User talk:El C

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

Archived Discussions

Archive 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 9 11 12 13

For you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oooo. Purdy!

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

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

Seasons Greetings

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

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

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

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

Happy Groundhog Day

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

Chippies

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

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

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

Book?

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

4Tality Fractal

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

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

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

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

El_C 07:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Rev-dels

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

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

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

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

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

Romania

And all I got was this... Whoa!

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

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

And all I got was a ^^^

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

El_C 06:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Umm?

No violation occurred my friend in fact the entire section that was added was sourced. You'd best explain yourself before I take this to the admins --120.154.156.36 (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I did explain — you reverted without comment, which was a living persons policy violation. El_C 03:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

We are dealing with the nature of opines of politicians and this article already has multiple opines like this. It's hardly unusual, however your actions are more than unusual. Your comments are irrelevant and if you look at the change log I didn't revert anything at all. You simply chose an overzealous option here of reverting what was properly sourced content. --120.154.156.36 (talk) 03:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

You did revert here. As the uninvolved admin, I deem your addition to violate the living persons policy, by virtue of the prose reading: vindictive and petty nature of the home affairs minister Peter Dutton. El_C 03:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

That's funny, not only did you revert my content, you simply don't seem to understand what you did either. Sir, there is no "revert" next to my name. Here we have an issue of lack of competence in plain sight. If you check the timing between the difs, there would have been no time for me to read your comments either. --120.154.156.36 (talk) 03:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Huh? I don't know what you are talking about — what you are saying makes no sense. Feel free to appeal my decision in any forum you see fit. El_C 03:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm talking about your growing levels of incompetence. Click on "view history" of the article Peter Dutton and check the changelog for yourself. Take a particular look at the difs. You will not see a single "revert" next to my address. You will see that the last "reverts" are next to your name. In fact I was in the process of moving said content to the appropriate section when you came in with your overzealous incompetence that not only failed to address the issue at hand, but also showed your own bias. --120.154.156.36 (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Your claim of bias is unfounded. I neither know nor care much about the subject. I'm still not making sense of what you're saying, however. But veiled insults are unwelcome and unhelpful. El_C 03:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Adminship

You should note somewhere on your page that you are an active Admin. It is confusing that you do not have any notion of this.GreyShark (dibra) 07:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

It is noted here. El_C 07:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this a violation of the collaborative process towards reaching consensus?

Is Saff V.'s revert a violation of the editing process on the MEK page?

This is the sequence of events:

• On August 3, I propose that the association with Saddam Hussain was being repeated too many times in the article and suggest a substitute text that doesn't repeat information as much (to what you commented that it looked like a decent compromise).

• On August 7, Saff V. objected my proposed text, so I asked Saff V. to provide a fair compromise from his perspective. Saff V. replies that he could not because his "time is limited (to which you replied that Saff V. needed "to make the time (a week more than suffices), or you risk forfeiting your position.").

• On August 24, Saff V. replies that "as wp:BURDEN demands, it is the responsibility of Stefka to provide the text." Even though I had already provided a proposed text on August 3, I then present a revised proposed text, to what Saff V. replies saying that the text was "good" but needed some corrections, which he then provided. In order to reach a compromise, I accepted Saff V.'s version and added it to the MEK page on August 29.

• On August 31, Mhhossein (who hadn't participated in this TP discussion since July 26th) reverted the changes complaining he had not given consensus for the change (to which you said that you didn't see much basis for his objections).

• I reverted to the consensus I had reached with Saff V., and then Saff V. reverted the edit saying there was never any consensus between me and him.

To resume, after over a month of trying to get them to propose a fair compromise, I included the text that Saff V. provided as a unified consensus, and then Saff V. reverts it back when Mhhossein complains about it. Isn't this disruptive towards reaching a consensus? I really don't know what else I could have done here to make the collaborative process easier for them (Saff V. is now not approving his own proposed text!). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that their approach to this point of contention has been subpar. I will say more on the article talk page. El_C 18:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Mhhossein's continued unwillingness to work collaboratively towards reaching consensus

• On September 3, I proposed a cleaning up of the "Ties to foreign and non-state actors" section by removing unnecessary subheadings.

• On September 11 I pinged you asking for advice since neither Saff V. or Mhhossein were addressing the concerns raised, to which you proposed that I should take this to WP:DRN.

• On September 17, I took this to WP:DRN, where (after a few days of not responding) user:Steven Crossin asked Mhhossein if he intended to get involved in the discussion. Mhhossein replied that "I think the capacity of the article talk page is not used well and it's too soon to come to this board, though I'm ready to respond."

Here Mhhossein could have easily just addressed the issue, but chooses not to. This leaves me with no other resources but to accept his (unsubstantiated) objections, which prevents fixing issues or reaching some kind of collaborative consensus. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: I actually did advised you to pursue dispute resolution, not DRN per se. El_C 14:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I thought they were the same. Is DRN not an appropriate venue for this? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: you don't need to ping me on my own talk page, I get the (orange) alert for that. In answer to your question: no, DRN is a specialized noticeboard which is but one of the dispute resolution resources available to you. El_C 15:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, El_C. If DRN is one of the resources available for this, then I presume it was indeed an appropriate venue? If so, I have used it, but Mhhossein is avoiding the issues even there. Should my next step be to continue to explore DRR possibilities in the hope that Mhhossein will eventually address the issue in one of them? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

It's appropriate if the other party deems it so. If they prefer discussing it on the article talk page, then just do that. El_C 16:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

They have not addressed the issue on the article's TP, this is why I requested your advice earlier and eventually took this to DRN. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, well, if they do not respond substantively they effectively forfeit their position. But if they have done so, but they still do not fancy DRN, try to get outside input, would be my immediate advise. El_C 16:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Please notice that, as I said, I was on a trip. Now, I have more time to put on this. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I did not notice that having been said. El_C 21:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back, btw! El_C 22:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Utopia

Hello. I noticed to some users put a lot of content at Utopia article and to all new content is just on Slovak or Czech language sources. Also notability of some "philosophers" is questionable especially for English language wikipedia,e.g Jakub Ort, Perný, anyway they need some more wide recognition. If you can take a look would be good. Because it seems, I am afraid, to it can be used as soapbox just for some personal name promotion or advocacy etc. Also section about 21 century in the same article, it is just for some authors, can't be generalised so it need maybe for balance to note that. Thank you and I am sorry for taking your time. 109.245.227.107 (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not that familiar with the material and am spread a bit thin lately. I'll try to take a look, but I just don't know if I can find the time to investigate this properly. El_C 18:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Midland-Odessa shooting discussion

Can you please self revert your closure there? The window for discussion was very short, considering typical discussions like this have been given significantly longer. There were also a number of !votes that gave potential compromises that are worth letting other editors consider. Closing the discussion prematurely as you've done doesn't allow that. Thank you. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not inclined to do so at this time. Consensus from participants is simply too overwhelming. El_C 02:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

People's Party of Canada

Hi, I noticed that you were the editor that made the semi-protected the page to protected it from vandalism. However, I noticed that Cyberpunk 93 made an edit that bypass the after 4 days and 10 edits, requirement. I just why it happened and if it is anissuse, what can be done prevent it. Weelandlka 02:30:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The semiprotection is working as intended. The user was already autoconfirmed years ago, so the protection does not affect them. El_C 02:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I am just wondering what if the requirement changed years ago, or is it same one? Weelandlka 02:48:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm really not sure, actually. They have many tens of edits, at any case, which is more than enough. El_C 03:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Revdel?

You might want to revdel this Special:Diff/913653648 too. Masum Reza^📞 11:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind. I see that you already unrevdeled those revisions. Masum Reza^📞 11:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Libertarian capitalism

Looks like Libertarian capitalism needs re-protection. Pinging you if you're more familiar with the case. That article and Modern libertarianism both appear to be WP:POVFORKs of Right-libertarianism. czar 17:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Not familiar, but  Done. El_C 18:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

RfPP

was backlogged. But thanks for the quick response. ∯WBG^converse 19:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

No worries. El_C 19:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Subjective reading of idioms

I had to come here to say that your assertion that telling someone to "go pick a fight in traffic" (which is an established idiom from whence I come) is worse than calling them a "cunt" is, to me, frankly gobsmacking. I would tell you to take a long walk on a short pier, but I don't want to threaten you with death by drowning. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do find such violent imagery to be worse than simple namecalling. Maybe it is a matter of locale, also with regards to "cunt" — the editor behind that being from the UK. El_C 19:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

No need to apologize. It's your power, do with it what you will. For what it's worth, it never even occurred to me as violent imagery; it's colloquial meaning is "do something supremely stupid." I always assumed the traffic would stop or swerve. I grew up in the Northeast U.S and lived for years in the U.K. I still find "cunt" far more offensive. But again, yours is the view that matters. Cheers. ETA: Having said my piece, I will trouble your talk page no longer! Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, at any case, you are more than free to make that point in the report. If my view is, indeed, well outside convention, then other editors will also point that out. I simply find that "go jump off a bridge" -type of insult to be worse than namecalling, per se.. El_C 19:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) And I find PeterTheFourth's dragging-in of Eric Corbett by the heels completely uncalled-for. Bishonen | talk 19:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC).

Bishonen, please note that my point is narrow. While I consider myself friendly with Peter, we do not unilaterally agree on things. It's simply the case that calling "pick a fight in traffic"--what I think of as a schoolyard taunt--"violent imagery" seems to me overwrought. Something like hand-wringing over the phrase "take a flying leap" as encouraging self-harm. I may well be in the minority. And I apologize for the continued talk page-troubling. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Dumuzid, you are welcome on this talk page, so not to worry. El_C 20:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I consider myself friendly with Peter too. Bishonen | talk 20:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC).

Also, El_C, I apologize for bringing this here, but I didn't want to bog the AE page down with what ultimately boils down to idiolectic preference. Dumuzid (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Death of JonBenét Ramsey

Immediately prior to your protecting the page, 3 or 4 highly appropriate edits I inserted were reverted en masse by an editor who claimed I was using a self-published source. I wasn't. A look at those recent edits will show that they were taken from an A&E documentary, citing known experts in the field. I respectfully request that you revert the reversion.

Thank you, Vcuttolo (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I am precluded from taking a side in the content dispute. The version that's up is the one I encountered at RfPP. El_C 01:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

"Taken from an A&E documentary" does not negate what I stated: "See Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking and Wikipedia:External links#Linking to user-submitted video sites. The videos you linked to are not from official channels for that content. They are just some uploader's content." And on that article's talk page, I also explained why I object to the "In a report prepared by prosecutors, Dr. Michael Graham" piece you added. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion

Can you please block 114.125.96.0/20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) for a while? It's obvious block evasion by the same page-blanking vandal on 182.1.64.0/18. They've been abusing the newer range since June, and there are almost zero positive contributions from the past 3 weeks. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 06:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 07:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Repeated abuse of admin powers

I completely see that there should not be two threads but to my understanding this has become an urgent case of repeated abuse of admin powers and therefore should be at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents rather than a general discussion on the apparent lack of knowledge about the rules for draftification which is not urgent and therefore should be at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard. Please in general if you revert an explained reversion of an edit of yours give an explanation why. I will not revert, so feel to give me an explanation here (please use ping or something so that I see it). Omikroergosum (talk) 08:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I already written to you about this on your own talk page — what is it with you and splitting discussions? El_C 08:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick answer, we edited simultaneously. Should it then not rather be moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents? Sorry if I got this wrong, first time I get into such unpleasant conflicts at Wikipedia. Omikroergosum (talk) 08:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion ought to stay in one venue — in this case, where it had originated: AN. The two boards often serve similar and complimentary purposes. AN is usually focused more on general announcements, whereas ANI is for incidents — but in terms of urgency, there's no real difference. El_C 08:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I got confused because at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents it says "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." while there is no such note on the general noticeboard. This was why I had moved my original complaint to the general noticeboard when it did not seem urgent to me. Omikroergosum (talk) 08:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items

Just to be clear, the list of protected templates and the actual page that triggers cascade protection is Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items/content and not Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items itself; it was moved to the subpage specifically to make the the header text publicly editable as it isn't sensitive in any way. There is thus no reason to have it fully protected (or any kind of protection, as there is no overwhelming amount of disruption) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

But the page specifically instructs users to make edit requests to admins only, so that's a bit confusing of an instruction. El_C 13:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

That was a piece of leftover text in the Mbox that I forgot to remove when the page was split; I've removed it. Should now be ready for unprotection. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 14:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

To G.B.‬

I am confirming to have gotten your email, but I don't know who you are on Wikipedia, nor do you specify which article/s does this involve. Which amounts to a bit of a mystery. El_C 11:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Response

This gets tiresome and unfair. There was nothing wrong with the edit. And make the protection one step higher is still unfair. I will write an email to the Wikimedia Foundation if this continues and administrators don't react to the pov push. regards B9Xyz (talk) 12:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Tiresome — what an interesting choice of words. Anyway, you are, of course, free to appeal my decision in any forum you see fit. El_C 14:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hurricane article vandalism

Can you please re-instate Semi-Protection on both Hurricane Andrew and Hurricane Dorian. While there have been some good-faith edits from anons on the Hurricane Dorian article, most of the IP edits there have been vandalism or problematic (mostly involving unsourced changes). The Hurricane Andrew article has experienced a spike in vandalism, possibly due to the related coverage from Hurricane Dorian. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 04:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Hurricane Andrew:  Not done (only one edit today). Hurricane Dorian:  Already done. El_C 06:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

124.150.92.233

Um, they weren't warned sufficiently. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 07:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The article is on the Main page, so I'm a little less inclined to go through the motions. El_C 07:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 07:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

Hello, I'm Wtmitchell. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Russell M. Nelson, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Wrong editor! Also, it ought to have been npov2. El_C 19:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Rockefeller Foundation

Added factual critics of ref. to kinsey ins. in rockefeller infosite - got blocked by El_C. LTC! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.166.111.233 (talk) 00:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

You were not blocked, you were reverted. Part of the problem is that you are way too terse. Also, you keep adding Wikipedia as an external link rather than linking it internally, including using Wikipedia as a ref, which is not allowed. El_C 00:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Reported by bot

Hello. I noticed that as I was reverting vandalism, I was tripping a whole lot of filters along the way. I think this cause DatBot to report me to WP:AIV. I wanter to give the heads-up, as I don't want to be banned due to a misunderstanding. Thanks in advance. 2601:644:877F:F6D8:5040:4AE:A637:54D0 (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 01:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. :) 2601:644:877F:F6D8:5040:4AE:A637:54D0 (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Not at all. Happy editing. El_C 01:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:ERA style

Re the ANI thread, I looked at your 3 reversions. Firstly, please note that all 3 of your edits left mixed styles! In 2 cases, I reckoned that BC was the correct style per WP:ERA (don't you think that an article title of Battle of Corinth (146 BC) is a bit of a giveaway?) & went back to that. For Amphictyonic League it was the other way, but it needed this to make it consistent. In fact BC was still predominant after your edit. Section at Talk:Temple of Zeus, Olympia on that one. Johnbod (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Jeez, so much refactoring! Anyway, my bad. Thanks for taking care of it. El_C 01:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding page protection

Hi. Can you remove protection from Kurukshetra (2019 film)? The film is not trending now, so the page will not be vandalized. 2405:204:5602:F514:68CC:942:344F:2A2F (talk) 09:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

What does trending mean? And how can you make that prediction? The page has been protected four times in the last few weeks, so I'm not inclined toward unprotecting it at this time. I'd rather wait a few more weeks and let the protection lapse automatically. Sorry. El_C 14:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Mahmoud Reza Khavari

Hi, the page protection you added to Mahmoud Reza Khavari page has expired at the end of August and it seems the same user is now back at it trying to add the same information from a different IP. Would you consider adding the page protection again? TIA. Shemtovca (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 18:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!!! Shemtovca (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Mass Changes on Jerusalem Edits

Hello, as someone who is involved and aware in the IP area, can you please take a look at this Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#"Not_officially_recognized_as_Israel" page? Just to note, this was discussed a couple of years back and there was a consensus for West Jerusalem articles to have Jerusalem, Israel and split into two, so not linked as one. Regardless, it was not discussed and his mass changes should have been discussed on the Jerusalem article for broader input. Thanks. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm spread a bit thin right now, so I'm not sure how much time I will be able to devote to this, if at all. Also, when it comes to the IP area, I actually try to stay uninvolved (as an administrator, that is)—my awareness notwithstanding. El_C 19:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

El C, I understand, he's still doing it, and worse, he's made edit to Mountain_gazelle and made a redirect to it, changing the lead and found one old article that used an identifier that has a reference that doesn't even work anymore, trying to bring the IP conflict into an article that doesn't need it. Those edits seem to be purely disruptive. The IUCN doesn't have that identifier, when one article from 2015 is all you can find, then I don't think it's acceptable for an article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: my apologies for missing your reply. But it looks like they haven't reverted back, so presumably they're not contesting your reversion/s — please feel free to clarify, if need be. El_C 15:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

El C, thanks, I saw that and I notice you're probably avoiding certain areas for your health, and I don't blame you. Can I get your opinion though on this DIFF, since you blocked someone in the past for the exact same sentence, [2] I understand that you want to avoid the whole scenario but I find it ironic and shocking to say the least. It was hatted after it was pointed out that the terminology used was "interesting" to say the least, but not that it was a personal attack and should most certainly not be used especially in a thread when people are talking about words being used carefully. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

You misused admin right

Hambakseom or Hambak-do is a disputed island. Edits from various IPs were not vandalism. --호남시대 (talk) 04:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

There were 'Persistent edit war' in this article. Not 'Persistent vandalism' --호남시대 (talk) 04:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, I misread. Protection lifted. Sorry about that. El_C 04:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

India's Chandrayaan-2 moon mission was a complete FAILURE

Why did you delete my discussion comments? Why you are censoring my discussion? Indian's Chandrayaan-2 moon mission was a complete failure, this is a fact and I don't understand why people keep avoiding writing about it, read this sources and put my comments back into the discussion in accordance with Wikipedia policy:

1.) https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/09/india-chandrayaan-2-landing-attempt-moon-lunar-south-pole/
2.) https://www.npr.org/2019/09/06/758419791/indias-attempt-to-land-rover-at-moon-s-south-pole-fails
3.) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-49615665
4.) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/06/chandrayaan-2-indias-second-moon-mission-may-have-failed-scientists/
5.) https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/06/india/india-moon-lunar-landing-chandrayaan-2-scn/index.html
6.) https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/science/india-moon-landing-chandrayaan-2.html
7.) https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/chandrayaan-2-india-lunar-landing-latest-missing-contact-lost-update-a9095361.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2E00:1C62:8D9D:9D58:4C1B:F98A (talk) 05:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

You keep edit warring your comments, which is a violation of WP:NOTAFORUM, so no, I will not restore them. El_C 05:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Some people keep deleting my comments on the discussion, all I did was put my comments back in. Did you read the sources above?2600:8801:2E00:1C62:8D9D:9D58:4C1B:F98A (talk) 05:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

And you must be joking about so-called "original research". This is in no way "original research" take a look at all the reliable reference sources that I provided, all of them state that the Chandrayaan-2 mission was a failure, you would have to be blind not see that! 2600:8801:2E00:1C62:8D9D:9D58:4C1B:F98A (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

You can't use Wikipedia as a soapbox, which is what you were doing. El_C 05:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Referring to other editors as "arrogant racist Indian nationalists" is not an acceptable manner in which to conduct oneself. El_C 05:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

No, it's obvious that the whole article was being edited by Indian nationalists who don't want embarrassing information about India to be on Wikipedia, but this failure is a fact and must be on here just like many U.S. space missions also ended in failure and fatalities, you don't see anyone trying censor and cover up American space failures. I was putting into the article the latest information about the failure of the Chandrayaan-2 moon mission, all supported by reliable reference sources, please take some time to read and educate yourself about India's failed spacecraft.2600:8801:2E00:1C62:8D9D:9D58:4C1B:F98A (talk) 05:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

This is about your conduct, which has been subpar, not the spacecraft. Please stop listing external links here. El_C 06:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

36.69.58.30

Please, vide 36.69.58.30 (talk · contribs). Торонгил2 (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 07:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

With regards to the Bais Rajput dispute

It's simple really. Is there any source saying they are present in Pakistan? No. So why does it remain in the lead? Furthermore, Arsi786 has repeatedly personally attacked me and violated the 3 revert rule. Why is nothing being done?HaoJungTar (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Something is being done — the page has been protected. And I'm already discussing this on the article talk page. Rhetorical questions are not helpful to me. 3RR was not violated, as I already made clear. My comment about ethno-nationalist expressions noted in the protection log, which also serves as a warning. El_C 18:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, given that I'm neither Indian nor do I believe India to be a legitimate state, I don't see how the ethno-nationalist accusation applies to me. But all sources in the article refer to the Uttar Pradesh region. Also nothing indicates that BAIS and BAINS are synonymous. His "source" merely mentions a group called Bains. It's non-applicable considering the article is called Bais.HaoJungTar (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

That point is being discussed on the article talk page, so I don't see why the discussion should be split here. Ethno-nationalist expressions are highly discouraged, regardless if there is or isn't an applicable target. El_C 18:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Nick Oram rev/del request

Hi El C, I think the edits made by IP 207.237.116.250 and Jimmygonzo45678 should be deleted due their defamatory nature. I suspect they are the same editor as well. Let me know if you need any additional information or if this request should be make elsewhere. Thanks! S0091 (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 19:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

That was quick! Thank you. S0091 (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

What can I say? I'm swift! El_C 19:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

RevDel request

Hi. Could you please hide this edit for criteria 2? Thanks! ◢ 　Ganbaruby!　 　 05:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 05:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Jimmyy68 (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello. El_C 16:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Another page-blanking vandal

• 182.0.192.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 182.0.128.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 182.1.0.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

Hello. Can you please block these ranges for a while? They have been persistently abused by an LTA since May, especially in the past month alone. They seem to be active on both ranges (they were active as recently the last day); though their activity seems to fluctuate, both ranges also have a recent history of many problematic edits. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 16:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

IP socking

• Msam03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lebanese and Proud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 213.204.91.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

On that note, can you please block the listed entities above (all the same person), and also Semi-Protect Beirut–Rafic Hariri International Airport for at least 3 months? The vandal is obviously using their accounts to push their own political views, and the article has been vandalized almost non-stop since June. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

 Already done. El_C 16:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Outcome of Bais Rajput discussion

Hi, thanks for facilitating the discussion yesterday. I know you're busy with other things. Sitush was of the view that the self-published source was unacceptable. Given that, I think it's safe to say that Pakistan can now be removed from the lead given the lack of evidence.HaoJungTar (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

But is there agreement that it should be removed at this time? The other party may still wish to submit another, better-quality source, no? Please let me know. El_C 16:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I was of the view, correct me if I'm wrong, that the policy was "no reliable sources = no inclusion". Given that we are still waiting for a reliable source, wouldn't it be better to not throw caution to the wind and have an unsourced country in the lead? Sitush who is experienced with this page stated that he can't find anything showing the link between Bais and Bains.HaoJungTar (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Still, I don't think we are at the point where need to take the extraordinary step of editing the protected page, even if the contested addition remains poorly-sourced. El_C 16:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Cool, I'm happy to wait until the 14th (when the protection expires) before making an edit (unless a better source can be found).HaoJungTar (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your patience. Let's see what happens. The page may be unprotected early if no new (quality) sources are provided in, say, a couple of days. El_C 17:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

You might be interested

Talk:Cossacks#Multiple_vandalism Puduḫepa 16:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 16:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Dudeabsolutee

I got two vaguely threatening emails from Dudeabsolutee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). No actual physical threat but rather demands that their edits be reinstated and stuff like "I STRONGLY SUGGEST YOU REPLY, THIS HAS BEEN STORED & IT WILL GO VIRAL, PROVING THERE IS NO NEUTRALITY ON WIKIPEDOIA & THEN SOME...". Yawn. Looks like the emails were sent before the block, but please check to see if Dudeabsolutee's email access has been removed, and please do whatever the normal things are to run a checkuser and look for sleeper accounts. It is very likely that all of this has already been done, but I just wanted to let you know about the emails just in case. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

 Already done. El_C 23:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

derin devlet

re derin devlet: I see a source at https://daily.jstor.org/the-unacknowledged-origins-of-the-deep-state, if you think it appropriate to add. Humanengr (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, by all means, feel free. And I learned something new. Thanks. El_C 23:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I re-added it myself just now. El_C 23:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

You're quicker with the fingers. :) Humanengr (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I've been told! El_C 23:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yep, El C is swift! :) S0091 (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Abused Proxies

• 196.244.191.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 177.154.139.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

You mind blocking these networks for a while? They both appear to be Open Proxies, and each of them have been recently abused for vandalism. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

 Already done. El_C 17:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've blocked the remainder of the ISP "EQUINIX BRASIL SP" for a while as well. SQL^{Query me!} 18:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Third Battle of Panipat

I have started a discussion and explained my concerns with the IP's edits. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Understood and edited accordingly. El_C 04:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Your edit in Yazidism

The Yazidi seven angels are not the same as the Islam or Christianity angels. The linked angels are from Islam and Christianity. 62.78.36.81 (talk) 00:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The names seem similar enough. Can you attribute your changes to a reliable source? El_C 00:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

similar do not mean the same angels. The source was a Yazidi prayer. 62.78.36.81 (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about any of that, but the onus is on you to provide a proper citation. El_C 00:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

What was wrong at the source? All the links are wrong because the links are angels from other religions. 62.78.36.81 (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that the current text is attributed to a reliable source, where as your proposed addition cites Ezipedia, which I'm not sure is reliable, certainly it does not appear as reliable. El_C 01:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay i will search another source. Thank you and wish you a good day. 62.78.36.81 (talk) 01:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, good day to you, as well. El_C 01:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Correlation does not imply causation...

But pls have a look here and here. Ducktest is strongly positive (++++) Cinadon36 19:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed — pp-sock applied for 3 months. El_C 19:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Victim lists

Here we go again! WWGB (talk) 07:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I already know about it. El_C 07:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi El_C. Have you been following these discussions for a long time? Do you know if it's been suggested before to put the victim names in the article in a way that the names won't be indexed on search engines (which I think can be done by transcluding a template or something), which might alleviate some privacy concerns without omitting the names from articles? – Levivich 05:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi. No, I was not aware. But I don't really have a strong opinion aside from WP:ONUS applying in these discussion until there is an overarching policy, be that policy more like WP:VL (exclude) or like the more recent WP:CASL (include). El_C 05:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh I didn't know about those essays – thanks for the link! – Levivich 06:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I hope El C won't mind me weighing in here. There isn't a reason in the world not to include victim names in for instance the Sinking of MV Conception article. And it is our standard practice to include victim names in such articles. Bus stop (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Then getting local (or preferably, global) consensus for it should be relatively straight-froward. El_C 16:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Really? A group of editors have been been making a concerted effort to change the standard way in which we handle this information. They have even tried to get policy to support an abolition on the inclusion of this sort of information. They have failed repeatedly to get the project to enact their particular form of self-censorship. Bus stop (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

As has the include side, also tried. Anyway, that is certainly an argument you are free to present when attempting to gain consensus to include, locally, or better yet, globally. El_C 16:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Their modus operandi is to disrupt articles and blame that disruption on those favoring standard construction of articles vis-à-vis inclusion of information on victims. The craziest thing about all of this is that it represents a countertrend to news reporting in the United States. If you look at news reporting for recent incidents in the US you will see a near-universal documenting of the lives of those who have died. Even a publication like the Wall Street Journal—supposedly all business—has gotten on board with a documenting of the identities of the deceased in recent incidents. Bus stop (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the exclude side views their position as being disruptive, but regardless, this is another argument I encourage you to pose in a discussion aimed at gaining local, or better yet, global consensus for inclusion. El_C 16:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The point isn't that they are creating disruption. In fact I favor healthy debate. The point is that they are blaming disruption on others. I apologize to all concerned for saying that "Their modus operandi is to disrupt articles". But I additionally wrote that they "blame that disruption on those favoring standard construction of articles". Perhaps I should have spoken more prudently. And I apologize for my hastily thrown together words. Bus stop (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Hurricane Dorian

Can you please re-instate the Semi-Protection for this article? The disruption from anon editor is ramping up again, and given that this storm was recently a major natural disaster, it's unlikely to die down anytime soon. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

At a glance, I'm seeing some constructive edits from IPs, as well. I'm gonna hold off, for now, but will be watching. El_C 19:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Eventually,  Done. El_C 01:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Bacondrum tampering with my posts

See this, this, this, this and this. Since you closed the I started RfC on Bacondrum, and left a warning on his talk page about it, it felt best to bring this to your attention. As those diffs show, Bacondrum has repeatedly altered my comment in violation of WP:TALK. He has reverted the following commentary: "And, in the 'The lede' discussion, Bacondrum has provided his personal feelings as to why he wants that piece out of the lead. It has nothing to do with summarizing. This is a BLP." He has insisted that this is a personal attack. Like I stated, "This is not a personal attack. You stated what you stated, and pointing that out is fine." It is a fact that he provided his personal feelings as to why a certain piece should be out of the lead. Others at ANI also saw this. The statements he made for excluding this specific piece are not based on a policy or a guideline, but rather on personal opinions. As you know, we are allowed to state when an editor is making comments based on personal opinions rather than on policies or guidelines.

It is also worth noting that the editor tampered with my post at ANI as well. And not long after the ANI close on him, he made this comment, which he retracted, about Yiannopoulos. And this was also after promising on his talk page to never make a derogatory comment about Yiannopoulos on Wikipedia again. The editor clearly can't control himself. How many more derogatory comments will he need to retract? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks. Further sanctions may follow. El_C 00:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Steve Davis

El C, then please make a new table counter for senior snooker tournament wins, I do not see how a player after retiring can still add titles to their professional non-ranking wins, while those tournaments are participated by amateurs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.166.127.90 (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

That's not really something I specialize in. Feel free to make an edit request about that, though. El_C 14:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not know much about editing and I'm not sure how to make the request or the procedure to do so, either way, this pertains to more than just Steve Davis, it would affect everyone who had won a seniors tournament, and in the careers main table, there would be a new section of "Seniors tour" besides Ranking, Non-ranking, Former ranking, Former non-ranking. Do you only edit snooker pages? How do you see the edits on these snooker pages so quickly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.166.127.90 (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I have tens of thousands of articles on my watchlist, including the one about Steve Davis. For help on how to edit, see the Help desk or the Tea house. Good luck. El_C 14:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Natural Disasters vandal

Can you please block 2601:2C0:8B00:2C10:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) for a while? They've been persistently vandalizing multiple articles related to natural disasters for nearly two months, usually by deleting multiple references. They were active just earlier. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 04:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

BLP vandal

Can you also block 2605:A000:1005:A04B:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)? This is an IP-hopping vandal who has been engaging in some serious BLP disruptions. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 03:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 04:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

Just to be clear, my comment in this edit summary [3] was not addressed to you, but to the previous editor, who apparently doesn't understand how formatting a quote works. [4] My misformatted edit was an attempt to kill two birds with one stone, but (obviously) didn't work. I was working to correct that when you reverted.Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

No worries. Hopefully, that [i.e.] clarification will resolve that dispute. El_C 08:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1's final warning violation

After I reverted several of Kazemita1's edits on the People's Mujahedin of Iran, Kazemita1 reverted back in some of his edits with the edit summary "per RSN" (I can't link the exact edit because Dianna reverted his edit based on copyright vio). You had given Kazemita1 a final warning about not reverting back in something that had been reverted out without first reaching consensus. Is this a violation of that final warning? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to have a chance to investigate this until later today or tomorow, so you may wish to contact another admin in order to expedite an evaluation of this. El_C 16:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 23:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:Fly High in the Sky

Hello. Can you please block 86.178.176.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) for 6-12 months? (A smaller range was previously blocked for 6 months.) Fly High in the Sky recently returned on this IP range, which he has abused since August 2018. He's back to the same kind of vandalism as before, and it seems that he's been the only person editing from the range for months. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 07:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not immediately seeing the connection. Why not ask the blocking admin (who is also a checkuser)? El_C 15:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, there are the personal attacks, airplane-obsessed edits, and blatant tropical cyclone misinformation (such as this one). All the edits from the past year appear to be his, given the patterns (you can see the SPI case linked from the userpage of the sockmaster if you want). @Yamla and Berean Hunter: Fly High in the Sky is back on what appears to be his primary IPv4 range. Can you please reblock? The smaller blocks on the /24 ranges appear to have been ineffective, given the IP-hopping across the wider /22 range. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

El C is right; maybe you need to ask Oshwah. And I don't see the disruption: we're talking about three edits in the last couple of months? Drmies (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

He tends to edit on and off to avoid scrutiny; the inactivity is largely due to another smaller rangeblock that expired last month. From experience, LTAs like him will ramp up their activity once they feel secure enough continue. I'll notify Oshwah, as suggested. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Tropical cyclone vandal

Can you please re-block 2605:A000:110E:3E9:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)? They've returned to vandalizing tropical cyclone articles (usually data or date vandalism) after their last rangeblock expired. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 03:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 03:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Birth date changer

Any suggestions for how to deal with an IP with 8 edits, each involving changing a DoB? I ask because while checking Special:Contributions/36.81.137.96 I noticed that you had reverted them (and another IP) at Kurtwood Smith. As this is an odd-numbered day, I am predicting the end of Wikipedia—I monitor some error tracking categories and there is no way we can keep up with the stream of nonsense. I only notice edits that accidentally break the date as they cause a template error. Johnuniq (talk) 03:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

IP blocked for adding fabrications to BLPs — no need to warn as this LTA has already been warned under other IPs. El_C 04:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) It's the new form of vandalism. Here are two more recent DOB vandals (possibly both the same person): [5],[6]. Someone, in fact lots of someones, need to track all DOB changes (they are generally tagged so that shouldn't be a problem), because this form of vandalism is insidious and rarely spotted, and then readers, watchers, and Wikidata, etc. are all misled.-- Softlavender (talk) 04:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

"Previous version reverted to" field at ANEW

Hi! So in this report, which diff should I have linked in the "previous version reverted to" field? I ask because there are 4 reverts... so all four? Or the first one before the reverts? Also, of what use is that to reviewing admins? I honestly never understood what the words "previous version reverted to" means, particularly when it comes to partial reverts–so it's not just an editor hitting the "undo" button, but rather partially deleting text (and, as here, sometimes there are intervening edits between when the text was added and when it was removed, so the "previous version reverted to" isn't the diff of the addition of the text). Thanks, by the way, for processing that report, and for answering this question :-) – Levivich 16:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. In answer to your question: we try to distinguish bold edits, including removal of text (not a revert per se.), from actual reverts. Yes, if need be, for each revert, you are supposed to add that said revert was of this or that version, etc. In this case, the edit warring on the same article was clearly problematic irrespective of 3RR, so it wasn't as needed. But ordinarily, yes, it can save a lot of time, especially when considering that the admin looking into the report isn't familiar with the edit history and that a revert may be of a version that goes a while back. I have closed so many AN3 reports as no violation or as a warning because the first "revert" listed was just a bold edit. And guess what? In all those instances the Previous version reverted to field were left blank. El_C 16:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah–so it sounds like I should have posted these diffs in the first place, in the original report (minus all the pings of course)? – Levivich 17:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that certainly makes it easier to parse. El_C 17:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Protection of Greece

Hi El_C. The protection of Greece, is not really a content dispute. If you look at the edits of AlbusTheWhite, you will notice that over the past year and a half, many of this account's edits concern edit-warring the dumping of large-scale image changes in articles. This account was blocked yesterday for edit-warring his choice of pics at Template:Largest cities of Greece. Please see also my message at Bradv's talkpage. Thanks. Dr. K. 23:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Understood. Protection brought back down to semi again. Please feel free to keep me updated. El_C 23:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Will do. Thank you very much, El_C. Dr. K. 23:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi El_C. As soon as he got unblocked, he started the image-dump edit-warring. He has been reverted by at least two editors so far. Dr. K. 22:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for one week. El_C 22:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you again, El_C. You saved me some typing at 3RRN where he was reported by Moxy. Dr. K. 22:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

☺...hope you don't mind....move a term out of the first sentence to last paragraph where government is mentioned.--Moxy 🍁 22:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

On the vandalism of Jennifer Morrison's page

Hi El_C! Thank you for semi-locking the page. I was wondering: why was the vandalism under the Partner(s) section left alone? I thought the issue was that social media isn't an acceptable source for Wiki and yet someone kept adding in information sourced from Instagram and nowhere else. Someone else kept removing the information going back and forth with the other person adding it in. Wouldn't it be better to simply revert the page to a state where there isn't any unsourced information on it? – Onchorda 02:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Diff? Well, if it's from one her own social media accounts, then we can take her word for it. Is it? El_C 02:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I took a look at Morrison's Instagram posts and I am unable to verify what Allisonscameron is claiming in their edit summaries beyond Morrison giving photo credits to Gerardo Celasco in two of her recent posts. Perhaps they were talking about a story? However, those expire/disappear and cannot be linked to. It sort of looks like fans are simply drawing their own conclusions for now. Here is a clean version of the page if you think it is appropriate to revert back to it: [7] – Onchorda 14:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 14:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice

When you block an editor, like you did with 71.235.7.232, shouldn't you notify them? Debresser (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

No, not necessarily. The block notice suffices. El_C 00:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Luna (killer whale)

Hi El C! can you take a look here and here ~ and the talk page Luna ~ thanks ~ nice to see you again! ~mitch~ (talk) 00:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

and I just got this here ~ Thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 00:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Nice to see you, too. Copyrighted edits redacted (though I may have missed some), user blocked for 72 hours. El_C 01:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Blocking 81.35.37.251

El C: Blocking 81.35.37.251 was definitely the wrong thing to do. This block will just further entrench the legitimate concerns 81.35.37.251,myself and others are trying to raise. The block of 81.35.37.251 reinforces the notion that two different standards apply - depending on whether an editor is an admin or not.

Please have a careful look at this list. [8] You have missed (or ignored) the need to ban Doc James for 48 hours before now, under WP:3RR, and to reinforce that no individual WP:OWNs articles on Wikipedia.

I'm really disappointed you did this. Not only have you ignored a fragrant breech of WP policy because it was committed by one of your peers, but you have exploited your position of authority against an individual who was simply following the example set by an individual in a leadership position (Doc James).

There is an obvious problem here and 81.35.37.251, myself and I'm sure many others are powerless to do anything about. I have already raised this in several places and on several occasions, but at the end of the day, the message being sent loud and clear to 'everyday editors' is that admin will always support admin.

I hope I don't also receive a ban just for raising this issue, but it wouldn't surprise me if I did, because this appears to be the culture around here.

As a person in a position of leadership yourself, I hope you have a think about the message you've just sent here.

Vitreology talk 07:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not aware of any of that background. I blocked the IP for continuing to delete talk page text after being warned not to do so. Which was the wrong call. The right call would have been to discuss the matter. Their unblock request was declined by another admin, as well. El_C 08:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Before an admin blocks someone, the least they should do is try to understand the situation and what the problem is.

That being said, you ARE now aware of the problem, so please retroactively apply the same standards to the other party (Doc James) who has been provoking this conflict by doing exactly what 81.35.37.251 has been reprimanded for.

You must be able to see that 81.35.37.251 was simply being a copy cat? BOTH parties need to be blocked for 48 hours. :: Before an admin blocks someone, the least they should do is try to understand the situation and what the problem is.

That being said, you ARE now aware of the problem, so please retroactively apply the same standards to the other party (Doc James) who has been provoking this conflict by doing exactly what 81.35.37.251 has been reprimanded for.

You must be able to see that 81.35.37.251 was simply being a copy cat? BOTH parties need to be blocked for 48 hours. Both Doc James and 81.35.37.251 broke exactly the same rule at the same time. They simply must receive the same treatment. Vitreology talk 08:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the same infraction having been committed by anyone else — you provide no evidence to that effect (I like my evidence in the form of diffs, by the way). And we don't do retroactive blocks, anyway. Blocks are not meant to be punitive but rather to put an end to immediate disruption. El_C 08:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Both sides have simultaneously broken the same rule at the same time. Both sides need to be blocked.

Here is the revert history by Doc James:

1. Revision as of 14:55, 16 September 2019 [9],
2. Revision as of 01:49, 17 September 2019 [10],
3. Revision as of 04:09, 17 September 2019 [11],
4. Revision as of 15:40, 19 September 2019 [12],
5. Revision as of 17:19, 19 September 2019 [13].

Wikipedia's leadership need to take an appropriate response to Doc James' repeated violation of WP:DE, WP:EW, WP:OWN and WP:POINT.

I'm awaiting your response to the evidence as outlined above. However, if necessary, this will be brought to WP:ANI followed by WP:AC. Vitreology talk 09:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Again, the IP was blocked today for repeatedly removing text from a talk page. Your diffs do not show any such infraction, not to mention immediacy. By all means, you are free to seek redress in any forum you see fit. El_C 09:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

You must not be familiar with the WP:3RR, then. It states:

• Revert #1 was 14:55, 16 September 2019
• Revert #3 was 04:09, 17 September 2019.
  • Time duration: 13 hours, 45 minutes. [14]

This is an open-and-shut breach of WP:3RR. You know it. I know it. Doc James knows it. Everyone knows it.

However, you're clearly determined to be an impotent administrator, so I'll now be going to WP:ANI. Cheers, Vitreology talk 09:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm familiar with 3RR, but you claimed copycat. Regarding a 3RR violations, the matter is Stale now. Again, we don't do retroactive. El_C 14:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I did not mean WP:COPYCAT, if that's what you mean. What I meant by copycat was that 81.35.37.251 was just UnReverting Doc's Reverts. Vitreology talk 14:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

That's not what I mean. Once again, the IP was deleting text from a talk page after being warned not to do so, which is what they were blocked for (disruptive editing). But you claim copycat and submit a Stale AN3 report here, which is confusing. And as mentioned on your talk page, and sorry for splitting the discussion, you actually need four not 3 reverts in order to violate 3RR. El_C 14:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

All good. Moving on from this, hopefully we can wrap up the discussion now. Have a nice day. Thanks, Vitreology talk 15:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Copy that. Same to you. El_C 15:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

A few things User:Vitreology. 1) The easier to understand text had been in the Wikipedia article a long time 2) You need consensus to make a change (not keep the existing content) 3) I did not at any point in time breach 3RR 4) The easier to understand text is supported by WP:MEDMOS 5) That IP is moving around in part to hide their editing history. 6) I started the discussion on the talk page. 7) The IP inappropriately filled out the 3RR discussion immediately after the warning. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

AWOL for the weekend

El_C 21:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

El C, enjoy! Vitreology talk 01:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Mentioned at ANI

Since someone is likely to kick and scream about my needing to notify you; I happened to mention you here, as I was discussing an action you took at Sir Joseph's talk page. You don't have to bother with it if you don't want to. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for the notice. El_C 14:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazon region

• Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazon region (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi El C. You put this under indefinite full protection on August 9. A user is now appealing the protection at WP:RFUP. Do you want to respond? The edit war was something about inclusion of a paragraph quoting the Pope. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks like I forgot to set the expiration — will correct that momentarily. El_C 14:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

School vandal

Can you please reblock 199.119.28.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)? It appears to be a public school, given the behavior. Disruptive activity resumed once the previous block wore off, and vandals have been disrupting the site from the range ever since. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 20:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Warning

You've been warned once before to stay away from me, and I'm warning you again, to stay away from me and my edits. Your behavior is being interpreted as stalking, and this has been going on across several platforms, not just here on wikipedia. You are being asked to stop before this escalates into a more formal situation for you. 66.90.153.184 (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this missing section heading -warning even addressed to me? I'll presume that it is and add a section heading for you. In the future, simply adding unrelated text to an existing section heading comes across as a bit of a non-sequitur. Anyway, I don't know who you are or what you're talking about. But I presume that I investigated your edits in my capacity as an uninvolved admin at some point. And, no, you can not warn such a review away. You are, of course, free to seek redress in any forum you see fit. El_C 20:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I reverted this edit, where for some reason you added a misformatted protection tag to an unprotected page — then I warned you against doing so here. Anyway, what about it? El_C 21:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I got the same warning from this editor. They have no room to be making any threats of any alleged harassment, as they were clearly in a edit war on Human Sexuality. Lupin VII (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Best to ignore these at this time as the user has stopped editing the article weeks before issuing these. But please keep me updated if this changes. El_C 03:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Abbycarroll

Could you please take a look at the above editor again? You warned her for NPA previously. I reverted a comment on my talk from her earlier today, and her behavior at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dujuan Thomas is unacceptable. Frankly, I'd say with her singular focus on this one topic, we've got a COI/CIR/IDHT editor here, and a NOTHERE indeff would be appropriate. But that's just my twopence. John from Idegon (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, a bit of education please. Where do i find the discretionary sanction warning templates? I was going to tag her with the BLP one. John from Idegon (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Type t:dsa. El_C 21:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I've now responded on her talk page. El_C 21:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Islam and Violence

Islam and violence (talk page existing, no consensus), Pacifism in Islam (talk page existing, no consenus) and Pacifism page; user Maestro16 really like to change content according to his personal pov views, without explanation and without consenus at talk pages about that stuff. I already complained some time ago about that also at your talk page. I reverted edits per talk page reasons. Maybe pages should be protected in higher protection or something like that or to user be warned about.178.221.118.83 (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not particularly familiar with either of these articles, but a request for protection may be made at RfPP. El_C 01:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Well there are talk pages at Islam and violence and Pacifism in islam, and there is no consensus at them about changing any content so just to mention about it. 178.221.118.83 (talk) 01:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Bold edits are actually encouraged on Wikipedia — if no one objects to the substance of these edits, consensus can be seen to be implied. In the case of an actual content dispute, you are encouraged to pursue dispute resolution and make use of various resources aimed at helping resolve any outstanding issues. Good luck. El_C 01:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		CVU Anti-Vandalism Award
		This is for your excellent performance in saving Wikipedia from the harmful threats of vandalism. I appreciate your efforts and hardwork. You are a bold defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 16:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks, Path slopu! I greatly appreciate your kind words and recognition. El_C 16:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

IP sock of banned user Daniel C. Boyer

The IP who is edit warring at Insanity defense is a sock of the banned editor User:Daniel C. Boyer. This edit at Drawing, about a woman drawing with her vagina, is material that DCB and his various socks have attempted to add to that article numerous times over the years. I'm pinging @EEng:, who has also followed DCB's Wikipedia career, to confirm this. I pinged @Cyberpower678: -- who had been dealing with DCB socks -- from DCB's talk page, but haven't heard from them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the background. El_C 22:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

You got no idea. This guy puts the LT in LTA. EEng<

• No question it’s him; the insanity defense stuff may be OR from personal experience. EEng 22:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• He's edited related articles in the past. (Involuntary commitment, Consensus reality, Psychiatric hospital, Intoxication defense, Anti-psychiatry, etc.) Oh, and a correction on the "vagina" edit, DCB never made that addition with their account, only with IP socks, going back to at least 2015. Pretty much the exact same edit everytime, 204 bytes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• Two other points: the claim of "vandalism" when their edits are reverted because DCB is banned is absolutely standard for his socks, and the claim, made here, the EEng and I are socks (they can never seem to decide who is the master), also goes back a few years. All of this stuff is discussed on DCB's talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked by Ponyo. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, sorry. I was so caught up in bot work yesterday, that I completely missed your ping. :-( —CYBERPOWER (Message) 05:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, that said, I am on IRC, less obvious 8 hours for sleeping. :-) —CYBERPOWER (Message) 05:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

No problem. I'm afraid I don;r know how to use IRC -- maybe EEng does. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Serial vandals

Can you please reblock 2604:2d80:da02:df00::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) for another 6 months? They recently came out of a 3-month rangeblock, but went straight back to vandalizing today. All of the range contributions are pure vandalism. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 00:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

2600:8800:3A80:0:0:0:0:0/48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) - This person has been persistently vandalizing since June. Can you please block this one as well? LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 02:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal vandal

Can you please reblock 208.102.156.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? They've been vandalizing for close to 3 months now, and they returned after their last block expired. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 00:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

No edits in a few days, though. El_C 00:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Wayback Burgers offensive edit summary

Hi there, I see in the Wayback Burgers history that the most recent vandalism was hidden, but the offensive edit summary is still visible. Can you hide it too? Thanks, Benny White (talk) 04:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 15:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Undisclosed changes by Stefka

In here, Stefka asked you whether Mhhossein's objection regarding "merging sub-sections" is substantiated or not. To which you responded "I agree that [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]] can be viewed as a non-response response.". In his recent edits here, however, he went ahead and removed a lot of sourced content that was by no means related to his inquiry. Please, advise. (p.s. I have a separate proposal regarding merging sections that he has not addressed yet.)--Kazemita1 (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm not sure it is related to their inquiry — it looks like just a bold edit. But what about it? My advise is always to seek the clarifications from the user making the edits whenever these are warranted. El_C 15:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@El_C: It's never a bold edit, rather a blatant violation of the article's restriction. I've explained the whole story here. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Maryland Stadium - protection request

Hi El C, I have a request at RFPP but since it is receiving consistent disruption/vandalism today, I thought I would ask you as well. I think a day or two will do. Thanks! S0091 (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 18:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Continued edit-warring by AlbusTheWhite at Greece

Hi El_C. AlbusTheWhite has just restarted the edit-warring at Greece, dumping the usual large number of images there, including violations of MOS regarding forcing image sizes which seems beyond his understanding. Thanks again. Dr. K. 00:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for one month. El_C 03:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, El_C. Best regards. Dr. K. 04:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019

Could we please try a lower level of protection for European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 than what you have applied? From a quick glance, it seems most of the problem edits were from anon users with a small number of edits. Thanks. Nurg (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean try? Obviously, it's going to work, as the content dispute is between an established user and IP/s. But, first, I didn't think fully protecting the article would have that much of an effect on an article with only about 10 watchers and less than 100 views over the last 30 days. And second, I didn't want to give the established user an advantage in the content dispute, even though I suppose it's mostly moot since the page is protected on their version. Still, neither user involved in the dispute had attempted using the talk page, so a total lock from the article seemed appropriate. Was there edit you want to make for which an edit request would have been insufficient? All that having been said, I am pragmatic about this and see no need to deny your request. El_C 03:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)