefinite blocks we've placed are a problem, but they would convert to regular admin actions after a year, unless I'm much mistaken... Sandstein, you're likely the most experienced in this area; can you help clarify whether the 1-year limitation on DS blocks applies to community-authorized DS regimes too? Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi! You added 500/30 protection to the article about Richard Stallman when there was a controversy in the news about him. I think that this protection is no longer necessarily and could be removed, or at least be reduced to semi-protection because he stepped down from his positions as FSF president and visiting scientist at MIT. Dwaro ( talk) 20:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi El C, could you perhaps also restore the talk page of the article? -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 01:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to see you overturned this. The DRV discussion I thought was exceptionally poor with many !keep voters from the AfD commentating and other overturn voters not explicitly commenting on the deletion rationale. A difficult discussion to close so I also appreciate you closing it, but I just wanted to drop a note and say I don't think the right result was achieved here on a purely technical level (I have no interest in the topic.) SportingFlyer T· C 02:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Any chance you'd look at the last edit on my talk and at Jamesville-DeWitt High School and toss a couple obvious VOA blocks? Thanks. Trying my best to keep my patience. John from Idegon ( talk) 03:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
The page has become a quiet backwater. I've added the website link local health authority to the infobox, so people will at least know what the correct source is. KittenKlub ( talk) 13:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I interpreted their removal of your warning, like the others, as equivalent to a middle finger. They ignored the others and I figured they planned to do the same. I'm sorry if you felt I undermined your approach.--v/r - T P 17:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
In case this question isn't rhetorical, Anne is the apocryphal name for Jesus's maternal grandmother (i.e. Mary's mother). Because she's mentioned in the Koran but not in the Bible, there's always been a weird kind of rivalry between Islam and the varieties of Christianity that practice Mariolatry, as the Christians feel she ought to be important but there's not much written about her in non-Islamic sources. We have a very poor quality article about her at Saint Anne, which I assume the crank is objecting to. ‑ Iridescent 20:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for closing the ANI case RE:Carmaker1. One thing i think was missed was that Carmaker1 has repeated their moaning about a trivial mention of "American hicks" waaaaaay back in 2017. They brought it up on their talk page and at Arbcom and again at ANI. They seem to think there is a "long held grudge" over this "hick" alleged slur. Somebody, please, explain to Carmaker1:
Everything I'm saying is extremely obvious. I think that's why nobody has condescended to set Carmaker1 straight. I don't have any grudge over this "hick Americans" thing. It's less than nothing.
I have numerous motor vehicle articles on my watchlist. My watchlist regularly erupts with drama over Carmaker1's inability to refrain from attacking other editors when they mistakenly get the model year date of a car wrong by 1 year. That's the deal. I am one of many editors in the motor vehicle topic space who have brought complaints against them for incivility. There's no grudge. We only want them to stop making personal attacks, and there's mountains of evidence that they never, ever will. Carmaker1 has elaborated in detail all the reasons why they will never submit to Wikipedia's norms of conduct. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 01:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
At least EEng will finally learn to never, ever pun. Not even once. Look what happens. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 02:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I have no problem with staying off Carmaker1's talk page.That commitment was all that was needed, Dennis Bratland, to resolve this matter, at least in so far as our immediate purposes go. El_C 02:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
EEng will finally learn to never, ever pun– You spoke too soon, I'm afraid. [9] E Eng 02:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Let's Talk About Sects. Then TonyBallioni mentioned something about the
lay faithful, so I came along and ... well, lay – get it? Admittedly it's a bit involved. E Eng 02:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Originally posted by Carmaker1 on their talk page:
In spite of several community decisions clearly expressing what behavior is forbidden, Carmaker1 displays a very poor understanding of the WP:OWN policy, finding several ways of incorrectly claiming that this or that editor is forbidden from editing this or that article, or commenting on this or that talk page. Carmaker1 does not accept the basic premise that Wikipedia is a collaborative project open to all, including WP:Randy in Boise.
Now they have taken to deleting my posts, violating WP:TPO. Everything I'm saying is consistent wit the most recent ANI complaint about Carmaker1, and the Arbcom complaint, and the last 2 or 3 previous ANI complaints, all by different editors, as well as the last ANI complaint I initiated back in 2017. It's the same behavior as ever, which they promised several times to quit.
Carmaker1 couldn't even go one day after the last Arbcom case to resume attacking others. If they could simply refrain from characterizing other editors and their motives, focusing only on content, none of this drama would be happening. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 23:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm repeating myself here, but I'm also repeating what TomStar81 said motivated them to close an ANI complaint and move it to ArbCom. For whatever reasons, the community has been inexplicably incapable of dealing with Carmaker1's pattern of abuse of other editors. My lack of faith in the system in this case isn't something I dreamed up one day. It's something others have noticed too. It shouldn't come as too much of a surprise that I wasn't confident merely reporting it would get me anywhere.
I'm not the only one who thinks it's implied when banning others from one's talk page that you cannot proceed to use your talk page to post diatribes against them. It's a basic principle of fairness to be able to answer accusations in the same venue in which the accusations were made. Nobody should expect a user talk page ban to be enforced if they proceed to talk about the person they ostensibly wanted no contact with. That is in fact where one should turn to ANI or other forums for help. The one place they should not post accusations is the place where the accused is banned from replying.
Since not everyone seems to recognized this principle, I think a proposal is needed to spell this out explicitly at WP:TALK. Maybe I'll take that up lather when all this has cooled down.
In this case, when I hit upon the idea of moving the thread to the obvious place it belonged, your talk page, and posted my reply there, I was satisfied.
I would suggest that in the future if you warn someone off a user's talk page, you could save everyone some drama if you warned the talk page owner to limit their mentions of the banned editor, since I'm hardly the only one who would react this way. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 22:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Dennis Bratland, fair enough. But from your comments at ANI, I get the impression that you still don't seem to have taken on board that two wrongs don't make a right. Which is, basically, what I said in response there. Anyway, at this point maybe a jointly agreed-upon IBAN (including refraining from mentioning of one another) for a few months will be useful. El_C 18:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't know why you're suggesting an iban now. What exactly is that a solution to? My original issue with Carmaker1 -- misleading and provocative edit summaries and talk page comments, which I felt needed to be debunked, led to them making multiple unsuccessful ANI complaints against me for what they think Wikihounding is. The problem I perceived of Carmaker1 abusing their talk page ban has been resolved now that, after the whole drama there, Carmaker1 has received an admin warning not to criticize me on their talk page. Problem solved.
The larger issue of Carmaker1's attacks, ongoing for years, on every single person who has ever edited the same automotive content they are editing (correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure they have insulted and bullied 100% of the editors who have touched the same car articles in proximity to their edits) has now received significantly more attention. While the last 3 or 4 ANI complaints against them went nowhere, I don't believe they will continue to get away with their incivility. The whole conflict of interest thing is a whole other ball of wax, which stands a good chance of forcing Carmaker1 finally cease berating anybody who dares to edit an automobile related article (again, I'm open to examples of times when they have not done so).
So I'd ask you to take it from the top, and begin at the beginning: what is your objective? What current unresolved problem are you now fixing? Is there even an open case in front of you now requiring action? I thought the last ANI complaint was wrapped up. I think you handled all of it just fine, even if you and I have slightly different judgements an a few finer points. Could be my opinions on those points is wrong. I've been wrong before. I'll be wrong again about something else in the future, no doubt. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 22:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi El C, it's been awhile, hope all is in order and you're well in this trying time. I'm here to ask for your stewardship on Talk:Religion in Albania. You may recall the long edit war and talk page fight that ensued after the version stable from October to February October February was changed. I cannot blame you if you disengaged from that matter, I wish I could as it has been quite unpleasant. Since your absence, an RfC was opened about whether the census figure should be allowed in the lede. Although it has not concluded, a second RfC has been open about which picture should be in the lede, without any option for a census pic (and apparently implying there can only be one, rather than a panel as has been discussed). This would appear to confuse the matter of the already ongoing RfC. Can something be done about it? Cheers, -- Calthinus ( talk) 16:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, can you reduce Giant mouse lemur's protection. It was yesterday's TFA, so vandalism is unlikely to repeat. Regards. © Tbhotch ™ ( en-3). 19:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Generally speaking, we only need one warning for a specific subject. Refer to the discussion above your post and do say which part of your section wasn't already covered. Augend ( drop a line) 21:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
... are you saying that in future if someone adds a reliable source about a BLP matter and keeps the unreliable source, and then someone decides to remove the reliable source and keep the unreliable source, you will be fine with this? - Chris.sherlock ( talk) 00:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your to Martial law. I do not know why you do not show up in blue on Huggle :\ A a s i m 05:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mobile Jewish: Exterminated to Chamber. Since you had some involvement with the Mobile Jewish: Exterminated to Chamber redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hb1290 ( talk) 05:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
please do not revert because 170 visa excemption is correct
Hi!
I found this file on ko.wiki ko:File:Noapartheid.jpg.
That file links to Commons:File:ApartheidSignEnglishAfrikaans.jpg.
That file links to File:Aprt.jpg on enwiki.
That file was deleted because it had no source.
However it also mention a permission from the photographer that leads here.
That is an edit you made in January 2005.
The link is ofcourse no longer active User_talk:Dewet#Here_you_go.
But if we go to the archive User_talk:Dewet/Archive_1#Here_you_go we find it.
There is a link to File:Apartheid sign.JPG.
That file is deleted because it is also on Commons.
The current file on Commons is Commons:File:Apartheid sign.jpg (with small letters) and that is from 2012.
If you force Commons to pick capital JPG you get Commons:File:Apartheid sign.JPG.
That was also deleted because it had no source.
So my question is if you can remember the photo and if you were the photographer. If yes I think we should get it undeleted because it is historical signs. So I hope you made it all the way down here. -- MGA73 ( talk) 14:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I realize you're not a fan of the 24hr BRD rule, so I wanted to ask if you would object to me modifying the above template to include the BRD sanction. If nothing else, I'd like the sanction to be consistent with the existing sanctions on Joe Biden and the new Joe Biden sexual assault allegation page, as well as with the template that's already on Talk:Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign (not sure whether that was intentional or just a copy-paste from Talk:Joe Biden). ~ Awilley ( talk) 19:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
1RR is now in effect (enforceable). If you find it is still not enough, there are enhancements that can be applied further toward the article's stability — but let's hope we don't need em.So, I object to the general notion of adding these enhancements preemptively or as part of a series. I don't believe doing so represents the prevailing consensus. El_C 19:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi El_C, you're more experienced with arbitration enforcement than I am, and I wanted to get your opinion on what to do about this situation. I was hopeful that my previous warning would have kept them from escalating, but they seem to still be goading each other on. I feel like a two-way IBAN would help improve the editing environment, but I'd appreciate a second opinion. The last thing I want to do is to let this drag on, so if you have ideas on what would work best here I would appreciate the input! — Wug· a·po·des 00:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
your sanctionsto to SPECIFICO, is a bit odd, because SPECIFICO is not under sanctions. It's a bit more nuanced. They have received a logged warning recently ( Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive264#SPECIFICO) to focus on content. If you find that SPECIFICO failed in that, then maybe sanctions are due. I don't really have an opinion about an IBAN (I am unfamiliar with the history between the two editors, in any case). If you feel that that is the best course of action, then I encourage you to apply it. From what I'm seeing at a glance, both editors are skirting the line, anyway, so perhaps that solution, while not the most elegant (the content dispute does go on, after all), may indeed hit the spot. Hope this helps! El_C 00:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
219.74.51.200 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) You had blocked them for making the same edits in January: [16] [17], and now doing the exact same [18], [19]. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 13:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi El C, I just made this edit [20] at our page about misinformation on COVID19, and wanted to run it past you. I'm not wholly sure if we treat anti-Israeli bias or sentiment as more or less the same as anti-semitic bias or sentiment, or not. All examples given in the section check out in the references, but some appear to be about the longstanding Iran-Israel rivalry, whereas others specifically pertain to antisemitism. - Darouet ( talk) 14:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Could you semi-protect my userpage? I don't want to see socks or meats on my page again. Puduḫepa 22:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
El C, it looks like you've already blocked this IP once for PA's – based on their recent behavior at my Talk page and Talk:Katherine McNamara, it doesn't look to me like they've learned their lesson. Just so you're aware... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 05:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi El C, Could you please advise me if adding evidence here [21] would violate my topic ban [22]? GizzyCatBella 🍁 04:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Can you explain to me how it would violate said topic ban? I actually thought it would not, as I thought there is an exception in content-topic bans for dispute resolution and administrative processes. I have trouble drawing the line between the intention of this topic ban and why it would prevent the user from adding evidence against to a SPI. I don't think the intention of this topic ban was to prevent the editor from helping identify and catch socks of an indef banned user? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
For your quick revdel! I placed an email to the Oversight team, but it looks like you beat everyone to it. Thank you! — MelbourneStar☆ talk 14:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC) |
Hey El_C, I’m trying hard to keep perspective but I have PTSD and it’s doing my head in. People are treating me like a joke and I genuinely am spiralling out of control. I’m not quite sure what to do. My head is a mess. - Chris.sherlock ( talk) 17:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Judging by this, I think the full-protection was intentional. Also see the talk page, and all the requests I just removed. – bradv 🍁 03:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi El C. If you have the time, could you please check the coordinated attempts of Ktrimi and Resnjari to suppress maintenance tags on the article Reaction in Greece to the Yugoslav Wars ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). These two accounts gave me edit-warring messages on my talkpage withing one minute of each other. This is blatant tagteaming and coordinated edit-warring harassment. I placed the tags in the article in an attempt to pinpoint the specific problems in the exact sentences and it took me a long time and lots of work to do that. These accounts are reverting my tags and harassing me in a coordinated fashion. I request your assistance. Thank you. Dr. K. 13:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
If you are dense and don't understand what people are telling you it's not your fault, but don't presume to provide garbage advice to competent editors.How are other editors expected to engage with this kind of rapport? Resnjari ( talk) 13:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I want to be on the record that i did not misrepresent comments. I kindly made a suggestion for book to be read which was relevant to the topic and RS. I also said its up to you if you do want read it
[24]. Your response was this:
[25], and was made more apparent here
[26] As far as the Greek stance during the Yugo wars, it is a subject that leaves me cold. I couldn't care less about it. But I do care about COATRACKS and their use in advancing POV and propaganda.
How can an editor work with this? The claim is disinterest, but actions show deep interest. Now about books, i outlined to the editor that at the moment there is difficulty in getting academic books from university libraries
[27],
[28]due to the covid lockdown in Melbourne. As there was some misunderstanding on the editor's part about my intention over academic resources, i answered a question asked of me about my current situation. I replied i was doing things at home during the lockdown
[29]. Then the reply given to me, in lieu of something i said to another editor
[30]about the talkpage situation turning into a jungle was
[31] Trolling or not, I found the part about the renovations quite hilarious. This guy's got talent. On the other hand, if I hear again about the closed library and the books, I'll buy him a one-way ticket to the jungle where he can enjoy the books without bothering anyone.
. And then much later, there was this
[32] OK, we got it. You are the official jungle greeter. I suggest you try becoming a Walmart greeter instead. You'll have a much brighter future.
Followed on by that last comment made to me that I highlighted in my previous post here. I mean, this kind of commentary in the talkpage does not address the topic. I hope there is nothing personal toward me. In all my comments i tried to make it about the topic, except about home renovations, i tried to break the ice after i was asked what i was doing. Hence my skepticism and reverts, when the deluge of tags were placed in the article, following all these exchanges. I expect this from a newbie or individuals who are not here to contribute to an encyclopedia, not someone like Dr.K. If positions were reversed and I said these things to the editor, would a warning or immediate sanction by an admin be in order for me lickity split, without a moment to explain. I do wonder. I'm just saying it’s very disappointing, that whatever this is, was resorted too as a form of rapport.
Resnjari (
talk)
15:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Maleschreiber, your now starting to figure out how real wikipedia on Balkan topics works with a few certain editors. Welcome to the jungle newbie.is a base personal attack by innuendo against editors you disagree with, including me. I took your jungle reference and tried to make light of it to diffuse the tension you created. Yet, you come here and act offended by my replies to your original jungle comment. Please clean up your act. Dr. K. 20:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
:Passing the time, makes one do many things. I have been to an actual jungle in the past. Its an interesting place, hence my use as a metaphor for here. Quite apt. If books and libraries offend you, your loss. Making Wikipedia a better place requires those tools, not intransigence or being unconstructive. Resnjari ( talk) 06:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Here, casting absurd WP:ASPERSIONS that books and libraries offend me and that I am being intransigent and unconstructive for not acquiescing to your POV, in total defiance to what I actually wrote on talk. How long do you think one has to suffer these obtuse comments before calling you out on it? Dr. K. 22:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
For example on academic literature, it was repeatedly dismissed on your part, outright at times.I expect you to provide diffs where you show that I repeatedly dismissed academic literature, and the times (provide diffs) that I did it "outright". If you don't provide diffs, you should retract your outright falsehoods. Dr. K. 15:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
The talk page should explain, to those unfamiliar with any of the sides in the argument, what the sides are and try to point to some neutral language that all sides might agree on.. Now, since you added the tag, can you tell me where on the talk page have the issues been listed, and where how they can be solved is explained? Ktrimi991 ( talk) 13:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public. There is no reliable source provided that gives another point of view on what the article currently says. If anyone find such RS, they are free to add content based on it to the article. Also, why so many tags while there is a WP:Tagbombing? Ktrimi991 ( talk) 15:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Since you are not following a policy verbatim but are interpreting one, tell me which one is that policy. Why do not you respect what the page of the template itself says? Ktrimi991 ( talk) 15:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Even though I am familiar with Church-related articles, I used to refrain from editing this one due to the large number of POV issues I have found in it, which require time and input to resolve. However I can't help but express my disappointment with the attitude certain editors have here against Dr. K., a highly respected member of our community who is well known for his neutrality and objective approach to the issues (and who does this job for much longer than many of us did). I agree with Admin El_C that the POV Tags must remain until the related POV issues are resolved. IMO, the article is in need for serious WP:NEUTRALITY improvements and only once the content is in line with Wikipedia's NPOV rules, the POV tags may be removed. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi. A dynamic IP recently edited in the article of Venezuelan scientist María-Esther Vidal, removing references and adding unreferenced content. I reverted said edit because of these reasons, but it appears that a recently created account reverted the content back, without explanation. From what I gather, I can't revert because of the 0R restriction and because the edit is not obvious vandalism. I also left a notification warning that the content did not have references, again without response. How could this be solved? -- Jamez42 ( talk) 14:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
They're the same I think Bumbubookworm ( talk) 20:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
El C, please forgive me for approaching you, but since you edited the David Icke page earlier today, you no doubt understand the context better than any other administrator I could ask for guidance.
New tweets from England question the recent editing of this BLP by Philip Cross, who is indefinitely topic banned from post-1978 British politics, broadly construed. The person on Twitter alleges that Cross breached ARBCOM's topic ban by editing the 5G and Covid-19 subsection of Icke's page. Their accusation is that this relates to post-1978 British politics, broadly construed, because:
I apologize for bothering you with something that stems from Twitter, but I have been concerned for some time about the bashing that Wikipedia takes on social media, usually unfairly. It would ease my mind to better understand this particular criticism. I will not engage in any off-wiki communication with these people, but perhaps your clarification might find its way to them without my help. They seem to watch anything related to Mr. Cross quite closely. NedFausa ( talk) 22:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Vanamonde ( Talk) 01:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
There has been a concerted attack on Lebanese politicians - I see you have already protected Michel Aoun, but there are 6 more waiting at WP:RPP and probably others I haven't spotted. Could I ask if you are willing to "jump the queue" and deal with these, as the attacks are getting very tiresome - thanks - Arjayay ( talk) 19:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
When you recently fully protected the article Kim Jong-un you didn't appear to remove the already existing pending changes protection. Could you fix that if possible? According to the article history there's still pending changes.
Chess
(talk) (please use {{
ping|Chess}}
on reply)
00:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Is this [ [33]] a correct interpretation of your recent partial block of Александр Мотин? Slatersteven ( talk) 12:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Biainili ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hi El C. You recently blocked this user for a week for persistent disruptive editing and personal attacks. [34] As soon as his block ended, today, he resumed his disruptive editorial pattern:
Looking at the compelling evidence, this user is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon ( talk) 13:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Answer: LouisAragon, HistoryofIran are actively trying to remove any Armenian reference from Ancient History related Wikipedia pages, those 5 "reliable sources" you are talking about:
These are not 5 WP:RS sources, HistoryofIran posts random sources all the time, without actually reading them carefully.
Page: Ptolemaeus_of_Commagene
" Ptolemaeus' father was King Orontes IV of Armenia, son of Arsames I."
Arsames I (Armenian: Արշամ) seems to have taken control of Commagene, Sophene and Armenia in the year 260 BC after the death of his grandfather Orontes III, king of Armenia, and his father Sames, king of Commagene.
Page: Sames_I
Samos[1][2] or Sames (Armenian: Շամուշ, Greek: Σάμος) was satrap of Commagene, Armenian king of Commagene and Sophene.[1][3]
References
Wayne G. Sayles, "Ancient Coin Collecting VI: Non-Classical Cultures", Krause Publications, 1999, ISBN 0-87341-753-4, p. 29
Michael Blömer / Religious Life of Commagene in the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Period pp.95-129/The Letter of Mara bar Sarapion in Context. Proceedings of the Symposium Held at Utrecht University, 10–12 December 2009 /BRILL 2012
In doing so, Samosata, the Commagenian capital and hometown of Mara bar Sarapion, would suit best as the prime object of investigation. The place was one of the most important sites along the Upper Euphrates. It offered an easy crossing of the river and was occupied since Chalcolithic times. It is named Kummuḫ in Iron Age sources and was the centre of an eponymous independent Syro-Hittite kingdom from the 12th to the 8th century BCE. The Assyrian king Sargon II conquered Kummuḫ in 708 BCE, but it remained an important provincial town during late Iron Age. In Hellenistic times it was capital of the kingdom of Commagene. The city was renamed Samosata by a predecessor of the Commagenian royal family, the Armenian king Samos I, in the 3rd century BCE. After the Roman occupation in CE 72, Samosata prospered as a major commercial, cultural and military centre of the Roman province of Syria.
M. J. Versluys/ Visual Style and Constructing Identity in the Hellenistic World: Nemrud Dag and Commagene under Antiochos I/Cambridge University Press, 2017 г.—pp.48 (312) ISBN 1107141974, 9781107141971
We know nothing about the status of Commagene under Seleucid rule. The Armenian king Samos I is believed to have founded Samosata, later the capital of Commagene, in the middle of the third century BC. The second century BC saw the rise of the two powers that would play an important role in Commagene's future during the next centuries: Rome and Parthia. Their growing prominence, combined with the failing of the central Seleucid power, resulted in the rise of several small monarchies, of which Commagene was one. Other independent kingdoms that came into being around this time include Pergamon, Pontos, Baktria, Parthia, Armenia, Iudea and Nabatea. Diodorus tells us that a Seleucid epistates named Ptolemy rose to power in Commagene in 163 BC. Most scholars assume that Ptolemy was the first Commagenean king and that he descended from the Armenian Orontids. We know virtually nothing about the following decades. Samos II took power around 130 BC, as is concluded from some coins that have been preserved, showing a portrait with the inscription “king Samos.”
See: Talk:Ptolemaeus_of_Commagene
[40]
Chahin, Mack (2001). The Kingdom of Armenia. Caucasus World. Routledge. pp. 190, 191. ISBN 978-0700714520.
Samus,Arsames,Xerxes(c.260-.212BC)
The connection between these Armenian Orontid kings and Commagene evidently very close. So much so that Armenia might well occupied part of that extensive principality. This theory is supported by presence of two large cities in Commagene, Samosata an Arsameia, built respectively by two successive Armenian kings. Furthermore, it was Ptolemaeus, the grandson of Arsames, and perhaps the nephew of Xerxes, who founded the royal dynasty of Commagene(c. 163BC). -- Biainili ( talk) 14:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Good morning! You just blocked User:Александр Мотин from editing Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 for disruption, as per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_Boomerang_block. Since then he has carried on being disruptive on Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Was it your intention to block him from the talk page also or not? - Ahunt ( talk) 14:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I noticed that the article is currently protected so only admins can edit it, but I haven't seen a moment where it wasn't extended confirmed protected? Were there extended confirmed users who vandalized the article because if there weren't, I'm asking that you reduce the protection level to ECP (Note: I do not have plans to edit the article though). OcelotCreeper ( talk) 15:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
There seems to be a massive edit war here Socialist Republic of Croatia, and on several other articles, by the same 2 users. ty Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Is there something on wikipedia that tells you what articles a template appears in? OcelotCreeper ( talk) 21:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I apologise for framing the enforcement request in such a way that it might have been constituted as personal attack. It just seemed so quick and obvious, I should have phrased better. I will certainly avoid stating any such possible events in future as matter of fact rather than possibility(please do keep in mind that English is not my first language so sometimes I come across more direct/rude than perhaps native English speakers are used to).-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 21:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your help on Neil Gorsuch. Have you taken a look at the page's protection history? The page has been consistently vandalized despite multiple protections for more than a year. The previous protection was six months. Shouldn't the page be indefinitely semi-protected? Putwood ( talk) 22:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi El C. Please see
this comment by N.Hoxha: I am extremely saddened to see that user Dr.K would consider the inclusion of the content about the murder of multiple innocent persons to be of equal importance as that of a poorly made banner.
. N.Hoxha refers
to this edit by Khirurg which, by the way, refers to altercations, and not any murders whatsoever in Athens, after Katsifas's killing. My response dealt with adding pieces about the events in Athens and Albania where football fans celebrated the killing of Katsifas. As you know, this is a very contested area of the wiki. It is one thing to have to deal with POV edits and quite another to have editors like N.Hoxha to make up stories about you that you disregard non-existent murders. This is a vile personal attack and equally vile
WP:ASPERSION. I would appreciate your advice on this. Thank you.
Dr.
K.
04:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I would rather not have the discussion split between two venues. But feel free to refactor.
El_C
11:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
|
---|
Hi again El C. Another partisan has descended on N.Hoxha's talk and is using my userpage identifiers to attack me and also misrepresents my comments to Calthinus. He is also pinging me to make sure I read his attacks. This is getting out of control. I request your assistance from these unbelievable partisan attacks. I would like all references to my possible origin based on my userpage identifiers be removed from the partisan attack. Thank you again and sorry for imposing again. Dr. K. 07:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
|
Persistent vandalism – Heavy IP edit disruption due to a recent incident. Placed a WP:RFPP but there is a backlog, and the disruption is going on. Thank you. Amkgp ( talk) 05:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Can you take a look at the Gorani article? [42] I have now asked for clarification for their edits but academic references keep getting removed for an author that has been discussed at RS and deprecated. [43] I'm waiting for admins' decision on protection, but there is a long queue. Also '46.106.92.92' and 'Benahol' edits on many articles are very similar and I believe it's some sort of meatpuppetry. -- Semsûrî ( talk) 11:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
We messaging with him about this. Sources were added by adding resources. Semsûrî urgently wants to cooperate with kurdish You can check the Turkish version. Wants the matter to lock up as he wants. As he did in gorani . This is fascism. wants to use you Benahol ( talk) 20:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
There were zazas that called themselves Turkish and kurdish in history, but this is not the case today. According to the Konda survey company, about 1.5 million people have identified themselves as Zaza. Resources that evaluate the people of Zaza in Turkish and Kurdish have already been added. Benahol ( talk) 21:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Benahol blocked for 72 hours for engaging in egregious personal attacks. El_C 21:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I added it to the discussion page. Semsûrî deleted a lot of data he did not want from the pages. (see Zaza nationalism as an example) (Kurdish nationalist views kept on the page and deleted most of the other views) Benahol ( talk) 22:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
The editor has returned after their seven days block and continues where they left off by just adding all information found online to make their point. The edits include own translation used as quote and maps with no reference. And you see this small and canny change of wording here [46]? Well, that's a good old POV-push. This is getting ridiculous and the quality of these articles have worsened. -- Semsûrî ( talk) 11:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
please block me indefinitely. I understand you are disturbed by the information I added ( Semsûrî ) I'm tired of dealing with you Benahol ( talk) 11:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Professor Dr. Ludwig Paul and Frankfurt Zaza Language Institute divides Zaza Language into three main dialects. In addition, there are transitions and edge accents that have a special position and cannot be fully included in any dialect group. [1] [2] (resources for map) and (Also, the maps saved on Wikipedia, I did not prepare myself) Benahol ( talk) 11:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Semsûrî I do not find you sincere There are dozens of non-cited maps on Kurdish pages. Would you delete them too. Also, the maps saved on Wikipedia, I did not prepare myself. And the sources I added match the map. Benahol ( talk) 12:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
References
Most maps and images added to Wikipedia; it is examined and reliable. Because it is compatible with information.. Benahol ( talk) 12:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Can you help. There is a section called reference. I could not fix it. (Thanks.) [47] Benahol ( talk) 19:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Please provide a Indefinite pending changes protection because of persistent disruptive editing like adding non-sense text, removal profile picture etc. Thank you. Amkgp ( talk) 18:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, do you remember my request for the indefinitive protection for List of most-viewed YouTube videos? Can you protect also List of most-liked YouTube videos? In this page we have the same problem, after the end of the one year protection vandalism restart again, can you protect the page please? Like the others YouTube's list-- Luke Stark 96 ( talk) 21:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello El C,
Can you please delete the empty category Category:Mahatma_Gandhi_Central_University? Thanks. A a s i m 01:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
On Northern Epirus one of the sub-issues which led me to add the POV tag is the fact that I had added the electoral results of the two minority parties in the local elections of 2015 but they were removed. I then started a new section on the talkpage about why they were removed and the replies I got are that what I added misrepresents X, Y, Z, topics. I've asked many times on the talkpage why and how what I added and was reverted is related to X, Y, Z topics by fully quoting the reverted edit and explaining that they - IMO - obviously are not related but every time IMO my questions are not replied at all and I just get the remark "you are still OR" and my tag is being explained away as "Tag playing isn't an argument". As I did with the Katsifas case I eventually resorted to noticeboard procedures to get community input and it was really helpful, but before going to another such procedure I would like some outside feedback because at the moment I'm very confused because I feel that I've overexplained myself and asked the same question 3-4 times with same full quote without getting similar feedback.-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 15:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello El C, I saw your inputs and debate on [48] It seems to me that nothing has changed....
I edited first article in accordance with reliable sources and on talk page "Eparchy of Marča" I talked about information which is frogery and exist in the article for which Serbian academician Sima Ćirković says that is false information, I cannot delete this information from the article even though it is a forgery and because you don't want this. This is frogery I quote: "A letter of King Matthias from 12 January 1483 mentions that 200,000 Serbs had settled the Hungarian kingdom(Slavonia Croatia) in the last four years". Information is in the article "Serbs of Croatia", "Rascians" and this article "Eparchy of Marča". The original information is I quote: "Matthias Corvinus complained in a letter from 1462 that 200,000 peoples during previous three years had been taken from his country by Turks" (Serbian academician Sima Ćirković).
10 RS presented in the article saying that Svetozar Boroević is Croatian and he declared himself as Croatian, I don't know what's here fringe viewpoints?
Thanking you for speaking my mind better than I could at WP:Great Dismal Swamp, while I slept. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking 175.193.218.8 ( talk · contribs), I trust that you noticed the fake warnings with forged sig e.g. [70]. Dl2000 ( talk) 14:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
See particularly this edit to User talk:Biainili and the messages it restored.
It is generally understood that users are not supposed to be engaging in substantive editing while blocked. This conduct on the talk page feels to me like an attempt to solicit proxy editing while this user is blocked. What's your take on it? Do you agree that it's an attempt at an end run around the block? Or do you think that if they're engaging constructively with at least one editor, it's a start? (For the record, I do not feel like the other editor is necessarily at fault here, if they're editing in good faith and using independent judgment about the merits of the edits.)
As blocking admin, I'd like your take on the matter first. My next stop would be WP:ANI to discuss extension of the block, revocation of talk page access, and/or a topic ban. — C.Fred ( talk) 14:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi El C, per your comment [71], I read CLOSECHALLENGE, which I guess in this case I have already done and you declined. Could you help me understand this for future reference? I am convinced that an article like Ain Jalut is supposed to be captured by ARBPIA, but I accept that that is open to interpretation. I spent some time looking around the old arbitration pages for some discussion which may reflect consensus on how the phrase "Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted" is intended to be interpreted, but I could not find anything? Onceinawhile ( talk) 09:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
It has long been usual to consider that former Arab villages which were depopulated during Zionist settlement in Palestine are included in ARBPIA. That this description applies to Ein Jalud is not obvious at the moment, since the article text does not currently mention it. However, it is true and will be added with a source. There were 9 families living here until one of the Zionist land companies purchased it from its absentee owners in the late 19th century. In my opinion that makes ARBPIA inclusion clear. Zero talk 10:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment I think Onceinawhile revealed his motives to create the WP:POVFORK article by arguing about the topic area he really wanted to push the Arabic name while hiding the Hebrew one.As he admits himself that it about names [72] -- Shrike ( talk) 10:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration#Is_Ain_Jalut_relevant_to_Wikiproject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration?. Onceinawhile ( talk) 11:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Having read the article itself, I still think the connection to ARBPIA seems tenuous at best. But feel free to bring it up at AE (but not AN/ANI — ARBPIA spilling over to those noticeboards is generally a bad idea), I have no objection to the matter being re-opened there and I take the possibility that I was wrong with my assessment into account. El_C 12:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
A few days later and a lot has happened, much of it not to my credit. Suffice to say that I overlooked the Jewish purchase of land at Ain Jalut in relation to the local inhabitants. Among other things, I have
amended my ANI close to read the opposite of what it did: not related. I've also covered the article under ARBPIA "related content," including removing the outdated "
original author" provision. I've also blocked Levivich. Then —incorrectly— unblocked him. In any case, not my proudest moment. I'll strive to do better.
El_C
03:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello EI_C, I'm busy with grandchildren for another few hours, please give me some time to respond to your concerns here [73]. I'll do it as soon as I get back home. GizzyCatBella 🍁 18:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I've seen you dealing with the doubt changes recently pls protect Voyager of the Seas, and the other article that have been massively been changed into false claim. MoralesKapitan ( talk) 10:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Just a quick question: Are editors allowed to use different usernames to access different wiki projects (project in different languages)? If not, is there a global SPI board where such users can be reported? Thanks. M.Bitton ( talk) 23:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks -- Gau Choob ( talk) 17:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi El C, for the edit request could you add the link for the article titled "2020 coronavirus pandemic in Quebec" because the QC link is missing and it was already created Go to "Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Canada medical cases" At QC please add both links at QC to include "2020 coronavirus pandemic in Quebec" as an edit request. Thanks. 2001:569:74D2:A800:C955:CE75:3DDA:DC2A ( talk) 23:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
At location someone has created the article titled "2020 coronavirus pandemic in New Brunswick" and it was missing under "Locations". Under Canada could you add "New Brunswick" to include the article titled "2020 coronavirus pandemic in New Brunswick" under Canada at "Locations" and put it in alphabetical order. This is another edit request. Thanks. 2001:569:74D2:A800:C955:CE75:3DDA:DC2A ( talk) 23:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Greetings | |
~ Going to San Diego anytime soon? ~ ~mitch~ ( talk) 16:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC) |
Nope, but I do have fond memories from my visit there in the 90s. El_C 17:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
There has been some discussion about Minjung party's political spectrum and ideology. During the discussion there has been some dispute about whether the sources are against WP policy. Can you join the disscussion and advice me and other editors about this issue? I think your advice can help to make progress on this issue. Thank you for reading. Jeff6045 ( talk) 23:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not intending to push POV, but the coronavirus crisis has been highly bounded to the politics. (At least, US and China politics) Should we use saction to keep an eyes with the persons (Such as Li Wenliang, Chen Qiushi) as well as other social-political articles related to the coronavirus crisis? Mariogoods ( talk) 23:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
The clarification request regarding the arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture has been closed and archived to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture#Clarification request: Acupuncture (March 2020).
For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi El C. Admin help is needed (quick, n simple task), you still around? —usernamekiran (talk) 06:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
El_C might you deliver the COVID DS alert at User talk:ChulaOne? Thanks, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Why did you remove the info that I added about people thinking the Indian government has the cure for the coronavirus and thinking staying at home cures it? It is sourced, it's placed below the paragraph on the page. Also, why did you revert the grammar corrections unrelated to that? I'm trying to help out too. If you can read that page, you can see that I'm debunking rumors about the coronavirus, not making up new ones. As previously mentioned, what I added is already on the page so I ask you to please revert the edits (or at least the grammar corrections I made)? Thanks in advance. -- 51.37.99.16 ( talk) 15:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, El C, I see you are the most active admin regarding this subject and I was wondering whether you thought it would be useful to post GS notices to the most active editors I see working on these articles (like we generally do with U.S. politics) or should we just notify editors that appear to be disrupting articles? I think most editors are unaware of the sanctions and I know I missed the discussion that set these up. I have all of the articles Watchlisted and the editing has been too rapid to check individual edits but I could inform editors who do the bulk of editing about the sanctions. Let me know what you think. Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
i literally just send him a message in her talk page. just like she did. what's wrong with that?-- 88.7.249.118 ( talk) 23:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi El C! I don't know who to contact about this edit here but the information in the edit can be harmful to others ~ can you help and remove the edit like you do when some gets vulgar and offensive? Thanks ~mitch~ ( talk) 10:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi El C. You handled a dispute I had with a user a month ago /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1030#Incivility_and_Hounding_by_User:ජපස. I was very sick at the time and not very lucid (you might have noticed https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=940991188&diff=prev) so I accept blame for not handling that scenario very efficiently and my first wikipedia ban in over 10 years (not by you).
I have encountered the same editor now and have tried to resolve in a civil manner another stupid dispute. I did my best to be WP:CIVIL but have just failed. Could you have a look here /info/en/?search=User_talk:ජපස#WP:BRD and give me some advice on how to avoid this kind of problems? Is it me?
Thanks and sorry to bother you again with such trivialities. Especially during this moment in time.
P.s. the last and only time I asked an admin for advice I was banned by that user. I never had such issues. Is asking for help/advice not appropriate in such cases? Thanks -- Gtoffoletto ( talk) 14:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
against the wind".and then added the new line
and according to the New York times "shows an object zooming over the ocean waves as pilots question what they are watching."(with ref). I cannot find a diff where "according to the New York Times" is within quotation marks as claimed. What am I missing? Schazjmd (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
A pilot refers to a fleet of objects, but no imagery of a fleet was released. The second video was taken a few weeks later— you removed the quote marks from that and rearranged the sentence. Please be more careful with modifying passages that are quoted. El_C 23:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
A pilot refers to "a fleet of objects", but no imagery of a fleet was released.was not a quote), and ජපස removed the ending quote marks after wind, which was incorrect. Gtoffoletto restored the missing quote marks in the same edit as adding shows an object.... Whew, nice to have that straightened out! I couldn't figure out where folks were seeing the problem. Thanks, El C. Schazjmd (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Since I am now 100% sure of my sanity thanks to User:Schazjmd finally taking the time to read could you please comment on the civility displayed by the user? The underlying dispute should be irrelevant to that aspect. Advice? Thanks -- Gtoffoletto ( talk) 02:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
pls semi-protect this article due to the popularity of this ship on Coronavirus, more unsourced edits will appear. 123.223.133.5 ( talk) 03:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi El C. Just a heads up, Khirurg has started an RfC about the disputed census. As the protection nears its expiry, could you please keep an eye on the article. Given that last time the edit-warring started about 15 minutes after unprotection, even with the RfC ongoing, I'm not very optimistic about the prospects of another edit-war not erupting soon after the upcoming unprotection. Thank you. Dr. K. 20:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I could not find the correct page to request this, so I am asking you directly, since you are the editor who put the semi-protect in place. Could I request that you shorten the semi-protect time at Candidates Tournament 2020? Many anonymous IPs (presumably chess enthusiasts who do not normally edit Wikipedia) have been editing the article. They have added many useful contributions (even creating a table), almost entirely in good faith. It is true that there has been a small edit war, but it has been on a minor point. A week of semi-protect locks out anon IP edits for most of the rest of the tournament. Even though some of these edits have been a frustration to me (you can see my edits in the history) [2], I think a week is excessive. Adpete ( talk) 02:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey El C. Please see WP:AN3#User:Scribatorian reported by User:Wow (Result: ). You did put a DS template on this article on 7 October, 2019 but this template doesn't appear to impose a 1RR. The Bill Clinton page *does* have the 1RR editnotice, but that meets only half of the requirement. Do we have to decline the 1RR complaint due to lack of {{ American politics AE}} on the talk page? Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 16:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
The general information page provides for the "hereditary monarchy" part. I thought it was non-necessary to enlist, but ok, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.140.255.103 ( talk) 08:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
@
El C: Please help me understand how
WP:1RR applies specifically to
2020 Delhi riots. Obviously when an edit summary begins,
as here with the words "Reverted edits by" or
as here with the words "Undid revision," that constitutes 1RR. However,
WP:3RR states: A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert.
Does that apply as well to a page where the 1RR restriction is in place? In other words, even at
2020 Delhi riots, an editor could perform a series of consecutively saved reverting edits without exceeding 1RR, provided there were no intervening edits by another user.
On a related point, I wonder about edits where, in contrast to the above, the edit summary does not begin with the words "Reverted edits by" or "Undid revision" yet the edit is nonetheless in effect a reversion. Restoring a previous version not from the View History tab, but by clicking Edit Source and inserting or removing text directly, then saving, will not show up in the page history as a reversion but may accomplish exactly what a readily identifiable reversion would do. NedFausa ( talk) 01:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Please add editnotice like this:
to the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United Kingdom article. Thanks
Hello, Can something be done about this edit summary by an IP [3]. Thanks!-- Ermenrich ( talk) 13:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
FYI. Since you have been heavily involved in guiding the editors at the page, please let me know if you have any objections or proposed modifications to my move. Pinging RegentsPark and Bradv too. Abecedare ( talk) 15:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I have moved Timeline of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in March 2020, which you protected indefinitely, to Chronology of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in March 2020 per a split discussion. Can you unprotect the redirect when you have the time, as it does not need protection any more. Danski454 ( talk) 23:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
there has been ongoing edits with lots of new people on Grandeur of the Seas and possibly also Ovation of the Seas with their unsourced edits on the ships, pls protect to avoid misleading info. thank you. 78.105.135.176 ( talk) 00:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Indefinite Extended-confirmed-protection required for Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data. It seems that protection is expired. Lot of vandalism has started. Thank you. Amkgp ( talk) 12:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
All the files that were originally uploaded by User:Guiding light and User:McChizzle were transferred by me to commons you can delete them now.-- Hippymoose17 ( talk) 18:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I've been noticing that there are many people (mainly IPs) changing the case number even though the official source doesn't confirm the change. May you watch the page for potential vandalism and semi-protect the article if nessecary? Username 6892 20:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Please look at his edit history and act quick. Thank you. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 20:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I just transfered an entire category to commons! So can you do a favor and delete the redundant images please? Thanks-- Hippymoose17 ( talk) 21:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi El C. Not a big deal, since the deletion was correct, but WP:CSD#F1 only applies to local duplicates. The criterion to use for enwp files duplicating a Commons file is WP:CSD#F8. Regards, FASTILY 01:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Do I have it wrong? I have been reading Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles as meaning non-confirmeds cannot create, viz "This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc." Selfstudier ( talk) 14:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
There is a lot of it going around. Eventually the mask slips. Thanks for getting those. Acroterion (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I shortened your 1-month block on 97.33.192.7 to 60 hours, since that IP is part of a cellphone network. Cellular IPs are almost always very rapidly reassigned (it's probably already reassigned now, to be honest), so the block will just end up hitting random users rather than the troll. Cheers! Reaper Eternal ( talk) 14:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you removed my report and it says make a standard report. The report is about someone repeatedly deleting my contributions on Young Sheldon without providing a reason. So I am asking a moderator to monitor the page Young Sheldon, since what the other user is removing does not improve the page. I thought it was on the right place. Where should I put the report then? Thanks, Bijdenhandje ( talk) 18:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Dear El C, I understand your decision. However, part of my edit about Urtica was based on a literature review, which is a secondary source, as far as I know. I also cited promising primary research, which seemed justified to me. Please note that the article about COVID-19 already mentions which drugs are being tested, although their usefulness in fighting off this virus hasn't been confirmed by secondary sources yet. This information encourages people to try using the drugs, too, which brings profits to the manufacturers. Unfortunately it's completely unprofitable to study common herbs and that is why less information is available about them. Because of unjustified bias against medicinal herbs, little attention is paid to their great potential. For centuries poor people have added the nutrient-rich stinging nettle to soups in early spring, and this has helped them to survive the difficult period. During the pandemic it's crucial to draw researchers' attention to promising medicinal herbs. Why don't we leave the information and simply add an explanation like "Primary research suggests that ... but confirmation is still needed"? I'm deeply convinced that stinging nettle could save much more lives than chemical drugs, thanks to its amazing nutritional and antiviral properties, indicated by the sources cited by me and probably also many other sources, too, but I do not have time to look for them (I have 6 children). Please consider searching for better sources yourself when new promising edits are not justified properly, instead of deleting the edits and imposing bans. Such an approach would be much more beneficial for the Wikipedia community and for all people suffering from COVID-19 (both directly and indirectly). Sylwia Ufnalska ( talk) 23:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Are you admin right?, there's a recent deaths and infection in the ship, pls protect Coral Princess as more and more people are editing with their promotional stuff and unsourced edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.105.154.87 ( talk) 06:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
This is for your amazing work in patrolling the WP:GS/COVID mess and being the main admin protecting pages and ensuring that the project is maintaining factual integrity, especially when it comes to our coverage of this pandemic. Thank you for all that you're doing! OhKayeSierra ( talk) 07:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC) |
OhKayeSierra, many thanks for your recognition and the exceptionally kind words — it truly means a lot. Anyway, yeah, happy to do it. It's worthwhile work, so I don't mind exerting myself. All the best, El_C 07:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Hate to cause a fuss here, but I noticed that you recently commented on User:The Banner's talk page, urging him to stop WP:HOUNDING Piotrus. I have recently been a target of Banner's hounding as well (including his replies to IP 98... which is me as well). Examples of such hounding are essentially all his comments on the Talk:World War I casualties page. I am making edits in good faith in an attempt to improve the article, and those comments are infuriating because they are usually statements with no argument, essentially saying "You're wrong". In addition, in an attempt to cooperate with The Banner on a separate issue (the 1917 Potato riots) after another one of his comments on WW1 page, I asked him on his talk page about a potential improvement to the article. He refused to answer, calling my work "sloppy" [6] and subsequently erased the entire section of our discussion, citing "harassment." [7] I tried reverting the erasure, but was notified that doing so is against Wiki policy, so I ceased.
My question: what do I do? His constant comments seem intent on tormenting me. 2601:85:C101:BA30:39EB:29A4:9175:7668 ( talk) 21:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey El C, first, I hope you are coping well with the current Coronavirus pandemic and that you are safe. Now, the Iraqi conflict (2003–present) article has recently seen a spike in unsourced and possibly POV editing by an IP editor. Me and a few others have reverted his edits each time, but he just reverted us back. The article would possibly warrant protection. You can make your conclusion after reviewing it. Cheers! EkoGraf ( talk) 01:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Dear fellow editor. The world is struggling to stay safe from the harms of a some tens of nano-meters sized virus. I wish you and your dear ones full safety from the dangers of this unilateral love! Regards. -- Mhhossein talk 08:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Blessed |
Music for you, listen if you can. We did it on 8 March. - I think Draft:Franz Klarwein is ready. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Can you see the revision story of Hankyoreh and Chosun ilbo? One user has accused my edit as original research. Do you think I had violated WP:NOR policy? If so, I really don't want to make same mistake. I wish you can give me advice of this issue. Thank you for reading. Jeff6045 ( talk) 07:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
You restored a lenghty discussion, which evolved in a irrelevant direction on a talk page, which is already more than overflowing with lots of excessive commments. So what is the alternative? Should the discussion continue indefinitely? Because I of course disagree with that person and have arguments for it...and then that person will disagree again and it wil continue endlessly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeUnknown010 ( talk • contribs) 21:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Having protected Planck units due to edit warring behaviour, I wonder whether you'd care to suggest a way of managing user Ahri6279. There is a clear pattern of disruptive editing: excessive number of small edits which make edit histories problematic to navigate, essentially entirely OR and without any referencing or even checking existing references when making changes (introducing errors), deafness to appeals from other editors (see discussion at WT:WikiProject Physics § Problematic changes to physics articles by an editor), ignoring edit comments and making many edits without edit comments (see the history at Plank units for several hundred edits), and simply reverting explained reverts with edit comments such as "??"). This editor has created a number of redirects that mostly seem to be headed for deletion. They have incorrectly updated template data. They have also just moved on with a similar pattern of editing at Natural units now that Planck units has been protected, rather than editing in their sandbox as suggested. In short, this editor is introducing degradation into WP, does not seem to understand or buy into the intent of WP, and generally disregards input from others other than occasional mild comments. I am unsure of attributing intent, but the behaviour creates work for others and contributes little (I would venture to say nothing of value IMO), and the lack of responsiveness discourages interaction from others (or at least, from me) trying to keep things intact. — Quondum 15:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Can you please delete the files in this category? Thank you-- Hippymoose17 01:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Looks like ECP might be more appropriate. -- AntiCompositeNumber ( talk) 04:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
@ El C: It looks like a racist IP user is impersonating you at my talk page. NedFausa ( talk) 19:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi El C, I hope things are going ok your way. If you have a minute, can you please take a look at ChrisRehm8814? They are well past 3RR on the Diamond and Silk article and have left some attack-ish edit summaries. I did try to communicate with them earlier to no avail. In fact, they gave me a final vandalism warning (did the same to Snooganssnoogans). I went about my business but I can see they are continuing their disruptive behavior with other editors. S0091 ( talk) 02:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete my sandbox (Sandbox5). It freezes my computer when I try to edit it. - Ferctus ( reply here) —Preceding undated comment added 05:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
FYI I undid your close. Damn section headers and edit conflicts. Anyway, my reading of the consensus is to reblock and I want to give Mike a chance to respond. If he wants more people to comment, then I’d wait for a few more, but I think having it open for that makes sense. Sorry again for the conflict! TonyBallioni ( talk) 16:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
see zh:WP:CheckUser/Archive and meta:Steward_requests/Global/2020-04#Global_lock_for_Ahri6279, We think Ahri6279 is User:Xayahrainie43, by Looks like a duck to me. -- Nanachi 🐰 Fruit Tea☕(宇帆· ☎️· ☘️) 18:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
You are preventing me using the talkpage to discuss the proceeding? You say it is beyond the scope? "This page is for discussion of the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard page" and [8]. Are you even an administrator? There is nothing to indicate you are... ~ R. T. G 22:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey, thank you for understanding my concerns. I get your point better now too. Stay safe my friend. Best.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 22:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
MrClog ( talk) 00:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I want to use Template:CHN for my sandbox, but without the China link that sends me to the article. Just a 23px flagicon, very basic one, but I don't know how to do it. - Ferctus ( talk)
Never mind, I did it. I just have to put Flagicon and the country after it. Thanks.
Hi El C,
This is regarding the Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale article which you have locked for now.
IMO, User:GSS has adopted a complete unreasonable tone right from the outset and repeatedly thrown around accusations of "deleting information," clearly without properly checking the article itself, as can be evidenced by our discussion so far here where I refuted this. GSS also claims that "most of the information is unsourced" in an edit summary where this is demonstrably false, as can be observed in the diff. Every new addition is meticulously sourced down to the page number, and for goodness' sake the number of citations had gone from 96 to 160(!), while GSS repeatedly reverted baselessly and sticks to throwing out "unsourced," "deleting info," and "whitewashing" (perhaps the user doesn't recognize sfn templates as citations? This is the only way I can account for this...) This unbending discussion style may be described as stalling or attrition-based, if past experiences on that page are anything to go by, and I would frankly say that "white-washing" could apply to the lack of discussion of the government role in the events.
The article as it currently stands is poorly written, poorly sourced (largely sensationalist, distortionary op-eds from government-sympathetic media, long on aspersions and government lines, and short on details and facts; Indian media is a discussion unto itself...), makes little use of the good sources present, and IMO not worthy of Wikipedia, clearly pushing a POV by front-loading the article with slanted opinion to influence reader perceptions (this seems to have begun in July 2018 and has been strictly gate-kept by largely one or two users from the looks of it).The user is now not engaging further and frankly I'm not sure is this user is open to good-faith discussion, given the defensive tone of all their responses.
So here's my point: How would any real discussion proceed, and what is your perception of the edits in question in compared to the current article, even if just the lead, if I may ask? I understand that new edits bear the wp:burden and the article can't be locked on my version, but IMO my additions are more than adequately cited. The article is in desperate need of improvement to be anywhere close to being encyclopedic in tone and more than a badly-written wp:attack page.
BTW if edit size is a problem I can easily make separate section-by section edits.
Thanks, Sapedder ( talk) 00:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
El C: FYI. Abecedare ( talk) 18:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Can I ask you to take a look at this and leave a comment? Thanks, Take care of yourself! Saff V. ( talk) 10:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey El C, I hope you and your family are safe! I know it was a year ago, but you protected Angel Tee due to sockpuppetry and the same issue is happening again at Angela Tee. Is there a sockfarm I can link AngelFanatee11 into? HickoryOughtShirt?4 ( talk) 08:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Purely promotional, why isn't this just a redirect to Network18#TV18? Of course some of that is also promotional, probably because it's copyvio. I won't try to touch it on my iPad. I see you've edited it. Doug Weller talk 19:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi El C, there are a lot of disruptive edits coming from 102.252.65.0/24. You've been reverting some in Durban, Johannesburg, etc., so I guess you know what I mean. Non-communicative editor, always mobile web edits, fooling around with section headers and lots of overlinking, etc. Mostly sports, South African high schools, and places articles. I've already left two "final warnings" today, but they're still at it. Maybe they could be blocked? It looks to me like it's only that one person in that range, for the last week. Before that they were on Special:Contributions/102.250.3.0/24, maybe others. If you're too busy I can take it to ANI. Thanks... -- IamNotU ( talk) 19:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry: I reverted your change from "the Commonwealth" to "The Commonwealth" without adding an explanation. It is that I believe one writes "in (etc) the Commonwealth" but not "in (etc) The Commonwealth". That is the practice of the Commonwealth Secretariat (see its link). Errantius ( talk) 22:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Home to 2.4 billion citizens, The Commonwealth includes some of the world's largest, smallest, richest and poorest countries, spanning five regions.But when I actually look in the website itself, it does not, in fact, read that way. In any case, I'm happy to defer to your judgment in this matter. Regards, El_C 22:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
So now we know about admin back channeling. I was wondering about how you were gone for years and years, ad then appeared to bright and suddenly, always informed. You have other avenues of info. Delighted if you could prove me wrong and if your protection for protection was because of otherwise Ceoil ( talk) 02:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
The user Gaudi9223 has been abusing the minor edit check box. They've been using it for edits that are not minor edits. I left a message on their talk page telling them that. I just wanted to let you know so that you could perhaps keep an eye on them. - TrynaMakeADollar ( talk) 06:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi El C, regarding this block, please see 210.242.153.202 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I already warned user and IP, and reverted the last edit. Cheers - DVdm ( talk) 09:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi El C, could you help me in this discussion: Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring? Actually, im the first who reported about that case, but it seems like my report has been archived. Since there is no administrators joined in that discussion, i hope you can give your opinion about that case. Thank you. Stvbastian ( talk) 15:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Was digging through general sanctions procedures, and remembered that what I knew to be true for ARBCOM-authorized sanctions is also trye, to the best of my knowledge, for community-authorized DS blocks; they are limited to a year. I don't think any of the indefinite blocks we've placed are a problem, but they would convert to regular admin actions after a year, unless I'm much mistaken... Sandstein, you're likely the most experienced in this area; can you help clarify whether the 1-year limitation on DS blocks applies to community-authorized DS regimes too? Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi! You added 500/30 protection to the article about Richard Stallman when there was a controversy in the news about him. I think that this protection is no longer necessarily and could be removed, or at least be reduced to semi-protection because he stepped down from his positions as FSF president and visiting scientist at MIT. Dwaro ( talk) 20:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi El C, could you perhaps also restore the talk page of the article? -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 01:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to see you overturned this. The DRV discussion I thought was exceptionally poor with many !keep voters from the AfD commentating and other overturn voters not explicitly commenting on the deletion rationale. A difficult discussion to close so I also appreciate you closing it, but I just wanted to drop a note and say I don't think the right result was achieved here on a purely technical level (I have no interest in the topic.) SportingFlyer T· C 02:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Any chance you'd look at the last edit on my talk and at Jamesville-DeWitt High School and toss a couple obvious VOA blocks? Thanks. Trying my best to keep my patience. John from Idegon ( talk) 03:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
The page has become a quiet backwater. I've added the website link local health authority to the infobox, so people will at least know what the correct source is. KittenKlub ( talk) 13:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I interpreted their removal of your warning, like the others, as equivalent to a middle finger. They ignored the others and I figured they planned to do the same. I'm sorry if you felt I undermined your approach.--v/r - T P 17:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
In case this question isn't rhetorical, Anne is the apocryphal name for Jesus's maternal grandmother (i.e. Mary's mother). Because she's mentioned in the Koran but not in the Bible, there's always been a weird kind of rivalry between Islam and the varieties of Christianity that practice Mariolatry, as the Christians feel she ought to be important but there's not much written about her in non-Islamic sources. We have a very poor quality article about her at Saint Anne, which I assume the crank is objecting to. ‑ Iridescent 20:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for closing the ANI case RE:Carmaker1. One thing i think was missed was that Carmaker1 has repeated their moaning about a trivial mention of "American hicks" waaaaaay back in 2017. They brought it up on their talk page and at Arbcom and again at ANI. They seem to think there is a "long held grudge" over this "hick" alleged slur. Somebody, please, explain to Carmaker1:
Everything I'm saying is extremely obvious. I think that's why nobody has condescended to set Carmaker1 straight. I don't have any grudge over this "hick Americans" thing. It's less than nothing.
I have numerous motor vehicle articles on my watchlist. My watchlist regularly erupts with drama over Carmaker1's inability to refrain from attacking other editors when they mistakenly get the model year date of a car wrong by 1 year. That's the deal. I am one of many editors in the motor vehicle topic space who have brought complaints against them for incivility. There's no grudge. We only want them to stop making personal attacks, and there's mountains of evidence that they never, ever will. Carmaker1 has elaborated in detail all the reasons why they will never submit to Wikipedia's norms of conduct. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 01:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
At least EEng will finally learn to never, ever pun. Not even once. Look what happens. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 02:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I have no problem with staying off Carmaker1's talk page.That commitment was all that was needed, Dennis Bratland, to resolve this matter, at least in so far as our immediate purposes go. El_C 02:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
EEng will finally learn to never, ever pun– You spoke too soon, I'm afraid. [9] E Eng 02:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Let's Talk About Sects. Then TonyBallioni mentioned something about the
lay faithful, so I came along and ... well, lay – get it? Admittedly it's a bit involved. E Eng 02:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Originally posted by Carmaker1 on their talk page:
In spite of several community decisions clearly expressing what behavior is forbidden, Carmaker1 displays a very poor understanding of the WP:OWN policy, finding several ways of incorrectly claiming that this or that editor is forbidden from editing this or that article, or commenting on this or that talk page. Carmaker1 does not accept the basic premise that Wikipedia is a collaborative project open to all, including WP:Randy in Boise.
Now they have taken to deleting my posts, violating WP:TPO. Everything I'm saying is consistent wit the most recent ANI complaint about Carmaker1, and the Arbcom complaint, and the last 2 or 3 previous ANI complaints, all by different editors, as well as the last ANI complaint I initiated back in 2017. It's the same behavior as ever, which they promised several times to quit.
Carmaker1 couldn't even go one day after the last Arbcom case to resume attacking others. If they could simply refrain from characterizing other editors and their motives, focusing only on content, none of this drama would be happening. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 23:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm repeating myself here, but I'm also repeating what TomStar81 said motivated them to close an ANI complaint and move it to ArbCom. For whatever reasons, the community has been inexplicably incapable of dealing with Carmaker1's pattern of abuse of other editors. My lack of faith in the system in this case isn't something I dreamed up one day. It's something others have noticed too. It shouldn't come as too much of a surprise that I wasn't confident merely reporting it would get me anywhere.
I'm not the only one who thinks it's implied when banning others from one's talk page that you cannot proceed to use your talk page to post diatribes against them. It's a basic principle of fairness to be able to answer accusations in the same venue in which the accusations were made. Nobody should expect a user talk page ban to be enforced if they proceed to talk about the person they ostensibly wanted no contact with. That is in fact where one should turn to ANI or other forums for help. The one place they should not post accusations is the place where the accused is banned from replying.
Since not everyone seems to recognized this principle, I think a proposal is needed to spell this out explicitly at WP:TALK. Maybe I'll take that up lather when all this has cooled down.
In this case, when I hit upon the idea of moving the thread to the obvious place it belonged, your talk page, and posted my reply there, I was satisfied.
I would suggest that in the future if you warn someone off a user's talk page, you could save everyone some drama if you warned the talk page owner to limit their mentions of the banned editor, since I'm hardly the only one who would react this way. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 22:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Dennis Bratland, fair enough. But from your comments at ANI, I get the impression that you still don't seem to have taken on board that two wrongs don't make a right. Which is, basically, what I said in response there. Anyway, at this point maybe a jointly agreed-upon IBAN (including refraining from mentioning of one another) for a few months will be useful. El_C 18:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't know why you're suggesting an iban now. What exactly is that a solution to? My original issue with Carmaker1 -- misleading and provocative edit summaries and talk page comments, which I felt needed to be debunked, led to them making multiple unsuccessful ANI complaints against me for what they think Wikihounding is. The problem I perceived of Carmaker1 abusing their talk page ban has been resolved now that, after the whole drama there, Carmaker1 has received an admin warning not to criticize me on their talk page. Problem solved.
The larger issue of Carmaker1's attacks, ongoing for years, on every single person who has ever edited the same automotive content they are editing (correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure they have insulted and bullied 100% of the editors who have touched the same car articles in proximity to their edits) has now received significantly more attention. While the last 3 or 4 ANI complaints against them went nowhere, I don't believe they will continue to get away with their incivility. The whole conflict of interest thing is a whole other ball of wax, which stands a good chance of forcing Carmaker1 finally cease berating anybody who dares to edit an automobile related article (again, I'm open to examples of times when they have not done so).
So I'd ask you to take it from the top, and begin at the beginning: what is your objective? What current unresolved problem are you now fixing? Is there even an open case in front of you now requiring action? I thought the last ANI complaint was wrapped up. I think you handled all of it just fine, even if you and I have slightly different judgements an a few finer points. Could be my opinions on those points is wrong. I've been wrong before. I'll be wrong again about something else in the future, no doubt. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 22:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi El C, it's been awhile, hope all is in order and you're well in this trying time. I'm here to ask for your stewardship on Talk:Religion in Albania. You may recall the long edit war and talk page fight that ensued after the version stable from October to February October February was changed. I cannot blame you if you disengaged from that matter, I wish I could as it has been quite unpleasant. Since your absence, an RfC was opened about whether the census figure should be allowed in the lede. Although it has not concluded, a second RfC has been open about which picture should be in the lede, without any option for a census pic (and apparently implying there can only be one, rather than a panel as has been discussed). This would appear to confuse the matter of the already ongoing RfC. Can something be done about it? Cheers, -- Calthinus ( talk) 16:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, can you reduce Giant mouse lemur's protection. It was yesterday's TFA, so vandalism is unlikely to repeat. Regards. © Tbhotch ™ ( en-3). 19:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Generally speaking, we only need one warning for a specific subject. Refer to the discussion above your post and do say which part of your section wasn't already covered. Augend ( drop a line) 21:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
... are you saying that in future if someone adds a reliable source about a BLP matter and keeps the unreliable source, and then someone decides to remove the reliable source and keep the unreliable source, you will be fine with this? - Chris.sherlock ( talk) 00:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your to Martial law. I do not know why you do not show up in blue on Huggle :\ A a s i m 05:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mobile Jewish: Exterminated to Chamber. Since you had some involvement with the Mobile Jewish: Exterminated to Chamber redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hb1290 ( talk) 05:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
please do not revert because 170 visa excemption is correct
Hi!
I found this file on ko.wiki ko:File:Noapartheid.jpg.
That file links to Commons:File:ApartheidSignEnglishAfrikaans.jpg.
That file links to File:Aprt.jpg on enwiki.
That file was deleted because it had no source.
However it also mention a permission from the photographer that leads here.
That is an edit you made in January 2005.
The link is ofcourse no longer active User_talk:Dewet#Here_you_go.
But if we go to the archive User_talk:Dewet/Archive_1#Here_you_go we find it.
There is a link to File:Apartheid sign.JPG.
That file is deleted because it is also on Commons.
The current file on Commons is Commons:File:Apartheid sign.jpg (with small letters) and that is from 2012.
If you force Commons to pick capital JPG you get Commons:File:Apartheid sign.JPG.
That was also deleted because it had no source.
So my question is if you can remember the photo and if you were the photographer. If yes I think we should get it undeleted because it is historical signs. So I hope you made it all the way down here. -- MGA73 ( talk) 14:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I realize you're not a fan of the 24hr BRD rule, so I wanted to ask if you would object to me modifying the above template to include the BRD sanction. If nothing else, I'd like the sanction to be consistent with the existing sanctions on Joe Biden and the new Joe Biden sexual assault allegation page, as well as with the template that's already on Talk:Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign (not sure whether that was intentional or just a copy-paste from Talk:Joe Biden). ~ Awilley ( talk) 19:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
1RR is now in effect (enforceable). If you find it is still not enough, there are enhancements that can be applied further toward the article's stability — but let's hope we don't need em.So, I object to the general notion of adding these enhancements preemptively or as part of a series. I don't believe doing so represents the prevailing consensus. El_C 19:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi El_C, you're more experienced with arbitration enforcement than I am, and I wanted to get your opinion on what to do about this situation. I was hopeful that my previous warning would have kept them from escalating, but they seem to still be goading each other on. I feel like a two-way IBAN would help improve the editing environment, but I'd appreciate a second opinion. The last thing I want to do is to let this drag on, so if you have ideas on what would work best here I would appreciate the input! — Wug· a·po·des 00:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
your sanctionsto to SPECIFICO, is a bit odd, because SPECIFICO is not under sanctions. It's a bit more nuanced. They have received a logged warning recently ( Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive264#SPECIFICO) to focus on content. If you find that SPECIFICO failed in that, then maybe sanctions are due. I don't really have an opinion about an IBAN (I am unfamiliar with the history between the two editors, in any case). If you feel that that is the best course of action, then I encourage you to apply it. From what I'm seeing at a glance, both editors are skirting the line, anyway, so perhaps that solution, while not the most elegant (the content dispute does go on, after all), may indeed hit the spot. Hope this helps! El_C 00:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
219.74.51.200 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) You had blocked them for making the same edits in January: [16] [17], and now doing the exact same [18], [19]. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 13:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi El C, I just made this edit [20] at our page about misinformation on COVID19, and wanted to run it past you. I'm not wholly sure if we treat anti-Israeli bias or sentiment as more or less the same as anti-semitic bias or sentiment, or not. All examples given in the section check out in the references, but some appear to be about the longstanding Iran-Israel rivalry, whereas others specifically pertain to antisemitism. - Darouet ( talk) 14:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Could you semi-protect my userpage? I don't want to see socks or meats on my page again. Puduḫepa 22:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
El C, it looks like you've already blocked this IP once for PA's – based on their recent behavior at my Talk page and Talk:Katherine McNamara, it doesn't look to me like they've learned their lesson. Just so you're aware... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 05:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi El C, Could you please advise me if adding evidence here [21] would violate my topic ban [22]? GizzyCatBella 🍁 04:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Can you explain to me how it would violate said topic ban? I actually thought it would not, as I thought there is an exception in content-topic bans for dispute resolution and administrative processes. I have trouble drawing the line between the intention of this topic ban and why it would prevent the user from adding evidence against to a SPI. I don't think the intention of this topic ban was to prevent the editor from helping identify and catch socks of an indef banned user? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
For your quick revdel! I placed an email to the Oversight team, but it looks like you beat everyone to it. Thank you! — MelbourneStar☆ talk 14:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC) |
Hey El_C, I’m trying hard to keep perspective but I have PTSD and it’s doing my head in. People are treating me like a joke and I genuinely am spiralling out of control. I’m not quite sure what to do. My head is a mess. - Chris.sherlock ( talk) 17:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Judging by this, I think the full-protection was intentional. Also see the talk page, and all the requests I just removed. – bradv 🍁 03:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi El C. If you have the time, could you please check the coordinated attempts of Ktrimi and Resnjari to suppress maintenance tags on the article Reaction in Greece to the Yugoslav Wars ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). These two accounts gave me edit-warring messages on my talkpage withing one minute of each other. This is blatant tagteaming and coordinated edit-warring harassment. I placed the tags in the article in an attempt to pinpoint the specific problems in the exact sentences and it took me a long time and lots of work to do that. These accounts are reverting my tags and harassing me in a coordinated fashion. I request your assistance. Thank you. Dr. K. 13:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
If you are dense and don't understand what people are telling you it's not your fault, but don't presume to provide garbage advice to competent editors.How are other editors expected to engage with this kind of rapport? Resnjari ( talk) 13:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I want to be on the record that i did not misrepresent comments. I kindly made a suggestion for book to be read which was relevant to the topic and RS. I also said its up to you if you do want read it
[24]. Your response was this:
[25], and was made more apparent here
[26] As far as the Greek stance during the Yugo wars, it is a subject that leaves me cold. I couldn't care less about it. But I do care about COATRACKS and their use in advancing POV and propaganda.
How can an editor work with this? The claim is disinterest, but actions show deep interest. Now about books, i outlined to the editor that at the moment there is difficulty in getting academic books from university libraries
[27],
[28]due to the covid lockdown in Melbourne. As there was some misunderstanding on the editor's part about my intention over academic resources, i answered a question asked of me about my current situation. I replied i was doing things at home during the lockdown
[29]. Then the reply given to me, in lieu of something i said to another editor
[30]about the talkpage situation turning into a jungle was
[31] Trolling or not, I found the part about the renovations quite hilarious. This guy's got talent. On the other hand, if I hear again about the closed library and the books, I'll buy him a one-way ticket to the jungle where he can enjoy the books without bothering anyone.
. And then much later, there was this
[32] OK, we got it. You are the official jungle greeter. I suggest you try becoming a Walmart greeter instead. You'll have a much brighter future.
Followed on by that last comment made to me that I highlighted in my previous post here. I mean, this kind of commentary in the talkpage does not address the topic. I hope there is nothing personal toward me. In all my comments i tried to make it about the topic, except about home renovations, i tried to break the ice after i was asked what i was doing. Hence my skepticism and reverts, when the deluge of tags were placed in the article, following all these exchanges. I expect this from a newbie or individuals who are not here to contribute to an encyclopedia, not someone like Dr.K. If positions were reversed and I said these things to the editor, would a warning or immediate sanction by an admin be in order for me lickity split, without a moment to explain. I do wonder. I'm just saying it’s very disappointing, that whatever this is, was resorted too as a form of rapport.
Resnjari (
talk)
15:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Maleschreiber, your now starting to figure out how real wikipedia on Balkan topics works with a few certain editors. Welcome to the jungle newbie.is a base personal attack by innuendo against editors you disagree with, including me. I took your jungle reference and tried to make light of it to diffuse the tension you created. Yet, you come here and act offended by my replies to your original jungle comment. Please clean up your act. Dr. K. 20:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
:Passing the time, makes one do many things. I have been to an actual jungle in the past. Its an interesting place, hence my use as a metaphor for here. Quite apt. If books and libraries offend you, your loss. Making Wikipedia a better place requires those tools, not intransigence or being unconstructive. Resnjari ( talk) 06:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Here, casting absurd WP:ASPERSIONS that books and libraries offend me and that I am being intransigent and unconstructive for not acquiescing to your POV, in total defiance to what I actually wrote on talk. How long do you think one has to suffer these obtuse comments before calling you out on it? Dr. K. 22:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
For example on academic literature, it was repeatedly dismissed on your part, outright at times.I expect you to provide diffs where you show that I repeatedly dismissed academic literature, and the times (provide diffs) that I did it "outright". If you don't provide diffs, you should retract your outright falsehoods. Dr. K. 15:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
The talk page should explain, to those unfamiliar with any of the sides in the argument, what the sides are and try to point to some neutral language that all sides might agree on.. Now, since you added the tag, can you tell me where on the talk page have the issues been listed, and where how they can be solved is explained? Ktrimi991 ( talk) 13:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public. There is no reliable source provided that gives another point of view on what the article currently says. If anyone find such RS, they are free to add content based on it to the article. Also, why so many tags while there is a WP:Tagbombing? Ktrimi991 ( talk) 15:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Since you are not following a policy verbatim but are interpreting one, tell me which one is that policy. Why do not you respect what the page of the template itself says? Ktrimi991 ( talk) 15:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Even though I am familiar with Church-related articles, I used to refrain from editing this one due to the large number of POV issues I have found in it, which require time and input to resolve. However I can't help but express my disappointment with the attitude certain editors have here against Dr. K., a highly respected member of our community who is well known for his neutrality and objective approach to the issues (and who does this job for much longer than many of us did). I agree with Admin El_C that the POV Tags must remain until the related POV issues are resolved. IMO, the article is in need for serious WP:NEUTRALITY improvements and only once the content is in line with Wikipedia's NPOV rules, the POV tags may be removed. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi. A dynamic IP recently edited in the article of Venezuelan scientist María-Esther Vidal, removing references and adding unreferenced content. I reverted said edit because of these reasons, but it appears that a recently created account reverted the content back, without explanation. From what I gather, I can't revert because of the 0R restriction and because the edit is not obvious vandalism. I also left a notification warning that the content did not have references, again without response. How could this be solved? -- Jamez42 ( talk) 14:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
They're the same I think Bumbubookworm ( talk) 20:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
El C, please forgive me for approaching you, but since you edited the David Icke page earlier today, you no doubt understand the context better than any other administrator I could ask for guidance.
New tweets from England question the recent editing of this BLP by Philip Cross, who is indefinitely topic banned from post-1978 British politics, broadly construed. The person on Twitter alleges that Cross breached ARBCOM's topic ban by editing the 5G and Covid-19 subsection of Icke's page. Their accusation is that this relates to post-1978 British politics, broadly construed, because:
I apologize for bothering you with something that stems from Twitter, but I have been concerned for some time about the bashing that Wikipedia takes on social media, usually unfairly. It would ease my mind to better understand this particular criticism. I will not engage in any off-wiki communication with these people, but perhaps your clarification might find its way to them without my help. They seem to watch anything related to Mr. Cross quite closely. NedFausa ( talk) 22:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Vanamonde ( Talk) 01:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
There has been a concerted attack on Lebanese politicians - I see you have already protected Michel Aoun, but there are 6 more waiting at WP:RPP and probably others I haven't spotted. Could I ask if you are willing to "jump the queue" and deal with these, as the attacks are getting very tiresome - thanks - Arjayay ( talk) 19:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
When you recently fully protected the article Kim Jong-un you didn't appear to remove the already existing pending changes protection. Could you fix that if possible? According to the article history there's still pending changes.
Chess
(talk) (please use {{
ping|Chess}}
on reply)
00:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Is this [ [33]] a correct interpretation of your recent partial block of Александр Мотин? Slatersteven ( talk) 12:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Biainili ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hi El C. You recently blocked this user for a week for persistent disruptive editing and personal attacks. [34] As soon as his block ended, today, he resumed his disruptive editorial pattern:
Looking at the compelling evidence, this user is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon ( talk) 13:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Answer: LouisAragon, HistoryofIran are actively trying to remove any Armenian reference from Ancient History related Wikipedia pages, those 5 "reliable sources" you are talking about:
These are not 5 WP:RS sources, HistoryofIran posts random sources all the time, without actually reading them carefully.
Page: Ptolemaeus_of_Commagene
" Ptolemaeus' father was King Orontes IV of Armenia, son of Arsames I."
Arsames I (Armenian: Արշամ) seems to have taken control of Commagene, Sophene and Armenia in the year 260 BC after the death of his grandfather Orontes III, king of Armenia, and his father Sames, king of Commagene.
Page: Sames_I
Samos[1][2] or Sames (Armenian: Շամուշ, Greek: Σάμος) was satrap of Commagene, Armenian king of Commagene and Sophene.[1][3]
References
Wayne G. Sayles, "Ancient Coin Collecting VI: Non-Classical Cultures", Krause Publications, 1999, ISBN 0-87341-753-4, p. 29
Michael Blömer / Religious Life of Commagene in the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Period pp.95-129/The Letter of Mara bar Sarapion in Context. Proceedings of the Symposium Held at Utrecht University, 10–12 December 2009 /BRILL 2012
In doing so, Samosata, the Commagenian capital and hometown of Mara bar Sarapion, would suit best as the prime object of investigation. The place was one of the most important sites along the Upper Euphrates. It offered an easy crossing of the river and was occupied since Chalcolithic times. It is named Kummuḫ in Iron Age sources and was the centre of an eponymous independent Syro-Hittite kingdom from the 12th to the 8th century BCE. The Assyrian king Sargon II conquered Kummuḫ in 708 BCE, but it remained an important provincial town during late Iron Age. In Hellenistic times it was capital of the kingdom of Commagene. The city was renamed Samosata by a predecessor of the Commagenian royal family, the Armenian king Samos I, in the 3rd century BCE. After the Roman occupation in CE 72, Samosata prospered as a major commercial, cultural and military centre of the Roman province of Syria.
M. J. Versluys/ Visual Style and Constructing Identity in the Hellenistic World: Nemrud Dag and Commagene under Antiochos I/Cambridge University Press, 2017 г.—pp.48 (312) ISBN 1107141974, 9781107141971
We know nothing about the status of Commagene under Seleucid rule. The Armenian king Samos I is believed to have founded Samosata, later the capital of Commagene, in the middle of the third century BC. The second century BC saw the rise of the two powers that would play an important role in Commagene's future during the next centuries: Rome and Parthia. Their growing prominence, combined with the failing of the central Seleucid power, resulted in the rise of several small monarchies, of which Commagene was one. Other independent kingdoms that came into being around this time include Pergamon, Pontos, Baktria, Parthia, Armenia, Iudea and Nabatea. Diodorus tells us that a Seleucid epistates named Ptolemy rose to power in Commagene in 163 BC. Most scholars assume that Ptolemy was the first Commagenean king and that he descended from the Armenian Orontids. We know virtually nothing about the following decades. Samos II took power around 130 BC, as is concluded from some coins that have been preserved, showing a portrait with the inscription “king Samos.”
See: Talk:Ptolemaeus_of_Commagene
[40]
Chahin, Mack (2001). The Kingdom of Armenia. Caucasus World. Routledge. pp. 190, 191. ISBN 978-0700714520.
Samus,Arsames,Xerxes(c.260-.212BC)
The connection between these Armenian Orontid kings and Commagene evidently very close. So much so that Armenia might well occupied part of that extensive principality. This theory is supported by presence of two large cities in Commagene, Samosata an Arsameia, built respectively by two successive Armenian kings. Furthermore, it was Ptolemaeus, the grandson of Arsames, and perhaps the nephew of Xerxes, who founded the royal dynasty of Commagene(c. 163BC). -- Biainili ( talk) 14:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Good morning! You just blocked User:Александр Мотин from editing Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 for disruption, as per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_Boomerang_block. Since then he has carried on being disruptive on Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Was it your intention to block him from the talk page also or not? - Ahunt ( talk) 14:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I noticed that the article is currently protected so only admins can edit it, but I haven't seen a moment where it wasn't extended confirmed protected? Were there extended confirmed users who vandalized the article because if there weren't, I'm asking that you reduce the protection level to ECP (Note: I do not have plans to edit the article though). OcelotCreeper ( talk) 15:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
There seems to be a massive edit war here Socialist Republic of Croatia, and on several other articles, by the same 2 users. ty Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Is there something on wikipedia that tells you what articles a template appears in? OcelotCreeper ( talk) 21:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I apologise for framing the enforcement request in such a way that it might have been constituted as personal attack. It just seemed so quick and obvious, I should have phrased better. I will certainly avoid stating any such possible events in future as matter of fact rather than possibility(please do keep in mind that English is not my first language so sometimes I come across more direct/rude than perhaps native English speakers are used to).-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 21:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your help on Neil Gorsuch. Have you taken a look at the page's protection history? The page has been consistently vandalized despite multiple protections for more than a year. The previous protection was six months. Shouldn't the page be indefinitely semi-protected? Putwood ( talk) 22:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi El C. Please see
this comment by N.Hoxha: I am extremely saddened to see that user Dr.K would consider the inclusion of the content about the murder of multiple innocent persons to be of equal importance as that of a poorly made banner.
. N.Hoxha refers
to this edit by Khirurg which, by the way, refers to altercations, and not any murders whatsoever in Athens, after Katsifas's killing. My response dealt with adding pieces about the events in Athens and Albania where football fans celebrated the killing of Katsifas. As you know, this is a very contested area of the wiki. It is one thing to have to deal with POV edits and quite another to have editors like N.Hoxha to make up stories about you that you disregard non-existent murders. This is a vile personal attack and equally vile
WP:ASPERSION. I would appreciate your advice on this. Thank you.
Dr.
K.
04:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I would rather not have the discussion split between two venues. But feel free to refactor.
El_C
11:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
|
---|
Hi again El C. Another partisan has descended on N.Hoxha's talk and is using my userpage identifiers to attack me and also misrepresents my comments to Calthinus. He is also pinging me to make sure I read his attacks. This is getting out of control. I request your assistance from these unbelievable partisan attacks. I would like all references to my possible origin based on my userpage identifiers be removed from the partisan attack. Thank you again and sorry for imposing again. Dr. K. 07:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
|
Persistent vandalism – Heavy IP edit disruption due to a recent incident. Placed a WP:RFPP but there is a backlog, and the disruption is going on. Thank you. Amkgp ( talk) 05:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Can you take a look at the Gorani article? [42] I have now asked for clarification for their edits but academic references keep getting removed for an author that has been discussed at RS and deprecated. [43] I'm waiting for admins' decision on protection, but there is a long queue. Also '46.106.92.92' and 'Benahol' edits on many articles are very similar and I believe it's some sort of meatpuppetry. -- Semsûrî ( talk) 11:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
We messaging with him about this. Sources were added by adding resources. Semsûrî urgently wants to cooperate with kurdish You can check the Turkish version. Wants the matter to lock up as he wants. As he did in gorani . This is fascism. wants to use you Benahol ( talk) 20:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
There were zazas that called themselves Turkish and kurdish in history, but this is not the case today. According to the Konda survey company, about 1.5 million people have identified themselves as Zaza. Resources that evaluate the people of Zaza in Turkish and Kurdish have already been added. Benahol ( talk) 21:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Benahol blocked for 72 hours for engaging in egregious personal attacks. El_C 21:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I added it to the discussion page. Semsûrî deleted a lot of data he did not want from the pages. (see Zaza nationalism as an example) (Kurdish nationalist views kept on the page and deleted most of the other views) Benahol ( talk) 22:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
The editor has returned after their seven days block and continues where they left off by just adding all information found online to make their point. The edits include own translation used as quote and maps with no reference. And you see this small and canny change of wording here [46]? Well, that's a good old POV-push. This is getting ridiculous and the quality of these articles have worsened. -- Semsûrî ( talk) 11:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
please block me indefinitely. I understand you are disturbed by the information I added ( Semsûrî ) I'm tired of dealing with you Benahol ( talk) 11:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Professor Dr. Ludwig Paul and Frankfurt Zaza Language Institute divides Zaza Language into three main dialects. In addition, there are transitions and edge accents that have a special position and cannot be fully included in any dialect group. [1] [2] (resources for map) and (Also, the maps saved on Wikipedia, I did not prepare myself) Benahol ( talk) 11:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Semsûrî I do not find you sincere There are dozens of non-cited maps on Kurdish pages. Would you delete them too. Also, the maps saved on Wikipedia, I did not prepare myself. And the sources I added match the map. Benahol ( talk) 12:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
References
Most maps and images added to Wikipedia; it is examined and reliable. Because it is compatible with information.. Benahol ( talk) 12:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Can you help. There is a section called reference. I could not fix it. (Thanks.) [47] Benahol ( talk) 19:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Please provide a Indefinite pending changes protection because of persistent disruptive editing like adding non-sense text, removal profile picture etc. Thank you. Amkgp ( talk) 18:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, do you remember my request for the indefinitive protection for List of most-viewed YouTube videos? Can you protect also List of most-liked YouTube videos? In this page we have the same problem, after the end of the one year protection vandalism restart again, can you protect the page please? Like the others YouTube's list-- Luke Stark 96 ( talk) 21:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello El C,
Can you please delete the empty category Category:Mahatma_Gandhi_Central_University? Thanks. A a s i m 01:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
On Northern Epirus one of the sub-issues which led me to add the POV tag is the fact that I had added the electoral results of the two minority parties in the local elections of 2015 but they were removed. I then started a new section on the talkpage about why they were removed and the replies I got are that what I added misrepresents X, Y, Z, topics. I've asked many times on the talkpage why and how what I added and was reverted is related to X, Y, Z topics by fully quoting the reverted edit and explaining that they - IMO - obviously are not related but every time IMO my questions are not replied at all and I just get the remark "you are still OR" and my tag is being explained away as "Tag playing isn't an argument". As I did with the Katsifas case I eventually resorted to noticeboard procedures to get community input and it was really helpful, but before going to another such procedure I would like some outside feedback because at the moment I'm very confused because I feel that I've overexplained myself and asked the same question 3-4 times with same full quote without getting similar feedback.-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 15:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello El C, I saw your inputs and debate on [48] It seems to me that nothing has changed....
I edited first article in accordance with reliable sources and on talk page "Eparchy of Marča" I talked about information which is frogery and exist in the article for which Serbian academician Sima Ćirković says that is false information, I cannot delete this information from the article even though it is a forgery and because you don't want this. This is frogery I quote: "A letter of King Matthias from 12 January 1483 mentions that 200,000 Serbs had settled the Hungarian kingdom(Slavonia Croatia) in the last four years". Information is in the article "Serbs of Croatia", "Rascians" and this article "Eparchy of Marča". The original information is I quote: "Matthias Corvinus complained in a letter from 1462 that 200,000 peoples during previous three years had been taken from his country by Turks" (Serbian academician Sima Ćirković).
10 RS presented in the article saying that Svetozar Boroević is Croatian and he declared himself as Croatian, I don't know what's here fringe viewpoints?
Thanking you for speaking my mind better than I could at WP:Great Dismal Swamp, while I slept. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking 175.193.218.8 ( talk · contribs), I trust that you noticed the fake warnings with forged sig e.g. [70]. Dl2000 ( talk) 14:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
See particularly this edit to User talk:Biainili and the messages it restored.
It is generally understood that users are not supposed to be engaging in substantive editing while blocked. This conduct on the talk page feels to me like an attempt to solicit proxy editing while this user is blocked. What's your take on it? Do you agree that it's an attempt at an end run around the block? Or do you think that if they're engaging constructively with at least one editor, it's a start? (For the record, I do not feel like the other editor is necessarily at fault here, if they're editing in good faith and using independent judgment about the merits of the edits.)
As blocking admin, I'd like your take on the matter first. My next stop would be WP:ANI to discuss extension of the block, revocation of talk page access, and/or a topic ban. — C.Fred ( talk) 14:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi El C, per your comment [71], I read CLOSECHALLENGE, which I guess in this case I have already done and you declined. Could you help me understand this for future reference? I am convinced that an article like Ain Jalut is supposed to be captured by ARBPIA, but I accept that that is open to interpretation. I spent some time looking around the old arbitration pages for some discussion which may reflect consensus on how the phrase "Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted" is intended to be interpreted, but I could not find anything? Onceinawhile ( talk) 09:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
It has long been usual to consider that former Arab villages which were depopulated during Zionist settlement in Palestine are included in ARBPIA. That this description applies to Ein Jalud is not obvious at the moment, since the article text does not currently mention it. However, it is true and will be added with a source. There were 9 families living here until one of the Zionist land companies purchased it from its absentee owners in the late 19th century. In my opinion that makes ARBPIA inclusion clear. Zero talk 10:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment I think Onceinawhile revealed his motives to create the WP:POVFORK article by arguing about the topic area he really wanted to push the Arabic name while hiding the Hebrew one.As he admits himself that it about names [72] -- Shrike ( talk) 10:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration#Is_Ain_Jalut_relevant_to_Wikiproject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration?. Onceinawhile ( talk) 11:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Having read the article itself, I still think the connection to ARBPIA seems tenuous at best. But feel free to bring it up at AE (but not AN/ANI — ARBPIA spilling over to those noticeboards is generally a bad idea), I have no objection to the matter being re-opened there and I take the possibility that I was wrong with my assessment into account. El_C 12:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
A few days later and a lot has happened, much of it not to my credit. Suffice to say that I overlooked the Jewish purchase of land at Ain Jalut in relation to the local inhabitants. Among other things, I have
amended my ANI close to read the opposite of what it did: not related. I've also covered the article under ARBPIA "related content," including removing the outdated "
original author" provision. I've also blocked Levivich. Then —incorrectly— unblocked him. In any case, not my proudest moment. I'll strive to do better.
El_C
03:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello EI_C, I'm busy with grandchildren for another few hours, please give me some time to respond to your concerns here [73]. I'll do it as soon as I get back home. GizzyCatBella 🍁 18:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I've seen you dealing with the doubt changes recently pls protect Voyager of the Seas, and the other article that have been massively been changed into false claim. MoralesKapitan ( talk) 10:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Just a quick question: Are editors allowed to use different usernames to access different wiki projects (project in different languages)? If not, is there a global SPI board where such users can be reported? Thanks. M.Bitton ( talk) 23:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)