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

Archive 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You look really good in your purple hat! Bishonen | talk 00:19, 4 November 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_C 02:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy day! Jehochman ^Talk 19:52, 2 February 2009 (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_C 11:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Well, I'm envious. You get to pet ALL the fuzzeh creatures!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

El_C 07:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Affirmative. El_C 20:46, 16 May 2019 (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]

Yes, by all means. If I'm around, please don't hesitate. El_C 02:30, 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]

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]

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

And all I got was a ^^^

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

El_C 06:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Thanks, Gerda! El_C 08:24, 23 February 2020 (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]

Ah, good ol' ITNC —where I got no credit for being the first to have  Posted the Corona virus outbreak, but upon (admittedly, perhaps somewhat prematurely) doing the same for the Kirk Douglas RD got a what-the-fuck-barbeque— it's a magical place! El_C 11:28, 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]

Hey, by all means, if you feel Peter Dreher is [Ready], let me know so I could do the honours. El_C 12:53, 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]

Indeed, countering systemic bias is a treacherous mistress — though in the case of Kirk Douglas, I have to admit my own affinity for his admirable work countering the Hollywood blacklist... Anyway, +Peter Dreher to RD. El_C 13:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February flowers

Alte Liebe

Thank you, love-ly! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated the poet for ITNN. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the [Ready]! El_C 14:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and posted ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick! I helped? El_C 17:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

think so ;) - today's Alte Liebe became especially meaningful after yesterday's funeral. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Next foreign women RD: Odile Pierre. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:12, 2 March 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_C 03:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda's corner

To help me better remember! El_C 05:10, 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]

Also, El C’s talk page is lovely, especially for his hosting my musing about music he likely doesn’t care about one iota! TonyBallioni (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I like all kinds of music, including of the eclectic and esoteric variaty — lately I've been Dimashing it up (special thanks goes to Jasmin Ariane!). El_C 05:32, 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]

Expect the sky to fall at ITNC — posted with Mar 0? (!). El_C 13:34, 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]

nom done, and the credits were done by someone else - bedtime --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep tight. El_C 23:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

done also, and she's there - today's topic seem to be errors (3) in the OTD section of the Main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru took care of that! - What should I do about this decline? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're confident it's good, I would move it to main namespace nonetheless. El_C 10:07, 9 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]

 Done. Mainspacified. And I didn't even visit the Teahouse! El_C 13:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

pacified ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 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_C 16:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hellebore

Want a drink in darkness? - Schloss Freudenberg --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, I don't really see that concept spreading to other bars... Back to out previous conversation, somewhat, a different kind of Green: "MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE - A Randy Rainbow Song Parody" (just released). El_C 14:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I missed Mathsci for two years. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Criss-crossing paths... El_C 15:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BWV 1, concertante violin 1 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, I remember seeing that. El_C 15:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ever click on Reformation on my user page, first occurence? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have clicked on all of the (longstanding) links on your userpage. El_C 16:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am impressed. ... and follow to what the first 2 had discussed, and used, and then one of them needed it, and probably had known that all the time? ... which was my user page lead until 2021 when I decided people hovering over my name should see a pic I took. The last time I used it was for Cassianto, 24 May 2020. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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_C 18:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I copied that from BarkingMoon including the top icon - a bird on the Main page today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Love it when the Main page gets that much colour. I noticed that article yesterday and thought: wow, those birds are almost as iridescent as Hummingbirds , which are... well, kinda the best! El_C 18:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Birds of a feather

External videos
Bitter-sweet groove (translation unavailable on request!)

Spiel nicht mit den Schmuddelkindern ... anticipated protest --- and listen, not to me, but the music (in the article) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... and after the music, please listen to User talk:Nikkimaria --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:39, 4 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_C 13:48, 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_C 16:08, 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_C 16:45, 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]

Matti Caspi laments about how many songs can even be created, but does so in a song he created (כמה שירים אפשר להמציא בכלל), so there you go. Take that, eternity! El_C 17:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda doesn't lament but enjoys the support by Brian, continued when others called her guilty, - always trying to mediate. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tis the season for bitter-sweet...? Also, trying something (top of section — EEng uncredited mention). El_C 18:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

look --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

did you? - interesting bitter-sweet today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did in passing, but I just am not in the headspace for riddles today, I'm afraid. But I did like File:Idstein,_Unytsjerke._Oersjoch_ynterieur.jpg. Almost-but-not-quite grand; warm but-not-quite gaudy. Sorry, I haven't heard of that translator before. Did you know her, personally? El_C 23:01, 9 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]

Ah, just read that at: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/feb/08/dr-vera-wulfing-leckie-obituary — I see what you mean. Right, I knew it (the church) looked familiar. Hope you're able to resolve your BWV 1 problem. I'd offer to help, but I'd probably just mess it up, anyway. El_C 16:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You will not mess anything up if you look at the old ref and tell me if it looks despicable to you, just for curiosity. The article was like this when I began "taking over". - Did you see this trying to revert a takeover? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:36, 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_C 18:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, helped. I just found this (having searched for Thomanerchor) and look what is bolded, and praised. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Helleborus orientalis

happy Valentine's! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, for you, too. Did an English translation of a song at User_talk:El_C#Us, btw, and am about to submit another ("US," itself), so check it out! El_C 16:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

adding today's featured picture of February 17 - a nice match to my wild one --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely, lovely! El_C 23:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: @Octoberwoodland: Continuing this discussion, I'd like to request that 2021 storming of the United States Capitol be put under WP:1RR (I guess that would be Template:American politics AE?). How do I make such a request? Post to WP:AN? Or can an admin (i.e. you :-)) do that without a formal request? — Chrisahn (talk) 23:59, 9 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_C 00:09, 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_C 00:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation! These processes are more fine-grained than I thought. Probably a good thing. Although I'm afraid I won't remember the difference between {{ds/editnotice}} and {{ds/talk notice}} a week from now. :-) — Chrisahn (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just type T:DSA (all listed at the bottom), otherwise, who can remember! El_C 00:56, 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]

Sorry, I'm far from an authority on infoboxes, Qexigator, so short of pointing you to the MOS:INFOBOX-obvious, I would just advise you to avoid WP:ARBINFOBOX2 at all cost! Regards, El_C 18:13, 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]

Haha! See what I mean, Qexigator? *Pokes Gerda* El_C 18:25, 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]

My favourite is Beethoven. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The unquestionable elegance of less is more. El_C 19:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am so proud of that ;) - Did you know that I designed it in the workshop of Teh Case ("Actually, I believe almost every article would profit from a placement like that in history and geography.")? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:El C/Songs from the homeland (YouTube links to individual performances are at the top of the subpage, in boldface)

"You See Far, You See Clear"

"Us"

"I Want Us To Be Realized"

"Didn't Know You'd Walk Away From Me"

"You Put My Hand In Yours"

"A Place Of Worry"

What Is Love?

"How Is It That A Star"

"A Love Song (Like A Wheel)"

"Sitting On The Fence"

"Fragile"

"In Praise Of Samba"

"Where Are You?"

"Poogy Tales"

"Tell Me"

"There Were Nights"

"It Happens"

Last updated: El_C 06:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda loves subsections!

Thanks for sharing! Reminds me of my one and only contrib to the Hebrew Wikipedia. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would have liked to add the pic to context, but can't tell ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to he:קובץ:Ubud_Cremation_4.jpg, because that is one scary dragon! El_C 08:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Haha! All roads lead to Ian Fleming, it seems. Also, you're making me sound like the grim reaper, but I just want to pet a chipmunk! El_C 11:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"making you sound"? I just tremble with indignation - out for the day --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:07, 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_C 11:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Innisfree Garden

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_C 19:28, 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_C 11:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! Dangerous terrain (diff), who would have thunk it? (Seriously, I didn't.) El_C 11:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I confess to being puzzled (diff). Anyway, pinged you to User_talk:Veverve#Psalm_43_query. Hopefully, my confusion can be assuaged. El_C 11:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

did it? (I had an edit conflict there) - thank you for a new word, "assuaged" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See the trouble you get me into? Now to ameliorate! El_C 11:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

going out again, sun and snow, will think about amelioration when walking --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obligatory Here Comes Sunshine spam! El_C 12:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

refreshed: spam for spam (subject of my first article, which was supposed to be the only one, but it had this red link ...) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice, but I still think I'm owed some Psalms-related comforting! El_C 20:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"no good thing will he withhold from them that walk uprightly" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I like that a lot! El_C 20:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what, BWV 1 and BWV 159 make progress. You mentioned AE. I was there, last 2015. It was so awful that I dropped all pride (and it felt like giving up walking uprightly - watch out for Psalm 110 there) and appealed (and even successfully so). Starlight on top of that archive ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take some startlight — been flying too close to the sun lately, truth be told. El_C 18:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! I made a hook, also for you.

One this day nine years ago, I told Voceditenore that she is a voice of opera and reason. In 2018, she said: "And, no, there haven't been infobox squabbles in ages. I personally use them all the time now for biographies and operas. There are a few diehards left, but the general attitude from both perspectives seems to have settled on live and let live." So why is it that some still can't settle on live and let live? - The next cookbook author is scheluded to appear as TFA (with a nice infobox btw, as the last), and I will keep the usual thanks to the creator for myself as insistent, but I don't understand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Love the artwork of Arik Brauer — nicely done! Ah, the vicissitudes of infoboxen, its ebbs and and flow. What a peculiar thing it is. El_C 14:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. It could just ebb. In 2018, it was no concern. Why is it now? Why can't we just edit the little boxes as other content: someone adds, and if someone reverts, consensus needs to be established. Instead, someone adding, or requesting, or just asking where it went, is considered a warrior. The question where it went often goes like this: when a certain group of editors expanded an article, they collapsed it (thinking that was a compromise, but making life harder for those having physical trouble to click the "show" button). That caused a little edit-war, which was "resolved" by taking it away completely, with a discussion like this on the talk following. Ever since, we have been reminded that there was this consensus not to have one, and we are supposed to believe that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For sure, I am like-minded with you in that interpretation. WP:ONUS should generally be observed, like elsewhere. Indeed, there really isn't an excuse for not doing so. In theory, per WP:ARBINFOBOX2, WP:ACDS allows admins to just straight-up make it (ONUS) a requirement by adding Consensus required to intractable infobox disputes. My sense is that most admins just do not want to touch these because it usually ends up amounting to a zero-sum game, at best — myself, I don't really engage infobox disputes in an AE capacity, because the history and politics AE topic areas keep me busy enough (diff). El_C 16:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are almost no "intractable infobox disputes", really, so DS serves no purpose. The problem is that a newcomer who has no idea of a minefield is treated as a warrior. - I love your translations. We should have more us. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, understood. Admittedly, I do not have a firm grasp of what's happening on the infobox front. RE: translations. Many thanks! I appreciate your praise very much. Also Val's. Strange how it took me hours and hours to do the first one, an hour to do the second one, and 30 minutes to do the third one. But I think I'm now finally satisfied with the final form of all three translations, so at least I'm done with the constant tinkering (though not to jinx it!). El_C 16:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For more understanding: imagine - if you can, it takes courage - for a moment that back in 2012, the infobox had been kept as it had been for years then already. Imagine. - Certainly thanks to presentation here, Arik Brauer made it to the stats, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Play Bach

How do you like this? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy the music, and make it last. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(As) I always do, Gerda! Yours always, El_C 12:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great music offer! - What do you think of the start of Reception, - the little prince never gives up a question. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not usually a fan of princes, but here's one that really did music-it-up! El_C 12:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree about Johann Ernst! The Little Prince never gives up a question, "the prince has golden hair, a lovable laugh, and will repeat questions until they are answered". How do you like the beginning of reception? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of my favourite books growing up... Reception looks great to me. I think he did a fine job. Top tier musicology. El_C 16:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but who is "he"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"You know, that guy — who always wore a shirt." Oh, sorry, did you write that, with him just having merged it? It's a low attention span -day today, so brace yourself! El_C 17:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nonono, I could never write such a thing (+ I'm not a "he" as the writer is, and yes, the obvious "he" just merged it). Two ways to the answer: you follow the links in the edit summary (better the second), or you look at the new article's talk page. Unless you just guess why I come to you of all people with this question, and may guess right. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A riddle — noo! There better not be a math and science test at the end of this! El_C 17:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

test? first question in this thread has one (!) link, leading to the initial entry of a new article, with two (but I said better second) links, with the second leading to where an estimated 95% of the content came from. [2] - a fine job, indeed, not my style, but fine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping for a D-. That would be about right. El_C 17:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An unblock would do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, for reasons which are my own, attending to this dispute, in any administrative capacity, just isn't something I wish to engage at this time. Sorry. El_C 20:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Understand. Appreciation of outstanding work is better. You can tell other admins where the clue is - my lead image until 2021 came, remember? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, happy to pass on genuine positive impressions, always. Yes, I do. Breathtaking, primordial. El_C 22:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"at times heavy to carry" (quoting myself still from the same page which also has the model for Precious, did you see? - the cabal of the outcast, - I told Bus stop four years ago, feel like Cassandre) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And that's very much okay to express. Also, we can be in diametric opposition about whatever from time to time. That is also okay. El_C 23:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello admin, can you please revoke the talk page access of Focus Training Academy, who have been blocked for advertising and promotion? They are currently making promotional edits to their talk page. --Ashleyyoursmile! 08:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley, why do you keep calling me "admin" — my name is El_C! Anyway,  Done. El_C 08:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I usually refer to an admin as "admin". 🤔 Thank you very much, El_C. Ashleyyoursmile! 08:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, editor, erm, I mean, Ashley! You are very welcome. El_C 08:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they consider it a term of respect, like calling you Colonel or Your Honor? As Grandma used to say, just don't call me late to dinner. :) That apparently was a hilarious joke 100 years ago. :) —valereee (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ugh, sorry, I have no idea how I keep ending up replying to stale discussions on your talk! —valereee (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, Val, perfect timing actually, because ♫oops, she did again!♫ El_C 18:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What did you mean in your reason when you unblocked LightningComplexFire from an indefinite block y? What does it mean to “I live to serve”? –Cupper52^Discuss! 13:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cupper52, it was a nudge about the magic word (diff). El_C 19:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		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]

Wow, thanks, WaltCip! Will attach to parade float! Kind regards, El_C 19:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ronging rogue (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Our friend with the ungulate fixation is at it again. Please smite when convenient. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elmidae, smited from orbit. El_C 19:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I copied you in something, so you can learn some Dutch. Saflieni sounds like they're very upset. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eep. Good thing my Dutch is as good as my Swahili (which to say great!). Anyway, thanks, Drmies, I appreciate the heads up. El_C 03:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, looks like I missed one. Thanks for the heads up, Davidwr. El_C 04:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please zap the other edit I emailed you about as well. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 05:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This message is made for notifying you about a discussion on WP:ARE#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_NomanPK44 for appeal. NomanPK44 (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am duly notified and have since replied at the appeal page. El_C 19:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"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]

Sad, but not surprising, Vanamonde93. Cue in shruggie of despair: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 19:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I read your closure op my AE request. I have just one practical question. Where and how should these IP's be reported?Tvx1 22:19, 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_C 22:39, 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_C 23:37, 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_C 00:12, 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_C 00:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C,

I noticed that you have recently put indefinite protection on several pages as part of arbitration enforcement. You also noted that the discussion regarding me "fizzled out". This is because, as I explained to you, I am on a dynamic IP. I cannot change this; I do not even know how to. I would register a new account, but last time I did that I had to request one, and that took six weeks. How am I supposed to contribute to the arbitration discussion when a) my IP is constantly changing, b) I edit from a mobile device and so do not get notifications when messages are posted to the IP talk page, and c) it takes weeks to get an account registered, but the arbitration discussion is closed within days?

Furthermore, if you read Talk:2021 World Rally Championship, you will see that the reason for the dispute has largely been resolved. The edits in question were reverted because they broke the format of a table, rendering it completely unreadable on the mobile site despite the changes being made so that the article would be more accessible. I reverted those edits to the last good version because I did not know how to fix them, but knew that a major edit would be coming within days and was concerned that it could make the problem even harder to fix. I advised other editors on the talk page of the problem with the expectation that they could find a solution. Everything that I did was in good faith. I didn't even look at who made the original edits; I looked at them and thought "this is a serious problem that I cannot fix, but if I don't do anything, it's going to create bigger problems". 1.144.105.233 (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mclarenfan17, I don't see what that has to do with the heart of the matter, which is that you continue to evade your sanction by using multiple accounts. Until you adhere to the instructions set above, you are effectively a persona non grata on the project, and efforts to deter you from making any edits will now be undertaken with extremes prejudice. El_C 22:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El C, I am not trying to evade sanctions. I cannot log into my old account because I forgot the password. I tried to register a new account in the past, but that took weeks. How am I supposed to take part in the arbitration enforcement discussion process when it is closed within days? Please understand my position here - I cannot satifactorily meet all of the conditions required to participate in the procesd. If I try editing from an IP, I get accused of evasion. If I apply for an account, it takes weeks and I am accused of not taking part. I'm damned if I do and I'm damned if I don't. Nobody has said "this is how you fix things so that you edit from a static IP" or "tell us which username you registered and we can get it approved" or "tell us which username you registered and we'll take it as a sign of good faith in the arbitration discussion because we know the process takes a while". Nobody has offered me any solution to the problem, even though I have consistently pointed out that I don't know how to fix it. And then, when I don't immediately do as instructed, I get further sanctions from the very people I just told "this is a problem and I don't know how to fix it". 1.144.105.233 (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mclarenfan17, trying or not, you continued doing so after multiple warnings. Not sure how it takes weeks to register an account. Never heard of such a thing before. But even say that's the case, however long it takes, that's how long it takes. Full stop. El_C 23:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm using the wrong word here. In registering an account, I specifically had to request one. I had to fill in a form with my preferred username and e-mail address, and it would be sent off to someone to review and approve. I was directed to Wikipedia:Request an account, possibly because of my dynamic IP. The first time I did it was shortly after I forgot the Mclarenfan17 password. I did not get an e-mail about it for about six weeks.

"But even say that's the case, however long it takes, that's how long it takes."

Well, my concern here is that the arbitration enforcement message was posted on the 12th. You closed the discussion on the 18th and described me as persona non grata on the project because I was not taking part in the discussions. What would you suggest that I do here? I cannot participate because I am waiting to hear back about an account, and get in trouble because I'm not participating. But if I do participate while waiting on an account, I get in trouble for circumventing the rules. By the time the account is approved, the decision has already been made.

Now, I did everything in good faith. When the issue was raised, I owned my actions. I could have ignored it and pretended it was someone else, but I didn't. The person who filed the report was clearly on a fishing trip (and had previously been told as much) - they had no concrete evidence to support their claim and ArbCom recognised that they have a history of wikilawyering, using the rules to punish editors they disagree with. I have been transparent at every step of the process, and so all I am asking is some reason to believe that if I follow the instructions of the arbitrators that I won't just have a different rule thrown at me.

So let's say for the sake of argument that I apply for a new account right now and that it takes six weeks. And in six weeks, I go straight to arbitration to deal with this. How do I know that I'm not going to be told "you had your chance to deal with this six weeks ago" and then get slapped with further santions despite following instructions to the letter? 1.144.105.203 (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mclarenfan17, sorry for the belated reply, having overlooked yours — hope you still end up reading this (soon). Anyway, I'm not going to repeat this again, so one more time: please ensure that you have one single registered account self-identified as you. Period. Again, never heard it taking six weeks-long to be authorized as being a thing (even six hours seems a bit much), but if that what it takes, then, yes, wait six weeks or however long it takes. I don't really have much more to say at this time except for this one salient point. El_C 02:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El C, I am happy to see that you took the time to respond. Truth be told, if you had not, I would have very little faith in the arbitration process because what I am asking is a simple procedural question. Unfortunately, though, you have not answered that question. I understand what you are asking of me; I really do. My concern is that I go through this entire process of requesting an account and do everything that you have asked of me - but then when the discussion resumes at Arbitration Enforcement, I get told "you had the chance to address this X weeks ago and you didn't, so you are now faced with these additional sanctions" even though that delay is through circumstances beyond my control.

I have a second question for you, one which I have held back until such time as the procedural question could be answered. But I think I would like to get an answer now because that answer will influence whether I register a new account or retire for good. I feel that the other editor involved in this has acted in bad faith. I think that some of his recent edits demonstrate an obvious agenda and that his going to Arbitration Enforcement is itself a violation of the IBAN. He was actively searching for me in various articles, but had no concrete evidence that I had been editing. I think it was clear that he was looking to have someone banned so that he could pursue his agenda, which is consistent with his previous behaviour of using ANI to make life difficult for those he disagrees with. I am not asking you to make any decision here; I am simply saying this to show you that I think I have a proveable case. My question is this: if I register a new account and make this case at Arbitration Enforcement, how can I show that this is not some tit-for-tat revenge? I have found in the past that when he is taken to ANI for his behaviour, he immediately involves his preffered admins and convinces them that there is nothing to it. I predict that the same thing would happen here, and so have little confidence in any dispute resolution or administrative process. 1.144.107.138 (talk) 06:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mclarenfan17, honestly, I really am not sure about either tit-for-tat optics, or about what the status of your soon-to-be (hopefully) registered account will be. I'm just one admin, and one who isn't at all familiar either with that Arbitration case or with the overall topic area. All I can tell you is that registering an account is an absolute prerequisite for any further steps toward anything (whatsoever). I also submit to you that discussing your opponent here, on my talk page, is probably not the best idea. Regards, El_C 06:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's an answer, though admittedly not as specific as what I was hoping for. 1.144.107.138 (talk) 07:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that, but I'm trying to navigate this the same as you, uncertainties and all. El_C 07:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was a consensus [3] of many Wikipedia users to oppose the edit Casperti just made again,[4] even though these were exactly the types of edits which got him topic banned.[5] The ANI thread confirms it.[6]

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.[7] 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.[8] Repeating entirely same conduct that led the topic ban is surely WP:DE. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aman Kumar Goel, I have reinstated the ban, setting the duration not to expire. Regards, El_C 04:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Casperti topic ban

@El C:, This was certainly not an appeal, I wanted to have answers for my appeal. You have not even provided the violation that I violated. I wanted to have an answer to my question. What violation did I violate? What did I violate or disrupt? Did I go against a consensus? No, since there was never a consensus. Did I violate WP:RS by deleting the 3.2M source? Clearly no. Did I engage in an edit conflict? No. Did I violate the previous reason for my ban? No. You are banning me without any valid reasons and then you say "Why can't you understand the ban". I want answers, something that you did not provide. Casperti (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Casperti, again, as far as appealing to me here, that has been declined. As far as me explaining the nature of the sanction and the reasons behind it, that I have also attempted to explain to you here multiple times now. That you still fail to acknowledge or respond to what I said, again, isn't actually on me. But it does demonstrates to me (further still) why other participants found engaging with you so challenging. At this point, it does feel like you are misusing the appeals process and are taking advantage of the hospitality of my talk page. El_C 15:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: You have not explained anything, that is why I kept asking you. Yet you have not given me the violation or disruption that I have made. I will not write to you no more on this talk page but this is clear. You have not a violation to name since I did not disrupt or violate anything. You are the one who has banned me without me violating any rules and you are expecting me to not seek answers from you. Casperti (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time, Casperti, I feel like I have given you answers to the best of my ability on multiple occasions already. But as much as I keep repeating that, you do not relent. El_C 16:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what in the world you expect me to say or do here. I am not an admin, I am not going to attempt to overturn an admin decision. Nor am I going to encourage them to do so when all I know of the matter is there was a DRN opened inappropriately asking if a source was reliable. The correct place for that would have been the reliable source noticeboard. IMO- the facebook source is not reliable. Now as to your past or present behavior- I have no opinion and as such I am inclined to agree with the admin, especially considering the way you have interacted with them. So... hope that clears things right up. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nightenbelle, for what it's worth, the DRN attempt wasn't really an important factor in my decision. El_C 17:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

lol I really didn’t think it did. I truly have no idea what I’m the world they thought I could or would do. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C:& @Nightenbelle:, I already had a "reliable source noticeboard"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_296#Using_interviews_as_Population_censuses. So what would have been the proper way to resolve this issue? I did not handle out of bad faith. I am genuinely wondering how I should have acted @El C:. Let me know. Thanks, Casperti (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Casperti, please stop bringing up discussion of content that is covered by your topic ban. Further such violations are likely to lead to additional sanctions. Thank you. El_C 15:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And please stop bringing me into this. I had nothing to do with your ban, I have nothing to do with the RS noticeboard, and I can do nothing to reverse either. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have it easy do you... have a kitten. It may help,

Thanks, but easy is for softies! El_C 06:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:DGG#AE_comment

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 real WP:APLRS — and it is this body of work which needs to form the central basis for any overarching wikivoice presentation.

So, I'm dissapointed when I see gaming that injects substandard sources in contravention of these sourcing requirements, like so (noting own comment, obviously): Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Volunteer_(book).

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. 

So, I definitely have regrets, and though I try not to lament them, it is a struggle, I admit. El_C 17:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 [35]. 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) - modified 15 February[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_C 20:47, 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_C 21:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info about AE

Hi El C, I already asked User:Robert_McClenon[40] the question of the 500 words. I still don't understand if they affect both the diffs section and the space for my answers below together. Actually, the diff part is below 500 words... but I had to answer a lot to defend myself from accusations.
Speaking of wikihounding... MVBW has precisely targeted my old changes to revert them, just to annoy me. Isn't this stalking or wikihounding? Thank you.--Mhorg (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please, just help me to understand one thing: can I answer again to MVBW or additional words will be counted?--Mhorg (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mhorg, again, I didn't count, so I don't know. But to reiterate, my impression is that it is likely border-line at this point, at the very least. El_C 19:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify?

• [41] - The comment by Nicoljaus (my diff [42]) was in the section you mentioned. If you mean something else, could you please give a diff. Somehow I missed it. My very best wishes (talk) 21:22, 18 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 [43][44][45]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning already given there [46]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:09, 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_C 23:24, 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]

Ktrimi991, as they say, it's my party and I'll drink like a fool if I want to. What does it matter? I'm sure I'll remember acting with exquisite elegance and grace, regardless. BTW: You stink! You and your whole lousy operation stink! I quit! P.S. Party is BYOBB. El_C 00:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, parties. I can not recall the last time I was in a party. The coronavirus lockdowns screwed up my life. hehe Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of us had a New Year's gettogether, but we're all already pretty intertwined in each other's lives (for a number of reasons), so just a bit drunker than usual... El_C 01:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, very nice. Enjoy life to the fullest. It is our first and last one ;) Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:32, 18 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-ARTTalk 09:49, 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_C 14:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all, I was just trying to answer Ktrimi's question. Anyway thanks for your time and effort.Bes-ARTTalk 15:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For sure, Bes-ART. Happy to help. El_C 15:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El_C Please if you have time, check out this [47] IP. Thanks in advanceBes-ARTTalk 17:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bes-ART, just go through the {{uw-error2}} and beyond motions and report to WP:AIV if those don't do the trick. El_C 19:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User Armanqur has been edit warring over the same Kurds-related section for a long time. Their very first edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Armanqur&dir=prev&target=Armanqur

They were blocked 1 week for socking at Medes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Armanqur#October_2020_2

Their strawman sock at talk page of Medes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dirokakurdi

They continue socking and edit warring over the same section:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/80.191.203.92

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Armanqur

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]

Blocked indefinitely. Semi-protected indefinitely. Oh and as for that IP, it is otherwise Stale. Anyway, thanks for bringing this to my attention, IP. El_C 05:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Chronicle, Semsûrî, please know that you can expect swift and decisive action for this kind of disruption. Hopefully, the conclusion of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan will bring further relief. El_C 06:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El C many editors have been edit warring over the same content which was added by User Khorler:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Medes&diff=1003824309&oldid=1003439589

Now one more user has become a part of the same edit war and removed modern scholars, historians and Iranologists' opinions (Limbert, Daryaee, McKenzie, Russel, etc) from the section again:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Medes&diff=1007069765&oldid=1006810936

Instead of removing the specific outdated content he mentioned, the user outright removed everything completely (including the opinions by modern experts). Was it a constructive edit? I'll notify some other editors editing related topics. I don't have a time to follow up the page but an admin or a capable editor should definitely do. 176.54.39.53 (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El C Thanks a lot. Do not worry for as long as the ArbCom on Kurds and Kurdistan is going on. I have it sort of covered where the issues are and might approach you with some of it, once the ArbCom has come up with a decision.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP, seeing LouisAragon's (courtesy ping) involvement in the page fills me with confidence that things might turn out okay there after all. El_C 19:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Chronicle, sounds good. Your involvement in the topic area fills me with confidence, as well. Regards, El_C 20:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging me @El C: I might add that whoever wants to make an edit to Wikipedia has a responsibility to make sure that the content is properly added per the guidelines. Especially in this case, when we're talking about 12k content. It is not our responsibility as readers and fellow editors to filter whatever may be good out of the heaps of problematic content. Any good sources can be re-added as far as I'm concerned as long as Wikipedia's guidelines are maintained, including WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. The edit was not problematic just because of outdated sources; its also due to atrocious unencyclopediec style. For the record: the article has been a target for drive-by accounts/IP's and sockpuppets for years, and I can ping a dozen admins who can attest to that, including Doug Weller. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, LouisAragon, WP:BURDEN is not optional. El_C 22:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"It is not our responsibility as readers and fellow editors to filter whatever may be good out of the heaps of problematic content."

It is a basic policy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy

"Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia."

I would copy edit the unencylopedic style and preserve the sourced content from modern experts.

176.54.39.53 (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP, WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN usually trump WP:PRESERVE. They certainly do in this instance. If something is shown to be more than a little problematic, then it should not be displaying until refined with respect to WP:V and WP:NPOV, by correctly applying WP:CITE to legit WP:RS. Makes sense? El_C 23:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation El C. I have checked the policies you mentioned. Policies regarding onus and burden seem to be about insistence of including the problematic content (in this case certain outdated sources). It is not the case here. It is about removal of large amount of appropriate content (Limbert, McKenzie, Russel, Daryaee, full quote of Bruinessen etc) leaving the page unbalanced. Moreover at least 2 unverifiable and unreliable sources re inserted (probably by a mistake). Sparing a few minutes to filter the content would leave wikipedia articles in a better quality.

Anyway my intent was to raise awareness about the long term edit warring on the page and thank you for your actions. Good night

176.54.39.53 (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

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 ([48])...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...

@Borsoka:, @Super Dromaeosaurus:, I kindly asked El_C's closer attention, to make one step forward, the user just trolled me heavily filled with personal insults....enough!(KIENGIR (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Blocked indefinitely. 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_C 18:39, 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]

I live to give! El_C 19:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

([49]) - :-) (KIENGIR (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Hi. I noticed that 71.232.135.186 has just restored EdDakhla's rant[50], using the same strange choice of word ("inquiry" instead of "enquiry") that was used previously by T.Khattabi when they reverted your edit[51]. Is this too much of a coincidence to be a coincidence? Regards. M.Bitton (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. Right, all of the aforementioned are very obviously EdDakhla. El_C 18:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should I leave their comment (more like a personal attack) or can it be removed? M.Bitton (talk) 18:23, 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_C 18:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done[52]. Regards. M.Bitton (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the ins and outs of Wikipedia. Question: If someone places a 3RR warning (or any warning) in error, what is the appeals process? Thanks. Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 18:07, 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_C 18:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks. Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 18:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 6th redirect

Hi there, Could you remove the RfD notice from January 6th so it works again? I can't do it because the redirect has been fully protected. Thanks. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done and Unprotected. El_C 20:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your close; I'm glad you saw my point of view on this being vandalism. I was quite shocked when I went to AIV and was told that it was not vandalism, and then told at ANI that I was edit warring. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really? That is so ridiculous. Sorry you had to go through that. Glad I could help. Kind regards, El_C 02:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The editor in question earlier left notes on the talk pages of two admins and one other editor ([53], [54], [55]) accusing me of being an agent of the Burmese military. Would you mind leaving those editors messages to explain the situation? It's not that I think they're going to believe that; I just want them to know the dispute has been resolved. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might have missed this. If you haven't, I apologize. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hi El C! I appreciate your closure of the ANI discussion that I replied to. I didn't mean to "sidestep" anything, however. I felt that, upon looking, that the dispute was content-related, and that the basis of the problem was edit warring. I'm obviously no expert on the article subject, but I thought that what I did was the right thing to do. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Oshwah. She was deposed in the 2021 Myanmar coup d'état, so it was just a plain fabrication. Nice to see you, as always. El_C 03:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's always nice to see you, El C! :-) Well, the thought I had was that it was said in the ANI here that the user was from that country - even though we don't really know (unless the user said so?). Taking that into account, this to me isn't vandalism, but someone from that country trying to edit the article to push a point of view - which is different than someone editing that article in bad faith to deliberately add false information. The latter is exempt from 3RR; what Zhong ST was doing is not. By stepping in and saying, "this editor is wrong with this content and this editor is right", aren't we choosing a side when we need to be neutral? This is what I decided when I stepped in and responded to the ANI discussion. Down to the core of it all, this was edit warring. I'd like to hear what your thoughts were when closing the article and what you would've done had you been the first admin to respond. What would you have done? If anything, I want to POINT FINGERS AT YOU AND SAY THAT YOU'RE WRONG! I'm just kidding... I want to hear your thoughts so that, if anything, I can better myself as an administrator and editor. :-) Thanks again, and I highly appreciate you for hearing me out. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oshwah, I suspected from the beginning that they were from Burma, but they did themselves confirm it in this edit. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tartan357 - Aha! Thanks for letting me know. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oshwah, I obviously don't have any experience adminning but I'd like to give you my thoughts on your above comment. If someone makes an edit that they know to be counter-factual, shouldn't that be enough to say that they're deliberately adding incorrect information? It seems like a lot to expect everyday Wikipeidans like myself to judge their motivations on top of their likely knowledge about the facts. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tartan357! What if they believe it is factual? I think that's where our differences in the interpretation of policy and what the right responses and actions at the ANI are... I'm no expert at this article subject, so I couldn't tell you. This is why I responded in the way that I did, and warned you both for edit warring. I was doing what I felt was right. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oshwah, if they believe it is factual, then I completely agree that it's not vandalism. I just found that highly implausible. Maybe I'm just numbed from all the similar edits since the coup. I've closed two edit requests at Talk:Aung San Suu Kyi just since the ANI discussion asking to describe her as State Counsellor. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tartan357 - Regardless, the manner is handled and the user apologized on my user talk page, which is good - maybe they'll become a contributor here and stay with us! :-) I appreciate you for bringing the matter to ANI, and I appreciate the discussion. If anything, I've learned some things too! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oshwah, no, it is absolutely exempt by virtue of it being vandalism-like (once explained) and, as I mention, should be initially responded with something like {{uw-error2}} (seriously, click on that link and see what it says). Again, a plain fabrication does not constitute a content dispute. Never have, never will. El_C 03:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again

This just happened again at Win Myint. I reverted and gave a level 2 warning, as you suggested. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{uw-error2}} is a staple of mine. I have given users countless of these warnings for adding content which unambiguously contradicted established, well-known facts. El_C 03:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El C, glad to hear I'm using it appropriately. I used it on someone the other day who was declaring Trump the winner of the 2020 United States presidential election in Pennsylvania. Needless to say, that was a very clear-cut case and they were indeffed when I eventually took them to AIV. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tartan357, a well-known fact is that the ghost of Hugo Chávez needs to steal x number of votes before he's allowed to move on. Stop the Ghosteal! El_C 08:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El_C, while the reported IP was stale, the user you blocked here has an IP account which they have flitted in and out of using since creating their account. They were warned about it here (and simultaneously here) and confirm they are the same user here. That IP was missed by the reporting editor at ANI. Incidentally, the accusations here, according to the person's own account, most likely refer to the "personal attacks" whose tenor can be sampled from what they mass deleted, labelling them as personal attacks. The direct accusation toward me of hounding refers to this article; its tiny editing history shows who was following whom with little effort (I started editing the article 3 months before they created their account; edit immediately preceding theirs was by me). Cambial foliage❧ 03:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cambial Yellowing, thanks for the useful information. I agree that the removal you cite (diff) is just matter-of-fact, devoid of any personalization whatsoever, not to mention personal attacks (or even the mildest of incivility). It is an inexplicable removal that she will need to answer for. Your observation about you having edited the article months before she even joined the project, is also duly noted. As for that IP, it is Stale, as well. El_C 04:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The less said about my atrocious behaviour during this incident, the better. El_C 19:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a second AfD ongoing that has aroused weird controversy, including sockpuppetry at the first AfD to keep, and now (alleged) canvassing to the second to delete. If you or experienced stalkers of your talk page could bring some thoughts here, it would be good. I hope this is not canvassing because I am not telling anybody how to vote on the AfD but if it is canvassing, I apologize. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops I probably should have asked Sandstein who closed the first AfD, but to make up for it I am pinging him in now. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just want to make uncle Sandstein proud, still! El_C 15:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HouseOfChange, thanks for the ping, but I have no recollection of or involvement in the topic, and so have no advice to offer. Sandstein 15:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guess it didn't work.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I suppose I'll just have to try harder! El_C 15:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey El C, User:Seyoumamhara has merged the information in the Humera massacre article with information in the Mai Kadra massacre article without reason. Which could be a simple mistake but then in the War crimes in the Tigray War page, he removed mentions of war crimes committed by Ethiopia and Eritrea against Tigrayans in the introduction and instead said they were committed by TPLF forces against Amhara.

Finally, in the Humera article (the city itself), he changed the city to be apart of the Amhara Region and not the Tigray region. And also changed the mention of the Humera massacre to say that it was committed by TPLF-allied forces against Amhara. Also made unsourced edits like changing the majority ethnic group in the city to be Amhara and not Tigrayan. He changed the text under Monuments section to say "The Amhara population living in the area destroyed a monument named after qeshi gebru she is known for her bravery to kill amharas brutally a former foot soldier of tigray people liberation front TPLF after liberating thier home land after 50 years of tigray colonisation of the area in Nov,2020." The original text was "Statue of anti-patriarchal feminist Mulu Gebreegziabher. It was destroyed by two Neftenya vandals, under the eyes of Ethiopian soldiers, in November 2020."

IP 213.55.85.126 has the same problem but is on a different side of the coin. He undid some of Seyoumamhara's edits but still removed information. Changed the monuments section to "The Amhara barbarian ethnic group has demolished the Tigray heroine monument,qeshi gebru,collaborating with the Eritrean troops in Nov,2020." Calling an ethic group barbaric seems like hate speech. Finally, he removed the entire history section of the article and once again called Amharans barbarians in his edit summary. Wowzers122 (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wowzers122. Warned, with a discretionary sanctions alert attached. Extended confirmed protected indefinitely. Applied to Humera, Humera massacre and War crimes in the Tigray War as a logged WP:ACDS action. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance with anything else. Regards, El_C 23:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seyoumamhara is now doing the same thing with Alamata. Also, did you warn the IP? Wowzers122 (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely. Plus, another AE protection. I get the sense that we've only seen the first glimpses of the true scale of WP:ARBHORN disruption. Let's hope I'm wrong. Finally, I've now warned that IP (wasn't linked at the time in your note, didn't notice) with a {{uw-error2}} — if they continue, feel free to escalate up to and including reporting them to WP:AIV. Regards, El_C 18:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry El C, but the personal attacks continue. I know, water off ducks back and all but seriously? Polyamorph (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Polyamorph, I dropped Art a note about dialing it back. Hopefully, it will resonate. Regards, El_C 18:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I inadvertently undid your removal of your comment in this edit please forgive me - I am using the beta edit conflict resolution tool and it showed zero change on the left side (before my edit) and so I selected my comment to be added - it did not display any other changes so I figured it must've been an edit on another part of the page that was conflicting. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Berchanhimez, no forgiveness needed. I assumed it was a minor technical glitch and thought nothing of it. Best, El_C 20:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C, I'm having an issue with a user here at [56] who is attempting to push the name of 'Persia' onto the lede as one of its synonyms, even more or less no sources uses the word 'Persia' to refer to the region (it goes without saying that the term is a synonym for Iran). I've attempted to discuss with the user at it [57], but to no avail, as the user is more interested in me than the topic itself (getting lowkey WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE vibes). I'm thinking about taking this to WP:ANI, but I think that it will be ignored/won't reach a outcome. Thoughts? --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Okay, but I really am not accepting new requests at this time (or so I thought). El_C 22:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As can be for example seen here among all other edits here, me edits are removed with accusations of pov pushing and twisting wording when I followed the source. The person even literally deleted and copied what I wrote again. Subtly leaving out the fact that Yoemans said that the anti-Catholic angle he could see. Could you step in to deal with the constant edit waring and accusations? It’s getting to be too much. OyMosby (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El C you wrote that the ip was stale:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:El_C&diff=1006684630&oldid=1006684233

When does an account or an ip become stale? Just not to report stale accounts again. I still believe that the ip is from Armanqur tho.

Regards

176.54.39.53 (talk) 06:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP, it just means that the prevailing practice is not to bother blocking accounts that, though have been proven to be otherwise block-worthy, simply had not edited for a while (i.e. may be inactive as far as the individual behind the respective violations). That is what templates like Stale and  Stale are used for. So, that IP, for example, I didn't bother blocking it since its last edit was over a week ago. Of course, if it's used again for that purpose (unlikely), it will be instantly blocked, once reported (or re-reported). Best, El_C 08:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, IP, you asked when, not why. The answer to that —for blocking, as opposed to CU— is usually a couple of days-ish. But this could vary for, say, a static IPs with a lengthy (similar) contributions history that, for example, shows them editing once or twice a month. In such a case, the usual stale notions would not apply and a block would still be imposed, even if the account hasn't edited for a couple of weeks or whatever (i.e. as their return would not otherwise be unlikely compared to the former, much more common type of IPs I described). El_C 08:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of such an IP, which I blocked earlier in the month: Special:Contributions/207.5.93.150. El_C 08:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answers El C. I believe the ip is from the blocked account because;

-both the account and the ip edit warred over the same content

-both the account and the ip resisted against using the talk page

-the account's confirmed sockpuppetry in the same page through a strawman role account

-somewhat similar arguments and edit summaries

I hope all the pov-pushers (from both sides) disappear from the page. Thank you for locking the page.

Have a nice day.

176.54.39.53 (talk) 08:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP, I believe so, too. They're just not likely to edit from that same IP again (is the point). But a different individual at some point may. Thanks, you as well. El_C 08:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am at work atm and will not have enough time to follow up this case but in case you may want to follow up it, i am dropping the link below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Armanqur#Indefinite_block

Thank you again.

176.54.39.53 (talk) 08:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP, I am not interested in following up there. If the admin reviewing the unblock request has any questions for me, then I may. Best, El_C 14:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, El C. The article about Ajet Sopi Bllata, who was an Albanian rebel who lived in present-day Serbia, was CSD-ed by user Amanuensis Balkanicus who has twice AfD-ed the same article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajet Sopi Bllata, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajet Sopi Bllata (2nd nomination) but it wasn't deleted. User Maleschreiber made changes the second time and it was saved. Amanuensis Balkanicus CSD-ed now because in 2016 it was created by a sock. If since then, it was twice saved via AfD and saw changes the second time it wasn't deleted, is it ok for the same person who AfD-ed it two times in the span of 4 years to ask for CSD 5 after both of their reports didn't result in deletion? Ahmet Q. (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... and your translations too, which almost read like original poetry, given that I didn't understand the Hebrew lyrics. Thanks for sharing! DanCherek (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Love to hear that, Dan! Appreciate you dropping by to add to the good vibes. El_C 14:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there is a (very naive} cycle of reverts on the Dafina Zeqiri article between some IPs and a registered editor. It is a pity that an editor who has written 31 GAs gives that attention to that. Can you make a short protection or sth similar? Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all. I hope everything is well and you have a great time! Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Since this was quite simple to parse. But please note, it is singing time here, for now, not admining time! El_C 15:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know you are having a good time. I love music too, especially when mixed with some dancing. Especially with a beautiful lady :P Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C, fyi Reinhearted has been evading your block, which expires in a few days, in order to continue their edit-war at Falafel among other things. I made an SPI report a couple of weeks ago: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Reinhearted. Thought you might be interested, if not, no problem... --IamNotU (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello admin, can this IP 23.233.138.142 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) be blocked as soon as possible? --Ashleyyoursmile! 13:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They have been blocked. Sorry to bother you. Ashleyyoursmile! 13:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashleyyoursmile, just as an FYI, being addressed as "Hello admin" wouldn't feel good to me. I'm sure it's not what you meant, but if you were intending it as some sort of respectful address such as "Your honor", to me it comes off more like "Hey, you." Sorry to butt in! —valereee (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, totally, sorry I have a habit of doing that. I'll keep in mind. Ashleyyoursmile! 05:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the open Kurds and Kurdistan arbitration case, the proposed decision has now been posted. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. You were notified as you made comments in the case request. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good, looking good! (Also noting Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Proposed decision#Hopeful statement by El_C.) Nicely done, Committee members! El_C 16:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And we are ♫Homeward Bound!♫ That was quick! El_C 19:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C, as mentioned before I might approach you with some issues after the case has been closed. I will first try to solve the issues myself as now there should be less resistance, and also as mentioned before I know pretty well, where some areas in need of a clean up are. But when I can show some reasonable amount of intent to try to solve it for myself in a constructive manner, I'll might approach you to find a solution for this. I have also seen that there exists the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement where I might add requests as well. If you have any questions in the area, don't hesitate to approach me, too, but actually I hope we won't be bothered with problems and wish you and me both a calm and happy editing.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan closed

An arbitration case regarding Kurds and Kurdistan has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.
• GPinkerton (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• GPinkerton (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Thepharoah17 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• عمرو بن كلثوم (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Paradise Chronicle is warned to avoid casting aspersions and repeating similar uncollegial conduct in the future.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan closed

---

Bold is my emphasis. What can I say? I asked and the Committee delivered, which they did with unusual expediency. So, kudos to the arbitrators for giving us this sorely needed DS for the topic area. This still newish Committee batch is proving worthy, so again, nicely done! </suckup> El_C 14:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Palestinian enclaves#This talk page is toxic. This is the same talk page that previously lead to a warning with the holocaust references and baseless allegations of racism. Unfortunately, the general toxicity of this talk page has continued unabated. I'm wondering if there are any steps that could be taken to cool things down there, as it is essentially impossible to go 5 minutes without receiving a hostile and uncivil reply on that page. Drsmoo (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm .... Why was I unsurprised to see the name of Wikiedtor19920 all over the page? "Nishidani's one-sided diatribes are almost certainly not worth reading" - nice. Black Kite (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Nishidani (shoutout) may have the propensity to go on (and on), but rarely if ever have I found one of their treatise not to be a most worthwhile read. El_C 18:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I must apologize. I don't think I have acted in bad faith, but some view it that way. When I see what for me, is extreme repetitiveness, I am drawn to explain at tedious length how I see it. Concision is a virtue, but it takes an inordinate amount of time to be pithy in these discursive contexts. I'll try to be more laconic, in fact, I thought I was exercising restraint in not replying to everyone and everything. I can't see any bad faith there. Nishidani (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, Nishidani, I think you are exhibiting restraint right here right now. Still, lazy-me is requesting the Cliffs Notes, please! El_C 19:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that my putative 'erudition' (which I'm not - I just, if I am to trust a few friends- have a fairly good memory for what I read) looks like flourished pomposity. I hope people can just ignore that part. I need to do it because working here is extremely difficult, and to ease the burden I feel, I like to entertain myself by writing as I think, to compensate for straining to write what wiki orthodoxy commends as best praxis. I really admire admins and many great editors who can cut to the chase without the loose-mouth riffs on personal memory. I admit it is a failing, and I can see it does get up get up some folks' nostrils (oh Gawd, that idiom calls for a gloss on Theocritus on nostrils as a source of pride, its reflex in Shakespeare, and in Hopkins' 'Habit of Perfection'). I'd better stop and think of easing that large pizza I'm eating with a soporific gin (no, sir, not in the rude Australian dialect sense of that word (lubra, black woman, ugh).Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was not specifically referring to Wikieditor when I sent this message, though I agree that his message to Nishidani was pointed and unnecessary. The talk page, as a whole, is extremely tense, and while some discussions are moving forward, they are being done so under a constant barrage of insults. For example, the thread I was linked to was opened by someone shocked by the intensity of the vitriol directed AT wikieditor. Perhaps nothing that is on itself sanctionable, but overall, the temperature remains high. I stick to my belief that if 1rr was applied to talk pages as well, Wikipedia would benefit greatly. But that seems unlikely to happen. Drsmoo (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, I don't know if you've met Paul Siebert (shoutout) — another longwinded expositor whose own treatises often contain kernels of truth of great profundity. Like with you, you just have to resist all WP:TLDR impulses! El_C 20:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be sleepless tonight over the Cliff Notes' joke. I guess it asks for a gloss on T E Lawrence saying 'outrageous' on the outskirts of Damascus? Well that's not, as far as I checked, in his great memoir Seven Pillars of Wisdom, but by hearsay exclaimed by Peter O'Toole playing that role in David Lean's 1962 film Lawrence of Arabia. And no, I can't say I personally remembered it from that date, though I recall the scene. What happened was, when I happened to use the term comically, my cousin told me (in mid 1983) that this was the adjective used by O'Toole qua Lawrence at that dramatic moment. So it may be indeed my latest addition to the immense archives of apocrypha in circulation. Thanks for making me remember the details of this. Now I'm going to be sleepless until I find a video of the film to check where the truth lies (which truth often does:), alasNishidani (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, I was just gonna say how I have several works of his in my library (all in Hebrew; I don't have many novels in English), only to realize that I was thinking of D. H. Lawrence — wrong Lawrence! Absolutely, fond memories of this most golden of Golden films. El_C 21:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I have imposed the Consensus required restriction for this page. I have also warned Wikieditor19920 to dial it back, under penalty of imminent sanctions. El_C 18:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) El C, your link for Wikieditor19920 there has a typo. But in fact you have not warned the user under either spelling — not on their own talkpage. I see you warned them at Talk:Palestinian enclaves, but that's IMO not as good. It's easy for a user to either miss such a warning, or indeed to pretend to have missed it. Bishonen | tålk 21:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Ah, that it does (at the event, I just copied Black Kite above). Anyway, yes, I was gonna get to it, but things keep happening. Otherwise, on it. El_C 21:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, yeah - that's my wireless keyboard that drops letters (probably needs recharging tbh). Black Kite (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lovely warning now! [Bishonen makes a special note of El Capitan's final sentence to the user, for future parroting.] Bishonen | tålk 21:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, Bish! Aiming to be known as a Nishidani or a Paul Siebert laconic counterpart (compliment monster growl!), but there's a long road to go yet. El_C 21:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We all began as singular zygotes that expand exponentially to 30 trillion cells in adulthood. Console yourself with the reflection that the Big Bang had small beginnings (a minor punctual crepitation, to expand using an euphemism, gave us a field of noise that now vibrates throughout the cosmos to the endless reaches of infinity, a process imitated by the internet's 'social' media. By both cosmo-physical and biological logic, seeing that entropy invariably sets in and reverses the expansions, to be only at the starting line that leads from laconism to the slobbering garrulity we oldtimers evince, augurs well: the world's still your oyster, so Festina lente. it will be the perfect counterpoint to my phonological festering! Cheers. Nishidani (talk) 09:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a big proponent of Eternal inflation, truth be told. Unprovable? Bah! That Andrei Linde hasn't been awarded the Nobel Prize for his revolutionary work on the subject is a crying shame, I say! El_C 10:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Andrei Linde link. Which reminds me, we lack a People who did not win the Nobel Prize despite being outstanding in their respective fields. If it every goes up, I could provide at least a score from literature alone. But yes, it would probably be deleted as WP:OR (though it wouldn't be hard to document that scandal with a figure like Rosalind Franklin).Nishidani (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Too true, too true. I just have an especially soft cosmo-quantum spot in my heart for Linde. His theory probably changed my outlook on physics and cosmology more so than any other living (or recently-ish deceased) physicist out there. Which is to say: profoundly. El_C 14:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the sakes of completion, I'll just note that I have logged a warning to both Wikieditor19920 and Onceinawhile. El_C 23:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Admining 101 reflections in laconic refrain

Piggybacking above. One or several of these steps apply: Alert, Caution, Warning, Final warning, Sanctions. There can be some back and forth. Less is more. El_C 04:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello El C- I'm trying to figure out the best approach to get a new editor on a campaign to slow down and communicate with others. Hoping you might be able to point me in the right direction. I'm assuming that posting on a noticeboard would be premature at this point. The editor has been active for a little more than a day, making similar changes across many articles related to Catholic clergy and buildings: contributions, talk. Thanks in advance for any tips. Eric ^talk 17:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw this before I posted earlier, and hesitated for a moment, then decided it must be about something else and was not meant to discourage a request like mine... sorry! Eric ^talk 21:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Eric, it's all good. Thanks for following up. Regards, El_C 21:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C, would you be able to review an edit warring & content issue relating to a possible hoax image that seems to be motivated by Turkish nationalism? One editor inserted the image across multiple Wikipedias and another keeps edit warring to keep the image in the article space here at en-wiki. I've written a short contextual summary and gathered several relevant links on my talk page. Given the topic, nobody wants to touch my reports at AN/EW or sanction the editor involved (the first report was archived without action). If you're unable to do this, do you happen to know any admins with expertise in regional history/nationalism who would be able to assist? Thanks for your help, Jr8825 • Talk 22:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry El C, I didn't spot that. All the best, Jr8825 • Talk 22:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look at the recent edits at Lorestan Province by user Rizorius?[58] The local Kurdish name of the province is being removed despite a large population of the province being Kurdish. The editor is making a false equivalence comparing it with having the German name at Paris. Conversely, an unverifiable and ridiculous survey that contradicts the info in the 'demographics'-section is being added. --Semsûrî (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel inclined to unblock, but I do feel that you should have asked someone else to impose the block, as a best practice. It would have eliminated unneeded Sturm und Drang and would have served as a reality check. She did almost step back with that trope business, but that could be read as attempted salvage. Also, I don't think there is much distinction between being "XYZist" and using an "XYZist trope". Having said that, I believe this user should edit in less emotionally volatile areas and I believe she may not be compatible. Best, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra, I realize there are admins who believe this to be the best practice to follow, rigidly so, but myself, in some circumstances, I block and/or remove talk page (or email) access to users, even when the abuse prompting this is directed toward myself as the sanctioning admin. If you or anyone else feel that this is something the Committee should weigh on (as an admin conduct matter or as a theoretical question, whichever, or both), an WP:ARCA about this is always an option. I'll note that I have blocked nearly 8,000 users from the project. Rarely do my blocks come into serious question, and even more (much more) rarely are they overturned. For whatever that's worth. Kind regards, El_C 23:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To those who elsewhere question the length of the block due to the user having a clean block log, I contend that one week is not excessive for such an offense, especially seeing how it kept repeating even after a very strongly-worded warning against continuing to do so. I'll also note that, earlier, someone pointed out how Awoma was calling editors "transphobes" a few months ago (Oct), which I found quite disconcerting. I'll quote what they said in full:

There has been a lot of discussion around this and there is now a very wide consensus in support of the section as it currently stands. A handful of transphobes trying to whitewash it aren't going to convince anyone otherwise (diff).

This is highly problematic conduct, I challenge. So, I don't think a week-long block is especially draconian when we also take this into account, in addition to today's events. And who knows if there's more misconduct I'm simply unaware of — maybe there's nothing, maybe there's something. Who knows. Regardless, for such a fraught topic area as WP:ARBGG, I think those two incidents alone, to me, signify conduct well out of step with even the most lax of standards. El_C 02:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also point out, as a follow up to a comment by Newimpartial which I just removed (diff), that most of the AE topic areas I attend to, I do so by way of WP:AE. And the fact is that there are very few WP:ARBGG reports posted there. It's mostly WP:AP2, WP:ARBPIA, WP:ARBIPA and WP:ARBEE. Those, I estimate, account for something like 85 percent of all AE complaints. Not that I need to justify how I volunteer my time on a volunteer project. I think that's a markedly presumptuous notion. Also, the unwanted innuendo by Newimpartial about my esteemed self is not a nice thing to say, I find. I'm not sure why they choose to address me in such a manner, also calling my comment above hilarious, and so on, but I feel that it is uncalled for, and I wish for it to stop. El_C 02:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No comments in this thread except for reviewing admins, please. The matter is pending review, still. El_C 00:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awoma unblocked

My final UTRS message (plus new addition) reads as follows:

Since there's seems to be a cloud over this block, now raised by GW, I have unblocked Awoma.
User_talk:Awoma#Unblocked
But, GW, again, for the record, I said: "I truly am sorry you feel that way." And I truly meant it. I'm still puzzled it backfired or was viewed as a non-apology apology. [Added now: not to mention a "sexist trope."] I mean, how else do I convey that better? I really am racking my brain over this. El_C 00:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Posting my note from UTRS here since it's not immediately clear what this cloud may have been: While it's true that "I'm sorry you feel that way" can be a non-apology, and I've certainly seen the phrase used in response to accusations that a person is sexist, I don't think I've ever seen someone argue that the phrase itself is a sexist trope. I tried googling for "'i'm sorry you feel that way' sexist" in case I'm just behind the times, but it's all discussions of someone being called out for saying something sexist and then using the phrase as a non-apology. While Awoma may well personally believe that the phrase is sexist, I wouldn't say it's widely considered to be. That said, I do think a better response would have been to ask why they felt that way about the phrase or just move on. It also seems to me that if El C thought a block was appropriate, it probably should've been handled by another admin.

Regarding "I'm sorry you feel that way" being a non-apology—it's one of those things that depends so highly on tone and context. It's also one of those phrases that has become so well-known as a non-apology that that's often the first thing that comes to my mind when I hear it, even if the speaker truly is sorry that someone feels that way. I usually try to phrase it differently for that reason, even if that's the sentiment I'm trying to convey. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GW, again, I just don't know how to convey that better. I thought that with the added truly it did express my good faith sincerity, but I obviously it wasn't understood that way (i.e. was seen as provoking, which definitely was not my intent). I suppose that, as a sanctioning admin, I may just have to start being more guarded about expressing sympathy to a user who is upset, because, again, I simply don't know how else I could have phrased it better otherwise, I really don't. (How else do I say to someone that I feel bad that they are undergoing distress? Or, again, perhaps I should just refrain from doing so entirely with someone whom I don't know. I'm open to ideas about that, in any case.)

Regardless, I did try to understand how saying something that innocuous (non-apology apology implications aside) can possibly signify a "sexist trope," but the follow up answer made zero sense to me. Since the behaviour continued even after my (strong) warning to that effect, the block was imposed.

As well, I'm not sure what your view about this is, also as a former arbitrator, but I did further address the matter of this block about an hour ago at User_talk:Nil_Einne#Non-apology_apology?, so I'll just cite the relevant portion:

if I admin imposes, say, an WP:ARBPIA sanction and the sanctioned editor accuses me of using "Zionist racist tropes" or "Palestinian terrorist tropes" or whatever due to something innocuous I said, then I think that, if warnings to that effect remain unheeded, I'm entitled to apply additional sanctions, despite it being directed toward me. Not sure why it should be any different in the ARBGG topic area [realm], or any [other] DS/GS topic areas, for that matter.

As always, I appreciate any input or guidance you can offer me in this matter. El_C 17:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I am sorry for something I have done, I try to apologize for my own actions. If I am sorry that someone feels some way, but don't feel like my actions were a factor (or shouldn't be apologized for), I usually just don't say anything.

Regarding the propriety of the block, I do think it was within reason to impose it. However when an exchange is becoming heated as that one was, it's a lot less messy to have an outside admin step in and evaluate whether a block is needed. There are two ends of the spectrum as far as how that exchange could be interpreted: on one far end, you said something egregiously sexist, Awoma pointed it out, and then you blocked them in retaliation. On the other, you said something kind and completely blameless, Awoma baselessly described it as sexist, and you blocked them for continuance of the behavior they had been warned about (which intersected with the ARBGG topic ban). I'm sure each of you would point to a different location on this spectrum if asked what happened in reality, and outside observers would probably also have a differing opinion. But there is some portion of that spectrum where the block gets pretty messy, and because it's a little unclear what actually happened, having an outside admin step in would eliminate a lot of that messiness.

Again, I think the block was within discretion, and I think it was both fair and wise of you to have other admins come in to review. The block has been lifted, and hopefully heads have cooled and the topic ban will serve its purpose. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, GW, that also makes sense to me. I will try to move forward with these lessons that you've imparted in mind. Thanks again. El_C 18:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apology apologies

As someone who has invested a fair amount of time and energy negotiating the terrain of apologizing, my suggestion would be that "I understand that you feel singled out by my admin conduct" (or whatever the apology is for) ". I am sorry." - or some similar formulation - is more likely to be heard by the recipient. For one thing, "I am sorry you feel that way" leaves "that way" doing a lot of the work, and doesn't acknowledge anything in particular that the person apologizing is actually apologizing for. Taking a stab at what the hurt is about - even if the first try doesn't 100% capture the respondent's actual cause of hurt - will come across as more authentic than vagueries, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that actually makes sense to me. So, I will try to be more precise with that in the future so as to avoid any similar misunderstandings. It's just that I've never experienced anything like this before — either on the non-apology apology or the "sexist trope" (which I still find totally bizarre) fronts. Thanks for your insights, Newimpartial. El_C 17:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I have experienced a whole lot of this before - including the "sexist trope" element. Mostly in the wilds of the internet, where nobody knows you're a duck. Newimpartial (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the onion has another layer. "I'm sorry you feel that way" distances the speaker from any responsibility; the other person chose to feel something and you're sorry that they made that choice; it's a brush-off, often used as a conversation-ender. (I picture a negotiation scene in a conference room, and one person gathering their files together, tapping them on the table to even them out, and coldly saying "Well, I'm sorry you feel that way.") "I'm sorry that I made you feel that way" acknowledges the speaker's participation in the issue. (No clue about sexist trope, I've heard it said W-W, M-M, W-M, M-W.) Schazjmd (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly acknowledge that there is no general rule. However, as GW might have been alluding in the previous section, there are situations where phrases like the "I made you" of I'm sorry that I made you feel that way seem to concede too much responsibility for the other person's feelings. In such cases, "I understand that you feel X, and I am sorry about that" might at times offer a more authentic take. But YMMV, of course. Newimpartial (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight, I now am finally recognizing that saying something to the effect of: this is a difficult situation, which I realize may be distressing, and I genuinely feel bad if this is proving to be so –would have been way better. Or as GW, has noted, perhaps simply not express any direct sympathy from the outset — which goes against my nature, but I'll do what I can to adjust for the good of the project. Again, now that I've had time to reflect, I'll definitely try to aim at improved precision and tact in any and all of my communications. Thank you, everyone, for all of your thoughts on this matter. I do feel better guided now and am confident it will reflect in my future approach, overall. Thanks again! El_C 19:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We all hope, in future, not to have to apologize for the previous apology. Newimpartial (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If only I knew where I misplaced the Holy hand grenade, none of this would have happened to begin with. Oh well, live and learn, I guess.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 19:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not whether this is acceptable. What do you think? Regards. M.Bitton (talk) 01:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M.Bitton, it is not acceptable. Will address. Best, El_C 01:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 02:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El_C, another autoconfirmed editor is declaring Win Myint to still be president and Aung San Suu Kyi to still be state counsellor of Myanmar, reverting past my {{uw-error2}} warning and declaring my revert to be "illegal". I'll keep reverting and have explained myself at user and article talk, but I may need your help. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate the assist. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, Tartan357, I am wary that just the urgent requests alone will deter my singing efforts! What to do, what to do. BTW, maybe we need to WP:ECP a few of these pages for a little while, because it doesn't seem to be working out too well to me. What do you think? (And, if so, which ones?). El_C 02:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El C, semi-protection seems to be doing fine (this is only the second time an editor has gotten past semi-protection with such blatant fabrications), so I think ECP would be overkill at this time. I'll let you know if my position on that changes. The most disruption has been at Min Aung Hlaing, Win Myint, and Aung San Suu Kyi, as well as on the talk pages of those articles. I actually got Talk:Min Aung Hlaing semi-protected last night due to edit request spamming. What I do think would be helpful is longer semi-protection periods than I'm getting from other admins at RfPP. Disruption resumes whenever protection expires at any of these pages, and when I return to RfPP, it gets renewed, but for far too short a time period. For example, I just got the protection on President of Myanmar renewed for a second time, but it was only protected for two weeks. I also think semi-protection of 2021 Myanmar coup d'état, 2021 Myanmar protests, State Administration Council, and Min Aung Hlaing's military cabinet will end up being necessary, although I'm not confident there's been enough disruption on those pages to go to RfPP yet. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tartan357, okay, understood. Thanks for your input from within the trenches. My thinking is that, due to their sensitive nature, those articles need to be protected for a long while (months rather than weeks), so feel free to request such protections here, whenever. El_C 03:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El C, your block has been challenged. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Special:Contributions/Historynerdboy
• Special:Contributions/WikiTyrcaen
• Special:Contributions/Hdhoel (looks like sock farming, preparing to become auto-confirmed)

All of them look like sockpuppets of blocked HistoriaTurce and HistoryOfTurkic. See their edits an rants on the talk pages. Wario-Man ^talk 11:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wario-Man, I'll add that, even if I knew the urgency of this, my internet is a bit too spotty at the moment for me to risk taking administrative action that is likely to be interrupted. If this, indeed, is of an urgent nature, I recommend contacting another admin or seeking assistance at the admin noticeboard. Regards, El_C 16:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. No, it's not urgent. Just wanted to notify you about them. One of them have already been blocked. Cheers! Wario-Man ^talk 17:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_Kurdistan&type=revision&diff=1008148155&oldid=1007929627

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arab_Belt&type=revision&diff=1008148981&oldid=1007875763

This is happening right now.

+ this from earlier that flew under the radar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds_and_Kurdistan/Proposed_decision#Comments_by_Attar-Aram_syria

This is like 6 times now she has violated her topic ban. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Deliciousness, I'm not sure why you're telling me about this. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds_and_Kurdistan hasn't concluded yet. You should be telling the arbitrators about it! El_C 21:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They don't know that she is currently topic banned. You do. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was pretty sure they did know, but even if not, why not just inform them about it? Not really sure what there is for me to do about any of this at this time. El_C 21:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eleventh hour sabotage by GPinkerton

Hi El C, could you please look into the sabotage of the Arab Belt page done by GPinkerton here just hours before they are indefinitely banned? This wild POV pushing is obviously a hopeless provocation from a sinking user to launch an edit-war in an effort to sink other users with them. They even nominated the article as GA. I am staying away from it, but was hoping you could intervene given that this is a huge violation of their current post-1532 Middle East tban. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم, please see my comments to Supreme Deliciousness directly above this. Regards, El_C 21:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting per the section above this ("Block evasion?"), that my internet is proving a bit spotty today for me to want to engage in too intensive use of admin tools, regardless of anything. El_C 21:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I appreciate your work and I hope you make good use of the sanctions from the ArbCom case I opened. GPinkerton (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, GPinkerton! I'll probably be accused of "bragging", but this is, what, admin branstar number 12? Always got room for more, at any rate! El_C 22:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C. You blocked Mdgds for a week after my report at ANI due to their repeated addition of unsourced information. It seems they waited out their block and have resumed their mass unsourced editing again. I did bring it up on their talk page but then thought you may prefer I bring it up here. Could I trouble you to cast an eye please. Robvanvee 05:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robvanvee. Will give it a glance and respond on User_talk:Mdgds. Regards, El_C 05:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. Robvanvee 05:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, is it acceptable to put blocks of the AE requests into collapsed blocks? The issue I'm trying to illustrate is not that any single event crosses the line but the long term behavior is the problem. My concern is with fewer diffs all this looks like a small thing vs a wide spread pattern. Thanks. Springee (talk) 11:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Springee, I think it's a bit of a grey area. Personally, I think it's a terrible idea, that it is GAMEy, and I'd disallow it outright, if I could. El_C 14:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, sorry I didn't see this reply until after I made my reduction original edits. Springee (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/180.242.214.144

If you look at this person's contributions, they have been nothing but disruptive.

For the Kebaya page, they removed over 23 thousand bytes of information.

For pages relating to geographical regions, they've removed Chinese Indonesians from the demographics in the infoboxes.

Lastly, they've also removed mentions of the Betawi language as being a Malay dialect (something that is disputed).

Would appreciate swift action. Thanks. Sisuvia (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 60 hours. El_C 18:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your wish is my command. . I will be out of pocket for most of the day CELEBRATING. Atsme 💬 📧 17:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Atsme, that's good. But I'll stress that Hot-Dog Park needs a new warden, and you have been, erm, volunteered for that task (which is to say, conscripted!). Still super-angry, btw. Grr! El_C 18:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uh huh - volunteered like when you're in the military. Got it! I'll just pack-up a half-dozen Coney Island dogs, and start surfing Hot-Dog Park via the internet, with social distancing in mind, of course. My laptap will serve as my mask & gloves. And El C, it is time for you to be glad, not mad. Holding a grudge is like drinking poison, and waiting for the other person to die (a modernized Buddha quote that speaks to anger management). Atsme 💬 📧 18:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Negative, Atsme, seething rage keeps me young (or something). Glad to see that you're on-board now, though. Military tribunals aren't a fun thing (well, except for me as judge, jury and Gooby-justice metter — that is fun, I admit). Now, you have your marching orders: go forth and spread the good word of Gooby to the masses, and for God's sake, keep Hot Dog Park pristine (do I even need to say or else...?). El_C 18:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RE:the latter in parenthesis - YES, you do but from now on, consider El C as a one syllable word with a soft "C", then all you have to do is prepend the 4 tildes with "or" when you add your sig. Done deal. Happy editing, Or ElC! Atsme 💬 📧 19:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Though I may enjoy paying playing Scrabble, Atsme, you've just scrambled my brains! Calling riddle-master Gerda to assist! El_C 19:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, did I just get it? Hey, I'm soaring here! El_C 19:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

pay scrabble, I'm empty --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, typo burn! I suppose it's slightly better than the monetarily →momentarily debacle.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 20:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Atsme, if you wish to address me as Skeet Simpson or Buzz Knudson or even Buck Flower (YouTube diff) — I'm actually good with that! El_C 21:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Buck - you've got it! Atsme 💬 📧 22:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read and responded to, Prax. There's just... no words. Kind regards, El_C 18:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C, there's some material I believe needs to be said regarding the arbitration request but it's sensitive and I think it would be best if I communicated it to you personally rather than post it publicly on Wiki. Would it be possible to email you about this? Thank you Noteduck (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Noteduck, I am not available to correspond with you via email at this time. I'll also emphasize that am unable to commit to following up on the case any further. I may well do so, but I also may not. We shall see. Regards, El_C 05:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Four years!

There's a cat on my talk. No ping - today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS! Okay, Gerda Arendt, no ping attached (Goodnight Springton, there will be no encores!). Will also try my best to keep my new alter ego, Buck Flower, in check. Also, kitty cry? That makes me sad. El_C 15:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty cries much softer now, an admin helped, please check again. Was nice to see that, returning from a hike. - My much-missed banned friend also signed Buck once, but I forgot where, and it wasn't as Waterbuck. He had so many beautiful user pages and names. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Gerda (still terrified to ping!), good, happy to hear that you're happier now! (Dang, that sounded pompous!) Ah ♫memories♫ — but you know me, in the darkness I subvert. Which also seems to apply to going from spreading the gospel of Gooby to assuming the identity of Buck Flower. Also, is this an appropriate place to credit "vital contributions"? Well, I'm doing it anyway! Skeet Simpson — Foreman; Buzz Knudson — Mixer; Buck Flower — Security Guard. //END TRANSMISSION! El_C 16:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ping language is difficult. Yesterday, you replied to a ping that was just for info. Today, I meant that I sent no ping, to not cause more replies. The rhythm of "no milk - today" was in my head ;) - Did you read what someone hammered softly? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay! (ping ping ping — there, I got it out of my system!) No, but will read it monetarily... El_C 18:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eep, it is not brief! Calling Buck Flower, security guard, to assist! (What, he's a gentleman and a scholar!) El_C 18:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now read in full. Glad to see that Hammersoft and Drmies (courtesy spam-pings) have the matter well in hand. I'll also note that their comments shed light on facets to this with which I was previously unaware. Anyway, looks like a significant outcome is all but certain, so hopefully, that will do much to alleviate tension in the topic area, which, though I am largely ignorant of, seems to revolve mostly on FS and Mathsci by way of their longstanding IBAN. Looking promising, at any rate. El_C 18:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Umm, if you read it monetarily [59], do I get any remittance? :) Though, knowing my luck, it's probably covered by this. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Buck Flower heartily welcomes Hammersoft to the talk page, but eyes them with some suspicion (hey, part of being a security guard!) Some diffs of interest: Infinity or bust! + The monetary debacle. El_C 18:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From me Hammersoft, you'll get a bigger flower, because the first wild one was for the first comment (I read the second only later). And who will unblock Mathsci? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that the Mathsci unblock lobbying efforts go on! El_C 18:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @El C; hey, if it were me I'd eye me with suspicion too. I mean, I always come at people with a hammer, after all :)
• @Gerda; I'm not inclined to unblock Mathsci. I haven't delved fully into that side of this history, as Mathsci is after all blocked right now. But, what little I did see strikes me as concerning. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He violated topic ban again even after the less than a day old warning against it.[60] Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. El_C 17:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El_C, can you semi-protect Soe Win (general)? ― Tartan357 ^Talk 17:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 17:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hi El_C, can you semi-protect Win Myint? ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Same as above. El_C 01:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Myanmar disruptive editor

Hi El_C, there's an editor, S2K-Lynx, who's been adding unsourced content, making test edits, and introducing bizarre formatting changes to articles related to the Myanmar coup for several days now. I've warned them for all of these things numerous times (they've since removed some of the warnings from their talk page), but they have not engaged me and have simply carried on editing disruptively. Can you block them? Thanks. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They just vandalized my talk page. I get to update my counter, at least! ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 04:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Myanmar protection request

Can you semi-protect Wunna Maung Lwin? ― Tartan357 ^Talk 12:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Grr. Got so edit conflicted. Important announcement about Buck Flower lost to the ether. Sorry, but I gotta consider the good of the project first and foremost. //Reconstructing. El_C 12:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Same as above. El_C 12:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, we may need to semi-protect Talk:Aung San Suu Kyi for a short period of time. It's being filled with edit requests all asking to declare her still in office, with some potential socking going on. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I also collapsed many bogus edit requests. Madness. El_C 01:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El C, thanks! I created an FAQ that will be easier to refer to in the future. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, I quoted it in full in my collapsed notice as well as link to it. El_C 01:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from this where you protected several motor sport articles to shut down a long time IP hopper, can you do likewise for 2021 Supercars Championship? IP hopper has deleted the same text twice in the past 2 days [61][62]that he deleted about half a dozen times in December. May want to consider 2021 Super2 Series and 2022 Supercars Championship as inevitably he will move on to edit warring at these articles. Fecotank (talk) 10:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 11:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A blast from the past! (circa 2002). El_C 08:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Longing for Home (circa 2008). El_C 11:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For when just plain Distractions are afoot. El_C 16:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

Chris Hedges: "The Meaning of Christmas" (December 27, 2020). El_C 23:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

Sorry, everyone, I will not be accepting any new requests for the immediate moment. In the meantime, enjoy the music! (Also here) El_C 18:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now also introducing Buck Flower, security guard (challenging times ahead!). El_C 12:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]