User talk:Elahrairah

RfA

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Yasuke	13 Nov 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Talkback

Hello, Elahrairah. You have new messages at Beeswaxcandle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tb

Hello, Elahrairah. You have new messages at MichaelQSchmidt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Happy Holidays!

Vacation^nine is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Semi-protection of some articles on chess gambits

Thanks for semi-protecting Englund Gambit. I'm afraid that Four Knights Game, Halloween Gambit‎‎ also needs semi-protection if you would like to help again. The IP editor is very persistent but not malicious, I think. As you well know, some people find the WP:RS policy difficult to understand. Others understand the policy but don't agree it and refuse to play by the rules. In this case it appears that the editor is also the author of the web site he is trying to insert into the chess openings pages, so there's WP:SELFCITE and WP:NOR as well. Quale (talk) 08:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. Would you mind clarifying something for me though? Is the stuff he's inserting actually wrong or is it just the source we're getting fussy about? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Another admin has semi-protected the article, so I hope we're OK for now. Thanks for your help.

It's difficult to know if it's right or wrong, and it's certainly possible that it is correct in whole or part. He has spent quite a bit of time examining some obscure but entertaining chess openings, primarily by using a strong chess-playing computer program to examine them deeply. The theory of popular chess openings such as the Sicilian Defense or the Ruy Lopez has been tested in tens or hundreds of thousands of games, but the openings he specializes in are very rare in top-level play. The openings are not commonly played by professional chess players as they are thought to be inferior, but they are the sort of gambits that amateurs often find appealing. You could compare it to new research done by an amateur in some backwater of mathematics, say compass and straightedge Euclidean geometry, that might be correct or might not but isn't published. This kind of thing can be difficult or perhaps even impossible for Wikipedia to determine whether it is correct. The ultimate truth in chess is hard to find, so we have to stick to what respected experts have written. (In this case the respected "experts" are usually grandmasters rather than chess experts. Some of the assessments that the IP editor disputes are from Max Euwe, former world champion and well-known chess theorist, and Pinski, who has written several books on chess openings. Pinski is "only" an International Master, although that is a higher chess title than the IP editor holds today.) Quale (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that makes things a lot clearer. Thanks for that summary. Let me know if there are further problems. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration motion proposed

Hi MarshalN20, the Arbitration Committee has proposed a motion in response to an amendment request in which you were named as a party. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Help Me

A few editors decided to include a clause about a controversy regarding box office collections of a film. We did it in a previous occasion and the overwhelming majority agreed. This user keeps on vandalizing the page by deleting the content even after the consensus. He doesn't understand English maybe, I don't know. What can I do? You tell me. Ashermadan (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Elahrairah. You have new messages at Fideliosr's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Fideliosr (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Chennai Express Box Office Collections

All the news sites and almost everyone is reporting the collections to be 33.12 crore. But the wikipedia page for CE shows that it's Box-Office collections are 29.12 crore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.32.196 (talk) 03:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this on the article talk page with the editor(s) who disagree(s) with you, not on my talk page please. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 07:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration motion passed

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Not withstanding the sanction imposed on MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) in Argentine History, he may edit Falkland Islands, its talk page, and pages related to a featured article candidacy for the article. This exemption may be withdrawn by Basalisk (talk · contribs) at any time, or by motion of the Arbitration Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you again for serving as my supervisor Basalisk.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Your quote

I just wanted to let you know my Talk Page features a line that I read in a comment you made to Apteva on his Talk Page. I kind of stumbled onto the page and when I read the remarks, your words really summed up a situation I'm following right now. Also, I'm probably spending too much time on the noticeboards and it is amazing to me how some people refuse to consider that their approach might not be working, despite advice for other editors. I guess the idea that they are not always in the right is considered unacceptable to some individuals.

I didn't ask your permission but I hope you won't mind. If you do, I will remove it. I took it out of its context so now it just appears as general advice to Wikipedia editors. Cheers! NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk} 20:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I'm glad at least some people think I make some sense! Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Now that I'm spending more time looking at the business side of how Wikipedia works, I frequently see Admins swatting down troublesome editors for various forms of "disruption". I'm very grateful for the ones I've come across who take the time and care to explain to the editor why their behavior is causing problems. The advice might not immediately be appreciated by those who belligerently think they are right but I see it as planting a seed. NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk} 22:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

speedy deletion

Dear, i would appreciate a reconsideration on the speedy deleting of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joost_Vandebrug I have read the notability in the wiki guidelines and I realise im bordering with the current entry so I will be more conclusive, thorough and add more independent resources, among them wiki pages in where he is mentioned as a director. 31.116.213.128 (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

If you register an account I'll be happy to userfy the article for you. You can then work on it as a draft and if you can clearly demonstrate the subject is notable then I can move it to the article space when it's ready. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Please go here:

Wikipedia:AN#Regarding_Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations.2FVictor0209.2FArchive and give your opinion, as it involves a case where you blocked some users for sockpuppetry. Thank you. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

SPI

Do you have any evidence to back up your comments at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/XMattingly? If so what is it?--Toddy1 (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Toddy1, thanks for the message. I think the fact that Numazls was created, immediately made 10 nul edits to break autoconfirmed, and then immediately made grossly inappropriate comments on the talk page of a semi-protected article, on which heated argument was ongoing, is pretty good indication straightaway that the account is a sock of someone. The fact that XMattingly later restored this comment (twice) is suggestive of a link. All this evidence is provided in the case. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

XMattingly has sent me an email and I've unblocked per what he's said. Thanks for your help. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I had also reverted Richard BB's deleting of Numazls's comment,[1] and added a signature.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Can I bring something to your attention, I am concerned at the edits that User:MarshallN20 is making to Falkland Islands. I am currently gagged from editing on Falkland's topics so I cannot comment in detail. However, I would observe that a number of changes are changing the POV of the article to favour Argentina's sovereignty claim. What is also of concern is that discussion is not taking place openly in talk but here as a subpage of another editor.

This editor, Andrés Djordjalian, was in my opinion as much to blame as User:Gaba p for the problems at Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, which lead to me being topic banned. I note he has continued in the same vein at Talk:History of the Falkland Islands. The whole of the Falkland Islands series of articles seems to have been under a sustained POV attack, they've been quite effective at driving the serious contributors away. 192.35.35.40 (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC) (Wee Curry Monster) sorry scrambled my password.

Wee, you need to let it go. Seriously. It's been close to 4 months now and you have: 1- disregarded completely the advice to edit other topic areas instead slapping a Retired banner on your page (at least the second you do that by my count), 2- violated the terms of our topic ban (Gaba p and Wee Curry Monster are both indefinitely topic-banned from everything related to the Falkland Islands.) twice now (first time in Marshall's talk page [2]), and 3- continued to attack me every chance you got, and now also apparently Marshall and Andrès, as POV editors. Move on mate. It's pretty clear that you have no intentions of retiring, so my advice to you is to remove that silly banner from your user page, drop the constant POV accusations on me and others and start collaborating in other areas of WP as advised if you want the topic ban ever to be lifted. Gaba ^(talk) 14:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

[3] Basalisk, you'll note that User:Gaba p hasn't edited since the 15th August. His last two contributions are continuing to hound and persecute any attempt at editing by me. Does that not perfectly illustrate his obsession with my editing and with preventing me from being able to contribute. The guy will simply not leave me alone. 192.35.35.40 (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, if you must know I have been editing less lately because I'm quite busy working on an article (yes Wee, I do work). As for your never-ending accusations of hounding, I'm pretty sure Basalisk is as aware as you are that when you mention someone's name in full in WP (ie: [[User:Gaba p]]) as you did twice here, that editor is immediately notified that someone is talking about him. I'm betting that since you of course know this, you did this on purpose as an attempt at getting an angry response from me in an editor's talk page. I also note you mention me in Dpmuk's talk page [4] making pretty much the same accusations. It never ends with you Wee. I will not leave you alone? Who was it that once again went over to an admin's talk page and out of nowhere started throwing dirt at the other? It wasn't me now was it? Unlike you I have been making a conscious effort since the topic ban to edit a variety of topics I had never edited before, one just needs to go through my contributions to check this. As for your contributions as an IP it's immediately noticeable that you have no intentions of doing as advised since your two main contributions are in Gibraltar and Falklands related topics. This last part means you have violated the terms of the topic ban at least twice now, and both times I've asked you politely to please stop.

For the love of god Wee: you need to let it go. Either work as any editor would to have the topic ban lifted by editing other parts of WP or refrain yourself from getting involved in Falklands articles. It is not that hard mate. Have a nice day. Gaba ^(talk) 17:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Just so you both know, I'm reviewing Marshall's most recent contribs (again; I have been keeping an eye). But this I will say to Gaba p - the last person in the entire world who has any business telling anyone to "let go" of a dispute and behave like an adult is you. You have enough of your own issues to be reflecting on before you start dishing out behaviour advice to others. IP - or Wee, I presume, as you have admitted implicitly - I'm not yet taking a stance on whether or not you're correct about any of this, but I will say this - think very, very carefully before proceeding any further with this complaint. Keep your topic ban in mind. The last thing you want is to find yourself blocked/banned and your opinion (as an IP or otherwise) instantly struck from conversation. There are plenty of people involved in this dispute who would set world speed records in slapping <S> tags around your comments given the opportunity. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

FWIW:

I am currently conducting an exercise of going through the points openly and in detail on the article talk page, section-by-section. At the beginning, it was agreed - at least by my understanding - that the current consensus version is the version prior to these changes, so that is the version that applies if dispute proves irreconcilable. If no such agreement had been forthcoming I would have reverted the article to its previous state and put the new version in a subpage (this might still be a good idea).

I am hoping that we can get consensus section-by-section and so we can keep what we can, even if some sections end up being irreconcible. I expect it to take some time, inevitably, because the changes are pretty major.

I will make it clear now that I for one will not recognise as in any sense binding or consensual any decision made at User talk:Andrés Djordjalian/Review of "Falkland Islands", which is based on a review arguing for the Argentine POV to replace NPOV, and as noted above, is not in an appropriate place. I was not aware of that discussion.

I would welcome your involvement if you feel that mediation or admin action would be of benefit, and though I cannot speak for them, I'm sure others would as well. Kahastok talk 17:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)