User talk:El C

If you have the capacity to tremble with indignation every time that an injustice is committed in the world, then we are comrades. – Che.

Archived Discussions

Archive 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 9 11 12

For you

El C, contrary to your edit summary- I noticed you were gone, and missed seeing you on recent changes. You are one of my favourite editors. This is for you. Regards, dvdrw 04:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yay! Many chipthanks for the kind words. Greatly appreciated. Best, El_C 06:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I noticed and missed you! (Official circular here). Novickas (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Thought of you while uploading this picture [1]... for all of your work. Novickas (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! El_C 11:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sort of in a hole and am having difficulties submerging. Speaking of holes/that chippie, I got to do some visiting in its burro recently...

Later, adding even more festive decorations, and inspected the whiskers:

And some drinky-drinky as well as rubbing under chin:

Also, two days ago I got to rub a cheekadee's tummy(!); for a handsome reward, of course:

Love, El_C 11:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You look really good in your purple hat! Bishonen | talk 00:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC).

Free hat! Today, while cheekadeepetting, this lady who saw us from a far, came over and said: "Can I tell you something...? You're an angel of God."(!) To which I of course replied: "All hail Atheismo!" [nah, I said: "thank you, maddam, that's very kind of you" — what else could I say?] I took an especially neat cheekadeepetting photograph today: it remained visible between my thumb and index as it flew away, giving the illusion it was bee-sized! What an unexpected, and sweet, effect! El_C 02:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Capitano, where do you get a large enough sweater for a person with that hand? Bishonen | talk 20:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC).

And then there's Skunky! El_C 14:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Oooo. Purdy!

Combine obvious love of animals with photography results in photographic win! — Coren ^(talk) 15:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Great to learn that peoples (plural!) like! Chickadee says hi! El_C 14:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Here's some peanuts for Hidey. He hasn't got any!

Hello. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thx, everyone! Happy 2009! El_C 12:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy Groundhog Day

Happy day! Jehochman ^Talk 19:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Chippies

El C, I've been meaning to ask for ages. What is the link between revolutionary socialism and chimpunks? Did I miss that bit in Animal Farm? Is it something to do with resting the means of damn making from beavers? --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No link; but are you referring to Groundhog? (see left) There is a Groundhog-Chippie connection, which I was trying to further cultivate (see right). El_C 11:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"Love is in the air ....dooooo .....dooo.dooo ......doooo ......dooo.doooo ." --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Book?

Let me know when it is out, and you will up your sales by one. :-) KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

4Tality Fractal

1. Four Facets of existence: 1. Matter 2. Energy 3. Space 4. Time

2. Four Dimensions: 1. 1D 2. 2D 3. 3D 4. 4D (temporal)

3. Four Fundamental interactions: 1. Strong 2. EM 3. Weak 4. Gravity

4. Four States of matter: 1. Solid 2. Liquid 3. Gas 4. Plasma

El_C 07:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Rev-dels

Just for information at the moment: are you able to do revision deletions? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Affirmative. El_C 20:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks. There are a couple of admins I usually contact when I see something that needs to deleted, but unfortunately they let real life interfere with their admin duties. You are online a lot at the same times I am, so it's good to have another person to contact if needed. I generally only ask personally if it's both serious and urgent. - BilCat (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, by all means. If I'm around, please don't hesitate. El_C 02:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I realize.my wording above presumes you'd be willing, and that I didn't actually ask, so thanks. :) - BilCat (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit Tag on Gaza Strip

Sorry. I thought it was an error that it kept changing. I apologize for the inconvenience. I just don't think the article is accurate and is misinformation. Gotmax (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, no worries. As I mentioned, you are free to continue the conversation notwithstanding the tag having been responded to. El_C 23:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

GretLomborg

Sorry for over-reacting last night. Thanks for not responding equally. WP:ANI#Compromised account - GretLomborg ? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure thing. El_C 16:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Inquisition

I am a new user to Wikipedia so I don't know a lot about the proper protocols. I wrote something on Talk:Inquisition a while back and have heard or seen nothing. You were the last person to edit the page,and I'm not sure who to contact about this issue other than that; unless someone "owns" that page and makes the most edits.

The issue is on the article Inquisition

There is a mistranslation. Bp. Grosseteste is quoted as saying heresy is "an opinion created by human reason, founded on the Scriptures, contrary to the teachings of Christ, publicly avowed and obstinately held." The citation is to an edition of Matthew Paris's Chronicle maiorum; however, that source actually reads: "Heresias est sententia humano sensu electa, Scriptura Sacrae contraria, palam edocta, pertinaciter defensa."

The false English version (unless there is some other place that it is found; but every place that I find it cites the 1872 edition of Paris, or is circular) cited above is ubiquitous and appears in many books, etc. when searching the Internet. But it is flatly wrong on it's face.

I actually emailed a professor who's done work on Grosseteste but haven't heard anything back from him.

Wondering what to do. Plenty of "reliable sources" have the English quote but it is objectively wrong, again, unless they are citing the wrong source.

What to do?

Thanks for your patience in reading this again I am a complete n00b to Wiki and don't know how to go about diplomatically dealing with an issue like this especially considering a lot of reputable sources seem to have gotten the quote wrong too.

Regards, Pavel

PavelCristovic (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, this goes beyond my familiarity with the material. I suggest you draft a Request for comment to get the attention of other outside editors. El_C 21:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @PavelCristovic: From a quick look at that talk page, one problem is that your section was posted at the top of the talk page, rather than at the bottom, as you did on this talk page. Wikipedia prefers that now topics be posted at the bottom of the talk page, and that's were regular users look for new comments. This is a very common issue with new users, so it's nothing to be embarrassed about. I'll just move it to the bottom for you, and we'll see if that helps bring in some comments. (I don't know anything about the topic either.) If it doesn't, then a Request for comment can be tried. - BilCat (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I've left a very basic comment at the article's talk page on how to handle this kind of situation. That I way I don't fill up El C's talk page with comments :) - BilCat (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

thanks and update

Thanks so much for the welcome and help. I've responded to your response on the Inquisition talk page, proposed a possible solution; ought we wait for more people to respond then? PavelCristovic (talk) 08:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. Sure, give it a day or two. I'm confident you will get some input. El_C 08:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I realize now this was probably not addressed to me! El_C 08:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

It's still your advice that I built on, so no worries. :) - BilCat (talk) 10:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Romania

And all I got was this... Whoa!

I can live with your highly arbitrary closing summary of the RfC on the Talk page, so I do not want to persuade you to change it. However, you closed other on-going debates as well. Could you open the other debates? Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 05:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah, the thanks I get! El_C 05:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

And all I got was a ^^^

• Talk:And Then There Were None#RfC: And Then There Were None and racial language
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Request for comments on the 'political position' parameter of the political party infobox
• Talk:Romania#RfC
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: HispanTV
• Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Is RfX a vote, or a consensus discussion? (RfC)
• Talk:Civil Rights Act of 1968#Merger of Fair Housing Act and Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 into this article
• Talk:WikiLeaks#RFC: Murder Of Seth Rich content dispute
• Talk:Athens News#Request for comment
• Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair#RfC: LavScam
• Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings#RfC: Change "white supremacist" to "white nationalist"

El_C 06:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I think you're doing a good job. This barnstar is meant to be a counterbalance to a likely unbalanced criticism-appreciation ratio. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Much appreciated! I try keep my error ratio low, but I often fail. Good to have something to aspire to, though! Thanks again. El_C 22:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, El C. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 22:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

BilCat (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Not at all. Please keep me updated. El_C 23:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Wah Ching

Can I persuade you that it's time to block 2600:1012:b04b:2e4c/64 for a while? The edit you reverted was the 3rd IP in this block to make random edits to this article and several others in the past few days, so talk page warnings are having no effect. I've come to the conclusion that tying talk pages to IPv6/128 was a mistake; we should have tied them to IPv6/64. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what is the actual range? Please wikilink. El_C 00:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. I think the way this gets reported is Special:Contributions/2600:1012:b04b:2e4c::/64. Ah, yes, that shows the IP addresses. Although I was wrong, there was another range involved, too: Special:Contributions/2600:1012:B01E:4A46::/64. They're both Verizon wireless out of LA, so the same editor, but it's not purely within the same IP/64 range as I'd thought. Maybe I'll request page protection next time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarl N. (talk • contribs)

By all means, please feel free to list those here or at RfPP, if issues persist. El_C 03:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Houthi movement

@El C: I think SharabSalam (talk · contribs) is acting suspicious. After you blocked his account SharabSalam (talk · contribs) [[2]] for one week and warned him for his violation, The IP 5.237.208.153 (talk · contribs) restored all his deleted edits as you can see in ([3].

He has reverted this page many times as you can see in [[4]] [[5]] [[6]][[7]] [[8]]

I have opened new section in the talk page to discuss his view as in talk page, but it seems he want to enforce his opnion without reaching consensus for this . Also, SharabSalam (talk · contribs) is posting Antisemitism image containg the following "الموت لاسرائيل" death to israel" in his page. [9]]

Thank you --AliSami (talk) 09:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Please use your dispute resolution resources to get outside input into your dispute, so that it isn't just the two of you going back and fourth on the talk page and the mainspace. As for File:Iran_ceremony_celebrating_the_40th_anniversary_of_the_Islamic_Revolution_2.jpg — I don't consider that as antisemitism but just anti-Israeli sentiment of the usual Islamic regime variety. Frankly, I'm bored rather than am offended by it. El_C 09:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Replying to AliSami, Nonsense. I haven't made any revert in any place since I was unblock (as the previous title of this talk section suggest I have made a revert). I have replied in the talk page and you are the one who started editwarring. When you introduce an edit and you get reverted you are the one who should go to the talk page and YOU seek consensus for your edit not me.--SharabSalam (talk) 10:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd rather this dispute not spillover onto my user talk page. I've semiprotected the article, so IPs are no longer a factor, and I reverted to the status quo ante. As mentioned on the article talk page, perhaps it's time you both took a break from the article for a while. El_C 10:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Invite to RfC (Request for Comment) at Reagan article on Iran-Contra

Hi,

You're invited to an RfC on the question of, "Within the section on the Iran-Contra affair, should we include the aspect of drug trafficking on the part of some Nicaraguan Contras?"

Talk:Ronald_Reagan#rfc_85A761C

Thanks,

FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I just reverted some vandalism, my familiarity with the article's editing history is virtually non-existent. I'm not sure a nearly 30 editors -sized mass-message was the right call here, but I guess what's done is done. El_C 16:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Mail call

Hello, El C. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Bishonen | talk 20:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC).

Thanks, got it. El_C 03:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Protection of minors

El C, can I confirm, so to protect minors, they are not allowed to edit topics related to where they live? starship.paint (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not a rule established in policy. We just have to use our common sense (which I hope, when it comes to minors, would include an abundance of caution), as defined by Wikipedia:Child protection as well as advised in WP:YOUNG and WP:AFP; especially the latter's statement that: the most useful piece of advice guardians can give to younger editors is to never divulge any personally identifiable information (name, age, location, school) on Wikipedia – or anywhere else publicly available on the Internet for that matter. So, it's always bad idea for a minor to disclose (accidentally or otherwise) where they are from, be it done explicitly, or by virtue of the focus of their edits (of course, Delhi and, say, the village of Lava, are not equal in that regard). You do, then, need to display a delicate touch when it comes to dealing with minors on Wikipedia, including but not limited to being strenuously vigilant about their health and safety, in every possible sense. El_C 03:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, at this point, we pretty much already have age, town, education level revealed unfortunately, maybe even a hint of a name from the offensively named account. starship.paint (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

True dat. What would you suggest? El_C 03:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking allowing of editing (expanding?) content based on related towns, buildings, etc (thought it would be a subject of interest). But now they've said they'd rather copyedit and that there are some sort of internet restriction (probably will affect ability to expand content). So I guess my point is moot, maybe just leave the editor to copyedit then. starship.paint (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure, the hope, at any rate, is that they find a quiet corner of the wiki to contribute in, uneventfully. El_C 04:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

So, you jinxed it, El C. Here's an idea: topic ban for 6 months from editing comments of other editors. Also, why shouldn't we revdel (Redacted)? starship.paint (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I know, right? No, no topic ban — they should just not do it, full stop. Anyway, I've already offered to revdel that article talk page, more for their peace of mind than anything, but the user is fine with those messages just not being displayed, which I then implemented. City name redacted, as still the less attention we give it, the better. At any rate, there's nothing that would positively identify them, in this city of 100,000+, so I'm not overly concerned about their health and safety in that regard, or I would do it regardless of whether they had requested it or not. El_C 10:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

DRV

Hey! An IP user forgot to inform you that they're challenging your speedy deletion of Category:Evil here. --MrClog (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

That again. Some further LTA nonsense, I suspect. El_C 14:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Sexual fluidity article

El_C, to ensure that there is no more edit warring and to help aid discussion, will you full-protect the Sexual fluidity article for a few days? That should give me and the other editor time to work out matters if the other editor is willing to discuss. If it's not full-protected for at least a few days, I'm sure the edit warring (on my part as well) will continue. A few days is also all that I need to fix up the article via a draft offline. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Whoa, are you aware you violated 3RR? I suggest you self-revert while you still can! El_C 15:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

El_C, yes, I'm aware. The edit warring has, however, stopped. And if the editor restores the material, I won't revert again. So I don't see that there is a need for any block, as blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Given what I stated on the article's talk page, it is not in the best interest of the article that I revert to the other editor's edits. I'm not even sure if the other editor will return to actually debate. If the other editor does return, what I'm concerned about is future (not immediate) edit warring between me and that editor at that article. By this, I mean a slow edit war, which is why I asked you to full-protect the article, which will prevent disruption and aid discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

But if the user reverts to break 3RR themselves, then it won't be even-handed to block just one of you. You should keep that in mind. El_C 15:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

You have a chance to rescind a 3RR violation — you need to just take it. El_C 15:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and revert, as I just got a ping from another editor about this saying that they will reinstate my edits. But if the editor I was in dispute with were to come along and revert again, I think it would be best to full-protect the article and give us a chance to work it out than to block either one of us. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for rescinding your 3RR violation. Now that I know further edit warring is imminent I have, indeed, protected the article for three days. El_C 16:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't classify General Ization reinstating my edits as further edit warring. I also think that the editor in question is likelier not to return and debate while the article is full-protected now that their edits are reinstated and will be that way for three days. I know that it's whiny to cite WP:The wrong version, but, hey, it is. And after the article's full protection expires, I and others should just let that version remain? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

My intention was to adopt Flyer's edits, as I believe they are correct, and to reinstate them if Flyer was required to revert because of a technical 3RR violation. Since I have not previously reverted content at this article, not sure how that would constitute continued edit warring. General Ization ^Talk 16:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, if the user does not respond in, say, a day, I will revert the protected version myself. Stonewalling is not an option. General Ization, I thought it was a tautology — it would be edit warning as it continues the edit war. El_C 16:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

QN

Hello El C. I have seen an editor[10] whose username (and articles he edited) is similar to an another editor's[11] on WP. Is this a WP:IMPERSONATOR case? The editor doesn't seem disruptive though. Puduḫepa (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know — whose the other editor? El_C 18:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the incompleted information—the link is above Puduḫepa (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

No, I think they're fine. Just a fluke. I don't think it poses an issue at this time. El_C 18:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, thank you for the answer. Puduḫepa (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Arjuni Morgaon

Dear Sir Please Update my home Town Arjuni Morgaon As City with Municipal Council and population of town is as 2011 census 11000. Harshalkumar Khawse (talk) 07:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear sir, please Guide me on Wikipedia for better advice with Editing nearby places. Harshalkumar Khawse (talk) 07:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Harshalkumar Khawse (talk) 07:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Also Update Information about my town Dena Bank is now Converted as Bank of Baroda and Arjuni Morgaon Bus Station is also Available for Transportation. Harshalkumar Khawse (talk) 07:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Also Update Information about my town Dena Bank is now Converted as Bank of Baroda and Arjuni Morgaon Bus Station is also Available for Transportation. Harshalkumar Khawse (talk) 07:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Edit requests are made on the article talk page — and at any rate, I can't make updates without access to the data. El_C 14:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Continue RFAR thoughts

I don't have a proposal. We've lost. I don't think anything ArbCom does, including resigning en masse, would make T&S budge on Fram's ban. The WMF have inertia, and the software, on their side. If the proposed RFC resulted in a unanimous opinion from the en.wiki community and ArbCom, WMFOffice would say "I speak for the entire T&S team when I say we thank you for your valuable input, it means a lot to us, gives us important perspectives to consider, and we look forward to working together more closely in the future", and then do nothing. They don't have to do anything. I'm not saying "they do not care about what the en.wiki community thinks" for dramatic effect; I say it because I think it is literally true. The only thing that would affect them would be if the WMF Board directed the WMF ED to direct them to do something. I believe that in spite of Doc James' good intentions, he's 1/11th of the board, and there is a 2% chance of that happening. There's maybe another 1% chance that some kind of outside publicity might embarrass them or make them worry about fundraising. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not that pessimistic, yet. True, organizational inertia is a powerful stuff of nightmares, but I think the combined weight of the community and the Arbitration Committee, as well as that of Jimbo and Doc James, can maybe make a difference. I say, let's give it a chance. If we're truly lost, what have we got to lose? El_C 21:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

True. If there is no God, what's the harm in praying? It's not like I particularly mind if ArbCom organizes an RFC. By all means, give it a try. As hard as it is to believe, I've been wrong before. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The WMF caved in the superprotect matter, but not in this one (unless the WMF Board decides to overturn things). Ultimately, superprotect was something that practically united the entire Wikimedia movement against WMF. The participants were on enwiki and dewiki, and well it happened during Wikimania too. With this situation, it's really just enwiki, and for all the cries about a silent majority, there is at least a significant minority on enwiki who support the WMF ban on Fram.

I'm not saying that it's impossible, but you've gotta make a lot more people care about this to get the sort of backlash that would make WMF cave. Superprotect was about software that got in editors' way, every day. This incident is about one admin on one wiki, so it's a lot harder of a sell. Even harder, Fram has not exactly made friends on Wikidata (and is unknown on Commons and Meta, the two other main hubs), and enwiki does have a reputation for being lax on civility - not to mention that a lot of the people already defending him do think that Fram is uncivil. The media has also not picked this up as they did superprotect, which does not help. So in short, we would have to work a whole lot harder. Maybe the next edition of the Signpost will help (it does go to some other wikis). I don't know.

Now, if they started banning more prominent editors left and right, it might get more attention. And if WMF really ran amuck - while the servers are still owned by WMF, the setup of the software does have some checks and balances, which I won't go into here. --Rschen7754 06:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and also: Participate in ArbCom elections. Participate in steward elections. Participate in the WMF board elections. All of those positions really do matter in things like this. --Rschen7754 06:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit-warring IPs on Australian Independents

The deleter clearly has access to this IP as well, since they were also using it today: 49.199.107.229. You might want to block that one as well. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

On second thought, you might also want to Semi-Protect the article for a while. I just found a third IP scrolling down the revision history page, and I doubt that's the end of it. An effective rangeblock would be somewhere in the /17 network. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I've just gone ahead and semi'd for a week, just out of an abundance of caution. El_C 01:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Protecting CIS

Why would you protect the current version of the page, rather than the longstanding version before the current edit warring over the first sentence began? ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I simply protected the version I encountered at the time. El_C 02:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The version being protected, though, is the edit warred version that doesn’t (yet) have consensus. Could you instead protect the longstanding, neutral version before the current edit disputes began? Darryl.jensen (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Unless Mikayla doesn’t think there is a neutral version? Darryl.jensen (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not familiar enough with the article's editing history to make that determination at this time, but at any rate, that is the nature of protection — the version that gets protected is, ultimately, random. If going back to the status quo ante in the interim enjoys consensus, I'm happy to edit the protected page accordingly. Please feel free to propose this on the article talk page, and let me know. El_C 10:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Midwestern US page-blanking LTA

Hello. Can you please reblock this range for 1-3 months: 174.255.0.0/20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)? They recently came out of a 2-week block, and they've gone right back to large-scale page-blanking vandalism (on multiple IPs). The range is rife with large-scale vandalism, dating back to March 2019. I think that they might be related to the person on 174.255.128.0/21 (already rangeblocked on two smaller /22 ranges), given the behavior. It looks like their blocks have not dissuaded them from further disruption. They're still active right now on the unblocked range, and it's starting to wear me down. Thanks. (PS, AVi is suffering from a nightmare backlog right now. Would appreciate it if you could give it a look.) LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 10:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 11:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the List of the verified oldest people

When the protection ends, what's to stop Georgia Guy from attempting to return the article to his preferred version? I'm trying to seek consensus, but I'm not really sure where to go from here. I suppose I could do a RFC? Rockstonetalk to me! 18:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure, that's a good option. Otherwise, please consult your dispute resolution resources. El_C 18:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I filed a request here. I'm also attempting to determine whether or not we can consider sources purporting otherwise to be reliable, here. Rockstonetalk to me! 18:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

By the way, if I don't hear anything back from User:Georgia guy, I'm going to revert it back to the older version once the protection expires. The user seems rather uninterested in engaging me in order to develop consensus; and I believe the default position should be to assume that her age is not in serious dispute by reliable sources. Could you try to contact him too? Rockstonetalk to me! 04:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

No, and please don't follow him around to other articles! El_C 11:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not. I disagreed with his edit and so I reverted it.

On a different note, if the user won't engage with me on the talk page, I'm not really sure what to do. Rockstonetalk to me! 13:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not gonna argue about it — just don't do it again. In answer to your question, if the user fails to engage they effectively forfeit their position. But they still have time to do so, plus other editors may offer their input as well. So, we'll see. El_C 15:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay. I still personally feel like he was being rather hostile and uncivil with me. I'm doing my best to assume good faith, but he really isn't extending me the same courtesy. See this comment in particular: Talk:List_of_the_verified_oldest_people#Question "This never would have happened if it weren't for Rockstone35's selfishness." If this continues I'll make a note on WP:AN. I'd rather he just stop being a jerk to me. Rockstonetalk to me! 04:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think enforcing civility is high on anyone's priority right about now — and also, I would leave ArbCom alone. They're busy and they probably don't want any. El_C 07:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

No offense, but enforcing civility is literally part of the job of being an admin. Rockstonetalk to me! 14:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

A job pays — this is a volunteer gig. And I'm usually not interested in enforcing lapses in civility. El_C 14:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You're right, job isn't the right descriptor. Sorry. Thanks for your help. :) Rockstonetalk to me! 15:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Where do I respond

Hi El C, where exactly do I respond to the complaint here? There are many threads. I believe that there is tremendous misunderstanding and incorrect information that was presented and I'd like to make my case. Thank you. --UberVegan🌾 18:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Please respond on the respective article talk pages. Please also heed the warning that further edit warring, even if it falls short of violating the 3 revert rule, are likely to result in sanctions. Thanks and good luck. El_C 19:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I want to respond to the complaint itself. I don't believe that I was edit-warring and I'd like to make it clear. Do I write it below the first complaint against me? UberVegan🌾 19:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I've already evaluated that you were, indeed, edit warring. I suppose you have the option to appeal that decision to other admins at ANI, but I would advise against it. El_C 19:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. There were only two reverts (not three or four) in a 24-hour period, and I'd just like to give my side, which I think is important. John purposely wrote things out of context. Maybe you'll change your mind, maybe not. Thanks again. UberVegan🌾 19:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Even if there were only two reverts instead of three in that one article (what about the other one?), I'm not sure what you aim to accomplish. I suggest devoting your time to trying to reach consensus for your changes, instead. El_C 19:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

"Other one," meaning the Moore article?

I do get consensus... see here. --UberVegan🌾 19:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

You are certainly welcome to argue that on the article talk page, then. El_C 19:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi El C, per this revert and this warning, is merging/bundling several sources on a page considered "disruptive editing" or does it have to do with content dispute? He warned me that I "need to establish a consensus prior to re-adding anything on [the Michael Moore page]. we will be going back to ANEW if you change this again prior to a consensus being achieved."

I understand gaining consensus once I am reverted, but what happened to WP:BOLD? Do I need to get consensus on that page alone to fix typos or add new sourced content? Thanks for your feedback. UberVegan🌾 23:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The best thing is to follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle. The onus is on you to get consensus, because you're the one introducing the edit. El_C 23:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I get that. But in this case, he wrote that I need consensus for things that I "re-add" to the page. Those sources were already there, so how exactly am I "re-adding"? Thank you! --UberVegan🌾 23:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not following you. Clearly, you're (also) adding prose that is being objected to. El_C 00:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Clearly I didn't. I ONLY merged/bundled sources. This seems to border on harassment. --UberVegan🌾 00:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's not at all clear to me. But any rate, merging material is an edit that's being introduced as well, so the onus is still on you to gain consensus for the edit's inclusion. El_C 00:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Selena+simmer sock

Can you please indef Hazuki fujiwara 333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? This is a sock of Selena+simmer (also known as the Ojamajo Doremi vandal). They'll probably be back later today. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for attending to this, Tony. El_C 01:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Christopher Kaelin

Hello can you assist me in applying page protection to this article? I have an editor with a personal preference for content - that has reverted multiple times. Now another editor seems to have joined, and their opinions are not policy. The opinion involves a properly referenced primary sourced block-quote. User:Lightburst 14:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: Lightburst now blocked for 36 hours for edit warring borderline copyvio and promotional material. El_C 15:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Sanctions

I went ahead and put that piece from the Intercept back to the article per your confirmation. Little did I know that it will be reverted. I believe the matter needs your attention.--Kazemita1 (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying that objection is not substantive? Because, otherwise, I'm not sure what there is for me to do at this time. I commented on the BLP component of the edit, but that objection is about something else. El_C 19:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes. The user is saying there is not enough evidence to link Heshmat Alavi to MEK, while the edit included at least 5 secondary independent reliable sources (BBC, Intercept, Washington Post, Al-Jazeera and Forbes) saying the exact opposite.--Kazemita1 (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

/Investigating. El_C 19:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Trust and safety

You didn't block a user for what is the most abominable suggestion I can imagine. Your warning got a disingenuous reply, a po-faced 'block me for adding a citation?'. That user is still active here, another one that gets a pass, which makes this a more unsafe environment in perception and actuality. If you had stayed out of it, another admin could have made the block without shouldering you aside. cygnis insignis 02:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, it didn't look like that was going to happen. It didn't look like anything was going to happen. Certainly, another admin is free to indef them if they feel my strong warning was insufficient — I have no objection to that. But I am still hopeful the user will rethink their very wrongheaded and bizarre approach. If this proves not to be the case, please let me know. El_C 02:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Whether it was going to happen, or might still, is not the point I wish to convey. Ask someone in the real world, a dear aunt or such, what they think about that comment; I think you have lost perspective. The circumstances ought to be placing greater restraint on the incendiary statements, there are already repercussions being experienced by real people. I wont let you know if I notice anything else, I don't trust you. cygnis insignis 02:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

It's moot as I just indeffed them for having linked the video in the past on Wikipedia, which was the last straw for me. El_C 03:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, I struck the last sentence. cygnis insignis 03:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this. It is difficult to know what to do , or even say, when there is a mood such as this but I think you got this right and I'm grateful to you. Thincat (talk) 05:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Reason for blocking Wnt

Hello. I've been living under a rock, and I just found out about the banning of Fram (and all related events). Anyways, while perusing through Wnt's talk page, I realized that you blocked the user a day or two ago for something related to the New Zealand shooting video and Fram. I tried to understand what Wnt did, but some links led to deleted pages/edits, so I could not find any information (or maybe I'm just a bad researcher). Can you tell me what Wnt did that let you to block the user? I do not have any opinion on the block; I'm just asking because usually, when I see someone blocked, I want to know the reason, so I do not make the same mistake. Now, if this is something private, and if I should mind my own business, please let me know. Thanks. William2001^(talk) 04:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Briefly: as a form of protest, Wnt suggested we include a link to the New Zealand shooting video to scare of corporate donors and the like away from Wikipedia. I strongly warned him about that. Then I found out that a month ago they actually linked to the New Zealand shooting video on Wikipedia, which was the last straw for me. El_C 04:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Thank you for the reply. I know that Wikipedia is not censored, but in general, is posting graphic videos prohibited on Wikipedia (assuming no copyright violations), or is this a special case as I think there was consensus not to post the video? Thanks. William2001^(talk) 04:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

You don't need to ping me on my own talk page. Anyway, no, it's not a special case. We don't display or link to videos of graphic executions on Wikipedia — although there could be (iconic) exceptions. El_C 04:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

New user editing disruptively

Please take a look at this new user's actions. It seems to be another disruptive editor regarding the Kurdish language(s) [12] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 12:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive how? At any event, I've added those articles to the overall ec protection I applied to the Kurdish set of articles. El_C 15:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Unknown IP user

We all half-expected this, and it's of little bother. I also don't know whether it's worth your time and thus whether you have the inclination to do owt. Were I in your position I'm not sure I would see the value in blocking one IP when another can be created without a huge amount of effort. Nevertheless, do what you think is necessary Talk:Douma_chemical_attack#Background Cambial Yellowing(❧) 21:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 21:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Urgent!

user:107.77.194.39 made a threat of violenve against me here [[13]]. CLCStudent (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 21:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

AustrianFreedom

Hi El C. Thank you for your high quality work. I ran into a very strange situation. AustrianFreedom (talk · contribs) has recently been posting crazy edit summaries and nonsense. Earlier contributions seem lucid (or maybe they are just copyvios). Could you take a look for a second opinion and let me know what you think is going on and what additional steps should be taken. Jehochman ^Talk 02:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Jehochman. Looks like Bishonen took care of it. But thank you for the kind words — much appreciated! El_C 02:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome! She blocked the account and then I deleted a bunch of nasty edit summaries and rolled back their wild contributions. At this point it looks like a good user's account was hacked by somebody bad, or it's one person who snapped in a major way. I've emailed them to ask -- maybe not the best idea, but it's what I did. Jehochman ^Talk 03:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

picture of the day

Today's WP:POTD reminded me of you. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

That squirrel needs another peanut! El_C 14:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

lol. I hope you are doing well :) See you around L
—usernamekiran(talk) 20:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Block log

I hope you won't be insulted on this, El_C. For a time, I was sad that I had lost my clean block log. Then, I checked some editors' block logs, and saw some prominent editors got blocked too before, so I got over mine. I found yours to be the funniest. starship.paint (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I just had a look, too. Feeling nostalgic. We were much more wild, back in the old days. Is it even possible to un/block oneself anymore? (I had to look it up and the answer is no). But, yeah, it's true, my block log has it all: comedy, tragedy, farce, coupled with a good dose of stupidity (not least by yours truly!). El_C 16:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Actually, it is possible to unblock yourself, just don't expect to keep your admin bit for much longer after doing so...  — Amakuru (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru: that seems to have revoked in November 2018, perhaps related to that incident (?). El_C 23:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh yes, how right you are. Thanks. And indeed it probably was spurred on by that incident, along with its IAR "emergency" desysop by a crat, and subsequent Arbcom shenanigans.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Accusation

Just curious, is it normal to be accused someone of sockpuppeting like here [14]? I know for a fact I don't but I'm starting to get uneasy about this because being a known sockpuppeter or suspicion of one can really destroy someone's reputation and change the way people think about you.--Vauxford (talk) 20:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I deleted it as an attack page. They are free to launch a proper SPI, but a subpage like that is, indeed, excessive. El_C 21:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The guy is still following me

My edits this morning -

• [15]
• [16]
• [17]

As you can see, aside from a minor edit, I corrected a language issue and sourced it and removed unsourced material. I had intended to add more sources this afternoon. Then -

• [18]

I will leave this article alone in the future because I do not want to be seen as disruptive or anything of the sort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indigenous girl (talk • contribs) 21:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

And again

• [19] Indigenous girl (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Buffs blocked for 24 hours. El_C 21:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, I do not want to be seen as disruptive or hounding so could you El_C or somebody else please fix something on [20] Under External Links there is a link below Girl Scout Council Websites for the Greater Minneapolis Council. It needs to be removed. The site is no longer controlled by the Girl Scouts and it is full of potty language. I had it on my todo list until the state-by-state editing began and it was missed by the editor. Indigenous girl (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

You are free to continue editing the scouts by states articles. They've clearly only started editing those articles because you did first. El_C 23:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Indigenous girl (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi El_C. I am very confused by the following - [21] I don't understand why this editor reconfigured the talk page to collapse my comment. I did not suggest that anything I wrote be used as content in the article. I was very clear as to why I added my comment. I also stated it should probably go in the David Zeisberger article, which I will do at some point if no one else takes the initiative before I can get to it. OR policy states, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." (I know you know what it states, including for clarity). I don't understand why the conversation was closed when he asked me a question. I also do not know if I am expected to reply to the long post and footnotes, I am not sure if he is addressing Corbie or myself. I am not comfortable in tit for tat on the talk page, I just want to collaborate on the gosh darn quotes and I stated that. I feel terribly asking you to be the playground monitor once again but I am not sure how to proceed. Thank you in advance. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean "for the record"? What record? What type of responses were you hoping to elicit? How does your (OR) comment relate to improving the article to which the talk page belongs? El_C 22:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The OA founders relied on Zeisberger as their source for the Lenape/Delaware words that they used. Zeisberger has been noted to have created words, to have been inaccurate and later translations of his work are noted to be inaccurately transcribed. I feel that it is important to note on the talk page that he was/is not reliable which I acknowledge(d) is OR. With this information being noted it is there as back up should a reliable source be found that is better than this [22] "This European concept did not exist in the Lënape tradition, thus there was no word, so the Moravians had to invent one. But at least it’s grammatically correct." which is not considered a reliable source. I have not made any edits regarding language to the article since 26 June when I undid an edit by Buffs and GMG explained why my revert was inappropriate (I agree in retrospect after his explanation). I have tried to carefully temper my responses so that it is clear that I am trying to collaborate. If the content should not be there I am happy to strike it. Where should I respond to Buffs question if not where he asked it? Thanks. Indigenous girl (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I am just having a difficult time following any of this. What question did Buffs ask of you and in what way do you see your (OR) comment constituting an answer to this? This entire topic is one I am not finding easy to parse. El_C 23:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

He asked, "Might I suggest moving this to Zeisberger's article?" [23] Yes of course it should be added to Zeisberger. I had said that in my comment.

For well over a month we have been discussing the word Wimachtendienk. On 3 June Buffs said,"Well, let's not just limit ourselves to websites run by the Lenape people. Languages change some over time. It would be more appropriate to look at texts/resources that were present at the time and not on incomplete web listings. For example, perhaps a published English-Lenape dictionary? Historical context and reliability mean everything." [24] which is what I have been trying to do all along. I posted this [25] Buffs felt it was not straightforward (the source specifically states "This European concept did not exist in the Lënape tradition, thus there was no word, so the Moravians had to invent one." clarifying that the word was not Lenape but that it was created. Buffs staed this was OR and I am still not clear how it is, it is a Scouting site that discusses the word. Buffs then commented [26] that cannot I cannot complain about a group's reliability in one breath and then use the same group's newsletter as an ironclad fact because it is WP:CHERRYPICKING. I cannot use a Scouting site that states the word was created by Moravians and I cannot use other sites to show that Zeisberger in fact created words. I had sourced and added to the article that the OA had changed their policy regarding their outfits. I have made other edits regarding the OA and scouts on other pages that had nothing to do with cultural appropriation or language, I've sourced Scouting articles that were in desperate need of sources that had zero to do with Native peoples or language. My contributions are not entirely one sided. Today Buffs posted this [27] I don't know where he is addressing me or Corbie. He reconfigured the talk page to hide my contribution which was specifically addressing the month long conversation about language use and closed the conversation even though he was not an uninvolved user, effectively punishing me for being transparent about the sources being OR (which could later support other sources that address the historical context and reliability he feels mean everything). I hope this helps to clarify things. If not I can try again but I need to attend to some things so it wouldn't likely be until morning. Indigenous girl (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

All I can say is try to fall back on reliable sources. And try to fall back on your dispute resolution resources, by getting outside input, while focusing on narrow, digestible items of the dispute. Because this is still a lot to take in. El_C 01:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Indigenous girl, don't get pulled into re-arguing the linguistics. It already went to the boards. It's fine. It's sourced; it's stable in the article; the guy who was blocked is just trying to upset you.

El C, The continued behavioral issues as I see it are that Buffs came back from his block for harassing her and immediately hid her comments on talk. As an involved editor, he "closed" the "discussion." In addition to violating WP:TPO and WP:CLOSE I think this goes to the broader issue of his attempts to intimidate and silence her. I have unhidden her comments:[28]. I don't think this is appropriate behavior on his part, especially given recent events. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure, it's better that Buffs doesn't alter the comment fields of other users' comments. In fact, I already warned him about that once already. At any case, now that comment is in a place that I don't know where it is, so I'm not sure reopening it and moving it actually helped its overall exposure, but oh well. I couldn't really follow it anyway, so what do I know? It was probably worth another warning, at least. Even though the prospect of that sounded too exhausting for me to bother with at the time, sorry. (I'm just a bit pressed with time, and have to prioritize and ration it accordingly.) El_C 21:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

After now also having read Mark Ironie warning to Buffs, I'm starting to feel like I failed to act decisively and proportionately — which is to say, at all. The more I think about it, I don't really need to understand the nuances of the content to understand the underhanded nature of the conduct. With that out of the way, a remedy that goes beyond a warning is probably due. Let me consider this for a few minutes. El_C 00:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

My apologies; I'm only just seeing this now. I realize now I didn't help matters by moving the translation note to the translation section. I've apologized to IG and explained why I did it. I'm sorry this has been so exasperating. You have my gratitude. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Cyclone Fani

Can you please re-instate the Semi-Protection on this article? Vandalism resumed right after the last 1-month Semi-Protection period, so apparently, it wasn't enough to dissuade the vandals. You might also want to consider doing something similar for Cyclone Vayu as well. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 01:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hurricane Michael

Can you please re-instate the Semi-Protection for this article? This article experienced a spike in vandalism in just the past month (a while after earlier periods of Semi-Protection expired), and almost every new/unregistered edit to the article since then has been just plain disruptive. Additionally, the article is highly visible (comparable to the level of readership at Hurricane Katrina), so this makes any disruption there all the worse. I will understand if you choose not to, but the recent spate of socking/vandalism on the article in just the past month alone is not encouraging. BTW, hope you're doing well. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Yes, doing well, thank you for asking. Ah, hurricane articles — the gift that keeps on giving! El_C 01:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

How you doing EL C ? ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 01:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Doing good, still! El_C 01:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Vandal attack at 1991 Atlantic hurricane season

Hello again. Can you please re-instate the Semi-Protection on this article for a month? This is a Featured Article, and the vandalism activity spiked right after this article became "Featured Article of the Day" (though vandalism was already ramping up before then). The Revision History is a mess. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The gift that keeps-keeps on giving! El_C 23:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Ugh. I should have included Hurricane Bob as well. Can you please Semi-Protect this article as well? (I should have known better - anything linked at the Main Page is bound to be a vandal target.) LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

You might want to block this vandal as well: 2600:1007:B119:89C2:0:20:3A8A:EA01. They're using vulgar attacks, in additional to the vandalism. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 23:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you please Semi the article for a week or so? My head is starting to spin from all that vandalism. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to my world! El_C 00:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1, again

An editor added opinion pieces and blogs as sources on the People's Mujahedin of Iran article, another editor reverted this edit on the grounds that these were blogs and opinion pieces, and then user:Kazemita1 added back the blogs to the article again. Isn't this a breach of the article's recent restrictions, and didn't you previously warn Kazemita1 about this? You also previously warned Kazemita1 about edit warring, and previously blocked Kazemita1 for edit warring. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm on it. El_C 23:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Is The National Interest considered a blog?--Kazemita1 (talk) 08:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Read the sources you're trying to include: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/mek-and-bankrupt-us-policy-iran-35982 (it's in the URL, blog). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I think you should carefully read this Stefka. From WP:RSOPINION:

A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion. Otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a blog-style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in standard news article format.

--Kazemita1 (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria, Kazemita1 makes a fair point that is worthy of a substantive reply. Please, both of you, continue this on the article talk page (feel free to refactor the above). El_C 16:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

That vandal you blocked...

You might want to expand the block to 68.184.128.0/19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log). As they've demonstrated in the past, they're able to hop IPs across the range. Their last rangeblock was for 3 months (incidentally, there's a lot of disruption from those IPs dating back at least to November 2018). LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 01:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Research Interview Request

Hello, El C. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Research Interview Request.
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Etchubykalo (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit summary too long

Hi. Regarding WP:ANI#Edit-summary removed, would you consider posting the contents of the edit summary in the ANI thread? That would help make clear what the problem was. I agree with your decision. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. Done. El_C 16:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

Lightburst (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Hopefully we will work together soon! To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Thank you, Lightburst. I appreciate the gesture of goodwill. El_C 22:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

So that's over

Are you ever going to address the WP:BLP and civility issues I brought to you? Buffs (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Can you please specify with a brief summary and a diff? El_C

I've done this at least a dozen times. Your criticism of me started with that diff. And still you do nothing. Why will this be any different? Buffs (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Please just explain plainly: it was a BLP violation because... X + [diff]. El_C 23:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I hope this is okay. Here is my original edit on the Vermont page -

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Scouting_in_Vermont&diff=prev&oldid=904252768

I admittedly left out two very important words in that the article stated that an individual mentioned in the article had not consulted with any Native people that summer. It was not intentional. I would like to hope that I would have caught it eventually however I cannot be certain that I would have. Honestly, I probably would not have because I would have been looking for grammatical or spelling errors. While it's a good thing that the two very important words were added, the fact remains that I edited the Vermont article before Buffs started editing the state articles. His edit of the Vermont article was not consecutive. You asked Buffs not to follow me. Buffs said that he would bring it to his talk page if he intended to edit an article I or Corbie had worked on. He began to edit consecutively. He had not gotten to Massachusetts so yes, I made one out of character edit following his lead, corrected and sourced a language inaccuracy and blanked unsourced material. I figured Buffs would see my edits and leave the page alone temporarily so that I could continue working on the article (sources are seriously lacking). He did not, nor did he mention it on his talk page as he said he would. I absolutely own that I messed up leaving those words out and it is clearly a huge issue. I intend to be far more diligent going forward. Indigenous girl (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I think I get it now. Please try to be more careful in the future when editing about living persons. This is very important. Anyway, this doesn't change the fact that Buffs suddenly started editing various Scouting by State articles right after you made an edit to Scouting in Vermont, then ignored my warning about following you and edited Scouting in Massachusetts right after you did. For which they were blocked. El_C 01:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Huge lesson learned. I will make every attempt to be as thorough as possible in the future. Indigenous girl (talk) 02:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

So, regardless of WP:BLP concerns, I still get warned for something that shouldn't have been a warning; WP:BLP issues are explicitly excluded. I object to the continued mischaracterization of my editing as "following [IG] and edited Scouting in Massachusetts right after [IG] did" WP:IUC 1d,2e. I was editing a series of articles in the exact same manner. If I were "following" her, I would have started editing that series of articles AFTER her, not before. At absolute best, this is a coincidence where I was unjustly blocked. At worst (and more likely), I was set up. When IG saw I was editing more of these articles, she edited one she knew I was going to be working on (an article she'd NEVER edited before) and then claimed I was following her when the opposite was true.

In summary, the "warning" never should have happened. Then she edited an article I said I'd be working on and you blocked me for following despite the fact that I was working on that series of articles first. Now you continue to take opportunity to malign me.

Given your apparently leftist advocacy (your talk page header with Che), it's impossible to take your input as unbiased. Buffs (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Your personal attack about it being impossible to take my input as unbiased has been noted. El_C 01:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Observations of apparent political bias and [[involvement are not attacks. I'm just telling you what I'm seeing: differing treatment for different political views. If that's wrong, please explain. Buffs (talk) 08:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

It is an attack and I'm not going to respond to it. El_C 09:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Sydney Tramway Museum vandal

Hello. Can you please re-block 2001:8003:C54A:9B00:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)? He's gone right back to vandalizing after his last rangeblock expired. He's been doing this since April, and he also targets other related articles as well. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 00:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 00:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Notice: Gun Control clarification request archived

Hi El_C, the Gun Control arbitration clarification or amendment request, which you were listed as a party to, has been archived to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control#Clarification request: Gun control (June 2019). If you have any questions please let me know or reach out to the committee directly. For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 13:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Brad. El_C 15:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Commercial spam

Hi El_C. Mike.Smith appears to have created their account for the sole purpose of spamming for a commercial site. I have removed all links. Could you please take a look? Thanks! Indigenous girl (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Will do. El_C 15:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Indigenous girl (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Abbycarroll

Hi El C. Perhaps you might have better luck trying to reach this editor and explain why she's heading in the wrong direction. I've tired, and others have tried (even other admins), and she still seems to not be listening. Posting things like this and this will only make things worse, and this edit sum is disingenuous at best. She's a new editor and still learning, but she's slowly and surely moving beyond the point where anyone is going to cut her any slack for those things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

She's well past that with me, obviously. Look a couple more edits forward on that high school article MJ diffed above. Rope is gone. Sorry MJ. John from Idegon (talk) 05:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I tried to be direct. El_C 05:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

OK...That really pisses me off. not at you, at her. I reverted the message on my talk that you mentioned to her on her talk unread. I read your diff on her talk. How is that anything but harassment? I've reverted her a lot, yes, but she is adding complete BLP violations (one on Mel B that had to be oversighted), she's misrepresenting sources, I'm almost certain she is lying about a copyright violation, although Commons ORTS is in the loop on that now. In the draft that she was pushing (she finally G7'sd it), a BLP also, she stated that the subject met Bill Murray, based on a citation to a website that perpetuates hoaxes as a meme about people meeting Bill Murray. The only thing she properly sourced in that whole draft was his attendance at the school in that diff. I looked at that article and it was an uncited train wreck of a fan page, so I cleaned it up with an ax. If that is stalking her, then there are several people with Wikipedia articles that should be making police reports on me, cause that sure isn't a first. I stumble across a page as a link on another page, follow it, and find a crapfest, which I address. I get she is new, but we've blocked many more competent new editors for less. Another editor notified me off-wiki that he may be taking her to ANI. If she thinks I'm an asshole, wait tell she meets the sharks at ANI. John from Idegon (talk) 05:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not familiar with the editing history of the dispute (and beyond) and am having a difficult time following you. I only noticed the comment on your talk page and her inappropriate user page, which I deleted. El_C 05:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't see the userpage but I'm curious about whether it had an edit history. If it was more or less created as the page you deleted, someone should speak to the brand new NPP patroller that approved it an hour before you deleted it. I'd be happy to do it, and politely, but without being able to see the history, I don't know if it's needed. John from Idegon (talk) 05:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Never mind. I was just contacted off wiki and that person verified it was. John from Idegon (talk) 06:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

No need to apologize to me John. I tried to help the editor avoid problems, but at some point WP:PACT does kick in when things continue to on as before. Perhaps, EL C's suggestion to move on will convince her to move and at least stick to commenting on content and not you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Reading Kafka

Thank you for watching over Franz Kafka. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

But of course! El_C 15:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Redaction

Thanks for your recent redactions of trolling comments. You may also want to look at this diff – WanderingWanda (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Anytime.  Done. El_C 18:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive IP editing on Drew Barrymore

Greetings! There's an IP that keeps changing the infobox image of Drew Barrymore's article despite being warned and reverted multiple times by several users. Can you please do something about this? Thanks, QuestFour (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 18:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Hindi BLP LTA

Can you please reblock this LTA for another 1-3 months: 223.187.128.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)? They've resumed their Hindi BLP vandalism. They've been doing this since May, and they also have a history of posting nasty BLP attacks on some of those biographical articles as well. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 01:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

About the page Libya and Yunnan

For Libya. The population for 2018 data is wrong. According to https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/libya-population/ and http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/libya-population/, the population of Libya are not even reached 7 million yet. Can you change the 2018 population census please?

For Yunnan. The ethnic group percentage is wrong. According to https://www.gokunming.com/en/blog/item/3769/yunnans-population-by-the-numbers,Ethnic ， ethnic minorities make up about 33.6% of Yunnan province total population. Can you change the right bar where shows han people are 67% to 66.4 please? Can you also scroll down to demographics and change that 38% to 33.6% please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.118.50 (talk • contribs)

I don't understand — why can't you apply those edits yourself? Those articles are not protected. El_C 22:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm still try to learn how to cite. Can you do it for now if you don't mind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.118.50 (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Please, at least try. See Help:Referencing for beginners. Be bold! I'm happy to correct you if you make any mistakes. El_C 03:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls

On the page for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, you upped the protection level for the reason that "I would rather new users (or dormant accounts) limit themselves to the article talk page, for now ". The guide to extended confirmed protection specifically says "Extended confirmed protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against disruption that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege extended confirmed users over unregistered users in valid content disputes on articles not covered by Arbitration Committee 30/500 rulings." You did this after I made an edit that I described in the summary, thoroughly described on the person who undid it's talk page, and even more thoroughly described and sourced in the talk page. The admin who undid my edit has not replied to my post on his talk page regarding the subject (which was requested by him on my talk page). Is this really what editing on Wikipedia is all about? The personal opinions of the admins overriding, ignoring and cutting of those with properly sourced information that can help make Wikipedia a better and more accurate resource? Before I started editing I did a great amount of reading into the pillars of Wikipedia and related documents, but my actual experience on the platform in no way reflects that information. Please change the protection level back, as there was little justification for the change in the first place, and it appears to go against the very idea of Wikipedia being an open and unbiased platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpoonLuv (talk • contribs) 19:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not intend to modify the protection settings at this time. I do not wish for new or dormant accounts to be editing that (and other similar) articles due to illegitimate socking. Please just make edit requets and we'll go from there. But please try not to delete the talk page comments of other users when you use the talk page! Please sign your username using four tiles (~~~~), so it's obvious who is saying what. Thank you. El_C 20:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't edit the comments of other users. I did edit my own though. I really don't know what you're talking about there. What legitimate socking are you talking about? All I see is that you're censoring legitimate changes. I feel as though some editors have been manipulating the page to use it to form narrative by posting unrelated information in order to back up their narrative. I have thoroughly explained and sourced on the talk page why that information is irrelevent. The response from the editor has been accusations of disruptive behavior and vandalism. At no point did he attempt to back up the relevance of including the information in the article, or dispute my reasoning for wanting it removed. If I take the time to research and properly source my information and reasoning, should it not also be appropriate for the admin to counter that by spending a little time actually countering that, instead of just throwing accusations? I am attempting to get consensus through discussion, but the admin seems unwilling to participate.SpoonLuv (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

My apologies. I now see why it looked like I deleted somebody else's post. That was under an older user name that I immaturely made some time ago when I was less serious about contributing to Wikipedia. I had that user name changed, so I was really just editing my own post. Thank you for the information about the tilde thing, I will do my best to make sure I use it from now on. SpoonLuv (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I hate to sound like a broken record on this talk page, but you have dispute resolution resources at your disposal. Please feel free to make use of them, especially in order to bring outside input to the dispute. El_C 16:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for this constructive info. Regarding what you've seen so far, which route would you choose to go down? It appears as though there's other complaints about that admin simply accusing people of edit warring, and not attempting to discuss or reach consensus. 3rd opinion looks great, but I'm concerned the admin will just simply ignore the findings. I don't want to create a huge stink over this but I, like many others, view Wikipedia as close to truth as you can get, and this whole process has severely shaken that belief. I'm in no way saying there's no other side and I'm 100% right, but I would at least like to feel as though my researched and sourced information has actually been considered. I attempted to discuss it on the admins talk page (at their request) and they deleted my comments without answer. I have given so many chances for a meaningful discussion and a road to consensus. An admin, somebody who should be responsible ensuring this impartiality, seems to be making every attempt to stop either of those things. (the last part of this comment is 90% venting, and can be ignored) SpoonLuv (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, I appreciate your addressing of my comments. I still disagree with your choice to leave the page protected, but recognize and respect your position on the matter. SpoonLuv (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The content dispute can be resolved, but only with outside input is that likely to happen. You can launch a Request for Comment directly on the talk page, or go the route of the Dispute Resolution noticeboard. Nothing wrong with seeking a 3rd Opinion, in the meantime. El_C 21:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Please delete revision history

Please delete the revision history for revisions 905013866, 905013155, and 905014002 in the English WP page for Moon jae-in. They are 2 edits by a new user and 1 revert, and those edits are clearly false and of no encyclopedic value (fitting category for Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material), so I am requesting that you delete them. They are also a serious violation of the biography of living persons policy. [29] [30] [31] Bukjintongil (talk) 12:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 16:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Special rules

Unless I'm missing something, it does not appear that you have logged the sanctions, and it does not appear that Buffs was given the super special warning template. GMG^talk 10:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, but his objection to the DS at the time implies he knows they are in effect. El_C 10:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I think I've pretty well expressed my personal distaste with esoteric rules in about every forum possible. But since ArbCom is often a exercise in violating WP:NOTBURO, that would likely invalidate the topic ban. Sorry for not being more specific at the time. I was/have been fairly busy. GMG^talk 21:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

JA617

Reaching out to you rather than bringing it to ANI directly if you wanted to handle this, if not I will bring to ANI. As you may or may not remember you blocked the user for various reasons, including WP:ENGAGE and disruptive editing. A couple days I reached out to them again [32] for continuing this same style of editing. Today they again made two edits [33] and [34] that I reverted and went to their talk page about [35]. However rather than responding they went back and redid the same edits again [36], the same issue as why I took them to ANI in the first place. Let me know and if you prefer I can take it to ANI directly. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 16:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

What is the matter with those edits? It looks like they're just trying to avoid a redirect. El_C 16:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Well the issue is that they don't respond or try and talk. I have explained to them before that they do not need to fix those per WP:NOPIPE. The issue is with WP:ENGAGE, that no matter what their edit is that gets reversed the readd it without commenting. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 17:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but it's better to pipe than to redirect, wouldn't you say? El_C 18:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't. Professional wrestlers often change their names. In this case it was just a removal of the periods, going from A.J. Styles to AJ Styles. But recently Dean Ambrose became Jon Moxley. There are hundred of articles that previously linked to [[Dean Ambrose]] that now redirect. There is no reason to go through and update all of those links simply to avoid the redirect. If every page was updated after he started using the Moxley name, until the page was moved with [[Dean Ambrose|Jon Moxley]], once it was moved all of those pipes would need to be fixed based on piping over a redirect. Similarly for the last couple of years Rockstar Spud started going by Drake Maverick, but his page was only moved this week. Why force [[Rockstar Spud|Drake Maverick]] over the course of 2 years, when [[Drake Maverick]] is easier to follow when reading wikitext and would now have been piping to a redirect. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 20:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Understood. El_C 20:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk page protection

The IP user you blocked over Douma chemical attack has taken to using a sock puppet ip to edit my talk page. The teahouse suggested I request an admin to prevent it. Is it possible to block all ip users without blocking logged-in users on a user talk page? If so I will be grateful if you can do this for my talk and user page. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 11:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Just for the record, since I was the one who said the IP was a sock: here is where they self-identify as a sock puppet of Sayerslle. --bonadea contributions talk 11:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

This is my user talk page, not RfPP. But sure, IP sock blocked, again. El_C 15:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

IBAN violation

This user still arbitrary deletes chassis codes from italian cars that were uploaded by me:
Special:Diff/905790969
Special:Diff/538038099 and Special:Diff/883957905
There already was a discussion about how important they are and are also in Automobiles WikiProject guidelines.
Please react. YBSOne (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

This is my user talk page, not ANI. Anyway, I don't see how removing something you added back in February counts as an interaction. El_C 15:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I was under the impression that it was: "Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to: undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means". YBSOne (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but how can they tell it was you? You added it back in February. El_C 15:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Majority of the chassis types were added by me on Maserati/Ferrari/Lancia/Alfa pages. It all comes down to proving wheather it was deliberate or not. But it still meets the definition does it not? YBSOne (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but I, at least, am not going to do anything further about it. El_C 16:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)~

Fine, I'm ok with it at the moment. Thank You for Your time. YBSOne (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Fascism in Europe

Some time ago, a user removed the Estado Novo from the list of Fascist regimes, despite the fact that it was decided that Wikipedia will go with the status quo ante until consensus is formed (which it wasn't), the user said that the Estado Novo should not be presented as Fascist alongside unambiguosly Fascist regimes, even though the same thing can be said about almost every other regime on the list, the only regimes considered unambiguosly Fascist are Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany (and even Nazi Germany sometimes is not considered Fascist), also 4-3 is a very narrow result to be considered a consensus (and that is counting a user that didn't even vote, I don't know if this actually counts), so I was wondering if you could revert his edits. -- 177.158.171.198 (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

That user is the one who closed the RfC accordingly, so you should probably direct the question to them. El_C 01:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Curious then, when the page is unprotected, will I be able to revert his edit, or no? -- 177.158.171.198 (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but it is likely to be reverted back, citing the RfC as representative of consensus. Again, if you found faults with the manner in which the RfC was closed, you should take that up with the editor who closed it. I didn't review the RfC closely, so I am probably not the editor who can offer any further insights into it at this time. El_C 02:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Why did you not attempt to contact the closer of the RfC, as I suggested? On closer examination, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with dispute resolution having been followed, consensus reached by virtue of the RfC (which, again, you have yet to challenge) — but you continuing to edit war against this consensus without further discussion. El_C 21:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I will try to, should I revert while this isn't solved? -- 177.159.223.177 (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

You won't be able to, because I just semiprotected all those articles for a year. I'm just not comfortable with editing against a closed RfC. If you're able to reverse the RfC by changing the mind of the closer, or by further review, I'll be happy to unprotect so you could edit directly. El_C 21:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I would like to apologize for this incident BTW, personally I just hope this dispute will be solved soon enough. -- 177.159.223.177 (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. Yes, let's move forward. My advise to you would be to address your concerns with the closer of the RfC 1st, and if you fail to change their mind, challenge the RfC with a new section on the article talk page and see what other editors say. El_C 21:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The closer has overturned the RfC as no consensus. I have, therefore, unprotected the articles as promised. El_C 04:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protect request

Can you semi-protect Born to Be Yours, Bad Liar (Imagine Dragons song), Zero (Imagine Dragons song), Whatever It Takes (Imagine Dragons song), Walking the Wire (song), On Top of the World (Imagine Dragons song) and Next to Me (Imagine Dragons song). The 95.83.xx.xx range involved genre warring on [37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48]. 2402:1980:246:3ACA:DF36:7ACC:96FF:8337 (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, as I already told another user today, this is my user talk page, not RfPP. Please list it there, instead. El_C 03:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Interlinear

Hi and thanks for protecting Template:Interlinear. Is there any way you could change the level to semi-protection, which was the one I requested at RFPP [49]? I should definitely take the blame for possibly having expressed the rationale in a misleading way, but the idea was to prevent IPs from vandalising the template, not to exclude almost all editors from editing it. – Uanfala (talk) 11:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think TP is actually appropriate for this type of template. But feel free to bring back to RfPP for review. I'm happy to go with the consensus there. El_C 16:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Alright, Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Template:Interlinear. – Uanfala (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh well, I wish we could have found the middle way. Anyway, I'm surprised to be walking away from this with an extra user right. Of course I don't mind it, but given that the unusual situation that led to it seems to be over, I wouldn't feel slighted if you removed it. – Uanfala (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for being a bit distracted — that's on me. In regards to the user right: happy editing! El_C 22:35, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Further accusation

[50] Charles01 has further accuse me of sockpuppeting over a IP that been doing similar edits then me. He also reinstated the paragraph that was previously deleted [51]. --Vauxford (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm spread a bit thin lately, so am not sure I'll have time to investigate this in the near future. El_C 16:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Repeated driveby tagging with no discussion

A newbie (165 edits) who hasn't been active in years is repeatedly tagging Hassan Jameel with {{advert}} without any explanation or discussion, even though I opened up a thread on the talkpage of the article. This is in violation of WP:DRIVEBY and WP:WTRMT. Can you please look at this? Asking you because you previously helped prevent the BLP violations on the article. This article gets 5,000 pageviews per day. Thanks, Softlavender (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. I agree that this is inappropriate. I've reverted and up'd my original semi to ec. They're welcome to argue for the tag on the article talk page, but that argument has to exist. El_C 01:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Next United Kingdom general election

Please explain why you have protected a version of the page that is not supported by consensus at talk, and which has been re-instituted by editors unwilling to engage at talk. You are rewarding those who editwar over those who present reasoned argument. Apply consensus, THEN freeze it if necessary. Kevin McE (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

That's not how protection works. I responded to a request at RfPP. The current version gets protected and there is no preference, by design. That is to say, the version that gets protected is, ultimately, random. El_C 15:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

User DavidManchester44

Thanks for blocking user:DavidManchester44, but he is back at Chandrayaan-2 article as sock puppet user:ManchesterDawah. I reported it for inverstigation but I think it is pretty obvious. Thanks, Rowan Forest (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked the sock and reblocked the master indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much! That lunar mission is being launched today and we expect a lot of traffic. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Back again as user:AmazonEternal. Thank you so much for the support. Rowan Forest (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I blocked the account. If it had been filed at SPI, my finding would have been  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely). I've also semi-protected the article for three days.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Bbb23, for doing all the heavy lifting. El_C 20:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Block-evading vandal

Can you please re-block 100.1.235.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 1-3 months? This is the latest IP sock of User:Kendall2232, who was indeffed for vandalism months ago. He resumed using his IP after the last block recently expired, and he's gone back to vandalizing. This person has been using this IP for close to 2 months now. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 01:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information and personal attack(s)

Hi El C

I must admit even though I've edited for quite some years I never did learn to use the Wikipedia system properly, which is why I am here. Could you take a look at this issue? This user is very keen on removing sourced information [52] and making personal attacks and treating Wikipedia as Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND. [53]. Thanks in advance. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, you both violated 3RR, so that's not a promising start. El_C 17:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Information Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attacks, baseless insulting accusations, treating Wikipedia as a battleground and removal of sourced information. Just for information, as you're mentioned since you weighed in on the dispute. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

McMuffin serial vandalism

Good afternoon. Can you please raise the protection on McMuffin to Extended-Protection for about a year? The article was recently targeted by the LTA WhenDatHotlingBling, using rapid-fire serial vandalism and page-move vandalism (I couldn't even keep up with their junk). Their favorite target, McGriddles, is already Extended-Protected, and I have the feeling that since he no longer has access to his favorite target, he's going to move on to McMuffin and other related articles. Given the recent spate of vandalism, I doubt that anything less than an extensive Extended Protection will be sufficient for containing their vandalism. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, I probably shouldn't up the protection preemptively. El_C 02:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@LightandDark2000: I just had to report another one to SRG just a few minutes ago. Plus the McMuffin page is now EC protected for a year. --IanDBeacon (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

That showed me! El_C 01:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

AN discussion

I've started a discussion at AN in which you are involved. Just a courtesy note. GoldenRing (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Chicago-style pizza

Hey El C ~ can you glance over here and here for me please ~ Thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 18:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

you know....Thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Fer sure. Softer approach did not work — well, partially due to my own incompetence! El_C 19:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

No ~ you did perfect ~ knew something was about to be stepped into ~ and I ain't talking about something in L.A. ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much El C ~ it was very impressively, quickly and properly done ~ at least in my respects ~ I bow (お辞儀) to the master ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• I didn't know you were a rocket scientist EL C ~ Skid row ~ today's date ~ <trying to learn how to be a bot ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• It sure took me a little while before I figured out how to disable that pesky bot! *get off my lawn, bot!* /shakes fist at air El_C 17:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

don't hit me ~ El C at IMDb ~mitch~ (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I just saw that ~ just peachy ~mitch~ (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting here I couldn't do it myself because one of the links are blacklisted. 85.199.71.123 (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Anytime. I didn't notice anything of the sort, though. El_C 19:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

User keeps pestering everything I do

I'm losing my paitence with Charles01. He already accused me of sockpuppeting twice, created a awful hate page about how much a terrible user I am and now he reverted a edit based off RfC. I don't understand what I'm doing wrong, I tried to solve the edit dispute, opened a RfC got enough comments of which is better and from the looks of it they prefer the one I proposed to be used on the infobox yet Charles01 still insist of changing back because it just my "Vauxford vanity project edit wars" when I haven't even edit warring in the first place! --Vauxford (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you have. I've just protected the article due to that very edit warring. If there are behavioral issues, I suggest you take it to AN/I, as I am unable to devote my full attention to the dispute between you two at this time. El_C 19:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

That wasn't edit warring, I thought I was doing the right thing based off the RfC. I didn't get into a edit war with constant reverts. I tried everything, I did discussions, done two ANI, did a RfC based on your advice and nothing is working. --Vauxford (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm at my wits with this user constantly belittling me of what I do, he accused me of sockpuppeting for goodness sake, I thought any form of sockpuppeting accusation are taken seriously, this person is seriously putting all effort to make me look like a bad, disruptive editor when I'm not, I had no intention. --Vauxford (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

That RfC has not been closed yet. I would be patient and wait for that before invoking it as an authority. El_C 19:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

[54] But it been expired, I thought that mean it ended due to a lack of activity. On top of that Charles01 already recovered the hate page which you deleted [55] and adding more stuff to it. --Vauxford (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I have already made 2 ANI as it is and none of seem to be taken seriously and just gone stale. What difference it gonna make if I create another one. He insist of labelling me as some sockpuppeting, edit warring and disruptive user, the amount of evidences, diffs and new fresh evidence of all this all seem to be going in vain and the fact you class what I'm trying to do is edit warring even though I haven't reverted more then 3 times and the 3rd one [56] was just to restore the last revision is just proving his point. --Vauxford (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned, I am unable to devote my full attention to this dispute at this time. That's just a fact. I don't know what else to advise you both. You can re/list the RfC on WP:ANRFC. Anyway, I have deleted the subpage and left a note to him about that. I also note that edit warring —which you were engaged in— does not need to involve a violation of 3RR to be considered so. El_C 20:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

How do you do a Requests for closure anyway? --Vauxford (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Just follow any of the entries listed there as an example. El_C 20:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Closure

Requiring uninvolved admin to close this merge discussion Talk:Holy_See#Merger_proposal.Manabimasu (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 22:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Missing thread

Sorry for my ignorance, but when a thread disappears from this page but doesn't appear in the last archived page, does that mean it's just been deleted? Or is it somewhere else? Lilipo25 (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to add the latest archive. The discussion is here. El_C 01:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Greetings. I appeal to you, because you seem to think that there is no problem to negotiate with Miki. What is the meaning of this war of edits: [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62]? They've posted a comment in the clearly wrong section, and then they fight for the right to leave it there. This is in addition to the fact that they constantly call my actions "pathetic", "stupid", "provocative" and "lying".--Nicoljaus (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Wow. From edit warring on the article, you've now both taken to edit warring on the talk page? Had I caught it earlier, I would have blocked you both. El_C 06:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

So what's the point of shoving this comment in the RFC section?--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

You really think you are the one who should decide where it goes? El_C 07:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Listen, you and Miki seem to see the point. So what is it? I did not see this point and acted on the basis of my understanding of the situation. Subject "RfC", as it seemed to me, is for comments on request. But Miki crammed his comment in there, although I replied it in another topic. Now my answer hangs in the section "Big mystification?" in the air and it is not clear what this applies to. Do you enjoy this situation? Me not. So, It was "Fixing layout errors" exception, in my opinion.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

All this innuendo reflects poorly on you. You should not be modifying the comment fields of other users, especially ones you are in dispute with. Please don't do that again. If there are issues, bring that to the attention of someone else. El_C 17:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I still do not understand what is the "innuendo" in this case. I did not modify the "comment field" of another editor, but transferred it entirely. But well, I realized that trying to do something useful here is not approved. Okay, so I brought it to you. And what about "pathetic", "stupid", "provocative" and "lying"? --Nicoljaus (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you enjoy this situation? What is that about? Neither one of you should be edit warring on the talk page. Repeated incivility is, of course, ill-advised and may be subject to sanctions. El_C 20:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

This is about a situation (that I tried to fix) in which a comment to my edit for some reason sticks out in the RFC section, and my answer is in another section ([63]).--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

You should not have edit warred your "fix" on the talk page. Full stop. El_C 21:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I stopped a long time ago and turned to you. That was the question Do you enjoy this situation?.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what you want from me. El_C 21:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I want the comments to be placed correctly on the talk page. I "brought it to the attention" of you, since I have no right to do something myself.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a good reason to do so at this time. El_C 21:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, why am I not surprised.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't much appreciate your tone. El_C 21:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

You Know ~ this is just something I heard in the grapevine ~ All the other reindeer didn't let poor Rudolph play any reindeer games ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Miki has called me "ignorant" three times in the last half hour on the Frankopan family talk page, despite my asking her repeatedly to stop the personal attacks (she says "no", she won't, because it's a "Fact" that I am ignorant). I haven't called her any names and have in fact stayed away from her for nearly a month due to her aggression and personal attacks and threats to report anyone who objects to any of it to you. She claimed to someone else in a thread I had been in last month that a consensus was reached for her edits on the page, so I stated that it was not, and she's back to attacking me. I don't know how she's somehow allowed to call multiple people 'ignorant' and 'liars' over and over while edit warring on every page she's on. In every edit war she's in, it seems to me that her comments are by far the more hostile and in violation of WP:PERSONAL Lilipo25 (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

These are not personal attacks, the editor continues saying the same ignorant remarks, pushing the same story over and over again. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lilipo25.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

To me? The admin who blocked them? Interesting. Anyway, I tend to agree that their tone is problematic, although calling their edits "defamatory" is something that requires evidence on BLPN, rather than being used on an article talk page to support an argument. I suggest you both treat each other in a more collegial manner, emphasizing on substance over innuendo. El_C 22:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Politics BLP LTA

You remember this person? Well, he's back, and he's currently operating out of this range: 104.4.65.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), which he has been abusing since February. You can reference this range if you need a refresher: 2600:1015:b100::/40. Can you please apply a similar block on that range? Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 02:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, someone blocked while I was writing this message. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 02:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Pacifism in Islam

Hello and sorry about writing at your talk page and taking your time. I didnt started any edit war and I dont put my content. editor Maestro2016 is his user name I think, who made changes, on 15 of july. Can be checked in article history, didnt discussed anything at talk page, he just made content, big enough, mostly not connected even with pacifism or topic to blank previous sources what stayed there, sources what was there seems quality totally. He removed all sources what stayed there previous, so he started stuff about edits etc probably in a way of his personal views, and put cherrypicked content. I opened talk page disscusion, and wish more editors to join about to make quality content.109.93.186.50 (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, fair enough. And perhaps your (the status quo ante) version will prevail, in the end. But, for now, you need to stop edit warring (especially to the point that you violate the 3 revert rule) until the discussion about the status of that expansion is concluded. Please take advantage of your dispute resolution resources. El_C 19:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand. Well I was suprised, I was looking at some references for personal further reading and consulted wikipedia page and then after some days, when came again today I saw all different content, totally changed and then saw no any explanation at all about changes in the history of the article, also nothing in talk page. Thank you very much for your time. Sorry for disturbing you at talk page here. 109.93.186.50 (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Not at all, that's exactly what it's there for. As mentioned, on 2nd thought, I have reverted back to your version while the discussion takes its course. El_C 19:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

John Roberts Pending Changes settings....

Since the article is indef Semi Protected now, could you disable pending changes on the John Roberts page?? --IanDBeacon (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 01:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for the quick response to the LTA rampage on those three articles! :) IanDBeacon (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Fer sure. And thank you, Ian, for the recognition. Much appreciated! El_C 01:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I second this barnstar. (I'd tag another one, but then it would dilute the significance of the award.) Great work! LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very kind of you, LightandDark2000! But you're doing a lot of the heavy lifting, too, I should add. El_C 06:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

UnderArmourKid sock

Hello. Can you please indef Underarmourminecraft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? It's an obvious sock of the LTA UnderArmourKid, given the behavior and the username pattern. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 05:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 05:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Template page beset by vandalism

Can you please Semi-Protect Template:Redirect category shell/doc indefinitely? It has been vandalized over and over again by a bunch of anon vandals, and it's not going away. I also don't see any reason why new or unregistered users need to edit that page at all. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 15:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Classful network page revert query

Hello El_C, I was wondering why you chose to revert the edit made by user 5.186.75.53. The column headings indicate that values should reflect start and end addresses. In its current form, the start and end addresses for class A, B and C reflect the last usable network. From what I can see, user 5.186.75.53 rightfully corrected this. What do you think? nasvks (talk) 11:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I can't immediately recall. Nothing's coming to mind, sorry. Maybe a misclick? El_C 15:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much for reverting the change and for the warm welcome. Happy editing! nasvks (talk) 10:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Turkish Croatia

Why is this article locked onto Bosniak nationalistic version? --Čeha (razgovor) 18:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

The version that gets protected is, ultimately, random. El_C 18:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Irony shoudln't be part of serious conversation. Please do read talk page of the article, that should be enough to protect the other version. --Čeha (razgovor) 14:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Hardly. Your participation there appears minimal at best. I suggest you employ dispute resolution rather than try to have your version restored by fiat. El_C 16:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Are non-admins allow to do this edit:

Hello @El C:,

I noticed that you are a big member of RPP. I noticed that an editor who is not an administrator added a lock to an article with little to no vandalism. Here is the edit: [64] Is that allowed?

Thank you AmericanAir88^(talk) 21:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that edit is fine — they're just adding a protection template to a protected article, which is helpful (looks like the protecting admin just forgot to add it). El_C 22:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi protection of UK MoJ and MoD articles

For my own information, can you explain the rationale for semi-protecting these articles (Ministry of Justice (United Kingdom) and Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom))? I can see that they were vandalised, but they're not very frequently edited anyway, and I'm not sure they'd come under BLP. It doesn't affect me, but I just wanted to understand the logic. Farleysmaster (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

That sock seem to methodically returns to any articles that are not protected. I tried protecting a few tens of them for a week, and a week later, they returned to BLP-vandalize every single one of them. That said, my intent has been to unprotect a select few early as a test, but I didn't want to spill the beans about it. El_C 17:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you (and a question)

Hi, I just wanted to say thank you for closing the ANI thread without throwing the blockhammer at me (I know it may still be incoming but I hope not). I promise not to make any further NACs in the near future and I won't mark users as banned until I get clarification about a particular question (which I also asked on Abecedare's page), namely, are non-admins allowed to tag users who are banned by the community? I have done that many times before with no one saying anything (in fact, I updated most of the users in the banned user categories with links to their ban discussions), so it came as quite a shock to me that my edit was reverted by Bbb23 and I was quite upset. That's why I brought it to WP:ANI in the first place, which I suppose was inappropriate (but it was better than my initial reaction which was to start acting uncivil) -- Rockstonetalk to me! 22:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. I just think that ANI reports (and IBAN propositions) are intended for far more protracted disputes. El_C 22:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

In retrospect, I agree 100%. But like I said, I really took his statements personally and it was the best thing I could think of. I really shouldn't have posted it on ANI, but at least I just got hit by a trout instead of something more serious. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 22:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Reversion on talk page

Hi El C. Excuse me for not being logged in, but I am currently blocked. Why did you revert my request to be unblocked? [65]. Regards, Freelion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.217.166.234 (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Just some unsolicited, but intended to be friendly advice. If you read the message left by EL C here you should understand. Your user talk page access for the Freelion account has been revoked by an administrator; so, anytime you log in using an IP to edit that page (or any other page for that matter) it's going to be considered WP:EVADE. The more you use IPs to edit, the harder it's going to be for you to get your main account unblocked. What you need to do now is file an unblock request using WP:UTRS. Please don't respond to this post here because that will only be considered more WP:EVADE behavior. Just go to the UTRS page and follow the instructions there; before you do so though, you might want to read WP:INDEF because being indefinitely blocked doesn't have to mean forever, but if you keep logging using IPs it will make most adminstrators less likely to want to unblock you, at least not any time soon. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Marchjuly, for providing Freelion with a thorough explanation. El_C 05:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Fun fact about IPv6!

Just block the /64. With a very few exceptions an IPv6 /64 is roughly equivalent to an IPv4 single IP address. Blocking a single IPv6 is roughly equivalent to protecting the page for 5 minutes :) As an example, see our friend here TonyBallioni (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

There's no guideline for me to follow that I can see and I don't really understand any of that. I would probably just semi the page for a day if they returned. El_C 06:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I mean there's mw:Help:Range blocks/IPv6, but it's far too technical for me to make sense of. El_C 06:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, it's not great. So, here's the quick guide to deal with IPv6 disruption:

1. Click on the individual IP address to bring up the contributions
2. Type /64 on the end of the IP in the contributions box to bring up all the contributions for the range. You can generally assume this is one person/one physical location.
3. Click block and treat it like you would one individual IP address.

Maybe I should make it a userspace essay? I try to pass on the info whenever I can because not many admins seem to know about it. Anyway, as always, you're free to ignore my ramblings :) TonyBallioni (talk) 06:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony, that's really helpful! I was unaware of any of that. This is common knowledge that I'm the only one that didn't know about, I presume. El_C 06:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

[B]ecause not many admins seem to know about it — okay, that's a relief. I always get the sense that everyone understands these technical matters but me! Yes, an essay on the user —or better yet, project— space is a good idea. El_C 06:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh no, AIV admins/others block individual IPv6 addresses all the time without realizing that the three day block they just made might not make much difference in 20 minutes. You are far from the only one Anyway, User:TonyBallioni/Just block the /64 exists now. You inspired me! TonyBallioni (talk) 06:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Inspiration — the silver lining to my ineptitude! Nice, good step-by-step essay. You should definitely link it in project space guides to admins. El_C 07:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Maybe I should make it a userspace essay? Why not? I'm not an admin but remember explaining CIDR and subnets at the village pump a few times. El_C: thanks for your excellent work, I've noticed you're very active in the portion of WP I patrol. —PaleoNeonate – 07:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, PaleoNeonate! That means a lot. I have a hilarious watchlist of +75,000 articles, so I am like the all seeing eye — practically everywhere. El_C 07:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Wow, I try to keep mine below 7k. I like the reference to the all seeing eye and have one on my user page (but not about me, more about how public pages and history help to make WP processes transparent). —PaleoNeonate – 07:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Edit warring#User:Libhye reported by User:Jayjg (Result: ). Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Hooray? El_C 20:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

For knowing how to cut mustard properly ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Hooray! El_C 21:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!

Just a quick one, thanks for your quick action on Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case and blocking the vandal - - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 22:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Fer sure. I left them a link to WP:911 in case they are, in fact, in acute distress. El_C 22:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Here, let's not bother together. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

A beer to go with my cheeseburger. Satiated and quenched. I'm stoked! El_C 02:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

It's back. General Ization ^Talk 02:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

They usually return about half a dozen times per interval. El_C 03:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Their contribution, in its several variations, includes some rather unique and otherwise nonsensical sequences of words. (I could mention one in particular but beans.) Can we create a filter? General Ization ^Talk 03:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Please. I'm not sure how we go about doing that, but it's definitely worth a try. El_C 03:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested. General Ization ^Talk 03:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks! El_C 03:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Reconsidered the name of the proposed filter. 03:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I am told this has been added to edit filter #871. General Ization ^Talk 04:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Nicely done. Hopefully, it will have the desired effect. El_C 04:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Felicity Huffman

El C ~ did you say peasant or present ~ you know I am from France and Bastille day is all about liberating the peasants ~ I can't tell if it was a typo or not ~mitch~ (talk) 06:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, a peasant she is most certainly not! El_C 07:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

i LOVE YOU ~mitch~ (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC) ~mitch~ (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Whole Lotta Love, my friend! El_C 07:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Apparently there is a lot of cheating that goes on after admission too. I just had dinner with an old friend who's now a full professor of ethics at a respected university. He was livid about being repeatedly pressured to give students better grades because they were connected to important people. Too many university administrators worship the almighty dollar. Jehochman ^Talk 17:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

If I could play devil's advocate — sometimes, the "donation" is sizable enough that letting in just one incompetent overprivileged student, can pay for many underprivileged merit-based ones. Not that educational institutions necessarily expend resources in a manner that follows this set of priorities. That having been said, I definitely don't want a medical school student, for example, being given a higher grade than they deserve in an ethics class due to their privilege. Would we rather have one bad doctor for the price of sponsoring ten good ones? I'd say no. El_C 18:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

You know ~ El C ~ I would have to agree with you ~I gave a dollar donation when they were building this center here for the university of Texas ~ and last year I cut my finger and had to have a couple of stitch's ~ they were so friendly ~ Just think about all those neurosurgeons that would have not received a diploma ~ if I didn't give that dollar ~ it makes me feel warm and fuzzy all over ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Educational investments usually pays dividends, I think that is generally true. As for distortions brought by wealth and status, always taking a position that's based on either utility or merit is a mistake, I think. Pragmatically, resolution to the many nuanced ways that teleology-deontology conflict manifest itself, then, should vary according to the concrete circumstances in each particular case. El_C 19:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Anthony Cumia

I see you removed 2 different edits, just an FYI I think you missed one [66] - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 20:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 20:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for protecting the Cline article. I ask that you maintain it in this state, prior to its destructive reversion—that is, not allow removal of hours of careful scholarly source work.

The real issue is as stated in my last edit summary—I did hours of constructive edits, teasing out all the unsourced material in the article, only to have it all carte blanche reverted. This speaks to me of editor bias againsr an IP editor—despite the work being of high quality. And, the massive reversion—besides removing all new material and new sourcing—interrupted the ongoing process ("in use" tag was up) in which I was adding citations and removing tags. So, why was I stopped from editing, when the work was good? When I created a talk page entry, to which the reverting editor did not respond? When I created long edit summaries for each edit, and the intervening editor removed all changes, with no reply to any Talk or edit summary content? Cheers, will look for a reply here. 24.1.0.28 (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. But the version I protected was just randomly the one I encountered once I noticed the edit war having erupted. Anyway, look, I realize the frustration of being reverted while an article talk page note of yours remains absent any reply. But edit warring (also on a user talk page) was not the answer and constitutes overly aggressive conduct. I suggest that time is taken throughout the protection to address relevant concerns in a collegial and substantive manner on the article talk page. If no one follows up your talk page notice, we'll just take it to indicate your addition is no longer being objected to. Good luck! El_C 21:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the serendipity of your timing affirms, accidentally, what "heaven" (read "karma" if you wish) knows to be true—that the incoming editor that reverted my work should have [1] taken the time to check and respond at the talk page, [2] reviewed all the copious and careful edit summaries I wrote in my half day on this beach, in particular the last ones, which were adding sources and removing tags), and [3] thoughtfully and selectively edited the article as it stood, instead of disrespectfully turning back to the clock. If you address him, please—rather than doing a diff—opne the article before I started editing, and then open the article as it stands now. Ignore the tags to start, just scroll down to the sources. That should be enough to tell you what sort of academic and editor I am. And you could add a point [0], that he could have waited until the "in use" flag was taken down, at which point some further of the tags might have been removed.

Because I fear that is the whole issue—an IP editor making the sacrosanct appearance of an article look worse... which, as you can tell, is not of a concern to me. My concern is for encyclopedic "cancer"—things that appear fine, but nevertheless bear some deep underlying problem—and I could not, as they say, give a toss for the complexion of the individual (article) involved. So again, thank you, even if you received a help from "heaven". Cheers. 24.1.0.28 (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Postscript, for some reason the Talk section that I created at Ben Cline did not autosign. Is there a way that you can look "under the hood" and add a date stamp or comment to my original Tlak post, so it does not appear that I am trying to "pull a fast one", by pre-dating something I only wrote after? The editing record must be able to indicate when it first appeared, and who it was that posted it. Cheers again, thanks. 24.1.0.28 (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)