El C, contrary to your edit summary- I noticed you were gone, and missed seeing you on recent changes. You are one of my favourite editors. This is for you. Regards, dvdrw04:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Free hat! Today, while cheekadeepetting, this lady who saw us from a far, came over and said: "Can I tell you something...? You're an angel of God."(!) To which I of course replied: "All hail Atheismo!" [nah, I said: "thank you, maddam, that's very kind of you" — what else could I say?] I took an especially neat cheekadeepetting photograph today: it remained visible between my thumb and index as it flew away, giving the illusion it was bee-sized! What an unexpected, and sweet, effect! El_C02:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
El C, I've been meaning to ask for ages. What is the link between revolutionary socialism and chimpunks? Did I miss that bit in Animal Farm? Is it something to do with resting the means of damn making from beavers? --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No link; but are you referring to Groundhog? (see left) There is a Groundhog-Chippie connection, which I was trying to further cultivate (see right). El_C11:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. There are a couple of admins I usually contact when I see something that needs to deleted, but unfortunately they let real life interfere with their admin duties. You are online a lot at the same times I am, so it's good to have another person to contact if needed. I generally only ask personally if it's both serious and urgent. - BilCat (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. I realize.my wording above presumes you'd be willing, and that I didn't actually ask, so thanks. :) - BilCat (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with your highly arbitrary closing summary of the RfC on the Talk page, so I do not want to persuade you to change it. However, you closed other on-going debates as well. Could you open the other debates? Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 05:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Good day, see? Take music and flowers to your liking ;) - It's great to see your name so often on my watchlist. One area where I often wait for admin action - not now - is WP:ITNN, where we nominate for recent deaths to be shown on th Main page, and often the time between an article found [Ready] and then is [Posted] seems [too] long to still call it recent. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see, sorry for touching some wound ;) - Same for me: last year, I nominated a great pianist for RD, after I first had create an article which took time, and then carried away to also make it decent, - and by then her death was so long ago that she wasn't mentioned at all. The more woman, and the more foreign, that danger seems imminent, and if I may bother you in case I seee it coming again, that would be great. At present, it's a man, listed 20 Feb (although who knows if that was the day?), and nobody even commented yet, so nothing to be concerned about right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated him, so am not the most independent to judge ;) - and I'm already busy with the next, a woman, but mostly not foreign. - I really think we have some unintended bias there: the most prominent figures (white U.S. males) get speedy attention, and appear soon at the top position, while the female foreigners - often reported late to start with - take so long to even be noticed that they get only a place towards the end, finally, - as long as we go by date of death and not "in at the top". Result: those who are promminent already get preferred showing, more in front, and longer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: sorry for the belated response — I overlooked your last message. Apologies for not being able to assist with that one. Please don't hesitate to list more. I'll try to be more cognizant of this thread next time, I promise. El_C03:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda’s corner is lovely. When I have more time in my life and can do things beyond blocking socks, I plan to spend time there getting some of the Holy Thursday hymns on the main page. Gerda, if it’s not too late to find one, let me know. The Pange Lingua is always a first choice, but if there are any others you can think of, I’m open. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely corner, thank you! Today is The day of music, two choirs singing. I'd like Beati improved - but it's in the evensong, perhaps I'll get to a few more lines. On IWD, I should also get Elinor Ross in better shape ... - but singing comes first. Listen to Beati by voces8, another article needing improvement. Singing comes first ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the ITNN page, 6 Mar, Carsten Bresch. We will possibly never know when he died, but should use 6 - when the world was informed - as the day by which we go. I may be alone with that view ;) - Lovely lively colours! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting, and I added "Posted", but don't want to pass credits. DYK you know that it is as easy as clicking on the words "credit" in the nom? Nice progress on the soprano, but out for singing (alto), second round. A good source for her death would be a nice addition, anyone. this is all Spanish to me, and the English one is a blog. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about you? - I asked the decliner for reasoning, but got no answer. I think it might be better if it's not a personal thing between them and me, so an independent pair of eyes might help. - I don't go via AfC, nor does my friend LouisAlain, but last year many of his translations were sent to draft space, for lack of refs, just because de and fr have different ideas about referencing. I try to rescue, that's all. Then get a ridiculous template on my talk recommending the Teahouse, and still see the ridiculous decline template recommending to seek help from an experienced editor, - the things we do to voluntary contributors ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for tagging me, El_C! Concerning Dimash: Oh wow, I really didn't expect that! But I'm happy you enjoy it! It's funny, it's not even a genre I usually listen to. But the first time I heard him 2 years ago, I immediately loved his music. I love his voice, his emotional interpretation; and his vocal skill, range and versatility are just enormous. And he seems to be a very nice and humble guy, which makes it even easier to like him. PS: "eclectic and esoteric variety"? Wow, that sounds interesting. Jasmin Ariane (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
♫ Welcome to the corner, Jasmin! Yes, I love Dimash's Sinful Passion, New Wave, SOS d'un terrien en détresse, Ogni Pietra (Olimpico), Opera 2, and more. Indeed, music-wise, I'm all over the place. Yesterday, I was listening to the Mahavishnu Orchestra, I'm listening to Charlie Byrd right now (because I love bossa nova, above all else), and I'm listening to the China Philharmonic Orchestra in the car currently. So, yeah, all over the place. Welcome, again! ♫ El_C16:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but otherwise, your userpage isn't easy to parse, due to the fact that you actually use it. I edit mine like once a decade. El_C18:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Opa is now on the Main page, Wilhelm Knabe, who stood up for future with the striking school children when he was in his 90s, - a model, - see here. - Further down on the page, there are conversations about the current arb case request - I feel I have to stay away - in a nutshell: "... will not improve kindness, nor any article". - Yesterday, I made sure on a hike that the flowers are actually blooming ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. There's a YouTube video at the bottom of the page, but it's just some people talking in German (which I don't-Opa-understand) alongside some German folk music (not my cup of tea). Then, you link to Nikkimaria's talk page as an ill with numbers and stuff, but it still only links to their main user talk page. Quite confusing. El_C13:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
entirely my fault, I thought I had the video in the article, but no, only on the talk of Martinevans123, and when I'm absent-minded, I confuse ill and diff, Nikkimaria. But hurray, I just expanded the soprano, sufficiently I hope. Need fresh air now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't really like that song. Didn't dislike it either. Was just kinda meh. Personally, I prefer the Israeli children songs I grew up on, like הילדה הכי יפה בגן, for example. El_C16:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Degenhardt would have been delighted! Not a song to be liked, - did you read the quote which I translated (improving on Deeple) per the talk request. Song talk about unpleasant smells, ending with a crime and a corpse swimming ... while the surviving grubby children keep singing that you better don't play with them. - Thanks for yours. Did you read my advice for M? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not. Quoted where? Also, after Opa, I'm afraid to ask, but what's a "Deeple"? Yes, I saw it. Sound advise, but I'm still concerned that further cognizance will nonetheless be needed in order to avoid utter disaster in the future. El_C16:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
my next mistake, DeepL - as you know everything about me you'll know that I am an infobox warrior who had to be restricted by arbcom to prevent utter disaster in the future. For 2 years I was too proud to appeal. I should have known SBHB's advice in the case, but then we might not have gotten to Beethoven ;) - RfC for Ian Fleming, and I stay away, I stay away, I don't play that game any more - please, be never afraid to ask! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The church pic - as you will have seen - is in my user infobox for 2021. I don't know the singer personally, but she sang for us several times, Bach's great works (all explained if you follow the link, also (below there) that some like to receive my thanks and appreciation), and she sang recently in cantata services that I pictured (her page). On all these pictures, she is too small for "about her", and my lead is smaller "about me", of course. - I knew nothing about the translator, but she was a red link on Deaths in 2021. The bitter-sweetness is between her and her ex-husband, a novelist with an article who wrote her obit. (They had four children when they were divorced, and now he has ten.) - The delegate called me to task for the Bach cantata, so I will have to not follow spontaneous impulses for a few days, - hope no one dies whose article has to be written. In the cantata, BWV 1, I have a problem. The article was all built on one source (and all other Bach cantatas at the time also, btw) which one user denies reliability. I wanted to keep it, supporting it for all facts - only recordings, anyway - by a second source, trying to be faithful to the article history and to retain what editors did before me. He removed it. Quite generally, I have a problem with expansions which ignore what former editors achieved, see BWV 53 and Ian Fleming for recently mentioned examples. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It does not look "despicable" to me, but I am far from an authority. This is not an area with which I am familiar. El_C18:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chrisahn, right, you ask me, here, like so. But can you show that there is a lot of protracted edit warring going on? Because I'm wary of throttling a page that sees that much activity. Not sure why you pinged Octoberwoodland here. They are not an admin, so they do not have the authority to grant your request. El_C00:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, there hasn't been much edit warring. Just like Octoberwoodland, I thought the page was already under 1RR, and I thought it would be useful. But if you'd rather not do it yet, that's fine with me as well. If problems do arise, I'll come back here. But I hope it won't be necessary. :-) (The ping was just because Octoberwoodland started the discussion at Alalch Emis's talk page and might want to chime in here.) — Chrisahn (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just understood that moments ago (the ping). Anyway, in general, restrictions are added by need only. The general consensus among admins is to wait and see, and only if needed add 1RR. And if that isn't enough, only then move on to additional enhancements, like Consensus required (i.e. gradual escalation). Regards, El_C00:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is time I knew more about do's and don'ts applicable to infoboxes. Could you let me have the link to any WP that applies to Infoboxes as such? Qexigator (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some users get hot about infoboxes, while for others it's the normal thing to have. Before adding an infobox to an article without one, check for warnings in edit mode, and for discussions on the talk page. Recent example Ian Fleming, nonono. Those who made the article as nice as it is today don't like it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link to MOS:INFOBOX. This comfirms my experience when I have been looking at or editing other well-established articles on impottant topics: the infobox is 'to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored,,,The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance,' If well done, they can be very helpful when needed.' Qexigator (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
yes ;) - that pic was taken by my much-missed friend who made the good version for Ian Fleming, and my illustration for the infobox wars (see the link to the workshop, and in my 2020 talk archive). - On the other topic, Bach, we have now another ANI, by Smerus, Nikkimaria is fighting, I shake my head and try to look away, and Mathsci is still blocked. How many more editors in good standing are going to be burnt? - I like the singers music, but the images best when I see him, not graphics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's the second time today where I've had Che quoted back at me — looks like it's gonna be one of those days... Enjoy your outing! El_C11:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Back from sun and snow: sorry if that landed wrong. I was a bit in a rush, and reacted to "all roads lead to IF". I don't care about IF, at all, the number of my edits to his article is zero, the number of my edits to the talk page is zero. I had not thought of him in years until the ongoing RfC, and my edits will remain zero. I use his name as an example, because - with the RfC going - I can mention it, otherwise if I mentioned a name from the group someone would come and cry "canvassing".
I thought about the animosity, and what I can trace back (because I really don't understand it), and looked at what I wrote about Ian Fleming on the page deleted as a call to battle. I made a note of the name, that it was infobox person (red background indicating that it was lost) and the above-mentioned diff of a good version from 2012 piped to the date. That's all. I had forgotten until I looked it up now that my friend had made the good version. When we lost him (later that year) I spread the image all over the Wikipedias, even Hebrew (with some help from a friend from Jerusalem). My first reaction had been to leave, but then I didn't want to do his enemies that favour ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, that is some lovley greenery. So nice. Also, you can CANVASS me any day, Gerda, but should probably note my propensity to call (!)voter fraud whenever things don't go my way (diff). Anyway, trying to take it easy today, with the occasional bouts of critical drinking.El_C19:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, easy today, will explain "canvass" some other day, also why I think the animosity is inherited, because the listing described really doesn't explain it, - although I can see (now) that the red background - about as red as your top image - could be seen as inflammatory. But a reason to leave Wikipedia? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Easier today, with progress on BWV 1. Back to the beginning, Hebrew: we miss Yoninah, terribly, and one of the many things she would have done for me is adding the text of a psalm to the article, compare Psalm 45 and Psalm 43. The text can be found at the bottom, in External links. I could probably manage but would feel safer if someone did it who could actually read it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Oh, good, glad to hear it. Yup, I well know Yoninah for her top-tier contributions. I wouldn't count our losses yet, though. She's only been gone less than a month. Hopefully, she'll return soon. *Sending positive vibes*El_C11:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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_C16:19, 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_C16:57, 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]
One of my favourite books growing up... Reception looks great to me. I think he did a fine job. Top tier musicology. El_C16:54, 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]
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_C20:42, 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_C23:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have just set up an alternative account, Narky Blert (alt), so that I can edit logged-in until I can regain access to my main account, Narky Blert. (Condensed story - I fell ill in early December, with the result that I was admitted to hospital having being found unconscious after three days. I was discharged after a week, and consider myself recovered. An annoying side-effect was that I broke my PC, and am having trouble in recovering my PWs (that should be possible, but I'm having to rely on third parties).)
Holy shit! So sorry to hear that, but glad you're on the mend. For sure, I'll get right on that. Wow, that's nuts. Thanks for the song. Glad to have you back, but take it easy, please! Jeez. El_C15:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm feeling better now than I have for months; I must have been building up to that episode which landed me in hospital. Now, if only I could do something about the misbegotten ISP I'm currently on... Narky Blert (alt) (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember - keep loosing my cameras. It's an excerpt of a larger pic, of course, and from the time when I joined Wikipedia. - No, not familiar, will perhaps look when dark. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thank you ;) - back to Psalm 14, it looked done but looking closer, I don't get why Hebrew is shorter, and has a different beginning, and the explanation is that it's not the complete but some sort of difference. Can you check that please? - Prayer for Ukraine: I heard it as "encore" after a live opera performance from Staatsoper Hannover, sung and played with heart by the complete ensemble. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like. Congrats! You are a musical editing machine! In answer to your question: some of the Aramaic-derived Hebrew words combine nouns and verbs all in a single word. El_C14:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have virtually every major military engagement on my watchlist. But I haven't opened my watchlist in 2022 yet, so there's that. El_C12:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if I understand. I look at my watchlist about once per hour. You could just look at editing history every now and then, or do nothing. I wanted to write about an Israeli conductor today but came a feminist - the perfect topic for women's month. Her pic is on the Main page, and I learned a lot expanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
now that's so funny: when I was about to pass 55.555 I decided that this was nonsense and began to reduce one by one, having reached 42k+ - this conductor leads an orchestra, but my grandfather was a train conductor --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Double cool! Also, I definitely agree with you: train, orchestra conductors — basically the same thing, interchangeable. El_C13:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C,
I know it was a while ago but I want to thank you for your patience with me on the Myanmar articles. I have a tendency to get flustered when coming under attack, so I made some mistakes when that happened with some new editors who happened to be from Myanmar. I have a lot of sympathy for their situation, though. I edit in that area because it's one of the most backwards regimes in the world but that gets very little attention. Anyway, thanks and happy holidays. 25stargeneral (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I am back with a new name! I'm planning on focusing my work going forward more on content creation. I regret being at times insensitive in my approach to other editors in the Myanmar area, so I just wanted to ask, if you happen to notice me editing in a less-than-collaborative way, could you please give me a nudge in the right direction, even if it doesn't rise to anything actionable? I would greatly appreciate it. I will go through the normal channels from now on if there is something that I believe needs admin attention. TEMPO156 (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, El C. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 13:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}}or{{ygm}} template.
As opposed to an edit warring veteran editor? It takes two to edit war, and you do not get supremacy over an IP editor by virtue of being a veteran editor. So you can take your Wrong version complaint and sarcasm elsewhere. El_C17:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to discuss this issue on the talk page, but I am met only with vague responses and rationalizations about why an obscure 1975 photo is somehow more appropriate. Instead user FlightTime seems to be giving off the feeling that he is superior and because "they said so" therefore the old photo must be sealed for eternity.
Are we serving the public on Wikipedia or our own interests? What would actually be more recognizable for the general public, a more recent photo of Mr. Lear (of which there are many, again just look at google image results), or a cropped and not easily identifiable one that some users are stubbornly insisting be used? 2604:3D09:6A85:6000:AC47:C232:AFD7:7802 (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The EEA page keeps attracting some unwanted attention for the last month or so. I see that you've protected the page once already. Would it be possible to do it again? Budsalone (talk) 12:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you put an extended autoconfirmed protection at Saturday Night Live (season 49) on the ground that it's related to the Arab-Israeli conflict because there was a minor edit war over whether to include the minor point that the role of Elise Stefanik in the Congressional hearing on Anti-semitism was originally given to Cecily Strong. I don't follow the logic.
Isabela ciao, just because you fail to identify a connection does not make it absolutely this or that; nor am I interested in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS whataboutism. That said, I'm not inherently opposed to unprotecting in a month or so, so feel free to remind me at that time. El_C17:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which Indonesia-related articles that are extended protected?[edit]
Thank you! - The 2023 picture is from the Abel Fest in Köthen, celebrating the tercentenary of Carl Friedrich Abel, a viol virtuoso, composer and concert organiser in London (together with Bach's youngest son), born on 22 December 1723 in Köthen, where the new catalogue of his works was introduced, - my story today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done! Thanks for the updates. Hope you enjoy your vacation, and do I even need to say, take lot's of pics? El_C20:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, enjoying, taking tons of pictured, 23 chosen for 23 Jan, 6 uploaded, too tired for more - on my talk you see that it's the birthday of Mozart and our conductor ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A user yesterday has made personal attacks against me aggressively, I brought the issue to the notice of administrators, one user happened to advice the user to strike out their personal comments on me, they still haven't done that. If possible, could you please look into this issue? -Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Aggressive attacks for starting a discussion on an article's talk page | Removal of template
Hey. No, no idea. Maybe he's finally staying outta trouble (unlikely). Good to see you, though. Don't be a stranger! El_C17:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Indie soul, just a reminder that when you draftify an article from main space to Draft space, the remaining redirect needs to be deleted as a CSD R2. You can either delete it yourself or tag it for speedy deletion and an admin who patrols CSD categories can take care of it.
I believe this is quite an inappropriate block since blocks are preventative and not punitive. With the specific incivility and personal attacks aside, I don't see a reason for why they would continue to be disruptive outside that specific instance. I would have agreed more if a temporary block was issued at that time instead. What do you think? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 05:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, on the 7th edit crux you mentioned at their talk page, I think getting involved in administrative noticeboards while the account is new isn't an issue in and of itself. Well, they aren't new to our WP:P&Gs, but I don't see that as a reason to believe that they would cause further disruption. Though I don't see it as necessary, a namespace block from WP/WT instead of a full indef would have been less BITE-y. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 05:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I think that being as abrasive (as presented in the extensive evidence) by seemingly starting an aggressive anti-UNBLOCKABLES mission in one's 7th edit is what's inappropriate. And I continue to challenge that, absent an explanation, it is suspect. But feel free to take to the matter a wider forum. El_C06:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As well, I believe that your position—presenting this user in the same breath as both new (i.e. BITE-y) and an experienced user (i.e. aren't new to our WP:P&Gs)—is both inconsistent and sets a bad standard. About the conduct and direction from new-not-new users. El_C06:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A little bit inconsistent, I would agree, but knowing how to cite policies and guidelines doesn't mean they are not a new user. From the comments they have made it doesn't appear to me that they have the same style of argument experienced users make. Perhaps they picked up some of the experienced-isque elements from reading internal discussions and policy pages, but they still appear new to me. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 06:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The two intermediate IP edits from 194.125.77.219 should probably be revdel'd as well, because they currently allow some of the problematic changes to be seen. - Sumanuil. (talk to me)05:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to clear it up, the reason I reverted here [10] was not because it wasn't an inline citation, it was because of WP:RSPSIMPLEFLYING where an RfC came to the consensus that SimpleFlying is not a reliable source and should not be used in articles. Just wanted to clear that up.
I wasn’t trying to start anything again, I was literally just explaining myself since you initially responded that the source was good and wanted to make sure my reasoning was understood. Was just explaining myself, I already moved on…
You started by explaining to the IP how to cite inline, so I thought that meant you viewed their source as good. Otherwise why would you open with that and not with: 'sorry, it's a bad source, but if you have a good one, you do is this way'? So, yeah, I missed the second part, WP:RSPSIMPLEFLYING, which probably read like gibberish to me late last night. Coastie43's quoting it in full (with words), Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#SimpleFlying — that by contrast was immediately readable to me. Anyway, this entire conversation just seems so needless. But no biggie. See ya. El_C20:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SwiftFan2024: left a note there, though that report was already closed. But you could have asked me about it at any time, and I'd have explained why semi was chosen over pc (or any other protection level). Oh well. Well, now you know. El_C04:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, thanks for the recommend. I'm away for a bit, but hopefully will be back in a few weeks. Talk to you then. All the best, El_C16:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first deletion review I've initiated in a long time (possibly ever). I didn't notice the instructions which are under the 15-item list of cases in which DRV should and shouldn't be used. Will definitely do this next time. Cheers! Alaexis¿question?22:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Please note, though, that this is a general maxim (ofWP:CLOSECHALLENGE) that goes beyond the realm of deletion discussions. And it's just common sense, because I could have made the arguments that the two participants have made in the DRV discussion (both endorse) right here, you could have responded, etc. But you never gave such discussion a chance. The reasoning is that I might have convinced you of my position, thus, you could have spared the extra work for the folks at DRV. HTH. El_C22:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your response on ANI. I probably should have clarified, but when I said about bringing your block of Bobak to XRV, I meant you yourself bringing it thereifyou were concerned it would be against consensus (Which as of now it is not). I am aware my suggestion could have come accross as 'anyone can/should bring it to XRV', which was not what I was attempting to state and definitely not attempting or encouraging others to do so.
Oh, I see. But no need to apologize, though I appreciate it. It's just a rather obscure venue that is used seldom and not many know about. Take care. El_C16:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in my pre-coffee state, I might have conflated you with A smart kitten, who was actively involved in that discussion (you were of course the user whose block was being reviewed there at the time) — shh, don't tell anyone! El_C16:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@El C You reverted my edits here a while ago, and I did not notice until now. I thought that IP was subtly vandalizing, but I have now just realized that I misread the sentence multiple times and did not realize that IP was trying to fix a grammatical error. I apologize for the foolish edits I made and am sorry for the inconvenience.
Sure, ItsCheck, but please make sure you learn from this, by double and triple checking your edits, and by treating any given IP editor in good faith until proven otherwise. Because obviously changing "married with two children" into "married to two children" in a biography of a living person is a very serious violation. Thanks for reaching out. El_C16:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is doesn't it seem pointless to attempt to communicate with an individual who's sole purpose is to return to an account and revert my edit, each time from a different IP? Or perhaps it's a group of people since the IPs are in fact unique? skarz (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about any of that (not mentioned at the protection request), but what I do know is that the article talk page has not been meaningfully used by anyone since 2016. HTH. El_C18:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:AgafTikshuv.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Sorry, everyone, with very few exceptions, I will not be accepting any new requests for administrative intervention on my talk page for the foreseeable future. In the meantime, enjoy the music! El_C18:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El C one day I'd like to better understand what caused your loss of trust in Arbcom because that has been apparent to me for quite some time. For now though I thought I would point you to where the policy for how to request recusals lives. Barkeep49 (talk) 10:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you reduce the protection level on this page? The problem-causing user has been indeffed and I’d like to be able to edit the article. Dronebogus (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before making substantive edits, I'd recommend taking a good look at the talk page discussions, including those concerning a proposed new draft. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You declined 4/5 of my RFPP requests? Why? You said "Pages are not protected preemptively" but GS/RUSUKR says "If a page (other than a "Talk:" page) mostly or entirely relates to the topic area, broadly construed, this restriction is preferably enforced through extended confirmed protection," and "Only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area".@El CMe Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Me Da Wikipedian: those would not. We're looking for days or a couple of weeks at most. For the most part, anything that's in the weeks or months would not qualify. El_C00:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello El C, having some problems here.
I wanted to remedy my mistake (missing }}, but apparantly there is the new link to about.com which I never made. Would you be so kind as to take a closer look ? Thank you ever so much. Cheers Lotje (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Not sure, not seeing any relevant new filters or new additions to the blacklist (local or global). Maybe ask at WP:VPTorWP:EFN. Should have some more tech-inclined folks than myself who can shed light on this. HTH. El_C17:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale for extending extended-confirmed protection to the entire World Central Kitchen article?[edit]
Hi. I'm not very familiar with the custom of topic-based page protections. The policy states "all pages broadly related to a topic, as well as parts of other pages that are related to the topic". The page was already partially protected in regards to any information regarding the incident in Gaza, and there has been no vandalism.
Is this the norm of topic-based protections? E.g. it is not banned to edit the article Legality of conversion therapy because of the "gender-related contentious topics; or the biography of Wang Zhi'an merely because it contains information about him criticising Falun Gong. I was about to add some information regarding past World Central Kitchen responses to natural disasters. Y. Dongchen (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. First, protection that is WP:PREEMPTIVE is against the norms (not sure if that's clear to you). As for this arbitration-enforcement sanction regime (the WP:PIA topic area) its WP:ECR requirement is split into two types of affected pages: "primary articles," which represent a permanent and close connection to the topic area, and "related content", whose connection is temporary and/or lesser. But as for the examples you pointed to above, neither WP:ARBFLG nor WP:ARBGS feature the ECR requirement. Still, in a broader sense, if a dispute pertaining to any applicable topic area becomes acute on any page, that sanction regime could be invoked (and regardless if it's a community-authorizedorArbitration Committee-authorized one). HTH. El_C02:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not primary, it's related, because that organization is active elsewhere in the world, like Ukraine. If it was only focused on its Gaza mission, then it would be deemed primary.El_C03:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay. Then can you please remove the current form of protection which is applied to the entire page? The WP:PIA "area of conflict" is defined as
4) For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing
a. the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted ("primary articles"), and
b. edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content")
Sorry, I don't follow. You don't provide a reasoning as to why I should "remove the current form of protection which is applied to the entire page," you just quote from that case. To what end? So, no, I don't think you understand it correctly, but I'm not sure if I can explain it better. El_C04:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the "ARBPIA general sanctions" – Extended confirmed restriction: The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on the area of conflict.
Since you mentioned your rationale for the imposition of protection was that you deemed the article to contain related content, the general sanctions would not cover the imposition of whole-page protection. The related content was already explicitly protected as per the article talkpage. I am not an extended-confirmed user and I want to add information about past responses of WCK to natural disasters. Y. Dongchen (talk) 04:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only difference between primary and related is that WP:ECP isn't applied indefinitely for the latter. Because in the future that org may be in the news and experience active editing disputes about, say, Haiti, which is not currently deemed a contentious topic. But a page can only be protected in its entirety. I don't have discretion about the protection level itself. If you think you have a convincing case, you could request to get your WP:XC status expedited at WP:PERM#Extended confirmed, though. El_C04:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "area of conflict" concept was introduced in WP:ARBPIA4 following confusion about Airbnb which included controversies regarding operation in West Bank settlements. So even though the article still contains the company's settlements controversy, the protection is not extended to the whole article. I might ask for a third opinion on this. Y. Dongchen (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Protection of any article related to the topic area, broadly construed, is permitted by the protection policy and the contentious topic procedures. In my experience, it is common practice to only temporarily protect pages which are only partially related. El C's protection was aligned with policy and practice. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got an email explaining it was a student project.『. Students were told explicitly not to vandalize articles, although we do not have the class time for students to learn what constitutes a good Wikipedia edit before they complete the assignment. I hope the disruption caused by the assignment was minimal—at the very least, it should inspire a future generation of Wikipedia editors.』Doug Wellertalk13:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Doug, that's interesting and a bit unexpected, but I should emphasize that I approached this from a wider lense. As in the long term issues the page has experienced intermittently, resulting in multiple protections from 2010 to the present day. Usually, these protections have been in the months, but the last two were for one year each (2017-2018 and 2019-2020, respectively), so I went for 2 years this time. But next time that page experiences major problems, whatever that reason may be, I think that the protection should be set not to expire. Best, El_C01:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like to see Appalachian Spring on the Main page today (not by me, just interested and reviewed), and I also made it my story. - How do you like the statue (look up places)? - I was undecided so show three versions ;) - Did you "pet" the calf (see March)? Did I tell you that the psalms are now done in Hebrew, even with translations into English?? Thanks to someone tireless. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mystory today is about a piece composed for the Second Sunday after Easter 300 years ago, about a shepherd, and then I saw plenty of sheep from the bike, and I just returned from a (long) opera about the same age, with soprano Pretty Yende. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would like a reference for "previously known as" - that change has not been made. I would be happy to help maintain this page. dugbrown 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure what is meant by that (it's been many years since that article has even crossed my mind), but you should be good to go now. El_C14:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You semi'd the page indefinitely, but you appear to have forgotten to reset the pending changes. With indef semi now in place, this obviously is not needed anymore. Lynch44 (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your appeal is incomplete because it only links to a previously failed appeal, but not to anything I did (the original enforcement action). El_C17:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting the edit of Maratha Empire article[edit]
Hi, it appears that you recently reverted the article on the Maratha Empire to a previous version. However, the prior version indicated a date of 1758, not 1760. Additionally, other articles about historical empires include maps from when they were at their peak, so the map from 1758 would be accurate in this context. The statement "Maratha Empire at its peak in 1760" contradicts the earlier map date. The map from 1758 is available on Wikimedia That's why I edited the map of 1760 to 1758 because the description under it was wrong. Seems like Wikipedia editors are biased. Also, there is a talk section about this topic in that article but no one discussed before editing. 2402:8100:387D:609D:AC52:E91E:48D4:A649 (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have used multiple IPs to edit war that change, some of which while block evading, and you wonder why no one wishes to engage your brief yet confusing and poorly-written talk page comment from April 22? In this context, your Seems like Wikipedia editors are biased seems unsubstantive and falls short. There may be a language barrier that at this time is insurmountable. This is the English Wikipedia, which means that there is a requirement that one would be sufficiently competent in its use in order to communicate clearly. El_C13:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Sorry, I did indeed miss your comment at that time. In answer to your question: no, nothing recent comes to mind. HTH. Regards, El_C04:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are the Wikipedia administrator who added Extended Confirmation Protection to Standoff at Eagle Pass. Can the protection for this page be reduced to semi-protected, due to the need for updates related to the topic (the banner has been there since February 2024) and the reduced news coverage and controversy about the event.
HI El C. I made a couple of edits on Wikipedia. I think I'm right, maybe I'm not. Two users disagree with me, one from the Battle for Sigetvar, the other from Nikola IV Zrinski, but no one else. I think that unverified images with unknown authors have no place on Wikipedia. Then everyone can post unverified pictures with unknown authors. I think there must be a rule for that in wikipedia, maybe there isn't. So I would like your opinion on that. See my Wikipedia edits. Thank you. 78.2.236.99 (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For context, I was going through these and finding the ones with >5k transclusions that MusikBot hadn't yet upgraded to TPE. I started listing them at RFPP/I before it occurred to me that -- if I added them all in one set -- I might accidentally cause people to be annoyed with me for flooding the page. Having said that, if you don't mind protecting some more, would it be okay if I listed the remaining ones from that list with >5k transclusions here? (If you do mind, it's not a problem of course!)
(Courtesy ping MusikAnimal - there might be nothing wrong with the bot, but thought I should ping you just in case, due to the number of templates with >5k transclusions that MusikBot II hadn't yet upgraded the protection of.) All the best, —a smart kitten[meow]23:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
I don't know if the vandal is still active or not, but regardless, I believe the time since the page was protected is long enough for them to not vandalize again. Could you remove the semi protection on the page? MessageApp (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I’ve seen the game has declined in popularity, meaning it won’t be as much of a target for vandalism. Plus, edits on the page have even very infrequent and there hasn’t been much talk page vandalism. I suggest semi protection and maybe pending changes if semi is also overkill, but semi is probably the best thing to do for now. CharlieEdited (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but for the most part, I prefer to only attend to such requests when they concern protections that I myself have imposed. I'd send you to that admin, but they are no longer one, so the venue to request that would be @WP:RFPP/D. HTH. El_C17:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That page has no backlog currently. It doesn't even have any outstanding requests. My sense is that you would need more experience to qualify. Sorry, I'm writing in haste. El_C18:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Today is the Feast of the Ascension for which Bach composed his oratorio, - perhaps watch a bit how the closing movement was performed in Bach's church. The second piece in our program begins with first line from Psalm 80, which made us sing "Israel" often. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
did you listen and see? - today's story has a pic of a woman holding her cat, a DYK of 5 years ago - the recent pics show 2 orange tip butterflies --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I saw that you were involved with the reversion of my post on the “Universities and Antisemitism” page, specifically about MIT. I was wondering if you could provide me with some clarification on why my edit was reverted. I see that this page is protected, meaning one would have to be above 500 edits, but I am curious about the comment on Palestine-Israel articles. I understand that that these incidents at MIT have been influenced by the I-P conflict, but is there a way I can acknowledge that fact without being in violation of these rules? I would really appreciate any suggestions that could improve to fit Wikipedia standards. Thank you so much! Topiguana (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I actually was not involved in any reversions and know little to nothing about those. Rather, I protected the page (link) in response to a protection request (link). Unfortunately, since you lack the required tenure (the extended confirmed one of 30 days and 500 edits), you cannot presently edit the article due these restrictions (WP:ECR). Restrictions the Arbitration Committee has imposed on the WP:PIA topic area. In short, this was a procedural protection that aligns with these rules. Sorry I don't have better news for you. Regards, El_C17:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, Topiguana, either you are able to reach to the WP:XC tenure (which must happen organically) so that the WP:30-500 threshold is met, or WP:ECR only permits you to participate as follows (quoting): Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. El_C17:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is super helpful, thanks so much! So sorry to make any false accusations, I was just looking at the edit history and wanted more information. Topiguana (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, I have a question. I noticed what you did here. I was kind of ambivalent on whether or not I should revoke talk page access but the idea of protecting the page itself didn't occur to me. Is it because of the sockpuppetry? I'm still getting the hang of nuance surrounding admin stuff and I try to use confusing situations as learning opportunities. Clovermoss🍀(talk)10:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. So I revoked TPA because this user continued spamming after being indeffed. Only after that did I notice that they also replied to their own spam as an IP for some reason (diff). So I also semiprotected, an action that, granted, renedres the TPA revocation moot. Anyway, since this is a spam-only account with less than 20 edits, my overall position is: who cares? Best wishes, El_C10:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you admin delete an edit from page history[edit]
Some new (apparently agenda-driven) user has realised they can't edit most Israel-Palestine related articles and so has decided to hit related ones. While most of this can/has just been removed, this edit is, well, read it yourself. A paragraph ranting about Israel being justified. Absolutely not appropriate to be hosted by Wikipedia even just in edit history. Kingsif (talk) 11:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no.2 - using wikivoice to present apologism for at least war crimes, seems to me as Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material. Regardless of whatever side of any particular conflict, any comment anywhere that tries justifying what are widely considered war crimes is just so out of line.
What makes it cross the line, for me, is the presentation of this comment in wikivoice as if it's authoritative. I mean, the content was not relevant at the article and had a poor source anyway, but say it was relevant and well-sourced, saying "organisations X and Y think..." is good. But not wikivoice saying it. And, beyond NPOV as I see it, there are likely to be some affected people who would take that as Wikipedia, as a large organisation, taking an offensive stance. Kingsif (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hullo El_C, long time no interact! Sorry to be a bother, but I'm writing this to ask if there's a way you or another administrator may "delete" my user page? Looking back, I'm quite uncomfortable with how I revealed both my general location and age in previous revisions (what happens when you're young, dumb, and very dumb!) and was wondering if there was a way for the edit history to be deleted? Or at least not publicly available for other contributors to see? Hope you're having a nice day, many thanks :) Sisuvia (talk) 07:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@El C
Hi, just thought I should let you know, the user you blocked from editing that article didn't waste any time making another account so they could keep removing information.[11] This time claiming it's a request from the actress. Which I highly doubt. Is is possible for you to prevent that page from being edited not only from accounts that haven't made many edits, but also from IPs since even if an editor gets blocked, they could also log out and make edits? Kcj5062 (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bad News: The "lulzsters" struck Tony Ferguson once again, despite a long history of protection settings in the page log. Can you protect the page for even a longer period?
Good News: The coast is clear from little T the disambiguation page for a couple of years now. However, I could not chat with the protecting admin due to their prolonged inactivity on Wikipedia. Is it ok for you instead to reset pending changes?
Hi. I don't know who little T is, but it looks like I protected Tony Ferguson back in 2022. It was protected by another admin earlier in 2024 (an admin who is active now, or was a few of hours ago, at least). Doesn't matter, I see that there's a lot of disruption to the page, so sure: Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C01:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much in advance! As for little T, it is currently pending-protected indefinitely. My concern is: there are barely any edits, whether anonymous or autoconfirmed, which defeats the purpose of protecting such disambiguation page beyond this point. Do you mind reseting pending changes?197.2.14.219 (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Yeah, that's odd about that disambiguation page, but reset it to what end? It hasn't been edited in years, so I don't think it really matters. El_C02:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Can you look after special:history/nickelodeon on CBS for a while? I once reverted an edit under another IP address but that revision persisted on coming back. At this point, I am uncertain who on earth is right. Furthermore, I am unwilling to get involved again to contribute for the time being due to excessive false accusations by this user for being a WP:SOCKofWP:LTA/TVFT (just because I showed up in WP:RFPP under the 197.[0/1/2/3]::/16 range and/or the 102.[156/157/158/159]::/16 range). Please keep an eye on the page history and decide which is best.197.3.236.189 (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, IP. Unfortunately, I can't spare the time to investigate this, but ohnoitsjamie (this user) is an experienced admin, so you might wish to try to explain yourself better to him, or submit a query to WP:ANI if you truly believe it to be a legit (and intractable) problem. Sorry I couldn't be of more help, but here's hoping the matter gets resolved amicably. Regards, El_C21:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the tone he uses to respond to my complaints or in his edit summaries:
I don't think it is worth bringing such issue to WP:ANI. Plus, I am still unwilling to sign up. My only solution is to bear such situation and take a break (even for up to 3 months, one of my blocked former IP ranges).
He may be one of the majority of, if not all, admins who would disbelieve how my editing behaviour differs from the telly vandal(s), aside from the IP ranges which I've mentioned earlier that I edit with (I don't literally hop from one range to another, it is just the poor quality of my internet connection which periodically disconnects, and that every reconnection comes with a different IP address under those IP ranges without the possibility of enforcing a static IP address).
I don't blank notices on my talk pages.
I leave edit summaries occassionally, including a period at the end.
HiEl C: I know you stepped away from moderating MEK discussions, but I wonder if you are still considering this kind of work? If not, I'll note it and make sure I don't ping you again about this. If you are up for it, I'm workshopping an RFC in the talk page, and I would appreciate any uninvoved feedback to make it fair. Whatever the result is, I would like to avoid a "Bad RFC" outcome. Thank you. Best, MarioGom (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Mario. I'm afraid that's a not. I helped establish WP:GS/IRANPOL so that I never have to do that again. But I wish you success in your efforts. Regards, El_C15:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El,
A comment from the busybody in residence, regarding this bit of house keeping: the bot was only waiting for three requests to become eligible for archiving, which would have happened at 14:38 (UTC). The reason why it wasn't willing to do its chore before was the absence of a {{pagelinks}} at the top of the section. I added one, pro forma, a little while ago. Favonian (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find this funny more than anything, but can you eleborate by what makes my signature being “jarring”? I would be up to redesigning it. I made it three years ago when I pretty much never edited. -1ctinus📝🗨15:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again! You and I had a brief discussion yesterday when I asked for an article about Laken Riley's killing to be semi-protected. It seems that even after the protection, multiple editors have been insistent on calling it a "murder", and one of them even moved the page to Murder of Laken Riley, in violation of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths). There is a discussion on the Talk page going on about this, and since you were involved in this area when you and I talked yesterday, I think the discussion on the Talk page could use your valuable input. Thank you. Gottagotospace (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I see it's now been moved back. I'm gonna move-protect it momentarily (WP:RM only) so as at to remove all temptation. El_C21:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! If you'd like to contribute, I think your input on the language used on the rest of the page could benefit from your input as well (since I changed a few instances of the word "murder" to other things, but that got reverted by someone else). We're discussing it on the Talk page. Gottagotospace (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El_C. There is no reason given on the article talk page (or anywhere else I can see that justifies the Full Protection). It is a controversial subject article, but that in itself, does not warrant full protection. I understood that a rationale for article full protection on the talk page or elsewhere is required? Can you please review or add something to the TP? Leaky caldron (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The protection notice can be viewed at the following RfPP diff. The reason should be self-explanatory: an edit war between like 8 users. Sorry, I can't spare the time today for an additional note, but feel free to link my answer here if you think it might help. El_C21:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the disruption meets the criteria for full protection. There is next to no current activity on the article or talk page. The participant you mentioned has not recently contributed. I think if you are willing, it would be appropriate to review the protection in light of the narrow area of dispute and current limited level of disruption. Thanks. Leaky caldron (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I count nearly 20 reverts in the 2 days alone prior to my full protection, so, no, that makes no sense and is wholly divorced from the facts. Obviously, current would not include the 2 days that it's been fully-protected since, when no one could edit the page aside from admins (fulfilling edit requests) and bots (with sysop permissions). I honestly am at a loss here. El_C07:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RE: The participant you mentioned has not recently contributed — I didn't mention any participants, but if you mean the requestor of that protection request, they did indeed edit (revert) the article recently, less than an hour prior to my protecting it. And their revert itself was reverted 6 minutes later (9:22-9:28), which is a bit longer than the 4 minutes between reverts prior to these (9:18-9:22).
Diff: 9:22, 25 May 2024 Gaia Octavia Agrippa (talk | contribs | block) Reverted 1 edit by Localhistorian2024 (talk): WP:NPOV
Diff: 9:28, 25 May 2024 Localhistorian2024 (talk | contribs | block) The London Gazette has stated... [etc.]
Diff: 10:11, 25 May 2024 El C (talk | contribs | block) Protected "Paula Vennells": Edit warring / content dispute ([Edit=Require administrator access] (expires 14:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)) [Move=Require administrator access] (expires 14:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)))[reply]
So obviously the facts align with my description rather than your own. Facts which are provable and easily verifiable (per directly above). El_C08:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Done, thanks for the reminder. Still, noting as of earlier today it is no longer listed at WP:ITN. So that's keeping it pretty tight, but I think it's probably fine (unless famous last jinx). El_C14:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Do you mind if I ask for a revdel on this abominably sexist edit: [12]on2024 Mexican general election? The offending user has been warned on talk by someone but I have doubts on whether the warning was serious enough. I was also considering page protection but the edit seems to occur every three weeks or so, so the request might not be granted. Thanks! Borgenland (talk) 03:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the other two, and groundhog (high mountains) and capybara (much bigger) are out. The habitat described in nutria matched where I saw it, right next to the river, in the middle of town btw, and ignoring me. - Joyce: never. Tough enough for native English speakers. I read what Graham Waterhouse set to music ("Bulbulone" from Finnegans Wake, "Arise" from Chamber Music, #14, "Buzzard" again from Finnegans Wake), who was also inspired by today's birthday child. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A river in the middle of town? What town was this again? *** Yeah, understandable, no doubt a tough read. I personally am not a fan. El_C13:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Geilnau lies along the Lahn, northern side, and the trail is along the Lahn, and where I saw the animal was in the middle of the trail, well, yes, there's a little park on the other side of the trail. The road to Geilnau is a dead-end, which makes the valley quiet, with the train tracks in a tunnel in a distance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either Nutria or Muskrat, then. All four are originally from the Americas, but those two were introduced into Eurasia. Capybara (which was a joke nomination) is South America only, while Groundhog—see my petting one at the top of this talk page (though maybe it's actually a Muskrat!)—is North America only. El_C15:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Today is a feast day for which Bach composed a chorale cantata in 1724 (and we had a DYK about it in 2012). Can't believe that Jodie Devos had to die, - don't miss her video from the Opéra-Comique at the end, - story to come. The weekend brought plenty of music sung (one based on Psalm 100 and one based on Psalm 96) and listened to, and some of it is reflected in the last two stories! + pics of good food with good company --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I just noticed the Jordan article had been placed under indef ECP in April, could you please tell me why this was done? Noting that there was an ARBCOM ruling that stated the Jordan article does not fall under ARBPIA, and also that there was not much disruption to the article beyond a single week in April. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. So when attending to your protection request, I saw excessive ARBPIA editing (disruptive or otherwise) by non-WP:XC accounts. That's the reason. As for that 2018 AE discussion: for our immediate purposes, it's somewhat academic whether the protection defines Jordan as a primary article or as related content. There's also the issue of that page having been protected over 25 times prior. For the longer term, though, there could be a case to downgrade it to (indef) semi as related content only, say, in a few months from now. El_C18:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Permanent protection often gets imposed after dozens of previous protection actions (of escalated durations) over the course of years had proven insufficient. So this page isn't a candidate for that at this time, I'm afraid, since this is only its second protection. El_C06:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I'm unlikely to remember unless given a reminder. But, again, feel free to drop me a line if there's further problems, and it'll be, I dunno, 2 months next, and many months after that. Unlike some admins, I don't usually allow a page to be protected tens of times before making it indef (permanent), but it still won't be twice or thrice from now. El_C12:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with making the page permanently protected if it is always vulnerable due to frequent modifications, thank you زكرياء نوير (talk) 12:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requests for indef protections for pages of similar and even higher levels of disruption are extremely common, but the protection policy's ethos stresses exhausting all options, and within reason, going through the motions. Which I'm not really the biggest fan of, but I can't act by fiat contra that unless there's something truly egregious. El_C12:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reminding me to add my signature to my comments. Somehow, I forgot to do it in that ArbCom discussion because usually, when commenting on an article talk page, the website automatically provides our signature for us. I have just added the {{unsigned}} template to each of them. Thank you. 🙂 — Kaalakaa(talk)23:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, thanks for following up. I didn't realize that was a thing, but that makes sense. Incidentally, some have taken umbragetomy is annoying reminder, but the truth is that I'm annoying about sigs in general. At least once monthly, seemingly. Oh well. Regards, El_C00:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You semi protected the page on the 2024 Dagestan attack for a number of days, and its talk page is also semi-protected.
Previously, consistent with the wp norm, the first line of that article began contained bolded language. In this case, saying:
"On 23 June 2024, the 2024 Dagestan attack took place, when coordinated terrorist attacks were launched ..."
That has now been changed. It now says "On 23 June 2024, coordinated terrorist attacks were launched ..." There is no bolded language in the lede, matching the title. And I cannot fix that, or ask on the article talk page that it be fixed, as those pages are semi-protected.
Can you please restore the former format, consistent with out norms across the project?
Request renewing a block for persistent BATTLEGROUND[edit]
I'd rather not go through ANI all over again when an editor immediately returned to the behavior that got them blocked there previously. In short, Elinruby has continued their personal attacks and other BATTLEGROUND tactics across multiple discussions both on- and off-Wiki since their most recent block. When I reverted a removal of content on 2021 Canadian church burnings, they
Twice again removed the content
Initiated a talk page discussion mischaracterizing me as claiming Portland is in Canada, a false statement they repeated on their talk page
Opened a discussion at WP:NPOVN only 15 minutes after discussion began on the article talk page, but used such a non-neutral statement that it had to be reverted
Began a further eight different talk sections on the article talk page
Wrotecrickets when I didn't have time to immediately respond, following up with this when I finally had a moment to begin catching up
They've also taken to posting numerous discussions at NPOVN and RSN recently, including at least one where they admitted to not even reading the source they were reporting (I didn't actually check the text). Another editor has also recently complained regarding Elinruby's behavior. I request you restore the block with an escalated duration. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pass! Sorry, at this time above all else, I can't commit to the follow ups, certainly if blocking was determined the correct course of action. So noticeboard does seem like your best bet (such as it is, but what can you do?). El_C09:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]