Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:17, 17 May 2017

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

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 ... for all of your work. Novickas (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Free hat! Today, while cheekadeepetting, this lady who saw us from a far, came over and said: "Can I tell you something...? You're an angel of God."(!) To which I of course replied: "All hail Atheismo!" 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  15:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Seasons Greetings

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

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

Happy Groundhog Day

Happy day! Jehochman 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)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

4Tality Fractal

Yogi Adityanath

Hi El C, thanks for being pro-active in protectng the Yogi Adityanath page. That gave us some peace for a while. But, as soon as the protection expired, the POV editors got into the game. Can you advise what can be done? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I implemented pending changes, but there may be no choice but to return to extended protection again. Keep me updated. El_C 16:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

DS notice on Russian interference article

Greetings El C! Today you restored the DS-provision-that-keeps-on-giving on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections but you didn't update the matching edit notice at Template:Editnotices/Page/Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Was this on purpose? — JFG 19:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm just copying templates. But I thought there was consensus to not have the provision on US articles...(?) There seems to be an inconsistency in the talk page template and the pagenpotice. El_C 19:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello El-C. The version you posted is the same one that's used on every other American Politics article I've checked. I think the removal a month or so ago was a personal decision by the Admin who originally posted the notice and that there's good reason to have the more restrictive one you reestablished. SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

See Consensus provision: inconsistency with pagenotice — let's figure it out there. Because I've been adding the inconsistent pagenotice and talkpage template to other articles, too. El_C 19:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The longer notice is still good at Template:Editnotices/Page/Donald Trump for example. Indeed, given the recent AE drama, Bishonen had switched back the Russian article to the simpler 1RR rule; if you wish to place it back under 1RR+challenge, then the longer edit notice is necessary. I'm not sure which of the two restrictions is better-suited to this particularly thorny article. — JFG 19:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, 'don't reinsert w/o consensus' should be the guideline for all WP articles, but I think it's clear that this was called for at the time of ARBAP2 and I viewed the removal from that one article -- Russian -- as the result of pressure due to self-motivated complaints by editors who'd violated the sanctions. SPECIFICO talk 19:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Were editors adhering to it in the article in question? (I'm just looking for consistency.) El_C 19:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

My recollection is that there was a contentious AE thread in which an editor disparaged that "reinstatement" requirement after having clearly violated it. @Bishonen: may have a clearer recollection than mine as to the circumstances. As I recall, the discussion became contentious enough for her to remove the DS, because the notice was being blamed for the nasty AE. SPECIFICO talk 20:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I asked what have you been doing so far? El_C 20:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

All the "regulars" at this article have been trying their best to abide by the 1RR+consensus constraints, however due to varying interpretations of "what is an edit", "what is a revert" and "what is a challenge", and due to a general tense atmosphere at this article, accusations of violations have been flying around and the WP:AE board was recently inundated with claims and counter-claims from said regulars (myself included). Because the DS restrictions were supposed to a) promote article stability b) facilitate the policing job of admins, and neither objective was met on this particular page, Bishonen decided to lift the super-provision-that-keeps-on-giving on 22 February, and NeilN placed the article back under standard 1RR, until today you restored the 1RR+consensus version. — JFG 20:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

My impression is that since the return to simple 1RR, editors have been a lot more cautious and no new AE case has emerged. So maybe that was the right thing after all… — JFG 20:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but just for one article, or for all 1932 Politics in the US ones? (I just saw the talkpage had no AE notice, that's all.) El_C 20:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I was talking only about this article. I have not noticed any recurrent problem with the extended rule on other ARBAP2 articles where I have been working; on the contrary it works pretty well to encourage civil and neutrality-oriented discourse. This Russia thing is truly special… — JFG 20:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

And is there consensus to remove the provision from Template:2016 US Election AE, that is? El_C 20:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not (unless I missed a pretty big discussion about this somewhere). — JFG 20:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

"An administrator has applied the restriction above to this article." Which means you have now applied more restrictions to the article and need to log it: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log/2017#American_politics_2 I'd advise not to apply this restriction by rote. --NeilN 20:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I merely added an AE talk page notice procedurally, to accompany the article pagenotice—without the intention of adding or removing existing restrictions. El_C 20:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

El_C, let me recap from the beginning to the best of my recollection. Bishonen placed the article under the full ARBAP2 DS that is in use at the other AP articles. There was then an AE thread in which an editor violated that. "A discussion ensued." Bishonen then removed the DS altogether, since she had placed it and did not wish to be involved in the contentious discussion. A different Admin then applied the limited form that was in place until you replaced it with the original and commonly used form, apparently creating an inconsistent pair of templates that was noticed and led to this thread. In my opinion, the full DS is needed and after the removal there were unconstructive re-insertions of disputed content w/o consensus on talk, possibly because the removal gave safe harbor to such behaviour. So I thought you were intending to restore the widespread version of DS as it is in effect on the other ARBAP2 articles, and I thought (think) that is the correct thing to do. SPECIFICO talk 20:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Whatever your intention, you have added the DS-provision-that-keeps-on-giving restriction which was not my intention when I placed and logged the 1RR restriction. --NeilN 20:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, t'was unintentional. But the problem remains: the article talk page ought to have an AE notice—well, I guess it doesn't really has to have one. El_C 20:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

It did. --NeilN 20:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I thought it was the articlepage notice that someone put on there by accident. Looks like it's all on me, folks. Sorry for wasting your time. El_C 20:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Well it is the article page notice but it works well enough for the talk page too. 1RR+consensus was leading to a lot of "gotcha" games. Bishonen removed it and I added the straight 1RR. --NeilN 20:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Copy that. Again, sorry for the confusion. El_C 21:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I should probably acknowledge my part in this. The Russian article is as far as I can remember the only article I've ever put active arbitration remedies on. When I later came to my senses formed the opinion that they're more trouble than they're worth, and invite gaming — they keep on giving, indeed — I thought it incumbent on me to revoke them at that article. See this request on my page, which led to this discussion on article talk. I also opened a thread at AN, in the hope that it would lead to a wider discussion of AE page remedies in general, but it didn't, exactly. However, it probably inspired NeilN to implement the partial restriction that he mentions above (1RR but not the "must obtain consensus before reinstating any edits that have been challenged" thing). That was fine, IMO. I think the template you have now put there, Commendante, does the same thing. It's all very complicated and at least the stupider admins such as me don't understand it very well, so I'm not sure how we can expect less experienced users to. Bishonen | talk 21:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC).

Thanks for clarifying, Bish. It is not for naught I coined the term for it the provision-that-keep-on-giving. We've just had a block (and early unblock) and an almost-block due to it on the ARBPIA front (see AE for details), which led to a new ARCA. One of the points I advanced there was that, first of all, the rule needs its own page on the projectspace, where at least it can be explained beyond the one sentence it now gets. Hopefully, the Committee won't be busy-or-dosen't-want-any so as to address my points. El_C 21:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Ultimately, it was the aesthetics of it that threw me off. I'm just not accustomed to seeing the yellow-framed text on talk pages, so I was sure it was an accident. But, as mentioned, it does touch on issues recently in contention and subject to Arb-clarification. El_C 22:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe that @Coffee: appeared at AE to discuss his contribution in creating the template that was removed, so I'm pinging him in case he wishes to comment. He was perhaps the only one at that AE who had previously thought through the issue and the wording. SPECIFICO talk 22:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

*tumbles into the page*... *reads...* - Oh dear. I wasn't the only person who thought this through. @NeilN, El C, and SPECIFICO: The Arbitration Committee, of their own volition (literally while I was away from the site), decided to adopt the consensus required wording into the entire WP:ARBPIA 1RR restriction... essentially exactly what I did for many WP:ARBAP articles. (see this motion) The reasoning is to prevent gaming of the 1RR restriction, due to the sensitive nature of these articles. Such as: editor x adds a sourced but likely WP:UNDUE bit to an article, editor y reverts (using their one revert for the day), editor x now has the ability to re-add this to the article... where it may be allowed to stay for hours before another editor sees the issue. - I hope that helps explain this a bit. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

But, as I mention on ARCA, unless the revert is well-reasoned, the consensus clause itself can be gamed to grind editing to a halt. El_C 22:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Presumably Admins would take that possibility of gaming into account before any block. At any rate, in that particular case, the reverted text was a BLP violation and recognized as such by several editors on the talk page while the violations were recurring. SPECIFICO talk 22:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C and SPECIFICO: Well, all of this is done with the caveat that administrators would be expected to ensure such gaming doesn't happen. Hence the general discretionary sanctions being applied as well. I have yet to see much confusion or incorrect application of these restrictions by admins on these articles, otherwise I would be working on changing them this very minute. If you would think a manual would be useful, I'm sure I could find the time (as well as some other admins familiar with this arena) to create one. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Coffee: Most definitely. A manual would be a great contribution, because it would greatly reduce the community time spent on sorting out good-faith error and would support Admins in their enforcement of the problems that seem to arise in this and other DS areas. I think it might also help Admins give preventive warnings or, where appropriate, make blocks in straightforward cases that don't need to be discussed at AE. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Once the ARCA is concluded and the final version of the consensus clause ratified, a manual in the projectspace accompanying 1RR would be welcomed. El_C 00:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Cool. I don't think I'm following this ARCA so if you'd just give me a {{ring}} once it's done I'll get straight to work! — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for that. El_C 00:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Coffee: Not sure what your point is here. If you're pushing for ARBPIA-style enforcement, where admins are forced to use a particular restriction, for American politics articles, then please let me know where that's being proposed so I can argue against it. Arbcom has done enough damage in that area, forcing admins to substitute judgement for a "one-size-fits-all" solution. And I say this as an early supporter of 500/30, back in October 2015, as an optional tool. --NeilN 04:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: "where admins are forced to use a particular restriction" I'm not sure what you mean by this... I don't believe I've ever advocated for a broad implementation of the use of the consensus/1RR restriction on all WP:ARBAP articles. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Coffee: On Palestine-Israel related articles admins basically have to use 500/30. No semi, no pending, no allowance for "good" IP/newbie edits. --NeilN 04:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Oh, that. I'm not fond of that either, and you'll rarely see me in that area specifically because I try to abstain from enforcing that. What I'm fond of is this setup, where the editors have created a rather well running system to ensure article stability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Coffee: Which is great, as they're called discretionary sanctions. As in, admins can use their discretion when deciding appropriate sanctions for a page. --NeilN 05:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: I hope you didn't misinterpret my initial ping of you here. I was in no way challenging the decision to not include the "consensus required" part in the editnotice in question. I was merely stating the reason it exists in other articles. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Coffee: Ah, okay. I was trying to figure out what you meant. Agreed that it's useful on some articles but I don't want Arbcom to get it into its head to mandate its use on all "highly visible articles relating post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people". Or else we'll wind up applying it to the Mayor of Podunkville's article when he does something stupid and gains national attention when a short semi would do. --NeilN 05:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Soon we'll see what the clarified consensus clause looks like, with AP and ARBPIA serving as a test pool. I confess to having little experience with it, having only implemented it twice or thrice on AP, which frankly, compares to ARBPIA, is a peaceful candyland of rainbows and kittens. El_C 18:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C, Coffee, and NeilN: There was serious disagreement about how to interpret and enforce these restrictions (e.g. ), with admins expressing (and sometimes enforcing) diametrically opposing views. Assuming that I eventually come back to editing this article regularly, it'd be helpful to know what the rules are on either adding or removing controversial text, beyond observing 1RR, participating in discussion, and so forth. -Darouet (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I did get some of that after I clumsily stumbled into the article. Not my finest moment. El_C 22:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Darouet: That's kind of why I said I'll be writing a manual. There won't be any gaming this system anymore. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Coffee: you wrote the last version? Give a word if you need any help: it'd be great to avoid another sh*tshow. Unclear wording is bad for everyone, and especially problematic if misunderstood (in the case of gaming, willfully) by admins. Darouet (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no last version save the quote from the Committee itself, unless I'm missing something. El_C 01:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

DENY needed

I think you are active so would you please deal with a sock (Special:Contributions/Pidacoll) who is abusing MfD to harass a user (see history of WP:MFD). I could give the backstory but perhaps a quick look at the SPI would do. I think it was Special:Contributions/PRIYAMHH yesterday. In principle, I should raise this at SPI, but a fast response is what is needed, and badge-collecting at SPI may not be that desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 04:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: It's a Nsmutte sock all right. Blocked. --NeilN 04:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks like NeilN beat me to it. Deny with indef due to the sock's harassment of Bonadea, indeed. El_C 05:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Your involvment in ARBPIA topic

Do you consider yourself WP:UNINVOLVED regarding the topic area?--Shrike (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I do, indeed. And always had been. How can I help? El_C 17:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

How so?If you actively edit the area and participate in discussions.--Shrike (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Define actively? I am even-handed and also one of the few admins who is fluent in Hebrew. So I think I'm an asset as an admin as well as an occasional editor. El_C 18:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

But if you see something I do that you object to, please do let me know. El_C 19:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure you're an asset as an admin, but when you make edits like this, which looks like supporting one side in a content dispute, you make yourself involved. In theory. Misplaced Pages doesn't really care about good governance. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry you feel myself quoting WP:PRIMARY counts as taking sides, but I disagree. El_C 21:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

In the context of a content dispute where an editor made a (specious) argument based on PRIMARY and you say "yes, PRIMARY does say X", I don't think it's hard to see why someone could think you're supporting that editor. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't my intent to offer support to this or that editor, only affirm the position that primary sources are permitted under certain conditions. El_C 21:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we all know that, and nobody said they weren't. It also seems you are making content related arguments in the section above the one we're discussing. You can of course do whatever you like, but that's how it looks (I have not been around much lately, and I'm not familiar with your editing style, FWIW). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I've been away for ten years, so I am still getting my bearings. But see what I'm like as an ARBPIA admin before you make up your mind. El_C 21:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I haven't made up my mind. I'd love to be pleasantly surprised for a change. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I promise rainbows and kittens. And justice. Also justice. El_C 22:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Even handedness and equal protection would be enough. I do like kittens, though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Zero0000 is also an admin and he edits the area. I think editing is fine, but you can't admin an article you are (currently) editing. I wouldn't tell someone they can't edit a specific area just because they may admin in the future. Sir Joseph 03:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Zero never participates at AE as an admin, or does anything but perhaps the most routine uncontroversial admin stuff in any ARBPIA article that I have seen. Also, I didn't tell anyone they can't edit. I just noted that it may make him involved. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hamas and human rights in Israel (plus other)

Hi. Do you think this is the right thing to do? (apparently it was done without discussion or wider consensus, based on an alleged template three years ago). It seems a covert attempt to hide criticism by a clear POV warrior. If it is the right move, at least could you add an internal link for criticism of Hamas in the article about the organization? In addition, the reason why I suspect of this user is, among other things, because he changed the lead in a clear POV manner, or adds tags, other meaningless tags and POV content ("fired from his job as king of Israel in 1982" lol!) and more tags, but when it comes to human rights in Israel, he adds a strange unrelated random cherry-picking quote by Netanyahu and the sentence "Most Palestinians in Israel live under Israeli occupation and they are not allowed to vote", which is false since Palestinians in Israel are Israeli citizens with full equal rights, while Palestinians in the West Bank vote for the Palestinian Authority elections. Could you add the fact that Israeli Arabs vote in Israel and "Palestinians living under Israeli occupation" DO vote in Palestinian elections? Thanks--186.137.142.63 (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I dropped the editor a note. El_C 20:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Could you also remove the cherry-picking quote by Netanyahu and the absurd sentence "Most Palestinians in Israel live under Israeli occupation and they are not allowed to vote"?--186.137.184.163 (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm gonna limit myself to correcting typo-like errors—see above! El_C 20:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

At-Tur

Holy POV in Misplaced Pages's voice, Batman! User-warrior deliberately deleted the rest of the sentence explaining WHY the 16 year-old boy was shot (", after the youth ran toward officers stationed at the checkpoint wielding a large knife.") At the same time he added a clear unreliable source like "Electronic Intifada". Very clever, eh? It can't get more POV than that. Would you mind restoring the end of the sentence? Thank you very much--186.138.97.5 (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Now I'm all paranoid about making any ARBPIA edits, especially reverts! But I left her a note. El_C 02:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Is it a violation of DS to reinsert that statement? Sir Joseph 03:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

No, because you would not be restoring a reverted edit—but she would, if she reverted you. We are in the midst of discussing the content of that edit, however. El_C 03:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Dispute on Retired MTA Buses Page

I didn't know that I was interfering in a dispute. I simply just formatted it the way I thought was best. I didn't mean to start an issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.29.163 (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

It just seemed suspicious you showing up out-of-the-blue with no other edits to your name in the midst of that dispute, but okay. El_C 02:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Niruben Amin

Thank you for copyediting the article.

• I do understand that my grammar is not so good as I am not native speaker of English so please copyedit it further for grammar.
• About Self-realization: Niruben Amin belongs to a sect known as Akram Vignan in which it is believed that a person gains self-realization by a process (religious ritual) known as Gnanvidhi conducted by the leader of the sect. Dada Bhagwan was the first such leader of sect whom Amin succeeded as the leader.

This is just a clarification. Please also copyedit other related articles too as they would have poor grammar too. Thank again--Nizil (talk) 05:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure, happy to help. El_C 05:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Sleep paralysis disruptive editing

Hi El C. I doubt that he has stopped, as I just reverted the IP editor's content on Sleep paralysis a few hours ago, after he made the edits today (as he did the day before). Something tells me that he'll habitually continue his persistent reversions on the article, since he has made a lot of edits according to his own need in the past few days (if you look at the contribution history of the article). A temporary 6 month protection will also be a decent action. Because you're right that it's just one user, so it isn't a big deal. Anyway, I'll come back to this discussion again and let you know if he or she persists. And I hope I'm wrong and that he wouldn't continue with his incessant reversions and disruptive edits. --Meganesia (talk) 05:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

If they continue, they will be blocked. No need for protection when it's only one account. Yes, let me know if that happens. El_C 06:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism James Monroe

FYI..article hit with pornographic vandalism hours after semi-protection declined. Any reconsideration is appreciated. Hoppyh (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Not enough recent disruptive activity to warrant protection, sorry. El_C 17:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Himmler, Balfour and the Mufti

You may want to add this to the article about Amin al-Husseini. Greetings.--KJndaw89 (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Greetings. Interesting, thanks for sharing. But you know you can make an extended confirmed access edit request on the article's talk page. That way, you can specify the exact edit you want to make to the article plus the source. El_C 17:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmm....

Guessing this is Javierfrancis (talk · contribs), whom you blocked earlier today. I don't have time to file an SPI at the moment, but wanted to bring this to your attention. Marquardtika (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Rollback'd, indef'd, protected—in that order. El_C 20:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Marquardtika (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Today's oddity: yesterday at Judicial Crisis Network, a precocious new editor (account created yesterday) named Safehaven68 arrived. Looking at that article's history, it was created and extensively edited by Safehaven86 (talk · contribs), who is indefinitely blocked. Surely the similarity in editor names can't be a coincidence... Marquardtika (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) KrakatoaKatie did the original CU block, but I can't find an SPI to update with the new account. Pinging her here so she can have a look. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Safehaven86 was indef blocked for sockpuppetry in the ArbCom elections. I can run CU on the new account, but it looks like a duck to me. Block away. Katie 19:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

El C, do you want to do a DUCK block here or prefer that an SPI be started? TonyBallioni (talk) 03:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Indef'd. Sorry, I thought someone blocked em already. Thanks for the reminder. El_C 03:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

RfPP

Thanks for being such a great admin in general, but today you definitely made my life much easier whilst patrolling new pages. I think it needs to be said. Best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 21:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

/bows Thanks, I very much appreciate those most kind words! El_C 22:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

:) Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 09:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

IRS targeting controversy

What exactly is there to discuss? The other editor is citing partisan Youtube videos of politicians as sources. And then partisan politician statements from a four year old hearing. Both are ridiculous primary sources. This editor is lacking WP:COMPETENCE.VictoriaGrayson 01:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, hear what they have to say. But that does sound problematic. Primary sources should be used with great caution. El_C 01:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

IExistToHelp

Just saw this in my watchlist because I gave a final warning due to bad NPP after many warnings? I saw the request at RFPP, but see no sign at all of page move vandalism. I've been on the verge of taking this user to ANI over CIR issues, so the page protection just raised questions. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, NeilN, I see you queried at RFPP, so pinging you here too. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a form of hat collecting. --NeilN 04:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Noticed that, too. Assumed there was something —a threat, subpages, anything— behind it. But, indeed, it could be just competence. My own, that is! Doesn't really hurt. El_C 04:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, if so, it's not going to help when seeking more user-rights. El_C 04:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, not a criticism of you, just raised my eyebrows! You also have this hat collecting, which they thankfully withdrew. Probably a kid trying to gain experience on Misplaced Pages. I've tried to help but after the last round of deletion tagging my assumption of good faith was running against my being tired of bad tagging. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I deserve some criticism today, it has been a day of stumbles (see for eg., section directly above—and competence àpropos, to boot). And on ANI. Yeah, that makes sense, probably a kid checking things out. El_C 04:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Eh, your recent return has been much appreciated in many quarters, slash, anyone with the balls to have a Lenin quote on their user page at least enjoys getting the benefit of the doubt from me, and I'm one of the liberals he would have hated! TonyBallioni (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Glad to hear it. Good to be back. Yes, my version of potency. But I do sometime have the tendency towards... how do I put this delicately... absent-mindednessesses. El_C 04:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

ECP

- you've got one problematic editor and IP here. - you've got recent probable socks here.

So why the ECP? --NeilN 19:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I don't understand how the new system works. El_C 19:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

If the article is not under AE 500/30 then the following applies: "In cases where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, administrators may use extended confirmed protection to combat disruption (such as vandalism, abusive sockpuppetry, edit wars, etc.) on any topic." So semi has to be tried first and failed. ECP is used when the sockmaster has repeatedly created autoconfirmed accounts or when usually dormant autoconfirmed accounts come out of the woodwork and start editing in a WP:MEAT-like fashion. --NeilN 19:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll be more careful in the future. El_C 19:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

1941 demographics of Jammu and Kashmir

Hey mate, you have reinstated the unsourced content in this edit of yours, saying it is written from 1941 Census of Jammu and Kashmir page. But the page contains no such explicit values for proportions of Hindus and Muslims in the region, and all the data in that page is messy & unclear. Unfortunately I cannot give the exact values for the Hindu & Muslim proportions of Jammu and Kashmir in 1941 at present, but the added figures are certainly inappropriate. The content discusses about the 1941 population proportions of Indian administered Kashmir region, and I can give you an idea regarding that.

For Jammu region, see the table here (you can see that it is well sourced). In 1941, the Muslim proportion was 44.5% in Jammu province excluding Poonch, where the total population was 1,172,950. Also note that the Poonch District of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, whose Muslim proportion was 90%, was divided between India and Pakistan after First Kashmir War; the Pakistani part of Poonch District is part of its Azad Kashmir territory, whilst the Indian Poonch is part of the Jammu and Kashmir state.

Now for Kashmir region, i.e, the Kashmir valley, see this section (again, this is also well sourced). In the 1941 Census of British India, Muslims accounted for 93.6% of the population of the Kashmir Valley and the Hindus constituted 4%. And Kashmir valley has always been the most populous region in the state (Check 2011 census figures for instance). Also for example, the 1901 population of Kashmir valley - 1,157,394 is almost equal to the 1941 Jammu's population of 1,172,950.

So, from the above data, even if we assume that the populations of the Jammu province and the Kashmir valley are equal in 1941, the Muslim proportion of the entire region was easily around 70% (/2), which is nowhere comparable to the stated figure in that unsourced content - 51.41%! The content is clearly wrong and misleading, so kindly remove it. Thank you. — Vamsee614 (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

That's sloppy work on my part, for which I apologise. Thanks for being on it. Looks like it was corrected, but sorry again. El_C 22:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Move FC Steaua București

The team FC Steaua București was forced to change it's name to FCSB. Please check these sources:

• http://frfotbal.ro/echipa.php?id=1285
• https://ro.wikipedia.org/FCSB
• http://www.digisport.ro/Sport/FOTBAL/Competitii/Liga+1/Steaua+isi+schimba+denumirea+incepand+de+maine+Fotbal+Club+FCSB+
• http://www.prosport.ro/video/fotbal-intern/liga-1/breaking-news-acum-e-oficial-steaua-lui-becali-a-devenit-fcsb-anuntul-facut-de-burleanu-si-care-e-situatia-coeficietului-uefa-folosim-noul-nume-incepand-de-acum-video-16214245 LaUr3nTiU (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't read Romanian. I moved your comment to the article talk page for a wider audience. El_C 22:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

RE: 3RR Sanctions

I did not "perform more than three reverts on a single page ... within a 24-hour period"; my most recent revert did not fall "just outside the 24-hour period", as it was performed four days after the preceding revert (~96 hours?). You want an answer? Fine. I obviously would prefer not to be blocked. Good night. Dan56 (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The burden is on the editor making the bold edit being disputed to start a discussion, no? Dan56 (talk) 23:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

No, the burden is shared. El_C 23:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

^ RileyBugz | _Edits 23:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The other editor had no interest in my argument (and relevant guidelines regarding captions) in his edit summaries; I had nothing new to say, and I made this clear at their talk page. What more could I have discussed at the article's talk page? Is this really becoming a matter of what venue the interaction did or did not spill into? I will open an RfC, but I have nothing new to say to this editor. Dan56 (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the venue matters, because then other editors can participate and help. Just reiterate. Listing an RfC sounds like a step in the right direction. El_C 23:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm really starting to take offence to repeated accusations of article ownership; the editor's done it again at the article talk page. Dan56 (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I left a note instructing everyone to limit themselves to the edits not the editors. El_C 23:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Protecting Microscope Article

The microscope article version that you protected makes unsubstantiated claims in regards to the importance of Cornelis Drebbel in inventing the microscope. All other websites which consider the matter of likely inventor do not include him as a likely candidate, and the Amsterdam University Press article which keeps being used to reinstate him doesn't actually refer to him as a likely inventor, and is irrelevant to such claims.

Additionally, Fountains of Bryn Mawr has repeatedly rephrased the article in order to try and discredit Zacharias Janssen, inspite of numerous sources which cite him as the likely inventor, many of which I have cited in my edits to rectify the article and there are many more sources that can be cited if desired.

As a result of the protection placed on the page, the remaining version is somewhat opinionated and inaccurate, contradicting numerous other sources. I have tried to communicate with Bryn Mawr, but they have insisted that their unsubstantiated claims are correct.

Please may you rectify this,

Kind Regards

EsEinsteinium (talk) 10:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you please point me to where that discussion is? Maybe try to see what dispute resolution options would be best to resolve this particular content issue. Perhaps the Reliable Sources Noticeboard or Third Opinion. I see you already listed a few RfCs. Anyway, I'm here to help, but unfortunately my own knowledge of the science is really limited. So, regardless, one unsolicited advise would be to be patient, because we have a surplus of editors like me (history) in the social sciences and a deficit in the natural sciences, so everything takes longer to accomplish there. You probably got a sense of that already. El_C 19:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Help!

Hello. I am having trouble at the talk page of the Too Much Too Soon article. Thank you! RileyBugz | _Edits 16:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I see things have gotten a little tense. I'll take a closer look. El_C 19:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems that the RfC has run its course, so could you please close it now? Thanks! RileyBugz | _Edits 18:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2017 Paraguay protests

On 3 April 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2017 Paraguay protests, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 01:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Bảo Đại

I do not need to create new account indeed. My account limitation had been lifted quite some months ago. You are engaging the editing war and it's who you should stop. If you want to take part in the discussion you are welcome, but do so before deleting the relevant information off the wiki article. I am ok with LeThaiTo's suggestion, you can re-edit it to make it compliance but not wipe it out. Lennytran (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Your edit warring is not acceptable. I protected the page, for now, and I'm also considering blocking the two accounts. El_C 17:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Assume much? If you are an administrator you should already know we are two different person. You should not be assuming things as an admin. Sincerely.LeThaiTo (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I assume you are connected, yes. El_C 23:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I supposed you can assume whatever you want on here, that is none of my business, that is until you wrote your assumption on my wall. If you have some self respect may be you should at least try apologize to me on my wall for your assumption. I wont expect much, that is fine, now back to the wiki article. I can help Lennytran to incorporate what he wrote to the article in a way that it does not look out of place. Please remove page protection status. Thanks. 00:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeThaiTo (talk • contribs)

(Please review our Talk page guideline and how to sign your name.) I assume what the facts lead me to assume. If I have some self-respect? You ought to tread lightly now. Why don't you explain on the article talk page what you intend to do, and before I unprotect why don't you take the time to learn how Misplaced Pages is actually run: I recommend you start with our 5 pillars. Good luck. El_C 00:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, like I've said before, I welcome helps to make the article better not deleting the whole thing! Since you are a more experienced editor and an admin, why don't you help? This Bao Dai wiki, in its current state, is extremely biased, from the contents to the sources used!Lennytran (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe. But unfortunately, I don't know a lot about it and I can't guarantee to find the time to learn, sorry. I'm just the admin that came upon the AN3 report. El_C 02:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Undertaker Article

As I leave for vacation today and won't be back till 5/1. I wanted to let you know WWE has given a reliable source. People need to learn patience. Do what you think is best. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" 20:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Does it mean the dispute is over? El_C 21:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I would say yes, no need for full at this point. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" 21:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Copy that. El_C 21:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Jewish diaspora

I think that the article would fall under Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. In which case the talk page should have a {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} and the article should be extended confirmed protected. What do you think? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with that assessment. Even though a lot of it precedes the conflict, it definitely creeps in there. Today, I was surprised to learn it wasn't 30/500 already. El_C 22:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added all that ARBPIA-jazz. El_C 22:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. The article might contain a little bit that might be construed as being part of the conflict, but it is a stretch to apply the whole article to that. Sir Joseph 18:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know you disagree, but both the blocking admin (CambridgeBayWeather) and the protecting admin (yours truly) felt that the conflict continues to creep into the article vis-a-vis the modern historiography. And that long-standing dispute needed to be tempered. See also my response to ARCA-IP in list of scandals with the suffix -"gate" a few sections below: if it relates to Ds and conflicts arise due to it, it may be applied. El_C 18:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Right, but you can apply ARBPIA sanctions on an edit, without applying it to the whole article. We don't need to lock down articles for just one section. Sir Joseph 18:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

That's just not that practical. Anyway, we thought it best to apply it the entire article. Let's face it, it can be a magnet for ARBPIA disputes. El_C 18:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand, the problem I see is that any article can be turned into a IP conflict issue if one wanted to. Sir Joseph 18:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Not any. But many. Ones dealing with Jews and Palestinians certainly can. El_C 18:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Ds also applied to Palestinian diaspora, btw. Because... it occurred to me. And also... symmetry! El_C 20:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

about macau passport visa free countries list is not accurate

We are the macau passport holder, found that the africa country zambia exempted the visa for macau citizen. Moreover, some countries allows them to applied for the evisa. Some users here always undo the useful information that makes it not accurate. Please look into the issue. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.237.225.168 (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you are whom? Are you more than one person? El_C 02:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

about visa requirement of macau passport

We found that the visa policy map and information is seriously out-of-date. Please stop someone from undid the real information and ban that user. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.197.138.152 (talk) 07:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Who is we? El_C 07:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

complain

The admin of visa requirement/visa policy always delete the correct information without any explanation. For example, someone on Mar 27 edited visa requirement of Chinese citizens of Macau. However, it is deleted by the admin within a short time. Please look into the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:C800:9002:8:0:0:0:13 (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm on it. But I don't think there was an admin involved. El_C 04:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It looks like it was a copyvio. Next time, try to summarise in your own words—don't simply copy from the source(!). El_C 10:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

complain of visa requirement/visa policy

visa requirement/visa policy always delete the correct information without any explanation. For example,

someone on Mar 31 deleted Macau in visa free section in visa policy of Tanzania without any explanation, it at least obtain visa on arrival which is the same as China passport

delete Macau in Zambia visa policy on Mar 18, although evisa page shows visa free.

The Uganda visa policy page never shows Hong Kong as visa free without any explanation.

For visa free of Chinese citizen of Macau, the Georgia can be accessed by evisa, same as Hong Kong which can be seen in IATA, but someone deleted without any explanation.

For visa policy of ukraine, it never shows Macau as visa on arrival which confirms by the Macau Government recently.

Please look into the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.130.100.150 (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

You're gonna need to learn to collaborate with fellow editors. You can't keep sending me—post a comment on the article talk page to see what other editors say. Find out which editor is behind an edit and post a notice on their user talk page that an article talk page discussion concerning their edit is happening. El_C 04:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

complain of visa requirement/visa policy

Please help to look into the problem as this issue involved a number of editors. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.130.100.146 (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you even reading these replies? I don't know—you don't sound like you're working well with others. Try to better articulate what the dispute is about, to start with. Please sign your name. Familiarise yourself with Misplaced Pages by reviewing the 5 pillars. El_C 18:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Your protection on List of scandals with "-gate" suffix

Could you explain why you did this protection? First of all, the edit war is between 2 users so definitely does not require any kind of protection on it. And secondly, you refer to RFAR/GamerGate, but that case does not allow for admins to simply insert whatever pages they want under the discretionary sanctions. Remedy 1.1 makes very clear that you can only do discretionary sanctions for edits about and all pages relating to gamergate or any gender related dispute or controversy, or people associated with those. This list is not about gamergate or any gender related dispute or controversy, nor is it about any people associated with either of those things, so you cannot impose GG discretionary sanctions to the list. You could impose discretionary sanctions under the GG case for the people involved in the editwar since those edits are about GG, but you can't just expand that to apply to the entire list. 213.112.98.111 (talk) 06:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

It was requested at RFPP, and I agreed with the request. The list includes it thus it relates to it, like Jewish diaspora, a few sections above, encompasses ARBPIA. You are welcome to bring this up to review in any forum you see fit. That said, if I see a lot of extended confirmed edit requests, I may reconsider. El_C 18:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I did not ask if you agreed with it. I asked why you agreed with it. Where was semi-protection tried and found not working? And do you seriously not see that it's a content dispute for which the extended confirmed specifically forbids you to use it for? You're only allowed to do that on articles covered by ArbCom and that requires that the page is actually covered under the GG ruling that you referred to but that ruling does not permit that protection on just any page. It only permits it on pages that are about GG or gender related controversies, or people involved in either. This list is simply not about GG just because it happens to mention it. As for bringing it up for review. The place to review it would be ArbCom, and quite frankly, I have absolutely ZERO trust in ArbCom, current or past. They have proven to not care about policies time and time again. I am simply asking you to respect the policies. If you don't, not much I can do, nor willing to do. I'm simply requesting for the sake of Misplaced Pages's reputation. It does not need to become even worse. So please respect the policies and lower the protection and sanction the people involved, which is all that the GG Case actually allows you to do within the discretionary sanctions in this case.213.112.98.111 (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

You advance a fair argument. On closer examination, I should have gone with my first instinct and tried semi first. Okay, I'll remove the Ds, for now. El_C 19:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

But also note that the article talk page already had {{Discretionary sanctions|gg|long}} template on it long before I showed up to protect the article. El_C 19:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

That would just mean that that template it there in error. I think it also should be noted that the template was added by Gamaliel with This edit and as you know, Gamaliel wasn't exactly neutral when it came to GG. 213.112.98.111 (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I actually don't know—I wasn't around Misplaced Pages for GamerGate. El_C 21:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

You were not around for Gamaliel's meltdown last year? this is what I'm talking about then.213.112.98.111 (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow, 2016—what a year of the terrible. Even its April Fools was needless drama. Can't say I'm not glad to have missed all of that. All glory to the Hypnotoad! looks like a tame kitten by comparison. Laid back 2017. But what about GG? El_C 22:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I linked to the finding of fact for Gamaliel's status as involved, as well as that he's prone to paint his opponents as GG. Essentially, the point is that he has a history of painting everything and everyone as being part of GG, so his interpretation of what pages should or should not be included under discretionary sanctions, should be taken with a large amount of salt.213.112.98.111 (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

As a former arbitrator, that assessment surprises me—but, of course, I'm unable comment on what I don't know concretely. El_C 22:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Abecedare (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

You may want

You may want to put The Undertaker to at least Semi protect. There is now a new user causing problems after you removed full removing refrenced sources. Just for reference, User was created today and all 10 edits were to that article. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" 23:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

If the user continues ignoring the article talk page, I'd rather just block them than semiprotect the article. El_C 00:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Whatever you think is best, going back to my vacation before my wife sees me on here lol Chris "WarMachineWildThing" 00:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll try to keep an eye—enjoy your time off. El_C 00:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Forgot, same type of issue is happening at Bill Goldberg There is a discussion on the talk about those retirement issues. See ya!! Chris "WarMachineWildThing" 01:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll try keep an eye on that, too. Hope you get to spend time outside! El_C 01:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I am right now, had to wait for her to get ready,so I hung on here lol. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" 02:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Gurbaksh Chahal article reverts

Thanks for blocking user 96.8.1.144 (talk · contribs) at the Gurbaksh Chahal article. However, he/she has appeared again at that article as 2600:387:2:805:0:0:0:75 (talk · contribs) and 2600:387:2:805:0:0:0:89 (talk · contribs). Both these people made comments about me when reverting my edits ("Chisme needs to get blocked. He's a troll..."; "Too many trolls trying to abuse Misplaced Pages.")

I believe 73.15.10.151 (talk · contribs) is also involved in this. He/she reverted my contributions to Gravity4, a company associated with Gurbaksh Chahal, and in doing so made comments about me by name ("Please Chisme, stop trolling. Your vandalism nature is well establish here"). Jui89 (talk · contribs) did the same at the Gravity4 article when reverting. She/he wrote when reverting one of my edits, "User Chisme is purposely using this platform; his edit shows consistent edits on Gravity4 and Gurbaksh Chahal pages." Why do all these people know my editing history intimately and want to call me out by name? Any ideas? Chisme (talk) 10:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the page is fully protected now, so the matter is moot. El_C 18:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, let me look into this more closely. El_C 18:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

There's a sockpuppet investigation about all this if you care to look at it. Thanks in advance. Chisme (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

El_C I arrived on this discussion page, as I received an alert of a mention. I do feel there is unfair & biased perspective presented. I am choosing to edit the category of my expertise, to only end up defending myself repeatedly to Chisme. I presented myself fairly & honestly that I am learning to edit & rules of the community are being followed carefully. I have spent more time defending my edits to Chisme, than to do the actual edits. Being a newbie, I have spent time learning from my edits and understanding the rationale of the reverts. If you look at the edit history on Gurbaksh Chahal, you will notice several reverts by Chisme without any explanation & initiated the edit war. He seems to have general choosing of sensationalize the content on Gurbaksh Chahal and Gravity4 pages. He even violated the 3RRR rule during the edit warring; I didn't report him, hoping the mere reference would let him cool-off and allow us to be cordial in this community. If I am doing something gravely out of the norms, please do message me. I will gladly correct my mistakes. Jui89 (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I would, first of all, avoid statements such as alleged defamation on the company page—we have a no legal threats policy, so consider yourself warned about that. (Just to confirm, you have zero connection to Chahal or Gravity4—do I got that right? Again, your single-purpose on Misplaced Pages is difficult to ignore. But okay.) Also, please decide where you want to have the conversation, your talk page, or mine. I'm not inclined to split the conversations, but you really leave me little choice with your two unique replies in each. *** The BLPCRIME policy is reserved for relatively unknown persons, and neither the company (which is not a person) nor Gurbaksh Chahal are. And since it seems to be a fairly high-profile suit, especially as it pertains to Chahal, it seems worth mentioning, in my opinion. But that's just one opinion. It's unfortunate, there is so little written on the company for it to take that much of the article's overall space. Perhaps consider contributing to expanding that article. One thing you might consider is listing an RfC on whether that section should be included in the article, that's one way you can find out what the consensus is. Thanks. El_C 17:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

El_C Thank you. Having discussion on this page is fine. I will review the suggested references to help me understand the policies better, before responding or suggesting edits. To answer you question, no relations to Chahal. I started editing, only to find myself in this issue. I had just started to edit Facebook/other social media sites and had hoped to made edits on other brands, but have stopped. I am using this example to learn before editing further. I also didn't want to get banned for not following/understanding the rules. Some community members are less patient or welcoming to the novice I am finding out. My editing objective is to provide unbiased, but relevant information on the issues that have happened in my industry. And not to create a "TMZ" pages of such brands/individuals on wikipedia. The current language on Chahal page suggests some malice attempts. I am not against posting relevant content. I do feel there are standards of summarization on Wiki, and all editors should adhere to the same NPOV rules. (Or so I think). Nothing on the content under legal issues suggest NPOV. Again, I am not against posting it. I do feel it lacks neutrality. I use this site often, when I am looking for unbiased and non-sensational information. I reference it in my school lectures as kids nowhere days believe all they read on the net. In regards to high profiling of the case, there are references the alleged complainant never reported to Chahal. Meaning, Chahal did not manage or interacted with her. I would cite already cited sources in the reference. As I see it, if all employee complaints are ok to be cited for one company page, there will be multitude of complaints within my industry to be listed on each brand pages - something I don't feel is appropriate to list on Wiki; perhaps the latter belongs on Glassdoor. For now, I will take your suggestions on reading up to enhance my learning curve on Wiki. I do remain puzzled, however. If there are rules already in place for not posting about alleged allegations till there is judgement, then the editors should adhere to policies - rather than engage in long talks WP:NOTNP and WP:DUST. Of course, I am still learning and am finding the rules are not clear cut for a novice to understand. I have reached out to few seasoned editors to help mentor me. I don't want an early onset discourage me from becoming a contributor. Should you be able to provide direction, I would be much appreciative. Thank you again for taking the time to reach out to me. Jui89 (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure. But it's just curious, and a bit suspicious, that all these new users are ending up at Chahal... Again, maybe the consensus would be that that section doesn't belong. That's certainly not an unlikely outcome. That's why you should list a Request for Comment (RfC), to let the community decide. I already covered why I think BLPCRIME doesn't apply: since Chahal is well known, and the suit has received exposure in reliable sources. The question whether the section represents undue weight is something, that again, the RfC can tackle. Feel free to list one. El_C 19:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Good Lord! Directly above you wrote, "But it's just curious, and a bit suspicious, that all these new users are ending up at Chahal." And at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Jkmarold55 you wrote, "Unless there are CU results I'm missing, there might not be a sockmaster and there may be multiple (pro Chahal) individuals." I think I solved the mystery. Two days ago Lingveno, who has been posting at the Gurbaksh Chahal article and the Jkmarold55 sockpuppet investigation, wrote the following on Chahal's Talk page, "WP:CoI - payed by Kay Kaur with 200 USD through Upwork, hired for mediation in order to make the article neutral." Kay Kaur just happens to be Chahal's sister, Kamal Kaur? So Chahal's sister has offered a nice sum, 200 bucks, to people who will make her brother's Misplaced Pages article prettier? The Upwork website is down for maintenance as I write this, so I can't investigate whether the sister's ad is still up. But WTF? Am I wrong to ask WTF? I think the Gurbaksh Chahal article needs a "This page is currently semi-protected so that only established registered users can edit it" tag. Chisme (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Could you advise me on how to proceed?

Hi, and thanks for participating in resolving the dispute on Jewish Diaspora. I'd like to ask you for some advice going forward, you earlier indicated this should be treated as a content dispute, however I have a slight problem with that in that while this is a content dispute on one side, this is a conduct problem on another side. Namely, the version Debresser has been railroading into the article really is not the stable version (and this is a question of fact, not a dispute with two equal views), and the situation now is that if that version is allowed to remain in the article (as it is now), Debresser will, by edit warring, have obtained an apparent change in the text. Back in the day when I spent more time on Misplaced Pages, the practice was that during resolution of a content dispute, the stable version remained in the article, and if consensus on a new version was not reached, that was it. I don't like to criticize another editor, but Debresser made one last revert on April 3rd, immediately before reporting me on the noticeboard for edit warring, which is weird and resulted in his version being left in.

Therefore, I'd like to ask for advice concerning how I should proceed, an RFC would be one way to look at the content side (where the question is very simple), but, frankly, I don't feel I should be doing Debresser's work for him, as I have been in e.g. filing the issue on the NPOV noticeboard. Other options could be to ask an admin to undo Debresser's last revert, report him on the long-term abuse noticeboard or what? Cheers and thanks in advance, --Dailycare (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Why would you be doing his work for him by being the one to list an RFC? It seems like an act of mutual benefit, and probably the best idea I can think of. I think you'll find that admins are unlikely to side with any one version as the stable one, and view the misconduct part as equally shared between both of you. El_C 18:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd be doing his work, since I'm content with the version that has been in the text for years and he's proposing to change it. If admins are unwilling to take a decision on what the stable version is, I feel that encourages edit-warring since it enables a disruptive editor to achieve results in a way that circumvents the consensus-building process. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I've now posted an RFC on this, let's see how much participation it attracts. --Dailycare (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Coincidence?

Is it not strange that now there is an IP from Baku Azerbaijan doing the exact same edit as Aydinsalis on the Uzun Hassan article? Sounds like someone is simply logging out to edit war. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm on it. El_C 21:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you think that it is not reliable? Why do you cancel?

ENCYCLOPÆDIA IRANICA

Do you think that it is not reliable? Why do you cancel? 94.20.65.25 (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Aydinsalis, is that you? El_C 22:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

It is preferred to cite secondary sources over tertiary sources, which is what an encyclopedia is, per WP:RS. Thus, the revert. RileyBugz | _Edits 22:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Evading your block was the wrong move, Aydinsalis. But if you show contrition, I'm willing to rethink my indefinite block. El_C 00:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I also have to remind you: :It is preferred to cite secondary sources over tertiary sources, which is what an encyclopedia is, per WP:RS. We asked you, why did you do? You can answer this question. Put an end to fraud. 94.20.27.241 (talk) 10:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Opened SPI here... RileyBugz | _Edits 21:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

COI assistance

Hi there, been trying to resolve a COI issue on out clients page Henry Stone (comedian) We can clean the article up to be in line with the neutrality policy as well as include additional sources for some statements but we want to make sure that we're recognising to the COI that would exist if we just edited it ourselves. Could we show you our suggested changes and have you execute them if they are up to wikipedia standard? Thanks for your help and thanks for sending us in the right direction when we first requested help. --Eternitygrubagency (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. Use the talk page to make your requested edits and I and other editors will be pleased to execute the changes if we approve of them. Thanks. El_C 03:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Yogi Adityanath WP:POINT

Hi El C, it seems that the page Asaduddin Owaisi is receiving WP:POINTy edits related to Yogi Adityanath. The "firebrand" term is unsourced. Can you see if semi-protection would be appropriate? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd rather you at least tried to engage the user on the article talk page first. (Use edit summaries that say see talk.) El_C 19:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

PALO VERDE HIGH SCHOOL

I believe that protecting palo verde high school's wikipedia page isn't only constructive to the useful edits that should be made but it also interferes with keeping your site correct, and by protecting the Palo Verde High School page, you are preventing that from happening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:8:9:0:0:0:99 (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, there were just too many disruptive edits to that page. So, I suggest you register an account if you want to edit it before the semiprotection expires. El_C 19:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

IDF (+ History of Israel... non-controversial edits, if you don't mind)

Hi. There's an extra space here above the new "Technological development" section. Also I think that section should be merged with "Weapons and equipment". It has repeated weapons and was copy-pasted from Israel#Military, probably to show more pictures of Israeli inventions. On a different note, could you please change this sentence: "In 125 BCE the Hasmonean King John Hyrcanus subjugated..." for "In 125 BCE the Hasmonean etnarch John Hyrcanus subjugated...". That would be more historically accurate, since the first Hasmonean ruler that took the title of "king" was Hyrcanus' son, Aristobulus I (later his brother Yannai followed his example). Thanks.--186.138.87.138 (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

If there are matters you wish to bring to my attention, that's fine. But extended confirmed access edit requests belong on those articles' talk pages. Thanks. El_C 21:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Popped in for a sec

Popped in because of a notification I got this evening, yes the wife said I could have a few minutes. I believe this user was a blocked IP, who did nonsense edits just to get confirmed because of the semi you placed on The Undertaker as all their edits are their own space except to post to Oshwahs talk once and to remove the retired refrences from The Undertaker article. Please note these requests on their talk page and this. Back to my vacation. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" 05:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Bizarre. I hope they didn't go through all these motions just for that. I'll try to keep an eye. El_C 05:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Something is fishy, they went to Oshwahs talk about it. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" 05:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that... request. El_C 05:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Thought this was a little odd for a "new" user too.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" 05:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. The question is to what end? You think just to contest the retirement? El_C 06:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Ill say this much, they knew how to get their name confirmed in order to edit the article. I'm pretty sure this is the IP they were trying to get unblocked but it isn't blocked, which means they tried to edit as an IP and couldn't. The whole thing is odd. Wife says times up lol, back to vacation. See ya. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" 06:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Fun-in-the-sun — enjoy it! El_C 06:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I wish, it's a staycation vacation.lol Chris "WarMachineWildThing" 06:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

And here I was imagining Hawaii, Tahiti, Micronesia... Tampa. El_C 06:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

usernamekiran

@Swarm: Hello, this is usernmaekiran. I have logged out of my account, and I will never login again. Would one of you please "sanction" me and Earl as soon as possible? (So that i can go to sleep.)

Also, as per my request, would you please go through each, and every edit that we ever made on wikipedia? Thanks.

BTW, this was my last ever edit on wikipedia. One more thing, I have dynamic IP address. So it wouldnt be of any use if you post something on that IP's talkpage.

And no, i have no intentions of sock-puppetry or IP editing. Thanks again.

PS: wikipedia lost a good editor (thats me btw). 117.200.192.48 (talk) 06:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe get some sleep and rethink all this when you wake up. El_C 06:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks El_C. I thought about it. Swarm said to me "pretending to be angel when you are clearly not" or something like that. I dont seek an apology. Neither from Swarm nor from Earl. I do not have any feelings towards Swarm, I am totally neutral. But yes, I have intense animosity towards Earl. But i never let that fact drive me while i contributed to wikipedia.

@Swarm: I have 2000 edits that you need to look through. If you look at 50 edits per day, that will take 40 days. But lets make it up to June 5. I will contact you again on June 5, at that time please show me at least one edit where i acted "not in good-faith". —usernamekiran 19:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Swarm: June 5 has been extended to Sept 15. By that time I need "your basis" for the claims stating I am pretending to be angel when I am clearly not. If you can find that in recent contributions, you dont have to go further. And also, anything that happened after lodging the edit war complaint, it doesnt count. Sept 15 it is. And please, I request to both of you, hand out the result soon. Earl is not going to comment there. Thats his MO. He runs away when he doesnt have anything to say. If my claims about racism were false, he would have been snipping at me as for "making it up". So you can assume I am not lying, but as the evidence is off the wiki emails, i dont know what is the poicy regarding that. None the less, that fact shouldnt be overlooked.

I have been annoyed enough already by wikipedia, and I was a pretty good sport about it. But now my patience are wearing out. So Swarm, start running my background check. I will contact you on Sept 15, 2017. I hope you dont get my statements mistaken for requests. Thanks.

El C, you are nice person, with a warm heart

This was the last time I logged in before September 15. I will not login again. If I am annoyed by some user again before Sept 15, i will talk to them in 2020. —usernamekiran 00:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. As mentioned on AN3, I think, at this time, the best thing is to set up an indefinite interaction ban between the two of you, so I have done this. Clearly, you're not going to get along at this stage. You are both also sanctioned with 0RR on all articles for 72 hours for the edit warring. Hoping with that, you can put the incident behind you and go on editing productively without running into or talking about one another. Goodluck. El_C 01:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. But did you sanction me and Earl exactly the same? Also, That interaction ban, does it mean we are allowed to interact or the functions have been disabled? —usernamekiran 01:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

You've been sanctioned the same. You are not allowed to interact with or speak about one another. Which, frankly, should come as a relief. El_C 01:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I hope so. But I have a feeling earl would be reverting my edits. Let's just hope for the best. I need your suggestion. I've friend who is willing to sell his bagel dog to me for 539 INR, it is like 10% less. And I sort of like that dog, he looks very cute cuz got a big nose. Do you think I should accept the deal? your command on jewish langauge extremely poor. You'd be better off on Spanish wikipedia. See what I did there? —usernamekiran 01:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Whomever breaches the interaction ban will be sanctioned. I'm afraid I can't advise you on that—I'm more of a cat-person, anyway. El_C 01:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I apologise for my comment above. But you completely overlooked his atrocities, like it is supported by wiki. This is not fair.

Did you see my recent comment where I posted few diffs? —usernamekiran 01:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I saw it. Feel free to appeal my decision in any forum you see fit. El_C 01:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

It's 7am here, and didn't sleep entire night. I should sleep now. I will logout now, and then I will contact Swarm in Sept. But I hope you the diffs I posted, and that Earl's sanction is changed. I don't know much about complaining. Never done that before. What do you suggest regarding that?

And I was pretending to be a racist. —usernamekiran 01:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

it will not be appealing your decision. :)

you sanctioned for only edit war.

for these incidents, where should I complain? —usernamekiran 01:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you let this dispute go. For actual incidents there is ANI, but I advise against listing a complaint there. El_C 01:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

okay. You are a good person so I will comply to your suggestion. And I apologise again for all these racial slurs. I didn't mean any of them.

I am going on a wiki break now, idk when I will come back, or if I will. Hope to talk to you again though. :) 117.200.197.142 (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Enjoy your break. Goodluck with everything. El_C 02:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Islam by country - Table - World total

Talk:Islam_by_country#World_Total.3F 45.116.232.0 (talk) 07:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it. El_C 08:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

UFC 210

Thank you for protecting it. I was kind of getting tired of reverting the vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.250.190.57 (talk) 02:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

It got busy there, didn't it. El_C 02:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Its a shame you had to send the "children" to the time out corner.  :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.250.190.57 (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Forgetting Something?

You Forgot to put a block notice on 엠비엔_뉴스특보's Page!-barrelroll.dev (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't forget. El_C 04:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Meatpup...

odd Edit for first time. Looks like a duck to me. PS bring up dispute at the CANADA notice board.--Moxy (talk) 05:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeff'd. El_C 05:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Esenotnacytriddiputs

Hi, I was a bit confused by your posts to this user's Talk page. It looked like you had indeffed the user based on your last comment, but you hadn't. I came across Esen because Lemongirl942's Talk page is on my watchlist. If you wish, you can take a look at the rather startling posts Esen made there (I've deleted them).

In any event, just a heads up that I've indefinitely blocked the user for sock puppetry. I haven't finished my check. There will be at least several more accounts that are operated by the same person, but I need to go through all of the various strands to make sure I don't miss any, at least based on what I can see.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, looks like I just plain forgot, but I did semiprotect the page, so there's really nothing for the socks to do. El_C 20:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

About Facial hair...

Hey El_C!

Regarding the article Facial hair, would you mind increasing the protection length? The last protection length was 2 weeks, this one should be at least a month or more, maybe even indefinite. I mean, if a week works, that completely fine, just thinking those vandals and very persistent about removing the Women section. Let me know what you think. Ping me when you reply. Thanks! Yoshi24517 _{Very Busy} 16:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

We rarely indefinitely semiprotect pages, Yoshi24517. Let's try the one week, and go from there—we can always reportect. El_C 20:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Palestinian rocket attacks

Hi. This sounds cherry-picking, supported by a biased source. It seems POV edit is meant to show how meaningless are Israeli casualties compared to Palestinian ones. I don't think "Israeli attacks" belong to WP:lead anyway.--186.136.245.26 (talk) 05:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Well, if those are the facts, the intent may be seen as somewhat irrelevant. As for the source: Rashid Khalidi's books seems like a reliable enough secondary source, even if it may be biased to one side of the conflict (i.e. would still not make up numbers). In my opinion, comparing both sides' attacks from the air could be a depiction worth making, but it does indeed omit Israelis killed by Palestinian ground attacks, which would greatly increase the tally. So I do partly concede your point about that. Anyway, I would have hoped for more current year-span, seeing the overall state of the article and the {{update}} tags. El_C 05:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Emily Blunt's protection

Hi.

I am not much familiar with wikipedia's rules. But i hope Blunt's protection wasnt added because of my edit. For how long it will last? Is there wasy i can edit it while it is protected?

Regards. ZD. —Zolpidem Dreamer(talk) 07:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. No, your addition was good. It's semiprotected for 4 days. You may submit edit requests on the talk page. Thanks. El_C 07:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Why was the article locked then? Also, how to change the time settings? I am not in UTC timezone, and the timestamp is confusing. —Zolpidem Dreamer(talk) 07:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

See its entry in WP:RFPPA for the reason. *** I don't remember, somewhere in the preferences. El_C 07:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Mistake?

You seem to have made a mistake here: 2017 Stockholm attack. You can't close off editing on a major news story for two days, especially one that is featured on the main page. A heavily changing article is just a fact when it comes to controversial and highly featured news. Carl Fredrik 22:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, my bad. El_C 22:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

My bad as well. Would a warning to the involved parties be appropriate instead. Clearly there are edit warring going on. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

It has been noted on Talk:2017 Stockholm attack#Suspect's name. TompaDompa (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't delete my post on the Alex Jones Talkpage

If you have problems, debate it there on the talkpage so others can judge, don't just delete the entire post. I want others to make their comments on the topic, if you just delete at your whim, others cannot comment.175.156.14.2 (talk) 06:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not a whim, and there is nothing to debate. I told you, that it is: 1. defamatory to call him a "medical crackpot"—violating our living persons policy; 2. It has nothing to do with suggesting improvements to the article—Misplaced Pages is not a forum (see out talk page guideline). Thanks. El_C 06:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this.

Cant take to AIV and not sure if its ANI worthy. User:Broken nutshell continues to add unsourced content with summarys like this and messages to my talk page like this User has been warned and told he must provide sources not just his say so. After looking at their contributions and thier talk page this is an on going issue especially at the article Eva Marie. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" 18:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

One crisis at a time! Looks like this can be resolved with {{uw-unsourced}} warnings. El_C 20:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Royal Guernsey Light Infantry

G'day, El C, my take on it was that a short protection would be better than a block in terms of potentially not biting a newcomer more than necessary. I saw it as a slow burning edit war with no engagement on the talk page, thus a short protection would break the cycle of edit warring, and (hopefully) encourage ChrisOliver to discuss the edit on the talk page. Happy to reverse my protection if you disagree, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I just had it under control—and I didn't want to overwhelm the user with repeated text and templates. Two admins is a bit of an overkill. But you can take over. El_C 19:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Re: 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:ADF3:C706:1C77:4C80

Hi. You warned this IP yesterday following the report at ANEW. Well, they're back to edit warring first rather than even trying to discuss. I think a block may be in order. Thanks in advance. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 22:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit requests (Aishiyeh massacre, Haaretz)

Good morning. What do you think about this? (information about Arafat was removed). Also would you mind adding some information about this to the criticism section of Haaretz?... it seems Haaretz is now inciting to murder people with different opinions and religions (as long as they are Jewish).--181.95.28.35 (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello. The editor calls Freeman Center for Strategic Studies not reliable—I honestly don't know enough about them to comment. (What source did they use though for that Arafat claim, I wonder...) *** Indeed, Haaretz op-ed has has gotten a lot of condemnation—from the PM, the President, the Justice Minister, the Education Minister, and even from the Leader of the Opposition—but saying it is inciting murder, is probably going too far. When it says "they can't be killed," that's just an inflammatory way to illustrate a double standard exists. I'll see about adding something about that controversy to the criticism section. El_C 02:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

hi

I am talking about real things why you do not want to hear the voice of fact ? يزن (أبو الزوز) (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. You are vandalising talk pages. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. Thanks. El_C 13:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

User gaming the system 500 edits

Hi, this user, User:000meow showed up in my watchlist and I noticed had just above 500 edits. I took a look at the contributions and they were clearly gaming to get above 500. Sir Joseph 15:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Taken care of. --NeilN 15:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Sir Joseph 16:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Somalia/Somaliland

Hi,

not sure what the official stance on that is. I seem to have chosen the wrong side in an edit war trying to revert vandalism. You have commmented on that topic on this Talk page. Can you help? MikeTango (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

What can I do to help? El_C 23:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Counter-punch

Hi. Scottyhinesis is trying to hide well-sourced, well-attributed and well-documented criticism about the leftist US magazine, without proper consensus on talk page (nobody agreed with that removal). For some reason he didn't explain, Malik Shabazz deleted the content again, even though he didn't participate in the discussion. BTW, Scottyhines is a single-purpose account that has only edited in that specific article, perhaps with the intention to whitewash the anti-Israel publication from its numerous accusations of antisemitism.--186.125.68.145 (talk) 03:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I suggest you ask Malik Shabazz why he removed those passages and why he used an automated edit summary—and otherwise, try to engage the editors on the article talk page. ARBPIA applies, but I'm not sure the Consensus rule applies in the case of IPs, however. El_C 03:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

King cherry

Hi, El C.

Sockpuppets came to King cherry. I posted WP:ANI#Sockpuppet of SaripBB and WP:RFP#King cherry. I would appreciate if you could take a necessary measure to prevent further edit warring. I think page protection is absolutely necessary until the end of cherry blossom season.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 23:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Per this motion, WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 protections should now be logged. ~ Rob₁₃ 05:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: You might want to post this at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for page protection and WP:AN --NeilN 05:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: I posted to RFPP's talk page. This was already noted at AN at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive287#Arbitration_motion_regarding_the_logging_of_sanctions. If you think a more succinct notice is a good idea, I'll leave that to you to post. ~ Rob₁₃ 06:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd rather wait for the AfD to conclude. El_C 06:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Several questions for clarification

So El_C several questions:

1. what is the size of number of edit I can do where I do not need create a discussion on Wikiproject and it is not considered en mass? This guy did similar edits as me and did not get reprimanded on the admin notice board what is the time interval where I can make additional edits like this without contacting a wikiproject? Should I be removing other users edits on the same thing per no consensus?
2. How come other project do not require consensus for adding template box items? For example I added all template boxes for Category:Buddhist temples in Bangkok, the fish infobox in a couple dozen pages in the genus Epinephelus, and the fungus infobox from 20+ pages in the genus Amanita based on the style in the infobox last year and this year with out problems? So if I added it when creating the infobox it is ok? But when I add it to an infobox it is not ok?
3. Should I remove all previous edits I did en mass? (the majority of what I did) and report users to your talk page if they sparsely repeat the same edits as me?
4. Please indicate why my edits were not Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith? Per Misplaced Pages:Civility why was this issued allowed on admin notification instead of the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution

Note that I am only posting here because that user is known to have problems edit waring and regularly makes disparaging remarks against users he disagrees with. Sorry if the questions put you on the spot but I do not want to deal with these incidents in the future. --Cs california (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

This is already on ANI—I don't know why you think it benefits the discussion to have it go on in more than one venue. El_C 21:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

ok sorry about the post and thanks for the response!--Cs california (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Norwalk, Connecticut

Not sure it's really necessary to both block and protect. The last problem was edit warring over which image to include, and the blame lay pretty squarely on one side of the equation. I tried to mediate but failed pretty miserably, but the user is nearly an SPA with regard to this town, and I'm not entirely sure it's not fitting to allow the other editors (moderately experienced ones) at having a fair go at evaluating things and trying to reverse the unhelpful bits. TimothyJosephWood 23:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Oops. Missed that. El_C 23:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:pagelinks

Just asked for the {{pagelinks}} to stop following the redirect. See Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#Template:pagelinks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Is that why the bot was confused? El_C 18:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes. You protected the target page rather than the redirect. Both now protected. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. El_C 19:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you remove the GA icon from Jews?

I recently closed the GAR for that article, delisting it from GA status. Since the article is now protected, can you remove the GA icon from the article? Thanks.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 04:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Globalresearch.ca

Re this, Globalresearch.ca most certainly is not a RS for anything, ever. VQuakr (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I have never used it as a source, so I can't comment on that, and though I appreciate that that is your opinion—the point of contention was accusing it of Holocaust denial without proof. El_C 15:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

your revert of move of Tulsa race riot

Please also look at the same editor's move of Elaine race riot to Elaine Race Massacre. Meters (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

That was quick. Thank you. Meters (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome. El_C 18:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi...

...I just wanted to bring this to your attention, which may warrant a warning about person attacks. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Copy that. El_C 00:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Israel and apartheid analogy

Hi El. Could you please add the following opinion of a Sudanese human rights activist in the section Israel and the apartheid analogy#By others:

Sudanese human rights activist Simon Deng, writing for the Gatestone Institute, has criticized Desmond Tutu for referring to Israel as an apartheid state, stating that Arabs in Israel enjoy a variety of rights that blacks in apartheid-era South Africa did not, including the right to vote, and that Palestinians are only stopped at checkpoints to prevent attacks. Deng asks why Tutu criticizes Israel for apartheid policies it does not have, but ignores what Deng believes to be actual apartheid practices in other countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and especially his own country Sudan.

Thank you very much--201.216.221.221 (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

References

1. Bishop Tutu and "Israeli Apartheid"

Again, feel free to bring matters to my attention, but I prefer if you were to make edit requests on the article talk page. It's just not what my talk page is for. El_C 00:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

New RfC at Plummer v. State

There is a new RfC at Plummer v. State RfC, dealing with the Internet meme section. Please visit and comment on the proposed language for the section. This is revised from the first proposal, and you are receiving this notice due to your participation in the first RfC. GregJackP Boomer! 20:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, goodluck. El_C 00:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Jews

Please see my last post at User_talk:Fortuna_Imperatrix_Mundi#Request. Debresser (talk) 09:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Really, four days weren't enough? El_C 09:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Postol revert

Apologies for appearing to revert your edit - I hadn't realised you'd edited and thought I'd messed up my edit.BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, not at all. He is actually mentioned in that The Nation article, so I didn't understand your objection. See my comment on the article talk page. Thanks. El_C 12:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Disputed links at White privilege

Thank you for protecting the White privilege article to stem the edit war. I note that in the status quo version before today's edits, the disputed links were included in the article. The last version before you protected excluded them. Did you intend to leave them excluded? —C.Fred (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I did not intend to include or exclude them, I just protected when I realized the extent of the edit war. El_C 16:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I was debating whether to return the article to the status quo. If there is a request to do so, do you have any objections if I put the links back? —C.Fred (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, sometimes a page gets protected on the wrong version—there's just no way around that. El_C 16:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll let discussion happen on the talk page and wait for consensus, then. —C.Fred (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Let me know if you need early unprotection. El_C 17:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Puntland

Hello, i'm relatively new to wikipedia, can you show me how to request for page protection. There seems to be disruptive edits war on — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdinur04 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

SMILE!

STOP REVERTING MY EDITS!

My edits are genuine and constructive. Please do NOT revert them in support of the vandalism. Cagadhiig (talk) 06:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Stop edit warring immediately, or I will protect the articles to force you to use the talk page. El_C 06:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

INDISCRIPT

Hi, just to note that WP:INDICSCRIPT explicitely applies ONLY to LEDE, not to infoboxes. Thank you NOT to remove Indic scripts from "native name" parameter in infoboxes nor add any script-related warnings. It would be very kind and helpful on your part if you self-reverted all your recent edits. For a recent discussion, see here. Regards, — kashmiri  17:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, the policy applies only to articles solely within the scope WP:INDIA, whereas some of the articles you tagged are also governed by other projects. — kashmiri  17:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It does now, see the latest RfC linked in the policy. I'm rolling back your reverts. El_C 17:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you link it please? Can't locate the discussion. — kashmiri  17:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Revised WP:INDICSCRIPT now links to RfC on Indicscript in infoboxes. El_C 17:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

If I have gone outside the scope of WP:INDIA, than that was in error—I mostly attended to the Top 50 cities by population. El_C 17:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Located it now. (RfCs should not close per SNOW, but that's another matter). See number of projects e.g. Varanasi is in: Talk:Varanasi. Slightly less for Srinagar. Most cities are in the WP:CITIES project which has standardised use of "native_name" in the Infobox settlement. Also, "native_name" is not excluded by that project with regard to Indian cities (Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Indian_cities#Infoboxes). In general, I support removing native scripts from infoboxes except for human settlements and literary works. — kashmiri  17:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but we just have had too much disruption with native_name in cities, and elsewhere—and consensus is clear. I authored the RfC precisely due to disruption in Indian cities. I think Indicscript for cities falls under WP:INDIA, not WP:CITIES. El_C 21:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Why not Indic scripts?

Sorry I don't understand why we can't have the name of cities in their native langauges? Chinese cities have their names mentioned in their native languages (see Guangzhou). Why not Indian? 103.212.159.152 (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

See this discussion for the reasoning. Basically, it was getting too messy and the cause of too many edit wars.

The reason why Indic scripts differ from "the rest of Misplaced Pages" is because of the sheer number of possibilities. This has been mentioned on numerous occasions, including in the original RfC for INDICSCRIPT. There are, for example, well over 200 official languages in India, not forgetting the many local variants. I may be wrong but I cannot think of any other country that comes close to this situation. Sitush (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

El_C 10:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

"200 official languages"?? well It clearly gives me idea that you have very little to no knowledge in this regard. I wasn't a part of that discussion so I don't know what happened there. But here what I am saying is. India has 22 officially recognised languages. But here in thsi particular case, like on page "Patna" which is the capital of Bihar state where Hindi and Urdu are two official languages (recently Maithili is also included). Why not we just write the name of city in these two official languages of the city and state as well. No need to worry for 200 or 22 other languages. MetalBrawler (talk) 11:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

That was obviously a typo—Languages of India is on my watchlist. El_C 11:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The trouble is also the unoffical languages—"India speaks 780 languages, 220 lost in last 50 years – survey." 11:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Robert Fisher (New Hampshire)

Thank you for semi-protecting Robert Fisher (New Hampshire) however the last edit to the article before it was protected restored material that violates WP:NOR, WP:BLP, and WP:RS. I made a notation on the Talk Page - I don't know if it's appropriate to ask you to revert that edit or whether I should ask one of the noticeboards. --2607:FEA8:5A40:758:D10C:4B27:2263:370 (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. Looks like someone already beat me to it. El_C 23:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Archiving at the ANI board

Hello El C,

I have chosen you at random from currently active editors that are admins who frequent the ANI boards. The thread that is currently at #1 on the list entitled Antonioatrylia on Talk:Asia Kate Dillon has had no active discussion since 19 April 2017. ( 7 days) The only two posts after that were by editor Cassolot who was the originator of the ANI thread. They add no additional discusson, but two times in two separate times say:

I am concerned that an administrator or similar hasn't responded. So I guess I am posting to make sure this section doesn't get archived! --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 4:10 pm, 22 April 2017, last Saturday (3 days ago) (UTC−5)

Again, editing to make sure this section isn't archived. --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 5:23 pm, Today (UTC−5)

I ask you El C, are these kinds of postings after a discussion ended seven days ago allowed to continue into infinity? I will thank you in advance for addressing and possibly taking care of this matter. Thanks. Antonioatrylia (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

No wonder—I'm not that inclined to go through so many text walls. The author should have done a better job summarising if they wanted their report commented on. I'll drop a note about how you should both be taking this to DRN, however. Where you should work on combining the best of both versions. El_C 00:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you @El C for addressing this matter. Like I mentioned in my first comment in response to the opening of the ANI post, This is truly a content issue and really is not appropriate for this board. I am afraid Pandora's box may have been opened because now editor Cassolotl has copy/pasted over the entire lengthy ANI thread over into here user space titling it as a handy link and Saving for my own reference of course the whole thread will be saved in the ANI archive when it ever reaches there. I really object as WP:POLEMIC for all these walls of text being copied over to their user space, because it contains baseless accusations about me that are not true. If she wants to write up a summary she can use the lengthy thread posted at now the #1 spot on ANI. I have already addressed all her points and accusations there ad infinitum. Especially in the last part when I asked her to show a diff that showed where I had ever said twitter was a primary source. She could not. She changed the wording of her last statement to put up a diff instead of what I had actually said which showed that she changed her wording at the last moment when she was caught in a lie. I called her out for being deceptive. After that she had no further discussion, only posts to keep her lengthy walls of text alive and not get archived. Well now she has her walls of text ANI copied over into her user space as perhaps a trophy or something to gloat over. I object to that as POLEMIC. Thank you. Antonioatrylia (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

EJustice AE/AN

Hi there,

Working on a statement from Wiki Ed presently, but I just wanted to quickly leave a message for you (and also pinging MelanieN, who expressed something similar) regarding this. I have no opinion on whether it's better suited for AE or AN, but if you're basing the decision on the students, know that their assignment was technically over last night. You'll almost certainly notice the editing drop off thereafter, and odds are you'd be sanctioning 180 accounts that won't actually be editing again (or, if they do, will be doing so outside the context of an environmental justice course assignment). FWIW. Thanks.--Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Okay, that's good to know. Thanks for the heads up. El_C 00:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Back?

I didn't realise you were back until I saw you weigh in at AE. I spend almost all my Misplaced Pages time as User:Ian (Wiki Ed) these days, so I missed your return. It's really great to see you back! Guettarda (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Great to see you, too! Thanks, much appreciated. This calls for a chipmunk! El_C 01:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Wording of the 3RR close

Hi El C. Your result of Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Lneal001 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 24 hours, both) is stated as 'both' and it might be worth clarifying that Dr.K. is not one of those blocked. Whenever I read these headers I tend to assume that 'both' means both the reported person and the reporter. In this case the blocked people were actually User:Lneal001 and User:Pizzamall. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, will clarify. El_C 04:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Basil L. Plumley article

Hello El C, Many thanks for your actions regarding Duke83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) editing on the Basil L. Plumley article. However, since then the same reversions have been carried-out by 92.71.13.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom I strongly suspect is just a sockpuppet of Duke83. The deletions are the same, again - without reason and the area "edits" are coming from is the same. Could I please ask you to check this out? Thanks and regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I'm on it. El_C 13:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for all your help. David J Johnson (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

You are most welcome. El_C 14:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

"lying through his teeth"

I just wanted to defend my statement because I stand by it and I'm here because the topic has been closed.

What I said was "...either lying through his teeth or being so wrapped up in his own POV..." . I didn't state without qualification that Greg was lying, I said it was one of two possibilities.

Furthermore, one of those possibilities is absolutely true, based on the statement of Greg's I responded to. Greg accused Kingofaces43 of vandalising a page, and in the very same sentence acknowledged that Kingofaces posted a rationale for the edit on the talk page. It was an utterly nonsensical claim, that would have had to have been made irrationally, or out of a deliberate attempt to deceive. I did not suggest which I thought it would be.

Additionally, ANI is the venue for discussing editor behavior, that thread was a venue for discussing Greg's behavior, and WP:ASPERSIONS makes it quite clear that accusations, supported by evidence and presented in the proper venue do not constitute the casting of aspersion. This is both a matter of policy (via an Arbcom decision) and practicality (else it would be a sanctionable offense to report someone at ANI). I did not provide a link in my statement because the evidence was the comment which started that line of discussion. A simple roll of the mousewheel is all it would take to see it.

Finally, I would like to point out that your response has allowed a personal attack made against Kingofaces43 to stand, while berating the editor who pointed out how uncivil and unreasonable it was. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not civil to say to someone that they're "lying through their teeth." Especially if you don't indicate what they're lying about. El_C 22:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I indicated exactly what I suggested they were possibly lying about two comments previously. On a 1080 monitor, both comments can appear on screen without any scrolling, and on smaller monitors all it would take is a single roll of the mouse wheel. I don't see any reason to assume that the attention span of any possible readers is so short as to require me to restate what I'm talking about with every other comment I make. And again; it's even less civil to accuse someone of vandalizing an article, especially when one indicates in the very same sentence that one knows or ought to know very well that it wasn't vandalism. The end result was that Kingofaces43 had to sit through that discussion enduring personal attacks from GregJackP while an admin ignored them, and instead berated the only editor to come do his defense. And for the record, you can check our editor interactions to see that my defense wasn't motivated by any clique-ishness. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, it is not about attention span, it's about knowing what you refer to. What personal attack? What berating? Quote, please. I am not a mindreader. El_C 14:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Your mouse wheel and the scroll bar in your browser will work just as well in this thread as they will at the ANI thread. Whether you elect to read my comments and see where I've answered you already or not, whether you can recognize the rather clear answers in my comments or not, it's apparent that there's no point in me saying anything further here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

All you had to do was quote the personal attack and the berating so that I know what you are talking about. El_C 15:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

1RR on Gilgit Baltistan

Hi El C. Did you place a 1RR restriction on Gilgit-Baltistan (re the AE complaint against Mar4d). I can't find where this restriction was placed. Thanks! --regentspark (comment) 15:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Found. --regentspark (comment) 17:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Question on IBAN

Am I allowed to continue to comment on the RfC at Plummer v. State under the IBAN if I don't reply to his comments or mention him? I don't want to violate the sanctions, but I would like to see the RfC I started through to completion. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 15:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, just stay out of each other's orbits on that page as best you can. El_C 22:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. GregJackP Boomer! 23:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hargeisa and Adal

Hi El_C and thanks again for action re: Hargeisa and Adal_Sultanate. I left you a message on the 3RR report, but in case you did not see it, could we reinstate the pages to pre edit-war states? At and . Also please note that whilst the Adal page is protected, the Hargeisa page is only semi protected. Many thanks once again. Kzl55 (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

We cannot. See the wrong version. I suggest you continue discussing the dispute on the article talk page. Eventually, you're gonna need to list an RfC about this (I recommend the talk page of WP:AFRICA), or you're gonna be dealing with these kinds of dispute eventually. El_C 22:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I see what you did there.

I messaged you as a matter of courtesy, both articles are editable as of today. I accept this could be a case of wrong version, but the editor in question has a track record of disruptive editing against Somaliland. Examples include; removing Somaliland's national anthem from a template of National anthems of Africa (please note template makes no mention of de jure status and includes other non-UN-recognised nations such as Sahrawi Arab Republic, Saint Helena and Réunion ) , they also removed Somaliland from List of foreign ministers in 2017 for no apparent reason (list also includes other unrecognised states such as SAR). They even went ahead and removed Somaliland from the Freedom of the Press report , despite the report explicitly including Somaliland . Kzl55 (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

You're still gonna keep running into these types of users with little recourse until you formalize the status of Somaliland on Misplaced Pages—believe me. El_C 23:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

How would this status be formalised? And how would the enforcing work? We are already dealing with their disregard of Misplaced Pages rules in terms of sockpuppetry etc. Would that be via an RfC? Kzl55 (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, with hidden notes that refer to the result of the RfC. El_C 21:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Nosx1's block is now two weeks

I noticed that the account Nosx2 was created, and instantly made a revert on the Susan Mayer article. That account has been indefinitely blocked for sock puppetry, I made the extension to the block on Nosx1, and I left a notice on his user talk page to let him know. Just wanted to leave you a message as an FYI. Pinging Flyer22 Reborn and CLCStudent, in case they're interested to know about this as well. Cheers - ~Oshwah~ 01:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I semi'd the page for a week, for good measure. El_C 01:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

That's a good move. Thanks for doing that. Cheers - ~Oshwah~ 01:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

For sure, thanks to you too. Looks like a classic case of WP:IDHT and WP:CIR. El_C 01:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both, El_C and Oshwah. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Fixuture edit in Israel

Hello. I wanted to let you know that Fixuture reinstated an extremely cherry-picking POV paragraph that was rejected in February, despite there was no consensus for it, not then, not recently.--181.95.31.162 (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Looks like it was removed. El_C 11:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Washington Capitals

Protection here doesn't seem to have been properly applied. Home Lander (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Getting a lot of retention errors today. El_C 01:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

"No apartheid in Israel" says head of the Red Cross

EI, could you add one line or something in Israel and the apartheid analogy about this declaration--200.45.165.35 (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

But where in the article? This is why I prefer you use edit requests, because then you have to specify (x-to-y) where an edit actually goes. So, please do that. El_C 04:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

A community ban closed in less than four hours?

I understand that the proposed community ban Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Community_ban_for_User:The_abominable_Wiki_troll is pro forma, to have something on the record. However, there are suggestions the editor engages in wiki lawyering. One would be hard-pressed to hand such an editor better evidence than to open a discussion for a ban and close it less than four hours later. I just don't see any downside to leaving it open for 48 hours, perhaps only 24 if there's not a single voice of opposition. In my opinion, closing it after less than four hours is just begging for wiki lawyering.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I missed it too, but I think it was long enough to see there could not have been any other reasonable outcome. We will block socks of that troll whether they wikilawyer or not. Jonathunder (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The downside was that the banned user kept showing up to oppose the ban, to the point that the board had to be semiprotected, which I wanted to minimise. El_C 22:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Ref change

You protected David Bowie as I was attempting to fix a reference. The first of the three references in note 327 needs to be changed to:

{{cite news|author=<!-- Staff -->|url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/the-times/david-bowie-the-genius-who-fell-to-earth/news-story/88e0644986c66a1fe9494edde892cdac|title=David Bowie: the genius who fell to earth|work=]|date=13 January 2016|accessdate=29 April 2017}}

This is the correct source for the 150M figure. —ATS 🖖 talk 08:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

It will have to wait. If you reach consensus, I'll unprotect early. Please see my comment to you regarding sanctions at AN3. El_C 08:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

"Consensus" will be "decided", or so it seems, by those who colluded to enforce their "consensus" rather than take the issue to the community at large as I suggested—twice. Meantime, see my response at AN3. —ATS 🖖 talk 08:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

You are having the same conversation at three different places. El_C 08:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm being forced, essentially, to answer to different falsehoods and/or requirements at three different places. It is 01:52 hours where I am, and this is not fun. —ATS 🖖 talk 08:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm choosing AN3 as the venue for discussion. El_C 09:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Template protection of Template:High risk

Why did you template protect Template:High risk? The page has only about 700 transclusions (high risk templates have at least 2000 transclusions) and is transcluded on pages with low visibility (Template and Module space docs). Semi protection seems fine (was like that for 7 years). The similar Template:High use has more transclusions than Template:High risk is semi protected (and is also not a high risk template). Does not seem to fit the definition of high risk which is why templates are template protected.

It is not used in a permanently highly visible location, and it isn't cascade protected.

It is not transcluded into a very large number of pages.

It is not substituted extremely frequently on an ongoing basis (for example, templates used to warn users about inappropriate editing).

-KAP03() 00:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

See this request. El_C 05:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 April 2017--190.31.109.199 (talk) 09:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, good. But my point was where does it go in the article? Never mind, misread that. El_C 09:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 09:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

My unreviewd pages

Hello. I noticed that, from a long time, the pages which I have created on English wiki aren't reviewed. Can you do something. Thank you. Gazal world (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC) Gazal world (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I, actually, don't do New pages review (see Cat:NPR). But I reviewed a few of them. If I get a chance, I'll do a few more. El_C 21:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed reviews of articles. I will look into your reviews and ll improve articles. All points regarding articles are good suggestions for improvement.Gazal world (talk) 07:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Glad I could help. El_C 09:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Ancient warfare

Quick note; your edit here came up in a routine mirror search. While the the material may be copied from the "World Heritage Encyclopedia" via Gutenberg, that's a Misplaced Pages mirror. See the "citational source" at the bottom of the linked page for their half-assed attribution back to us. Not that any of that makes the addition any better; it's still copied and not attributed the way the student added it. Kuru (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I missed that being a mirror. But I did notice that some of the section on naval warfare was copied from Naval warfare. El_C 05:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Your recommendation at AN3

Re: , I don't understand what issue there is for RSN or why you'd recommend it. Could you explain? I don't want to be seen as ignoring your recommendation. --Ronz (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

You can try DRN if you prefer. Or do nothing, it's up to you. But I thought you wanted to resolve the external links dispute. El_C 19:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I just wanted to be sure I wasn't overlooking something you thought was important. --Ronz (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi! I noticed you seem to be a fan of Communists such as Vladmir Lenin and Che Guevera, and recently protected the https://en.wikipedia.org/Anti-fascism page! Are you an administrator or such, that can help me? How do you feel about the notability of recent antifa violence within the United States and Europe, against supporters of right-wing populists such as Donald J. Trump, and when will it be notable for inclusion on the Misplaced Pages page? Thank you in advance for your advice! 173.77.253.240 (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Only if it's covered by reliable sources in a way that represents due weight. El_C 19:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Age of Rishabhanatha

Hello. The other editor claims that "Misplaced Pages articles are not acceptable cites in other wikipedia articles." This is completely off the point since a Misplaced Pages article was NEVER used as a reference. The reference used for the definition of purva was the book Satyarth Prakash by Dayanand Saraswati, page 417 on the mentioned English translation (or 271 in the original Hindi edition). The only appropriate course of action is to put the age in years back the way it was before it was removed by the other editor without reasoning. Please do so or state any issues you have with it. -Jenishc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.117.40.12 (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

When you are ready to adhere to the rules, let me know and we can work something out. El_C 19:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear Fuhrer, you succeeded in thoroughly smashing the spirit of Misplaced Pages in that line. This is a powerful evidence of how editors operate on Misplaced Pages. Thanks! And keep it up! :) -Jenishc

Jenishc sock IP User:131.215.220.163

131.215.220.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Jenishc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

See. Probably Mahavira and Parshvanatha need a temp semi-protection or a watch, given Jenishc's persistent hopping IP activity after the block. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Some of your edits are offensive to Jains. Others are unsubstantiated. Please learn to respect a religion and be unbiased. -Jenishc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.220.163 (talk • contribs)

Jenishc: Please quit your sock activity, edit warring and personal attacks, circumventing your block. You repeatedly remove sources!, and then falsely allege that "my edits are unsubstantiated"! Well, we stick to summarizing the scholarly reliable mainstream sources. I am used to allegations by sockpuppet wiki-warriors that my or another contributor's edits are "offensive to Buddhist" but pro-Hindu/Sikh/Jains/Muslims, "offensive to Hindu" but pro-Buddhist/Sikhs/Jains/Muslims, "offensive to Muslim" but pro-Buddhist/Hindu/Sikhs/Jains, "offensive to Sikhs" but pro-Buddhists/Hindus/Jains/Muslims. You join that disruptive bandwagon when you allege "offensive to Jains". We just need to stick to summarizing reliable sources, without original research. My sympathies to you if "Mahavira died and was cremated" language instead of "Mahavira disappeared into thin air or attained moksha" offends you, or other well sourced content offends you. That "died" language is well supported in reliable sources. Please stop the WP:TE and the disruption. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Looks like El_C is busy in real life. The User:Jenishc's "It wont stop me", disruption and sock activity is spreading. They are the accounts that retaliated on the 3RR board few days ago!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, I have blocked 131.215.220.162 and 131.215.220.163 for a week. Please let me know on my page if you have any more IPs. Bishonen | talk 15:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC).

Thanks for the assist, Bish. Ms Sarah Welch, do you still need those pages semi'd? El_C 19:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Lets hold off for now, as I see no evidence of continued disruption. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: "Please quit your sock activity, edit warring" - Please stop blocking the account without any reason just so that you could freely enforce your views in an unchallenged fashion, and i'll stop the sock activity. ||| "... personal attacks" - If any response affected you, i apologize, however, the definition of "personal" is quite broad, and your actions of randomly putting statements and linking it to some random source have been personally disturbing to me too. ||| "You repeatedly remove sources, and then falsely allege that my edits are unsubstantiated!" - The sources you link are no sufficient enough evidence for any facts that you state. If Paul Dundas mentions in his next book that "Mahavira" was a female, it does not make it the case. EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY CITATIONS. You have repeatedly failed to provide citations in every case which i have disputed so far, starting with the one on Umaswati. ||| "I am used to allegations by sockpuppet wiki-warriors ...you join that disruptive bandwagon when you allege offensive to Jains" - Very honestly, you overestimate yourself unimaginably. I do not have an iota of concern about which of the bandwagons inside your head i fall into.You can try and stop deluding yourself, might be healthy. ||| "My sympathies to you if .....or other well sourced content offends you" - Haha, look at yourself! Please read the few lines before where you were so harmed by personal attacks and see what you're doing now :). The cremation fact was not offensive, it was HILARIOUS. Whether the cremation happened or not is secondary, but there is no way any sensible person would write it in a book, for that would be MAKING A CLAIM OUT OF THIN AIR, since whoever wrote it wouldnt have any source or evidence for the fact. ||| Stop being blind, and use your common-sense. -Jenishc

Paul Dundas is a respected professor, highly cited, well known for his publications on Jainism. It is you who is the problem, one of those wiki-sock-warriors who disrupt, confuse their personal opinions / wisdom / prejudice as the Truth, apply standards and lecture others but fail to apply the same standards to self. Please stop this sockpuppetry, stop deleting multiple scholarly sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Paul Dundas says that "Mahavira died aged seventy-two at the town of Pava in what is now the state of Bihar. His body was cremated, with the gods taking his bones to heavens" - Paul Dundas clearly is aware of how gods took Mahavira's bones to heaven, very rigorously justifying his scholarship and credibility. "It is you who...apply the same standards to self" - You have an extraordinarily high capacity for tolerating nonsense, and thus it is natural for you to backfire and retaliate when the nonsense is made evident, and try and justify the nonsense in every possible manner. However, the basic fact remains that the nonsense is nonsense, and sooner or later, it will become transparent. It might be helpful to learn to distinguish nonsense from common-sense. 'Your pain is the breaking of the shell that encloses your understanding' ~Gibran. -Jenishc

"Wave of terror in Europe"

Hi, Captain. I was surprised to see you restored this rather random piping; did you mean to do that? Anyway, I've removed it. The link on its own is appropriate. It's surely not even much of a wave, compared to many other parts of the world! Bishonen | talk 10:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC).

Hi, Bish. It's part of ISIS-affiliated worldwide terror attack (wave), so what am I missing? El_C 19:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

But that's just a personal description. Fake (=piped) links don't belong in an infobox. The real link, Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present), covers the matter more fully as well as more factually. Bishonen | talk 16:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC).

That's a fair point. I concede. El_C 16:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The removal of sourced information continues.

After you protected the Avicenna page, this 'HornyPolymath' user resumed his disruptive editing here . --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Warned. El_C 21:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

A big thank you for reviewing articles created by User:Gazal world. I am mentoring him for long time. He is particularly interested in writing articles on topics related to Gujarati literature (authors, books, awards etc). As he is not native speaker of English, his writing may have grammatical mistakes but he has improved a lot since he started editing. He will improve articles as per your suggestions. And I will help him in doing it. Dates and lead expansions are easy and doable. A major problem regarding these topics is lack of availability of references online. Most of the criticism of works and authors are (obviously) in Gujarati language and very little of it is available online. So he has to tediously search/research books in libraries for references. And as he is not native speaker of English, it is difficult for him to translate those criticism in proper English words. :( If the criticism of Gujarati writers have been available in English, . I think this clarifies why these article lacks detail about books and criticism. Still he is very happy to do whatever he can and he is also happy about your reviews. He told me to write good reply and thank you so I did on his behalf. We will do whatever we can regarding your reviews. Regards and a big thank you again.--Nizil (talk) 06:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the comprehensive explanation, Nizil, and thanks for mentoring Gazal world. It was my pleasure—glad I could help. And it was interesting reads. El_C 06:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Nizil and thanks to El_C. I request to User El_C for copy editing of the articles created by me. Gazal world (talk) 06:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

About Battle of Cam Duong user-4488 has sockpuppet

This is not necessary for independent pages. Repeat with Battle of Lao Cai.

PS:user-4488 has a strong Chinese tendency and uses sockpuppet.May be a Chinese spy student and live in the United States or use proxy.--101.9.161.144 (talk) 06:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not seeing it. Can you link to a diff that depicts what you're referring to? El_C 06:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

see this and Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Born_A/Archive

Special:Contributions/Widgetsz89/Special:Contributions/Qweroa/Special:Contributions/UserDe/Special:Contributions/User-4488 and history of Battle of Cam Duong--101.9.161.144 (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for outlining that. For my part, I'll try to keep an eye on Battle of Cam Duong. El_C 06:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Change of wording at WP:INDICSCRIPT in light of closure of infobox RfC

Hi El C, Now that the RfC on infoboxes has closed and has recorded the consensus, please do the honors of changing the wording of WP:INDICSCRIPT. Again, many thanks, and congratulations. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks, and to you! El_C 13:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Aleppo, talk page

Just wanted to note that I *am* using the talk page (at the bottom there, though probably in retrospect shoulda made that its own section).

On the other hand, as soon as you remove protection, Khirurgs jumps in with to revert .Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it was the section above, I noticed this belatedly, sorry about that—perhaps I prematurely unprotected. I've been following the edit war there for a while. El_C 01:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

For the record, VM has NOT participated at the talkpage since his revert . Whereas I opened a talkpage thread (to which VM has not participated) within one minute of my revert . Speaks for itself, really. Khirurg (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Aleppo text proposal

I left the text proposal (with sources) at the article's talk page as you suggested. Check it out if you want, from a 3rd-party viewpoint maybe you could make suggestions as well or offer an opinion. EkoGraf (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Great! Glad you're taking advantage of the protection. Will check it out. El_C 06:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I tried. He now says any narrative by the Syrian government on these issues is propaganda and should not be included. I even cited AFP (a reliable source) as a secondary source who was relaying the government's and Russia's narrative and he didn't even take it into account. Not including the narrative of one of the beligerents is simply not neutral. EkoGraf (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Consensus was reached (with Marek) regarding the ceasefire sentence. He was the one who was objecting on this sentence's source. As for the executed bodies sentence. I watered it down and cut it down significantly and have now cited only reliable sources like AFP, Deutche Welle, etc. The sentence was proposed at the talk page. One of the three earlier objecting editors (Iryna Harpy) expressed no opinion regarding the sentence. I asked a second directly (My very best wishes), he only said if the sources are better then Masdar (which AFP and Deutche Welle are) and if the wording was improved in comparison to the previous text (which I did) he had no objection. I added significant more attribution to the sentence then there was before. He said he would look at the sources when he has time. As for Marek, he questioned the source (when I only cited the AFP story for the sentence). I didn't really know how to respond to someone questioning the reliability of AFP. I have since added a dozen other non-government sources who also ran the same AFP story at the talk page (at his request and for further verification) and also additionally I cited the proposed sentence with Deutche Welle and Middle East Eye (both reliable) which did not simply run the AFP story but wrote their own on the executed bodies. As far as I am aware, this would be per WP:SECONDARY since we would be using reliable secondary sources who are talking about that specific story. And we wouldn't be using the primary source (which is the state media). If he still questions the sources I think its a simple case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but we wait and see. EkoGraf (talk) 03:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not seeing where consensus was reached. Can you clarify on the article talk page how this is so? I am willing to unprotect, but I am wary that the edit war would resume. El_C 03:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Marek said regarding the ceasefire sentence, quote - I should clarify though - I don't have a problem with the "Ceasefire" part of the text. As for the other sentence, Wishes has changed position now, I don't know why. He said if the text was reworded and reliable sources are used it was ok to include it. When it was reworded and reliable sources were used he said it was both in the lead and in the main body and there was no need. Except its not mentioned anywhere in the lead and only one sentence regarding different incidents in the main body. He also said he doesn't trust the government, on that basis now we should exclude anything the government says (even reported by reliable secondary sources) which is counter per WP:SECONDARY. On this, I would refer you to what Wishes said regarding the pro-rebel SNHR (which is not neutral) at the bottom of the talk page. That if its referred to by a reliable secondary source its ok to use that secondary source. Exactly same thing I said for the government allegation. EkoGraf (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I don't think I can find middle ground with Wishes anymore despite my best efforts. He requested reliable sources for the allegations and that the text be reworded. When I provided the sources and reworded the text he basically said - no reason to include that, its already mentioned in the lead and the main text. It was not mentioned in the lead anywhere, and in the text a wholly separate incident was mentioned. When it was pointed out to him it was not in the lead and that it was not the same story he switched tracks again and now wants everything alleged removed. This is not neutral in my opinion and I simply don't know how to continue with someone who basically doesn't want to compromise. I think I have been pretty reasonable in these discussions up until now to find a compromise with the several editors who objected to the sentence, despite a majority of editors already being in favor of even using the primary sources for the claims (with attribution), and not just the secondary ones. EkoGraf (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

You have any suggestions maybe? EkoGraf (talk) 02:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Seems Marek is on his way to agreeing to the sentences on the executed civilians. Only remaining sticking point is he wanted to call SOHR an independent monitoring group despite it being overwhelmingly called pro-opposition. EkoGraf (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Compromise concluded with Marek. EkoGraf (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, Marek doubts that Aleppo has a forensic office.... I cited a UN report confirming Aleppo has a forensic department. EkoGraf (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Request for closing talkpage discussions

@Floquenbeam: Hello, currently there are four discussions which were initiated over changing the content. There was dispute as to which content was more accurate. This further led to an edit war, which was reported to AN3 discussion board. I recently found sources regarding the disputed content, and posted them in the discussions. I requested two editors to close them, who are familiar with subject; but were not involved in the discussion.
It turns out they can't close the discussion as they are involved in the article.

So I humbly request you guys to take appropriate decision for the discussion, and close it with proper reasoning. Thanks a lot.

The discussions are this, that, this, and that. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

We only close RFCs and RMs—we don't ordinarily close regular discussions. El_C 23:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Who should I ask to close the aforementioned discussions? Thanks again, and I apologise for nagging you :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 20:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Why would regular discussions need to be closed? That's not ordinarily done on Misplaced Pages. El_C 23:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

they were debates, with many acquisitions including some editor getting paid for his work. The debates were "is A correct or B?". B was the correct one. But the person started all this, made other editors believe that A is correct. After that, i initiated a voting for consensus, while the user was editing the article. Thats how you n me met. It was nice, and quite there on AN3, and then we appeared. The problem with current discussions is, anybody, no matter how newbie to case, or no matter how expert, he will believe A is accurate. I dont want that to happen in future, thats why i need to close them. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm having difficulties making sense of that. You can qualify a discussion with your own caution by commenting as you see fit (directing the reader to the aforementioned vote, for example), but closing regular discussions that are not especially heated nor structured (like an RM or an RfC) is not conventional practice on Misplaced Pages—I'm unsure how I (or anyone) can help with that. El_C 05:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I apologise for closing the discussions, but I tried to get attention of many others to this issue. I am sorry, but I did what i thought was correct. I have further explained it on the talkpage of the article (pinged you there).

You say it is not "conventional", but it is not forbidden either. As I explained earlier, the discussions clearly give the impression that HSCA based its conclusion of conspiracy on many factors. As I have provided WP:RS for the fact that HSCA based its conclusion solely on one factor only. It is necessary the confusion should be cleared on the talkpage discussions, thats why I wanted to close them. So, would you please re-consider about closing them? I apologise again. But I still think the discussions should be closed. —usernamekiran(talk) 16:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I apologise for all the trouble regarding the "closing the discussions fiasco". I mean the apology. I mean, i am not saying it for the sake of formality. You right. The discussions dont need to be closed. Sorry. —usernamekiran(talk) 16:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Worth check it out

El C: Do you have an account in Meta? I do not know if you authorized Marrovi to use your signature and comments elsewhere, because this user is using it to mark that you are attacking him. That talkpage denounces "the harassment and injustices" suffered by Marrovi. He is putting a message for you but he didn't put it like pin. Worth check it out. --Akapochtli (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

It looks like he just copied the entire section, I can't fathom for what purpose. El_C 05:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Minor fyi

Relevant to a recent block you did of someone else, that user's style reminds me of this one. Just to note it for your future edification. Montanabw 04:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, noted. But I'm not familiar enough with either user(s) to comment beyond that. El_C 05:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Policy question

Hi, El C. I'd like to ask you for some guidance about community norms. An editor would like to keep a bold edit in an article. I'm asking them to engage in a source-based discussion to get consensus, but they are arguing that the edit doesn't need to get consensus in that article, since it reflects the language used in the main article for that topic. They are also arguing that I should get a consensus in the main article if I want to contest that language. The two articles aren't in a spin-off relationship. That doesn't seem to reflect any policies or community norms that I'm aware of. I reason that language used in different articles for the same issue may well be different because they give different weight to different sources (e.g., an article on the history of Great Britain may treat Napoleonic wars somewhat differently from an article the history of France, since they would tend to be based to a greater extent on sources about British and French history, respectively). Further, I note that WP:CANVASS doesn't include other articles among non-controversial sources to get further input, presumably because the community recognizes that bringing in editors from another article may favor one side in a dispute. The other editor argues that the issue has already been extensively discussed in the main article, and I'm attempting to challenge a site-wide consensus on this point. What is your perspective on this? I'm notifying the other editor so they can clarify their position if I'm not presenting it well. Eperoton (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I responded at the Ottoman Empire TP just now. The question of how the AG should be presented on Misplaced Pages doesn't start at the Ottoman Empire article, but the Armenian Genocide article. We need bring in users who are interested and specialized in this topic to join this discussion. Such users hang out at the AG article and will offer their insight only then. Also, this is not similar to the Napoleonic wars being presented differently on an article concerning Great Britain. Differently is not the same as inaccurately. If we are to present the Napoleonic wars using wording that doesn't jive with the facts and with the Napoloenic war article itself, then I feel that wording must be revised to present the most accurate picture of that particular event. That's what we should be doing here as well. With that said, I don't think there's really any necessity at all to redefine the Armenian Genocide, especially under Eperoton's rationale and wording. Splitting hairs and playing around with words the way Epereton's doing can lead to denialists rejoicing. For example, Eperoton claims that the ministry should be held separate from the government as if the ministry is its own entity. This is highly misleading for our readership especially when it comes to an issue of systematic genocide by a particular government. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@EtienneDolet: I'm not claiming anything resembling that. It really escapes me see how you could read that from my response. What I've done is track down a strong secondary source which supports your position on that particular point and made an NPOV-based argument to convince myself that I can accept it. I'm afraid we keep talking past each other. El C, aside from the general point of policy this has started with, if you have time to take a look at Talk:Ottoman_Empire#Recent_changes_of_text_on_the_Armenian_genocide, I would appreciate any guidance you might offer there. Among discussions I've had here with constructive and knowledgeable editors, this has been an uncommonly difficult one, not just because of talking past each other, but also because of some core differences on interpretation of NPOV and PRIMARY. Eperoton (talk) 04:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I, actually, believe that a connection (what you call spin-off relationship) between articles does exist in a powerful way in regards to the consensus which determines the weight of reliable sources, that, ultimately, produces neutral phrasing. Yes, there can be some subtle nuances based on focus, but basically, the main article's preeminent assertion of its opening—in this case, Genocide and systematic extermination—I don't think is something for which consensus needs to be reestablished in other articles—such as in this a case, Ottoman Empire. Just as we look to the historiography of a field to set to the tone in the main article, so do we look for consensus in Misplaced Pages's main area (or the main article) to set the tone for mentions in other articles. In that sense, much of the discussion I think could be juxtaposed to the main Armenian Genocide article, but I'd actually recommend you take it to the Dispute resolution noticeboard. El_C 05:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, I don't think it counts as canvassing to leave a note at the main article that this dispute is taking place and where, just as it would WP:ARMENIA. Further input via the main article, if anything, is a good thing. In that sense, the main article can be seen as a central location to the topic in itself. Another way to go about this would be my three stages to launch an RfC: 1. Find you what you agree on. 2. Find out what you disagree on. 3. Launch an RfC on 2. El_C 05:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The question is, though, historiography of what field? Here we have two partially overlapping, but distinct fields, where the subject is often discussed from very different perspectives: genocide studies and Ottoman history. I may have a chance of convincing the editors at Ottoman Empire that mainstream academic sources on Ottoman history should be taken into account per NPOV alongside genocide studies sources. I wouldn't even try to make that argument over at Armenian Genocide, because frankly I don't believe that there's a good case for that myself. I have no objection to Armenian Genocide being based on books with "Armenian Genocide" in the title. Why shouldn't Ottoman Empire give non-zero weight to books called "History of the Ottoman Empire" even in discussing the Armenian genocide? Eperoton (talk) 05:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, El C. In this case I don't think an RFC will help, since I've been trying to get an NPOV discussion based on a systematic review of sources. In my experience, when you ask editors to read more than a short paragraph in an RFC, they just tend to shoot from the hip. However, your guidance is duly noted. What may be more helpful here is agreeing on inviting some specific regulars from the AG article. Eperoton (talk) 05:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Consensus existing at AG is still key, I think, notwithstanding this problematic of having two, sometimes overlapping fields. *** Sure invite regulars you all agree on, as well as place a general note in the main AG article, are good ideas. I still think an RfC may be useful, perhaps even necessary, eventually. Maybe use DRN to condense the crux of your dispute into something that can be phrased concisely enough for an RfC. Just a thought. El_C 06:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

A lot of this was just a simple misunderstanding. I believe I overlooked some things Eperoton was saying. So there's no need to take other avenues to solve this matter. In fact, it's practically solved already. Thanks El C for your guidance. I'm sure your suggestions here will be referred to in the future because they're helpful. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

To amplify your point, El C, I just noticed that I had missed the fact that WP:CANVASS does include "The talk page of one or more directly related articles" among appropriate venues for notification, so there was a misconception on my part about community norms. Eperoton (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to reopen this discussion, but I realized that I could use trying to restate El C's advice in my own words to make sure I understood it correctly. We aren't having a new argument with EtienneDolet over these general points, but I'm pinging him for transparency. By the way, I should have pointed out before that this consultation took a somewhat disconcerting (for me) turn at the start with the misapprehension that the disagreement was over appropriateness of the terms "genocide" and "extermination" for the AG, which it was not (it was about the way they combined with certain other words in the specific sentences we discussed). Let me paraphrase what I think El C advised: 1) we should look at the relative weight of sources determined by consensus at closely related articles, and use that as guidance for reflecting these sources (I believe this applies only to high-quality articles like AG, where we can find actual discussions of relative weight of sources); 2) we should try to involve editors from closely related articles if we're having a dispute related to the consensus existing there regarding phrasing or relative weight of sources (also probably worth doing only for prominent related articles); and 3) we should generally follow normal DR procedures. El C, could you confirm if my reading of your advice is correct? Eperoton (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

More or less, yes. Especially for 2 and 3. But 1 is trickier. What I tried to emphasise was that consensus is preeminent—preeminent in interpreting both the reliability and the weight of verifiable content. And that neutral wording (which are a product of longstanding consensus) of high-quality, main articles can, in and of themselves, serve to set the tone when the same topic (AG) is mentioned in other articles. So, again, when it comes to key wording such as Genocide and systematic extermination, we therefore take our cue from the opening of the main AG article onto elsewhere on Misplaced Pages, rather than needing to reestablish consensus all over again. El_C 04:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I think we're getting a little sidetracked here with those specific examples. They are obviously supported by RSs and discussion of sources which I'm sure can be found on the talk pages of AG. Let me instead use an actual example we're discussing at Talk:Ottoman Empire. The question is whether to say that the genocide was committed by the "Ottoman government" or the "Young Turk government". I've presented a source review of mainstream AG scholarship which indicates that NPOV clearly points to the latter choice. Let's suppose -- hypothetically -- that the next response says that we should use the former just because the AG lead says "the Muslim Ottoman government". The discussion already involves AG heavyweights plus me. Would that be a valid objection to my source review and if so how should it be addressed? Eperoton (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

If you wish to challenge consensus on that front—consensus as seen by what the AG article and its sources says about this—that should be addressed by launching an RfC that would apply to both (all) articles on that question. Perhaps the best thing is to launch the RfC at the AG article rather than elsewhere, since you are questioning what is said in it. Since, after all, it's one question, even if it involves more than one article. We don't want Misplaced Pages to contradict itself from article to article. El_C 04:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Let me add another level of complexity to make full contact with the real world. The statement we're discussing also refers to Assyrian genocide which uses "Young Turk government" and Greek genocide which uses "the government of the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish national movement". As far as I can tell, none of these formulations are actually sourced. Do I have onus of achieving consensus to synchronize all those formulations before my source review can have some policy-based authority in the discussion about the article I'm working on? Eperoton (talk) 05:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Generally and on the policy front, as mentioned, a topic-RfC can apply to multiple articles. Choosing the venue, then, is pretty key. Specifically to that question, there could be a more nuanced answer that adding this other layer of complexity may bring to the fore. Like a de facto-de jure relationship—not saying that's the case here, but just as an illustration that there could be an answer that combines both TYT and Ottoman govt.—it isn't necessarily an either or. El_C 07:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, El C. This discussion has helped me appreciate the emphasis placed on site-wide consistency and consensus-building by the community. Eperoton (talk) 12:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Again

can you do something about this page Adal Sultanate same guy who engaged edit warring now doing same thing by sockpuppetry ] and ] and removing (one of those history templates) that involved the Adal Sultanate . and another article ] , ] ,I even explained on talk page. ] Somajeeste (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

You were blocked for violation of 3RR just yesterday, yet as soon as you are allowed back to edit you violate the same rule you have already violated twice in a week. This is after being warned numerous times to stop. What is more, you have recently started to get WP:PERSONAL, first accusing me of harassment without proof and now accusing me of sockpuppetry again without proof. This is unacceptable. El C, could there be further action taken against the editor? They were already given a chance despite breaking 3RR, they were then actually blocked, and after all past warnings they continue to engage in the same behaviour. They clearly do not seem willing to change disruptive pattern. Kzl55 (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

You can't accuse someone of being a sock without evidence, Somajeeste. Kzl55 is an editor in good standing. File an SPI report, if you must (though I advise against it). And you need to stop violating 3RR, as you did on Somali language. If I see any further edit warring from you, you will be blocked again. El_C 00:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't shout at me and calm down. again i think you have little bias against me, you don't see what the other side doing by removing things that belongs there way before he begin his disruptive edit.. but hey never mind and good luck.Somajeeste (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Deflecting and projecting is not going to work on me. Edit by the rules or face further sanctions.El_C 02:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

64.134.226.76 and Jenishc IP sock again!!

They are back. The Rishabhanatha article may need a longer semi-protection. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm on it. El_C 00:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

After the semi-prot, 64.134.226.76 moved on to several other articles such as History of Jainism and Neminatha. The IP probably needs a block, and the affected articles semi'ed for a while. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Jainism needs semi-p too, same sock, same mass deleting of WP:RS and sourced content. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 11:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

3RR rule applicability?

Hello El_C. I do not wish to refer to any instance, but as to the policy of 3RR, I've always understood the language on WP:3RR to mean that the rule applies to all pages on WP, not just article pages. I know some of the other language on that page is subject to a variety of interpretations, but I've never heard that part interpreted to exclude article talk pages. SPECIFICO talk 00:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm relatively new to 1RR, but that has not been my understanding. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable could clarify. El_C 00:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

3RR applies to all pages. BTW SPECIFICO: User_talk:NeilN#Would_appreciate_if_you.27d_take_a_look - That talk page post should not have been removed, and certainly not re-removed. --NeilN 00:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Roger that. I note that 1RR does not make this clear. El_C 00:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I see what you mean. It says "analogous" but not in what respect and if anything analogous could be read to mean that it's isomorphic but different, whereas the applicability to page types would be identical. Interesting that there are ambiguities in even fundamental policies. Thanks for your reply. SPECIFICO talk 00:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

1RR states that "The one-revert rule is analogous to the three-revert rule as described above..." However the DS notice specifies "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article..." And enforcing the usual U.S. politics "consensus required" for talk page posts is idiotic. --NeilN 00:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps talk pages should be added to the policy, for clarity. El_C 01:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Which policy? 3RR already has "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page..." 1RR has the same rules. --NeilN 01:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

1RR—there's obviously confusion whether it applies to talk pages, as seen in that AN3 report. El_C 01:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so. Read the opening statement: "At this time a fourth removal has not occurred, so there might not technically be a 3RR violation..." Nothing about violating 1R.. --NeilN 01:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

See Thucydides411 and BullRangifer comments below my own. That's three (including myself) editors that were unsure 1RR also applies to talk pages. El_C 01:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

1RR can certainly apply to talk pages if it is explicitly implemented as an editing restriction. I haven't seen that implemented anywhere. --NeilN 01:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I've never seen 1RR applied to talk pages before, hence my (our) confusion. El_C 02:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, if 1RR has to be applied to a talk page that indicates that something has gone badly wrong somewhere and we should be looking at editor sanctions instead of page restrictions. --NeilN 02:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hamas - No antisemitism in 2017?

Hi. What do you think of this? It seems this edit is undue weight.--200.45.39.123 (talk) 05:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree with Zukorrom that it's debatable that such a dramatic ideological shift has taken place. El_C 05:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Korea was a tributary state of China until 1895

It's an indisputable fact that Korea and Goguryeo were all tributary states of China from ancient times until 1895 following the Sino-Japanese war, please read these sources:

1.) Korea Herald. (2004) Korea now, p. 31; excerpt, "The Chinese also insist that even though Goguryeo was part of Chinese domain, Silla and Baekje were states subjected to China's tributary system."

2.) Kwak, p. 99., p. 99, at Google Books; excerpt, "Korea's tributary relations with China began as early as the fifth century, were regularized during the Goryeo dynasty (918-1392), and became fully institutionalized during the Yi dynasty (1392-1910)."

3.) Seth, Michael J. (2006). A concise history of Korea, p. 64, p. 64, at Google Books; excerpt, "China found instead that its policy of using trade and cultural exchanges and offering legitimacy and prestige to the Silla monarchy was effective in keeping Silla safely in the tributary system. Indeed, the relationship that was worked out in the late seventh and early eighth centuries can be considered the beginning of the mature tributary relationship that would characterize Sino-Korean interchange most of the time until the late nineteenth century;"

4.) According to the Book of Later Han vol. 85, Records of Three Kingdoms vol. 30 and Book of Jin, vol. 97, 2 tribute missions in 1st century, 4 tribute missions in 3rd century, 10 tribute missions in 5th century was sent to Imperial China.

5.) Kang, David C. (2010). East Asia Before the West: Five Centuries of Trade and Tribute. Columbia University Press. p. 59. ISBN 978-0-231-15318-8. "thus, between 1637 and 1881, Korea sent 435 special embassies to the Qing court, or an average of almost 1.5 embassies per year."

6.) Gundry, R. S. "China and her Tributaries," National Review (United Kingdom), No. 17, July 1884, pp. 605-619., p. 605, at Google Books

7.) Kang, David C. (2010). East Asia Before the West: Five Centuries of Trade and Tribute, p. 59., p. 59, at Google Books

8.) Shambaugh, David L. et al. (2008). International Relations of Asia, p. 54 n15., p. 54, at Google Books citing the 1818 Collected Statutes of the Qing Dynasty (DaQing hui-tien)

9.) Fogel, p. 27., p. 27, at Google Books; Goodrich, Luther Carrington et al. (1976). Dictionary of Ming biography, 1368-1644, p. 1316., p. 1316, at Google Books; note: the economic benefit of the Sinocentric tribute system was profitable trade. The tally trade (kangō bōeki or kanhe maoyi in Chinese) was a system devised and monitored by the Chinese -- see Nussbaum, Louis Frédéric et al. (2005). Japan Encyclopedia, p. 471.

10.) Yoda, p. 40., p. 40, at Google Books; excerpt, "Japanese missions to the ... Tang Dynasties were recognized by the Chinese as bearers of imperial tribute; however, in the middle of the ninth century -- the early Heian Period -- Japan rescinded he sending of missions to the Tang Empire. Subsequently Japan conducted a flourishing trade with China and for the next five hundred years also imported much of Chinese culture, while nevertheless remaining outside the tribute system."

11.) Imperial envoys made perilous passages on kentoshi-sen ships to Tang China "The cross-cultural exchanges began with 5 missions between 600 and 614, initially to Sui China (on kenzuishi-sen), and at least 18 or 19 missions were sent to T’ang China from 630 to 894 although not all of them were designated kentoshi."

12.) Kwak, Tae-Hwan et al. (2003). The Korean peace process and the four powers, p. 100., p. 100, at Google Books; excerpt, "The tributary relations between China and Korea came to an end when China was defeated in the Sino-Japanese war of 1894-1895."

13.) Chisholm, Hugh. (1911). The Encyclopædia Britannica, Vol. 15, p. 224, p. 224, at Google Books

14.) Pratt, Keith L. (1999). Korea: a historical and cultural dictionary. p. 482.

182.172.175.203 (talk) 08:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

What is this in reference to? El_C 09:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

List of tributaries of Imperial China — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.100.20.120 (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Just use the article talk page to advance your argument, it's of little use here. I'm not involved in the content dispute, I'm just the admin that protected the page to stop the edit war. El_C 00:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

—usernamekiran(talk) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. 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.

I apologise for my problematic behaviour. Again, not for formality; I actually mean it.
Thanks for being civil/polite even when my behaviour was like a problem child. This is a heartfelt apology. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Kiran. I very much appreciate it. El_C 00:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I hope I become a model wikipedian again. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Marwan Barghouti breaking the hunger strike

Hello Comandante. What do you think of this discussion? I don't see any reason to hide this information, other than POV whim, specially after Nishidani's additions (without consensus), which could be considered undue weight (something like this could be a necessary balance). There is even video evidence showing Barghouti breaking the hunger strike, it was also reported by mainstream media in Israel and abroad, including The Guardian (not precisely sympathetic towards Israel). We could add at least ONE LINE, don't you think?--181.92.143.147 (talk) 02:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure, try to get a passage that serves as a synergy of and as a compromise between both opposing positions. El_C 05:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Request for protection

Can I ask if you could protect my personal page from IP editors for a few days? An unknown IP left this on my talk page, which is a bit disruptive and there could be more messages. Thanks in advance! EkoGraf (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

One instance of vandalism is not enough to warrant protection. If there's further disruptive activity, we can revisit. El_C 23:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Are you a checkuser? 103.200.5.143 (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not. El_C 23:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

GTA Vice City soundtrack

Hello, there needs to be a full article on the GTA Vice City soundtrack. Soundtrack articles exist for GTA3, GTA San Andreas, GTA IV, and GTA V.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Grand_Theft_Auto_III_soundtrack https://en.wikipedia.org/Grand_Theft_Auto_IV_soundtrack https://en.wikipedia.org/Grand_Theft_Auto_V_soundtrack

There used to be a full article for the Vice City Soundtrack for 10 years, but on 27 September 2015, a user named Czar decided that day the GTA Vice City soundtrack article did not belong on Misplaced Pages. But Czar did not do anything about the GTA3, GTA4, or GTA5 soudntrack; which contain the same stylized information (music in a videogame)

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Grand_Theft_Auto:_Vice_City_soundtrack&action=history

Because of Czar's actions; the page is now redirected to the commercially released albums, BUT these albums do not contain the full soundtrack from GTA Vice City due to legal & licensing issues. Can we have the Vice City soundtrack page restored please? Damian001 (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you launch an RfC on the article's talk page as a mechanism to advance your argument and gain consensus for it. El_C 22:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Somali Language

Hello El C . I am hoping that you can lend some assistance. Me and user Kzl5 need assistance in resolving an edit dispute concerning Official language in section Somali Language article. He added Somaliland (before protection issued). I disagree with his interpretation and I have shared my reasons on the talk page at . I request your input in order to resolve this issue. Your assistance would be appreciated if you have the time. Thanks! Somajeeste (talk) 10:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

False, I did not add Somaliland, a different editor did.

El C, the editor above plans to continue to edit war before a consensus is reached on the talkpage , as it stands, protection placed on article Somali language ends on the 13th, if you can extend the protection for the benefit of the ongoing discussion at the talkpage it would be appreciated. Kzl55 (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I'll see about extending the protection while you discuss it. Consider getting a 3rd opinion, as I'm unsure how much time I, myself, can devote to this. El_C 22:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Fraenir

• Fraenir (talk · contribs)

This user violated WP:CIVILITY many times and responded my concerns regarding the source he added in a hostile and offensive manner. And his last "action" clearly showed that he focused on me, rather than the topic itself . I have nothing to do with the sock btw. 185.86.150.27 (talk) 12:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

You don't cite any instances of incivility—this would have been the time in which to do so. I read Talk:Afontova Gora and I think you two should just stick to the content in question and forget about the personal fiction. That would be my advice. It serves as a distraction. El_C 22:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Questionable Edit

Could you please look at this edit, a single edit by a first time IP editor. The editor reverted me to restore changes I had challenged without discussing on the talk, even though I had posted my concerns about the new changes here: Wikipedia_talk:Student_assignments#Big_changes_of_May_11.2C_2017. I believe such behavior violates WP:BRD. I am wondering if the account might be a WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

(I noticed the user of this discussion here: User_talk:2600:1010:B000:E7C0:81DB:534C:F9D0:F87F#Discussion_about_you). --David Tornheim (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

It is troubling. They should not have reverted-back without attempting to discuss. El_C 22:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at that and reverting. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

El_C Unfortunately, the trouble seems to be continuing. Tryptofish appears to be trying to edit-war in his preferred version, although he is discussing the issue in good faith at the talk. I do not believe he immediately gains wp:consensus for his edit simply by talking. My understand is that consensus of editors should be reached when a WP:BOLD new edit is challenged per WP:BRD by working collaboratively and seeking agreement rather forcing a new preferred version. I have templated Tryptofish accordingly here. If you feel my understanding of the rules is incorrect and the warning or my revert of Tryptofish was was out of order, please let me know. I would welcome your participation in helping the conversation with Tryptofish to be collaborative. I have seen your work before and I think you are quite skilled at mediating disputes without taking sides--a rare and valuable skill on Misplaced Pages. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. Okay, I'll have a quick look, but I'm afraid I cannot commit to anything beyond that. El_C 06:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

El_C: that IP editor is not me. Not even in my part of the world. Period. Anyone wants a checkuser, fine with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Henry Stone - Comedian, COI rewrite

Hi El_C, I was finally able to correctly format and write a far more neutral and well cited article on this individual. As I chatted to you about a month-or-so ago, I have a COI, so I have written the article on the talk page and I was wondering if you could please review it to possibly become the main article? https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Henry_Stone_(comedian)

Thanks so much! --SarahLombellard (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

At a cursory glance, it looks good. But you you probably need a reliable source for the birth date. El_C 06:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Probably don't have anything official/confirmable out there so I can simply remove it? With that done, what would be the process of having it replace the main article? I ask you or another admin to do the edit or I do it and ask you or another admin to notate the COI has been addressed and that it's been accepted as a to-policy edit? Cheers. --SarahLombellard (talk) 08:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done it. El_C 16:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Tikun Olam (blog)

Hi Comandante. What do you think of this edit? It seems correct, but it needs to be supported by an extended confirmed user.--181.93.80.162 (talk) 04:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, IP. How do you know it's correct? It was not supported by reliable sources—all we have is the IP's word. El_C 06:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

EXACTLY! That's why the IP removed that information, but MShabbaz restored the paragraph. You are an extended confirmed user, so you are authorized to revert him.--190.30.18.132 (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

We have our wires crossed. IP removed a sourced passage based on an unsourced claim. I have no basis to revert to their removal because it rests on an unsourced claim. El_C 01:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Wrong sanction scope

Would you mind take a look at this comment? --Mhhossein 14:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I realise it's a stretch, but I see no harm in expanding the scope of the sanctions. El_C 19:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Protection

Greetings! Thanks for protecting the page. However, some duplicated text was accidentally locked in (the andrzejewski/lewis phrase that goes "this widespread modern distribution..." - it's there twice) . A specification of the language's standard geographical hub was also blanked, and a contested assertion as to which areas it is spoken was made in Misplaced Pages's voice contrary to WP:WIKIVOICE. Could you please either fix these or temporarily lift the protection so that I may do so? Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

A better idea would be to come back to the Talk:Somali language#Nation discussion to come to a consensus? Kzl55 (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Duplicated passage removed. The rest you'll have to show me you have an agreement for. El_C 21:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your message on BLP

Sir, I request you to kindly check the cited sources for once. All the citated sources are from independent reliable sources but the other editor is clearly using the "BLP" to make a point for his removal. I know Misplaced Pages is about verifiability and all the sources verifies my claim. Kindly check again. --Drivarum (talk) 07:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Just making sure you know it exists. And did you just revert after responding to the noticeboard report?(!) El_C 07:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes it exists and I have been adding sources for this but the other editors keep reverting without discussing on the talk page. I am not sure about this. I think I did but I don't know I cannot revert if I comment on the the noticeboard. I commented because the accusation on me was not presented neutrally. The editor have been trying to block me and even accused me of socking. Reverted a talk page discussion I started. Can you please help me what is the best course of action I should do in this situation? Many thanks, Drivarum (talk) 07:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes El_C, it concerns WP:3RRNO because none of the sources support the claim that these individuals admitted to be former adherents of Hinduism and they converted to Islam. Hema Malini is not even a Muslim, and her husband's name is also frequently mentioned by @Drivarum: despite he rejected any conversions to Islam. Since you have protected the article you should update the "results" of WP:ANEW report. Capitals00 (talk) 07:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)